Queering up the big screen... in teensy tiny steps
August 17, 2016 11:15 AM   Subscribe

The Guardian wonders about why queer characters are coming along on the big screen so slowly and attempts some answers drawing on recent examples like Star Trek Beyond, Deadpool and Ghostbusters.
posted by katta (33 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite
 
Bigotry, homophobia, fear, take your pick...
posted by Fizz at 11:29 AM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh yeah, but I found the systemic background on how studio cinema works in that regard interesting.
posted by katta at 11:32 AM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I took a film class in college that was essentially about how films of the post-war period (until the 70s) reflected and shaped social change. One of the big takeaways is that the movie industry usually takes 5-10 years to catch up to societal change. So for instance, you had all these revolutionary films in the mid-70s - years after the revolution in the culture. This is partly just because movies take so long to make, as opposed to TV or pop music. But also because the movie industry is inherently conservative. And has probably only gotten more so now that the studios' survival revolves around a few big blockbuster movies, which also have to perform well overseas.

So right now, the films we're getting from Hollywood are reflective of societal attitudes towards gay people in 2006-2011. Prop 8 passed during that period!
posted by lunasol at 11:38 AM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


The main takeaway from that article:
“Insofar as these characters are being recognised as LGBTQ by audience and critics alike, you can say that is some progress,” says Ray Bradford, director of programs for entertainment media at Glaad (formerly known as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation). “But looking closer at each of these movies illustrates yet again that film still lags far behind television and online streaming content in providing platforms for queer voices that are not marginalised.”
Still lots of room for improvement. I'm hopeful that more progress will continue to be made for people who have been marginalized for so long in this industry (both in front and behind the scenes).
posted by Fizz at 11:45 AM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I feel like Hollywood still hasn't evolved past tokenism yet. It's a little tricky to talk because they have at least gotten a lot better about tokenism: there are more queer characters, and they're treated better than in the past. But they're still not telling queer stories, or even letting queer voices speak.

Zootopia was pretty frustrating in this regard. In general it's pretty smartly progressive. And they pull off a pretty delicate balancing act with Clawson. He fits a lot of flamboyant gay stereotypes, but they also show other sides of his personality. He's there for comic relief, but the comedy never makes fun of him for being who he is. But what's the point of all that when the film never acknowledges his queerness? You can't tell me it wouldn't be relevant to a story about the value of living in a diverse society and not fearing The Other! So they also pulled off a more cynical balancing act: they did just enough to get credit from people who are happy to read Clawson as queer, while maintaining plausible deniability for anyone who isn't.

But the problem persists even in weightier fare. I haven't seen Deadpool but the article makes it sound like it fits right in. Even The Imitation Game felt like it suffered from this some. At least there Turing's queerness is part of the plot, but it mainly drives how other people treat him. There's no exploration of how Turing relates to his own sexuality, or even much about his reaction to others' reactions.
posted by brett at 12:05 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Cross-posting from my comment in the Ghostbusters Fanfare thread, here's a clip from Paul Feig's interview with The Daily Beast:
I ask Feig: Is Holtzmann gay?

He pauses, smiling. “What do you think?”

I’d like to think yes, I say. He offers a grinning, silent nod. “I hate to be coy about it,” he offers. “But when you’re dealing with the studios and that kind of thing…” He shrugs apologetically.
As summarized by Pajiba: 'Ghostbuster' Holtzmann Is Totes Queer, Just Don't Ask Sony. Which is exactly what this article says, with more data to support the studios' viewpoint:
A recent survey carried out by the Pew Research Centre found that 31% of Americans still believe homosexuality should be discouraged. With studios ever eager to lure potential customers away from their many streaming platforms, films with inflated budgets need to appeal to the broadest audience. In the US, 37% of all tickets are bought by the 50-plus audience and, importantly, they’re the most habitual moviegoers. But studies have shown that acceptance of same-sex marriage is just 47% for people between 50 and 64, compared with 73% for those aged 18 to 29.
Big studios make movies to make money, not advance humanity. So instead of being ever so slightly progressive (kids by and large don't care who someone, real or fictional, loves) and moving the needle towards more support for LGBTQ people, they're pandering to the broadest market possible.

