See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/307758090

The Changing Face of Gay Representation in Hollywood Films

from the 1990s Onwards

Article in The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Cultural Studies · January 2015

DOI: 10.18848/2327-008X/CGP/v10i04/53191

CITATIONS READS

3 14,799

1 author:

Sarah Baker
Auckland University of Technology
21 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sarah Baker on 03 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 VOLUME 10 ISSUE 4

The International Journal of

Interdisciplinary
Cultural Studies
_________________________________________________________________________
The Changing Face of Gay Representation in
Hollywood Films from the 1990s Onwards
What’s Really Changed in the Hollywood Representation
of Gay Characters?

SARAH BAKER

[Link]
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY CULTURAL STUDIES
[Link]

First published in 2015 in Champaign, Illinois, USA

by Common Ground Publishing LLC
[Link]

ISSN: 2327-008X

© 2015 (individual papers), the author(s)

© 2015 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes
of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the
applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be
reproduced by any process without written permission from the
publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact
cg-support@[Link].

The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Cultural Studies

is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-
referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary,
ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance
and highest significance is published.
 The Changing Face of Gay Representation in
Hollywood Films from the 1990s Onwards:
What’s Really Changed in the Hollywood
Representation of Gay Characters?
Sarah Baker, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand

Abstract: This paper examines the changing representation of gay characters in Hollywood Films from the 1990s to the
present. It questions what has changed since Vito Russo wrote The Celluloid Closet: a time when many activists and writers
were optimistic about the growing proliferation of gay representation in film and television. The Celluloid Closet was
written in 1981 when new questions about the visibility of homosexuals were examined. The new questions considered
issues such as stereotyping, gender inequalities and the quality of media representation. This paper questions whether the
optimism about gay representation in the 1980s and 1990s was justified and if progress has been made in gay
representation.

Keywords: Gay Representation, Visibility, Stereotyping, Film, Cinema

Gay visibility has never really been an issue in the movies. Gays have always been visible. It’s how they have been
visible that has remained offensive for almost a century.
-Vito Russo
Eventually Hollywood must swallow the differences if Gays are to be made safe for screen treatment. In order to be
integrated into the American dream, gays will have to become as America as apple pie. When this happens there will be
films that do not portray lesbians and gay men as outsiders because they will be inside. Meanwhile the transition is
difficult to watch.
-Vito Russo

Introduction

H ollywood has always been more than reluctant to openly and non-stereotypically engage
with gay subjects and gay characters. It can be argued that Hollywood movie corporations
carry a responsibility to American society (and the world) in how they depict the American
the LGBTQ community. The representation of gays has always been controversial, Hollywood has
an unfortunate history of portraying gay subjects in false and pejorative ways. As difficult as gay
representation in film has been, over the last 30 years there have been welcome changes to the
exploitation of coyness and exploitation of gay life. These changes have been brought on by many
factors such as AIDS activism, the power of the pink dollar and New Queer Cinema to name but
three influences that altered gay representation (Streitmatter 2009). Walters suggests that since the
1980s “critical mass” has developed and niche marketing has become commonplace moving gay
film into a new era (2001, 135).
A 2013 article “Major 2012 Hollywood Films Lacked Central Gay Characters,” (Michaud,
2013) raised more urgent questions about the “health” of gay representation in current cinema.
GLADD, the media advocacy group, (Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation) in its first
Studio Responsibility Index, mapped the quantity, quality and diversity of images depicted. They
concluded that “Fewer than 15 percent of major Hollywood films last year included gay characters
and virtually all of those were minor or bit parts,” (Michaud, 2013). The report concludes that as a
major influence on American culture and one of the nation’s largest exports abroad, the lack of
LGBT characters needs to change. The authors argue that until LGBT characters are depicted in a
substantial way with more regularity, bias on the part of the studio and the lack of gay

