Part I
It is common knowledge that the American views on homosexuality have changed over the past hundred years or so. What intrigued me as I read Richard Barrios’ Screened Out, was just how the views have changed. The path towards tolerance and acceptance was not a smooth, constant road; conditions did not simply shift from poor, to decent, to good, the nation went through phases and did, on occasion, regress. Barrios analyzes these periods in the American stance on homosexuality through film, “For film has depicted homosexuality for a century in all manner of ways.” (p 3)
To say that the changing views of homosexuality are all due to the efforts of homosexual population would be completely inaccurate, and depending on the circumstance, insulting. This is because while there has been obvious progress, there have also been periods when support of the homosexual community has deteriorated, to no fault of the homosexuals. Often, during such periods, the change in opinion is due to some historical event, or the actions of some political force. One major social-political force that stunted progress of gays in film (and in American society) was the Catholic Legion of Decency and the Motion Picture Production Code in 1934. This was an effort of the part of the Catholic Church to clean up the films presented to the American public, to rid them of such evils as “sex perversions” which included homosexuality. In class we discussed how this conservative influence contrasted to the liberal 1920s, due to the fact that many people blamed the Great Depression on the collapse of morality characteristic of the ‘20s. Thus people became more skeptical, less accepting, quicker to judge and condemn, on page 9, Barrios states “Seldom, until the 1940s and beyond, were gay characters presented with overt malice.” On page 11, Barrios explains that after the Code “Gays and lesbians were demonized, vilified, ridiculed.” Other influential social/ political events that caused change in the public view of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals include the era of McCarthyism, were homosexuals were persecuted as communists, (even though some of the members of the federal government were found to be homosexuals) and the spread of the AIDS epidemic which was, for a while, blamed on the homosexuals. These events did not help improve the nation’s attitude towards the gay community and it was reflected in movies where characters who exhibited OGT were brutally punished.
While there were many social/ political events working against homosexuals, let it not be assumed that they were just taking the hits. Even through the censorship and persecution gays made moves towards progress. This can be seen in the creative efforts made by gay (and straight yet supportive) directors, screenwriters and actors to make the gay presence known in films despite the strict Code, they pushed the boundaries until the Code was “stretched to the breaking point.” (p 11) They also branched out to gain publicity in other media like television, on page 12 Barrios comments that in the ‘70s television “began to outstrip film in a forward-looking view of gayness and has continued that course without cease over three decades.” A hugely important move on behalf of the gay community came in 1981 with Vito Russo’s The Celluloid Closet, this book which was later adapted to an HBO series opened up discussion on the (under-/mis-) representation of gays in cinema. Yet another example of gays taking action is the Stonewall Riot which is often referred to in Screened Out. This occurred when a gay bar was raided by police and the gay community decided to fight back. Large numbers of gay men and women came out to fight against the unjust brutality.
Part II
In How to Look at Television Adorno says that “Mass media also consist of various layers of meaning superimposed on one another, all of which contribute to the effect.” (p 221) This applies to the point Barrios makes about gays being present in film, even when they were not called out by name. “The relation between overt and hidden message will prove highly complex in practice.” (Adorno, 222) On page 225, after providing examples of how to analyze subtext, Adorno brings up an interesting question; are these subplots that we find intentional? “Is such a sinister effect of the hidden message of television known to those who control, plan, write, and direct shows?” He suggests that perhaps some of what we read into subtexts are “presumptions” based on past experiences with other plots, and texts familiar to us.
The first film I will examine is Algie, the Miner produced by Alice Guy-Blache in 1912, long before the Legion of Decency and the Code. Algie had a girlfriend, which implied that he was heterosexual, but his mannerisms, gestures, personal style, and make up were all effeminate traits, what we might refer to as OGTs. “Algie’s queerness shows through in everything is says, does and is.” (Barrios, p18) This does not sit well with his future father-in-law and so Algie is sent off to become a man, which after a slew of shenanigans caused by his OGTs, he finally does. Algie became a sort of prototype for gay characters, they would bat their eyes, fondle pistols and canes, wear a flower, etc. The latent message I see here seems to be that homosexuality can be fixed, Algie returns successful in more ways than one, he is rich, manly, gets the girl and is therefore happy, however, who is to say he wasn’t happy before? Future gay characters would not only follow Algie’s mannerisms, they would follow his plot line, or face the consequences, as seen in the next film.
