The Portrayal Of Gays And Lesbians In Twentieth Century Film
Proposal
Gays and lesbians have been present throughout cinematic history. During the early part of the twentieth century, restrictions made it so gay and lesbian character’s sexuality could not be specified. During this period, LGBT characters remained “in the closet”, which seemed to reflect the publics anti-gay sentiment. Over the course of the twentieth century, the way in which gays and lesbians were represented changed drastically.
I have chosen to focus on The Celluloid Closet, a 1996 documentary that chronicles gays and lesbians in film during the 20th century. The film acts as a virtual time line of the way homosexuality was expressed overtime through mainstream film, beginning in the 1920s up to the 1990s. Award-winning actors and directors commentate throughout the film, giving their insight about the characters they portrayed and how they felt about their experiences in Hollywood.
Hollywood shaped peoples perspectives and beliefs. Early film, being the first major form of media, influenced how people viewed themselves and others. People paid close attention to what they saw on the big screen and acted accordingly. Hollywood made gays and lesbians feel as though they were inferior beings while at the same time told heterosexual viewers that homosexuals were evil, creepy, sad, and something to mock.
Research Question
I have set out to analyze how gays and lesbians have been portrayed in film starting in the early twentieth century through present day. Using The Celluloid Closet, other mainstream films, and multiple scholarly sources, I have identified three major themes in twentieth century films: disguised sexuality, stereotyping, and hypersexualized lesbian characters. Additionally, I was able to connect many of these themes to modern day films.
Literature Review
Disguised Sexuality
During1920s, gays and lesbians were able to show affection in film, with minimal backlash from viewers. However, when production codes were placed on films in the late 1920s, movie directors were forced to disguise homosexuality. The codes limited directors from putting any “deviant behavior” in their films – this included homosexuality. George Chauncey summarizes the codes, writing:
“Hollywood films were prohibited from including lesbian or gay characters, discussing gay themes, or even inferring the existence of homosexuality. The Hollywood studios established these rules (popularly known as the Hays Code) in the 1930s under pressure from a censorship movement.”[1]
Directors had to be discreet about the homosexual characters they put into their films. None of the gay and lesbian characters from the 1920s through the 1940s were explicitly labeled as homosexuals. The Celluloid Closet examines this topic thoroughly. Because sexual perversion was prohibited, directors had to write and direct movies accordingly. Actress and documentary narrator Lily Tomlin explores this subject, stating, “Hollywood had learned to write movies between the lines.” Shirley MacLaine adds, “If a director was subtle enough or clever enough, they got around it.” [2] Directors alluded to homosexuality without explicitly saying it. They used visual cues, such as clothing or body language to convey gay and lesbianism.
Directors knew that they needed to have gays and lesbians in their films, but by having characters who resembled homosexuals but did not identity as them, was damaging to the LGBT viewer. Richard Dyer adds to this, stating:
“Most expressions of homosexuality in most of movies are indirect. And what’s interesting about that is of course that is what it was like to express homosexuality in life, that we could only express ourselves indirectly, just as people on the screen could only express themselves indirectly. And the sense in which the characters are in the closet, the movie is in the closet and we are in the closet.”[3]
Indirect sexuality in films was detrimental for LGBT viewers who felt as though they were not being represented. Because they were not seeing people like them on the big screen, they felt as though they could not express their sexuality openly without being scrutinized.
What made it worse for LGBT people is how much impact Hollywood had. Chauncey writes about how during early period of the twentieth century film was highly influential stating:
“The absolute ban on gay representation, vigorously enforced by Hollywood’s own censorship board, remained in effect for some thirty years and effectively prohibited the discussion of homosexuality in the most important medium of the mid-twentieth century.”[4]
Chauncey comments on the fact that Hollywood had a major influence on how the general public viewed issues. With no LGBT representation, people weren’t confronted with homosexuality and were allowed to believe that it didn’t exist.
Stereotyping
Stereotyping certain groups of people was, and continues to be common in American cinema. Gays and lesbians were one of the most stereotyped groups in film. The gay male was represented in film as “the sissy”. The sissy immerged in the late 1920s through the 1930s. This character was flamboyant and feminine, however was never identified as being gay. The Celluloid Closet examines this character thoroughly. Tomlin says, “Enter the sissy, Hollywood’s first gaystock character. The sissy made everyone feel more manly or more womanly by occupying the space in between. He didn’t seem to have a sexuality, so Hollywood allowed him to thrive.”[5] The sissy appeared to be the butt of everyone’s jokes. The character was non-threatening and didn’t make viewers uncomfortable because his sexuality was never specifically mentioned. In many ways, he was a source of humor that added levity to the film. Jim Elledge describes this character in detail, writing:
“The idea of the sissy sidekick – the foolish, rather effeminate, and typically asexual supporting role-has been discussed in film comedy theory and studies of film history…Most of them were characterized by large overacting-rolling eyebrows, speaking in a high voice, laughing childishly, and generally tying to steal the show from the people behaving normally. “ [6]
The sissy character was a character with stereotypical gay tendencies and mannerisms. The role of the sissy is used for comedic purposes, which suggests that gay men are something to laugh at. Because the character’s thoughts or feelings were never explored, the audience got a sense that the sissy was one-dimensional and lacked any sort of identity.
