Shea post 9

1)

The portrayal of could-be (?!) homosexuals has been around since before the dawn of film. When the stage was all there was to be had, and when women were forbidden from strutting and fretting their hour upon it, talented cross dressers were in high demand. It is unclear whether playwrights held in mind the thought of each passionate exchange ultimately to be delivered between two men as they put pen to paper and fleshed out scenes, but certainly the audience was not left in the dark. There is no evidence of outrage over this kind of blatant gender impersonation, nor was the passion thought to be of a less moving caliber. With this in mind it is easier to credit Richard Barrios’s assessment that the progression of time does not always guarantee the progression of open-mindedness, particularly in the case of homosexuality in the entertainment business.

Much of the pre-code film portrayals of questionable sexuality focused on men and women who just needed a little straightening out. I think it was Mrs. Gustav Ketterer who, in The Celluloid Closet, said “There is no crime like being a woman.” For this reason characters like Algie, The Miner, with their frilly attire and flailing wrists, were laughed rather than gasped at. The thought of a man voluntarily choosing effeminacy over machismo was so ludicrous that it could only inspire mirth. Even a decade later, the fact that “female gender bending is more tolerable than male” (Barrios, 21) allows Clara Bow to indulge in a little Greenwich Village as My Lady of Whims before being rescued by the right man “before it is too late.” Her experimental inclinations are made even more acceptable by the 1920s “go to hell enthusiasm” (Barrios, 127) which stemmed from prohibition. Characters such as these are merely confused or silly, they are not threatening.

The theory of homosexuals as members of a third sex which preceded the Freudian psychoanalytic fad of the forties certainly contributed to the depiction of gay characters as isolated in their weirdness. The struggle of a man trapped within a woman’s body or vise versa was not something the average movie-going American could readily relate to. Usually pegged with prim attire and a career in interior design (and with the advent of talking movies in 1926, high pitched effeminate voices), these actors were given supporting roles which added quirks and laughs to the script but certainly not depth. They were more tools than characters and not only at the hands of heterosexual writers and directors. Homosexuals cast stereotypical pansies in their films as well, most probably because they were likable characters that often made the paying customers chuckle.

“In a reflection of depression anxieties, and to lure cash poor spectators into movie houses, the movies became rawer and racier, sometimes more adult.” (Barrios, 55) The New York and Los Angeles bans on drag queens and female impersonators of 1933 made the important statement that real life was not going to tolerate any open displays of sexual deviance, regardless of what might be seen on screen. The Legion of Catholic Decency and the Motion Picture Production Code then took action in 1934 against what was seen as the film industry’s moral depletion by naming Joseph Breen as head of the CPA, whose enforcement would become mandatory. This, according to Barrios, “discouraged diversity, exalted conformity, and cast judgment ruthlessly” none of which boded well for the gay community.

The fact that Joseph Breen was a racist, bigoted, anti-Semite who referred to the film industry’s Jewish contributors as “the scum of the Earth” (Barrios, 138) made for endlessly destructive battles between movie makers and the CPA which ultimately resulted in the botching of many a potentially important film. Although many directors felt encouraged to push the limits, exploring just how much they could get away with, most efforts were thwarted by Breen’s strict policy of no-pansies-allowed. The sort of cat and mouse game that ensued made for the development of some very clever and illusive techniques of masking homosexuality which often employed gay codes, recognizable only by members of the gay community, in spite of “The Code”. Furthermore, dialogue became more advanced, often with the intention of flying over the head of the Breen office. This method unfortunately worked toward a perception of homosexuals as high class, socialite intellectuals, which of course meant that they were also arrogant and condescending.

The forties brought a slight loosening of code restrictions partially because of the threat of World War 2. Under the apparent notion that there was only so much films could actively not mention, film noir provided a new role for gays: villains. Films like Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope which, despite his denial, was most definitely based on the Leopold Loeb case of 1924, and The Seventh Victim made homosexuals out not only to be crazy, but crazy (satanic) murderers. This work was probably less frequently the doing of homosexual members of the film industry.

As Hollywood and companies like American International Pictures began catering to the culture of the youth in response to rock-n-roll and a sexual revolution, films became less censored and even less valuable. Competition with television brought a gaudiness to the screen that was meant as a one-up on the lower budget medium. As Breen became Shurlock films like Tea and Sympathy represented homosexuality as curable but less for the purpose of relieving homophobic fears than of intensifying the viewers’ anticipation of a steamy, heterosexual sex scene. “The implications, however pejorative, would still be transmitted between those altered lines to an understanding audience by an empathetic director – Vincente Minnelli – whose Tom-like ‘sensitive aesthete’ image in real life was a façade for someone who was really gay.” (Barrios, 243) This example not only demonstrates the incorrect perception of homosexuality that the general public is given by film, it also “teaches gays how to think about themselves.” (Susie Bright, The Celluloid Closet)

With the code amendment of 1961 which read: “In keeping with the culture, the morals, and values of our time, homosexuality and other sexual aberrations may now be treated with care, discretion and restraint” (Barrios, 303) came more films portraying homosexuality as wrong, only now they were allowed to say that they were gay. From The Fox we get another lesbian brought to justice “by the Freudian force of a falling tree” (Barrios, 342) as her partner finds ‘true’ love with a man. From P.J. we get literal and unrestrained gay bashing in mass quantities. From movies like this gays can extract little in the ways of self identification other than self loathing. The other films of the time, primarily the Day/Hudson debacles, offer very little to anyone with their spirit of denial and materialism.

