Tawny N post 9

Tawny Najjar

Homosexual. Gay. Lesbian. As the years have progressed, these words have become more and more common to hear. Although hearing these words angered and shocked many a few years ago, they have become a part of today’s norm. People have started to broaden their views on sexuality and the possibilities open to them. Being homosexual is slowly becoming accepted. However, this progression has not occurred without a fight. The struggle over the portrayal of homosexuals in film and television greatly affected the public’s opinion of gays and lesbians.

The Celluloid Closet, a documentary about gay and lesbian films, reiterates its point through its different examples of films. “The face of gay images is a changing one. What seems gay now was seen as nothing out of the ordinary a hundred years ago, and men or women engaged in same-sex dancing was not necessarily a cause for raised eyebrows” (Barrios 16). The events that occurred during the twentieth century greatly affected the films of the ages, dictating how the characters should be portrayed, and what message was trying to reach the viewers. During the 1930s, in the Post World War II age, many people decided to declare their homosexuality. This led to the Pansy Craze in 1933, in which there was the greatest number and variety of gay portrayals. Characters in film became increasingly conspicuous, titillating, and forward. Homosexuality for men was usually characterized by a fedora hat, sweeping gestures, a little mustache, and a flower in their lapel. Signs of lesbianism were generally jackets, starched shirts with neckties, close-cropped and slicked-back hair, as well as the occasional monocle or cigar (Barrios 68). During the 1940s, more gay bars were opened, but this too had its consequences. There was an increase in police harassment, which spurred gays to start organizing politically. Two main groups that formed during this time were the Mattachine Society (for gay men) and the Daughters of Bilitis (for lesbian women). While conservatives attempted to repress the homosexuals, their efforts were countered by the “homophile movement.” This movement was bolstered by the black civil rights movement, as well as the feminist movement in the 1960s. Homosexuals challenged the opposition by “coming out of the closet” in increasing numbers, proclaiming their sexuality. The 1960s through the 1970s marked the beginning of the gay rights movement. Gays and lesbians became more visible and vocal on the screen and in public life. However, this increased promotion for gay rights in turn cause a rise in homophobia. Many came to fear these homosexuals who deviated from “normalcy.” Despite this animosity, gay people continued to fight for their rights, and by 1990, there were several thousand declared homosexuals. Many states started to decriminalize gay acts, and police harassment declined. Openly gay candidates ran for elective office and won support. Throughout the years, the battle that has ensued over homosexuals has been back and forth. Whenever gay people stood up for their sexuality, they were countered by conservatives. After the Pansy Craze in 1933, the Production Code Administration and the Roman Catholic Legion were formed, which attempted to censor movies that were deemed unacceptable and offensive. The events during the 1900s changed society’s views on many ideas and concepts, but one area in which these changing views were clearly seen was homosexuality. The views that came from these events directly affected the films of those years.

As the Celluloid Closet illustrated, the portrayals of homosexuality drastically changed throughout the twentieth century on numerous occasions. When homosexuals were initially depicted in films, they were a cause for humor. Homosexuality was presented as an object of ridicule and laughter, but not in a cruel way. This “sissy character” was popular; He was not a threatening representation of homosexuality because he symbolized the middle ground between masculinity and femininity. A gay character was viewed as “a man trapped inside a woman’s body and vice versa” (Barrios 21). The laughter from the viewers was not in any way offensive to the gay character because that character was in on the joke as well. “The movies of the time tell us that homosexuality existed and was part of life in those years of national crisis. Lesbians and gay men were generally accepted, they would interact with others, and that was pretty much that” (Barrios 60). These movies were stark, frank, and honest. The mentality of this age was “this is just how it is.” Homosexuals were accepted at face value, and were not censored or punished because of their sexuality. One film during this time, Algie, the Miner (1912), depicted a gay character, Algie, as humorous and affable. In the film, the sole evidence that he is heterosexual is that he has a girlfriend. Other than that, all other evidence points to the idea that he is a “card-carrying flamer.” Such evidence included the dandified air, fluttering hands, pursed and apparently rough lips, a sly smile, and eyes that he bats when fondling the barrel of a pistol. In the film, he is sent out west to prove his manhood to his fiancé’s father. He eventually returns home a tougher man, but his queerness is evident in everything he says or does (Barrios 17). Algie was a character that provoked many laughs from the audience, but it was all in good fun.

