The Brief History of LGBTQ+ Representation in U.S. TV & Film
From the early days of Hollywood to the present, the LGBTQ+ community has fought for representation and visibility on screen. In this audio only episode, we take a deep dive into the milestones and challenges of LGBTQ+ representation in TV and film. From the earliest portrayal of LGBTQ+ characters in the silent film, "The Gay Brothers" to the increasing visibility of LGBTQ+ actors and creators in Hollywood, this episode is a brief introduction to the long history of LGBTQ+ representation in the media.
Whether you're a member of the LGBTQ+ community or an ally, this episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in the history and evolution of LGBTQ+ representation in media. So join us as we explore the past, present, and future of LGBTQ+ representation in U.S. TV and film. Together, we can continue to support and celebrate the LGBTQ+ community on and off screen.
Love our content? Join our Patreon Community ➡️ https://www.patreon.com/ClosetedHistory
📕 TABLE OF CONTENTS 📕
00:00 Episode Introduction
01:23 From The Beginning of Film to the End of the Hays Code
11:10 Challenges LGBTQ+ People Face Within Representation In Media
20:35 Accurate LGBTQ+ Representation In Media
25:12 Key Takeaways
🌈 Connect With Us
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/closetedhistory
Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@closetedhistory
Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/ClosetedHistory
Our Website: www.closetedhistory.com
📱 Subscribe & Watch Here
YT: @ClosetedHistory
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/closeted-history-lgbtq-stories-of-the-past/id1627298680
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3EFhnoQ0uncROlKYK2Nu9D
/ / Some of Our Faves
#1 Place to Find Keywords for YouTube: https://www.tubebuddy.com/pricing?a=CLOSETEDHISTORY
Check out some of our favorite reads, book lists, and support local bookstores with your online book purchases: https://bookshop.org/shop/ClosetedHistory
/ / About Us 🌈
Hi, welcome to Closeted History! Your number #1 spot to learn the Queer and Trans history you never knew! To learn more, check out our website ➡️ [www.closetedhistory.com] Wanna work with us? Check out our media kit ➡️ https://beacons.ai/closetedhistory/mediakit
My name is Destiny (she/they) and I am the creator behind the podcast. Educator, creative, and fellow LG(B)T(Q)+ community member. Nice to meet you!
Disclaimer: Some product links are affiliate links which means if you buy something, we’ll receive a small commission. This is at no extra cost to you and supports our channel 💖
Full Transcript
When we turn on our TVs, there is more LGBTQ+ representation than ever before, from children's animation to full-feature films. It's important to recognize our inspiring and powerful milestones that we've made in the representation of LGBTQ+ people. Today, let's take a journey into the history of LGBTQ+ representation in film and TV, how that has changed over time, some challenges along the way, and how we can continue to strive for authentic, honest LGBTQ+ representation in our media.
Hey everyone, this is Destiny Clark, and you're listening to "Closeted History: LGBTQ+ Stories of the Past," the show where together we out the queer history you never knew. It's all about education, learning, and making the LGBTQ+ stories of the past, which have previously been hidden from our society, more accessible for everyone. Thank you so much for tuning in. This is Season One, Episode Six, of "Closeted History: LGBTQ+ Stories of the Past," the podcast where we out the queer history you never knew. My name is Destiny Clark, my pronouns are she/her, and let's get learning.
From The Beginning of Film to the End of the Hays Code
I'd like for us to start from the beginning of film until the end of the Hays Code. I'd like to provide some context for you and just as always talk about some background. So let's go ahead and start. In late 1894 or early 1895, the Dixon experimental sound film, also known as "The Gay Brothers," was created. This short film was a test for Edison's kinetaphone project, which was the first attempt in history to record sound and moving image in synchronization. Unfortunately, they weren't able to synchronize both the sound and the film, so it became a widely known silent film. In the film, it shows two men dancing with one another as another man behind them plays the violin. And so this is said to be the first gay film. And while there may be a debate over whether the Gay Brothers really were gay, by the 1910s, no silent comedian's canon was complete without at least one film where they appear in drag. In 1916, we see the first parody of the stereotypical or effeminate man. Hollywood in the 1920s was a changing time; films were maturing and showing adult content that reflected the overt indulgence and social changes associated with the time period. And so in this period, we see that they're showcasing progressive films with many LGBTQ+ characters, like "Manslaughter" in 1922, that showcases an "erotic kiss" between two members of the same sex, apparently during an orgy. And in 1927's "Wings," which was a silent war film that was the first movie to win the Best Picture at the Academy Awards, it also depicted one of the earliest on-screen same-sex kisses. In one scene, a young soldier tenderly kisses his dying friend on the mouth, which was a common practice in the trenches of World War One.
