After recently reading an interview with David S Goyer (writer of “Batman Begins” among others) on his new TV show “DaVinci’s Demons” on AfterElton.com (a gay centered entertainment site) as he tried to argue that his show won’t shy away from the historically factual homosexual lifestyle Leonardo da Vinci is strongly believed to have led, it struck me just how much homosexuals, of which I am one, have had to put up with in the last couple of years when it comes to lack of homosexual media representation and in particular this idea of “straight-washing” homosexuality from our film and TV screens.
Though the show “DaVinci’s Demons” has yet to air, David S Goyer’s comments as he tried to defend his apparent “straight-washing” of Leonardo da Vinci rubbed me the wrong way, and for good reason, because he used the same kind of rhetoric and defensive speaking secret homophobes, or at least those trying to prevent the advancement of homosexual representation particularly in the media and political world have been using for years and years. Though I do not know Goyer personally, and though I have yet to see the show, something about the interview and the trailers for the show set to air in a few months makes me strongly believe that though he claims the show doesn’t “straight-wash” anything, in reality, by the comments and marketing so far it seems very, very likely that it will in fact “straight-wash” a lot. +
Though I will start this article discussing these comments about this new show, this article plans to cover a lot of the anti-homosexual moves the media has taken in the last couple of years, and this is just a starting point to try to convince those still unconvinced or ultra defensive that this kind of thing is currently a problem in the media and why it needs to stop.
David S Goyer begins his defense when asked why the show has already raised criticism from those in “gay community” or in reality, any one who knows the history of da Vinci by arguing the following statement…
“DaVinci was arguably one of the famous if not the most famous people in history, who was involved in all of these aspects. So I think it’s a little odd that there’s so much debate about his sexuality, which should be kind of irrelevant and definitely seemed to be irrelevant during the time, and the era, and the place that our show takes place”.
… and this is an example of exactly the kind of rhetoric I am referring to. Though the comments may sound convincing, in reality they are highly ignorant and misguided. In particular when Goyer states that his sexuality was “irrelevant” and especially “irrelevant during the time” it is simply insulting. First of all, when is any one’s sexuality ever irrelevant? Sexuality is an important part of every persons life, whether heterosexual, homosexual or other, and I am sure, had da Vinci been exclusively heterosexual Goyer wouldn’t have felt the need to call his sexuality irrelevant… it is only because he was considered homosexual or at the very least bisexual that Goyer feels the need to call his sexuality irrelevant because he doesn’t want the criticism he deserves to get by making one of “the most famous people in history” heterosexual as apposed to homosexual. Secondly, considering Goyer even admits in the article that da Vinci was at one point in his life arrested for participating in gay sexual intercourse, the fact that he believes sexuality was irrelevant at that time shows he has no sympathy for the struggles of gay men and women throughout history. The sheer fact that at this time in history homosexuality was an arrestable offense shows that sexuality was certainly not “irrelevant during the time”.
Of course, if the show were to portray no use of sexuality what so ever and be open to readers opinion his views on this matter may be more valid and acceptable, but when the marketing and trailer makes a huge point of the heterosexual love making between da Vinci and a female character as one of its key selling points (as seen below in the trailer) then Goyer has no defense when accused of trying to overally “straight-wash” a, at the very least, bisexual important historical figure.
The show promises however not to completely shy away from this important and sadly still controversial side of da Vinci’s life, but seeing as Goyer later goes on to say…
“I think that particularly when your readers actually see this show I think our approach is a bit more nuanced than might first appear.”
… it is clear that the majority of the homosexual sexuality used in this show will be suggestions in the dialogue and winks to the audience that know the history of da Vinci’s life, especially considering how very in your face and un-nuanced the heterosexuality has been so far in the trailer.
Maybe you are still unconvinced, or maybe you believe there is simply nothing wrong with changing the sexuality of a famous and beloved character in order to attract a larger target audience but, if you are heterosexual, try to consider this point of view from a homosexual perspective. Say for example homosexuals were in control of the media and changed the sexuality of a well known and beloved heterosexual character into a homosexual character… would you then not be insulted by this? Say for example a film was made with a gay Clark Kent/ Superman or a gay JFK… would this not insult you, especially considering it is completely inaccurate to the history and the legacy of the character. Would not da Vinci himself be insulted to know that his homosexuality was to be straight-washed this way, especially considering he himself even broke laws and was tried in his time in order to participate in a gay relationship? But, if anything, this issue is much more important to homosexuals in the audience, especially considering the lack of famous historical characters who were gay compared to heterosexual famous figures. Straight-wash even a couple of our homosexual famous figures and we are left with very little representation at all.
This is not an issue, like I said previously that hasn’t come up before, and in fact there is a recent, very high profile Academy Award nominated (and likely winning film) which could be considered as “straight-washing” a famous gay historical figure. Though I am aware of many Americans who get insulted when this highly likely statement is even whispered, as a gay man I myself am insulted by anyone who would consider it an insult to suggest someone might have been gay so I am just going to go ahead regardless. Though I have yet to see this film because I live in the UK and we generally get films much later than in the states, Abraham Lincoln, the central figure in the film “Lincoln” (obviously) is highly considered by many historians to have been a closeted gay man living in a time when the vast majority of gay men and women had to be closeted for legal reasons. I have heard though, much to my disappointed, that although this film was written by a gay man known for his seminal gay works, Tony Kushner (Angels in America) who himself has been stated as believing Lincoln was likely a gay man, the film features no gay suggestions or themes what so ever.
In defense of the film Lincoln, I can kind of forgive Kushner for “straight-washing” this very important historical figure. He has said, because the film resolves around a very important and specific time in American history, that Lincoln doesn’t have the time in this period of his life for any sort of sexuality what so ever, so although I would have liked to have seen this element of his life addressed, as long as there aren’t any steamy scenes with Mr Lincoln and Mary Todd (which I highly doubt there would be considering) then this film can be forgiven much more than “straight-washing” da Vinci can. However, I feel that considering Lincoln is about Abraham Lincoln’s efforts to free the slaves and trying to give freedom and liberty to all, linking the film with the homosexual civil rights injustice of our and Lincoln’s generation would have been an interesting comparison to see, so for this reason it might have been interesting to get a feel for what life as a closeted gay man in this time would have been like to experience for Lincoln if he was indeed homosexual, which a lot of historical evidence strongly suggests.
Other than “straight-washing” perhaps the most famous homosexual historical figures the world has ever known, this year has brought other upsetting revelations when it comes to homosexual representation in film and TV. The much hyped film “Behind the Candelabra: My Life with Liberace” directed by Steven Soderbergh and featuring Oscar winners Micheal Douglas and Matt Damon as homosexual characters was turned down by all the major film studios because apparently the film was seen as “too gay” and because of this is to be released as a HBO TV movie. It is funny how although the media is often criticized as being too liberal or even being itself “gay”, it still cares more about profit and audience figures than it does about representing and appealing to neglected and under-represented minorities.
Perhaps you are of the population who think homosexual people should just be grateful that they have any media representation what so ever, and should just shut up and watch Glee and Modern Family and pretend like the world loves them… but I am not one of those people and I think it’s sad that homosexual people are expected to put up with this kind of behavior or else be accused of whining or participating in the apparent war we have going where we plan to turn every character in Film and TV gay, along with all your husbands and children, and while we are at it have an all out war on Christmas. I wish that people, like David S Goyer and many others would stop being so defensive and proud, and either admit that they are either closeted homophobes, ignorant to the struggles of homosexual men and women, or just straight out admit that the reason they aren’t “gaying up” their films and TV shows is because they will struggle to find an audience. Homosexual people are expected to wait patiently for things and people to “evolve”, while they continue to be denied basic human rights and sadly, through misinformed ignorance generally be considered sexual deviants… and unfortunately for the majority of the time we do just this… we wait.
