Re-cap Report

The Celluloid Closet is a documentary that surveys "the various Hollywood screen depictions of Homosexuals and the attitudes behind them throughout the history of North American film."



The documentary is effective in portraying several key and defining moments in the expansion and evolution of homosexuality in film, as well as various opinions from directors, writers, actors and critics.

It is important to note that the representation of homosexuality in film is not a new phenomenon; it has been around a long time, with The Florida Enchantment in 1914 just one of many 'classic' films to include a homosexual character. However, the documentary points out that when homosexuality did appear "it was there as something to laugh at, or to pity, or even something to fear".

This lets us know that a genuine representation of homosexuality was hard to find. It was always used for comedic effect or to drive a sympathetic or even horrific plotline.
Writer Susie Bright notes the lack of accurate representations, saying she felt "invisible" and "like a ghost, a ghost that nobody believes in - there's this sense of isolation"

It is clear that films tended to shy away from a genuine representation as they knew what would 'sell' in the time period, so if ever there was a representation of anything near homosexuality, it was the 'sissy', what the documentary called "Hollywood's first gay stock character"
In a way, it was a move forward for homosexuality, as they had a 'stock character' appearing in films, but the negative connotations of the 'sissy' were clear to see. Actor and screenwriter Harvey Fierstein had a strong opinion on this, saying "I liked the sissy. Is it used in negative ways? Yes, but my view has always been 'visibility at any cost'. I'd rather have negative than nothing - that's just my particular view, and also because I am a sissy". This shows how the lack of representation of homosexuality led to the 'sissy' being accepted as it was at least something.

Richard Dyer, a leading film critic, suggests that film is one of many platforms that helps to shape and even control the audience's views on certain subjects, homosexuality included. He explains that "we learn from the movies what it is like to be a man or a woman, what it means to have sexuality". The fact that he doesn't mention homosexuality explicitly suggests that it is purely personal, and possibly that movies can have a positive influence on who we are.

However, the narrator of the documentary offers a different view. The representation of homosexuality in Hollywood was not of expression and freedom, but instead one that "taught straight people what to think of gay people, and gay people what to think about themselves". It is important to note that the narrator also addresses Hollywood as "The great maker of myths" suggesting that Hollywood fabricated some of the portrayals it used.

The documentary also touches on a key aspect of the representation of homosexuality; flamboyancy. It was no surprise that the first gay stock character was a 'sissy'; it was easily identifiable as a homosexual, despite it not being 100% accurate. There are several gay men who are not flamboyant, and several flamboyant men who are not gay. It also completely highlights gay men, and ignores gay women. Jay Presson Allen, a screenwriter, states "Sissy characters in movies were always a joke.... When a man dresses as a woman, the audience laugh - when a woman dresses as a man, nobody laughs"
This suggests that there was a slight acceptance of a flamboyant, sissy homosexual man, but entering the territory of 'butch' lesbianism was unheard of, wrong and not funny or humorous.

This is something that still exists in a way; the divide between the representation of gay men and lesbian women. A quick search of LGBT characters in films showed me an overwhelming number of gay men compared to lesbian women. It appears that there could still be a taboo of sorts existing.