1. Robyn Connor
How does the representation of homosexuality change from Mainstream to
Independent cinema?
[Presenter Speaks]
Since the beginning of cinema homosexuality has been a taboo subject that has
been misrepresented. In this presentation I will be comparing how Independent
cinema portrays the theme of homosexuality in comparison to Mainstream cinema. I
have chosen this topic because I believe there is a radical difference in the
representation of the subject between the two industries and I want to understand
why the representation is so different. For my presentation, the focus films I have
chosen are Mysterious Skin (2004, Dir: Gregg Araki), The Birdcage (1996, Dir: Mike
Nichols) and Milk (2008, Dir: Gus Van Sant). I have chosen these films because they
all contain the theme of homosexuality but in their own way.
[Presenter Speaks]
Using dictionary.com we can determine that there is a stark difference between the
words ‘Independent’ and ‘Mainstream’. The definition of Independent is;
"not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free"
compared to the definition of Mainstream which is;
"belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted
group, movement, style, etc."
[Presenter Speaks]
You can see by comparing the words ‘free’ and ‘belonging’ that there is a stark
contrast between the two. The word ‘belonging’ suggests that the filmmaker must
adhere to a prescribed set of rules that have already been put in place (such as
genre, narrative, representations etc.) This means that there are restriction and
limitations on what they can show. The word ‘free’ on the other hand suggests that
there are no limitations put in place and the filmmaker is welcome to include any and
all ideas without there being any restrictions.
[Projector:Play 'sissy' extract from The Celluloid Closet]
[Presenter Speaks]
In The Celluloid Closet, actors and actresses voice their opinions on how the
representation of homosexuality has changed over the years in cinema. In one scene
they talk about archetypes, specifically the ‘sissy’. There are conflicting views on the
subject as two openly gay men voice their opinions on the subject. The first opinion
came from Arthur Laurents who said, “Theywere a cliche, and I don't care if they
were a gay cliche or what. I thought they were disgusting, unfunny, had
no business being in it, and I never understood why people laughed.” It is
obvious that the character type appalled and offended him. The second opinion
came from Harvey Fierstein who said, “I liked the sissy, is it used in negative
ways? Yeah, but my view has always been visibility at any cost. I'd rather have
negative than nothing.” From this I can deduce that there is a substantial difference
of opinion when it comes to the representation of homosexuality in film, even within
the gay community. The fact that Harvey Fierstein, a proud gay man, condones this
representation of homosexuality as long as it is presented in some shape or form is
quite sad as it is misrepresenting the subject to an audience who may not be aware
an archetype is being used. It also shows us how far the homosexual community will
go to be accepted by a mainstream audience.

2. Robyn Connor
[Presenter Speaks]
Call her Savage was made in 1932, a time where homosexuality was discriminated
against and even forbidden. "After WW2, thousands of gay and lesbian people
were dishonorably discharged from the armed services, and many were simply
dumped in port cities." The attitude towards homosexuality in the 30's and 40's
was disgusting and they were treated like they were inhuman. "The term'gay'
would not be in wide currency until the 1940s and 1950s, except as code to the
cognoscenti. Homosexuals themselves used the words 'faggot', 'fairy', and
'queer', or theysometimes called themselves 'temperamental'." Homosexuality
was thriving but not in Mainstream society. In everyday life they were forced to be
someone else, to act like a different person but "For a brief time in the late 1920s
and early 1930s, similar scenes unfolded up and down the city, as a relatively
open gay culture thrived in Chicago, with gay cabarets and nightclubs
proliferating throughout the Near North and South sides." These clubs were
called 'Pansy Clubs' and they provided a place for homosexuals to be themselves.
[Projector:Play Call her Savage gay bar scene]
[Presenter Speaks]
This scene from Call her Savage provided a mainstream audience with their first
glimpse into a gay bar. Previously this part of the homosexual community had not
been shown in film because the industry was ruled by 'The Big 5' who only made
films they could sell. Due to this, mainstream cinema reflected their ideologies about
homosexuality onto the mainstream audience as there wasn't any independent films
available to oppose the negative representation at that time. Even though this film is
modern for the time, Call her Savage still uses the stock character of the ‘sissy’, in
this scene seen prancing about and being overly effeminate. They chose to include
this stereotype because it was the only recognisable representation of homosexuality
for a Mainstream audience at that time.
[Presenter Speaks]
In Richard Dyer’s book Gay’s in film, he says ‘Gayness should express itself on
film.’ As I have demonstrated with the character of the 'sissy', directors find it easy to
include the stereotype because it’s a pre-established convention that is easily
recognisable. According the dictionary.com, the ‘a set form; convention’. This
implies that Dyer just wants his sexuality to be represented fairly, as he is no different
to a heterosexual man. He believes that gay stock characters in film are harming the
representation of homosexuality within the straight community, as film is the only
time they have had the chance to experience life through a gay man/woman’s eyes.