The bigger issue is Why are gay characters at the top of Hollywood's kill list?
Whether it's suicide, Aids (a particularly maudlin Ed Harris performance in The Hours employs both), being beaten to death, state execution, getting shot, or getting raped and then shot, LGBT characters are just not allowed the happy endings that their straight counterparts enjoy.
Spoiler: the article doesn't have an answer.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:10 PM on August 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


Movies are sold globally, especially big, loud ones. Not every market is where the US is (which is still not that great) in terms of being okay with LGTBQ representation. So it gets toned down/written out/barely addressed. It's bullshit, but it's the reason.
posted by jscalzi at 12:11 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


The answer: Foreign markets. Oh sure, you can have your tiny indie movie with well-fleshed queer characters, nobody's looking to make money on Carol in Russia or China or India or the Middle East or other places where queerness is illegal, a death sentence, or officially mandated not to exist. Preferably, all the female characters who aren't elderly or maybe an occasional suited bureaucrat/detective should be easily edited out entirely and have the story still vaguely hold together (see: the "love interests" in the Mission Impossible films, for example).
posted by Lyn Never at 12:37 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


At least there Turing's queerness is part of the plot, but it mainly drives how other people treat him. There's no exploration of how Turing relates to his own sexuality, or even much about his reaction to others' reactions.

God, that movie. It was especially worse cause they bent the character of Turing so far around to fit a classic sad chaste homo narrative that it no longer resemble Turing at all : he got caught cause he didn't think the rules applied to him! Gah.
posted by The Whelk at 12:49 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


As I do with many articles discussing "LGBT" topics - especially when I'm going through one of my tedious "but what gender am I really???" phases - I found myself automatically deciding to ctrl-F "trans" to see if this is another one where the "T" appears to have been a typo...

1 hit: "Transformers"

Sigh. I suppose I could call myself a decepticon, but that might sound bitter.
posted by langtonsant at 12:54 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Whether it's suicide, Aids (a particularly maudlin Ed Harris performance in The Hours employs both)

In fairness, The Hours was released in 2002. I don't disagree with the larger point, but I don't think a 2002 movie is the best illustration when talking about the state of filmmaking in 2016 (or even 2013, when the quoted article was published).

The answer: Foreign markets.

Yeah, I think this was a major issue for Star Trek Beyond in particular. For all the affection they showed on screen, Sulu's "husband" (never explicitly stated to be such in the film) could just as easily have been his brother. I've seen it speculated more than once that this was to make it palatable in more homophobic countries.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:20 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


I can accept that studio conservatism is answer #1 to this question, and that their desire to sell in foreign markets is part of that. But presenting it as the answer feels a little too pat. There are plenty of markets that would receive queer characters at least as well as the US.

I feel like the conventional wisdom around this issue, which doesn't always get said in as many words, is "Hollywood has to sell in China, and the minute you have a character who's undeniably queer you can't get past the censors." But sincere question: do we actually know that? Farewell My Concubine had an excellent (if heartbreaking) queer story, and it got theatrical release. Sure, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the rules for Chinese movies are different from the rules for Western movies (which would necessarily have a different take on queerness). But I can't tell whether this is the kind of "conventional wisdom" that spreads because everybody repeats it to each other, or if there's real substance.
posted by brett at 2:09 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


In March of this year, China banned all depiction of homosexuality on television and streaming services (including web-only series). The rules for film are slightly different, but very slightly. There was a film with acknowledged homosexuality released last year, one film, and the censors warned it should not be assumed to be precedent.

So yeah.

See also The Bizarre State of Indian Censorship. Russia, of course, doesn't have a stated policy, it simply forbids any "pro-LGBT propaganda".

Aaaaand those are your three biggest markets outside the US. Nobody gives a shit about Scandinavian box office take, so long as we can overdub or fudge the translation of Sulu's malepersonfriendcousin or Deadpool's sexual orientation.
posted by Lyn Never at 2:46 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


I, as a straight male, don't really notice when LGBTQ characters are missing from a movie. I mean, I really like it when there are LGBTQ characters that get to be normal characters where their gender preferences are just one aspect of the character (you know, like how normal people are), but it doesn't stick out for me the way it for others when they're missing and I'm not really going to go see a movie just because one of the characters is non-straight.

Without realizing it, I'm totally okay with a movie that doesn't include LGBTQ characters and for some people, that will prevent them from seeing the movie. So the studio maximises profits by taking the more conservative route.