And so, while it's really great to read that some of the earliest LGBTQ+ representation in film started since essentially the beginning of film, it's also important to recognize that a lot of the early depictions of LGBTQ+ people were also harmful stereotypes, like the "bury your gays" trope or showing bisexual women as loose and impulsive. And so, fast forwarding a little bit, after the crash of the stock market in 1929, filmmakers were torn between the suggestive entertainment of the Jazz Age and the economic realities of the Great Depression. So during the years of 1930 to 1934, Hollywood created films with drugs, sex, and violence in order to try to lure people to the movies despite the economic hardships of the times. So they made films like "Babyface" in 1932, which stars a woman who uses sex to advance socially and financially. You can understand why that would not be taken very well in 1932. And "Scarface" in the same year—yes, that "Scarface"—that stars an ambitious, power-thirsty gangster. But in the early 1930s, there were still films that had explicitly LGBTQ+ representation. But after these kinds of films were coming out, like in that little small segment between 1930 and 1934, that's when we see in 1934 that the Motion Picture Production Code was heavily enforced. And this really changed Hollywood drastically. So the Motion Picture Production Code—it was a set of industry guidelines for the self-censorship because it was very important that it was self-censored instead of censored by the government, but a self-censorship of content that was applied to most motion pictures released by major studios in the U.S from 1934 to 1968. And it's also popularly known as the Hays Code. And so you may hear me refer to it in this episode as the Hays Code, but they're the same thing. The Motion Picture Production Code and the Hays Code are used interchangeably. But it got this name from the president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Will H. Hays. It claimed to keep films presentable and safe for the public, which means a number of topics and depictions were strictly forbidden. So, for example, you could have no sexually explicit content, the good guys always had to win and the bad guys always had to lose, nothing that promotes bad values or perversion, no swearing or saying offensive things. And I will link a picture down below of some of the other principles that were included in the Production Code. And now, the Production Code did exist prior to its very strict enforcement, but many films ended up slipping through the cracks because it was in 1934 that we see that it's being strictly enforced. So you have extremely limited representation due to the Hays Code and its restrictions on positive queer representation for nearly three decades, which led to many queer-coded characters, language, and symbols throughout films, even today. And so, one of the first examples of this is in 1938's "Bringing Up Baby," when the word 'gay' is used in a queer context. So when a woman asks bisexual actor Cary Grant's character why he's wearing a feathery bathrobe, he responds, "Because I went gay all of a sudden." And this was the first time that we had really seen this word be used in this context. In the 1940s, we see this rise of queer-coded villains and we are seeing representation on the screen, but I would argue that it's not great representation. Though, for example, in 1948's "The Robe," this is where we start to see the queer community and crime become associated, and this was a recurring theme in Alfred Hitchcock films during the time as well, like in the film "Psycho." So in general, during this time, it's mostly stereotypical or harmful representations where LGBTQ+ people are villainized, they're killed, or they face some kind of tragic end.
