Woman vs Wild ([info]thebratqueen) wrote,
@ 2003-01-28 23:48:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: thoughtful
Entry tags:meta

The dead, gay stereotype
A recent discussion about an episode of Smallville brought up the "dead!evil!gay stereotype" and what, exactly, it was (Fans of Buffy may remember similar discussions from when Tara died and Willow went evil).

The discussion prompted me to check The Celluloid Closet out of the library. I'd seen the documentary many times before but I'd never had the chance to read the book.

And let me stop right here and say that if you are a fan of slash, the book and movie should be on your required reading/viewing list. They chronicle the history of gays in the movies and, amongst other things, point out that we slash fans are not insane. The subtext is there on purpose. Read the book and watch the documentary (often shown on Bravo) both. Reason being, they were done about a decade apart, so the documentary covers movies that weren't out when the book was written, but on the flip side the book goes into greater depth on some topics than the movie could manage.

Anyway, as I promised in the thread I tried to find some good examples of the dead/evil gay/lesbian stereotype and honestly it was hard. Not because of a lack of examples, but because there were too many. I can't isolate a single quote - or even two - as the definititve statement on the subject.



First off, you may want to read Roger Ebert's review of the documentary, which highlights why the movie should be a must-view for every slash fan, but also contains the following quote:

``The Celluloid Closet'' is inspired by a 1981 book by Vito Russo, who wrote as a gay man who found he had to look in the shadows and subtexts of movies to find the homosexual characters who were surely there. His book was a compendium of visible and concealed gays in the movies, and now this documentary, which shows the scenes he could only describe, makes it clear Hollywood wanted it both ways: It benefitted from the richness that gays added to films, but didn't want to acknowledge their sexuality. In those few films that were frankly about gays, their lives almost always ended in madness or death (there is a montage of gays dying onscreen, of which my favorite from a Freudian point of view is Sandy Dennis as a lesbian in ``The Fox,'' crushed by a falling tree). (Emphasis mine)

From the book:

Twice before, plays of [Tennessee] Williams had been brought to the screen with significant homosexual references deleted. [...] In 1951 the "problem" that Blanche DuBois encountered with her husband was obscured for the screen version of A Streetcar Named Desire; in 1958 Cat on a Hot Tin Roof was shorn of the homosexual implications in the relationshp between Bric (Paul Newman) and the dead Skipper. [...] Then, in 1959, [...] Suddenly Last Summer dealt with the subject as the kind of psychosexual freak show that the Fifties almost demanded. Treated like a dread disease, the homosexuality of Sebastian Venable, William's doomed poet, could be 'inferred but not shown' - by special permission of the Breen Office. [...] The Legion of Decency, after seeing that the necessary cuts were made, gave the film a special classification: "Since the film illustrates the horrors of such a lifestyle, it can be considered moral in theme even though it deals with sexual perversion." [...] Williams' tortured view of a failed homosexual artist and the people he victimizes with his abnormal desires is a classic horror story. Having used first his mother, in this case literally his mad creator, and then his cousin (Elizabeth Taylor) as bait for his affairs, the creature is finally destroyed by an angry mob ov street urchins in a climax not much different from that of James Whale's Frankenstein, in which the peasants pursue the monster to the top of a hill, where fire engulfs him.

[TBQ's note: in case my cutting here doesn't make it clear, the book's point is that Williams had blatent homosexuality in many of his plays, but the only time that homosexuality was allowed to make it to the screen was the one play which kills off the gay character in a horrible fashion.]

***

[After the new Code created in 1962]

For most people, homosexuality was inextricably bound to the idea of men acting like women - and that was bad, even dangerous, for heroes. Although, under the new Code, villainous homosexuals sometimes wanted the hero sexually, their homosexuality served as an illustration of their pathology and thus illuminated their villainy. In Peter Ustinov's Billy Budd (1062), the fatal attraction of Claggart (Robert Ryan) to the beauteous innocence of Billy (Terence Stamp) is both his problem and his eventual retribution.