The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Cultural Studies

Volume 10, Issue 4, 2015, [Link], ISSN 2327-008X
© Common Ground, Sarah Baker, All Rights Reserved
Permissions: cg-support@[Link]
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY CULTURAL STUDIES

representation will continue. This paper considers the GLAAD findings in relation to Vito Russo’s
original research into gay representation in Hollywood film in The Celluloid Closet (1981). It
questions whether the optimism about gay representation of the 1980s and 1990s was justified and
what progress has subsequently been made. I also question whether Hollywood has addressed the
complexity of homosexual characters and experiences or has merely continued to represent one-
dimensional stereotypes appropriating homosexual images, serving to highlight the normalcy of
heterosexuality.
I utilise textual analysis with an interdisciplinary approach which draws on queer theory and
film studies (McKee 2003; Kuhn & Westwell 2012). I refer to the GLAAD(2013) findings
throughout the paper and contextualise Russo’s research by referring to other writers who have
discussed this subject matter after Russo. I then consider gay films from the 2000s and examine
this in relation to the quantitative findings by the GLAAD report. The films selected for discussion
are any film with gay or queer subject matter be these explicit or implicit characterisation or stories
with gay subject matter.
While Hollywood stars and production companies have been active and outspoken in support
of gay rights and gay marriage, GLAAD (2013) noted that of the 101 major studio releases in 2012,
only 14 contained characters identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual and there were no films
containing transgender characters. As part of the analysis they evaluated the representation to
determine if they were solely defined by their sexual orientation and whether their inclusion was
germane to the plot (as opposed to providing commentary, painting urban authority or setting up a
punch line.) Only 6 of the 14 characters met the criteria. The breakdown for the gay characters
found that 56 percent of total films presented gay male characters, 33 percent featured lesbians and
11 contained bisexuals. The most common genre to feature gay characters was comedies while
only one of 21 major studio dramas or 4.7 per cent of the major studio dramas had a gay character.
Before examining the recent study it is necessary to contextualise the latest findings in relation
to The Celluloid Closet (1981).

Vito Russo
The representation of gays on film has a long history documented by the late historian Vito Russo.
Originally analysing homosexual representation spanning eighty years, Russo examined over 300
films in The Celluloid Closet (1981). In this period, he noted specific and clear trends.
Homosexuality and its depictions have been in films since the movies began, but visibility has
always been an issue. Russo found that Hollywood persistently refused to portray homosexuals as
anything but one-dimensional characters, alien to the dominant heterosexual portrayal of life.
Russo’s project has been described as an archaeological task of discovering and exposing the
moments on screen where homosexuality became visible (Smelik 2000). Russo’s approach was to
map both explicit and implicit signs of homosexuality on screen. These were assessed by clothing,
behaviour and speech and he was very concerned with stereotyping. His approach was
predominantly textual analysis as well as an exploration of the intersections of historical and
political decisions and events on the representations of homosexuals on film such as the Hays Code
and the impact of Supreme Court Rulings on censorship.
Three important themes emerged from his work, the visibility of the homosexual characters;
the survival of the homosexual character within the film; and the role of their homosexuality in
relation to the storyline. The visibility was assessed in the following ways; some characters were
explicitly homosexual while others exhibited behaviours, clothing and speech which suggested or
depicted their homosexuality. The second important theme that Russo examined was how many
gay characters survived. Russo’s book contains a necrology which includes a list of how the gay
characters met their untimely deaths on film. Russo found the only variety permitted in gay
character visibility from 1962-1981 was the variation on how the gay character died which was a
mixture of suicides, stabbings, murder, execution and drowning. Russo’s project was to uncover

42
 BAKER: CHANGING FACE OF GAY REPRESENTATION IN HOLLYWOOD FILMS

the “big lie,” “that lesbians and gay men did not exist,” and to “expose the rampant homophobia
that kept homosexuality in the closet both on and off the big screen” (Walters 2001, 133). He
created a taxonomy of stereotypes easily identifiable, as the “sissy,” the “sad young man,” the “gay
psychopath,” the “seductive androgyne,” “unnatural women,” and the “lesbian vampire,” were all
stock characterisations of homosexuality during this period (Smelik 2000, 134). Overall Russo
found “the movies” failed to represent real lesbians and gay men.

