I really enjoyed learning about the history of queer portrayal throughout the years in The Celluloid Closet. In fact, before knowing about the blog prompt I was writing down some of Harvey Fierstein's comments. His comment about any visibility being good is short-sighted. Films, as many of the other interviewees point out, serve as a way for us to know how to behave, what to expect, and they "project subtext," as Gore Vidal put it. For queer characters to be portrayed negatively, it projects an image of queerness as negative.
The subtext on display in the stock (implicitly) gay character, the sissy, is perhaps the straight man's fear of homosexuality. Kaplan asserts that the default film viewer is a (straight) male, and so that gay character must be made both nonthreatening (physically slight), unserious (silly, in pursuit of "unimportant" interests such as decorating), and asexual.
Hmm, this sounds familiar. The sissy has made a return in modern pop culture in the form of the Gay Best Friend. I'm sure many of you are familiar with this trope, explained quite well by Thomas Rogers in this Salon piece titled "Ladies: I'm not your gay boyfriend". The only difference, I believe, in the sissy of the past and the gay best friend of film and television today is that the former's sexuality is implied while the latter's is explicit. By explicit, however, I do not mean explicit; no, the gay best friend is just as neutered as the Sissy in most cases--he never discusses dating or sex like his female friends do. This stereotype, while increasing queer visibility, has done nothing to help viewers understand the complexity of a queer existence. I disagree with Fierstein--unlike publicity, not all portrayals are good portrayals.
I understand what you are saying in the fact that a negative portrayal of queers is not a good portrayal but I think it still helps people realize that queers do exist and that we are actually out there. I agree that movies portray gay people as stereotypes, such as the gay best friend, and they should steer more in the direction that is real. What I mean by real is the fact that we are normal people, just with different tendencies that society has deemed to be most acceptable. I agree that gay characters in movies today are taken as not serious characters and are there to be something like comic relief or support for other characters. Even shows that are geared towards women and the queer community, such as Sex and the City, still use gay people as the support or the character to use for comedy. I can see how such projections of queer people can be negative and hurt the queer community because people then create stereotypes of what a gay person is supposed to act like and its really not who we are.
I could not agree with you more and you make an interesting point, regarding the evolution of the "sissy" character in Hollywood. You made me think of my own analysis in the Sissy and Straight Homosexual, both are non threatening characters. I thought of Brokeback Mountain, in regards to threatening homosexuals who express masculinity and it is still non-threatening. Jake's character is the one who converted Heath's character from heterosexuality to homosexuality. While Heath's character was threatening, he was the straight man who was converted by the evil homosexual. Jake's character was the one who was hit and abused.
So this may be a little off-topic and inappropriate for an educational setting, but I would just like to go off on a rant about how much I HATE the "gay best friend" dilemma. I see it happening constantly, and so many of the gay men that I know of never speak up about the objectification they are enduring because it is such a terrifying concept to lose popularity, particularly among our age group. In my opinion, the objectification of a gay man for his queerness is the same thing and objectifying a woman for her natural endowments, or objectifying a man for the size of his muscles, or objectifying a boss or teacher or police officer for their place within the power structure. It completely undermines any aspect of humanness within this individual because you are simply taking what you want to see, forcing yourself to see it, and ignoring the rest. It takes away any unique characteristics. It negates any individual opinions or viewpoints or desires or interests because the interactional partner with a "gay best friend" has already decided what this person will do/say/enjoy/be and that becomes his only options. It truly devalues any meaningful friendship.
UGH, sorry folks. This one just really makes me mad.
I find a lot of truth in your argument. I understood that there was a "gay best friend" stereotype that was perpetuated, but I really enjoyed your breakdown of the psychology behind it. And it really does create a problem. I can't count how any times I've heard a friend say, "I just want a gay best friend!" (and I'm thinking, "Uhh.. hello? Right here? Might not be a gay guy, but still gay"). They have this idea that a gay male best friend is there for moral support and sassy quips, while ignoring the fact that a gay man is not merely a sidekick and has his own issues (that often go invisible). He is not one dimensional, and no, he does not want to go shopping!
YOUR TITLE SAYS IT ALL! I argue that it might not be as a-sexual or neutral sexuall as represented as you state. However, your points are spot on in the sense that we as a culture have made an acceptable form of gay culture as long as there in the context of being the side-kick to a woman. I would take it further that it perpetuates the stereotype that gays are there for either the entertainment or solving of womens' issues (which of course we are let's be a little honest ;-)