***

[re: The Children's Hour, starring Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine]

But tin the character of Martha Dobie (Shirley MacLaine) Hellman created the sudden revelation that comes to a woman who discovers the truth of her own lesbianism by means of a child's stupid lie. That self-revelation costs Martha Dobie her life - the first in a long series of suicides of homosexual screen characters.

***

Advise and Consent (1962) - Contains one of the first shots of a gay bar in a film. The character of Senator Brig Anderson (Don Murray) has a homosexual encounter in his army past with a fellow soldier anmed Ray (John Granger). ray blackmails Anderson and, after a confrontation, "Anderson speeds back to Washington, locks himself in his oak-paneled Senate office and slits his throat with a straight razor."

***

Thirteen years later, in Max Baer's Ode to Billy Joe (1976), [..] Billy Joe McAllister (Robby Benson) suffers a similar fate [...] When Billy Joe jumps off the Tallahatchie Bridge because he had "been with a man - a sin against God and nature," his secret dies with him.

***

[Regarding Walk on the Wild Side (1962), starring Barbara Stanwyck)]

Stanwyck's Jo was the opposite of MacLaine's Martha, a villain, not a victim. Jo's acceptance of her own lesbianism is part of her villainy. Any decent woman would kill herself , as Martha and Brig did[...]

***

When gays became real, they became threatening. The new sissies departed radically from their gentle ancestors; the dykes became predatory and dangerous. Lesbians were still creatures to be conquered or defeated, but now viciously so, as though they were other men. [...] the comic stereotype became a useful tool for putting homosexuality back in its place. As object lessons, officially defined as the opposite of normal, sissies and dykes throughout the 1960s were a nasty lot even when they were funny. They exhibited an abundance of the "meanness" [...]

Popular sex farces and James Bond spy thrillers used sissies and dykes to prove the virility of cartoon heroes an to stress the sterility of homosexuality. Crowther, reviewing Goldfinger for the New York Times, identified the super-masculine post of James Bond as "what we're now calling homosexual sarcasm." There was plenty of froom for sarcasm. In From Russia with Love (1963) and Goldfinger (1964), cartoon dykes are alternately killed and cured in the grand tradition of hererosexual solutions. In the former, Lotte Lenya's Colonel Roasa Kelb is old, snakelike, dangerous; a killer spy who makes cobra eyes at a young blonde agent [...] Bond's castration is prevented when Klebb is shot to death by the pretty young thing she had tried to seduce. In Goldfinger, Bond conqueres the beautiful Pussy Galore (Honor Blackman), a lesbian doll who comes to life complete with a coterie of beautiful Amazons. [...]

Lesbians who were of use in the service of male sexuality were those beautiful young women who could be variously defined to serve the fantasies of make conquest. Old crows like Rosa Klebb were messily dispatched, along with homosexual men and any other challenge to a James Bond hero. Wint (Bruce Glover) and Kidd (Putter Smith), two gay lovers who are not to be found in the novel Diamonds Are Forever, appear in the 1971 film version as gleeful killers. The pair even get to walk hand in hand into the sunset after they have blown up a helicopter. In the end, though, they are set aflame and toasted like the two marshmallows they really are


***

Gays dropped like flies in the Sixties, and for as many reasons as there were tragedies. Sometimes the sexuality of lesbians or crazed gay men victimized others, threatening the status quo; sometimes it caused self-hatred enough to make them suicidal. Either way, the fray was thick with dead bodies and few escaped to the relative safety of the closet. The question, as it applied to the portrayal of gays at the end of the 1960s, became one of visibility. Overt, active or predatory gays - including some particularly nasty sissies who would have been harmless thirty years before - were killed off. The repressed, tormented types usually committed suicide, and the scattered cases were "cured" by sufficient attention from the oposite sex. Obvious cartoons were spared when they happened to be passing through only to provide color or to present a strong contrast to a sexy hero. Pathetic, lonely old lesbians were preserved if they were not wearing spiked shoes. Survivial was an option only for nontheratening characters, and almost all homosexuals threatened the heterosexual status quo by their very existence.