When President Obama last year announced his support for homosexuals to be legally able to get married, heterosexuals expected homosexuals to be over-the-moon and thankful, and sadly it seemed so did Obama. The sad truth is that many homosexuals were and in my opinion seemed to completely miss the whole point of what was happening. I for one was one gay guy who was not “happy”. Sure, I was “glad” that finally gay rights were making a step forward, but I wasn’t going to be one of those homosexuals in the media to thank President Obama. This is how I see it… Would you be happy if some big bully came into your home, beat you up, stole all you possessions and then slowly began handing them back to you one by one? No you wouldn’t, and you shouldn’t be. Why should I be “happy”, and why should millions of Americans be happy that they had to wait years for some “straight guys” opinions to evolve, just so he could slowly begin handing out the same rights to them that they should have had since day one, and that heterosexual’s have never had to fight for. I am glad that movement is finally happening, but I am not going to thank the person that at one point in time believed we didn’t deserve those same rights. This is the kind of attitude and low self esteem homosexuals have been forced to accept, and this is key to the reasons homosexuals generally don’t complain when they are time and time again prevented from being represented in the media.
Many heterosexuals fear the unknown and homosexuality, and seem to think that us asking for and expecting more positive homosexual representation is akin to going to war with the whole of the media to the point that we will only be happy when every main character on every television show is gay. The truth is, unlike the vast majority of heterosexuals, we are happy to watch shows and films led by those with opposite sexual orientations to us, but all we ask, and all we expect is to be treated with some respect and dignity. Is it too much to ask for more than a handful of shows to feature homosexual protagonists? Is it too much to ask for a show led by a famous “gay” historical figure to actually be homosexual, without “straight-washing” the character so much that it may as well not be Leonardo da Vinci at all?
The sad truth is that the few Films and TV shows we get with central protagonists who are homosexual; “Glee”, “The New Normal”, “Brokeback Mountain”, are usually mocked and made fun of by not only the general population but often by critics. There was a time in 2006 when all gay jokes referred to “Brokeback Mountain” and you almost couldn’t call yourself a comedian unless you had one in your joke book. But the even sadder truth is that these shows which are often criticized for being “too gay” actually are still forbidden by their networks to feature the same kind of intimacy the straight characters on those same shows experience. Gay people are usually criticized when they complain however because apparently we should be thankful that at least these shows feature gay couples, and although these shows are far less the enemy than shows that feature no gay characters what so ever in order to steer clear from the criticism, we shouldn’t accept only half respectable representation.
One of this years most successful movies “Skyfall” seemed to be above criticism, and I personally regrettably have waited this long to express my disappointment in fear of being chased down the street by an angry torch wielding mob, but this film perfectly expresses the views those in Hollywood and the media in general think are acceptable to have against homosexuals. Though homosexuals were asked to be thankful that at least the film featured some representation, what was this representation really? A very stereotypical blonde haired and European villain who used his homosexuality as a weapon and threat to Bond’s heterosexual masculinity. Does the media really think all homosexuals are sexually aggressive, sex obsessed villains threatening to eradicate the heterosexual normative sexuality? But more sadly, does the media think they can get away with this type of insulting stereotype without people raising an eyebrow… and more importantly, why don’t more people pick up on films which still try to promote the message that ultra-masculine sexuality representations like James Bond, who is, might I add just as sex obsessed and perverse as Silva is (lets not forget Bond approached a woman naked in the shower, without her permission, to have sex with her, when the last conversation they had the woman talked about how she was sold to the sex industry and has been sexually abused most of her life) is the ideal, and these “straight heroes” should be praised and worshiped for tracking down and stopping any homosexual threat they encounter? Sadly though, the majority doesn’t pick up on this very glaring metaphor and instead complain at the mere suggestion that Bond may in fact be bisexual (something Daniel Craig has himself recently denied).
My point is however that though the media would have you believe that homosexuality is well represented and homosexuals should be thankful for the many examples of homosexual representations we have in the media, in reality heterosexuals are still preventing the progress of homosexual representation, and although it is popular to think that homosexuals are trying to wage war on the media in order to have what many consider “too much representation”, in reality it is not the homosexuals but the “heterosexual agenda” that it actively trying to “straight-wash” away even historical proven homosexual figures from our TV screens, while at the same time preventing A List staring homosexual films from hitting our cinema screens whilst continuing to reuse old and offensive gay stereotypes as villains in the most successful blockbuster movies.
This kind of behavior if anything seems to be a step backward not forward, and I would only hope that if people were to catch on to this trend and be aware that this blatant homophobia is still taking place, then someone, somewhere, with a lot more power than I might do something to turn the tides in favour of equality and acceptance, and not boring old ignorance and hatred.
We are currently seeking TV contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a TV contributor, click here.
48 Comments
I completely agree that, sexuality is very important. Especially growing up. To be comfortable in your own skin and not afraid all the time. Allows you to develop healthy relationships and discover who you are.
I very much agree with AJ – but I am still wondering why a person’s sexual preference should be anyone’s business but their and their partner’s? MYOB
I find it odd that this is a common argument people like to bring up. If the character was heterosexual in life, I’m sure you wouldn’t be saying this.
Sure, a persons sexual preference shouldn’t be anyone else’s business, but when being gay is still illegal in some countries and gay people still cannot get legally married in most places around the world than a persons sexuality becomes everyone’s business.
You say it shouldn’t be anyone else’s business as if I am being scandalous to even suggest someone may have been gay… as if I should stop because what I am saying is hurtful. Being gay is not a scandal, therefore I should be able to suggest that anyone may have been gay without people getting so upset about it.
Also, whereas in real life peoples sexuality may be no one else’s business, when it comes to film and TV it is wrong to present a fictional character as heterosexual when they certainly were not. If you do this then their sexuality becomes everyone’s business because it is simply factually incorrect to present it this way, and very insulting.
I have been watching Da Vinci’s Demons and you are correct. They misrepresented the character completely.
I am in the states and the show airs on Starz. Which I happen to have. Amazing show not sure what historical they are trying to show since this guy loves sex with woman…
Sexuality is important, but is also considered deeply personal. It shouldn’t over-shadow a person’s accomplishments, especially for people like Da Vinci and Lincoln, who had so much to offer the world.
There are more important things than a person’s sexual orientation.
If this were true why bother to make them straight at all then, and especially why bother to turn them straight instead of gay? Sexuality is a strong part of who a person is and what people desire, so to change that in any way is an insult to the person and frankly to their accomplishments. I wonder whether you would say the same thing, like I said in the article, had they turned someone who was known to be heterosexual homosexual just for the sake of it?
And why should the sexuality overshadow the accomplishments? Why can’t they both go side by side perfectly comfortably? It is only because the world still sadly views homosexuality as controversial that they would ever be considered as something that would overshadow someones accomplishments. Does being heterosexual over shadow someones accomplishments?… absolutely not, and neither does homosexuality.
I stated in the article that I can forgive the film Lincoln just about because in a feature film about a particular moment in Lincoln’s life they didn’t have time to go into too much depth about his personal life, but frankly I see your comment as someone who clearly hasn’t really given much thought to this issue and to be honest this kind of comment is insulting.
If in years to come I were ever to accomplish anything important with my life and a film were made about me, and for whatever reason they made me heterosexual I would be deeply upset and angered by this. If anything, the fact that Lincoln and Da Vinci were likely gay only makes their accomplishments seem more due to the fact that these things were accomplished in a society that still hates them.