It strikes me as similar to the explanation of why most cars sold are some shade of grey. Not very many people actively seek out the bright bold colors but just about everyone is at least okay with silver, white, or black.

So it seems that I (and others like me) are part of the problem. But it means that I can be a part of the solution simply by seeking stuff out and voting with my wallet.
posted by VTX at 2:53 PM on August 17, 2016


One of the big takeaways is that the movie industry usually takes 5-10 years to catch up to societal change.

I sad thing is, my takeaway from that is "So that means we're what, 3-5 years away from a flood of movies that pander to GamerGaters and MRAs "

I mean that whole idea is based on the idea that social progress is inevitable, but given how roles for women have contracted, I think regression is the most likely thing we'll see.
posted by happyroach at 3:00 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


But the problem persists even in weightier fare. I haven't seen Deadpool but the article makes it sound like it fits right in.

I can tell you that Deadpool is (a) not weighty fare - unless you count the half a second his girlfriend pauses before she decides she'll still bone him, scars and all - and (b) not queer in the movie. If I hadn't read something before I saw it (I've never read the comics, or really heard of the character before, tbh) I would have had no idea he was canonically supposed to be bisexual.
posted by psoas at 3:27 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Lyn Never: Thank you, those links answer my question pretty well on the nose, and I appreciate you investing the time to share. Depressing, of course, but better to know than stay wondering.

The mean way to spin this would be to say, "Hollywood studios are letting foreign censors decide what Americans can and can't see in their movies." I can't help but wonder what kind of political hay you could make out of that. Do it exactly right and you might even make it a bipartisan issue—so rare these days!

I get it: they're businesses, and they want to make as much money as they can. But that argument doesn't usually carry much water around here.
posted by brett at 4:00 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


The mean way to spin this would be to say, "Hollywood studios are letting foreign censors decide what Americans can and can't see in their movies."

Actually, here's the other half of that comment I deleted for being too wordy:

Another interesting, if extremely dense article, from the US Government's "U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC and SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION", a paper called Directed by Hollywood, Edited by China: How China’s Censorship and Influence Affect Films Worldwide.

From the abstract: China’s strict regulation of entertainment imports, including foreign films, violates the country’s World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments, as determined in a 2007 WTO decision calling for China to open its film market to foreign films. After years of noncompliance and inaction, China partially opened its film market in 2012 following a deal with the United States. The deal allowed for the import of 34 films each year—up from the previous limit of 20 films—in exchange for a temporary suspension of further U.S. WTO actions against China’s film importation policies. During Chinese President Xi Jinping’s September 2015 visit to the United States, the Motion Picture Association of America and China Film Group reached two new film agreements, which could increase market access for foreign films in China. Based on recent history, however, promises that China will further open its film market should be viewed skeptically.

Less dry, references the above paper: How Hollywood Changes Movies to Appease Foreign Censors.
posted by Lyn Never at 5:11 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Thank you for those sources!

The China problem is also arguably responsible for Benedict Cumberbatch('s role as Khan in Star Trek), by the way. He has a huge fanbase there.

The movie industry usually takes 5-10 years to catch up to societal change. So for instance, you had all these revolutionary films in the mid-70s - years after the revolution in the culture. This is partly just because movies take so long to make, as opposed to TV or pop music. But also because the movie industry is inherently conservative. And has probably only gotten more so now that the studios' survival revolves around a few big blockbuster movies, which also have to perform well overseas.

Speaking as someone studying film literally right now: this is it. But at least nowadays this is specifically correlated to money. The bigger the budget, the more likely it is you'll get a movie-made-by-committee.

Hollywood has never pushed the envelope. They let independent films push the envelope for them, and just copy what they like. BUT - i swear i am not an indie snob okay - ever since the late '90s they've been buying up independent studio so they can make "indie" and arthouse films, scarequotes intended, with freaking $20mi budgets, which are much less experimental than indie films*. and maybe this is crazy but i really think it's had a retrograde effect on Hollywood. You remember "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" in 2006? I'm honestly not sure Hollywood has progressed since then.

*i swear i am not an indie snob, just compare/contrast "Brokeback Mountain" (2005) with "Shortbus" (2006) and you'll see what I mean. also watch Shortbus
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 6:09 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


...