***

And at this point yours truly is starting to go cross-eyed from reading and typing, but lemme just quote these before I stop (and note these aren't the last mentioned in the book by a long shot, just the last ones I'm quoting):

In Freebie and the Bean (1974), a transvestite killer (Christopher Morley) is cornered by James Caan in a ladies room for a fight to the finish. After getting in a few licks, he gets splattered against the walls - as much for assuming male agression as for assuming female attire.

In The Eiger Sanction (1975), Jack Cassicy plays a killer fairy who can "change a nine dollar bill in threes" and has a despicable little dog named Faggot. Cassidy is left to die in the desert, though the pooch is saved (lest the film be accused of cruelty to animals).

In Theatre of Blood (1973), Robert Morley plays a homosexual theater critc who dies when he is forced to eat his two poodles, who have been baked in a pie in the same fashion that a Roman empress's two sons were served to her in Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus. In Play It as it Lays, despondant film producer Tony Perkins dies in star Lady Tuesday Weld's arms after swallowing a handful of sleeping pills. She understands. Other gays died violent deaths in The Day of the Jackal (1973), Swashbuckler (1976), The Laughing Policeman (1973), Busting (1974), Drum (1976) and The Betsy (1978)


And, finally, because I thought this might be of interest to Bonibaru who asked about gays as villains vs modern movies that use Brits as villians:

In 1968, Time speculated that Hollywood was "using" homosexuality more and more as a subject because it had "run out of conventional bad guys" and the evidence bears this out.



Whew. Okay, now that I've got that typed out, I'll get started on a few essays re: do Willow and Tara bear out the dead!evil!gay stereotype, and how does Wes factor in to all this. =)



(Post a new comment)


[info]minim_calibre
2003-01-28 11:08 pm UTC (link)
If I get time, I'll try and type in some (more appropriate) sections of Vampires and Violets: Lesbians in Film.

It's a slimmer book than TCC, but the focus is exclusively on females, including the DLC.

I've watched, but not read, TCC. How far does it go into the treatment of gays and lesbians in the source material, other than the Williams plays? (And in the play version of Streetcar, the husband killed himself. I think. It's been about a decade since I last read it.) From what I've watched and read (I collect pulp novels, esp. gay themed ones), the Dead Lesbian Cliche/Trope is far more common in text than on screen. (Unless you think of the Vampire Lesbian Cliche as a part of the Dead Lesbian Cliche, but as the lesbian in that case starts off dead, I tend to keep it separate.)

(The Fleming novel Goldfinger is even worse than the movie. Just... eep.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]minim_calibre
2003-01-28 11:08 pm UTC (link)
Edit: that is, the more appropriate sections of the book, not more appropriate than the TCC sections.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]thebratqueen
2003-01-29 05:25 am UTC (link)
Please share! I'm fascinated in the subject right now. And it'd be interesting to see how that bears out with the Tara/Willow thing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]thebratqueen
2003-01-29 05:07 am UTC (link)
Well it's hard for me to judge exactly how well they get into the source material since they talk about so much that very often they came up with examples that I'm not familiar with. That being said, they do discuss the source material quite a bit and if nothing else address whether or not it either handled the topic of homosexuality better than the movie, or if it had homosexuality in it at all (such as the example of the gays in Diamonds Are Forever, who weren't in the book but were in the movie to be evil and then killed).

It also talks a bit more about biographies than the movie was able to. Apparently the movie couldn't get the clearances to show examples of movies about real people that either glossed over or deliberately lied about the subject's homosexuality, whereas the book needed no such clearances and was thus able to talk about it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ex_verdandi713
2003-01-29 06:21 am UTC (link)
The husband didn't kill himself in the stage version of Streetcar; Blanche got carted off to a mental institution and the Kowalski family status quo, such as it was, was retained. (The censor board also mandated that the film version end with Stella leaving Stanley, so he would be "properly punished" for having slept with Blanche.) The stage version of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, if you've never read it, is very interesting--Big Daddy, Brick's father, segues from speechifying about his new young mistress to a whole narrative about how the gay male couple who owned his plantation before he did "took him in" when he was a kid out wandering on the road, and how he (BD) learned that there's more types of love in heaven and earth, etc., at which point Brick bursts out with, "Don't you know how people *feel* about things like that?!"

