ISSUES
: Sexuality and Gender
Chapter 3: LGBTQ+ issues
34
Film has a lot to learn from TV when it
comes to LGBT representation
By Martin Zeller-Jacques, Lecturer in Film and Media,
Queen Margaret University
T
he recent publication of a study
measuring the quantity and
quality of LGBT representation
in mainstream Hollywood cinema has
left the industry smarting. Gay and
Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation’s
(GLAAD) research found that out of 102
major studio releases in 2013, only 17
contained identifiable LGBT characters.
But what really got the press going
was the fact that only seven of these
passed the Russo test, patterned after
the well-known Bechdel test for the
representation of women. The Russo
test looks for characters who are
identifiably LGBT, who are not solely
defined in terms of their sexuality/
gender and whose removal from a film
would significantly affect its plot.
But where Hollywood is failing,
television continues to incorporate
more LGBT characters than ever. A
sister report on the state of American
television showed that nearly all of the
major American television networks
increased the proportion of their LGBT
representation, aswell as thediversityof
those representations. Cable channels,
too, featured more hours of LGBT-
inclusive programming than they did the
previous year. ABC Family ranked top,
with 50% of its programming featuring
LGBT characters.
Some of this gap may be accounted
for by difficulties in comparing the
two forms of media. The film survey
only examines those films which were
released under the main label of the
seven highest grossing film studios,
excluding any reckoning of the output
of ‘independent’ studio divisions,
such as Fox Searchlight or Sony
Pictures Classics. But these are the
very companies through which major
studios typically channel the kind
of niche projects in which we might
expect to find a higher proportion of
LGBT representation.
Meanwhile, the television report gives
substantial space to the output of
both network television channels
(which we might loosely equate with
the major studios of the film industry)
and to cable channels. And some of
these cater to the same kind of niche
audiences which the methodology of
the film research ignores. GLAAD also
note that reality and lifestyle television
often showcase members of the
LGBT community, thereby increasing
television’s representativity in a way
that the cinema cannot match.
Lagging behind
So it’s possible that the gap between
filmand TV has been exaggerated. But
a larger truth is still underscored by
this: it is undeniable that mainstream
movies continue to do very little to
advance the representation of LGBT
characters. While gay men are getting
married and adopting children on
major network sitcoms and dramas,
they aren’t even making it on screen
in major movie releases.
The sole exception is in comedies,
where gay characters figure almost
50% of the time. The worst offenders
were animated or family-oriented films,
none of which met GLAAD’s criteria for
inclusiveness. But they don’t appear to
have counted
Frozen
’s Oaken, who is
suggested by the film to be part of a
gay couple, with four kids.
The fact that even GLAAD haven’t
recognised Oaken as a gay
representation points to a problemwith
the way Hollywood incorporates gay
characters into mainstream cinema.
To pass the Russo test, a character
must be clearly marked as gay, but not
in the film only for their gayness. If the
film fails to mark the character clearly
enough for the audience, as in the case
of Oaken, then it can be argued not to
include a gay representation at all. But
mark the character too clearly, and it
can tread close to stereotyping.
But in many genres where sexuality
is only implicitly an issue, it’s hard
to imagine exactly what a minor
character capable of passing the
Russo test might look like. With only
a few minutes of screen time, how
does a character announce his/her
sexuality and make an impact on
the plot which is unrelated to that
sexuality? It’s different on television,
where even minor gay characters tend
to be more fully rounded. Over dozens
of episodes they tend to develop
different facets of their character, and
rarely remain token gay characters,
even if they begin that way.
So this is the real area where cinema
can take a cue from television.
Feature films simply don’t have time
to develop the deep relationships
and complex characters which grow,
almost despite themselves, on long-
running network shows. For LGBT
representation in the cinema to
come close to that on television, gay
characters need to be at the centre of
the action. The mainstream success
of gay-themed television comedies
and dramas has demonstrated that
audiences are willing and able to
accept gay characters in major roles,
experiencing the same hardships and
rewards as straight characters.
Hollywood studios should learn from
this. Instead of relying on tokenism
and including minor gay characters as
sidekicks or comic relief, if they really
want to strive for better representation
they need to include gay characters
in central roles. How much would it
really change a generic action movie if
the hero rescued his boyfriend, rather
than his girlfriend, in the final reel?
After all, it could still end with a kiss.
7 August 2014
Ö
Ö
The above information has been
reprinted with kind permission
from
The Conversation
. Please
visit
for further information.
© 2010–2016, The Conversation
Trust (UK) Limited
An article from
The Conversation
.