While I do not think the message of Algie, the Miner was to spread homophobia; I do feel it is the message in The Children’s Hour. This horribly depressing film does not flat out accuse the two women of being lesbians, it is alluded to through out the film. Martha (Shirley MacLaine) despises herself, she feels “dirty” and “sick” and eventually hangs herself. Unlike Algie, Martha cannot seem to cure herself of her affliction and ends her life, this movie takes a much darker approach to homosexuals. The “good/ straight” Audrey Hepburn survives the movie, she had all the fixings for a happy life ([male] fiancé, work helping children, friends, etc.) until Martha’s homosexuality destroyed it. The message here is that homosexuality destroys lives, if you are homosexual it is something to be ashamed of, it will hurt not only you, but those around you.
Finally, Tennessee Williams’s Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is a third film with homosexual subtext. Brick is a young man who is haunted by homosexuality. Again we see the theme of homosexual suicide in Brick’s friend Skipper, and Brick’s fears about his own possible homosexuality plunge him into alcoholism. This film/ play completely ignores the option of acceptance as a possible way of dealing with homosexuality and provides suicide and alcoholism as possible alternatives. Brick’s personal struggle’s bring grief to those around him (his family, particularly his wife) and the theme of homosexuality bringing universal misery comes into play again. Barrios makes note of Williams’s own struggles with homosexuality and suggests that they influence his writing, (p 258) which I feel they clearly do, yet this brings up Adorno’s point of presumptions.
Part III
It is common knowledge that the American views on homosexuality have changed over the past hundred years or so. What intrigued me as I read Richard Barrios’ Screened Out, was just how the views have changed. The path towards tolerance and acceptance was not a smooth, constant road; conditions did not simply shift from poor, to decent, to good, the nation went through phases and did, on occasion, regress. Barrios analyzes these periods in the American stance on homosexuality through film, “For film has depicted homosexuality for a century in all manner of ways.” (p 3)
To say that the changing views of homosexuality are all due to the efforts of homosexual population would be completely inaccurate, and depending on the circumstance, insulting. This is because while there has been obvious progress, there have also been periods when support of the homosexual community has deteriorated, to no fault of the homosexuals. Often, during such periods, the change in opinion is due to some historical event, or the actions of some political force. One major social-political force that stunted progress of gays in film (and in American society) was the Catholic Legion of Decency and the Motion Picture Production Code in 1934. This was an effort of the part of the Catholic Church to clean up the films presented to the American public, to rid them of such evils as “sex perversions” which included homosexuality. In class we discussed how this conservative influence contrasted to the liberal 1920s, due to the fact that many people blamed the Great Depression on the collapse of morality characteristic of the ‘20s. Thus people became more skeptical, less accepting, quicker to judge and condemn, on page 9, Barrios states “Seldom, until the 1940s and beyond, were gay characters presented with overt malice.” On page 11, Barrios explains that after the Code “Gays and lesbians were demonized, vilified, ridiculed.” Other influential social/ political events that caused change in the public view of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals include the era of McCarthyism, were homosexuals were persecuted as communists, (even though some of the members of the federal government were found to be homosexuals) and the spread of the AIDS epidemic which was, for a while, blamed on the homosexuals. These events did not help improve the nation’s attitude towards the gay community and it was reflected in movies where characters who exhibited OGT were brutally punished.
While there were many social/ political events working against homosexuals, let it not be assumed that they were just taking the hits. Even through the censorship and persecution gays made moves towards progress. This can be seen in the creative efforts made by gay (and straight yet supportive) directors, screenwriters and actors to make the gay presence known in films despite the strict Code, they pushed the boundaries until the Code was “stretched to the breaking point.” (p 11) They also branched out to gain publicity in other media like television, on page 12 Barrios comments that in the ‘70s television “began to outstrip film in a forward-looking view of gayness and has continued that course without cease over three decades.” A hugely important move on behalf of the gay community came in 1981 with Vito Russo’s The Celluloid Closet, this book which was later adapted to an HBO series opened up discussion on the (under-/mis-) representation of gays in cinema. Yet another example of gays taking action is the Stonewall Riot which is often referred to in Screened Out. This occurred when a gay bar was raided by police and the gay community decided to fight back. Large numbers of gay men and women came out to fight against the unjust brutality.
Part II
In How to Look at Television Adorno says that “Mass media also consist of various layers of meaning superimposed on one another, all of which contribute to the effect.” (p 221) This applies to the point Barrios makes about gays being present in film, even when they were not called out by name. “The relation between overt and hidden message will prove highly complex in practice.” (Adorno, 222) On page 225, after providing examples of how to analyze subtext, Adorno brings up an interesting question; are these subplots that we find intentional? “Is such a sinister effect of the hidden message of television known to those who control, plan, write, and direct shows?” He suggests that perhaps some of what we read into subtexts are “presumptions” based on past experiences with other plots, and texts familiar to us.