By creating stock characters such as the ‘sissy’, Hollywood are providing the straight
community with a tarnished view of homosexuality and therefore providing a
misrepresentation. As Mainstream cinema is only providing one representation, it
encourages audience members to accept this representation as the only one
available. Due to this misrepresentation, Independent cinema have adopted a much
more realistic representation of homosexuality. This is because the directors of
independently funded films have the freedom to present homosexuality more equally
than Mainstream cinema.
[Projector:Play The Birdcage trailer]
[Presenter Speaks]
Discussing the ‘sissy’ as a stock character helps to lead on to the first of my focus
films, The Birdcage. Released in 1996, the film revolves around Armand Goldman
(Robin Williams) and Albert Goldman (Nathan Lane) who own a gay bar in South
Beach, an area renowned for its vibrant homosexual community. When Armand's

3. Robyn Connor
son from a one night stand, Val Goldman (Dan Futterman), comes to town to tell
them that he is getting married to the daughter of an ultraconservative Republican
Senator, this causes tension and friction between him and his father.
[Presenter Speaks]
Overall the film provides a positive representation of homosexuality as the main
characters are a gay couple who own a gay bar. It also challenges America's right
wing views on the subject by making Kevin Keeley (Gene Hackman) a Senator. This
is demonstrated a number of ways, the most obvious being how both Armand and
Albert need to pretend to be someone they're not just for the benefit of the Keeley
family. The whole narrative is based around 2 proud gay men trying to appease a
stereotypical 'All American' family. Even though this could be seen as harmful to the
representation, I believe it was done to challenge America's views. "Even though
the characters are stereotypical, the script has obviously been written by
someone who doesn't intend to contribute to the stereotypical view of the gay
drag community" This quote from IMDB helps to support my argument as they don't
believe the film was harmful in any way to the theme of homosexuality. Furthermore,
there is no recognition of acceptance from the Keeley family as the ending simply
demonstrates how the Keeley family use the Goldman's for their own selfish gain.
Their blatant homophobia is also not challenged nor do they learn a lesson.
[Presenter Speaks]
I t is obvious even before we see Albert that he is the stereotypical 'sissy' character
as he is continuously referred to as 'her' by Armand and the stage hand. Throughout
the entire film Albert is portrayed as a comical character due to his overt
homosexuality and femininity. Alongside Albert, the character of Agador (Hank
Azaria) is also very flamboyant but in a very different way. I believe that Albert's
character contains many females mannerisms whereas Agador is just a very
extravagant gay man. The character of the 'sissy' can be applied to both but it is
more relevant with Albert as he is often referred to as 'her' and there is even a point
where Armand tells him he's not a woman and Albert replies 'You bastard!'. The
juxtaposition between Albert's real gender and the gender he 'plays' during the film is
even demonstrated when he dresses up as the Mother.
[Projector:Play The Birdcage scene]
[Presenter Speaks]
In the scene, Albert successfully pretends to be Val's mother. Much of the humour in
the scene comes from Kevin's ignorance. This is because he doesn't realise that
Albert is a man. I believe that the juxtaposition between sexuality and gender was
included to challenge the audiences expectations. It could be said that Nichols was
trying to highlight and challenge the ignorance of white, middle class Americans as
Albert is the stereotypical 'sissy' character and Kevin finds him fascinating.
[Presenter Speaks]
Richard Dyer also says “To show gays 'realistically' on the screen means to
show them in conventions of the prevailing cinematic realism.” This quote
claims that if a director wants to show a gay character realistically they need to
portray them as 'real people' and not use the stereotypes that have already been
established by both societies views and previous films. Although by doing this and
making a conscious effort not to abide by the stereotypes they are therefore giving
special privileges to the character because of their sexual orientation. Dyer just
wants homosexuality to be portrayed as easily as heterosexuality in film, without
anybody tip-toeing around the subject. This leads me on to the second of my chosen
films, Mysterious Skin. I chose this film to focus on because an openly gay director

4. Robyn Connor
made it independently. I found the subject both intriguing and thought provoking,
because of these aspects it is more unusual than most films depicting homosexual
relationships.
[Projector:Play Mysterious Skin trailer]
[Presenter Speaks]
Mysterious Skin attempts to portray homosexuality realistically by centering the
narrative around a homosexual boy who doesn’t adhere to any pre-determined
archetypes. The film shows the struggles of two young men, Brian and Neil, and how
the events from their pasts are affecting them in their later years. The
film doesn't attempt to sugarcoat the story and plainly demonstrates it in a way in
which challenges the audiences expectations.
