5 - "The Celluloid Closet" and Stereotypes

"The Celluloid Closet" and Stereotypes 

By Nabeel, Brendan and Raven

Introduction 

We had the chance to watch a very unique, informative and eye-opening film during this week in class called The Celluloid Closet. Directed by Rob Epstein and Jeffery Friedman, this American movie showcases the stereotypes of gays and lesbians in Hollywood films. It explores the mass population's general perception of this specific group. Outside of class, we watched Reel Injun, a documentary of similar format directed by Native American filmmaker Neil Diamond, with Catherine Bainbridge and Jeremiah Hayes. This movie presents the different roles that the natives have held throughout the history of Hollywood films and how it shaped society’s opinion of them. Both of these films share common themes such as the presence and portrayal of stereotypes and hegemony which were discussed in class.


Part 1: Analysis of The Celluloid Closet

(The Celluloid Closet, Rob Epstein and Jeffery Friedman, 1995, USA, 107 minutes)

Theatrical Poster for "The Celluloid Closet"

The Celluloid Closet was released in 1995 and was directed by Academy Award winner Rob Epstein and Jeffery Friedman. This film depicts the characterization of gays and lesbians throughout 100 years of Hollywood films. Through the use of interviews with homosexual actors and filmmakers, as well as straight actors who played gay roles, we gained insight on their opinions regarding how Hollywood portrayed the gay and lesbian community.

Gay characters had a place in cinema since its early beginnings; they were even present in early silent films. Since that time, they’ve had three distinct roles. Initially, they had a comedic role and were known as the “sissy”. Throughout the usage of this stock character, we were taught to laugh at and pity them. They were also used to make men seem more manly and women more feminine. The second character we were introduced to was the "victim", who had us feeling pity for gays and lesbians. These characters were always shown to be miserable, treated unfairly, depressed and unable to fit into the norms of society. A common occurrence featuring this type of gay character involved their death at the end of the film. These movies once again reinforced the notion that being gay was some sort of horrid anomaly which led to a life filled with hopelessness and despair. The final portrayal revolved around how homosexuality was a flaw or human disorder. To represent this, the film producers conceived the gay characters as the primary antagonist or “villain” of the movies. They were shown as monsters who lacked a conscience and had no remorse. This type of character altered entirely society’s viewpoint of the gay community. We went from laughing at the humorous “sissy”, and feeling pity for the "victimized gays" to fearing and hating the gay villain which further ostracized the homosexual community. All three of these roles in Hollywood film helped to influence the gay stereotype; being gay was unnatural and wrong. Since these ideas and images of gay people were widely accepted and acknowledged to be the truth, they became living stereotypes.

This video explains how gay members of society viewed the usage of the sissy, as well as the characters role in popular film. 

The ruling group at the time; mostly heterosexual producers, set the roles and ideals of what it meant to be gay; they created the hegemony of the time. Anything outside of their frame of "normalcy" was labelled as inadequate. The use of ethnocentrism, or using the norms of one group to create the "social norm", allowed the hatred and ignorance to continue. One concept we learned about known as social types, involved a group of people who lived by the "rules" of society. They were shown to have a sense of freedom, since they adhered to the norm. Those who were different, such as gays or lesbians, were made to be condemned, since the rules were designed to exclude them. The usage of synecdoche, or taking the part for the whole, was extremely prevalent. If you wore pinched clothing, had a soft voice or were somewhat effeminate, you'd immediately be classified as gay. And being classified as gay brought on negative connotations, such as being an inferior human, being feared and even hated.