1966 brought the switch to the ratings system in use today along with much more of the flashy glitz and bad taste of years passed. However, as censorship changed form and several celebrities came out, more accurate and favorable portrayals of homosexuals emerged, sometimes in documentary form. Although it is certain that gays hold a more positive position in society now than they did even 20 years ago the process by which this position was gained was obviously not a linear one. It would be my conclusion that political forces drove this progression for the most part until the ratings system took hold.

2)

a) Gita Carteret of The Crystal Cup is defined as “emotionally scarred” by the movie’s advertisements. Her father’s behavior towards her mother is said to have caused her traumatic damage as a child that takes the form of abhorrence for all men as an adult. For this reason, Gita (Dorothy Mackaill) rejects femininity completely, opting instead for masculine attire and behavior. The idea that hatred of men would manifest itself in the impersonation of men is particularly confusing, apparently only to me, since neither the critics nor Barrios mentioned it as odd. It seems more likely that an extreme contempt for her mother’s weakness and submission to the abusive father would result in the adoption of a masculine lifestyle and the rejection of womanish frailty. This diagnosis points more blatantly towards lesbianism than does the original and so perhaps that is why it wasn’t used. After all homosexuality was still being treated largely as a joke in 1927 and so such obviousness on the part of the film makers would not be a wise decision for the integrity and financial success of their movie. I any case, Gita is shown as male in every way, from her emotional detachment from romantic love and marriage to the way she lights her matches. For those who were willing to see it, and with the exception of a female love interest, the lesbian hints were everywhere. Even her reaction to being frightened in the night is stereotypically macho; she does not squeal and flinch away from the intruder, she conquers it with a gun. Unfortunately the intruder happens to be her pseudo husband. But not to worry, murder turns out to be exactly the jolt she needs to straighten out, throw on a dress, and settle down with the right man. The implications here are that gunning down a friend isn’t really all that bad when the alternative is lesbianism.

b) All About Eve seems really to be all about Margo. A renowned theater actress with a bit of a self absorption issue takes in a young and devout fan named Eve as her assistant. Eve’s unnatural obsession and commitment to Margo is emphasized by rapturous praise of her theatrical performance and pronounced gazes of longing. But this obsession becomes mutual as Margo develops suspicion of Eve’s intentions and resentfully jealous of her youth and talent as an actress. Margo’s bipolar behavior eventually drives away all of her companions but Eve as she repeatedly expresses confusion over her own identity and conduct. Both Eve’s ecstasy and Margo’s inner turmoil betray homosexual undertones between the two. Eventually Eve takes to the stage in place of Margot, making passes at her ex-lover and finally, winning the glory, recognition, and trophy that should have belonged to Margo. In this way, Eve’s sexual desire for Margo is actualized by means of impersonation rather than confrontation. The gay viewer is almost encouraged to seek some other vehicle for their romantic interests than that of a relationship.

c) The Children’s Hour is the story of two best friends who start an all girls school together. Their relationship is one of extreme closeness but is not actively romantic. Shirley MacLaine’s character, Martha, reveals hints of an attraction as she gazes at Hepburn and recalls the first time she saw her; “What a pretty girl.” As the school begins to turn a profit Hepburn’s engagement to a doctor ignites jealousy in MacLaine’s character. Later these feelings are expressed in a tormented outburst: “I feel so damn sick and dirty I can’t stand it anymore!” The idea of two single women, living and working independently from men, but dependent on each other is accompanied by suspicions of strange goings on. A student at the school starts rumors of lesbianism after witnessing an emotional moment in which Hepburn innocently kisses MacLaine’s cheek. The word homosexual or lesbian is never uttered, apparently too shocking for the audience’s ears but the damage is done as it is intended to be. The school is closed, the engagement is ruined and Martha ends up dead by her own hand. The message that lesbians cannot function in normal society is easily ascertained but it is slightly less derogatory because the film allows viewers to sympathize rather than simply to gawk and cringe at Martha’s character.

This image is relatively self explanatory. The people portrayed here are not to be thought of as a world apart. The choice of billboard as a medium makes the image readily available to everyone and the message encourages us not to suspend reality as we often must when dealing with advertisements. By employing personal pronouns like “we” and “your” the image incorporates its viewers personally. The people chosen to represent this message are ordinary. Their casual dress and posture do not suggest anything peculiar about them which would make this picture a difficult target for advocates of homosexual censorship or even Nazis. These people are not visually degenerate in any way, nor do they incite action. Looking at this picture does not clue one in one how to become gay or detect gays. Although there is something of a dispute about whether the gay community wishes to be depicted as average or not, this image would qualify as positive because is does nothing to offend homosexuals or heterosexuals. It merely states a fact. Because it is a billboard it would be hard to call this image a work of art. It is an advertisement and therefore a culture product. (source)

As defined by this image, homosexuality is not a good thing. Formalistic techniques of lighting and angles make it a candidate for art, but since this discussion regards negativity it will not be exempt from connotative evaluation. The subject is dangerous, of course, because of the gun but also because of the facial expression and darkness of his surroundings. He looks directly at the camera as though to challenge the viewer. The body is not visible because of the dress but surely concepts of Nazi degeneracy would apply to transvestites. For these reasons, homosexuality is seen as a threat. Because it is art, the photograph might have more to say than merely that gays are not safe. This man almost wants you to think of him as crazy. Whether or not this is because he wants a reason to shoot you or because he wants to bring self reflection is unclear. (source)

This cartoon is not part of the assignment; I just thought it was important. (source)