Rob H, Post 9

Rob Hoffman

Section I

The idea of a homosexual individual is actually still a fairly recent innovation in the Western world. This probably sounds peculiar; what about the Greeks and the pederasty? What about the Romans? What about those Renaissance artists and their “apprentices?” What about the licentious European upper class of the 17^th and 18^th century? Certainly there seem to be enough examples throughout history to demonstrate that sexual exchanges between members of the same sex have been occurring as far back as our history goes.

No argument there. The point, though, is that the label of “homosexual” or “gay” or “lesbian” or any other (usually offensive) term is actually a kind of social construction. Throughout most of recorded human history, engaging in homosexual activities was fairly normal and did not confer any particular label or designation onto an individual. It was only after homosexuality and sex acts between individuals of the same sex began to be viewed in a strict sense as a sin that labels started appearing. Once it was a sin it became something dirty and profane. This would have been bad enough, but during the 19^th century burgeoning medical science began promoting the idea of homosexuality as a kind of disease. As psychology became increasingly significant in the 20^th century, homosexuality was included in the language of pathology; instead of referring to undesirable traits in the language of morality, people began viewing them as disorders to be treated.

This more of less gets us to where we were when the Codes were enacted: gays are viewed as willful degenerates who can be cured of their ailment. The element of disgust and danger is absent from the early depictions of gays; they are poked fun at, but they are not sickening to the heterosexual viewer. Perhaps the two are related, and the reason that the gays depicted in early, silent films were not disturbing to heterosexual viewers of the time was precisely because they were not meant to be taken seriously. Either way, this slowly changed and the image of gays and lesbians hit a kind of rock bottom.

How did the depiction of homosexual individuals become more positive after such a low level? What forces were behind the change? While the homosexual community itself would have had the greatest interest in bringing about a more positive image, it is unlikely that most of the change was due directly to the actions of individual gays and lesbians. They simply did not have the ability to be open and vocal; if they were open, the only safe place was under the radar. They could easily be arrested for their behavior, and even if they weren’t the still were forced to deal with overwhelming negative social pressures.

Where did the change come from, then? Interestingly, it was the reverse of the changes brought about by the Civil Rights movement of the Women’s Suffrage movement. While those movements were bottom up, the changing view of homosexuals was accomplished from the top down. The work of executives in Hollywood did the most to undermine the Codes and bring about the different view of gays and lesbians. Many of them worked with homosexual actors, some were likely homosexual themselves, and they had an interest in defying the stereotypes. They went about it in subtle ways, but given the power of movies, every small change in the way homosexual individuals were depicted caused a corresponding change in how the public viewed them. The changes slowly accumulated, each one building upon the progress made by the ones before, and eventually real erosion was apparent in the stereotyping of gays and lesbians.

The presence of other movements, such as the aforementioned Civil Rights movement, also helped the cause of equal treatment for homosexual individuals. This led to a change in thinking about homosexuality that is still not fully completed today. The main detail of this change, however, is that gays and lesbians are people that deserve equal treatment. They should not be forcibly “converted” to heterosexuality or considered less than whole humans (even though the thought at the time was still that there was something wrong with them).

These historical forces paved the way for individual gays and lesbians to start making a difference.

Section II

The subtext present in various films definitely changes as the decades progress. To illustrate, I’ll be looking at three separate movies from different sections of Barrios’ Screened Out. The first movie comes from the era of silent films. Made in 1928, The Matinee Idol has certain homosexual tones that are consistent with other movies made around the same time. These tones are primarily (if not exclusively) demonstrated in one individual, an Eric Barrymaine, played by David Mir. He is effeminate, slight, and has a thin moustache; in other words, he is the stereotypical “sissy” of the time period. He dresses in women’s clothing at one point, and even though he seems oblivious to his own sexuality, the rest of the characters all seem to understand immediately that he is gay.

This does not result in the kind of response that would become normal later, however. Instead, the acting troupe to which he belongs accepts him fully. They know all about him, and yet they seem supportive and friendly. In a time when very few gays or lesbians were being readily accepted by heterosexual individuals for who they were, Mir’s character is very fortunate.

This reflects, in many ways, the different attitude toward homosexuality and toward film that existed prior to the 1930s. Homosexuality had not taken on all of its implications as an abhorrent disease as of yet. Also, film was still relatively new; politicians and religious leaders had not had time to scrutinize the power that movies had, and as such it had certain freedoms to express more “controversial” themes.

The second film shows a clear and alarming change in how the movies depict homosexual individuals. In Rope, a Hitchcock film made in 1948 that was heavily based on the trial of Loeb and Leopold, gay actors Farley Granger and John Dall play a pair of murderous lovers. The sexual language and imagery is remarkably overt, and although nothing is ever stated directly, it should be clear to most movie-goers that the two men are in a same-sex relationship.

How did Hitchcock get away with putting barely concealed homosexuality in his movie? The answer should be obvious: by clearly demonstrating that there is nothing desirable or laudable about homosexuals. By making the two men so deplorable, he makes it clear that he is not advocating or supporting any notion of the decency and equality of gay individuals. Those who would protest over the sin of homosexuality are mollified, because the sinners get what they deserve in the end. This is highly unfortunate, though, because of the message it sends out. You must be crazy and murderous if you’re gay, and if you’re a murderer, then you’re probably gay too. Movies such as Rope began the negative trend of showing gays and lesbians as killers or as victims.

The third and final film that I’ll be analyzing here was remarkably progressive for its time. While most movies were still giving no images of gays and lesbians other than the twisted, depressed, suicidal, or homicidal caricatures that had been common in the past, The Haunting was showing a different side. Released in 1963, the movie has two characters that Barrios identifies as lesbians. One named Theo, played by Claire Bloom, is open and at peace with her sexuality. She is well-adjusted and suffers from none of the normal hang-ups that gays and lesbians had tended to suffer from in movies up to this point. The other woman, Eleanor, played by Julie Harris, denies any and all aspects of her sexuality. She calls Theo a mistake of nature and tries to convince herself that she has nothing in common with the other woman.

Interestingly and significantly, it is Eleanor and not Theo that suffers a nasty end in the movie. Theo loses nothing; she can return to her former life (and lover), but Eleanor is twisted by the haunted house and ultimately dies. Is this purely coincidental? I think not. It seems far more likely that part of the actual message here is that lying to ourselves and denying aspects of ourselves will only lead to misery and suffering. Being true to who and what we are might seem difficult, but it is the only way to achieve equilibrium and happiness.

Section III

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/Z/z/2/KnifedGayAgenda-e.jpg

The link above is to an image that would definitely count as a negative portrayal of gays and homosexuality. The image shows the Statue of Liberty being stabbed in the back with the message “The Gay Agenda Strikes at Our Civil Liberties!” The creator of the image is clearly trying to promote a message that gay people have a universal agenda, and it is, at least in part, to erode the civil liberties of all Americans. Where he or she derives this claim is utterly baffling. Homosexuals, like all groups of people, are not agreed upon anything, and it is likely that very few of them have any interest in stabbing liberty in the back or destroying the country. On the contrary, they do not want to take anything from anyone else, they simply want what other people already have. Those who refuse to treat gays and lesbians as human beings with rights and deserving of equality are the ones who threaten the civil liberties of others.

http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/historical_signs/monument_pics/manhattan/gay_liberation_sheridan_squ.jpg

This portrayal of gays and lesbians is decidedly more positive than the previous one. This image depicts four small statues erected in a park in Manhattan. Two of the statues are men, and two are women; as you might expect, the men are standing together, while the women are together on a park bench. The statues are clearly meant to serve as a message of tolerance and acceptance of all people. They are clearly loving and supportive of their respective partners, but not enough so as to be offensive to anyone. They are designed to be aesthetically pleasing. Everything about them is fairly understated and tailored to be acceptable. The reason for this is two-fold. The first reason is that there remains nothing anyone can complain about in regards to these statues other than their homosexuality; a bigoted complaint such as this would carry not weight. The second reason is that by making the statues very acceptable, understated, and beautiful, the idea is reinforced that homosexual individuals are no different than heterosexual individuals.