Queer Representation in Hollywood: Still a Long Way to go
by Pamela Ewert
by Pamela Ewert
José Arroyo proposes in the 1984 edition of Concordia’s
student newspaper The Link a “guide to gay films”. In his article, Arroyo appears highly
critical of the way homosexual characters or relationships are being depicted in
the films he introduces. Most of the movies he names came out in the early 80s,
although he does mention some earlier ones. For context, homosexuality was
decriminalized in 1969 in Canada. However, it was only removed from the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1974[i].
With this in mind, one can imagine that cinematic representation of members of
the LGBTQ community as something other than objects of medical fascination was still
quite uncommon at the time. Surprisingly, the author is quite progressive for
his time as, instead of mindlessly rejoicing that a movie featuring LGBT themes
came out, he remains critical of the type of representation the movies offer.
Arroyo is able to discern that most “gay films” at the time were not
catered towards a homosexual crowd. Moreover, with a few modifications,
Arroyo’s general argument can be recuperated today.
The author recognizes that the great majority
of mainstream films featuring homosexual characters are meant to please a
heterosexual audience. Only ten years had passed since homosexuality had
officially stopped being considered as a mental illness. In this context, one
would not be surprised that any movie that portrayed homosexuality as a valid
sexual identity would be welcomed by the queer community, who was still very
highly marginalized in 1984. Arroyo claims that the usual depiction of
homosexual relationships on film is negative and sends the message that
homosexuality is shameful or damaging. On the subject of on-screen depiction of
lesbian relationship, he asserts that ''the messages of the film are clear:
love between women does not exist, relationships between women are sterile,
sadistic, and second rate copies of heterosexual relationships, and lastly, if
you have to be a lesbian, be so in the closet or you'll end up lonely and unhappy.''[ii]
This rather pessimistic view of mainstream movies of the 60s to 80s, while
slightly dramatized, reveals the failure of Hollywood directors to include
multidimensional, genuine queer characters in their movies, as well as their
tendency to taint the script with moral undertones. Pushing his critique even
further, Arroyo argues that ''the commercial cinema uses a gay theme only to
exploit it.''[iii]
This is quite interesting as bell hooks makes similar a critique about the film
Paris is Burning, which she believes is catered towards a white audience
and is discriminatory towards the black queer community. ''Watching Paris is
Burning, I began to think that the many yuppie-looking, straight-acting, pushy,
predominantly white folks in the audience were there because the film in no way
interrogates ‘whiteness’.''[iv] In fact, just
like Paris is Burning depicts black
drag queens through the lens of white privilege, it seems that most of the movies Arroyo describes depict homosexual relationships
through the distorting filter of heteronormativity. bell hooks additionally
states that Paris is Burning ''turned the black drag ball into a
spectacle for the entertainment of those presumed to be on the outside of this
experience looking in. So much of what is expressed in the film has to do with
questions of power and privilege and the way racism impedes black progress.''[v]
Drawing a parallel with this quote, one can argue that the Concordia student is
arguing that the unrealistic way in which film directors depict homosexual
relationships is influenced by their homophobic views. Overall, it seems that
Arroyo’s incisive critique recognizes that most “gay films” produced in this
era were meant to be enjoyed by a heterosexual audience. This remark is quite surprising
considering that homosexual characters were only starting to be represented on
film as something other than victims of a psychological disorder.
Arroyo’s failure to mention the lack of racial
or class diversity in gay films is disappointing. Nevertheless, his main
argument can be updated to better fit contemporary issues in Hollywood
representation. Analysing this article from a third wave feminist perspective,
one easily notices the lack of consideration of intersectionality in the
author’s article. Race or class is not taken into account in Arroyo’s criticism
of mainstream gay films. This makes his critique rather one-dimensional. However,
it is important to keep in mind that the term intersectionality was coined by
Crenshaw in 1989, namely 5 years after the article analysed was written. In her
article introducing the concept of intersectionality, Crenshaw suggests that
the “focus on otherwise-privileged group members creates a distorted analysis
of racism and sexism because the operative conceptions of race and sex become
grounded in experiences that actually represent only a subset of a much more
complex phenomenon”[vi]. This means
that an analysis of racism or sexism which only takes into account the
experiences of the most privileged members of marginalized groups is not
representative of the reality of many individuals. Preceding Crenshaw’s
landmark essay, the consideration of the particular experiences of individuals
who are defined by their inscription in more than one marginalized group was
not part of mainstream feminism. For this reason, it is possible to forgive the
author, who is still writing within the context of feminism’s second wave. Nevertheless,
the author’s main argument that any representation is not necessarily good
representation remains relevant today. It would only have to be updated to
include other marginalized groups that would benefit from more positive mass
media representation. For instance, there remains a crucial lack of
representation of queer people of color in Hollywood films and when they are
represented, it is often in an insulting way. Furthermore, a modern-day
critique of negative representation of minorities should include the phenomenon
of tokenism, a practice characterised by the granting of minimal roles to
ethnic or sexual minorities in order to give the illusion of diversity in films
(or in ads, the workplace, etc.). It is possible to speculate that this
practice was not as common at the time Arroyo wrote his article as sexual
minorities were much more marginalized and on-screen diversity was not as
valued as it is today. Altogether, Arroyo’s criticism about the representation
of homosexual relationships on film is quite dated, namely for its lack of an
intersectional critique. Yet, as mentioned, the idea that one must remain
critical of the type of representation offered by Hollywood remains relevant
today.
In conclusion, Arroyo offers a compelling critique of
the “gay films” currently playing at the local cinemas at the time the article
was written. Some of the issues he mentions, such as the offensive
representation of sexual minorities exhibited in Hollywood movies, persist to the
present day. The lack of concern for the insufficient representation of racial
minorities in gay films displayed by the author might upset a modern-day
reader. However, one must remain conscious that term intersectionality was only
coined in 1989 and that, putting aside this important omission, the gist of
Arroyo’s argument is still pertinent as Hollywood still scores poorly in terms
of authentic minority representation.
[i] John Alan Lee, "Homosexuality," The Canadian
Encyclopedia, last modified March 23, 2015.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/homosexuality/
[ii] José Arroyo, "False Chic: A Guide to Gay Films," The
Link, Mar.20, 1984.
[iii] Ibid.
[v] Idem: 152.
[vi] Kimberle Crenshaw, "Demarginalizing the
Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination
Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics," The University of Chicago
Legal Forum (1989): 140.
Comments
Post a Comment