I'm gonna catch a lot of hate for this, maybe. And still I am going to post it.

The question as posed is about representation. Quantity.

The answer? Maybe it's because the LGBT population is a small percentage and thus does not need to be in every movie/tv show?

Of course, if you belong to that demographic of course your whole life is going to be filled by that same demographic. Self selection bias.

But it just seems strange to me that there is this cry of 'we need more representation' when, to be honest, it seems to me that we have now gone beyond any accurate analogous representation in mainstream media. Looking at population percentage, LGBT is overrepresented whilst non-caucasion is way underrepresented.

I hate all this 'media with an agenda'. It's so ... obvious. Like the recent spate of tentpole projects with women in the lead. It just all reeks of pushing an agenda rather than pushing for proportionate representation.

And this is from someone who is thrilled to see 'Kiki's delivery service' with his niece and thinks having the new Star Wars have a female lead, in isolation, is a non-controversial issue. But you notice that Rogue One has a female lead, too. And the Ghostbusters reboot, and many Netflix, Amazaon, HBO etc shows ...

I loved Jessica Jones. I thought Sense8 had some awesome things (let's not talk about the rest).

But when the question is: "why queer characters are coming along on the big screen so slowly" ... I just have to say that either you're looking at a small subset of media and thus don't see what's happening or you want overrepresentation.

It's like feminists who want women to rule the world. Gay organisations who reel against video games which have a queer population/character and then are upset that they can be killed (like the rest of the game's characters).

In the real world, there's percentages. The average US viewer sees more of that on tv than in real life. And Carter in Radio News was, what, twenty or thirty years ago (to name just one flaming character)? LGBT are represented. Women, non-caucasions much less so.

And, if you are actually serious about story, the art of moving images, tv ... why the hell are you so focussed on sexuality? Why do you care if the person is gay or straight? The best of those media might indicate, but won't dwell because it is irrelevant to the story. Unless of course it is, like in Brokeback Mountain, where it is central to the story being told.
posted by MacD at 7:38 PM on August 17, 2016


Like the recent spate of tentpole projects with women in the lead. It just all reeks of pushing an agenda rather than pushing for proportionate representation.

I feel like your bringing up women and over representation and percentages severely undermines your entire argument, because in the United States women are 50.8% of the population. That's slightly over half! But you note that many media properties are beginning to have female leads, which are okay when considered "in isolation" yet...maybe not as okay if there's a bunch of them, that it's overrepresentation and it reeks of pushing an agenda instead of pushing for proportionate representation?

But despite there being more female leads in media than there used to be, I don't think women get 50% of the main roles for tentpole movies yet, and certainly not 50% of the speaking lines or 50% of the entire cast. I feel like if you're missing this one obvious mismatch of stats, the likelyhood that you are accurately accounting for LGBT population percentages vs media representation isn't very high.
posted by foxfirefey at 8:16 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


And, if you are actually serious about story, the art of moving images, tv ... why the hell are you so focussed on sexuality? Why do you care if the person is gay or straight?

Why do you? If it shouldn't matter to anyone else if anyone is gay or straight, then it shouldn't matter to you.

The best of those media might indicate, but won't dwell because it is irrelevant to the story. Unless of course it is, like in Brokeback Mountain, where it is central to the story being told.

So everyone should always be straight, unless required for 'a story reason'? By that logic, everyone could be gay, except where required for plot purposes.

It's like feminists who want women to rule the world. Gay organisations who reel against video games which have a queer population/character and then are upset that they can be killed (like the rest of the game's characters).

Both of these are asine strawmen. Feminism is by definition about equal rights. For your second one, well, citation needed.

But it just seems strange to me that there is this cry of 'we need more representation' when, to be honest, it seems to me that we have now gone beyond any accurate analogous representation in mainstream media.

Consider that what it 'seems' to be to you, may not be what it is. Check your many, many assumptions.

And this is from someone who is thrilled to see 'Kiki's delivery service' with his niece and thinks having the new Star Wars have a female lead, in isolation, is a non-controversial issue. But you notice that Rogue One has a female lead, too. And the Ghostbusters reboot, and many Netflix, Amazaon, HBO etc shows ...

