Ruth D. Post 9

Ruth E. Day

1.

According to Barrios, the change in the views and portrayals of gays in film came very little from the efforts of the gay community and mainly from social and political forces. At the beginning of the age of cinema, homosexual portrayals were actually very common. However, such portrayals were usually meant as comedy. Gay men, or “pansies” and “faeries” as they were called at that time, were objects of ridicule for a straight audience. Actual gay couples were rarely portrayed. Instead, men with feminine characteristics were shown as cross-dressing or in traditionally female roles such as fashion designers. Many times, these characters would be dominated by women further calling attention to their lack of masculinity. This is what the straight audience wanted to see, not necessarily how the gay community wanted to be portrayed. Even though many of the directors and actors were homosexual, the films had to play to the interests of the majority of audiences which were straight. For this reason, effeminate men on the screen were meant to be laughed at and this became the image of the homosexual male. This image was portrayed quite often during the early years of film. As Barrios states, “It was, and has remained, the most wide-open cinematic era since the birth of feature films,” (Barrios, 50).

A little less common but still present during the era of silent films and talkies was the portrayal of lesbians in film. Films like My Lady of Whims and The Silver Cup both portray women who where clothing traditionally seen as masculine. They also stand with a rather man-like posture and generally have a hatred or general dislike of men. In My Lady of Whims one woman looks on jealously as her roommate flirts with a man. Both the portrayal of gay men and lesbians on film were generally harmless and comedic at this time. It was also rather widespread and obvious. This did not mean that homosexuals were widely accepted but they weren’t looked at as inherently evil either. “Surely this did not imply widespread acceptance… but the generally positive nature of the characters needs to be emphasized, especially when compared with the horrors in store for them when gays became visible in cinemas once again three and more decades later,” (Barrios, 43). What Barrios is alluding is the portrayal of gays during the era of the production codes and the films that would come after the codes were loosened and eventually replaced with the MPAA rating system.

These changes obviously did not result from the efforts of the homosexuals themselves. A code was in place during the first half of the 1930s but it was usually ignored because it was relatively unenforceable. Movies such as The Sign of the Cross, which contained partial nudity and graphic violence and even a lesbian dance, were made in abject defiance to this coed. This defiance led to an outrage among officials of the Catholic Church and other groups. According to them, “Hollywood was the corruptor of the young, the evil empire, the ultimate source of all the nation’s ills,” (Barrios, 130). These outcries eventually led to the 1934 code. The code outlawed a great number of objectionable material being portrayed in film including homosexuality, which was deemed “sex perversion”. In post-code cinema, “Value would always find some compensation, sanctity could not be attacked, and any type of wrong was duly and visibly punished,” (Barrios, 138). Also, homosexuals could no longer be openly portrayed in film at all. Attempting to do so would prevent the film from getting a code seal and from being shown in the picture houses. This does not mean that homosexual characters were absent from film, the just weren’t as obvious as they had been before. Only those who were “in the know” could pick up on such homosexual characters. “Such, for some years, would be the fate of gays on film – present yet weirdly invisible, just as in life, and incapable of carnal feelings or, sometimes, simple human contact,” (Barrios, 144). Also, according to The Celluloid Closet, such characters hardly ever made it through the last reel without suffering some gruesome death. Homosexual characters were usually evil villains. Lesbians were often portrayed as Satanists, like in The Seventh Victim, while gay men were depicted as unrepentant murderers, such as in Rope. Obviously, these changes in gay portrayal did not come about as the result of the efforts of the homosexual community. They were the product of social and political pressures by the Catholic Church and other groups.

During the early 1960s, changes were made to the production code that allowed homosexuals to again be portrayed openly in film. “Beginning in 1960 and culminating more than a year later, a series of events, mainly nonrelated, led to changes in the Production Code that would officially allow the movies to look at homosexuality,” (Barrios, 294). These events were not driven by the homosexual community but more by a growing prevalence of homosexuality society. It was a fact of life so, naturally, producers wanted to portray it on film. “Dated October 3, 1961, the amendment was both specific and vague: ‘In keeping with the culture, the mores and values of our time, homosexuality and other sexual aberrations may now be treated with care, discretion and restraint,’” (Barrios 303). However, this amendment did not lead to different depiction of homosexuals on film but rather a more obvious one. As previously quoted, now that gay characters were again openly portrayed on film, there were man horrors in store for them. Homosexuality was still seen as something evil, such as in Walk on the Wild Side and Sodom and Gomorrah, or something to be pitied, like Martha in The Children’s Hour. The message of these openly gay films was clear: if you were gay or lesbian, you could never be happy. Portrayals of homosexuals in films carried the same message even at the end of the 1960s when the code was completely replaced with the MPAA rating system. Pretty much anything was now game. Same sex couples could be portrayed as expressing their love but they still could never be happy. As Michael from The Boys in the Band states, “You show me a happy homosexual and I’ll show you a gay corpse,” (Barrios, 358). It can go without saying that this type of portrayal did not come about through the efforts of homosexuals. They have always been portrayed as evil, pitiful, or objects of ridicule. The extent to which homosexuals are portrayed may have been heightened by the actual homosexual community but the way they are portrayed has always been controlled by the morals of the time.