Criticism of Russo
Russo’s historical approach has been criticised by a number of scholars as being very limited in
scope. Because homosexuality was used as an umbrella term, some argued that the term was
undifferentiated in terms of gender, race and class (Hanson 1999; Smelik 2000). Smelik says The
Celluloid Closet is “problematic with a presupposition that there was a progressive history from
taboo, censorship, and stereotypes to liberation, freedom, and positive images that was only
temporarily disturbed by the backlash induced by the AIDS crisis” (2000, 7). Further to that
criticism, Smelik reproached Russo for “his neglect of lesbians,” and even for his “bitchy
misogyny.”
Ellis Hanson (1999) argues that The Celluloid Closet (1981) is not impressive and is very
singular in its outlook. For him there is one question of a film, “Does it offend me?” He says The
Celluloid Closet has no concern for aesthetics or cinematic form, no discussion of the complexities
of desire and identification, no appreciation of political nuance, and no understanding of
homoeroticism…” Further, Hanson says “Russo calls for greater accuracy in the representation of
homosexuals. But what is the truth of homosexuality? Whose experience is genuine?” Gay
representation on film is often problematic for this reason. Each “gay” film or character has to
represent a wide demographic and gay films are frequently criticised for not being inclusive enough
in their representation of gay lifestyles.
The criticisms of The Celluloid Closet however fail to take into consideration Russo’s aim,
which was to explore the mechanism that kept homosexuality invisible. Russo clearly stated his
study was only the beginning of an exploration of changing gay representation:

…this book is meant to survey the portrayals of lesbians and gay men in mainstream,
commercial American cinema. The Celluloid Closet deals with the past-where we came
from. It is not meant to be the last work on this subject; it is meant to be a beginning—a
starting point from which further, more specific analyses of where we’re going may
emerge (1981, 7).

Post Russo
Other authors have also picked up from where Russo started and considered the way that gay
characters have been represented in Hollywood film. They concluded lesbians and gays have
typically been depicted in coded terms with their identity hidden from mainstream viewing and
only knowable to the astute (often gay viewer). Otherwise gays “entered the silver screen as
tortured, self-loathing creatures of an exotic and dangerous sub-culture” (Walters 2001, 131).
There has been a plethora of outlandish stereotypes which embodied a rampant and willful
invisibility. The Children’s Hour (1961) makes most obvious and invisible the homosexuality of
the characters and Martha kills herself in loathing and shame. Walters suggests life for gay
characters was nasty, and short for the celluloid homosexual. The stereotypes presented included
preying bull dykes, tormented spies and the majority of gay characters met untimely deaths. In the
context of stereotypes and invisibility, reading between the lines or against the grain often produced
richer and more varied images.
Until the 1970s and 1980s homosexual characters and images in Hollywood films had largely
been ignored by filmmakers and critics alike. The sissy (a man who adopts hyper-feminine

43
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY CULTURAL STUDIES

behaviours) was not a threatening representation of homosexuality because he occupied a middle

ground between masculinity and femininity. The Hays code was created through pressure from
women’s and religious groups who criticised Hollywood for contributing to immorality. From
1932 to 1962 the Hays Hollywood Production Code banned the representation of “sex perversion”
and insisted that “no picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of those who
see it.” The code was designed to stop the audience identifying with crime, wrongdoing, evil or
sin. The strict code was loosened in the 1960s and 1970s coinciding with other social movements
such as women’s right and gay rights. While gays and lesbians were becoming more visible and
vocal in public life, their representation in films was becoming increasingly homophobic. The
censorship measure ensured representations of gays and lesbians would always appear under the
cover of the strict and often impenetrable codes. But just because explicit representation was
impossible, this did not mean that queer images and themes and narratives were forced into silence
(Walters 2001).
Gay characters were at this stage represented as dangerous, violent, predatory or suicidal. This
was seen in films such as The Childrens Hour (1961), The Boys in the Band (1970), Midnight
Express (1978). In the Boys in the Band (1970s) the characters exhibit self-loathing and distress at
their homosexuality.

The Children’s Hour (1961) was a film that captured the self
-loathing and suicide that gay characters were often afflicted with.

By the 1990s, homosexual cinematic representation increased building on changes brought by

independent filmmakers who represented homosexuals in more positive and visible ways.
Homosexual activists and filmmakers were surrounded by the spectre of AIDS in the early 1990s
battled homophobia and silence to raise consciousness to bring validity to their lives. The
improvement in visibility and treatment was transferred to later Hollywood offerings, The
Birdcage (1996), Philadelphia (1993), Too Wong Foo Thanks for Everything Julie Newmer
(1995), In and Out (1997). These were films with openly gay characters. The Birdcage (1996) for
example, featured two openly gay men in a relationship though one of the comedic plot
developments was that they had to conceal their relationship and pretend to be straight (Walters
2001).

