Brogan Ramm

The One Sided Mirror of the Movies: The (mis)representation of the lesbian on our cinema screens

Dissertation Fine Art Photography Year 4

Supervisor: Dr Sarah Smith Forum for Critical Inquiry, Glasgow School of Art February 26th 2013

Word count: 10,936

Synopsis.
Beyond entertainment, we look to the movies to see representations of ourselves: to identify on some level with the onscreen events, in order to relate them back to our own lives. But what if this basic identification is denied before it can be experienced? This is the reality for members of not only the lesbian audience but also entire LGBT*Q community. Therefore, this dissertation maps the representation of lesbians in narrative feature film as well as exploring the adverse effects these limited representations have on the lesbian cinema audience.

Contents

Acknowledgements... 4 List of Illustrations 5 Preface.. 8 Introduction... 9 Chapter 1. The Portrayals of the Cinematic Lesbian.. 14 Chapter 2. Censorship.. 27 Chapter 3. Lesbian Spectatorship..36 Conclusion..43 Bibliography.. 46 Appendix 1: The One Sided Mirror of the Movies: Survey on lesbian representations in cinema...... 50 Appendix 2: MPAA and BBFC certification/rating guidelines...60

You were never alone. You were never the only one.

 List of Illustrations.
Figure 1: p.4 Private snapshots of the author aged 13, 2004.
Digital scan of original 4.5 x 3.5 cm, chromogenic print.

Figure 2: p.16 Compilation of images: Showing both the lesbian vampire and lesbian villain.
From left to right: Black Widow (1987) http://www.thefancarpet.com/uploaded_assets/images/gallery/3248/Black_Widow_30487_ Medium.jpg (20.02.2013) Lesbian Vampire Killers (2009) http://www.afterellen.com/sites/www.afterellen.com/files/images/see-our-fleshy-lesbianvampire-killers-shots-800-75.jpg (20.02.2013) The Vampire Lovers (1970) - http://dailygrindhouse.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/02/THE-VAMPIRE-LOVERS1.jpg (20.02.2013) Daughters of Darkness (1971) - http://img21.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/110215/Daughters-of-Darkness_320.jpg (20.02.2013) Vampyres (1975) - http://www.horrorphile.net/userimages/user-4137304_1166399229.jpg (20.02.2013) Blood and Roses (1960) - http://cinefantastiqueonline.com/wpcontent/uploads/vadim3.jpg (20.02.2013) D.E.B.S. (2004) - http://i2.listal.com/image/1427937/600full-d.e.b.s.-screenshot.jpg (20.02.2013) Draculas Daughter (1936) - http://wrongsideoftheart.com/wpcontent/gallery/stills/draculas_daughter_05.jpg (20.02.2013) The Vampire Lovers (1970) http://www.vampirefilmnews.wyzz.co.uk/P_The_Vampire_Lovers_1.jpg (20.02.2013) Vampyros Lesbos (1971) http://www.mysterygirlvintage.com/blog/2013/0115/blackdress-vlstill.jpg (20.02.2013)

Figure 3: p.16 Promotional poster for Lesbian Vampire Killers (2009)

URL: http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgpp31759+lesbian-vampire-killers-2009-comedy-horrorfilm-poster.jpg

Figure 4: p.18 The Vampire Lovers (1970), screen shot taken by author, 2000.
Dir. Roy Ward Baker, MGM Studios, 1970 (2000)

Figure 5: p.20 Compilation of images: Showing the lesbian predator.

From left to right: D.E.B.S. (2004) - http://img.phombo.com/img1/photocombo/1568/der-debs_005.jpg (20.02.2013) Loving Annabelle (2006) http://vriendenclub.clubs.nl/afbeeldingen/slideshow_large/10808760/loving+annabelle+2006.jp g (20.02.2013) Rebecca (1940) - http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6xYdRucxQ_c/UN7y_q2GlzI/AAAAAAAAEQQ/tkItR7nWZs/s1600/rebecca.jpg (20.02.2013) The Hunger (1983) - http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6ybuchiFu1qa2k95o1_500.jpg (20.02.2013) The Killing of Sister George (1968) http://reeleyes.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/killing_of_sister_george_1.jpg (20.02.2013) Make a Wish (2002) - http://cdn.gowatchit.com/posters/original/movie_152274.jpg (20.02.2013) Wild Things (1998) http://s15.postimage.org/kdnxa3awb/vlcsnap_2012_06_27_21h20m06s124.png (20.02.2013) Draculas Daughter (1936) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qeg1OcClj7U/SP1_Spk9EoI/AAAAAAAAA0Y/RZTbTAI0loI/s400/dd18. JPG (20.02.2013) Bloomington (2010) - http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_U2o5L4tFRs/TQuVyhgmKXI/AAAAAAAAEB4/QjFJ2grxfhM/s400/bloomington3.jpg?ggnoads (20.02.2013) Cracks (2009) - http://www.swingfashionista.com/2009/12/eva-green-stars-in-cracks-2009/ (20.02.2013)


Figure 6: p.21 Compilation of images: Showing the sexually explicit lesbian.

From left to right: American Pie 2 (2001) - http://2.bp.blogspot.com/XI_AkouljLI/T7LifhtviGI/AAAAAAAAAIY/VZ8sZLcS3oM/s1600/american+pie+2.1.jpg (20.02.2013) Wild Things (1998) http://aka.media.entertainment.sky.com/image/560x835/2012/02/10/Neve-Campbell-andDenise-Richards-as-Suzy-and-Kellie-Kiss-in-Wild-Things-1998.jpg (20.02.2013) Gia (1998) - http://www.afterellen.com/sites/www.afterellen.com/files/2012/11/giakiss.jpg (20.02.2013) Cruel Intentions (1999) http://content.hollywire.com/sites/default/files/resize/2012/06/01/kiss_cruel_intentions_2000_ onlyhdwallpaper.com_-500x312.jpg (20.02.2013) Jennifers Body (2009) - http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/609/480/38761072-meganfox.jpg (20.02.2013) Heavenly Creatures (1994) http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6ss4243Ej1qhphz2o1_500.png (20.02.2013) Mulholland Drive (2001) - http://readplatform.com/uploads/2010/07/mulholland_drive_26.jpg (20.02.2013) Jennifers Body (2009) - http://cdn2.mamapop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/jennifersbody-kising-scene.jpg (20.02.2013) Black Swan (2010) - http://i.huffpost.com/gen/193459/NATALIE-PORTMAN-BLACK-SWANKISS-MILA.jpg (20.02.2013) Without Men (2011) - http://reviews.in.88db.com/images/stories/eva-longoria-lesbian-scenewithout-men-pics.jpg (20.02.2013)

Figure 7: p.22 Wild Things (1998), screen shots taken by author, 1999
Dir. John McNaughton, Ev, 1998 (1999)

Figure 8: p.24 Compilation of images: Showing the butch lesbian.

From left to right: Monster (2003) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dkmxBix3b4Q/SwZVLUboIuI/AAAAAAAAAc8/LfLsEXoRhDQ/s1600/u ntitled.bmp (20.02.2013) Bound (1996) - http://www.tokyowrestling.com/articles/hotlistB_3_corky_2.jpg (20.02.2013) All Over Me (1997) - http://www.afterellen.com/archive/ellen/Movies/Photos/alloverme-claude.jpg (20.02.2013) But Im a Cheerleader (1999) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_d94sb_oDn2w/SylVGWsJlrI/AAAAAAAAAkE/RRQaH9hWfcY/s400/im acheerleaderban.jpg (20.02.2013) The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls In Love (1995) - http://ia.mediaimdb.com/images/M/MV5BNjIzNzc0MDY4Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDMwNzc0NA@@._V1._SX64 0_SY424_.jpg (20.02.2013) If These Walls Could Talk 2 (2000) - http://i2.listal.com/image/180943/600full-if-these-wallscould-talk-2-poster.jpg (20.02.2013) Itty Bitty Titty Committee (2007) - http://eloriane.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/meat-annacalvin-at-1dd011.jpg (20.02.2013) High Art (1998) - http://old.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/images/issue/420/high-art_420.jpg (20.02.2013) Better Than Chocolate (1999) http://autostraddle.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/07/frances.jpg (20.02.2013) Black Widow (1987) - http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/Le0QVtfvyFs/mqdefault.jpg (20.02.2013)

Figure 9: p.30 This Film is Not Yet Rated (2006), screen shot taken by author, 2009.
Dir. Kirby Dick, Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2006 (2009)

Figure 10: p.34 DVD cover showing warning stickers for Lesbian Vampire Killers, 2009.
URL: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/08/18/supermarkets-censor-lesbian-vampire-killersdvd/

Figure 11: p.38 Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Caf (1991), screen shot taken by author, 2007.
Dir. Jon Avnet, ITV Studios Home Entertainment, 1991 (2007)


Figure 12: p.41 The L Word (2011), Advertising image.
URL: http://www.sho.com/site/image-bin/images/135_6_0/135_6_0_prmgenerics6_1024x640.jpg

 Preface.