Still moving forward through time, in 1967, "Portrait of Jason" explores the 60s black gay identity and really provided an intersectional look at LGBTQ+ identity that '60s media was lacking at the time. And I would argue that we can continue to grow in this regard even today in our media because some of the LGBTQ+ stories that we know and that we have seen have unfortunately been whitewashed. In the next year, in 1968, the Hays Code was officially lifted. So we went from the 1910s, where we're seeing queerness being used as comedic relief, comedians are dressing in drag; in the 1920s, we have quite a bit of representation, but it's unfortunately either stereotypical or perpetuating some of the harmful stereotypes that we see about the LGBTQ+ community; and then it almost backlashes a little bit and we see the strict enforcement of the Hays Code in 1934, and that lasted all the way until 1968 when it was officially lifted. Because at this point, by the '60s, society had really changed and it was almost going through this sexual revolution. And so, it left audiences much more open to supposedly vulgar topics, if you can catch my quote-unquote. And so, in 1968, the Hays Code was officially replaced by the new Motion Picture Association film rating system. And then, of course, we know that the Stonewall Inn riots were the following year in 1969, which just shows us really truly how much society was changing at this point. And if you haven't had a chance to listen to that episode, it's actually episode number one. So, you should definitely give it a listen so that you can see how things were going during that time.
So, the Hays Code is lifted, but this is just one of the challenges that LGBTQ+ people face when it comes to representation in the media. One really big challenge is these harmful stereotypes and tropes. So, for example, we have like the gay best friend stereotype or, like I mentioned earlier, we have queer-coded villains. And when they're not being killed as villains, queer characters are often depicted as martyrs with their lives naturally ending in tragedy. So, for example, you have the "bury your gays" trope, and this is a long-standing convention of the narratives that kill off queer characters far more frequently than straight characters. And it's become known as the "bury your gays" trope. Queer characters die so often in movies and TV that there's actually this website—it's called DoesTheDogDie.com—and they have a list with the category "Does an LGBT person die?" And it has way too many examples to count. Just to kind of give you some data to base this off of: between 2015 and 2016, 42 lesbians and bisexual women were killed off in U.S TV shows, and in 2016, four of them died in a single month. The most prominent among these was Lexa from "The 100," who was killed just minutes after finally sleeping with her love interest, Clarke, whose death prompted a widespread backlash against the "bury your gays" trope.
And so, we have to recognize that this trope is harmful because even when queer characters aren't subjected to overt violence or death, many of them still haven't been able to be happy. So, they're either dying or they're being perpetuated in these stories of struggle and pain. For example, like in 1993's "Philadelphia," starring Tom Hanks who dies during the AIDS epidemic, or 1999's "Boys Don't Cry," starring Hilary Swank who plays a transgender man who is a victim of a hate crime based on the true story of Brandon Teena. Both of these movies do bring to light important real-life issues that LGBTQ+ people may be facing, but subsequently have become a dominant trope in media throughout the years. And I know that these movies were definitely a change from the depiction of LGBTQ+ people at the time, but it's still really important to take a critical look at it in the now and understand and recognize how this representation can also be really harmful. And not to mention, both of these films were played by cisgender heterosexual actors and not by real LGBTQ+ people. Both Tom Hanks and Hilary Swank won Academy Awards for these films, and my question is, if you're doing a film about a transgender man, then why can't you get a transgender man to play the role?
YouTube channel The Take wrote or summarized this really well when they say, "LGBTQ+ tales are also often about a character's struggle for acceptance from their families, from their communities, and even from themselves. And while these films, many of them also based on real-life experiences, usually end with the gay characters breaking free, accepting themselves, and even finding some happiness, the prevalence of this narrative in LGBTQ+ cinema again serves to underline that being queer automatically means being alienated and unwanted by your community."
