Queers in Television
Who Would’ve Thought?
It may be safe to assume that we’ve all heard of the Bechdel Test. Just in case you haven’t, here’s a quick recap. The Bechdel Test was made famous by Alison Bechdel in 1985 in her comic Dykes To Watch Out For (1). It was originally just a joke that her good friend Liz Wallace shared with her. Wallace had invented the rules as a means to help her decide what movies she would go see. The rules were simple. The movie had to have at least two women characters, and they had to have at least one conversation with each other that was not about men. Sounds simple, right? Surprisingly, many blockbusters don’t make the cut. Movies such as Get Out (2017), Deadpool (2016), and Daddy’s Home (2015) don’t pass.
Similarly, the Vito Russo test was declared in 2013, named after GLAAD co-founder and film historian Vito Russo (2). Russo was author of the book The Celluloid Closet, which analyzes LGBTQ representation in film. GLAAD, which stands for Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, is an organization that was founded in 1985 during the AIDS Epidemic and has continuously been fighting front and center for acceptance and affirmation of the queer community (2). The Vito Russo Test is a set of guidelines that begins to assess a movie or television show’s portrayal of LGBTQ people. The guidelines are a bit more thorough than those of the Bechdel Test. The three requirements are:
- The film contains a character that is identifiably lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender.
- That character must not be solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity (i.e. they are comprised of the same sort of unique character traits commonly used to differentiate straight/non-transgender characters from one another).
- The LGBT character must be tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect, meaning they are not there to simply provide colorful commentary, paint urban authenticity, or (perhaps most commonly) set up a punchline. The character must matter2.
While the test itself does not ensure that the show or movie will be completely appropriate and accurate of the LGBTQ community, it is taking steps in the right direction. It is helping to distinguish the difference between a “gay character” and a “character that is gay”. This stems mostly from the second requirement of the Vito Russo Test. Assuming a TV show does not pass the second rule, then it can be noted that the character(s) in question are not important in conveying the overall plot or message. If the character’s sole contribution is their queerness, then they are a “gay character”. They’re just there for a little extra flavor as the token gay. This includes their presence being required solely for comic relief, the majority of their contributions being based around perpetuating stereotypes (flamboyant gay man, masculine or butch lesbian), etc. A “character that is gay”, however, is very much in line with the second rule. The character may not necessarily be known just for being gay, but instead has more substance to their identity.
The interesting part about these tests is that they don’t change with the time period. The Vito Russo Test can be used on movies or shows dating back since the beginning of visual media. In fact, the first television broadcast was all the way back in 1928 with a show called The Queen’s Messenger (3). At this time, the plots of shows were very simple, and the image could only consist of one face or pair of hands at a time. This was because they didn’t have the appropriate technology to broadcast complicated images. Imagine the scene from the 1971 film Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory where Mike Teavee transported himself into the television. Remember the particles scattering above their heads, traveling to the television set?
Mr. Wonka asks his mother which half of him she would want, just in case he didn’t come back whole. Luckily he appeared in one piece and perfectly assembled, but this is a perfect representation of how television works. I think it goes without saying that in 1928 there was absolutely no representation of any queer folk in the media. Plots were just too simple for it back then. As far as the Vito Russo Test is concerned, the show failed the very first requirement, therefore failing the whole test.
It isn’t until 1972 when the first gay character is introduced to the small screen. A show by the name of The Corner Bar brings American television the first recurring gay character by the name of Peter Panama, played by Vincent Shiavelli (4). Mind you, this is the first gay representation in television other than the news, and this is just three years after the Stonewall Riot. Queer people have just made yet another splash to remind people that they were present and they were a force to be reckoned with. ABC came under fire for its depiction of a gay man. Alternative Channels noted the character speaks with an “exaggerated ‘gay’ speech pattern and a caricatured swish of the hand” (4). It’s not difficult to see the behavioral stereotypes of gay men perpetuated here. Peter is a prime example of a “gay character”.