44
 BAKER: CHANGING FACE OF GAY REPRESENTATION IN HOLLYWOOD FILMS

Gay visibility in the cinema and media in Western Countries reached even greater levels of
exposure in the 1990s. Both within and outside the world of film many publications produced
major stories on bi-sexual chic, lesbian chic, the rise of gay political power, and gay families to
name but a few stories on gay subject matter. Hollywood produced mainstream films with gay
storylines and regularly included gay characters. Films like Philadelphia, (1993), The Birdcage
(1996), In and Out, (1997) were major Hollywood films. There were also a number of films
enjoyed by gay audiences such as Thelma and Louise (1991), and GI Jane (1997), (Baker 2002).
The 1990s was a decade full of breakthrough images of gay and lesbian people throughout
Hollywood and independent films. The emergence of queer New Cinema and Queer theory was a
pivotal turning point bringing new positive images and understandings of gay culture. Hollywood
represented these changes by incorporating queer concepts into mainstream culture. With Tom
Hanks winning an Oscar for Philadelphia (1993) this film changed the Hollywood landscape
making it easier to produce and feature films with gay characters or themes. Philadelphia (1993)
was praised by numerous publications that reviewed the film highlighting the positive messages it
gave about gay men and AIDS. However, one of the main reasons the film was so popular was the
casting of Tom Hanks, a major Hollywood star. His casting made audiences comfortable with the
subject matter. The movie was significant as it depicted a committed relationship between the two
gay characters which had not been shown in films before (Streitmatter 2009; Walters 2001).
Other forces impacted on gay representation- new human rights legislation, increased sexual
explicitness in the media and a chic fascination of previously forbidden sexual images of lesbians.
Driven by commercial as well as cultural motives, Hollywood in this decade courted controversy
and challenged boundaries.
Further to the rather disappointing result found by GLADD, Coates (2013) suggests that gay
representation is still so limited that films need to be put through a gay version of the Bechdel test.
The Bechdel test refers to a feminist benchmark test for movies developed by Alison Bechdel in
1985. Bechdel the author of the lesbian comic series suggested that for a film to pass The Bechdel
Test, it must contain just one thing—a scene in which two or more named female characters have
a conversation (that is, a back and forth dialogue) about anything at all besides men. To pass the
Vito Russo test, Coates says a film would have to two gay characters that interact in some way, do
not offer sassy advice to the protagonist, and are not dead by the end credits. This suggests that
even with a proliferation of gay characters in Hollywood film that many of the issues that Russo
identified in 1981 have remained a factor in gay representation in Hollywood film.

New Queer Cinema

The arrival of New Queer Cinema was an important mobilising factor in increasing gay visibility
in the 1990s. This was a name given to a wave of queer films that gained critical acclaim in the
early 1990s. The films appeared on the festival circuit and represented an exciting new phase of
queer representation. It showed that “lesbian and gay images and filmmakers had turned a corner.
No longer burdened by the approval-seeking sackcloth of positive imagery, or the relative
obscurity of marginal production, films could be radical and popular, stylish and economically
viable” (Aaron 2004). Following a number of hits at the Sundance film festival, these films
appeared to share an attitude; they were irreverent and energetic. The films gave voice to
marginalised gay and lesbian individuals who felt hemmed in by reinforcement of prevalent gay
stereotypes.
Aaron says that there was an upside to this new independent cinema with Hollywood’s
appropriation of the new queer potential with queer themes and characters entering the mainstream
(2004). 1990s’ Hollywood homosexuals lived fuller lives than previous gay iterations. For
example, in the films My Best Friend’s Wedding (1997) and In and out (1997). As Good as it Gets
(1997) presented a gay man who was more emotionally stable and rational than the other
emotionally charged “straight” characters. These films also presented other variations such as