However, these depictions were not confined solely to films, but came up in television shows as well. The cartoons were not just geared towards children. Betty Boop, which aired during 1931-1933, also had some gay characters make an appearance. In Dizzy Red Riding Hood (1931), she picks flowers on the way to Grandma’s house and is pleased to come across a pansy because “the fairies like them too!” In Betty Boop for President (1932), she gives a convict the electric chair, which turns out to be a beauty treatment from which he emerges lustrous and “queeny”. There was also a reference to a “man with the red necktie” which was an indication of a coded piece of gay apparel (Barrios 110). All of these gay portrayals were innocent and not offensive to both the gay and straight populations. One’s sexuality was merely taken at face value, and little worry was spent on the implications of that sexuality. As Adorno stated in “How to Look at TV,” “the hidden message may be more important than the overt since this hidden message will escape the controls of consciousness, will not be ‘looked through’…but is likely to sink into the spectator’s mind (Adorno 221). While the hints of homosexuality were subtle, they were accepted by the audience as humorous, which made homosexuality more acceptable.

During the period from the mid-1930s to the 1950s, the tolerance for gay characters decreased dramatically. While there had been subtle hints of homosexuals in film before, there was now an attempt to stamp out any suggestion of homosexuality. Gay people were now criticized for immorality, and censorship committees were established to root out films that were deemed offensive and immoral. Beginning in 1934, the production and distribution of films were filtered through the moral and artistic vision of the Production Code Administration, which was overseen by Joe Breen. Breen used his religious, moral, ethical, political, and social beliefs as the criteria by which the films were judged. He then had the power to decide which films were approved of, and which films were not. All PCA-approve films had an onscreen Code seal and certificate number (Barrios 134). This censorship correlates to Adorno’s discussion of the mass media. In his article, Adorno states, “this rigid institutionalism transforms modern mass culture into a medium of undreamed of psychological control. The repetitiveness, the selfsameness, and the ubiquity of modern mass culture tend to make for automatized reactions and to weaken the forces of individual resistance” (Adorno 216). The PCA used their power to try to control what the viewers were exposed to, claiming that they had a moral responsibility to stamp out the abnormal and offensive. By the end of 1934, “all in Hollywood seemed streamline-shiny, sterile, and censor-proof” (Barrios 142). In the beginning of the year, gay characters had been out, but by the end of the year, the characters were closeted to the point of sexlessness. The gay male prototype had changed dramatically. Where he had been accepted for his effeminacy before, he was now expected to act straight. The codes of a gay man (the flower and fedora, small mustache, “whoops” and “dearie” catchphrases) were gone by the end of World War II. “The new type of gay man onscreen, beginning in 1944, was not a subject for ridicule in most cases…the new gay type: immersed in culture, intelligently sharp-tongued, not so much expendable to the main action as an interested observer of it. The prototype of this figure…was a gay actor playing a straight role” (Barrios 210). Being gay ceased to be good, and the films during that time displayed this ideology. In the film Rope (1946), two gay men kill another man, and serve a buffet on top of the chest in which they hid the body. Their gayness is evident from the lingering looks that they give each other, and their invasion of each other’s personal space. One man is very unsure that what he just did was right, while the other reveled in his power to take another person’s life. This film gave off the impression that gay people cannot be trusted, and can be dangerous at times, which lessened the public support of homosexuality (Celluloid Closet documentary).

In contrast, The Maltese Falcon (1941) was one of the few films in its decade in which a gay character is inarguably present. This private-eye film was written and directed by John Huston. Huston worked to delineate the gay character, Cairo, as clearly onscreen as any of the other characters, and in doing so, developed some of the subterfuge that would be used in the following years to fly under the radar of Joe Breen and the PCA. “The script puts everything across with meticulous tact; a world of corruption and greed – in fact, a world where almost everyone is a selfish bastard – is delineated with deceptive simplicity” (Barrios 187). The Maltese Falcon is one of the many examples of films during this time that hid the gay characters in ways to get past the screening of the PCA. During this time of censorship, the battle over the portrayal of gay characters intensified, and opposition to the PCA and other conservative groups grew. Homosexuality was no longer used for humor, but rather swept under the rug.