Interestingly, this character has seemed to have reemerged in modern film. Films such as Mean Girls (2004), Bruno (2009), The Hangover (2009), and Legally Blonde (2001) all have characters that resembled the sissy. The characters have stereotypical gay tendencies: high-pitched voices, tight clothing, and feminine mannerisms.
The sissy character persisted through film up until the lift of the production codes in the 1940s. From this point on, gays and lesbians were finally identified in movies, oftentimes being portrayed as villains. It appeared as though the only way in which viewers would accept gays and lesbians on the big screen is if they were the ”bad guy”. Corey Creekmur and Alexander Doty explore this idea. They write about the 1980s film Windows. The film is about a psychotic lesbian who sets up her innocent female neighbor to be raped. They write,
“Windows, for instance, displaces lesbian attraction, turning its expression into violence. Mainstream cinema employs a traditional dichotomy of positive/negative, using allegedly lesbian villainesses to punish those characters who deviate from the norms of domesticity or romantic love. Heterosexuality is the positive, lesbianism the negative.”[7]
This alludes to the stigma that gays and lesbians lack a “moral compass.” It depicts them as devious, evil, untrustworthy people who need to be saved or in some cases, killed.
Shortly following the gay and lesbian villain, gay men started to be portrayed as pedophiles in the 1960’s. This is evident in the documentary Boys Beware. The black in white film starts off showing an innocent-looking boy walking home and being coerced into the car by a man twice his age. The boy, Jimmy, begins spending more and more time with the older man, Ralph. About halfway through the film the narrator states,
“Then during lunch Ralph showed him some pornographic pictures. What Jimmy didn’t know was that Ralph was sick, a sickness that was not visible like smallpox, a sickness of the mind. You see Ralph was a homosexual, a person who demands personal intimate relationships with someone of their own sex. But by now Jimmy felt a fondness for Ralph and they continued to go places together. “[8]
The film clearly serves as a form of antigay propaganda. Ralphs character forces the audience to believe that all gay men are prying on young boys and that boys need to beware. It depicts gays as pedophiles and mentally ill. It doesn’t help that they make look Ralph look as terrifying as possible, with a large mustache and dark glasses that remain on throughout the documentary. Author Chris Hall writes that the film “shows gay men as ruthless criminals without so much as a glimmer of a conscience”[9]
Around the same time, gays and lesbians began being shown as helpless, depressed, and suicidal. Barry Sandler says, “Growing up in that period in the 60’s, all we had were images of unhappy, suicidal, desperate people. These images magnify the sadness, the hatred of us, the prediction that we will not find love.” [10] Arthur Laurents expands on this topic, stating:
“You must pay. You must suffer. If you’re a woman who commits adultery, you’re only put out in the storm. If you’re a woman who has another woman you better go hang yourself. It’s a question of degree and certainly if you’re gay, you have to do real penance, die.”[11]
There was often no “happily ever after” for gays and lesbians in film. Most of the films during this period ended with LGBT characters killing themselves because they cannot cope with their sexuality. This sent a message to all viewers that LGBT people deserved to die because of the choice they made to be homosexual.
Hypersexualized Lesbians
In film, lesbians were and continue to be highly eroticized and oversexualized. Their role is to evoke sexual feelings for the heterosexual male audience. Creekmuf and Doty examine the notion of over-sexualization, stating, “The creation of a lesbian film criticism is particularly urgent, given the intensified use of the lesbian as a negative sign in Hollywood movies and the continuing space assigned to lesbians as gratification of male fantasy.” [12] This is evident in the 1992 film Basic Instinct (1992), where actress Sharon Stone plays a kinky, seductive bisexual whose role is to be a temptress for men. Hollywood consistently portrayed lesbians as beautiful, confused, hypersexual, one-dimensional characters.
Films such as Gigli (2008) and Blue Is The Warmest Color (2003) prove that there is still a male dominant culture that views lesbians as sexual objects. The lesbian characters are often times are ultra-feminine, attractive, and dressed in minimal clothing. They appeal strictly to the straight males fantasy.
