The documentary The Celluloid Closet was extremely successful at capturing the various cultural attitudes on the portrayal of gay and lesbian relationships in film. Watching the documentary was not only interesting but also educational, as I haven’t had much exposure to the topic in general. The particular issue in the documentary which really struck my attention and my consideration, however, was the relationship between the end of a film and the societal norm it represented.
To be more specific, the pattern of suicide at the end of a film is an example of this relationship. As the several screenwriters, actresses, actors and directors explained, a gay or lesbian relationship was socially unacceptable. This, in turn, left the characters in the film subjected to feelings of “dirtiness,” guilt, self-loathing, confusion and severe depression after engaging in these relationships. These feelings acted as the catalysts to the common ending of the gay or lesbian character being killed at the end of the film, from either suicide or murder. However, my question is which came first? Were the movies only illustrating an ending which was already socially known or accepted? Or did the films play more of a role in dictating the opinion which society should have on gay and lesbian relationships?
Though I am hesitant to give the film industry that much power in its ability to sway its audience, I do think that the study of these issues through film is important for that reason. If the film was merely mirroring a social norm, how can its message be powerful? On the other hand, if the films were affecting the opinions of the public, why were their messages on the subject of gay and lesbian relationships so negative, unacceptable and unforgiving in the first place?
I'd guess the answer to these questions runs along the continuum of positive to negative intentions. No doubt some of these films sought to tell stories that were sensational and attention-getting, for entertainment's sake and to sell tickets (Basic Instinct, for example). But others obviously wanted to portray both sides of the story, and offer differing points of view. In my opinion, it's ultimately not helpful to only portray the ideal image of things; without contrasting images and stories, there would be no way to navigate the conflicts and issues surrounding homophobia. I liken this somewhat to the way that the old racist stereotypes portrayed in many vintage Warner Brothers' cartoons are no longer played on TV. Without seeing them, we can't learn from them, or place them in their proper historical context.
ReplyDelete,