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]wiebke
2003-01-29 06:51 am UTC (link)
I love that movie and it was plainly obvious a lot of things were left as "undercurrents" in the movie (that whole "close friendship" Brick had which verged on "unnatural") but now DAMN I have to read the play. That movie is just so WRENCHING.

Re Streetcar, reading that in high school really struck a chord with me. I was terrified Blanche's revelation about her husband, thinking "Oh, day, that will be me, not knowing my husband is gay..." LOL.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]thebratqueen
2003-01-29 08:20 am UTC (link)
I've read the plays and seen a few movie versions. It's interesting to see how much of the source material Hollywood can cope with at any given era.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Movie/Book
[info]wiebke
2003-01-29 04:48 am UTC (link)
Celluloid Closet is such a great book, an eye opener because while it doesn't tell you something you don't know on a basic level -- well, at least it didn't tell me anything, though many are more oblivious than I -- it provides so many examples and details that by the end of it, it's gone and blown your mind. There are a lot of movies you'll look at different after reading it, lots of actors and actresses.

Incidentally, I read the book a couple years before the movie came out and thought it was funny when everybody was so into the movie when the book had to be so much more detailed, but finally I did see the movie, at a showing at the UGA movie theater, and enjoyed it very much. The movie is of course more visual, giving the option of face recognition for various actors and actresses, plus it's more entertaining, you can finish it in under 2 hours, etc. In terms of being accessible and something that can be shared with groups quickly and easily, the movie beats the book, although the book is a lot more detailed, even if it isn't as up to date.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Movie/Book
[info]thebratqueen
2003-01-29 05:09 am UTC (link)
Yeah, that's why I think the book and movie both need to be read/seen. The book is more in-depth, but the movie has an additional decade's worth of information in it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]wiebke
2003-01-29 04:55 am UTC (link)
In my last post, I was trying to think of a movie to recommend for viewing and it just came to me. Definitely fits the "lives almost always ended in madness or death" department: Suddenly Last Summer, which is a Tennessee Williams play adapted to the screen by Gore Vidal and starring Elizabeth Taylor, Montgomery Clift, Katharine Hepburn, and a mysterious young man who suddenly last summer... Eeeeeeeek! That movie is creepy, campy, and just plain WEIRD, imo because they sliced just a little too much away from the play so audiences have to really think to get the message about what is going on in the shadows of that movie...

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]thebratqueen
2003-01-29 05:11 am UTC (link)
[nod] I mentioned that one above, and how the homosexuality was only allowed because it ended so horribly - as though that was a natural consequence.

The book also mentions that this is basically the first time there was an acknowledged homosexual character in a movie since the creation of the Code. That you actually never see him except in those tiny glimpses just makes him, in the book's words, the first "invisible" homosexual to boot ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re:
[info]wiebke
2003-01-29 05:19 am UTC (link)
Of course it's also notable that when the mother takes Mont. Clift into her son's old room, the walls are covered with drawings of nude men... Wonder what Clift was thinking 'bout that...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ex_verdandi713
2003-01-29 06:29 am UTC (link)
Another one: John Huston's Reflections in a Golden Eye, w/Montgomery Clift as the soldier with an Unnatural Attachment to one of his officers and Elizabeth Taylor as the Embittered Frigid Wife (I forget if he kills himself or is done in by some horrible military-style accident). John Huston's biography goes into great detail about how he made Clift's life a living hell on the set after having observed Clift emerging from a male film journalist's room in the wee hours of the morning; in Huston's worldview it was fine to be queer if you were sissified and thus "warning" everyone around you of the fact, like Truman Capote (his screenwriter on Beat the Devil), but "straight-acting" queers like Clift were the real enemy. I always wondered how widespread that attitude was or wasn't.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]thebratqueen
2003-01-29 08:24 am UTC (link)
[nod] Yeah, the "sissy" character is a fascinating one, esp when you see how other characters react to it at different points in Hollywood. I actually had something of a "Oh yeah" moment when I saw the character described in various movies, then realized that I could not only spot the sissy character in modern films (which admittedly wasn't hard to do) but (and herein was my realization) why certain modern films felt the need to put the sissy character there.