Part 2: Analysis of Reel Injun

(Reel Injun, Neil Diamond, Catherine Bainbridge and Jeremiah Hayes. 2009, Canada,56 minutes)

Cree filmmaker and director/narrator of Reel Injun : Neil Diamond

As mentioned before, the plot line for Reel Injun resembles very closely to that of The Celluloid Closet. Director Neil Diamond, who is a Native American filmmaker from the Cree tribe up in northern Quebec, grew up watching many cowboy and Indian movies while growing up. At first glance, nothing seems very strange about that. Hollywood has made over 4000 Native American themed movies in the past 100 years However, Diamond noticed a weird trend: he found that in the majority of the films, cowboys were favored more than the Native Americans and that he used to cheer for the side that was fictionally destroying his home, completely forgetting the fact that he was from an Indian heritage as well. It's this bittersweet insight that serves as the motivation for Diamond to make Reel Injun. 

The film discusses the various stereotypes of native people in Hollywood. It also discusses the affect that these stereotypes have had on the native community and concludes with how native filmmakers are representing their people in films today.

The movie is divided into sections and much like The Celluloid Closet, describes how each decade of film has portrayed the aboriginal people. (It should be noted that the 1980’s were skipped due to no film regarding Native Americans were produced).

The early decades talks about how the American people used to be fascinated by the Native Indians. Therefore, they weren't depicted as being a source of any kind of danger. As a matter in fact, early films showed native Indians as noble heroes and helpers of the white man. No matter how positive the portrayals were, people interviewed by Diamond, such as Indian activist Russell Means and Hollywood star Clint Eastwood, agree on the fact that they weren't accurate representation of the Native American culture. Hollywood producers didn't care though. They even went to the extent to employ white actors to portray Indian people in movies!

The good portrayal of the Indian didn't last long though. Things changed drastically in the 1930’s with the arrival of The Great Depression and the economic collapse of the United States. Weak and poor, Americans so desperately wanted to see themselves being dominant over other people that they transitioned this idea into film. Aboriginal people became the center antagonists of the movie, always setting out to destroy the white protagonists of the films (John Ford's Stagecoach released in 1939 could be used as a prime example). For the next three decades, Westerns epitomized by the films of John Ford cemented the image of the Indian as fearsome aggressor. In Ford’s films and other Westerns of that era, “The Cowboy” became a new kind of hero who could kill and tame the wild Native tribes threatening western settlers. However, a new and usual depiction of the aboriginal people emerged. In the 1960’s Native American were portrayed as a free-spirited, headband-wearing, sensitive characters which were largely influenced by the hippie culture. Also during this time, natives started revolting against injustices they had long been suffering. An important event takes place in 1973 which the film briefly discusses. Members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) took over a town called Wounded Knee in order to protest against the treatment of aboriginal communities. The FBI got involved and tension between the two parties escalated quite quickly. During the 45th Academy Awards, Marlon Brando, who won in the Best Actor category for his role in The Godfather, declined the award in order to show and raise awareness of treatments of Indians in Hollywood. Instead of going up to the podium himself, he sent Sacheen Littlefeather, a Native American rights activist to conduct a speech on his behalf. The speech can be viewed with the link down below.

Not so long after, the incident ended. Hollywood decided to portray Native Americans on screen as generous, fleshed out and complete characters. The 90’s saw the resurgence of the Western genre but this time, Indians were also part of the good guys. Films like Dances with Wolves and The Last of the Mohicans were box office hits. However, they still didn't capture the essence of the culture as the aboriginal people were hoping for because they were still produced by non-Indians. The 2001 film The Fast Runner became the turning point for Native American filmmakers, who began producing films showing Indians as real people, as they are today. The culture represented was raw and pure. Finally, an accurate portrayal of Native Americans was being conveyed to the people!

Unlike how gays were always negatively portrayed in Hollywood film, Native Americans and their role in film went through major shifts, though being a native was not always considered to be a bad thing. The presence of fixed, stereotypical roles was ever-present, ranging from the "mystical warrior" native to the savage, underdeveloped native. Since the native people did not fit into the classification of what was standard at the time, they were quickly stereotyped and excluded because of this classification. Some of the most recurring stereotypes showed Natives wearing feathered headdresses. They were also portrayed as being skilled horsemen and archers, as well as being deeply spiritual and connected to nature. Hollywood's attitude and portrayal of these people quickly affected the general population's outlook on Natives. In Reel Injun, a man recounts how every week, after watching a movie with his brother at the cinema, a gang of white boys would engage them in a fight, simply because they were Native.