During the time period from the 1960s to the 1990s, the animosity toward homosexuals grew. The gay rights movement was now gaining strength, but as gay people gained more influence and voiced their opinions more openly, the homophobia intensified as well. Films portrayed gay characters as dangerous, and most of them had some tragic ending or demise near the end of the film. There was a division between the black (outgroup = gay characters) and the white (ingroup = straight people). The representatives of ideas under attack are presented as villains, whereas, those who represent the “right cause” are personally idealized (Adorno 231). The Children’s Hour (1960) starred Shirley MacLaine, who acted as a lesbian, and Audrey Hepburn. MacLaine played the role of a lesbian who was in love with her fellow schoolteacher and friend, played by Hepburn. In the movie, a girl spreads rumors about the two women, which eventually leads to MacLaine’s declaration, “I feel so damn sick and dirty I can’t stand it!” She later hangs herself in her room, and Hepburn, realizing what MacLaine is doing, rushes to the room to save her, only to get there too late. This film gives the impression that gay characters are not meant to lead happy, fulfilling lives, but rather lead lives that are filled with self-loathing. Many films during this time had the gay characters be miserable and ashamed of their “abnormal” sexuality.

Since the 1990s, society has become more accepting of homosexuality. It seems as though the public is slowly reverting to the mindset of the early 1900s, where gays and lesbians were taken at face value and accepted for who they are. There are many gay portrayals in the media today, and though most of them are not offensive, there are those few that show gays in a negative light. However, most of the time, the depictions are either humorous or matter-of-fact. The television show, Will and Grace, is a popular sitcom that has a gay man as one of the main characters in the show. The show is about a group of friends, some who live together, and some who work together. Will Truman and Grace Adler live together in a completely non-romantic relationship because Will is gay and Grace is straight. Their two main friends are Karen Walker and Jack McFarland, who is a stereotypical gay man. There has been debate about whether this show supports homosexuality or ridicules it. Evidence can be found for either side of the argument, depending on the viewer’s interpretation of the characters’ actions and conversations. Films, television shows, and any other form of media depend on the viewer’s expectations and interpretations. As Adorno stated, “the spectator approaches each one with a set pattern of expectations before he faces the show itself,” which, after viewing a show that supports those expectations, “induces him to look at life itself as though it and its conflicts could generally be understood in such terms” (Adorno 227). In most instances, Will and Grace appears to challenge the old view that being gay is not accepted. Even though one of the main characters is gay, the show is still widely watched and accepted. Will is not portrayed as the stereotypical gay male either. There is no lisp, no flashy hand gestures, and no physical clue that he is gay. Will works as a successful lawyer, and is never made fun of or called out for his sexuality. This sends the message that being gay is normal, which makes homosexuality more acceptable in general.

On the other hand, the other gay character in the show, Jack, is portrayed as the stereotypical gay male. He has all of the indications – a lisp, flashy hand movements, and exaggerated expressions. Jack also dresses in pastels, is energetic, and uses phrases like, “It’s so festive” or “I’m a celebrity.” His mannerisms and appearance show the opposite end of the spectrum from Will. Will is normal, while Jack is obviously effeminate. These two completely different portrayals provide a balance between a realistic portrayal of gays and the stereotypical portrayal. This balance is meant to help society make the transition from one ideology to another without having too much discomfort. The show Will and Grace is a cultural industry product (mass media) because it is trying to appeal to the general public, not offend too many people, and not make people feel too uncomfortable. It is not in-your-face about homosexuality, nor does it reject the idea. Therefore, the show can be on a middle-ground and mediate between the two different groups – the homosexuals and the straight.

Another television show that has been on the receiving end on many complaints is CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. One of the serial killers on the show, Paul Millander, is gay. He has appeared in three different episodes, “Pilot,” “Anonymous,” and “Identity Crisis,” all in which he escapes capture from the CSI team. In his last appearance, Millander returns to his home where his mother lives. He kills her and ends his own life in the same way that he had staged his father’s and the other suicides, leaving behind a tape with a suicide message on it. In this show, Millander was a transsexual, who was portrayed as a very cunning and intelligent serial killer whose violent pathology is partially fed by his gender identity. Some members of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) have criticized CSI for their handling of homosexual characters, because in many episodes, the killer turns out to be gay. This sends out the message that homosexuals are not all mentally stable, and can be deemed dangerous.

Vito Russo, writer of Celluloid Closet, once said, “In a hundred years of movies, homosexuality has only rarely been depicted on the screen. When it did appear, it was there as something to laugh at – or something to pity – or even something to fear. These were fleeting images, but they were unforgettable, and they left a lasting legacy. Hollywood, that great maker of myths, taught straight people what to think about gay people…and gay people what to think about themselves.” Media does have an effect of the public’s views on certain matters; groups in power have tried to twist the media to put forth the message that they want to send to people. In this instance, the PCA tried to dictate what the media said, but the gay movement and changing ideologies had the upper hand. What seemed abnormal decades ago is now not even thought twice about. Society is an ever-changing entity, fueled by past events, current events, and portrayals of them.