This is an interesting article but in your desire stridently to argue your point, I feel, you overreach yourself. I agree wholeheartedly that there is an enduring problem with Hollywood resorting to lazy gay stereotypes, denying historical figures homosexuality (remember ’300′s Spartans that were so hyper-straight they became almost homoerotic again anyway) and, worse, that movies with any gay content struggle to get a distributor because there is a lack of belief they’ll find an audience (strange that funny and occasionally sweet con man romcom I Love You Philip Morris never got a US cinema release despite stars as big as Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor). However, this does not mean that ‘the vast majority of heterosexuals’ are unwilling ‘to watch shows and films led by those with opposite sexual orientations’ as you claim.
Also, while the likelihood is that you are right about Da Vinci’s Demons, it seems strange to spend so much time analysing a show that hasn’t even aired yet and that you can’t know for sure about. Lincoln’s sexuality can never be any more than the subject of wild speculation given the lack of any concrete evidence. Rather than being ‘highly considered by many historians to have been a closeted gay man’, it’s more a case of historians considering it to be a possibility that can’t really be proved or disproved (much like Shakespeare). Again, building your argument around this rather than characters whose sexuality is well known and was glossed over in Hollywood movies (like Alexander), I think, weakens the discussion.
Finally, as a gay woman (even one who doesn’t even live in America) I am happy, very happy, that gay men and women in America or here in Britain may be allowed to marry. Regardless of whether we should always have had that level of equal rights, it doesn’t make it unreasonable to be pleased to have them now any more than women being happy to finally get the vote or Africans in America being pleased no longer to be slaves. These are things to be happy about even if they should always have been so.
Incidentally, if you think Hollywood ‘straight-washes’ gay male relationships be thankful you don’t have to view gay women as nothing but titillation for men or manly bulldykes. ‘Brokeback Mountain’ may have been unpleasantly the subject of jokes but its indisputably a fine, successful, romantic gay male love story. There is no equivalent for lesbians.
Wasn’t the film “The Hours”, which I love by the way, a pretty critically acclaimed and Oscar nominated film whose main characters (played by very respectable actresses) were lesbians? So there is an equivalent for lesbians like Brokeback Mountain for gay men (and I don’t remember anyone making a big joke about The Hours when that was released, unlike they did for Brokeback Mountain).
To address some other points that you make, I didn’t say people couldn’t be pleased that we are to be given the same rights, more that people shouldn’t be overally happy and thankful to a man who spent 4 years as President before deciding that homosexuals should have the same rights as other human beings. Whilst I was also pleased about this, I certainly wouldn’t thank the man who for four years said that marriage was between a man and a woman. I think homosexuals in the majority have been denied so much respect over the years that when they get any good news what so ever they forget all that which has gone before in order to get and be happy about the good news. Sure, be glad that the tide is finally turning in our favour but never forget the years and years of hatred, ignorance, and prejudice homosexuals have had to put up with. Even though we living in the 21st century our “the lucky ones” in some respect (though we still have a long way to go), never forget that millions of people before us have had to live their whole lives in secret and have been put in prison or put to death for being a homosexual.
(p.s. Though it sounds like I am being really critical of Obama, though I wouldn’t have “thanked him” and been “overjoyed” at what he calls his “evolution” into finally seeing gay people as human beings, I would have still voted for him and still respect many of his other views)
And though you may disagree, I would still argue that “the vast majority of heterosexual people” struggle to watch films or TV shows centered around homosexual characters as if they couldn’t possibly relate to them. By this I don’t mean shows which feature gay characters, but shows whose cast of characters is centered on homosexual characters. If not the “vast majority” at least the majority. Maybe you live in a place which is very supportive of these issues and have many heterosexual friends who you know watch these kinds of shows and films, but from personal experience this is not the case, and I think you overestimate the majority of the population (especially if we are talking globally here). Though you could argue that this has more to do with the quality of the show than the characters (although I personally love the show) Glee for example is heavily criticized, mocked and unwatched by many people for being “too gay”- and though it features more members of the LGBTQ community than any other show currently on air, the majority of its characters are still heterosexual.
The reason I built my argument about Da Vinci and Lincoln is because these are examples from this year as apposed to the solid examples you gave which are from the past. Though those films could have featured in this argument I wanted it to focus more on the present day, to give a commentary on what the current climate looks like for a homosexual and homosexuality in the media. Though in this respect, thank you for adding to this argument and giving a brief history of other examples from the past to support it.
Though I sympathize and understand your disliking of the way lesbians and bisexual women are often portrayed in the media, as a gay man I assure you that the way men are generally portrayed in the media is not all that much better, if better at all. Believe it or not, not all of us are camp- though I appreciate that some our and I respect them for that. Sadly, because heterosexual middle aged men pretty much control the media, gay men are often portrayed as in your face, camp and annoying flamboyant “queens and lesbians are either portrayed as overally sexual or butch… because sadly it seems that is how most heterosexual men view us.
Any way, thank you for giving you view point and for reading this article. Though you had your complaints, I appreciate that their is an audience for this kind of article on this site… though as you’ll see by the view count, not a very big audience (which only goes to back up my claim that many heterosexuals are uncomfortable frankly with anything with the word homosexual in it).
* Just a couple of extra things. Number one, sorry for all the spelling errors in the above comment.
Secondly, though I have yet to see Da Vinci’s Demons and will give it some benefit of the doubt, Goyer’s comments in the interview insulted me and because Da Vinci was almost certainly homosexual (or at the very least bisexual) the trailer which shows him having passionate sex with women insulted me- these two elements inspired me to write this article hence why this is a focus.
And though Lincoln’s sexuality is not agreed upon fully and I am not a historian, it seems fairly likely to me that he was gay. If I recall he (or one of his housekeepers I think) wrote many times in a journal that he would share a bed with a man on many occasion. The writer of the film “Lincoln” also stated that he believed Lincoln was likely gay, and considering in order to write the film he would have had to do a lot of research into Lincoln’s life it seems likely. Also, lets not forget that the same percentage of homosexuals are around now as have always been (roughly 6-10 percent of the population) so it is statistically very likely that at least one US President was homosexual, though obviously at the time Lincoln wouldn’t have come out as a gay man. Also, many Americans are insulted at the suggestion that Lincoln could be gay so there would likely be some effort to cover this up or at least hide this. That said, I don’t want to say someone was definitely something or put a label on anyone who may or may not have been something, though I just personally don’t know all that many men who would share a bed with another man and who aren’t gay… and like I said, statistically if Lincoln wasn’t gay, then there is likely other Presidents that were.
I agree with the premise of the article, but since when is it agreed upon that Lincoln was gay? It was my understanding that Lincoln engaged in activities that might be considered weird today, such as sharing a bed with another man, but was perfectly normal in his era.
Again, I am not a historian and no one can know for sure, however all I know is that the writer of the film Lincoln believes there is truth to the homosexuality claims yet ignored this when writing the film (which in the case of this particular feature length film I can mostly accept).
Having just now done some more research into Lincolns sexuality it appears that sharing a bed with another men was considered something more heterosexuals would do in his day. Having said this, there is other evidence and suggestions that make it seem very possible that Lincoln was gay… though it is of course very difficult to know for sure without asking him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Abraham_Lincoln
You also have to remember that there are very very few people from around Lincolns time and before who would have admitted to being gay or would have even had gay relationships due to the way the law saw these people (or even who would have known with some certainty what sexuality they were because they weren’t allowed as much freedom to explore their sexualities or be educated on this).
This said, I was careful never to actually claim Lincoln was a homosexual, more that there was a possibility which deserved not to be “straight-washed” away through fear of controversy, and if the writer of the film claims he may have in fact been homosexual then it may have been an interesting issue to explore a little more. However, because this issue is much more up for debate than with Da Vinci who was pretty much known to be homosexual or at least bisexual, I tried not focus much of the article on Lincoln.