To the heterosexual reader at times it may seem like I am incredibly bitter, especially when I state that because I am unable to see representations of myself and more specifically, my sexuality I am not being offered something all heterosexual viewers are: representations of their sexuality they can relate to. Of course when viewing the whole package this is obviously untrue. I am completely aware that heterosexual viewers do not find themselves able to relate to every film with heterosexual content. That would be ridiculous and most certainly boring. What I am talking about is something much simpler. If you strip a film down to its bare minimum, taking it back to its roots: masculine or feminine, good or evil and in the case of this argument, hetero- or homo-, you are rarely going to find a movie that makes a heterosexual audience feel less important because of their heterosexuality. You may find a heterosexual film that undermines specific aspects of heterosexuality, namely, the female in fact, most mainstream feature films propel the main male protagonist to a position of power they follow extremely oldfashioned guidelines. However, heterosexuality as a sexuality remains unscathed. A heterosexual audience will rarely leave a movie theatre feeling like their sexuality has been attacked or undermined. They may feel attacks on a deeper level: against their morals, thoughts or feelings, but never against something as large, and something as fundamental as their sexual orientation. Whilst heterosexual viewers may not be able to relate to all movies via characters or plot, they are at least granted the option to try and because of this remain completely unaware of the hurdle the homosexual audience just faced: that at the most basic level, a level completely unnoticed by the majority, they encounter a block. Before the homosexual audience is even granted the opportunity to relate, or not relate, to a storyline, they have been alienated from doing so by either the eradication of their existence or the negative associations of it. They have been cut off before they have even been allowed access.

 Introduction.

Gay audiences were desperate to find something. I think all minority audiences watch movies with hope. They hope they will see what they want to see. - Arthur Laurents1

Aged thirteen, having known for at least three or four years that I did not fit into societys idea of the norm, having never seen a mirrored image of myself no matter how basic in any recreational or educational outlet, I began to stop wondering, and begin believing that the only explanation was that I was abnormal. I believed that these thoughts I was having must have been the result of some mental illness in which I was the only sufferer - that I was destined to be alone and suffer in silence. Like any other thirteen-year-old girl, I watched typical teen movies often going to see them with female friends at our local cinema. You know, the kind of boy meets girl, they fall in love and end up kissing in the rain after a huge heart-to-heart or fall out kind of movies. Your classic soppy love stories, if you will. The love stories every teenage girl is meant to aspire to live out before she leaves high school. We would leave the cinema and almost immediately the conversation would turn to school girl crushes, who fancied who, and how desperately they wished that the hour and forty minutes of romantic nonsense we had just witnessed would happen between them and the boy who happened to be their crush of the moment. I never joined these conversations from a personal perspective, instead realising that actually I had not even watched the same film my friends had. Instead, I had spent the whole movie trying, and drastically failing, to see even the smallest iota of information that related to me - that other lesbians (although at the time I did not really know this word, or any word that described my sexual identity) existed. Not only did these films fail to shed any light on quite an important matter, but also in failing to do so, they inadvertently convinced a worried teenager that she was strange and somehow perverted. Sitting on the family computer one day, home alone, I finally plucked up the courage to Google, girls who like girls. In hindsight the flaws in this master plan could not be clearer but, at the time, in my naivety I hit Search. And that is the first time I saw me. It had been left to the porn industry to complete the simple task of informing a thirteen-year-old girl about the general existence of her sexual identity. The downside, however, was that the porn industry was never going to show me anything other than perversion. It was not the sex that enticed me, and I was aware that what I was watching was not even close to reality, but it was all I was aware of, all I was given, all I had to go on, and therefore all I had to relate to.

1 Arthur Laurents, The Celluloid Closet, 00:32:31, DVD, Dir. Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman, Sony Picture Home Entertainment, 1996 (2001)


Crumbs are better than no crumbs, right? Fast forward to present day, and

10

although I am now secure in my own skin, and the knowledge that despite how little is shown about my sexuality by the larger parts of the entertainments industry, and how hard it is to gain access to the snippets in existence, I still pine for realistic portrayals of my sexual identity especially in the movies. Despite my intense looking, this is something I am yet to properly find. *** One of the main reasons we watch movies is to see representations of ourselves. The ability to identify with characters, to find commonalities, things we can relate to is something everybody understands, and something everybody has taken part in (or at least attempted to) at some point in their lives. If you are part of the heterosexual normality, you subconsciously and automatically overlook relating to the inherent heterosexuality present in the vast majority of mainstream cinema, instead choosing to search for more intimate similarities: similar relationship structures; family values; personal values, etc. If you are part of the homosexual minority, however, you deal with barriers, even at these fundamentally basic stages. It is almost impossible to find true representations whilst watching the film the way the director intended. You are not granted the same basic luxuries as your heterosexual counterparts. If you are homosexual, in order to find anything close to a mirror of your existence you first have to create it. Take any narrative feature film, dissect it any way you like, and without even having to begin searching, a heterosexual storyline, or at the very least, element, will undoubtedly fall out at your feet. Movies are made to appeal to the masses the same as any other large-scale businesses (e.g. advertising, etc.). To put it simply, by appealing to the largest market you set yourself in good stead to reap in the largest possible profits. Unfortunately, for those in the minorities, this means they are often going to end up swept under Hollywoods carpet leaving them abandoned. Does this happen because the industry is deliberately trying to seclude or remove them? Is it simply because the needs of the minority is not something that crosses the minds of the people involved in the industry? Or is it because money screams louder, and is therefore more important than the minoritys often desperate need for realistic and relatable portrayals of their lives? Regardless of the reason one thing is for certain this needs to change. Why? Writer Armistead Maupin could point us in the direction of one answer in this simple statement: Theyre our storytelling. Theyre the fabric of our lives. They show us what is glorious, and tragic, and wonderful, and funny, about the day-


to-day experiences that we all share. And when youre gay and dont see that reflected in any way, ever, in the movies, you begin to feel that something is truly wrong.2 However, I find myself in need of a more in-depth explanation. Imagine living in a world advanced enough to create any fantasyland conceivable, using intricate and

11

advanced computer software, for the sole purpose of allowing the general public the possibility to lose themselves almost their interiors for a few hours to be entertained that does not acknowledge your existence. For the heteronormative majority this is probably a confusing, possibly even pointless statement, and one that they may not be able to understand at first, second and in some cases, even third glance. They watch a film and immediately afterward would be able to identify at least a handful of split seconds, even entire scenes, that relate to them, and more importantly, their sexual identity. The latter however, is not something I can see this majority partaking in. Not because they believe it to be of little importance, but because for them heterosexuality is so readily available it becomes invisible. In other words, the majority are oblivious to the problem. For those who carry a homosexual identity throughout their lives, these above statements are not fictional. They are their reality. The option to utilise the movies as a medium to reaffirm ones place in society, or even as an escape from that reality, is not handed to them on a plate. In fact it is barely handed to them at all. Filmic resources are an excellent way of affirming your thoughts and feelings your belonging, if you will. Which is why: [w]e need to construct our histories through examining the records left by those who went before us those who carried a homosexual identity through a heterosexual world.3 Regrettably, this is the case for all minorities albeit on different levels but for me the misrepresentation, and often complete exclusion of the LGBT* (Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community intrigues and disgusts me most. Ultimately, it is this that brings me to the subject matter for this thesis: The negative portrayals of a specific, and for myself, personal, sub-group within the LGBT* community the lesbian. The lesbians causing the latest drama in most modern day soaps4; the lesbians that return to the safety of a past male companion; the lesbians whose sole purpose are to provide titillating visuals for the heterosexual male, do not cut it.

2 Armistaed Maupin, The Celluloid Closet, 00:03:40, DVD, Dir. Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman, Sony Picture Home Entertainment, 1996 (2001) 3 Andy Medhurst, That special thrill in Queer Screen (Routledge: New York, 2007) 4 Eastenders Sonia Fowler and Naomi Juien, Corronation Streets Sian Powers and Sophie Webster, Emmerdales Jasmine Thomas and Debbie Dingle


And the cinematic lesbian, whose defining and often only known characteristic is her sexuality, is not much to go on either. Both need to be replaced by the woman who is a teacher, a policewoman, a lawyer, a company owner, a shop assistant, a

12

bystander or an extra, who also just happens to be gay: who instead of being known solely for her sexual preference towards women, is shown in the same light as her heterosexual counterparts as a mother, a sister, a daughter, a lover; but most importantly as a normal human being. This knowledge is something I have gained through not only personal experience, but through conversations with others, and more importantly a singular survey, conducted by myself, with the intentions of finding out the thoughts and feelings of the wider LGBT* community about the misrepresentations of their sexualities in the movies. Drawing on Bill Gillhams book Developing a Questionnaire, I created questions designed to find out the true thoughts and feelings of an anonymous group of participants all of whom identify as LGBT*. The full survey and results can be found in Appendix 1 of this paper.5 As I have outlined above, the misrepresentation of the lesbian within the motion picture industry is hugely problematic and it is time to allow her to step out of the heterosexually managed, closed-minded-closet. Not only because showing heterosexuality as the most represented, and therefore idealised, sexuality and lifestyle is extremely dated; and not only because lesbians, both young and old are in desperate need of realistic and obvious mirrored images of themselves and their lives; but because society as a whole needs to become the audience to these minority representations. For the stigma surrounding lesbianism to diminish, lesbianism needs to lose its unfortunate taboo title: a title that will be maintained as long as lesbianism remains to exist, for the most part, in the shadows of cinema. By looking deeper into a select few sub-categories within the extensive topic of lesbian representation in cinema, including, the stereotypical looks and portrayals of the lesbian and lesbianism on the screen; heavy censorship, spanning back to the introduction of the production code in the 1930s until present day; and lesbian spectatorship, alongside intense watching of lesbian orientated films this thesis will explain how the inherent heteronormativy of the motion picture industry has had, and continues to have, negative effects on the lesbian audience. This will be achieved by mediating a combination of primary research such as close textual analysis of a selection of lesbian orientated films and survey generation and analysis and secondary research such as source reviews of relevant articles, interviews and

5 See Appendix Number 1: The One Sided Mirror of the Movies: Survey on lesbian representations in

cinema.


books. In order to create an accessible, relatable but also informative paper my research considers the above-mentioned factors. My personal interests and, more importantly, experiences will provide a parallel narrative to the views and discussions of members of the wider lesbian community, writers, filmmakers,

13

directors and number of key theorists; including Annette Kuhn, Jackie Stacey and Patricia White. To put it quite simply: with a vast majority of lesbians feeling they are inadequately represented and/or under-represented within the movies, I sought to find out why something that is so desperately desired, and so easily achievable, is pushed under Hollywoods carpet.6

See Appendix Number 1: The One Sided Mirror of the Movies: Survey on lesbian representations in cinema.
6

14

The Portrayals of the Cinematic Lesbian.

There are lots of needs for art. The greatest one is the mirror of our own lives and our own existence and that hunger that I felt as a kid looking for gay images was to not be alone. - Harvey Fierstein7

Loving Annabelle (Dir. Katherine Brookes, 2006), Lost and Delirious (Dir. La Pool, 2001), But Im a Cheerleader (Dir. Jamie Babbit, 1999), High Art (Dir. Lisa Cholodenko, 1998), Bound (Dir. Andy & Lana Wachowski, 1996) Ive indulged in these, and many more films like them, more than once in my twenty-two years. I often find myself asking why. I mean, yes, the obvious answer is that they all deal with lesbianism in one way or another but, despite promising beginnings, and sometimes middles, they all grow depressing legs from anywhere between half way, until the final scene comes to a close. What is unusual about this you ask? Arent there many movies that follow these similar layouts - happiness in the offset, followed by heartbreak or turmoil, with everything being brought back around in the nick of time, allowing the overall happy ending to occur? Arent all movies just edgier versions of childhood fairytales? For me this is where the problem lies. If you identify as a lesbian, in all these movies, the true happy ending never exists. In fact, the onscreen counterpart to your identity barely exists. So how was I meant to accept myself when I went from having no relevant imagery with the exception of pornography to the solely negative representations offered by the movies? The movies offered up the lesbian who wasnt quite sure if she was actually a lesbian; the girl who was confused and/or going through a phase (Chasing Amy, Dir. Kevin Smith, 1997); the girl who was manipulated by a woman more powerful than herself (D.E.B.S.,G Dir. Angela Robinson, 2004); the woman whose sexuality is ambiguous, but leaning towards homosexual (Calamity Jane, Dir. David Butler, 1953); or the girl who is relatively secure with her sexuality but because of various happenings ends up committing suicide (Lost and Delirious, Dir. La Pool, 2001). None of these variations even remotely fitted with my concrete, albeit still quite upsetting, knowledge of my own sexuality; that I was undeniably a lesbian. *** What do the following words or phrases have in common?

Harvey Firstein quoted in This Film Is Not Yet Rated, 00:04:49, DVD, Dir. Kirby Dick, Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2006 (2009)
7

15

Predatory, manipulative, masculine, confused, devious, evil, conniving, dishonest, womanizing, villainous, murderers, vampires, pornographic, narcissistic, sneaky, going through phases, unstable, unattractive, untrustworthy, lonely, incestuous and suicidal. Other than the fact they are all connotations of negative words or phrases, they were the only words used to describe the portrayal of the lesbian in films by lesbian participants of the survey I conducted for the purpose of this paper.8 As Bertha Harris suggests lesbians are nearly invisible in mainstream cinematic history, except as evil or negative-example characters.9 The movies have always been somewhat stereotypical in their representations of society including their representations of heterosexual lifestyles but when it comes to the portrayal of the homosexual, and especially the lesbian, it seems they take stereotyping to a whole new level. Hollywoods reluctance to stray from the heterosexual male gaze that still dominates cinema, particularly in the mainstream, today, makes finding relatable, and more importantly, real, lesbian imagery an impossibility. In this chapter I will break down a select few of the more commonly used stereotypes when portraying lesbianism in cinema: the vampire and the villain; the predator; the pornographic eye-candy; and the butch, in order to explain why these stereotypes are unfortunately still widely used and how this usage is simply unacceptable. Heteronormative Hollywood needs to cease making lesbians sharks, vampires, creatures from the deep lagoon, godzillas, hydrogen bombs, inventions of the laboratory, werewolves all of whom stalk Beverly Hills by Night10, and instead needs to take gigantic steps forward to ensure that lesbianism, and homosexuality in general, become on screen norms. There can be no excuses or alternatives.

8 See Appendix Number 1: The One Sided Mirror of the Movies: Survey on lesbian representations in cinema.

9 E. Becker, M. Citron, J. Lessage and B.R Rich, Lesbians and Film in Out In Culture: Gay, Lesbian and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, (Duke University Press: USA, 1995), p.26 10 Bertha Harris, quoted in E. Becker, M. Citron, J. Lessage and B.R. Rich, Lesbians and Film in Out In Culture: Gay, Lesbian and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, (Duke University Press: USA, 1995) p.25


The Vampire and the Villain

16

Lesbian vampirism is so extensively covered in cinema that is has become a genre in itself. This however, is not the positive step forward lesbian audiences are looking for. In a sense, lesbian vampirism could be seen as a breakthrough for the representation of the lesbian on the screen. Shes beautiful, enticing, sexually active and most importantly visible: the lesbian vampire brings to the table everything the majority of cinema excludes when it comes to representing the lesbian. Unfortunately there is a downside, which causes the demise of this possible positive. The lesbian vampire was not invented to entice and engage a lesbian audience. Instead, she is the result of the heterosexual male gaze. (See Fig.3)

(Fig 3.) The heterosexual male gaze is evident in Lesbian Vampire Killers11 (2009).

She is the greatest lesbian villain, born solely from heterosexual male desire as a means to prove, it is not he who is inadequate, he is competing with supernatural powers. A man who offers his woman life

11

Lesbian Vampire Killers, DVD, Dir. Phil Claydon, Weinstein Company, 2009 (2009)


though his sexual potency (symbolised by sperm) cannot compete with the vampire who sucks away her life (symbolised by blood).12 The lesbian vampires devious and conniving demeanor propels the heterosexual male to a position of power without him having to prove he is at all worthy of this position. She is a necessary evil in disproving and disregarding the existence of

17

true, natural and healthy lesbianism altogether. Lesbian vampire movies provide a security for masculinity from lesbianism, whilst managing to provide titillating sexualised visuals that once again reinstate the male to the top of the societal scale; the idea that heterosexuality and masculinity will always come out on top. Masculinity is seen to be of utmost importance. By affirming mans position at the top, the rest automatically, and subconsciously fall beneath: we are led to believe that a woman is nothing without her man. In Hollywood this is more often than not the storyline of choice. The idea that a woman would be nothing without her man by her side is of course dated, but that is not enough to stop Hollywood trying to convince us otherwise. Men want to see these movies because they want to save the damsel. Women want to see these movies because they want to be the damsel; they want to be saved. Because of this, the damsel in distress sells tickets, and as I have stated previously in my introduction, tickets equal money. Lesbianism, according to dominant cinema, is a direct threat to masculinity, and these storylines, and dominant cinema cannot afford to have the importance and direct need for masculinity questioned. Luckily for conventional cinema, but unfortunately not for the lesbian audience, lesbian vampire features allow these damsel in distress storylines to exist without ever having to cast masculinity in any negative light. By replacing the usual strong, powerful, dominant male villain with a conniving and demonic woman, born of supernatural powers, masculinity remains unscathed. As Andrea Weiss states in her book Vampires and Violets, even when homosexuality seems to have made a breakthrough in the movies, it is often as a guise for the correctness of heterosexuality. While seemingly arguing the opposite, [mainstream lesbian films] end up also, more convincingly, affirming the position that lesbians too can find fulfillment in heterosexual sex and heterosexual definitions of womanhood.13

Bonnie Zimmerman, Daughters of Darkness, Lesbian Vampires, Jump Cut no. 24-25 Andre Weiss, Transgressive Cinema: Lesbian Independent Film in Vampires and Violets, Lesbians in the cinema, (Jonathan Cape: London 1992), p153
13 12

18

Love between women cannot, according to these movies, be described by any other means than vampirism. In these movies, lesbianism and vampirism mean the same thing. She renders lesbianism deviant and life threatening. If lesbianism were not shown to equate to vampirism, it would become obvious that two women can find love and passion in the absence of a male which in the eyes of those who view masculinity as a societal frontrunner is seen to be damaging. The lesbian vampire also has a new, yet just as demeaning, characteristic narcissism. These films teach us that the lesbians and homosexuals are narcissists capable of making love only to images of themselves14 and that lesbian sexuality is infantile; lesbianism is sterile and morbid; lesbians are rich, decadent women who seduce the young and the powerless.15 (See Fig 4.)

(Fig 4.) Showing both narcissism and desire for the young in The Vampire Lovers16 (1970).

Metaphorically speaking one could argue that there is one aspect the lesbian can relate to within the lesbian vampire genre; the missing mirrored image of herself. Just like the vampires they are watching, the lesbian audience is unable to see that reflection they desperately desire. Ironically, it is the promise of that reflection, in the use of the word lesbian in their titles and synopsis, which draws them to the genre in the first place. The genre that gives the lesbian audience the most hope, in terms of onscreen visibility, actually causes the most disappointment and upset. Real lesbianism, although often suggested in the titles, is once again absent.

14 15

Bonnie Zimmerman, Daughters of Darkness, Lesbian Vampires, Jump Cut no. 24-25 Bonnie Zimmerman, Daughters of Darkness, Lesbian Vampires, Jump Cut no. 24-25 16 The Vampire Lovers, DVD, Dir. Roy Ward Baker, MGM, 1970 (2000)


The lesbian villain is in many ways similar to the lesbian vampire. Although she comes with no supernatural powers she is still conniving and devilish, often

19

going to extreme and dangerous methods to capture her prey the unsuspecting, and otherwise heterosexual female. For example, in the movie D.E.B.S. (Dir. Angela Robinson, 2004), a clich ridden, light hearted teen comedy about a female spy school, the only openly and comfortably lesbian character is that of the supervillain Lucy Diamond (played by Joanna Brewster). This beautiful and captivating woman is so deadly that legend claims nobody who has ever faced her has lived to talk about it: until now. When Diamond comes face to face with Amy, the perfect D.E.B. (student spy) she initially kidnaps her (albeit to a bar, but nonetheless against her own will) before embarking on a mission to make Amy her own. The remainder of the film shows Amys school friends and macho ex-boyfriend do everything in their power to save her from the clutches of this true evil. Whilst on their quest to save her from the worlds most notorious super-villain only one of the party is aware of the blossoming romance between the two women. When the rescue squad arrives at the scene to find Amy in bed with Lucy, the evil changes shape. Lesbianism becomes the ultimate demon. Although, as I have said above, this is a light-hearted comedy, the lesbian villainess character still follows these strict guidelines: take the perfect heterosexual female and, through means of force, corrupt her. And at the end of the movie, despite the controversy, Amy leaves with her lesbian lover, but not before stating that she is aware that she [has] a date with the devil.17 The fear surrounding the lesbian villain can be related to reality in ways the fear surrounding the lesbian vampire cannot, because vampires are supernatural and therefore never have the capacity to exist off-screen. This is not to say the lesbian villain exists off-screen either. However, due to her human characteristics, unlike the lesbian vampire, she is rooted in an ostensibly real world setting. Her lack of supernatural powers also makes her a larger possible threat to masculinity, so once again dirty tactics are used in order to make her seem like the unsafe, unwanted option. The creation of a feared female character gives the poor straight, or even confused, woman no other option than to return to the safety of her heterosexual male counterpart: heterosexuality triumphs. In real life, it is men who perpetuate violence against women. It is men who use rape as a weapon By dumping these qualities in an exaggerated form onto the lesbian, men absolve themselves of responsibility and induce women not to fear men but each other.18

17 18

01:20:62, D.E.B.S., DVD, Dir. Angela Robinson, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2004 (2005)
Claudette Charbonneau & Lucy Winer, Lesbians in nice films, Jump Cut, no.24-25

20

The lesbian villain uses force, alongside her devilish charm, to win or scare over the affections of the beautiful heterosexual woman unfortunate enough to cross her path and if she is chosen over the dominant male lead, we must be reminded that the women involved are aware that they have chosen a date with the devil19. The Predator

The predatory lesbian comes in many shapes and sizes. She is often cast as a villain, acquiring the love of her usually young prey through force and sometimes even kidnapping (D.E.B.S., Dir. Angela Robinson, 2004); a school teacher abusing her power by embarking on a relationship with a student (Loving Annabelle, Dir. Katherine Brookes, 2006); or a butch woman stalking and turning even the most heterosexual female character gay (Rebecca, Dir. Alfred Hitchcock, 1940). Regardless of her guise she always follows a strict set of rules, and at the top of that list is preying on the young and the helpless. These films depicting risky lesbian love stories teacher/pupil relationships etc. can be exciting and gripping, but they leave the lesbian audience torn. Is it wrong to feel a connection with the two lovers? Should we not be appalled that somebody in a position of power, a schoolteacher, could become romantically and sexually involved with a minor? Is this not immoral? The answer to the latter two questions should most probably be Yes, however, it is these storylines that often provide the most realistic romances albeit typically clichd and in keeping with the rest of the lesbian genre, somewhat lacking in their onscreen sexual visuals in comparison with their heterosexual counterparts. Whilst the lesbian audience is being shown truer representations of loving lesbian relationships within this subgenre, they are very consciously aware that very rarely in a lesbian storyline has there ever been a happy ending and subsequently spend the duration of the movie bracing themselves for the negative outcome -whatever it may be. In the case of Loving Annabelle immediately after Simone Bradley (the teacher) and Annabelle (the pupil) become intimately involved, Simone is arrested and the movie abruptly ends leaving the lesbian viewer unfulfilled.

19

01:20:62, D.E.B.S., DVD, Dir. Angela Robinson, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2004 (2005)


The lesbian predator once again sheds light on the obvious heteronormative agenda implemented by Hollywood, by showcasing that lesbianism and negativity should, and do, come hand in hand. In the movies, it is impossible to show one without the other. Mainstream cinema employs a traditional dichotomy of positive/negative, using allegedly lesbian villainesses to punish those characters who deviate from the norms of domesticity or romantic love. Heterosexuality is the positive, lesbianism the negative.20 Although the lesbian predator is not a villain in the same sense as the lesbian vampire, she is most certainly used to continue pushing forward these negative accusations lesbians are devious beings: women to be fearful of and should be

21

closely scrutinsed. The suggestion that the lesbian has no qualms about corrupting children if she is unable to convince or find love with an adult female adds a double negative to this already tainted sub-genre. When the safety and security of children becomes a key part of a films content which in teacher/pupil relationship storylines, it undoubtedly is problems arise. In mainstream, or heteronormative, features with similar content usually male teacher/female student it is the singular male who receives the backlash and negativity not his heterosexuality. By replacing the male/female relationship with a female/female romance, it is no longer solely the singular adult/female who receives the backlash. Lesbianism in its entirety falls into the firing line. Sexually Explicit Eye-Candy

Perhaps the real taboo is not sexuality between women, but the affirmation of any associations between women that are primary and exclusive of men.21 The possibility of two women being able to provide each other with security, love and more importantly as far as this chapter is concerned, sexual pleasure and

20 E. Becker, M. Citron, J. Lessage, B.R. Rich, Lesbians and Film in Out In Culture: Gay, Lesbian and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, p.27 (Duke University Press: USA, 1995) p.27 21 E. Becker, M. Citron, J. Lessage, B.R. Rich, Lesbians and Film in Out In Culture: Gay, Lesbian and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, (Duke University Press: USA, 1995) p.28


fulfillment without the need, or want, for male involvement has led to a rise in sexually explicit lesbian imagery making their way onto our mainstream cinema screens. If the male is not involved physically in the lovemaking even if male involvement is completely absent from the scene it must then be made obvious

22

that voyeuristic male participation was intended to be the scenes main goal (see Fig 7.) In Wild Things (Dir. John McNaughton, 1998), the sexually explicit lesbian imagery becomes as close to pornography as dominant cinema will, or can, allow. This is most evident in the swimming pool sex scene between Suzie and Kelly, the two leading female characters. As they writhe around, it is obvious that making sure the camera, and male viewer are granted access to the titillating elements of the female form are a priority. The addition of Ray (the male voyeur) filming this intimate moment from afar, unbeknown to the women confirms the male audiences importance in the act of lesbian lovemaking. The pleasure these two women are stimulating is not their own, but the male viewers. In relation to pornographic imagery: Pornography controls and uses lesbianism by defining it purely as a form of genital sexuality that, in being watched, can thereby be recuperated into male fantasy.22

(Fig 7.) The above scene stills from Wild Things (1998) show both the existence of the sexually explicit, bordering on pornographic lesbian representations in cinema and male involvement and/or intrusion into lesbian lovemaking.

E. Becker, M. Citron, J. Lessage, B.R. Rich, Lesbians and Film in Out In Culture: Gay, Lesbian and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, (Duke University Press: USA, 1995) p.27
22


Sexually explicit lesbian imagery only reinforces the idea that masculinity is of

23

highest importance and that women who partake in the act of lesbian-lovemaking, both on and off screen, only do so in order to sexually arouse men. To propose that a woman is romantically involved with another woman out of love, compassion and desire automatically belittles masculine worth and the roles our societal structures have informed men they should conform to. In other words, masculinity becomes much less important. Lesbianism is proof that men are not needed as the sole providers of safety and security and the dangers of showing this to a mainstream audience guarantee that in a homophobic society, any authentic positive image of lesbian romantic love remains too great a risk ever to find direct expression on the screen.23 Some might argue that these sexually explicit portrayals give a lesbian audience more than the vast majority of other lesbian themed movies: they do after all showcase scenes of a sexual nature. Unfortunately, being thrown crumbs that prove your existence does not equate to being shown realistic lesbian portrayals. The only things these scenes, and sometimes entire movies, achieve is making lesbian audiences acutely aware that the heterosexual male has once again pipped them to the post. They may be viewing lesbian pleasure, but it was not the lesbian woman these scenes were created to please. Edith Becker, Michelle Citron, Julia Lessage and B. Ruby Rich all state that as long as pornography continues to use the lesbian as a commodity made by and for men, lesbian sexuality will continue to be viewed by those in the heternormative mainstream as pornography.24 Whilst on the one hand these pornographic images are bringing some form of lesbianism, albeit a frustrating one, to the screen, they are also responsible for eradicating it. Lesbian filmmakers are acutely aware that pornography has tainted lesbian sexuality, and despite the need for these truer representations to exist, are exchanging them for subtler, often non-existent, expressions of lesbian passion and desire. As filmmaker and novelist Christaine Rochefort states: Because we dont want men to look at what we do, I cut the intimate scenes.25 While lesbian filmmaking is not solely a matter of a woman plus a woman in bed, nevertheless sexuality cannot and should not be avoided. For the lesbian community, the cinematic depiction of

23 E. Becker, M. Citron, J. Lessage, B.R. Rich, Lesbians and Film in Out In Culture: Gay, Lesbian and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, (Duke University Press: USA, 1995) p.27 24 E. Becker, M. Citron, J. Lessage, B.R. Rich, Lesbians and Film in Out In Culture: Gay, Lesbian and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, p.27 (Duke University Press: USA, 1995) p.27 25 Christaine Rochefort quoted in E. Becker, M. Citron, J. Lessage, B.R. Rich, Lesbians and Film in Out
In Culture: Gay, Lesbian and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, p.27 (Duke University Press: USA, 1995) p.38


sexuality poses a particular problem. It is important to name this element of lesbianism for what it is, to articulate its nature, and to give positive models of lesbian sexuality for younger women coming out The visualization of nonvoyeuristic, authentic lesbian lovemaking should be attempted. But, paradoxically, the continued existence of pornography still clouds the depiction of sexuality.26 Although obviously understandable, is it right for the lesbian filmmaker to deprive the lesbian viewer of a more relatable mirrored image of herself purely because lesbianism within pornography remains in existence? Surely it is she who understands most of all the lesbian communitys need for realistic lesbian representations and despite masculinitys intrusion on the sensual and sexual moments shared between two women on screen, these moments must not be removed from existence? There are two things the eradication of these scenes achieves, and neither is positive. The already long list of unrealistic and extremely frustrating lesbian representations elongates and heteronormativity once again prevails only this time, thanks to the lesbian filmmaker, it has not had to lift a finger. The Butch

24

butch/booCH/: Adjective: Manlike or masculine in appearance or behavior, typically aggressively or ostentatiously so. Noun: A mannish lesbian, often contrasted with a more feminine partner.27 When we think of lesbian stereotypes the first one to arise in most peoples heads is the butch. However, when it comes to lesbian representations on our cinema screens, she is not the most frequently used. Although this is a good thing lesbianism needs to break free from these, often negative, stereotypes the only reason the butch is not on top of the list of used cinematic lesbian stereotypes is because unlike the vampire or sexually explicit lesbian portrayals, she is less

Queer Essays on Popular Culture, p.27 (Duke University Press: USA, 1995) p.37 27 Dictionary definition of the word: Butch.

26 E. Becker, M. Citron, J. Lessage, B.R. Rich, Lesbians and Film in Out In Culture: Gay, Lesbian and

25

capable of providing titillating masculine viewing pleasure. She is however, used to affirm masculinitys importance in a different way. Usually unattractive as far as Hollywoods ideals of conventional beauty are concerned or awkward, the butch allows Hollywood a way to showcase apparently positive lesbian imagery, without putting masculinity in any jeopardy. In fact, the butch can almost be seen to be showcasing the positives of masculinity. Instead of wanting a male lover, these womens desires for the masculine are much deeper: they are seen as wanting to be male. These women, presumed only to be lesbian because of their inability to find a heterosexual male companion, allow dominant cinema a guise for its sexism and homophobia: they allow for it to be hidden in plain sight. In the 1987 film Black Widow we see a different usage of the butch. The audience initially presumes Alexs desire for Catherine comes from Alexs presumed lesbianism. This lesbian desire is overwritten when this fascination changes from purely feminine identification to the desire to impersonate to become this other woman. [This] suddenly and inexplicably twists into a feminine identification with her, the kind of identification with the female image, the mother, which, according to Freud, allows the girl to negotiate the Oedipus Complex and turn her instinctual drives toward the man: Alex stars wearing Catherines clothes, visiting her hair stylist, and wanting to sleep her husband (-to-be).28 When a female character is shown to be on the journey to independence which is often the case with the butch she has to meet one simple requirement. It is obligatory that she encounters the sphinx of lesbianism, and her survival of this ordeal can only be answered much in the same way as Oedipus did: i.e., on behalf of man.29 There is one exception to this apparent Oedipus rule and it can be seen most prominently in Monster (Dir. Patty Jenkins, 2003). If the butch woman is not simply incapable of finding romantic masculine attention and specifically identifies as a lesbian she must be portrayed as a threat to masculinity through other means. In the case of Monster albeit a film based on true events Aileen Wuornos, a lesbian prostitute turns to killing her male clients. She is portrayed as one of the deadliest American women - a serial killer, but not just a serial killer, a lesbian serial killer.

28 29

Teresa De-Lauretis, Guerrilla in the midst, in Queer Screen (Routledge: New York 2007) p.34 Teresa De-Lauretis, Guerrilla in the midst, in Queer Screen (Routledge: New York 2007) p.32


Once again, much like the lesbian predator, and unlike heterosexual serial killer

26

counterparts, the sexuality of the assailant becomes increasingly more important lesbianism once again becomes a key point in the coverage and remains an obvious negative. *** When I asked the questions Do you feel you can relate to LGBT* characters in mainstream films? only 8% of the participants - the lesbian audience found themselves able to find representations of themselves in mainstream cinematic productions. And when asked Do you feel you can relate to the LGBT* characters in indie/art-house films?, films often designed for minority audiences, only 38% found that they could find suitable comparisons. Of all the participants only 21% felt these negative portrayals had no negative effects on their perception of their sexuality.30 This evidence proves these problems caused by unrealistic, or missing, lesbian portrayals are damaging to the lesbian viewers. Whilst showcasing some form of lesbian existence both mainstream and indie films do little to help lesbians positively confirm their sexual identity. Although this may not be majorly problematic for those who have already battled their way through the tropes of negative imagery and representations if any imagery existed in the first place in their journey through realisation to acceptance of their sexuality, the lack of realistic or positive lesbianism available in cinema can be, and is, more damaging to those experiencing the initial stages of coming out, than the inclusion of reality. One of the main reasons behind these missing or misrepresentations is the topic for the following chapter: censorship.

See Appendix Number 1: The One Sided Mirror of the Movies: Survey on lesbian representation in cinema.
30

27

Censorship.
The Lesbian said about it, the better Haywood Broun31 No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience shall never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin. The Hays (Production) code

But Im a Cheerleader32 a film I wish Id known about when my internal lesbian monologue decided it was time to externalise itself did not become available, or even known, to me until my late teens. Given a certificate NC-1733 in the United States of America and a certificate 1534 in the United Kingdom, this insightful movie (an exception to the usual rule) about a fictional teenage homosexual rehabilitation camp in America, was unavailable to the audience the director created it for: teenagers confused, and often very much alone in coming to terms with their unconventional sexuality. [T]he target audience for this movie [is] the very demographic the protagonists represent. For queer teens, some reassurance and levity goes a long way to making them feel comfortable with themselves.35 But Im a Cheerleader is a coming out story and a forced one at that. The main character, Megan, is outed by friends and family before being shipped off to a homosexual rehabilitation camp, where instead of eradicating her inner most demons aka. her homosexuality she confirms it. When I finally got around to watching the feature, which was almost immediately after finding out films depicting my life existed, I was at least nineteen. And as I was sitting watching these scenes unfold there was one clear thought racing through mind. If only I had known this was available throughout my coming out affair. Unfortunately for me, I found out at least six years too late. I had been allowed access to PG and 12/12A rated movies showing graphic violence with no qualms or worries voiced by ratings boards, claiming to have the safety of children in the forefront of their priorities but I was

31 Heywood Brown quoted by Patricia White, Uninvited: Classical Hollywood Cinema and Lesbian Representability (Indiana University Press: Indiana, 1999), p.1 32 But Im a Cheerleader, DVD, Dir. Jamie Babbit, Lions Gate, 1999 (2003) 33 See the guidelines for all MPAA movie ratings in Appendix No. 2 34 See the guidelines for all BBFC movie ratings in Appendix No. 2 35 Unknown, New Queer Cinema: But Im a Cheerleader, http://moviecentre.us/article/new-queercinema-but-im-cheerleader (02.02.2013)

28

not granted access to images of my own sexuality, purely because they were deemed too damaging for me to be able to handle. In order to protect children from unsuitable and even harmful content in films and videos and to give consumers information they might need about a particular film or video before deciding whether or not to view it, the BBFC examines and age rates films and videos before they are released. The independent scrutiny prior to release ensures the highest possible level of protection and empowerment.36 Censorship of sexuality does not protect our children. It alienates them. And this alienation is more dangerous and damaging than the representations of sexuality that organisations like the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) were created to censor. How do I know this to be true? Because this is my life and my experiences and it also happens to be the lives and experiences shared by the majority of the lesbian community. To support this statement I will refer to question ten from my selfconducted survey Did the way LGBT*Q characters are/were portrayed in films affect your perception of your own sexuality? 53% of participants claimed to have been affected by the lack of relatable imagery, 25% were on the fence and only 21% of the LGBT*Q community felt they had not been affected by the censored or missing representations of themselves.37 *** The film industry is certainly no stranger to censorship. They are seemingly convinced that in order to protect society and, more importantly, our children the movie-making business and censorship organisations must go hand-in-hand. I disagree. Instead of protecting their audiences they have become key offenders in suppressing our so-called free society. In the words of James Wall, an appeals board member for the MPAA, [they] want to give the artists the freedom to make the films they want to make. But [they] do not want to make it totally free.38 When select and relatively small groups of people proclaim themselves to be the guardians of our screens making decisions for the benefit of greater society it is inevitable that problems are going to arise. Whilst one could argue a long list of disadvantages created by the censorship of cinema, the most relevant for my discussion, and in some cases most important overall, is the discrimination, and eradication of the minority, and in the case of this thesis, the lesbian, from the

36 British Board of Film Classification website, How does classification work?, http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/how-does-classification-work (02.02.2013) 37 See Appendix Number 1: The One Sided Mirror of the Movies: Survey on lesbian representations in cinema, Question number 10. 38 James Wall (Appeals board member for the MPAA since 1968) quoted in This Film Is Not Yet Rated, 01:31:40, DVD, Dir. Kirby Dick, Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2006 (2009)


movies. Whether this is due to deliberate discriminatory acts or purely born of ignorance or obliviousness, it does not change the fact that if you belong to the

29

heterosexual majority, there is much less of a likelihood that your existence will be removed from certain, or all, aspects of the cinema screen. Heterosexuality is confirmed without the heterosexual audience ever needing or wanting to look for it. Whilst ratings systems come with obvious pros-, allowing audiences access to guidelines about film contents, censorship, in its current state, still remains an unfair and unjust process. Sex is often deemed more dangerous than violence and all non-majority sexualities are therefore treated as perversions. And since [l]esbians are the women who are penalized for their sexuality more than any other women on earth,39 it is they who become the most dangerous perversion of them all. The proof can be seen in Kirby Dicks This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006). A witty, yet highly informative and incredibly clever documentary, turning the tables on the American ratings board the MPAA by putting them under intense scrutiny over their ratings system. In doing so Dicks documentary shows the MPAA for what it really is: a heteronormative, conservative dictatorship. Although speaking from an American viewpoint, and commenting only on the current American ratings system brought forward by Jack Valenti (the MPAAs then president) there are certainly some similarities with British film certificates especially when concerning the homosexual. More than anything, this documentary shows us excellent comparisons between films showcasing heterosexual storylines and films showcasing homosexual storylines. By showing us just how much harder it is for films of a homosexual nature to be treated as equally as their heterosexual counterparts This Film Is Not Yet Rated cements the knowledge that Hollywoods perspective on equality is on a par with George Orwells Animal Farm some will always be more equal than others.40 In the eyes of cinematic censors (in this case, the MPAA) you will be better placed to have your movie seen by the masses or deemed acceptable by having heterosexual characters who are unfaithful and/or having numerous one night stands than you would be if you portrayed a homosexual couple in a loving, committed relationship. (See Fig 9.) This idea is reiterated in a comment by Jamie Babbit, director of lesbian orientated movie But Im a Cheerleader. Babbits movie was intended to advise and/or help young homosexual teenagers going through the difficulties of coming out in a world that is not fully accepting of homosexuals. Instead her movie was met with a high certification from both the MPAA and BBFC making the movie unavailable to those it was intended to aid.

E. Becker, M. Citron, J. Lesage, B.R. Rich, Lesbians and film, Jump Cut no. 24-25. George Orwells Animal Farm is one of the best-known mantras when it comes to equality and society. Orwell uses farm animals as metaphors for humanity and comments on hierarchical statuses certain members of society bestow upon themselves.
40 39

30

But Im a Cheerleader was a movie about gay kids who go to a homosexual rehabilitation camp. Its a comedy, its a teen movie, I mean its all the things that I thought kids would like and I really wanted teens to see it and I feel like the most important teens to see it are teens that are in high school in like Wyoming, or like wherever, that are just feeling like theyre the only ones. Especially these kids that are sent to these homosexual rehabilitation camps and those camps are very real. So I got a call from the ratings board and theyd said you got an NC-17. I was really angry and really devastated and I didnt understand why. Because theres no nudity in the sex scene, and theyre fully clothed. It was ridiculous. But the really offensive thing was at the time that I submitted it to the ratings board American Pie had just come out. I had seen the trailer a million times of Jason Biggs masturbating in an apple pie in the trailer! So what the ratings board then tells me, that in order to get an R, I have to cut one of my girls masturbating over her underwear, fully clothed, you dont see anything basically you can tell that shes masturbating.41

(Fig 9.) BBFC certificates are not part of This Film Is Not Yet Rated image. Added by the author to showcase both American and British ratings systems flaws.

Censorship boards obsession with the protection of children, and their inability to look outside of the norm means those carrying a lesbian identity, already struggling to place themselves in a majority filled heteronormative world, continue to find no real answers. Features intended to help these young homosexual teens make sense of their developing sexualities never make it to the screens stationed in front of the demographic audience intended by the directors and writers. The majority of the adult lesbian community does not need reassurance via coming out stories in the same way lesbian teenagers might. However, the fact these features are more often than not given ratings of R/15 or higher means the people

Jamie Babbit quoted in This Film Is Not Yet Rated, 00:40:09, DVD, Dir. Kirby Dick, Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2006 (2009)
41


in need of these movies are the ones who are alienated from seeing them. The censorship of these storylines from young teenagers does not protect our children as production code officers have previously stated. Instead, it is responsible for alienating and confusing them. The censoring of our screens isnt exactly a new phenomenon. With the invention of the Production or Hays Code back in 1930 the removing of scenes or

31

storylines deemed too offensive for the general publics viewing has been occurring for nearly a century. The original list of unsavory imagery included: Open mouthed kissing; lustful embraces; sex perversion; seduction; rape; abortion; prostitution and white slavery; nudity; obscenity and profanity, this list was eventually eradicated, leaving one main offender: sex perversion.42 Whilst this could be considered to include all scenes of a sexual nature, both hetero- and homo-, the sex perversion being referred to by the Hays (production) code was most certainly homosexuality: No hint of sex perversion may be introduced into a screen story. The characterization of a man as effeminate, or a woman as grossly masculine would be absolutely forbidden for screen portrayal. This means, too, that no comedy character may be introduced into a screen play pantomiming a pervert.43 Although the Hays code was abolished in 1968 it had already set a president for censorship procedures in commercial film ratings: the Hays code most certainly made its mark. In Queering the (New) Deal: Lesbian and Gay Representation and the Depression-Era Cultural Politics of Hollywoods Production Code the author, David M. Lugoswki states that he want[s] to show that such representation is much more widespread than any previous study would suggest.44 From his perspective, the production code didnt erase homosexuals from the screen, it just made them harder to find.45 This is a statement I highly disagree with. Whilst images that could be read by members of a lesbian audience as lesbian undeniably exist, this does not equate to onscreen visibility. Being forced to read between the lines, something all homosexual, not just lesbian, audiences find themselves doing does not mean that the existence of LGBT storylines within the movies has been enabled. We all know

42 The Celluloid Closet, 00:16:32, DVD, Dir. Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman, Sony Picture Home Entertainment, 1996 (2001) 43 Olga J. Martin, Hollywoods Movie Commandments, (Wilson: New York 1937) p. 42 44 David M. Lugowski, Queering the (New) Deal: Lesbian and Gay Representation and the DepressionEra Cultural Politics of Hollywoods Production Code, in Cinema Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, (Winter 1999), p. 7 45 The Celluloid Closet, 00:16:49, DVD, Dir. Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman, Sony Picture Home Entertainment, 1996 (2001)


that heterosexuality and heterosexual sex remains, and always will remain, prominent. They are after all the majority. Therefore, if you are a member of the larger heterosexual audience, reading between the lines to see the existence of

32

heterosexuality is never required. Homosexuality deserves this same treatment. The lesbian audience should not be settling for less. In settling for these mediocre representations we are subconsciously agreeing with this corrupt and unjust system. Perhaps, however, there is some truth in Lugoswkis comment, but only with regard to the homosexual male. Albeit still portrayed somewhat stereotypically the homosexual male does not actively undermine the importance of masculinity over femininity. Unlike lesbianism, with the homosexual male there is no female involvement. Whilst some may argue certain portrayals of the homosexual male, namely, the sissy, belittle masculinity by showcasing men in a flouncy and feminine manner - [t]hey were a clich they were disgusting, unfunny, had no business being in it and I never understood why people laughed46, the sissy does not empower women. Lesbianism, on the other hand, precariously borders both the line between empowering women and undermining our macho-masculine driven society. Whilst the lesbian wishes to exist free of the prying masculine eye be it from a pornographic or anger ridden viewpoint- her freedom is not granted. Allowing the lesbian the free will to exist minus male involvement would be showcasing that masculinity does not always prevail over femininity. And this is not something Hollywood is ready to promote. These ratings systems exist as means to allow viewers to quickly evaluate the overall content of a feature and whether or not that content is something they are in the mood for viewing or more importantly so they can determine if a film is fit for their childrens viewing. However, one cannot help but think these ratings systems are extremely dated. That they cause more damage than good. Whilst we have moved on from the 1930s Hays Code days, in terms of censorship, have we really moved that far forward? The BBFC does have a ratings system they adhere to: a set of censorship rules and regulations although in some aspects it is flawed. The MPAA does not. Instead, the MPAAs ratings board consists of eight members of the general public whom they refer to as the average American parent. There are no rules and their job is simple: to rate movies based on what the average American parent would or would not like their children to see. To refer back to This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Dick unearths the names of these otherwise secret raters and puts them

Arthur Laurents, The Celluloid Closet, 00:09:41, DVD, Dir. Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman, Sony Picture Home Entertainment, 1996 (2001)
46


in the public domain, via his film release. Up until this point nobody had ever known the identities of the people both past and present - in charge of policing their screens. This recently acquired knowledge is crucial to this argument as it proves the members of this board are indeed average. After all, average is just

33

another way of saying the majority. The raters all had something in common: they were all suburban, heterosexual, privileged and more importantly, part of the norm. How can we expect all aspects of our diverse society to be given fair cinematic coverage when those in charge of policing the cinema screens all come from the same, or eerily similar backgrounds and upbringings? Over the course of the MPAAs existence only two past board members have broken their contracted silence and when asked if there were ever any homosexual members on the board their reply was shocking, albeit obvious: Uhm [long pause], well you know, to my knowledge there werent any that were self proclaimed homosexuals on the board whilst I was there. No.47 This is where the problem begins. When the people rating the imagery fit into societal norms, they are almost certainly going to view that which is unfamiliar as something warranting these higher certificates. Generally speaking, it is unfamiliarity that breeds these higher ratings.48 But just because something is unfamiliar does not make it wrong. Whilst on some level censorship works as a guide, it also manages to alienate. Films given higher ratings are less likely to get funding or screen time on some occasions cinemas will not show them in their theatres. After all [i]f youre of the majority, its a lot easier to get a good rating and show your movie in a theatre.49 DVD rental stores and supermarkets often refuse to stock titles holding higher certificates and films with unsavoury words in the titles are subjected to a second, post-release level of censoring. For example, when Lesbian Vampire Killers (Phil Claydon, 2009) was released in the United Kingdom, a number of leading supermarket chains (Asda, Tesco, Sainsburys and Borders) placed warning stickers over the word lesbian on the covers, regardless of it being a part of the title (See Fig.10).50 The word killer is deemed acceptable, whilst the word lesbian is deemed too offensive to even be visible - though both are obviously of equal importance to the movie title.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated, 00:41:50, DVD, Dir. Kirby Dick, Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2006 (2009) Kimberly Peirce, quoted in This Film Is Not Yet Rated, 00:05:40, DVD, Dir. Kirby Dick, Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2006 (2009) 49 Jamie Babbit quoted in This Film Is Not Yet Rated, 00:42:45, DVD, Dir. Kirby Dick, Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2006 (2009) 50 Staff Writer at Pink News (Europes Largest Gay News Service), Supermarkets censor Lesbian Vampire Killers DVD, http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/08/18/supermarkets-censor-lesbian-vampire-killersdvd/ (28/11/2012)
48 47

34

If movie theatres do not show the majority of these movies, DVD rental stores do not stock them on their shelves, supermarkets are censoring the usage of the word lesbian and funding towards the advertising needed to make audiences aware of their existence is made scarce, how are lesbian audiences meant to access features created for their viewing pleasure? According to the participants of my research survey 59.4% use illegal download websites, 80.2% use online streaming websites such as Megavideo (which has since been shut down), and 60.4% were shown features by other LGBT* friends. A minute 2% used DVD rental stores and 15% had seen a film with an LGBT* storyline at the cinema.51 Unlike the heterosexual majority it is not as simple for lesbian audiences to find these representations. Knowing that in order to watch films with lesbian storylines your easiest, and sometimes only, options are technically illegal does not do much for those coming to terms with their apparently unconventional sexuality. It adds an air of seediness to not only the genre, but lesbianism itself. If the film industry, one of our societys most influential forms of entertainment, keeps lesbianism in the shadows, the audiences start to believe that it is also where it belongs in the real world.

(Fig. 10) - Showing censorship of the word lesbian, along with blatant sexism on the DVD cover for Lesbian Vampire Killers (2009).

It seems lesbianism is never safe from the prying eyes of censorship the guardians of not only our screens, but also entire lives, are relentless. Be it on or off the screen, the lesbian remains a target to the inherent heteronormativity and sexism of our modern day society. If censorship organisations continue to view storylines showcasing a minority perspective as worthy of higher ratings, based purely on unfamiliarity, then the minorities will always be alienated: their

See Appendix Number 1: The One Sided Mirror of the Movies: Survey on lesbian representations in cinema, Question 14.
51

35

representations missing. With these missing representations, lesbian audiences seek other avenues in order to find anything reminiscent of their mirrored image onscreen. This is the focal point of the following chapter: lesbian spectatorship.