Women are over 50% of the population. By your own reasoning, they should be make up 50% of all leads. Are you really contending that men are underrepresented? Can you back that up? Let me answer that for you. No you can't. Because it's nonsense.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:17 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


MacD: "I'm gonna catch a lot of hate for this, maybe. And still I am going to post it."

As a general rule, when you think the first sentence, it's best not to follow through on the second. But as you've decided to make an issue of it...

"But it just seems strange to me that there is this cry of 'we need more representation' when, to be honest, it seems to me that we have now gone beyond any accurate analogous representation in mainstream media. Looking at population percentage, LGBT is overrepresented "

... I look forward to your explanation of how transgender folks are overrepresented in Hollywood movies. I'm not convinced that representation for LGB folks is terribly impressive either. And for what it's worth ...

"why the hell are you so focussed on sexuality? Why do you care if the person is gay or straight?"

Again, the T in LGBT is not silent. But as for why I care, part of the answer is that it has taken me almost 40 years to realise that my gender identity is even a thing that exists, and it would be great for future generations not to go through the process I had to go through. Part of the answer is that transgender folks are vilified in pretty awful ways, and it would be kind of nice for the cisgendered folks to see trans people represented as being normal, boring folks no different to the rest of you, and maybe that way they'll stop being so violent and abusive towards us? I guess that's why I care? Is that okay by you?
posted by langtonsant at 8:49 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


To forstall the inevitable bullshit comeback, these stats on women in the top 100 grossing US movies are via Indiewire and the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film:
-Only 12% of all clearly identifiable protagonists were female in 2014. This represents a decrease of 3 percentage points from 2013 and a decrease of 4 percentage points from 2002. In 2014, 75% of protagonists were male, and 13% were male/female ensembles. For the purposes of this study, protagonists are the characters from whose perspective the story is told.

-Females comprised 29% of major characters.

-Females accounted for 30% of all speaking characters (includes major and minor characters) in 2014, even with the figure from 2013, but up 2 percentage points from 2002.

-Female characters remain younger than their male counterparts. The majority of female characters were in their 20s (23%) and 30s (30%). The majority of male characters were in their 30s (27%) and 40s (28%).

-The percentage of male characters in their 50s (18%) is twice that of female characters in their 50s (9%).
GLAAD has stas on LGBT representation in TV:
Of the 881 regular characters expected to appear on broadcast primetime programming in the coming year, 35 (4%) were identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. There were an additional 35 recurring LGB characters.

For the first time, GLAAD counted LGBT characters on original series that premiered on Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix. GLAAD found 43 series regulars and 16 recurring LGBT characters across 23 series.

There are no transgender characters counted on primetime broadcast programming, while only three recurring trans characters were counted on cable (2%). Streaming series boast the highest percentage of trans characters at 7% (4) with two notably being series leads. Of the seven trans characters counted, only one was a transgender man.

Bisexual representations rose on both broadcast and cable this year with a notable increase (from 10 to 18) in the number of bisexual men appearing on cable programs. Unfortunately, many of these characters still fall into dangerous stereotypes about bisexual people.
It's difficult to estimate the percentage of the population that is LGBT, but just under 4% is the minimum, and there's more evidence to suggest that it's closer to 10%. This Guardian article is a convenient roundup.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:23 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


MacD: "I just have to say that either you're looking at a small subset of media and thus don't see what's happening or you want overrepresentation."

Actually, now that I've dispensed with my initial irritation I also want to comment on the purely statistical virtues of overrepresenting minority groups, rather than aiming purely for proportional representation. That is, even if you don't agree with the underlying politics, there are good statistical reasons not to aim for proportional representation.

If you've ever had to design a complicated research project in which you expect there to be considerable diversity in the sample, there is a huge data analysis problem caused by the fact that there are low-frequency subgroups that have very extreme scores on your measured variables. In the interests of trying to optimally estimate your statistical model, a common practice is to oversample the rare subgroup rather than rely on a simple random sample (which tends to produce proportionate representation). The reason we do this is because we need to ensure that there are enough examples of the rare group in order to be able to construct meaningful estimates of their characteristics. Sampling observations proportional to their frequency is actually a very inefficient way of learning about the world.