Wait just a second, now in “Skyfall” I thought that Bond himself in “Skyfall” said “This isn’t my first rodeo”, implying that he had also seduced men to accomplish his job? Bond seemed less threatened by Silvas advance.. I don’t really care what people or even Daniel Craig says, it makes sense for James Bond to have done that and in my head it wasn’t the least bit offensive or even controversial, in fact it makes a lot of sense to think that a secrent agent would always do what they need to do to get the job done.
I also think it’s important to note the age and gender of most studio executives, the change you’re asking for in representation of the lgbt community is one that is coming, it’s just a generation behind. In most cases, people 25 and under deem sexuality as irrelevant, and in suqsequent years, our movies will relfect that.
Thank you for reading. Yes I am aware that change is coming and the future of cinema will look different than it looks today, however I only wish that gay people would stop accepting that they have to wait for things and would rather people just reflected the future of cinema in cinema today. I agree that the age of most studio executives is important as to why homosexuality is often denied representation in Film and TV, but I am worried that because more and more films it seems (such as Skyfall) feel it is acceptable to portray homosexuality as they do, then although youth of today may not have a problem with it as such, many will subconsciously reflect the views Film and TV are telling us about what homosexual people are actually like, an will be very misinformed about the subject.
As for Skyfall, I think most people who made the film stand by the fact that Bond was just joking with Silva to gain the upper-hand in that scene, and in fact never had to seduce a man… that said, it is of course open to interpretation. It would be interesting if we were to see him seduce a man in later films (regardless of whether or not they make him bisexual, or exclusively heterosexual) though I am sure if a Bond film included a scene like this many many people would complain and the film would get a lot of flack for this. I personally would like to see a bisexual Bond, however because I appreciate Bond’s womanizing legacy, I think it is probably best if he were to remain heterosexual.
I do agree with your sentiments, as a straight man I (obviously) have no problem with gay representation in media. It would be nice to see a sci fi movie where there’s a hero who is masculine that saves the day who also just happens to be gay. It’s a shame that we have to wait for it, but I promise that the change will come and you’ll be writing an article in the next 5 years about a very positive gay hero in a movie.
Yeah it would seem a bit out of character for Bond to be suddenly rebranded as bisexual, although I don’t see why we can’t have a new gay/bi super-spy franchise (aside from potential box office fears, but we can’t exactly let that stop anyone from trying or we might as well just always go with the status quo).
Excellent article. I agree with everything you said, and they are things I’ve said myself. If one wishes to tell history, then tell the damn history! I’ve had every argument with every type of homophobe imaginable-but the discussion always leads to the same thing, the “Christian principles” to which I have to reply that Smerica was founded on religious freedom (I’m an American) and that god may not be everybody’s. since these are the same people that espouse the virtues of the Constitution, I simply say that regardly of your religious beliefs, tax-paying citizens should be allowed the same rights as every other tax-paying citizen-which itself is guaranteed in said document. So, though I’m straight, I understand the ignorance, bigotry, and misunderstanding that homosexuals face(at least in America), and you definitely should NOT be happy to just “take what you’re given”. That being said, take comfort in this-times ARE changing. It starts with a conversation, which we can at least now have. Nothing in a nation (or the world) changes overnight, it happens by degrees. Though everybody should have always had the same rights, it’s comforting to know that more people now support it. I liken it to the way Hollywood has treated all other minorities-such as the “minstrel period” of Hollywood, when black people were portrayed as ignorant, servant, parodies of human beings for comic relief, and then came Sidney Pointier, and it started to change-not overnight, but by degrees. The fact that so many stars have come out recently (I realize it doesn’t seem like a lot, but it’s more than I’ve seen in the past)gives me hope. I remember being so proud Zachary Quinto and hoping that maybe Hollywood will finally see that, yes, a gay man can still be bankable, that people honestly will not care one way or the other-that it is his acting on the screen that people will care about. Hopefully, it will also help studios realize that movies with strong gay characters can also be bankable (as Brokeback mountain-a beautiful film-should have shown them). Sorry to get off the actual topic of your article-concerning that: how much do you want to bet that Da Vinci’s “demons” in the show will be about him trying to keep his bi/homosexuality under wraps if it is mentioned at all?
Thanks for enjoying the article, and as you point out, obviously in not even that many years time this will be somewhat of a non-issue (though of course there will always be some homophobes for many many years to come, way after homosexuals are given equal rights under the law).
As for the show “Da Vinci’s Demons” you may be right that the “demons” element may be in part about him keeping his homosexuality under wraps though I strongly doubt it. I imagine this show will, like I said in the article, give little winks to the audience suggesting that da Vinci may have been bisexual, but for the majority of the show it will be about him trying to sleep with women and succeeding no doubt.
However, because this show has already caused upset within the gay community and it has yet to even air, I wouldn’t be at all surprised now if we did see Da Vinci engage in one homosexual act so the writers could claim they were always going to do this and all the people who complained before were stupid… though I’d be surprised if we saw Da Vinci have homosexual relations with more than one character and I’d be pretty surprised if they were as graphic with the sex scenes (if they show them at all) than they have been even in the trailer with the heterosexual sex scenes Da Vinci is seen participating in.
Thanks again for reading and giving your opinions on this issue.
Of course it is true that statistically it is highly likely that there have been some gay presidents, but the debate over Lincoln seems largely fueled by personal feelings rather than sound historical evidence, based largely on his status as the greatest president.
Really there’s a great deal more evidence that Lincoln’s predecessor James Buchanan was gay. However, given that he is widely regarded as one of the worst presidents (voted least successful president ever in a recent survey), gay academics may feel less driven to argue this point.
Lincoln as a universally admired figure becomes someone to whom historians can attach any personal position of their own in order to make him a role model. Any historian who claims with any degree of certainty that Lincoln was gay is as much driven by an agenda beyond simply understanding the truth as one that claims he certainly wasn’t. There just isn’t the evidence there.
While I understand that any repressed minority community needs major role models through history, I’m not wholly convinced by any historian with an agenda’s attempts to ‘claim’ historic figures without a decent amount of evidence.
Having said all that, film, even based in fact historical film, is still telling a fictional story and filmmakers and storytellers have far more right and expectation to approach things with their own agenda. So, I would be more OK with a film speculating and depicting a gay Lincoln than a historian who needs to rely on evidence.
After all, a gay Lincoln is far more likely than a vampire slaying one!
Thanks for this, and I accept your point of view on this matter. It seems there isn’t enough solid evidence either way really regarding Lincoln, and though I’d like to think based on the few bits of evidence I’ve read that Lincoln’s sexuality wasn’t as rigid as him being just heterosexual, for all I know and for all anyone knows he may very well have been. This all said however, I very much doubt (though like I said, I have yet to see the film) that any film regarding Lincoln would even show him sleeping in a bed with another man, even if no sex was involved, though this has been proven (though like you said, it doesn’t necessarily mean he was gay).
Also, as much as I agree that film makers have the right to tell what ever story they wish to and bend the truth in what ever way, if the film claims to be historical then respecting the history as best as is possible ( a lot of historical evidence is biased in one way or another) is the more responsible thing to do. So, in the case of Lincoln, though you couldn’t prove he was gay and though in the same regard you can’t really prove he was heterosexual either, steering away from the passionate sexual side of Lincoln’s life like the film apparently does is the best course of action so I can respect the films decision to do so. However, if the film were to suggest he may have been a closeted homosexual then I could also respect this, especially if the suggestions were left up to the interpretation of the audience, much like Lincoln’s own life is.
This all said you made some excellent recent examples of “straight-washing” homosexuality in your previous post and Da Vinci was known to engage in homosexuality hence why I devoted very little time to talking about Lincoln in the actual article… so this problem of “straight-washing” both in terms of changing a characters sexuality and censoring homosexuality from our screens is an obvious problem in the media.