The first film I will examine is Algie, the Miner produced by Alice Guy-Blache in 1912, long before the Legion of Decency and the Code. Algie had a girlfriend, which implied that he was heterosexual, but his mannerisms, gestures, personal style, and make up were all effeminate traits, what we might refer to as OGTs. “Algie’s queerness shows through in everything is says, does and is.” (Barrios, p18) This does not sit well with his future father-in-law and so Algie is sent off to become a man, which after a slew of shenanigans caused by his OGTs, he finally does. Algie became a sort of prototype for gay characters, they would bat their eyes, fondle pistols and canes, wear a flower, etc. The latent message I see here seems to be that homosexuality can be fixed, Algie returns successful in more ways than one, he is rich, manly, gets the girl and is therefore happy, however, who is to say he wasn’t happy before? Future gay characters would not only follow Algie’s mannerisms, they would follow his plot line, or face the consequences, as seen in the next film.
While I do not think the message of Algie, the Miner was to spread homophobia; I do feel it is the message in The Children’s Hour. This horribly depressing film does not flat out accuse the two women of being lesbians, it is alluded to through out the film. Martha (Shirley MacLaine) despises herself, she feels “dirty” and “sick” and eventually hangs herself. Unlike Algie, Martha cannot seem to cure herself of her affliction and ends her life, this movie takes a much darker approach to homosexuals. The “good/ straight” Audrey Hepburn survives the movie, she had all the fixings for a happy life ([male] fiancé, work helping children, friends, etc.) until Martha’s homosexuality destroyed it. The message here is that homosexuality destroys lives, if you are homosexual it is something to be ashamed of, it will hurt not only you, but those around you.
Finally, Tennessee Williams’s Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is a third film with homosexual subtext. Brick is a young man who is haunted by homosexuality. Again we see the theme of homosexual suicide in Brick’s friend Skipper, and Brick’s fears about his own possible homosexuality plunge him into alcoholism. This film/ play completely ignores the option of acceptance as a possible way of dealing with homosexuality and provides suicide and alcoholism as possible alternatives. Brick’s personal struggle’s bring grief to those around him (his family, particularly his wife) and the theme of homosexuality bringing universal misery comes into play again. Barrios makes note of Williams’s own struggles with homosexuality and suggests that they influence his writing, (p 258) which I feel they clearly do, yet this brings up Adorno’s point of presumptions.
Part III
Talking Back (1990)by Lynette Molnar
The text reads "WARNING: Senator Jesse Helms has determined that looking at this picture is hazardous to your health and may cause homosexuality."
I feel this image is a positive one for the homosexual community even though the text sounds negative. There is clear sarcasm in the message of the text, Molnar is poking fun at Senator Helms while simultaneously speaking out for the homosexual community. The image is clearly attention grabbing, two women are kissing, which will make most people double back, then they will read the message and see how ridiculous it is, a straight person who sees the photograph does not instantaneously feel a surge of homosexuality run through their body, and obviously (as has finally been accepted in the rational world) homosexuality is not an illness or health concern. The Nazi's would call this degenerate art, it in no way conforms with "respectability" that Mosse mentions over and over in Beauty without Sensuality. Women showing sensuality, especially homosexual sensuality was absolutely out of the question. "Himmler's obsessional regard for respectability and his fear of all sensuality encouraged him to magnify the homoerotic and homosexual potentialities... he regarded homosexuality as a sickness that poisoned both body and mind..." (Mosse, p 30) Barrios and those interviewed in The Celluloid Closet (and modern, sane people) would disagree with Himmler, who also lamented the fact that homosexuals could no longer be "drowned in the swamps," and argue that homosexuals should be seen, they are a part of the world and should not be tortured and hidden. I would call this piece an artistic statement, rather than a culture industry product, as far as I have seen it was not mass- distributed for the purpose of making a profit, and it was created by an artist, not a team of people who studied the population dynamic and created an image that would manipulate the thoughts of as many people as possible. There are also formal aspects such as symmetry and contrast to take into consideration.