It was esp interesting as a slash fan to see the evolution of the sissy character described in TCC as, basically, Hollywood's response to all the slashy goodness of buddy pictures. (IE by putting the sissy character into the film, they could then defend themselves by saying "The main characters aren't gay!! This guy is gay."

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]stakebait
2003-01-29 06:41 am UTC (link)
Cool! New things to read/watch.
Thanks, and welcome home!

Mer

(Reply to this)


[info]wiebke
2003-01-29 06:53 am UTC (link)
One other movie I just thought of where the slash content doesn't even have to be sniffed out is Rebel Without A Cause. Poor Sal Mineo, you reallllly feel it for him since boy, does he have it bad for the Rebel character... :(

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]thebratqueen
2003-01-29 08:25 am UTC (link)
[nod] I believe the scriptwriter said that if he had it to do over again he would make that much more clearer in the film. But as it is it's supposed to be understood that that's what's going on.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kyuuketsukirui
2003-01-29 10:17 am UTC (link)
An excellent example of the evil gay stereotype in a more modern movie would be The Talented Mr. Ripley. Tom's unnatural obsession with Dickie, which ends in Dickie's death, and then God forbid there be a happy ending where Tom confesses to Peter and Peter accepts him (because I'm convinced Peter would have understood!), no, he has to go and kill Peter, too, because he's Irredeemably Evil.

Grace

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dragoness_e
2004-12-23 03:52 am UTC (link)
Erm, that's unfortunately in character for Mr. Ripley. The movie is based on one of a whole series of books with Tom Ripley as the anti-hero protagonist... and he's an absolutely amoral, sociopathic killer. That's who the character is. To do otherwise would be horribly out-of-character. Godzilla doesn't make nice to small Japanese children, and Tom Ripley doesn't expose his weaknesses to anyone and let them live.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]kyuuketsukirui
2004-12-23 04:02 am UTC (link)
Whether you're talking about the book or movie, it's still an example of the evil gay stereotype. Just because it was a book first doesn't make it any less so.

(And wow, this thread is from like two years ago... O_o)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]backfromspace
2003-01-29 03:09 pm UTC (link)
Re: Tara/Willow, I have to say that I don't really think the Dead or Evil thing applies. All the relationships on that show end badly; I think that Joss was trying to avoid making Willow or Tara look bad (like Riley, who didn't bother to look back at poor Sobbing!Buffy, or Spike with the rape scene, or Oz with the insanity/werewolf thing...) because then we'd all have freaked out at him for portraying lesbians as bad people. Basically, the only way to end that relationship that would make canonical sense considering the characters was the death of one of them, and BtVS seems to depend a great deal on new relationships for the heroes to stay interesting.

(Reply to this)

Tennessee Williams
[info]princessgolux
2004-05-16 03:29 am UTC (link)
Just a quick shout to TW, because I love him so.

Williams was very, very open about his sexuality at a time when it could have been (and frankly was at times) a serious impediment to a serious career. His plays weren't just about that, though, 'cause TW loved the very notion of freak. All of his plays are about people struggling to find something in a world that views them as unnatural (usually in worlds that are themselves unnatural) and out of over 30 plays, only five don't contain some sort of horrific violence (including at least one castration and one scene of cannibalism by feral children.)

The most interesting thing in all of this, is that Elia Kazan often cut and changed whole scenes when he brought Williams' plays to the stage. And most published versions of most scripts are the version that come out of the first produced production, already changed by the director. (I have read five different "versions" of Glass Menagerie, for instance.) So it becomes difficult to pull apart how much "gay angst" Williams put in, how much was more "freak angst" and how much angst Elia Kazan (or his successors) thought was neccesary in terms of the Code.

(/ramble)

Sorry. Williams is totally fascinating to me.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…