Hollywood's Gay Abandon

Has Hollywood finally embraced homosexuality? The answer, belatedly, appears to be “yes” if the new biopic of J Edgar Hoover is anything to go by. Clint Eastwood’s biopic of the controversial and all-powerful founder of the FBI sees Leonardo DiCaprio in the title role hinting at a gay relationship, providing yet more comparatively recent evidence that Hollywood is bending over backwards to accommodate a relaxed liberal approach to homosexuality. This, palpably, was not always the case.

                          

Hoover has always been a figure of immense interest, debate and disagreement. He may have founded the FBI, contributed to its success and to its controversy via corruption and illegal harassment, but the biggest question has always seemed to be - was he or wasn’t he? This is of course referring to Hoover’s sexuality and cross dressing which seems to be the most prevalent concern of the American Press. Luckily J.Edgar has been written by the talented Dustin Lance Black who wrote the script for Milk so it may be expected that the subject-matter will be approached with sensitivity and respect.

What makes this so interesting is that the film is a take on a man who impacted enormously on modern American history who was possibly homosexual. It is not necessarily a major part of the story yet Di Caprio and Eastwood have been providing interviews about their feelings on gay marriage and Hoover’s sexuality.

Is it because Hollywood is now more politically correct and eager to showcase just how far it has come?  Many Americans, although more accommodating now, appear to have  a fascination with homosexuality. In Hollywood through the ages, homosexuality is either portrayed hideously, a vehicle for malice or a sentimental journey of martyrdom.  British films on the other hand treat homosexuality with blasé candour and do not see it as quite as controversial.

In a Hollywood film the depiction of homosexuality is often one-dimensional, pandering to the stereotypes fictionalised by the fearful public. This leads to fascinating correlations between almost a hundred years of gay portrayal on film. Even as far back as the 1920s, characters such as ‘the sissy’ were given a platform to indoctrinate and dictate to the masses.  Gay characters were villainized, (Rope 1948), murdered, (Suddenly Last Summer 1959) insane, (Rebecca 1940) or had to engage in self flagellation to redeem their ‘troubled souls’ (The Children’s Hour 1962).

Even when Hollywood creates films with positive portrayals of homosexuality there are still fundamental flaws that betray an underlying discomfort. For example Philadelphia was seen to be a groundbreaking film in constructing a sympathetic approach to homosexual relationships and compassion for the AIDs epidemic of the 1980s. Whilst the heart of this film is not brought into question, it is true to say that  the safety casting of all American good guy Tom Hanks was used to ease the American public into an unthreatening homosexual world. And whilst Andrew Beckett succeeds in obtaining the justice he so rightfully deserves from his bigoted boss, he still follows the pattern of many homosexuals depicted on screen by dying. In this case he is almost martyred as a pin up for ‘normality.’  There is little subtlety.

                             

Once again in Brokeback Mountain, hailed as being pioneering, the heroic lovers did not enjoy a happy ending. Beautifully shot, scripted and acted as it was, the story still followed the pattern of Hollywood films by allowing Jake Gyllenhaal’s character Jack Twist to be brutally murdered.

Comparing American films with British films regarding homosexuality leaves no doubt of their contrasting approaches. On the one hand the American ‘sissy’ was never explicitly exposed as gay, but the nasty characterization left no doubt in the audience’s mind of what in their eyes he was, a snivelling, wimpy effeminate.

In the groundbreaking British film Victim, noted for being the first English language movie to say the word “homosexual,” Dirk Bogarde is a gay barrister who falls for a younger man. In this film Bogarde, who was a homosexual in real life, was showing a sexual passion which was honest and powerful yet subtly nonchalant. This non-sensationalized film was banned in America. The British film industry has tried harder with undoing stereotypes such as John Hannah’s character in Four Weddings and a Funeral,  who delivers a moving eulogy to his deceased gay partner played by Simon Callow. They had a normal, loving relationship that transcends the stereotype. Ian McKellen lauded Callow’s and Hannah’s performances claiming that “they had done a hundred times more for homosexuals than Philadelphia”.

Why is this difference so obvious? Perhaps the British are not naive to homosexuality or pretend it is not there so do not find it a shock when they see it represented on film. This may in part be due to our long-standing thespian culture and camp love for drag and pantomime. Looking at a microcosm of American culture would show that this free expression has not been assimilated quite so easily in Hollywood. In fairness to Hollywood there have been some brave exceptions with mavericks fighting the censorship.  Gore Vidal envisaged Ben Hur as a gay love affair and, to an extent it was, although he just did not tell the audience. Charlton Heston was not made aware of Vidal’s intent, but Stephen Boyd who played Messala, Ben Hur’s ‘lover,’ was well aware of Vidal’s intention and milked the close ups in the film, showing passionate desire for Ben Hur in non so subtle looks to the camera.   Vidal, himself homosexual, was ironically mocking an audience who thought that they were witnessing a macho epic, but any discerning eye could work out the homosexual connotations implied. It was so wonderfully deceiving and also constructive in showing that men could be the butch idol and gay. 

                             

A recent work that deserves praise is Milk, the caring and affectionate film by Gus Van Sans about the first gay politician Harvey Milk. Although not a ballsy defiance of censorship, due to the modern times we live in, it was finally a realistic, moving portrayal of an incredibly influential man. It showed his relationships to be loving, normal and uses humour as a device most effectively to make the audience feel a part of Milk’s life and his posse of activists.

So in light of this success perhaps Hollywood has turned the corner on its murky past and even all those years ago when Hollywood was calling the shots in demonising homosexuality there was hope in British films. Only time will tell if Hollywood breaks the formula for homosexual depiction on film. We can only hope. Perhaps Di Caprio’s recreation of J Edgar Hoover will speed up a process of realistic interpretation that American cinema, at last, appears to have begun.