Fast forward to 2009, and we have the debut of a brand new, contemporary sitcom from ABC: Modern Family. The show depicts three interrelated families, one of which is a gay couple by the names of Cam and Mitchell. Check mark for rule number one: identifiably gay characters. Each of them is also the product of thorough character development. Mitchell is a lawyer, a germaphobe, and thirsts for approval from his father. Cam is a baseball and football coach, a stay at home dad, and loves theatrics. I’d say box number two can be checked here. Cam and Mitchell can be described as “characters that are gay”. They are much more than their sexuality. If they weren’t a couple, but just two personas in the show that had the same background and personalities, they would still be valid characters because they are not defined by their relationship with one another. And from watching just one episode of the show, it is clear to see that all three of these families are so intertwined that with the removal of one, it just wouldn’t be the same dynamic. There’s box number three checked.
Although each of the three criteria have been met, and the show passed the Vito Russo Test, that doesn’t automatically mean that the show properly represents queer people. Early in the series there was some backlash caused by the lack of affection between the gay couple. There were moments when it would be expected and natural for a romantic couple to physically show their love. An article here notes that in one episode, Phil (another character) and Mitchell were running late to catch a plane with their significant others, who were waiting for them at the airport. When they finally arrived, Phil and his wife Claire immediately and without hesitation show their relief through a passionate kiss. Mitchell and Cam show the same emotion through a friendly hug (5).
The article goes on to mention how the couple has never throughout the entire first season kissed, and how they use the trivial title “boyfriend” even though they are in a long-term relationship, married, and have a daughter.
They were clearly shown in a very different light than the straight couples. Cam and Mitchell were desexualized (5). Even on family sitcoms, there are sexual overtones, that’s what keeps the adults watching, but it is done in such a way that children don’t catch on. They’re like inside jokes between the adults in the audience and the characters in the show. But there are no sexual overtones or inside jokes with Cam and Mitchell; they just don’t happen. But why? Are we not at that point in inclusivity where we can have gay couples making the same jokes as the straight ones? Or hinting to a sex life of any kind like the straight couples do? Apparently not. Often times queer relationships are viewed as innately inappropriate. Gay sex is automatically viewed as porn, while hetero sex is viewed as love. Queer relationships are often argued as being “unnatural” or “not real”. People are so focused on what everyone else is doing in the bedroom that they tend to forget that queers are still people.
Studies show that members of the LGBTQ community are more critical of queer representation in media, while those who are not in the community tend to believe that the portrayals are appropriate and plentiful (6). One of the reasons behind this is bias based on “self-categorization.” If you identify as queer, you’re going to be a lot more receptive of the inequalities or misrepresentations of people like you.
Regardless of sexuality, we should all be aware of the stereotypes portraying queer individuals in television. Let’s look out for the “gay characters” and demand more shows containing characters with more substance than just their sexual orientation.
Queer people are all around you, and we are all unique and complex individuals. Why not support media that shows us as such?
References:
(1)Maerz, Melissa, Anthony Breznican, and Nicole Sperling. 2015. “Alison Bechdel Reflects on the Cult of Alison Bechdel.” Entertainment Weekly no. 1361: 38–43. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed April 16, 2017).
(2)N/A, “The Vito Russo Test,” GLAAD, accessed April 17, 2017, http://www.glaad.org/sri/2014/vitorusso.
(3)N/A, “Mechanical Television,” Early Television Museum, accessed April 16, 2017, http://www.earlytelevision.org/queens_messenger.html
(4)Steven Capsuto, “The Corner Bar,” Alternate Channels: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Images in Broadcasting,” accessed April 16, 2017, http://www.stevecap.com/alternatechannels_net/us/ongoing/Corner_Bar.htm.
(5)Waymon Hudson, “ABC’s Modern Family : How “Modern” Is Its Gay Couple?” accessed April 17, 2017, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/abcs-imodern-familyi-how_b_573508.html.
(6)Morrison, Eleanor G. 2010. “Transgender as Ingroup or Outgroup? Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Viewers Respond to a Transgender Character in Daytime Television.” Journal Of Homosexuality 57, no. 5: 650–665. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed April 17, 2017).