45
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY CULTURAL STUDIES

Chasing Amy (1997), The Object of My Affection (1998), and The Next Best Thing (2000).
Kissing Jessica Stein (2002) offered another variation where the character was able to explore her
sexual orientation.
There is evidence to suggest that New Queer Cinema triggered significant cultural and critical
gains, though the real impact is not to be measured by quantity of quirkiness but by the queer
culture it ushered in. As gay sexuality became more accepted so too did gay visibility on all screens.
The proliferation of gay characters occurred in Hollywood cinema, Independent film and gay
television characters (Aaron 2004).
Through-out the 1980s and 1990s the continuation of gay representation increased in
Hollywood films. There were some examples where the audience could read against the grain,
identifying gay characters not by their open gay sexuality but by their mannerisms and appearance.
This was seen in films like Aliens (1986) and Blue Steel (1989). Gay visibility came to the fore in
films like Basic Instinct (1992), and Silence of the Lambs (1991); two key texts that both aroused
anger and interest in the audience. In Silence of the Lambs, the problem was that the character of
the killer, Buffalo Bill was positioned as distinctly queer while Clarice was a positive role model
(and fuelled gay audiences with the casting of Jodie Foster. Foster’s sexuality was speculated about
at that time. Though Foster was not out. Basic Instinct (1992) created outrage because of the
murderous tendencies of the bi-sexual Catherine Trammel. By the 1990s Hollywood gay characters
were allowed to survive the full film. In Bound (1996), In and Out (1997) and The Birdcage (1996)
the gay characters were allowed to live.

The 2000s
By the 2000s there was a plethora of films with gay content either in characters being gay or gay
themes emerging in the stories (Baker 2002). The new greater exposure of gay life was seen in
films like If these Walls Could Talk 2 (2000), Mulholland Drive (2001), Capote (2005), Kinky
Boots (2005), Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) and Brokeback Mountain (2005), Black Swan, (2010),
The Kids Are Alright (2010), Dallas Buyers Club (2013). Though this list of films contains gay
themes or content they raise questions as to what is considered gay content. Some of these films
dealt very clearly with gay characters like Capote (2005), and If these Walls Could Talk 2 (2000).
But Black Swan (2010) it could be argued was not an advance with its titillating attempt to include
gay content that had nothing to do with the main storyline; The Kids Are Alright (2010) on the
other hand deals with a modern lesbian married couple, except the couple deals with infidelity and
the most interesting sex scenes are between a man and a woman. Brokeback Mountain (2005) had
some audiences wondering if it was also an advance in gay rights or just a normalising of
unrequited gay love and longing. Dallas Buyers Club (2013) on the other hand is sympathetic
retelling of an awful history but promotes tolerance and acceptance. The problems of
representation remain—gay films have the difficulty of having to represent a wide range of people
and experiences for gay people and their lives.

46
 BAKER: CHANGING FACE OF GAY REPRESENTATION IN HOLLYWOOD FILMS

The Kids are Alright (2010) was one of a number of films dealing with gay subject matter
though it still met with criticism over aspects of gay representation.

GLADD (2013) says that studios are reluctant to include LGBT characters in big-budget
action and comic book franchises. In its first ever study of Hollywood films it said only 14 films
from last year contained LGBT characters and that gay representation was inadequate. Most of the
characters in the 101 films GLADD (2013) surveyed were just minor roles or cameos, according
to the organisation. None of the characters identified as transgender and fewer than half passed
the Russo test of how LGBT characters are portrayed. The GLADD (2013) report says gay
characters were most likely to appear in comedies and not in comic book adaptions and action
franchises. The study stated that when LGBT people or couples are made part of a larger ensemble

47
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY CULTURAL STUDIES

or even featured in brief, casual manner at the very least it reminds the audience that LGBT people
are part of society and present a more accurate portrait of society.
The Guardian Film Blog (2014) discusses why gay characters are still top of Hollywood’s kill
list. Since Philadelphia (2003) there have been 257 Academy Award-nominated portrayals of
Heterosexual characters and 23 of gay, bisexual or transsexual characters. Of the heterosexual
characters 16.5% (59) die. Of the LGBT characters, 56.5% (13) die. Of the 10 LGBT characters
that live, only four get a happy ending. That makes for a grand sum of four characters in 19 years.
As the blog argues, A Single Man (2009) with Colin Firth as the main character “simply drops
dead for no reason. Presumably overwhelmed by sheer homosexuality, his heart can no longer keep
beating. Beware non-heterosexuals: Sudden Gay Death Syndrome can strike anywhere.”

A Single Man (2009) a film where ‘Sudden Gay Death Syndrome”

can strike at anytime.