2.

Homosexuals have always been portrayed as members of the current homosexual stereotype. They went from being people with obvious traits belonging to the opposite sex to blood-thirsty murderers to inherently unhappy individuals. The earliest of these stereotypes can be seen in the first movie musical every made. It is called The Broadway Melody. Much of this film takes place behind the scenes of a Broadway theatre. One of the characters is a male costume designer who worries about the actresses’ treatment of his hats. He is told off and obviously dominated by the Wardrobe Woman who easily dominates him. This scene portrays both a man with feminine characteristics and a woman with masculine characteristics. The man has a simpering voice, is of a small build, and wears light colors. The woman has a very forceful voice, is very tall and domineering, and wears dark colors. The portrayal is a prime example of the stereotypes of the time. Gay men were “like women” and lesbians were “like men. This is not necessarily the case in real life but this is how homosexuality was depicted in film. “What matters in mass media is not what happens in real life, but rather the positive and negative ‘messages,’ prescriptions, and taboos that the spectator absorbs by means of identification with the material his is looking at,” (Adorno, 232). The message that The Broadway Melody relays is that gay men act like women and gay women act like men. The fact that this wasn’t the case in real life doesn’t matter. It became the way real life was through these portrayals because the homosexual public would start to act as they were expected to. Also, the heterosexual public would begin to see any effeminate man or any masculine woman as homosexual.

During the era of the Production Code came a new homosexual stereotype. Before this era, homosexuality was considered immoral but now gay people were starting to be depicted as inherently evil. One example is Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope. Rope is about two men who killed another just for the experience of taking another’s life. The fact that these two killers are a homosexual couple could not be openly stated at this time but there are some clues within the film that point to this fact if one is paying attention and knows what to look for. Such a thing was easier to find in this film especially since it was widely suspected that it was based on Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold case of 1948. Loeb and Leopold were a known gay could who killed a man just for the thrill. The connection was obvious. The only difference in this true story and the story within Rope was the name of the characters. In the film, they were called Brandon and Phillip. These murderous homosexuals furthered the stereotype of the time and that all homosexuals were inherently evil. “This not only distracts from any real social issues but also enforces the psychologically extremely dangerous division of the world into black (the outgroup) and white (we, the ingroup),” (Adorno 231). Films like Rope divided the world into good and evil. Homosexuals were placed without a doubt into the latter. The message is clear: if you are gay, you must also be evil. There are no exceptions.

At stereotype that arose after the Production Codes became less strict during the 1960s was that gays and lesbians could never be happy. A film that furthers this stereotype from this era is called The Children’s Hour. Martha, the lesbian character, is in love with her straight work partner, Karen, who is engaged. The two of them own and run a school and have been best friends since college. One of their students starts a rumor about the two of them. The rumor is never stated allowed but it is obvious that she is leading others to believe that Karen and Martha are involved in a lesbian relationship. This rumor eventually leads to the closing of the school. Martha blames herself and at the end of the film commits suicide. Again, the message is clear: if you are homosexual you can never be happy. You will suffer forever from unrequited love, self-disgust, and social alienation. You might as well end it now. Such stereotypes are dangerous and untrue but that does not matter because the media makes it true.

3.

Many of the stereotypes discussed in part 2 are still prevalent in today’s media. One such example is the portrayal of lesbians in the film Monster. This film is based on the true story of Aileen Wuornos, a prostitute who becomes a serial killer. She is also a lesbian. During the time that she has a lesbian relationship with a woman named Selby, she starts murdering her patrons so that she can get money without using sex. This film furthers the stereotype that homosexuals, specifically lesbians, are inherently evil. She is depicted as masculine and obviously unhappy as well. The fact that this is all based on a true story makes the negative message all the more piercing and believable. It could lead other lesbians to fear for their own morality and happiness.

A more positive depiction of homosexuality in contemporary media is found in the character of Kevin Walker in the ABC drama Brothers and Sisters. Kevin is a cut-throat lawyer who also happens to be gay. He is very successful in his career which is a masculine trait. He doesn’t have the stereotypical gay simper and he isn’t obsessed with clothes are interior design. He is a normal, everyday person. He is happy and gets along well with his mother and brothers and sisters. No one shuns him and he becomes involved in numerous beneficial relationships (one at a time of course). It may even be possible to say that he is one of the happiest characters on the show since he his surrounded by his siblings who are going through failing marriages, just getting back from Iraq with very serious injuries, and dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. The message of Kevin’s role in the show is that homosexuals are normal people too. They can be happy, successful, and good people without pretending to be something they’re not.

http://tv.yahoo.com/matthew-rhys/contributor/48319/photos/1;_ylt=AqbUoXLRqWYpnkD5UNAOW3xSWYV4
http://tv.yahoo.com/matthew-rhys/contributor/48319/photos/1;_ylt=AqbUoXLRqWYpnkD5UNAOW3xSWYV4