[Projector:Play Mysterious Skin scene]
[Presenter Speaks]
Within the first 20 minutes of the film we witness a disturbing and alarming
molestation scene between one of the main characters. As the story is told from
Neil's POV we are forced to be put in his shoes. Neil’s blatant naivety to the situation
emphasises how young he is and the danger that he is in. This is demonstrated
when Coach is taking pictures of Neil and having him speak into a voice recorder.
The whole situation seems very innocent in Neil's eyes because he doesn't see
Coach as a threat but as spectators we feel uncomfortable and alarmed by this.
Neil's apparent crush on Coach also alters his recollection of the events because
he doesn't understand that what is happening is wrong. The Director, Gregg Araki,
uses POV shots from both Neil and Coach to keep reminding the audience of Neil's
age and how vulnerable he is in the situation. Araki also frames the POV in a close-
up so the audience are forced to watch nothing but Neil and Coach. This scene is
made even more disturbing by the gum that Coach is chewing throughout the whole
scene. The juxtaposition between his age and the connotation of immaturity relating
to gum helps to reinforce his predatory nature.
[Projector:Play Milk trailer]
[Presenter Speaks]
Milk is a biographical film based on the life of the gay activist and politician Harvey
Milk (Sean Penn). Harvey narrates the film throughout as we see him record his
voice will, said to be recorded only 9 days before his assassination. He begins on his
40th birthday when he meets his much younger lover, Scott Smith (James Franco).
Together they move to San Francisco as a bid to find acceptance and open Castro
Camera in an area called Eureka Valley which is quickly evolving into a
predominately gay neighborhood known as The Castro. Whilst there they face mild
discrimination and unease which forces Harvey to become a gay activist. Overall Milk
is the story of how Harvey fought for equality and freedom for gay people in San
Francisco, eventually leading to his assassination by Dan White (Josh Brolin).
[Projector:Play Milk scene]
[Presenter Speaks]
One of the most moving scenes in the film is when we witness the suicide of
Harvey's boyfriend, Jack Lira (Diego Luna). The scene is particularly hard because
previously in the film, Harvey discusses with another character how 2 of his
boyfriends earlier in his life had tried to commit suicide. An article from The Bay Area
Reporter on the subject of Milk quoted Diego Luna who said; "[Jack was] a guy

5. Robyn Connor
who had a big struggle in life, He had a lot of loneliness, and just the fact of not
being accepted in your family sounds like enough to get lost." The scene begins
in Harvey's office as he is on the phone to Jack who is obviously distressed and
wants Harvey home. Harvey promises to be home by 6.15 but gets caught up in
work. When he arrives home he is greeted to lots of messages written on paper and
paperwork trailed up the stairs. This is a visual signifier of Jack's psychological
mindset and informs the audience that something bad is about to happen. As Harvey
makes his way up the stairs the amount of paper gets denser and Harvey gets more
anxious and worried until he finds Jack hanging from the ceiling. His cries of anguish
help to add to the tension of the situation, alongside the non-diegetic music.
[Presenter Speaks]
Overall, I believe that Milk is a completely different film to both The Birdcage and
Mysterious Skin because even though it represents the theme of homosexuality it
doesn't use stereotypes. I think this is because it's a true story so by using
stereotypes they would be removing the realistic elements and replacing it with a
farcical nature. I also believe that the movies portrays the theme of homosexuality
well and doesn't portray it in a derogatory or demeaning way. "As a subject for a
movie, Milk's story is far removed from the familiar topics of gay cinema.
Certainly, his story is remote from anything that he could himself have seen.
Until veryrecently, gay films ran along veryclearly defined rails." As Milk is an
Independent film, Gus Van Sant had more room for freedom and creativity when
making the film. The stylistic choices he made such as the real footage from the 70's
and real photos of the characters really gave the film a realistic feel which may not
have been possible is made by a Mainstream studio. He also included a scene with
Harvey and Scott in bed together, which may not have been as widely accepted by a
Mainstream audience even though the film was released in 2008.
[Presenter Speaks]
In conclusion, I believe that the representation of homosexuality changes
dramatically from Mainstream to Independent cinema. I think this because out of my
three focus films, the two independently made films (Mysterious Skin and Milk) are
the only ones that provide an equal and non-judgmental view of homosexuality. This
being said, The Birdcage does attempt to subvert the representation in its own way
but it still contains archetypes, comical humor towards the gay characters and no
recognition of acceptance between the Keeley's and the Goldman's.