But I will accept that my suggestion in the article that Lincoln likely was gay was a little misguided, and as I am not a historian I will leave Lincoln’s sexuality claims to those who have done far more research into Lincoln’s life than I (though again, the writer of “Lincoln” did state somewhere that whilst researching Lincoln’s life he believed Lincoln likely was gay or bisexual so, though not proven at all, there could very well be truth to the claims that he was).
Thanks for taking an interest in this article however, and I have enjoyed reading your comments on this issue.
Wonderful piece!
Thanks man! :)
Im a heterosexual, but I think Peter Griffin’s words best expresses my feelings. ‘If gays want to get married and suffer like the rest of us, let them’. Of course this article isn’t about gay marriage, but you get the idea.
You’ve got to love Peter Griffin :)
I just read an article on Da Vinci’s Demons and watched the trailer- so googled the title and “gay to see what would come up – and stumbled on your site. I am mildly curious to see the show but I agree- at least with how it is marketed it seems to completely overlook any gay tendencies… which is disappointing. History is full of wonderful characters- and to completely change their identity makes me ask what is the point? All the history suggests that big bosomed women might have been models but not all that much in his bed. Alexander suffered the same thing- near sof core shots of Alexander and Roxanne- who he married for breeding purposes and other than some heart to heart talks with Hephaistion, you would never know that was the love of Alexander’s life- when Hephaistion died, Alexander died soon after. He really lost his desire to conquer the world. I didn’t mind the treatment of Lincoln- there were suggestions- like when he visited the young assistants late at night- and the love and camaraderie was apparent- with the young man asking Lincoln if he wanted some company when he went off to bed and Lincoln saying no… it was there- but the film was about something else and that would have complicated the message for the larger audience… I understand that- but I do not understand the straightening up of Da Vinci- turning him into a straight Lothario with modern hair and perfectly groomed beard. Seems just an exercise in the dumbing down of history- making it palatable and comfortable for the straight masses. We should admire Da Vinci because he bedded beautiful women- not because he was an extra ordinary mind. A gay extra-ordinary mind clearly wouldn’t sell to the marketing department.
I just read an article on Da Vinci’s Demons and watched the trailer- so googled the title and “gay” to see what would come up – and stumbled on your site. I am mildly curious to see the show but I agree- at least with how it is marketed it seems to completely overlook any gay tendencies… which is disappointing. History is full of wonderful characters- and to completely change their identity makes me ask what is the point? All the history suggests that big bosomed women might have been models but not all that much in his bed.
Alexander suffered the same thing- near sof core shots of Alexander and Roxanne- who he married for breeding purposes and other than some heart to heart talks with Hephaistion, you would never know that was the love of Alexander’s life- when Hephaistion died, Alexander died soon after. He really lost his desire to conquer the world.
I didn’t mind the treatment of Lincoln- there were suggestions- like when he visited the young assistants late at night- and the love and camaraderie was apparent- with the young man asking Lincoln if he wanted some company when he went off to bed and Lincoln saying no… it was there- but the film was about something else and that would have complicated the message for the larger audience… I understand that- but I do not understand the straightening up of Da Vinci- turning him into a straight Lothario with modern hair and perfectly groomed beard. Seems just an exercise in the dumbing down of history- making it palatable and comfortable for the straight masses. We should admire Da Vinci because he bedded beautiful women- not because he was an extra ordinary mind. A gay extra-ordinary mind clearly wouldn’t sell to the marketing department.
Thanks for reading and replying. I haven’t heard particularly good things about the show as of yet so I won’t be watching. I have heard that they are planning on making Da Vinci bisexual but like I said in the article, just hinting at homosexuality and maybe having a gay encounter in one or two episodes a season compared to heterosexual encounters in all the other episodes is really unacceptable and simply an embarrassment.
Eradicating homosexuality out of history should be criminal, especially when history is full of it (unsurprisingly… not that you’d know from teachings in schools or television and film).
Thanks again.
Proofread, proofread, proofread. Interesting topic but this is so riddled with typos and malapropisms, I could not get through it.
I know and I am sorry. If I could go back and edit it I would (sadly I can’t). Thanks for trying anyway :)
Thank you. I just watched the pilot and was incredibly bothered by this – I mean, it’s not like they just ignored his probable homosexuality/asexuality, but actively fought it, and the two blatantly homosexual moments in the show were vilified to modern viewers as creepy, pederastic and decadent, despite the fact that this was freaking Florence! After having a huge fight with my father about it, who “couldn’t see why I was so worked up”, reading something from someone who was just as bothered by it and able to articulate the problem, not just in this show, but the trend across all media, is very comforting. You know, in kind of a depressing way.
Thanks for reading.
I actually wrote this article a long time ago, long before the episode aired, but I am glad (in a depressing way) that the predictions I made months ago have sadly come true.
What I didn’t predict however is that the show would be so anti-homosexual that they would make the villains of the show homosexual and not the hero who was actually homosexual… For a show in the 21st Century this is embarrassing, but like I noted with “Skyfall”, completely on trend.
If I had to make a prediction I would say that the show will end up, maybe in the second season giving Da Vinci a boyfriend to try to fight back against this controversy people like you and me have raised about this show and pretend they were planning on doing this all along.
Though this at least would be something, in a way I would be just as annoyed if they do this, because then they are admitting that they all thought that no one (and by this I mean the apparent homophobic target audience) would be interested in watching an action/adventure show led by a homosexual… and I am not a fan of anyone who panders to homophobes in anyway whatsoever. I can also think of two action/adventure shows off the top of my head that were lead by bisexual characters (Torchwood, Lost Girl) though still sadly no shows in this genre lead by exclusively homosexual characters.
Thanks for reading and getting angered by this issue… I wish more people would. :)
p.s. I actually have yet to even watch this show… it isn’t really my kind of show and I was waiting to see whether the first episode was or wasn’t homophobic before even considering watching. Because the show sounds like it is doing everything I hate I will continue to give this show a miss and just stick to shows that don’t secretly hate or want to hide positive portrayals of homosexuality from the media.
I understand that you are upset at DaVinci not being portrayed as gay in the show but you are throwing the word homophobic around too much. The show contains gay characters. So what if they’re villains? It seems that if the show is planning the homosexual route that you seem to be already judging it as a “give-in”.
Wait until the show is over before judging it or…watch it.
Gays have to be the goodie two shoes? I am tired of gays being good guys. Time for some wicked evil queens! Willow Rosenberg? Evil for about three episodes of Buffy. Not enough.
Also Obama is not the person who banned homosexuals from getting married. He is the guy who took four years to get it sorted and although we don’t need to be thankful, we should appreciate that now we can get married.
Not to offend but this article seems to be about playing victim.
Thanks for commenting.
First of all, the reason I throw around the word homophobic a lot is that from my personal experience, whether people think they are or not, most people are a little homophobic (even the occasional gay person… though in a different way). It is “understandable” (though not right in anyway) that the majority of people are at least a little homophobic simply because the media is still homophobic… and until recently at least people generally didn’t kick up a fuss when everyone was calling people “gay” as an insult.
A show like Modern Family for example is applauded at the fact that it shows two gay characters in lead roles, but even that shows creators/ and or network are homophobic simply because they allow the heterosexual characters on that show to engage in much more sexual acts than the homosexual characters are allowed to. In fact, they tried to cover this up by devoting a whole episode to why Cam and Mitch don’t kiss and then even in that episode their kiss was pushed in the background.