This is an example of negative contemporary images. This sign, adapted from popular "Beware Of Dog" signs that people put on their houses to scare off intruders, is bold and offensive. In The Celluloid Closet several of the interviewees commented on the role of lesbians in film as either victims or psychotic killers/ vampires. This sign reinforces those negative stereotypes by calling lesbians out as a threat/ danger to society, like an aggressive pitt bull. Though there are no bodies portrayed here, the absence of a body alone calls body images to mind. Obviously a "dyke" is something to be feared, one might think of a big, butchy woman, or a cunning evil woman, either way, the message is not good. I would call this a CI product because it lacks the artistic creativity that Adorno requires in considering a piece as art, it was probably mass produced for profit and could easily be transformed (for greater profit) to key chains, bumper stickers, magnets, mugs, etc.
This is an advertisement for a television show Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, where the five gay men pictured at the left help a heterosexual man clean up his act for a date, or so he can get a date. This involves personal appearance, decorating tips in the home, manners, etc. This would be an example of gays portrayed in a positive light, not only are out gay men the stars of the show, they are to be admired for their good taste and overall good sense. Straight men actually take their advice and follow their orders, it is a good example of progress for the gay community. Of course, the show is not without its stereotypes, the men often use mannerisms characteristic of Algie the miner, but they are not being ridiculed for these. The Nazi's would obviously disapprove, they would probably search for a swamp big enough to drown the five stars and the show's producers, but Barrios and the people interviewed in The Celluloid Closet would greatly approve of this exposure. These men are gay, out and happy, no suicide, alcoholism, denial, or torture. There is no doubt that this is a CI product, it was made to appeal to mass audiences and draw viewers and was created by a team of marketing experts, but I do not think that takes away from its positive portrayal of gays.
These images are from the hit television sitcom Will & Grace. This show is a testament to how far homosexuals have come, it centers around four main characters; Grace is a heterosexual woman, Will and Jack are gay (though not partners) and Karen who is heterosexual though she often exhibits lesbian tendencies. The image on the right is to show how far we've come from the Legion of Decency and the 1934 omissions of "women's navels, occupied double beds, getting away with murder without being punished, any sense of a bedroom as something other than a sleep chamber, drug use, the attractiveness of lawlessness and, essentially, being an out gay man or lesbian." (Barrios, p 10) Here not only is the double bed occupied, its filled with out gay men! Jack who dabbles in theater is reminiscent of The Broadway Melody's Del Turpe, and of course stereotypes that date back to Algie are ever present, but they return to being a comical addition to the show, rather than a point of derision. This show portrays gays in a positive light, they are witty, funny, caring, they are real people who the viewer would love to have as friends. Obviously the Nazi's would find this program and its advertisement wholly unacceptable, clearly "the chaos that seemed always to threaten society." (Mosse, p 25) However after Will & Grace's run, I feel that it only helped with acceptance and that has far from destroyed our society. Again this is without a doubt a CI product for all the reasons previously stated, but once again I do not feel this takes away from the positive aspects of the show and its images.
2 comments:
I agree with Maxine that, based on Barrios’ writings, the homosexual community did not so much prompt changes in public (straight) attitudes toward gays but rather it was a combination of political and cultural forces. She states incidents such as the Great Depression, the Stonewall incident, and the AIDS epidemic, most of which were obviously not (Stonewall aside) caused by the gay community in order to change public attitude toward themselves.
As far as in film, Adorno’s analysis of sub-context in culture industry products applies very accurately to the films that Maxine looks at in the post. I agree that the message in Algie the Miner is that gays are not real men, but rather flouncey and effeminate, and that homosexuality can ultimately be cured, and must be for the homosexual person to be successful in life. Also, the messages in the films The Children’s Hour and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof are examples of sub-context whose intent is to implant a certain view of homosexuality, and essentially what is “right” and what is “wrong” into the minds of the public, namely that homosexuality is “bad” and equated with misery and a tragic end, a punishment for unacceptable “sexual perversion.” Unfortunately, and as Maxine points out, it has taken until only recently (within the past decade or so) for homosexuality to be taken in a positive light by more of the straight community, such as in television shows like Will and Grace. This is reflective of the power of the sub-context of culture industry products.
The fact that the Senator thought the picture of the two girls kissing would turn viewers gay is simply ridiculous. Its a shame that even a positive image like that would cause such a negative reaction. I completely agree with your analysis that this image can be compared to a health warning label, such as the ones on cigarette cartons. It seems that by using blatant sarcasm and humor, the homosexual community was able to make a statement about the absurdity of claims made against them. Even thought the text reads as negatively, I agree that the image itself represents a positive aspect of homosexuality. It shows that the community is strong enough not to be torn apart by a single Senator's comment, and in a way, disproves the typical cliche that all homosexuals are weak and sensitive.
Post a Comment