The analogy -- in case it's not obvious -- is that one function of media (not the only one obviously) is to tell stories, stories that inform us, entertain us, and make us think about the world in an interesting way. In other words, one of the things we use stories for is to learn about our world and our culture. Overrepresenting minority groups in popular culture serves a similar purpose to oversampling in a stratified random sampling design: it allows us to communicate culturally relevant ideas in an efficient manner. To use a personal example, if it takes you 40 years to hear enough stories about transgender people to realise that your experience is in fact that of a transfeminine person, then you haven't learned very efficiently. Showing a wider range of gender identities -- even if that means overrepresenting some groups -- is a more useful way of understanding how gender actually operates. A similar situation holds for other groups whose stories tend to go untold.
posted by langtonsant at 9:31 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


Don't type angry, folks.

Do you want typos? That's how you get typos.

posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 11:33 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


To me it's also not only about the numbers that indicate representation (btw, where are my intersexual and non-binary characters?), but rather how representation happens. And I'm talking here about the casual/unnecessary queer in a movie. I dislike seeing LGBT characters being stereotyped, because that is harmful to how we exist in society. Why is Jillian Holtzmann so refreshing? Because she didn't need to be queer, but she just happens to be. And she didn't have to die. And she could have quirks and didn't need to be perfect. And she was not there for the male gaze. And those characters are the ones we're lacking.
posted by katta at 11:48 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


the new Star Wars have a female lead, in isolation, is a non-controversial issue. But you notice that Rogue One has a female lead, too.

There are like 6 Star Wars films with male leads already, why does it matter if there are 2 with female leads? Likewise there are already two Ghostbusters films with male leads.

And, if you are actually serious about story, the art of moving images, tv ... why the hell are you so focussed on sexuality? Why do you care if the person is gay or straight?

Why are you? You seem very invested in lead characters being straight males.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 3:57 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


the new Star Wars have a female lead, in isolation, is a non-controversial issue. But you notice that Rogue One has a female lead, too.

I think there are a couple of different things going on here. It seems that what you dislike is movies that pander to feminist audiences. No one wants movies that pay lip service to feminism and prance around for ninety minutes yelling, "LOOK AT HOW FEMINIST WE ARE!" But, it makes for shitty movies and shitty characters anyways.

Star Wars does not treat their female characters that way. Disney took a lot of flack because they only showed the male characters in the marketing for Ep. 7. So you can be forgiven for being a bit suspicious that Disney is pandering to feminists. But after seeing Ep. 7 and all of the Marvel movies before it, it's pretty clear to me that Disney's business model for their movie making arm is, "Make really excellent movies." Rey is great because she isn't overtly feminist, she's a character who does the same things as all the other characters and just happens to be female. If 50% of movie protagonists were like her, we could call that problem solved.

Similar to how the gay male characters were treated in Neighbors 2. You could have swapped the gender of the fiance to make it a hetero couple and it still would have been the same movie.

There is so much focus on it because when it's done well, it's just not a big deal. And since we know it's not a big deal to include those characters, it means the lack of those characters is a deliberate choice. Stuff like this got to be pretty clear to me once I got into banking. The way fair lending laws are enforced means that if your policies are written in a way that's discriminatory, you get fined. If the outcomes of your policies are discriminatory even if they aren't intended to be, you get fined. In other words, it doesn't matter what your intentions are, if the outcomes are discriminatory, the policies are discriminatory and it's up to you to figure out how to fix it.

LGBTQ characters are underrepresented in movies, and especially "real" characters that aren't just a bag of stereotypes. How do I know that? Because members of that group tell me so here on metafilter and I'm not about gainsay them without a mountain of data.
posted by VTX at 6:21 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Just on the statistics, the median number of characters with speaking parts for a single filmed dramatic work is likely in the teens. For an ongoing episodic series that could easily go over a hundred. But those characters are usually not statistically representative in any degree so it makes little sense to say that sexuality must meet some objective quota.

Why does married Sulu matter? Several years ago, Doctor Who gave us three groundbreaking characters. Sky Sylvestry of Midnight and the pair of lesbian car-watchers in Gridlock positioned same-sex relationships as a normal part of human diversity across the bewildering weirdness of Doctor Who spacetime. For Sulu to have a daughter and husband (and yes, that's plausible from the text), for that relationship to be acceptable for display on the pilot's console, for an open display of affection to happen in front of one's supervisors, all of those are things that straight people take for granted. Those things imply a whole set of conversations off-the screen since straight colleagues do, in fact, talk about family in the workplace. But LGBTQ people still face discrimination. Nearly 3/4ths of lesbian and bisexual women are not out at work in the UK.