Conclusion
There has been a substantial increase in gay representation in film since Russo began cataloguing
gay representation. This is assessed in the kinds of stories that were made about gay characters
from the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Against this seeming tolerance and acceptance however the
improved representation appears to fall short of much of an improvement since Russo wrote The
Celluloid Closet. I have not made an exhaustive quantitative analysis of films but have briefly

48
 BAKER: CHANGING FACE OF GAY REPRESENTATION IN HOLLYWOOD FILMS

commented on these stories. I would argue however that where the 1990s seemed to suggest
progress was made, the promise and optimism of the 1990s has not been realised. For example,
Behind the Candelabra (2013) directed by Steven Soderbergh, had an A list cast, and featuring a
biopic of a Hollywood celebrity had difficulty finding a production studio to produce the film
because they thought the Liberace story was “too gay” (theGuardianfilmblog).

Behind the Candelabra (2013) was considered “too gay” by some studios to produce.

The film was broadcast to 3.5 million Americans, played at Cannes, received rave critical reviews
and has been on theatrical release. But the resistance that studios had to making the film suggests
that gay representation is still problematic in Hollywood. The problem that Russo identified with
gay characters meeting untimely deaths continues in more recent gay films. Milk (2008), The
Hours (2002), Brokeback Mountain (2005), Black Swan (2010), A Single Man (2009), Monster
(2003), are films about lesbian, gay, transgender, characters who suffer and die. These are films
which remind viewers that sexual deviancy will result in death. Though there have been advances
in gay representation Hollywood still continues to make films where the gay character dies. Though
quantitative analysis is not the only way to measure gay representation, and textual or
psychoanalytic readings may show other complexities in representation, the GLAAD report
demonstrates that Hollywood still has a long way to go with the representation of gay characters.
The quantitative representation of gay characters is numerically very low when compared to
heterosexual characterisation. Therefore the mapping of these figures is valuable in monitoring
whether representational change has occurred or been sustained. When both the textual analysis
is considered and the quantitative figures are examined it is clear that there are still remarkable
tensions around the representation of gay characters in Hollywood film.

49
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY CULTURAL STUDIES

REFERENCES
Aaron, Michele. 2004. New Queer Cinema: A Critical Reader. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press.
Baker, Sarah. 2002. Representing Queers: What’s Really Changed in Hollywood Films in the
1990s. Dissertation, University of Auckland.
Benshoff, Harry & Sean Griffin. Queer Cinema: The Film Reader. New York, Routledge, 2004.
Coates, Tyler. 2014. “The Gay Bechdel Test: Why Hollywood Needs to Expand its representation
of LGBT Characters.” [Link]. Accessed February 8, 2014 at
[Link] expand-its
GLAAD. 2013 Studio Responsibility Report. [Link]/sri/2013. Accessed
February 2, 2014).
Walters, Danuta. 2001. All the Rage: The Story of Gay Visibility in America, Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Hanson, Ellis. 1999. Outtakes. Durham, Duke University Press.
Kuhn, Annette & Guy Westwell. 2012. A Dictionary of Film Studies; Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Michaud, Chris. 2013. Major 2012 Hollywood Films Lacked Central Gay Characters-Group,
Reuters August 21. [Link]/assets/print?aid=USL2NOGM11P20130821
McKee, Alan. 2003. Textual Analysis: A Beginners Guide. London, Sage Publications
Rawson, James .2014. “Why Are Gay Characters at the Top of Hollywood’s Kill List?” The
Guardian, /[Link]/film/filmblog/2013/jun/11/gay-characters-hollywood-
film...
Russo, Vitto. 1981. The Celluloid Closet. New York, Harper and Row.
Smelik, A. 2000 “Gay and Lesbian Criticism,” in The Oxford Guide to Film Studies, edited by
John Hill and Pamela Church Oxford: 135-46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Streitmatter, R. 2009. Perverts to Fab Five: The Media’s Changing Depiction of Gay Men and
Lesbians. New York. Routledge.
Walters, D. All the Rage: The Story of Gay Visibility in America, Chicago. The University of
Chicago Press. 2001.