Part 3 - Personal Response: How do stereotypes affect us?

Based on the films that we viewed in class, many different thoughts came to mind and made us begin to think outside of the box. In the first movie, that is entitled “The Celluloid Closet” directed by Rob Epstein and Jeffery Friedman, we witness the drastic stereotypes of homosexuals that Hollywood portrays. 

The homosexuals in this film are always looked down upon because of their unordinary sexual orientation. According to us, this is an inappropriate film choice because it makes people more afraid to confess and accept themselves. People in the movie industry tend to forget that these gays and lesbians are normal people. It was not a choice that they made, because no one willingly chooses to be isolated by society. With that being said, we are not trying to say that we should make them seem like extra good people, but we do believe that we should avoid putting emphasis on the way they should be viewed (positive/negative).

We think the problem firmly lies in the heterosexual’s perception over homosexuals. When we watch movies, we always put ourselves in the character’s place. We imagine ourselves being part of the fiction world. Once most heterosexuals witness a scene involving homosexuality, they’re disgusted and frightened because they themselves would never dare commit such acts. It’s just not in their mentality. Therefore, they develop this huge fear against homosexuals which in return helps them shape a negative perception over gays and lesbians. This homophobia sadly encourages homosexuals to hide themselves from the general population.

What was remarkable during our reflection was the title choice. We searched up the word “Celluloid” to get a better understanding and we discovered that it was defined as being “A transparent flammable plastic made in sheets from camphor and nitrocellulose, formerly used for cinematographic film”. We interpreted that in a special way. Since celluloid is something that is transparent, we related it to homosexuals. According to us, homosexuals are somewhat transparent because of the difficulty the general public encounters to exactly perceive gay people for their true nature. Stereotypes conveyed in movies make the process very difficult and therefore forces the homosexuals to isolate themselves from society. The following word in the title is “Closet” which gives us a better understanding of the movie because it showed us how homosexuals are afraid to come out of the “closet” since they’re afraid of how the society might treat them. 

We've been recently hearing in the news about the Obama administration urging states that haven't adopted same-sex marriage, such as Florida, to do so. This shows that that the majority of the population have progressed from living in a state of fear to accepting reality as it is by supporting gays and lesbians in their unions. 

From a technical aspect, we found that Reel Injun was quite inferior to The Celluloid Closet. It was considerably shorter, a feature which we found undermined the film’s ability to convey a more complete explanation of what was going on on-screen. For example, there is a segment at the end of the film where the director wants to show us the reactions of young Indian children after watching a violent movie in which Native Americans are being killed. We just see glimpses of the children’s faces while they’re watching the movie. They appear rather disturbed by what they're seeing but the film doesn't follow-up or explore it any further. There's no discussion with them afterwards and it's problematic for us that we don't actually hear what they think about what they've just seen. 

However, from a critical point of view, Reel Injun is in itself a very powerful documentary showcasing how it’s important to the aboriginals to let people know of their real culture. Even though Hollywood has portrayed them as nice and loving people from time to time, the Native Americans still weren't satisfied which is quite intriguing. The interviews are meaningful but sometimes rather short. However, we do appreciate the message the film is trying to convey to its audience.

Reel Injun has helped the public understand the image of Native people; it has opened the window on their cultures and let the world know that Native people have something to say, that they are not necessarily noble and treacherous people, but just human. We, as fellow humans, must respect them like we would with any other person.

Conclusion

In conclusion, after watching the two movies, we are still left dazzled and amazed on how much power films have over the minds of the mass population. Not only does it influence us but also shapes how we interact and perceive other people. The Celluloid Closet and Reel Injun both demonstrated that this is possible by presenting to us many facts from Hollywood films as well as great testimonies from various people.