projections and reflections

In the first week of class we watched the documentary The Celluloid Closet, which dealt with how queer folk have been represented in cinema, particularly in the US. The Celluloid Closet shows us how queer folk have fought for visibility in cinema in a largely oppressive culture. For much of the 20^th century queer folk were seen either as villians, someone to be pitied, or as sources humor. On occasion, queer folk would be portrayed subtly, in order to pass through strict cinema regulations. For much of the 20^th century, queer folk were misrepresented, or their representation was so covert, it was easy for many viewers to miss. There were little to no positive representations of queer folk, who are thriving and successful. This disparity of positive queer representation in cinema reflects how our culture has looked at queer folk for years. Cinema is a projection of our culture, and our cultural values, and that projection forms a mirror in which individuals come to view and understand themselves. What I found incredibly interesting about the documentary was queer folks reactions to cinema that showed covert or even negative representations of other queer folk. While they all basically agreed that the representations were inadequate, and had a ways to go in terms of progress, they were still excited to see what little representation they had. One man even went so far as to say he looked forward to the scenes in movies were the cliché role of the sissy was portrayed. While this was a negative representation, he would have rather seen negative representation rather than no representation at all. It is however important to note that he had already self identified as a sissy, and this role therefore may have carried more personal emotional weight to it. To me, this documentary really shows the importance of visibility, one reason being because it changes the public sentiments of straight folks towards queer folk, but perhaps even more importantly, because it makes queer folk feel less isolated. The presence of queer folk in cinema, even when it was negative or covert gave queer viewers a feeling that there were others out there like them, and that they were part of a community.

Would rather have negative representation than no representation at all.

This concept of the importance of community is further explored in week one’s readings on gay male culture. It was interesting to me to see how arts and culture have become part of gay culture, even if the art in question doesn’t specifically deal with gay subject matter. Artistic works such as literature, dance, ballet, theater and poetry were all areas that were readily consumed by the Gay community. As the author puts it, arts were understood to be a portion of society that was more forward thinking and liberal than the majority of society, and it was a place that gays could “go” to be accepted or at least tolerated. I found it interesting when it was put in those words, because it seems that there are push and pull factors that lead gay men to the world of arts and culture. Surely there are gay men who despite cultural factors would have found there way to the world of the arts, but there are also those like the author who felt pushed away from the rest of society, and pulled towards the supposed open-mindedness and acceptance of the world of the arts. He found himself pushed to read and try to appreciate dense classical works of literature, when really what he genuinely enjoyed was campy theater. He felt a drive to form his identity as something that fit within the scope of what was considered to be a cultured gay identity. Both this reading and the documentary show that people are driven to feel that they are a part of a community, even if that community is conceptual, or has a stigma attached. People cannot stand to feel isolated for long.