In Blue Is The Warmest Color explicit lesbian sex scenes are shown between main characters Adele and Emma. The lead actresses commented on the way in which the male director directed the scenes, stating:
“[It was] A brutal and surgical display, exuberant and cold, or so-called called lesbian sex, which turned into porn, and made me feel very ill at ease…Most people don’t even dare to ask the things that he did, and they’re more respectful…It was kind of humiliating sometimes, I was feeling like a prostitute.”[13]
The actresses were even told to practice their “O faces” while filming as the cameraman zoomed in on their butts.[14]
Not only were lesbians sexualized in film for the straight male audience, but their sexual identity was often questioned. The notion that lesbians just “haven’t met the right guy yet” comes through in these films when the heterosexual male character attempts to seduce them. Adrienne Rich describes the patriarchal mindset, stating that women have become “objects of sexual appetite devoid of emotional context, without individual meaning or personality: essentially as a sexual commodity to be consumed by males.” [15] This downplays and rejects genuine lesbian experiences.
Film has played a large role in perpetuating the sexualization of lesbians. Because of this misrepresentation, people began to view lesbians as women who are hypersexual, confused, and capable of being turned.
Analysis of Rope, The Children’s Hour, and Gigli
As mentioned above, negative stereotypes and notions of sexuality were placed upon gays and lesbians throughout the twentieth century and continue to persist in movies today. I have chosen three films that I believe embody these themes: Rope, The Children’s Hour, and Gigli.
Alfred Hitchcock was and still continues to be thought of as one of the most influential filmmakers and producers of all time. One of his most popular films was a film produced in 1961 entitled Rope. The film is about two presumably gay college students who brutally murder an innocent 14-year-old boy and store his body in their living room chest. Throughout the film, lead characters Brandon and Philip exhibit traits of superiority and feel little remorse about what they have done. During one scene they host a cocktail party and serve drinks over the body of the man they murdered. They feel as though they will get away with the murder because of their high social status. At one point during the film Brandon says, “I’ve always wished for more artistic talent. Well, murder can be an art, too. The power to kill can be just as satisfying as the power to create.” [16] Later on in the film he says, “Nobody commits a murder just for the experiment of committing it. Nobody except us.” Quotes of this nature appear throughout the film, portraying gay men as having no morals and being above the law. The way in which Hithcock portrays Brandon and Philip as sociopaths speaks to his sentiments towards gay peoples lack of morality. Also noteworthy is that both of the main characters were gay in real life which calls into question if Hitchcock truly believes that gay men are more able to posses these character traits.
The evil LGBT stereotype still persists in cinema today. Films such as 300 (2007), Tron:Legacy (2010), and Skyfall (2012) all have gay villains. The evil stereotype is also reflected in non-human characters. For example, Shere Khan from The Jungle Book stalks Mowgli throughout the film in his attempts to kill him. Ursula from The Little Mermaid is an evil mermaid with a deep voice and a butch haircut who targets and seduces Ariel.
As previously discussed, shame, remorse, and suicide were also common themes in mid twentieth century film. Probably the most notable film that best embodies this theme is the 1961 film The Children’s Hour. The film is about two best friends, Karen and Martha, who are accused of having an “unnatural relationship” and are ostracized from the community. There is a famous scene where Martha realizes her feelings for Karen. She breaks down crying, saying:
“I’m guilty…. I lie in bed night after night praying it isn’t true…. I can’t stand to have you touch me. I can’t stand to have you look at me. Oh, it’s all my fault. I’ve ruined your life and I’ve ruined my own…. Oh I feel so damn sick and dirty I can’t stand it anymore “[17]
The scene ends with Martha hanging herself due to the fact that she cannot live with the guilt she feels for loving another woman. This speaks to the notion that lesbians are social deviants who do not deserve to live. Martha’s feelings of self-loathing and self-hating speak to the way gays and lesbians should feel about themselves. Elledge summarizes this perfectly, stating, “Through her desperate confession, the permanent ruin of the main characters, and finally her suicide [the director] clearly shows that there still is no place for queers.” [18]
Susie Bright, a bisexual writer, comments on the famous Karen monologue and relates it to how she feels about herself and her sexuality. She talks about how LGBT people still feel this way despite all the progress that’s been made:
“The loathing she feels, how sick she feels with herself. It still makes me cry when I see that and I think why does this still get to me? This is just an old silly movie. People don’t feel this way anymore. But I don’t think that’s true. People do feel that way today still….You know, no matter how many posters I hold up saying I’m a big pervert and I’m so happy about it, there is a part of me that’s like how can I be this way?”
Bright’s sentiments prove how important the portrayal of gays and lesbians are to the LGBT viewer. Bright mentions that she feels an emotional attachment to the characters because she experiences similar feelings in her everyday life. This shows how crucial it is that LGBT people are represented in an accurate and positive light instead of a degrading and shameful one.
