Christian Ryner V.

Viray

BA Film

2016 – 89940

A Comparative Analysis on the Three Themes on “The Celluloid Closet”

The emergence of queer characters in Hollywood Cinema paved the way on

what we so called now, Queer Cinema. However, it was controversial on how the queer
characters, being depicted on the films, represent a certain perspective on how the
society views the community. By basing on the earlier films, it is very clear that there is
a series of misjudgement and stereotyping on how queer characters are being
portrayed on the big screen. The roles of gay and lesbian backfired in a way that the
notorious Hays Code eradicated all mentions of homosexuality from the silver screen
and how numerous directors managed to fool the censorship. Moderating the code in
the 1950s, brought out characters like the predatory lesbian. While the 60s introduced
the suicidal methods of homosexuals, the 1970s followed the arrival of gay
pyschopathic killers and ludicrous stereotypes that were always a source of laughter for
the audience. More than discussing on how they are depicted, it tackles the culture of
the society now and then on how we see and perceive queer people, as tolerated but
not accepted. However, you cannot blame the people. Even in the stage of childhood,
media has always dominated on how the children think and how it will develop based on
the foundation of that thinking. Children were always seen as weak, innocent and
dependent. Media used to target them in establishing what they want their audience to
think. A good start of this, is through the children. The innocence of a child is usually
linked to its developmental psychology in a way that a child has its own sexual
innocence. Being a Tabula Rasa, according to John Locke, the first information that was
pervaded through the mind of a child will serve as the basis of their thinking. The mind
will accept what it wants to believe. It can change but it will be hard. Ending up in a
continuous cycle, the fight for queer rights is a never ending fight for our battles not just
in breaking the discrimination towards us but to understand without the superiority of the
other genders.

The first issue being tackled is on how gay characters were being used as a
laughing stock. This arose the thought that we have a hypermasculine and paternalistic
view of men throughout the world. This was the paradigm of the male sexuality before.
Actually, it also sets a standard for the women. Any men who represents a persona of
soft and tenderness are easily identified as gays by the society. This was due to the fact
that media, not just in film but in all sorts of mass media, represented the superiority of
the dominant culture of heteronormativity. Anything that is strange and odd was used as
a timing for comical acts. If we would trace the history of films that used gay as subjects
for laughter, you could also notice on how the context in making fun of them changes
through time. When before, there are no levels in eliciting laughter, for the concept of
being gay before was basically funny for the discrimination then is too strong; now, we
used to identify them as comedians, in a way that we don’t just laugh of them not
because they are oppressed but they are also serving for the oppressors by being the
actors of laughter by staging comedy acts. This feeds on the thinking that gays were
stereotyped as comedians and beauticians, especially in the Philippine context. We
were being loved because we’re funny not because we are gay. We are who we are.
That’s it. This is a special mention to Ms. Pia Wurtzbach.

The second and last issue being depicted in the film, is on how gays were viewed
as subjects for pity. This was manifested with a lot of dramatic scenes, when a
character realizes how hard it is to be a queer. This is a good attempt in uplifting and
showing a different perspective in being queer. However, most films ended up in being
defeatist. It didn’t succeed in its attempt but rather to impose that the life of a queer
person will end up in being sad and lonely. It’s like an discouragement of implicitly
saying that if you can choose to be heterosexual, please do. One of the causes of the
logic is that homosexuality was perceived as a sin before. I still can’t find the logical
reason on why it should be banned. Most people claimed that it is unnatural for a man
to fall in love with another man and vice versa to a woman. However, this is not a good
argument for it doesn’t account to the fact that it is neither right nor wrong in terms of
one’s homosexuality. Regardless of the point in banning it, it will never do good in both
parties. Everyone is a product of culture. Being gay is a product of it and also its
oppression. The sad thing is, we are living in a structural world dominated by an elitist
and dominant class. Those who were in the lower class, were being marginalized. If we
try to break into the circle of that ruling belief, we are now trying an attempt to break that
thought. That already serves the threat to the dominant society who believes that
homosexuality is a sin. The fight for us, all queers, continues everyday. I know that I
cannot be able to see a world where homosexuality is not tolerated but accepted. But it
is worth fighting for, not just for today’s queer people but for the future’s homosexual
persons.

The film presented gay as a view of the criticism of the society inside and out of a
homosexual. We are criticized in a way of what it means to be gay and what it means in
living that life. Media presented that being a gay is hard but living the life of a gay is
harder and fighting for the rights of a gay is the hardest. It made me realize that
regardless of the sexuality of the person is, this is not just the fight of all the queer
persons but the fight for humanity.