Elementary is one of my favorite shows for normalization. There's no reason why every couple in the background and every witness needs to be heterosexual. The LGBTQ people stick out because we're used to a sea of straightness. And character sexuality doesn't need to be called out or made a dramatic plot point. We're so starved for seeing ourselves on the screen we're picking apart reaction shots from Finding Dory trailers.

And, if you are actually serious about story, the art of moving images, tv ... why the hell are you so focussed on sexuality? Why do you care if the person is gay or straight?

Sex, love, and family likely come out near the top of a short list of character motivations.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 7:19 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also, Star Trek had a shot in the opening narration montage contrasting Kirk getting thrown out of a green-skinned woman's quarters, against Bones (to my memory, blink and you'll miss it) getting let in by an affectionate woman. So clearly their heterosexuality needed an establishing shot, not that it really matters that much....
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 7:57 AM on August 18, 2016


The question as posed is about representation. Quantity.

The answer? Maybe it's because the LGBT population is a small percentage and thus does not need to be in every movie/tv show?


I think there are a lot of interesting interrelated issues with this that I'm going to try to unpack.

First off, I think "every movie/TV show needs a queer character" is a strawman. I don't think anyone's arguing for that. I know I personally don't care about that. I'm more interested in counting the number of characters, and the quality and diversity of stories they tell.

When media surveys count the number of queer characters, they're probably not counting wink-wink-nudge-nudge characters like the examples of Clawson and Holtzmann upthread. And rightly so: it's hard to have a discussion about how they represent the queer community if those discussions can always be derailed and denied with are-they-or-aren't-they questions. When you say you feel like queer characters are overrepresented, are you including these?

Also note that this article is talking specifically about film, and mentions the fact that the numbers on TV are better. When you say you feel like queer characters are overrepresented, are you lumping them together?

With those caveats: like I said, I'm generally more interested in the quality of the representation than the quantity. But those two issues aren't so easy to separate. Right now, it feels like to me we're heading to a world where every Hollywood movie has one queer character in the main cast. Let's pretend for a moment we live in that hypothetical world. Numbers-wise, this might overrepresent queer characters. If you estimate the main cast of the "average movie" is 5-10 characters, we're definitely above 10%, which is high. And yet, this hypothetical world is a terrible one for a queer cinema fan to live in, because every Hollywood movie is failing the queer analogue of the Bechdel test. (It's not obvious what the queer analogue of part C, "they talk about something other than a man," is. But we don't have to figure that out yet, because every movie is failing the queer analogue of part A, "the movie has two queer characters.")

If we aim for a goal of "the percentage of queer characters mirrors the general population," that severely limits the diversity of stories that can be told. It means that if Hollywood releases a movie like But I'm A Cheerleader one year, they've already hit their quota and they're done. No queer action thrillers, no queer horror flicks, no queer SFF, no queer romcoms.

Because of that, I think that's a bad goal. I would rather the aim be that Hollywood tell a diversity of stories. My boyfriend and I are the most mainstream American white dudes you can possibly imagine. You know the last time I saw a romance film starring a couple that looked like us? Well, of course, that's a trick question: I've never seen that movie. And that's like the easiest possible case. Where's the spy movie where our hero has to save the world and her kidnapped wife? Where's the road trip movie where one woman gets all her friends together for a birthday camping trip, and her wife and ex-boyfriend get lost together and have to make their way back to civilization? Where's the movie where the queer country kid moves to the big city's gayborhood and has to navigate the total 180 of fitting in some ways and not fitting in others? Where are the transgender characters, or the queer people of color, period?

If queers have to be overrepresented numbers-wise to make that happen… well, shucks. I've been expected to relate to straight characters and appreciate and enjoy their stories all my life. So I speak from experience when I say everyone will manage if we spend a little time with the shoe on the other foot.
posted by brett at 8:13 AM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


Okay, so in addition to all of the very good reasons why the rate of queer character shouldn't be limited to the rate of queer people: There is no reason to think that the 5% figure is accurate to reality. Here's an article. Read past the headline and the attention-grabber poll.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 5:26 PM on August 18, 2016


« Older Lucien Blyau 1925-2016   |   Burkinis interdits Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments