The Rise of the New Gay Villains

[Fearless]

GLAAD, which tracks portrayals of gays in popular culture, says that as the number of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered characters increases in TV and film, it makes sense that there would be more villains. The question is whether they are villainous because they are gay, or villains who just happen to also be gay.

"In the early days of LGBT characters on screen, it was often the case that a character’s sexual orientation or gender identity was directly tied to their villainous nature as things like lecherous prison guards, blackmailers, or even psychotic killers," Matt Kane, GLAAD's associate director of entertainment media, told TheWrap.

"Though that’s almost never the case now, it’s still something writers and directors should be conscious of. What this also highlights, however, is that there are still too few LGBT protagonists and leads in popular media, particularly in genre film and television. Where is the gay equivalent to James Bond?"

...

In the bad old days, films and movies gave their villains mincing walks, frilly outfits, flowery language, fussy cats and all sorts of other supposedly effeminate accessories to tip off viewers that they were homosexual – as if homosexuality were synonymous with weakness. If the manly hero pummeled his way through a horde of 1960s henchmen, the effete villain stood no chance. His only hope was to flee. We were supposed to despise him for his cowardice.

More at... http://www.thewrap.com/tv/column-post/rise-new-gay-villains-66701

---------------------

An interesting sign of the times... "Once, branding a villain as homosexual was dehumanizing. Today, a villain's homosexuality is often the most humanizing thing about him."

[vaberella]

1. I don't know if I agree. Actually I don't agree.

Yes, in one respect the 'caricature' of what it means to be a homosexual person in media is slowly lessening but the implication of "villain" is a problem. Many Europeans have noted that Americans enjoy making the "foreigner" the villain in the movie. Which actually points to a deeper psychological frame of mind at work.

The Other is therefore the enemy and this is the ultimate concept here. Blacks have been fighting that image for ages. So even if the reason of them being a villain has no bearing on them being gay as it did early on, and that they are a villain who just happens to be gay---the idea is the push of the "other" as the villain that is problem for me.

Actually Blacks have been fighting the "token" Black identity and/or turncoat (traitor) image, I think unsuccessfully in film and television. Blacks in films are normally killed off early on---so they are an unnecessary plot device or they are the ONLY Black person who seems to embody all the stereotypes that make someone Black (most of which are negative)---and sadly in the case of Black women have the added negative connotation of being the hyper-sexual slut.

I can not identify that as humanizing. I think we still have a long way to go be in response to Minority rights and therefore their representation through the media. Although I am glad there is a minute change---I'm not happy in the direction that change has gone; it's still not enough.

[Fearless]

3. An interesting perspective...

Taking two of the three characters mentioned in the article (as I have not seen Dexter)... the one from Skyfall and more particularly Gus Frink from Breaking Bad, the strength of the acting is profound.

Personally the Skyfall one is a direct and intentional assault on homophobia attempting to modernize a franchise who's general womanizing theme is no longer seen as acceptable. When I saw the movie, I sat in the theater (in an albeit very liberal Massachusetts college town) and could hear the audience reaction to the antagonist proposition Bond. Hooting and hollering abounded. The second gay reference is made a few minutes later in the courtyard before the antagonist shoots the female captive. He hints that the winner of his shooting "game" would decide who ends up "on top". It made me laugh because you could pick out every single gay guy in the theater (and there were dozens), as to all others the joke went way over their heads.

That said, my experience is not a-typical. A vast majority of those going to like James Bond and going to see the movie... people who have been with the series for 50 years... are by and large conservative, even womanizing, individuals, stereotypical of the 1950's. To have their sacred cow recentered on 21st century liberal social values, brings me a great deal of joy, but also marks a pushing of the needle further towards the pro-equality standpoint. After all, if Bond isn't homophobic and they respect him, that entails that they are further alienated in their misogynistic/homophobic views and that the world has changed in an intrinsically strong way.

In regards to Gus Frink, he is an extremely capable character, very strong and very powerful on many levels. And, frankly for a lot of the time he's portrayed, you kind of root for him, not against the protagonists mind you, but he's a strangely likeable character for being so violently detestable.

But I do agree that we need to see a greater supply of LGBT protagonists and I think that the tables are turning that direction. I think that Bond's response to his antagonist... suggesting that if they were to have sex it wouldn't be his first time with a man... was profoundly powerful. While he isn't a gay man, the traditionally womanizing model of masculinity, could be bisexual or have had prior gay experiences, even in theory or suggestion, is profound. I don't think there is an equivalent example in mainstream movies. That is in a sense I think what you're getting at to some extent. There simply aren't commanding gay protagonist roles. But I do think we'll get there very soon personally.

This idea does raise challenges though too. To what extent does the sexual orientation of a protagonist matter to the plot of a movie (tv show, etc.) and to what extent should it? I'd contend that a misplayed gay character could be equally as damaging as a lack of a strong one. A movie whose protagonist is gay for the sake of being gay instead of being gay because people just are gay. I'd be wary of a movie where the protagonist's sexuality is important to the plot. I don't hold strong faith in Hollywood's ability to bridge that gap. I'll put a strongly unlikely yet curious chance to see Joseph Gordon Levitt as an incarnation of the Batman series involve something of the sort... fuck knows he's been in enough strictly gay movies. We'll see.

[dsc]

2. I am not convinced that Breaking Bad's villian was gay

he may have been but he may not have been. Clearly the rest are/were gay. In the case of Sirko, on Dexter, his gayness does serve to humanize him to the point that he is giving Dexter pointers on being human. It should be noted that Sirko is not Dexter's first gay villian. One of the serial killers targeted by Dexter in an early season was gay. Sirko is portrayed as far more human despite his targeting of Dexter.

[Fearless]

4. To be honest I hadn't caught the Gus Frisk one the first time around...

I'll undoubtedly rewatch those seasons at some point to see if I can actually see it. Who knows.