Any way… moving on…
If you do your research, up until recently (and still happening now) gay people in the media, in films and TV were only ever portrayed as villains. This show, whilst containing gay characters (or so I hear) have made those characters evil and therefore any sexual act they engage in can be seen as “morally wrong”. The show is obviously too frightened to have the hero who is supposed to be gay engage in homosexual acts because obviously they don’t think action/adventure lovers will want to see this.
Gay people have rarely had anytime in the media as the “goody two shoes”… and whilst I don’t think they need to be shown to be good all the time (which is why I was not annoyed when Willow turned “evil” in Buffy) if they are shown to be villains, at least make sure the show portrays homosexuality and homosexual sex positively… and not limit this to the evil characters like the history of film and TV has done up until recently and seems to be doing this yet again.
If the show does decide to change Da Vinci into a homosexual (which he should have been from the beginning)then it is better than nothing, but it is inexcusable in my opinion that they had to completely straight-wash the character through either homophobia, or fear that the target audience wouldn’t accept a gay action/ adventure star in the first place.
In terms of Obama, I mostly like the man (I would have voted for him if I lived in the US obviously) and I know he isn’t the person “who banned gays from getting married”… but he still said on numerous occasions that he didn’t believe in marriage equality. Though this could have been all political, and he really did believe in marriage equality and was waiting for the right time, I don’t think that is the case. I certainly won’t thank someone who changes his belief to one a decent human being should have had all along without needing to think about it.
I absolutely appreciate the efforts that will make gay marriage legal, but I don’t like the idea that the president had to be openly homophobic (yes I used it again) so that people will vote for him, and remained homophobic for his first 4 years as president without “evolving” on the issue.
If a president had said that they didn’t believe black people should be able to get married then there would be outrage… it is sad that gay people are still considered second class citizens… that for some reason racism still seems to be considered much worse than homophobia. It is as if most people secretly believe being gay is a choice and therefore it is less bad to openly hate them, or at least openly limit their rights within the law.
I’m not trying to play the victim, but gay people have and still are victimized in society all the time… and I think because of this even gay people themselves think on some level they are less than everyone else because this is what they have been made to believe since they were very young.
I am assuming you are gay yourself because of the “we should appreciate that now we can get married” comment… but to me your whole comment (no offense) sounds like you yourself have a slight level of self hatred. We are victims in society and in TV and Film… so why not complain about that? And though I am in a sense “appreciative” that gay people will soon be able to get married in many places around the world, are heterosexual people appreciative that they have always been allowed to get married? – we shouldn’t have to be appreciative of this, any sane, intelligent person knows this should have been allowed all along.
So in this regard I am not going to thank anyone who is no longer homophobic, and I am not going quietly sit by and watch a show make strongly homophobic moves and not criticize it, and I am also not going to pretend gay people are not victims of society when they still clearly are.
Heterosexual people the world over moan about gay people complaining all the time, but we have a lot to complain about… and if we don’t complain then who will complain for us?
Pleased to read your article and I must agree with you 100%. My first hand experience is that starting some years ago I started to publish online the adventures of my gay private investigator character. I didn’t think there would be much interest in the genre but the story attracted fans and I started publishing another story online. Currently, I have about 17 unpublished stories in the canon. Being gay, I can draw upon a large number of people I have known for the characters in the stories. As far as the villains, I’ve also known a number of nasty people in my life to use as models. The bad people in our lives are meant to be resources for villains. Though there is some irony and humor in the stories none of the characters are gay stereotypes, I believe that sticking closer to reality (at least where characters are concerned) makes a story more intriguing. My main character is a masculine ex-cop, ex-military intelligence guy who is also very homosexual. I’ve known a number of gay men in the military who I drew upon for his character. None of the characters are ambiguous or assimilated. Oddly enough, Queer As Folk was airing about the same time I published the first story and though I did not see an episode of QAF until long after it had ended, the universe I created in my stories is similar.
Here’s the rub. The criticisms I’ve gotten about my stories is that the characters are too gay. I believe the criticisms mostly come from straight people, i.e. women who want “gay” stories only as romance stories written for straight women, like a suggestion I got that my main character should come to his senses and become a really nice boyfriend for a woman. Other people did not like my main character because he is too masculine and to them gay men should not be masculine – maybe that comes across as too much of a threat? Still others don’t like the sociopolitical or scifi aspects to the stories (tho some really do), perhaps it’s the notion that gays can’t be taken seriously or be involved with something like science fiction. Some of the reactions to the stories just came across as homobigoted and I think some people can only tolerate a story with gay content if the characters are outrageous stereotypes, like how blacks were portrayed in the movies during the 1930s.
I’ve had offers to publish my stories but with the caveat that the stories be made more straight, adding straight characters like the ubiquitous gal pal, changing the orientation of some characters and major plot changes. One change was to reveal that one of the characters was raped as a child by an older male (as a suggestion that was the event that “made” him gay). Did a thumbs down on the offers. Finally brought me to the realization that I have a right to create whatever universe I want to in my stories. I have been submerged in the heterosexual ghetto all my life so I can’t see any harm in creating an alternate fictional universe where straight people do exist but gay people have the right to maintain their own identity outside of being comic relief, “fashion accessories” or mostly invisible. One author wrote me that as a writer you have the obligation to protect your stories and characters because after all, they are your children. Regardless of what I write the straight world will continue to exist and no one has to read any book if they don’t want to.
So if it is true that one’s characters are one’s children then perhaps if I ever do get around to publishing the unpublished stories in the series, I owe it to my characters to maintain the integrity of the stories and perhaps self publish the books.
Thanks for this. As a sometimes fiction writer myself, and as a gay man I almost feel it is our responsibility to write strong, realistic gay characters in the fiction we tell because there is an obvious lack of gay leading characters in fiction.
The world still clearly has a lot to learn when it comes to homosexuality, and even the most accepting people seem to have some struggle at times when it comes to the gay issue… especially when accepting that there are as many different types of gay people as there are heterosexual people. I know from personal experience that it is somewhat difficult being a non-feminine gay man in society, when the media mostly presents us as feminine stereotypes not that I have a problem at all with gay men who are like this… I just feel bigots need easy categories to place everyone into otherwise they get easily confused and scared.
I wrote a screenplay for university about a year ago now which (well, part of it) revolved around a young gay African American character struggling to come out and my lecturer told me that the “gay coming out story” had been told before and my idea wasn’t unique enough for a screenplay.
I remember at the time being insulted because I thought gay people are always going to have to come out, and it is still a massively relevant story to tell in society, and more than this… if every other film can be about two heterosexual people falling in love than why can’t I write a story about a gay man struggling to come out of the closet, just because there may be one or two films that deal with the same thing… compared to the 1000′s and 1000′s of films about heterosexual people falling in love.
It was as if she was saying that the gay story had been told and now film and fiction had moved on from that, and that upset me greatly. There have been very few gay stories comparatively in fiction and there needs to be a lot more and a consistent, constant supply of these stories forever now.
Gay people, more than anyone else in society, need to see positive representation in the media otherwise the world can be a very lonely and confusing place… especially for a teenager. The truth is that many gay teenagers are the only gay person they know in real life, so if they don’t have gay people to look up to on screen they are made to feel like a complete outcast or freak.
This is why straight-washing gay characters such as Da Vinci is just inexcusable in a way, because it is limiting how normal and accepted gay audiences who watch the show feel. The creators of this show shouldn’t be defensive, they should apologize for the message this show is sending out by straight-washing an important gay figure from our TV screens.
Daniel,
Thanks for your reply. I very much appreciate the positive reinforcement.
Rick
Sexuality was a lot more complicated in Da Vinci’s time period than the black and white distinction between heterosexual and homosexual. The idea that homosexuality has existed in the form that it exists in our modern society for all of human history is a big misconception. The concept of sexual orientation is a construct of a hegemonic Judeo-Christian society.