So, while we can acknowledge that it's great when we have some LGBTQ+ representation, I think that it's also really important to recognize when some of that representation becomes stereotypical or harmful. And I think that that brings us to a question of lack of accountability from Hollywood. So, like in the movies that I mentioned earlier, like in "Philadelphia" starring Tom Hanks, it just seems super strange to me because the movie grossed $206.7 million against a budget of $26 million, and the family who this story was based off of was interviewed but didn't even get compensated until they had to settle out of court. In addition to that, in the movie "Boys Don't Cry" that I mentioned earlier, there are several inaccuracies. So, while this story is based on real-life events, it doesn't necessarily tell the story very intentionally with the mindset of leading with the truth. It is kind of like "Hollywood-ized," that's not really a verb, but I'm using it as a verb in this context. But Hollywood made it into a different story and showcased several inaccuracies, so much so to the point where the girlfriend of the victim, she actually sued the producers for her portrayal in the movie because, you know, her friends and family were coming to see the film that was based on her and her partner, and then the viewers are getting a much different story than what actually happened. And I didn't mention this movie earlier, but again, another instance where we see a lack of accountability from Hollywood is in the movie "Paris is Burning," which is a very prominent LGBTQ+ movie. In the movie "Paris is Burning," the same thing from "Philadelphia" happened where the people who the film was about were interviewed and then they weren't properly compensated because, you know, the writers essentially got what they wanted, got the story that they were going to make for Hollywood, and then abandoned the people who provided the story in these interviews.
So, "Paris is Burning" is about drag culture and about drag queens and Ballroom culture. And so, when writers were interviewing the people that they were basing this information off of, those who were interviewed were never properly compensated. In addition to the stereotypes, the stories of struggle and pain, the lack of accountability from Hollywood, we also see that there's a good bit of pushback from viewers and caregivers. So, oftentimes, we kind of see this fight with the networks. Like, for example, the writer from "Steven Universe" who is an openly bisexual person, they had trouble providing representation in their own show because of the backlash that the network was afraid that they were going to get. And so, even when you are in control of the writing, we see that the funding and what the network is comfortable with really can dictate how much is allowed within that space.
And so, the last challenge that I want to speak about is queer baiting. And so, we spoke about queer coding earlier, and I just want to distinguish these two. Queer coding came out of a necessity that we had this very strict Hays Code that was restricting any positive representation of LGBTQ+ people in film and on TV. And so, queer coding came out of a necessity to still have that representation but in a hidden subtext kind of way where it could get past the eyes of the Hays Code but still be present within the film. But now, queer baiting, that's very distinct from queer coding because of the intentionality. And so, queer coding intentionally invokes queerness in order to draw in viewership without the follow-through on providing an openly LGBTQ+ character because they kind of leave things ambiguous. And so, a really good example of this is Will from "Stranger Things." And we still have season five, so there is time, but there have been hints at Will's sexuality seemingly since season one, and then in season four, we thought that we were going to kind of get this opening up of Will's identity, but we didn't see that. And the actor himself even said that, "Oh, it's open to interpretation." And so, it feels very manipulative to kind of entice LGBTQ+ audiences with the empty promise of a queer character within the show.
I know that it's 2022, and we don't necessarily need to put labels on everything, but queerbaiting is a marketing ploy at the end of the day. They're only doing it to earn the money of LGBTQ+ audiences. It's used to bring in these audiences in a manipulative way. There isn't really any representation because it's really nothing but an empty promise of that representation.
So, it's really important for us to think about how we can make sure that LGBTQ+ people are accurately represented in media. So, as we continue to fight for representation, we also have to fight amongst misrepresentation, where we see the stereotypical representations of the LGBTQ+ community or we see these harmful tropes like the "bury your gays" trope that I mentioned earlier.
And proper representation helps combat those stereotypes and ignorance. And this isn't just a theory. A 2015 study found that when straight people are more exposed to gay characters on TV, they actually become more accepting of gay equality. And on top of that, a 2020 survey by GLAAD and P&G found that queer representation increased queer acceptance by up to 45%. So, it's really important that we do have proper representation. And we have to look past just general representation and strive for stories that represent the community in a way that is honest but also shows joy, happiness, and thriving. So, a really good example of this is "Moonlight" when it made history in 2017 as the first LGBTQ+ movie to win the Oscar for Best Picture. The film, which features an all-black cast, was one big step towards making gay cinema that isn't whitewashed. It features a range of identities and it doesn't make its queer characters one-note or vehicles of suffering. And I just really love that.