Themes of LGBT self-hate and suicide are still common in films today. Films such as The Broken Tower (2001), Till Death Do Us Part (2014), and Love Is All You Need (2013) all have gay characters who kill themselves because they cannot cope with the fact that they are the way they are.
As described above, hypersexualization of lesbians was a very common theme in the mid and late twentieth century. This theme has persisted and is apparent in the film Gigli, [19], a 2003 film featuring Jennifer Lopez (Ricki), a beautiful lesbian criminal who meets an ultra-masculine bad boy Ben Affleck (Larry Gigli). This film is problematic for a number of reasons. During one scene Gigli expresses his true feelings about Ricki stating:
“It is sadness. It is sadness and I’m fucking sad. You got me. You’re a genius. You know why I’m fucking sad? Because I got this fucking beautiful, sexy, gorgeous, heartthrob-o-rama, smart, amazing, bombshell, 17 on a fucking 10 scale sleeping in a bed right next to me. And you know what? She’s a stone-cold dyke. A fucking untouchable, unhavable, unattainable, brick wall, fucking dyke-a-saurus-rex.”
Gigli attempts to prove Ricki is not a lesbian by continuously making sexual advances towards her. It speaks to the notion of masculinity and the man’s need to have complete control over a woman. Ricki eventually agrees to have sex with him, even though she is a lesbian. Lily Tomlin comments on this subject, stating, “If two women are together its probably experimental or some kind of phase. If the right guy came along that would all change.”[20] This proves that men are capable of turning lesbians straight, which downplays and rejects lesbian identity.
Additionally, the casting of beautiful Jennifer Lopez as the lead role was no accident. Throughout the film, she is dressed in skimpy, skin-tight clothes. In fact there is a scene where she is laying on her back, wearing almost no clothing, doing yoga in order to prove that the vagina is superior to penis. This proves that women are there for the male’s gaze and erotic pleasure.
Conclusion
Throughout cinematic history, film has failed gays and lesbians. The Celluloid Closet offers a look into the evolution of LGBT representation in cinema. Films made in the 1920s were the most carefree in the portrayal of gays and lesbians. However this worsened over the next few decades.
The negative stereotypes of gays and lesbians in film had damaging effects on the LGBT community. Because cinema was the main source of media during the early part of the twentieth century, people paid close attention and acted according to what they saw on the screen. They were easily influenced by film. The lack of gays and lesbian on the big screen made people think that it was not okay to be homosexual and that they must remain in the closet.
Although it is true that movies have come a long way in terms of representation of gays and lesbians, there is still a lot of progress to be made. Many modern films have resurrected stereotypes that were wiped away centuries ago. Being aware of the history of the misrepresentation of gays and lesbians in film in crucial. Directors and screenwriters must pay close attention to the ways in which they portray the LGBT community in order to not repeat mistakes of the past.
[1] Chauncey, George. Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today’s Debate over Gay Equality. New York: Basic, 2004. Print. (6)
[2] The Celluloid Closet. Dir. Rob Epstein, Jeffrey Friedman. Song Picture Classics, 1996. Film.
[3] The Celluloid Closet.
[4] Chauncey, (6).
[5] The Celluloid Closet.
[6] Elledge, Jim. Queers in American Popular Culture. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2010. (74).
[7] Creekmuf, Corey K., and Alexander Doty. Out in Culture: Gay, Lesbian, and Queer Essays on Popular Culture. Durham: Duke University Press, 1995. (27)
[8] Boys Beware. Sid Davis Productions, 1961.
[9] Hall, Chris. “The Gays Will Kill You! A Look Back on Creepy Propaganda Film Boys Beware.” SF Weekly. 21 June 2012. Web. 07 May 2016.
[10] The Celluloid Closet.
[11] The Celluloid Closet.
[12] Creekmuf, Doty, (25).
[13] Roche-Lilliott, Brie, and Olivia Creamer. “How Queer Is Blue? Lesbian Commodification and Sexualization in “Blue Is The Warmest Color”.” ˆQIPC 2014. 2014. Web. 08 May 2016
[14] Roche-Lilliot and Creamer.
[15] Rich, Adrienne. Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. London: Onlywomen, 1981. Print. (641)
[16] Hitchcock, Alfred. Rope. Burbank, CA: Warner Bros., 1948.
[17] The Children’s Hour. Dir. Willian Wyler. Perf. Shirley MacLaine, Audrey Hepburn. The Mirisch Company, 1961.
[18] Elledge, (81).
[19] Brest, Martin. Gigli. 2003. Film
[20] The Celluloid Closet