With all due respect…
“historically factual homosexual lifestyle Leonardo da Vinci is strongly believed to have led”
Convoluted sentence of the year award goes to you! Anyway, historically factual and strongly believed to have led are directly at odds with one another. It’s innuendo and not incontrovertible fact.
Lincoln – “Abraham Lincoln, the central figure in the film “Lincoln” (obviously) is highly considered by many historians to have been a closeted gay man living in a time when the vast majority of gay men and women had to be closeted for legal reasons”
Again, “HIGHLY CONSIDERED”. It’s innuendo, not historical fact. I don’t have a problem with a film that proposes this as a theory and, maybe, even makes this potential dual life a centerpiece of its story. But you’re asking these two films to address things outside of their respective wheelhouses. It isn’t “straight washing” at all. With all due respect, it’s you. Rumors are not facts. Period.
Seriously flawed essay. Needs an editor too.
It is difficult to be 100 percent sure of anything from the past when it comes to personalities, and especially when it comes to peoples sexual orientations.
In regards to Leonardo da Vinci, many historians and psychologists believe he was a gay man, with some believing he was either bisexual or asexual. Very few, if any believe he was heterosexual… as this TV series is so far suggesting that he was. Therefore, whether he was gay, bisexual or asexual, he almost certainly wasn’t “straight” and therefore this TV series is 100 percent “straight-washing” this figure.
Whether he was actually bisexual (though people believe he wasn’t remotely interested sexually in women)or not, the fact that the show is making a big deal of his attraction with women, as apposed to showing an equal attraction with men, shows that the shows creators favor heterosexuality over homosexuality… especially when it effects the shows hero.
Mr. Bowen is correct, if “the media” wants to portray a historical figure in a sexual way they should do so in a truthful way.
I am personally squeamish at blatant in-your-face sex acts in movies (do we really need to hear people’s spit? really?), but this is not based on the genders of the two people.
A good movie is a good movie regardless of the protagonist’s sexual orientation.
Lincoln gay? What a load of horse___t. No evidence at all. Lots of speculation by people who desperately want him to be gay, but actual evidence is nothing.
I am not a historian so I can’t be sure whether he was or he wasn’t… but then again history is always biased and it is always difficult to know exactly what the real truth of the past was. I never said in the article that Lincoln was gay… but that it was a possibility.
I haven’t done extensive research into Lincoln, but I do know that he used to sleep in the same bed as other men. Apparently this was common during the time and not necessarily an indication that he was gay… however maybe it was mostly common in the past between closeted homosexuals who lead people to believe that men sleeping with other men was a heterosexual thing to do when as a matter of fact they only said this so they could be gay and people wouldn’t suspect anything.
I also know that Tony Kushner (writer of the film “Lincoln”) said that he believed, after doing A LOT of research that Lincoln very likely was gay, but chose to keep it out of the film due to the reasons I explained in the article.
If he was gay however, I am sure the biased and homophobic history would have done a lot to cover it up… but obviously I, nor really anyone, can be 100 percent sure either way.
I think having an historical figure who was known to be gay represented as such would make him/her more interesting. It would help me to understand that person much better. How gays have been treated historically would definitely influence their behavior and decision-making, especially if they had to hide it. For example, Lincoln, if he was gay did it help him to understand the mistreatment of slaves? I wish a person’s sexual orientation didn’t matter and we could accept one another equally, but we know that is not true yet. I can understand your outrage having your sexuality dismissed and covered up as if it were shameful and unacceptable. Excellent article, Mr. Bowen, it will make me question other characters who are being “straight-washed” from now on also.
Just a note to myself (and a thank you) so I always remember:
Thank you Anne Rice (author of Interview with the Vampire etc.) for liking and sharing this article on Facebook and Twitter!!! (and thank you to all those people who have liked and shared this article too)
It is very much appreciated and has absolutely made my day. I don’t think a celebrity (well at least one I know) has ever even read one of my articles before, so this really means a lot… especially from a well respected author like yourself.
Though I have never read any of your works, I am very aware of them and very much enjoy the film adaptation of “Interview with the Vampire”. Also, as my favorite thing of all time is “Buffy The Vampire Slayer”, the fact that Lestat was referenced in an episode (and probably at least in part influenced by your work in someway) makes you legend.
Thanks again… and keep up the good work, especially when it comes to your support for gay rights and equal rights across the board.
Thanks again :)
I really enjoyed your article, and I certainly agree with your analysis of representation in the media. You should also note that the show “Scandal” includes an openly gay White House chief of staff. I was most disturbed by Skyfall and am glad you noted that.
One thing I might disagree with is your idea is about the evolution of thought. Now, I certainly think that ‘waiting’ doesn’t involve inaction, and media representations should not be straight-washed (a great term), but I do think it’s true that only by gradually changing all people’s minds can gay rights really achieve its goals. All events in history, after an initial movement that poses the question, have only really taken hold once the common opinion of a society has altered, and that does take time. I understand frustration, but in democratic societies, this is the only way legislation becomes effective, when a society’s ethos is truly altered. It’s clearly happening in the US, partly because of media representation.
Although our social ethos is changing, however, what I think you’re actually getting at is not people’s belief that we should be denied rights or that our relationships aren’t legitimate (since that really is changing), but the average person’s, especially the straight male’s, aversion to gay sex itself, the ick factor (which is not changing). Even people who defend gay rights maintain that sexuality should stay in the bedroom and that it’s not their business. This is really a manifestation of their aversion to the concept of actual gay sexual activity and what remains the reason the media maintain this standard. This is a complex issue to try and change. I’m not sure how far media representations of gay sex can go to alter this in individuals. The first gay sex scene in Brokeback looked incredibly painful and my straight friends have noted that it looks incredibly unpleasant. So it’s also not the representation of steamy scenes, but also the positive representation of the act as pleasurable. I believe that people’s attitude about someone’s orientation and gay rights has changed simply by knowing gay people in their lives on a personal level and finding them not threatening, not a menace to their families.
Overcoming aversions to gay sex, which I think are somewhat primal and definitely historically inherited/psychological (the shame of a male being penetrated and its expression of dominance and submission, anthropologically speaking) has to operate on some type of more complex level. E.g. drunk straight males often use sexuality to characterize, say, a passed out straight male as a receptive bottom in shaming ‘rituals’. Even women have an aversion to it, but a lesser one, since as penetrated people bottoms and women can relate (although women might still innately view them negatively as submissive males). I think in dealing with actual gay sex what we are working on is not a social issue (abstract rights) but a psychological/anthropological one (physical sex). That’s what networks unknowingly are responding to.
In antiquity, people’s personal participation in bisexual relationships, the social pressure to engage in gay sex, and the validation of those relationships by society allowed a more positive view of gay sex. But even then, the concept that the penetrated man was somehow shamed or lesser remained; thus many of these relationships involved older penetrators and younger bottoms as a type of transference or displacement of the shame of penetration. I know I sound Freud like (and I am aware that he’s not one to really emulate), but really I think this is the case. So in conclusion to this rambling comment, I would really like to hear your thoughts on how you think individuals and ergo networks, media representations, can be convinced to overcome this aversion, this ick factor, to achieve the level of representation I think your article was advocating.
I will try my best to respond.
I do really think this is the main problem in society… this “ick factor” that you mentioned. I would say that the majority of people who support gay rights still get grossed out by the sight of two gay people having sex or even unfortunately kissing. The problem is that they believe it is natural for them to get grossed out by this, and therefore, deep down part of them believes gay sex is an unnatural. I find this very sad and upsetting, and gay people wont be fully accepted into society until this ick factor is forgotten about.
The way to change this, and peoples perspective about gay sex in my opinion would be to show a lot more of it on TV and film, and to not be scared about getting as graphic as any heterosexual sex scene would. That said, there is a tendency when showing gay sex scenes on screen as being very animalistic or like you mentioned, even occasionally as painfully, unpleasent acts. Though I love the film “Brokeback Mountain”, I do wish that the films depiction of their first gay sex encounter wasn’t so violent, because this very well may have been the first, or one of the first depictions of gay sex many viewers may have ever seen.
The only reason gay people don’t feel grossed out when watching heterosexual sex scenes is because we are so overwhelmed by them in the media that they don’t feel strange to us. Most of us are not at all aroused in any way by these scenes, but we don’t find them disgusting either. And this is certainly not because deep down we think this is the only natural way to be like many heterosexual people believe.
If gay sex was common place in film and TV then after a while heterosexual people wouldn’t feel so uncomfortable by it on screen. Obviously, it is unlikely ever to become as common place as heterosexual sex because there are far fewer gay people so this problem may never go away.
The ways to prevent this problem would be to either submit yourself to a wide range of gay sexual scenes in the media until you finally don’t feel uncomfortable… or to frankly just grow up. When we were all children we were probably grossed out by any kiss on screen between any heterosexual couple… but as we grow up we realize that this reaction is laughably immature and pathetic… though I have been in the cinema when two gays kissed and half the adult audience “ewwwed”. It’s funny that these people didn’t realize how simply immature and pathetic they were being.
I am sure the more intelligent and mature the person is, the less uncomfortable they should feel watching homosexual sex. It also helps if you can separate yourself from the characters. I find the idea of having sex with females repulsive just in the same way as heterosexual men find the idea of having sex with men repulsive, but when I watch a man and woman have sex on screen I can separate this from me and the character. I feel that when the majority of heterosexual people watch homosexual acts they imagine themselves in this scenario and are grossed out by this because of it.
To be honest with you though I think a lot of this is purely for show, especially when in groups, to make sure the people around them know they are “manly, straight macho men’s men” instead of “girly and gay” by outwardly showing disgust for it. I would bet you that some percentage of the people who are most vocal about their hatred for gay sex feel somewhat aroused by the scenes, even if they are 100 percent heterosexual.
It is an interesting topic you brought up and one that is of up most importance and one that is unlikely to change anytime soon. Though bigoted people hate when I suggest this (and I don’t care) I think the best start solving this issue is by making children less uncomfortable about homosexual relationships (though not sexual relationships) so they aren’t encouraged to grow up with outdated and hateful perspectives about gay people, perspectives that tell them being gay is an unnatural way of being.
My first ever article for this site talked about a way which I think would positively help change this “ick factor” once and for all.
http://whatculture.com/film/isnt-it-about-time-disneypixar-embraced-homosexuality.php
Thanks for reading, and sorry if my response was overally rambly.
Dude, you have many valid points, but your sentence structure is very difficult to read. I kind of get the impression that you wrote this in anger, which is understandable, but not, in my opinion, the most constructive means of argument. And your inclusion of Skyfall in this article seems to me like a persecution complex, and I should know, because I used to have one. I saw nothing in that scene remotely homophobic, and in fact it seemed to represent homosexuality as normal (by which I mean unremarkable rather than ubiquitous). I suggest that from now on we adopt the Carl Lee Haley approach and start seeing gay people as people rather than as gay people. That way those of us inclined to filmmaking can make films with non-hetero protagonists when we feel like it, and we can use honey to criticise people who are too afraid to do it for profit reasons. That way, I think your articles are more likely to be easy to read. Thanks for the article, which was otherwise interesting.
I will admit that there are sentences in this article that if given the chance I would change, but I am more or less happy with the article as a whole (I didn’t get paid for it). I didn’t write this article in anger exactly (more disappointment) but even if I had I think I have more than enough valid reasons to be angry. Like I suggested in the article, it is ridiculous how gay people seem to continue to take the crap they get given and don’t kick up more of a fuss about it. So yes, I am angry… but it is my opinion that a lot of the best and most persuasive arguments come from anger.
As for Skyfall, it seems odd to me that you don’t understand my point of view, but I will try to explain myself more clearly. First of all though, just because I included a picture from a particular scene doesn’t mean I was just talking about that one scene.
How is a psychopathic, European, blonde haired (Nazi?) villain with a missing jaw being portrayed as a homosexual (or more accurately bisexual) helping to represent homosexuality as normal? Considering the political climate we live in and the target audience of action adventure films, portraying homosexuality as a threat to the protagonist is not exactly the most helpful message to promote to this typically homophobic audience.
I don’t have a problem when homosexuals are portrayed as villains if the context is right, but considering the Bond films (and the character of James Bond in particular) represents very stereotypical masculinity, including a LBGT character in this context as a villain (with no heroic gay characters around) can surely only be read as stereotypical masculine portrayals of males fighting against any alien threat which in this case is bisexuality (with focus on the threat of male on male sexuality).
I agree with you in the sense that it would be great if film and TV would portray gay people as people rather than simply their sexuality (some TV shows get this right) but the fact of the matter is they simply don’t, and until film in particular shows more gay heroes it is clear homophobia when they continue to only present homosexual traits in the villains. Am I wrong?
If the villain in Skyfall had been black, and there where no other black characters in the rest of the film, then surely this would have been racist? I’m not saying that having a black villain is racist, but if you have a cast that is made up of 99% white heroes and one black villain there is clearly racism involved.
Again, I have no problem with gay characters as villains, but only if the story, be it Film or TV, clearly has no problem with homosexuality. When Willow in Buffy turned dark at the end of Season 6 I had no problem with this because the shows portrayal of homosexuality up to this point had been nothing but positive, loving and respectful. But the Bond films and the action adventure genre don’t have a history of including respectful depictions of homosexuality, so when homosexuality is represented negatively, in this case somewhat of a threat to the main protagonist, it is simply inexcusable.
Jump forward 50 years when no one has a problem with homosexuality and they are represented fairly throughout the media and then sure, I’d have no problem with gay villains, but why not show a couple more gay heroes before this? The reason they don’t show more gay heroes is pure homophobia, and you’d be kidding yourself if you thought otherwise.
Another problem I have with your response is when you stated “those of us inclined to filmmaking can make films with non-hetero protagonists when we feel like it”. What world do you live in if you think Hollywood would allow a film like this cinema release, or give any money towards a project like this what so ever, especially in the action adventure genre? When this day happens a lot of your comments will be more valid, but until this happens I really think your comments don’t help the cause.
I simply don’t understand why gay people are too afraid to act like victims in society when they continue to be victimized so much. I think society pressures gay people to think that acting the victim is weak, and therefore many gay people try to act above it and by doing so they kid themselves into thinking the battle for true gay acceptance has been won. In reality, it isn’t even close to being won.
If you disagree with me that is absolutely your right, however I was offended by the gay stereotyping in Skyfall as I am sure many others like me were too.
Sometimes I think it is best to read between the lines of a film. The film may not have been blatant in your face homophobia (though it kind of was) but dig a little deeper and it was painfully obvious. If you were to do a little research into the history of film you will see that the “gay villain”, or at the very least the “feminine male villain” (and the “masculine woman villain”) has been played out to death on the screen and Skyfall was just a continuation of this overused and offensive stereotyping in order to promote tired ideas of what men and women should conform to.
If I had to guess, I would say that you probably love the film Skyfall too much to see past its embarrassing cliches.
In future, please don’t waste too much time criticizing the way people write, especially considering (though this may seem hypocritical) your comment wasn’t exactly the easiest thing to read either. You start off saying my sentence structure made the article difficult to read, then you conclude by saying that it was the fact that my opinions are different to yours that made the article difficult to read.