So, we need to ensure that we are offering more representation that showcases real, authentic looks into the dynamic lives of LGBTQ+ people. And it's really important that we do recognize that we have made a lot of progress throughout the years. And part of that progress in fighting for LGBTQ+ representation is due to streaming services. So, the organization GLAAD that I mentioned earlier has revealed a wealth of LGBTQ+ representation on streaming platforms in their annual report, which is called "Where We Are on TV." So, this report showed that there are 245 LGBTQ+ series regulars and 113 LGBTQ+ recurring characters across Netflix, Hulu, Apple TV+, Paramount+, HBO Max, Amazon, Disney+, and Peacock. And so, Netflix still tops the charts with 155 queer characters. The runner-up was HBO Max with 77. And now, while streaming services have really helped us in making some progress, we have seen some network progress too. So, across all broadcast networks, nearly 12% of regularly appearing characters are members of the LGBTQ+ community, according to that same study conducted by GLAAD.
Cable has also seen an increase with 138 characters counted as members of the LGBTQ+ people, which is up from 118 from last year but down from 215 in 2020. So, in all, the report counted 637 LGBTQ+ characters on TV, which is amazing. And we're even starting to see some queer characters being present in children's animation. So, on broadcast, CW had the most LGBTQ+ representation among series regulars, followed by Fox. Very interesting on the major networks. 56% of the characters were—40% were lesbians, which is an increase from 34 last year. And for the fourth year in a row, GLAAD found that the most LGBTQ+ characters on broadcast TV with 58 this year were people of color. And so to see not only the numbers go up but particularly to see improvement when it comes to parts of the community who have been left out of the story and left off-screen is a really great change to see this year and something that we're really excited about. Says Megan Townsend, GLAAD's director of entertainment research and analysis. And in addition, we also see that the overall number of transgender characters on TV has increased by 13 characters across broadcast, cable, and streaming, often in comedies.
So some key takeaways from this episode:
I want us to recognize the lasting legacy of the Hays Code and its restrictions and that it has even longer impacts on communities that don't have any other representation of the community in general.
The second thing that I want to note is that representation is complex because real-life lived experiences are also complex. And so when we see the stereotypical depictions of LGBTQ+ people, we have to recognize that they are harmful. And representation in film and television isn't enough to counter the real-life experiences of discrimination, erasure, and violence that Black and brown LGBTQ+ people face daily. So we must continue to be intersectional in our approach to creating accurate and equitable LGBTQ+ representation in the media.
And my last takeaway that I want you to get from this episode is that it's important to recognize our progress but to know that this is a journey, not a destination. This work is never finished. And while to some it might feel really overwhelming when you say it that way, I think that that's truly the beauty of it, that we're always growing and learning and getting better. And once we know better, we do better. So we will continue to do this work and be more affirming and inclusive together.
So in conclusion, LGBTQ+ representation in media is important for visibility and acceptance. I hope that you enjoyed learning with me in this episode. I really appreciate you spending your time with me.
If you enjoyed it, it's really helpful if you give the show a review. And this is also a reminder that if you made it all the way to the end of the episode, one, you are one of my people. Thank you so much for being here. And two, I wanted to remind you that my podcast is now being hosted over on Anchor. So this episode is brought to you by Anchor listener support. You can support Closeted History for a small donation every single month. They have different tiers, either one dollar, five dollars, or ten dollars. The donations really help for me to cut out some time to work on the podcast and to make these episodes. So I really appreciate your support. Of course, the biggest way, one of the biggest ways that you can support me and support the show is by leaving a review. So if you could leave a review, it helps other people discover the show so that they can continue to learn more LGBTQ+ history with me, just like you are. Remember that you are important and your story matters. So until the next time, friend.
Thanks for making it all the way to the end of the episode with me. You can find the transcript and all the links listed in the show notes. I'd love to hear what you thought of this episode. You can send me a message on the podcast Instagram @ClosetedHistory or reach out to me via my website discoveredwithdestiny.com/contact. If you'd like to support the podcast, the best way to do so is to share an episode with a friend and leave a review. I hope you continue to learn more LGBTQ+ history with me in the next episode and as we embark on our learning journey together. As always, thank you for listening. You are important and your story matters. Until the next time, friend.
[Music]