FILMS
A Single Man. 2009. Directed by Tom Ford. Boston, MA: Fade to Black Productions. Film.
Aliens. 1986. Directed by James Cameron. New York, NY: Twentieth Century Fox. Film
Corporation. Film.
As Good As it Gets. 1997. Directed by James L. Brooks. Culver City, CA: Tristar Pictures. Film.
Basic Instinct. 1992. Directed by Paul Verhoven. Beverly Hills, CA: Carolco Pictures. Film.
Behind the Candelabra. 2013. Directed by Steven Soderbergh. Burbank, CA: Jerry Weintraub
Productions. Film.
Black Swan. 2010. Directed by Darren Aronofsky. Los Angeles CA: Fox Searchlight Pictures.
Film.
Blue Steel. 1989. Directed by Kathryn Bigelow. Stamford. CT: Lightening Pictures. Film.
Brokeback Mountain. 2005 Directed by Ang Lee. Santa Monica, CA: Focus Features. Film.
Capote. 2005. Directed by Bennett Miller. Culver City, CA: Sony Pictures Classics. Film
Chasing Amy. 1997. Directed by Kevin Smith. 1997; Red Bank, NJ; Too Askew Production Inc.
Film.
Dallas Buyers Club. 2013. Directed by Jean-Marc Vallée.;Houston, TX: Truth Entertainment.
Film.
GI Jane. 1997. Directed by Ridley Scott. Burbank, CA: Caravan Pictures. Film.

50
 BAKER: CHANGING FACE OF GAY REPRESENTATION IN HOLLYWOOD FILMS

If these Walls Could Talk 2. 2000. Directed by Jane Anderson and Martha Coolidge. New York,
NY Home Box Office. Film.
In and Out. 1997. Directed by Frank Oz; Hollywood, CA; Paramount Pictures. Film.
Kinky Boots. 2005. Directed by Julien Jarrold. Santa Monica, CA; Miramax Films. Film.
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. 2005. Film. Directed by Shane Black. Los Angeles, CA; Warner Brothers.
Film.
Kissing Jessica Stein. 2001. Directed by Charles [Link] Angeles, CA: USA: Fox
Searchlight Films. Film.
Monster. 2003. Directed by Patty [Link] Oaks, CA: Media 8 Entertainment. Film.
Midnight Express. 1978. Directed by Alan Parker. Los Angeles, CA: Casablanca Filmworks. Film.
Milk. 2008. Directed by Gus Van Sant; Universal City, CA: Focus Features. Film.
Mulholland Drive. 2001. Directed by David Lynch. Paris, France. Les Films Alain [Link].
My Best Friend’s Wedding. 1997. Directed by P.J. Hogan. Culver City, CA: Tri Star Pictures. Film.
Philadelphia. 1993. Directed by Jonathan Demme. Culver City, CA:Tristar Pictures. Film.
Silence of the Lambs. 1991. Directed by Jonathan Demme. Stockholm, SE: Strong Heart/Demme
Production. Film.
The Birdcage. 1995. Directed by Mike Nichols. Beverley Hills, CA: United Artists. Film.
The Boys in the Band. 1970. Directed by William Friedkin. Hollywood, CA: Cinema Center. Film.
The Children’s Hour. 1961. Directed by William Wyler. Hollywood, CA: The Mirisch
Corporation. Film.
The Hours. 2002. Directed by Stephen Daldry. Hollywood, CA: Paramount [Link].
The Next Best Thing.2000. Directed by John [Link] Hills, CA: Lakeshore
Entertainment. Film.
The Object of My Affection. 1998 Directed by Nicholas Hytner. New York, NY: Twentieth Century
Fox. Film.
The Kids Are Alright. 2010. Directed by Lisa [Link] City, CA: Focus Features.
Film.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show. 1975. Directed by Jim Sharman. Los Angeles, CA: Twentieth
Century Fox Film Corporation. Film.
Thelma and Louise. 1991. Directed by Ridley Scott. Paris, France: Pathe Entertainment. Film.
Too Wong Foo Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar. 995. Directed by Beeban Kidron. Universal
City, CA: Universal Pictures. Film.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Sarah Baker: Lecturer, School of Communication, Auckland University of Technology, Co-
Founder of the AUT Popular Culture Centre.

51
The International Journal of Interdisciplinary
Cultural Studies is one of eight thematically focused
journals in the collection of journals that support the
Interdisciplinary Social Sciences knowledge
community—its journals, book series, conference
and online community.

The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Cultural

Studies explores and exemplifies disciplinary and
interdisciplinary practices in the study of human
cultures and cultural interactions.

As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this

journal invites case studies that take the form of
presentations of practice—including documentation of
socially-engaged practices and exegeses analyzing the
effects of those practices.

The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Cultural

Studies is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

ISSN 2327-008X

View publication stats