36

Lesbian Spectatorship:
You feel invisible. You feel like a ghost that nobody believes in. Susie Bright52

Did we just watch the same movie? Technically, I knew the answer to be Yes. After all, we had just sat beside each other for the entire duration of the feature. We were eating the same popcorn, drinking from the same juice cup We had most definitely seen the same movie. So why did it never feel that way? As Ive mentioned previously in these anecdotal narratives, I never felt like I had been watching the same films as my heterosexual friends. Whilst they began talking about the most attractive male character(s) or their subconscious desire to conform to the cinematic ideals of true romance, I was frantically trying to piece together my minuscule findings if I had managed to find any at all to help me relate the film to my life. When I say my life Im not talking about trying to find aspects of the extensive plot that fitted with my day-to-day chores and activities. I was searching for something much more basic than that. What I was looking for was buried so deep it was barely visible from the surface. In fact, it was buried so deep it was never really visible at all. However, by piecing together seemingly meaningless glances with the most basic of touches or moments I found that I was able to create my own, separate, narratives. These narratives confirmed what I was thinking and feeling. These narratives showed homosexuality and more importantly, as far as I was concerned, lesbianism. So, what is the problem youre asking? Whilst these storylines certainly confirmed my thoughts and feelings for other woman cementing them against something real - knowing that I, the viewer, had to fashion them into existence also cemented the idea that this was something I should be keeping behind closed doors. The fact that I had to invent these sequences and happenings this lesbian viewpoint could only mean one thing: lesbianism although in existence, was not a normality. *** Before I delve into the extensive topic of lesbian spectatorship I feel it is necessary to explain, on some level, its relationship with female spectatorship. When

Susie Bright, The Celluloid Closet, 00:04:05, DVD, Dir. Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman, Sony Picture Home Entertainment, 1996 (2001)
52

37

it comes to the movies neither the lesbian or female spectator are given the space to exist, quite simply because heterosexual male desire dominates. Whilst feminist film critics have written extensively on the topic of female spectatorship, in their research they have left a void. It seems they are fearful of encompassing the lesbian within the realms of the female and are yet to include her in their fight for onscreen female equality. In 1994, a film critic and key theorist on this topic, Jackie Stacey stated that feminist film criticism has, on the whole, failed to address the possible homoerotic pleasures for the female spectator,53 and in 1999 film critic Patricia White reiterated a similar statement: [F]eminist film theory has been unable to envision women who looked at women with desire.54 Whilst the first of these statements was written nearly two decades ago and the second a little over one, the worrying or striking factor is they would not seem out of place when placed alongside more modern feminist/lesbian film criticism writings. On a whole, feminist film critics fail to view the lesbian viewers as also female viewers. This is something I struggle to understand. Both the lesbian and the female spectator face similar issues and both voice strong arguments that could help forward the onscreen portrayals of the other. Whilst they obviously have certain differences, I do not believe they exist, as it seems feminist film criticism does, as entirely separate subjectivities. I believe the barriers keeping the female and the lesbian spectator apart must be removed. One cannot be talked about by forgetting about the existence of the other. Staceys extensive knowledge on lesbian spectatorship comes from her position as both a lesbian and a feminist, meaning she is able to attack and comment from both sides of the equation. However, I am not one hundred percent behind her stance on the issue. Stacey often comments on not only physical desire, but physical desire born from identification: desires which involve a specific interplay of both processes.55 Whilst I believe it is possible to identify with a specific character and also be physically attracted to them I do not believe this personalised identification needs to be in place in order for the physical attraction to occur. Sexual desire can come free of identification. The invisibility of any realistic lesbian imagery on the cinema screen means lesbian audiences have had to look for mirrored representations utilising less conventional methods. Overt homophobia is rare in comparison with the more subtle suppression total absence.56 Whether this means identifying with strong

Jackie Stacey, Star Gazing, (Routledge: London, 1994), p.27 Patricia White, uninvited, Classical Hollywood Cinema and Lesbian Representability, (Indiana University Press: Indiana, 1999) p.72 55 Jackie Stacey quoted in Joanne Hollows, Feminism, femininity and popular culture, (Manchester University Press: Manchester, 2000), p.57 56 E, Citron, M, Lessage, J and Rich, B.R Lesbians and Film in Out In Culture: Gay, Lesbian and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, p.32 (Duke University Press: USA, 1995)
54 53

38

willed female characters; viewing entire films from/through the perspective and eyes of the male protagonist; or looking deeply within female friendships and the subtext that surrounds them, clinging to any subtle look or glance that could indicate lesbian orientated affection, one thing is certain: the lesbian audience will always find themselves settling for crumbs (See Fig. 11)57. With humanitys desire to look to the movies to find answers, or depictions, of our own lives even at a subconscious level the minutest details matter. And when you are a member of the lesbian audience, knowing you are less likely to see even the simplest details of lesbian existence onscreen means you have to search further afield. For instance: A film by a lesbian director or writer may or may not advance positive lesbian characters; it may have no lesbian content at all. On the other hand, not to know details of lesbian participation in film production is a problem in constructing any solid lesbian history.58

(Fig. 11) Showing the gaze - an example of this subtexual look of longing - often used to signify a lesbian interest in Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Caf (1991).

57 E. Becker, M. Citron, J. Lessage, B.R. Rich, Lesbians and Film in Out In Culture: Gay, Lesbian and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, (Duke University Press: USA, 1995) p.29 58 E, Citron, M, Lessage, J and Rich, B.R Lesbians and Film in Out In Culture: Gay, Lesbian and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, p.30 (Duke University Press: USA, 1995)


For many members of the lesbian community, especially the younger members

39

(those in most need of this imagery), films known to have even the subtlest lesbian content a simple suggestion of lesbianism if you look hard enough will be watched. Jan Oxenberg, a director and lesbian makes an excellent point when she states: We are pathetically starved for images of ourselves. So much so that a friend will call you up and say, oh, theres this movie you must see Theres this incredible lesbian relationship and this great love scene and all right theyre vampires. But youve got to see it. Its great!59 The lesbian audience ignores their better judgment, disregarding the views of ratings websites (IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes etc.) and film critics, choosing to watch features, such as Claire of the Moon (Dir. Nicole Conn, 1992), despite the fact it received a measly 4.5/1060 and 13%61 critic enjoyment ratings. There are very little easily accessible writings on lesbian spectatorship, especially in comparison with feminist film theory and with numerous online blog articles with titles such as: Top Ten Best Lesbian Movies: 10 Queer Movies That Dont Suck62, Why are lesbian films so bad63 and Your Guide to Disappointing Lesbian Cinema64 I decided to conduct my own research in the form of an online questionnaire aimed at the wider lesbian audience focusing on the topic of the representation of the lesbian on our cinema screens, and more importantly, lesbian spectatorship. Taking advice from Bill Gillhams book Developing a Questionnaire65 I created an online survey aimed at finding out how the wider LGBT*Q community feel they are represented in the movies. Out of the 104 participants only 8% felt they could relate to LGBT*Q characters in mainstream cinema and 38% felt they could relate to LGBT*Q characters in indie/art-house or LGBT*Q themed films. 53% of participants said the way LGBT*Q characters are/were portrayed in films affected their perception of their sexuality and 92% believed they would have benefitted from more widespread coverage of LGBT*Q life. However, to me, the most significant statistic of all is that 97% of participants answered More when asked When

59 Jan Oxenberg quoted in This Film Is Not Yet Rated, 00:04:22, DVD, Dir. Kirby Dick, Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2006 (2009) 60 Claire of the Moon, IMDb reviews - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103977/ 61 Claire of the Moon, Rotten Tomatoes review - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/claire_of_the_moon/ 62 The Team, Autostraddle, Top Ten Best Lesbian Movies: 10 Queer Movies That Dont Suck., http://www.autostraddle.com/top-ten-best-lesbian-movies-yes-thats-right-10-queer-girl-movies-thatdont-suck/ (04.01.2013) 63 Unknown writer, Lesbilicious, Why are lesbian films so bad, http://www.lesbilicious.co.uk/why-arelesbian-films-so-bad/ (04.01.2013) 64 Lindsay Miller, The Hairpin, Your Guide to Disappointing Lesbian Cinema, http://thehairpin.com/2011/08/your-guide-to-disappointing-lesbian-cinema (04.01.2013) 65 Bill Gillham, Developing a Questionnaire, (Real World Research: London 2000)


growing up did you ever wish there were more/less LGBT*Q characters in films?

40

(Participants also had the option to select other and explain their answer)66. From this research I can confidently state that the wider lesbian audience feel somewhat abandoned from the cinematic experience. It is this abandonment, derived from a lack of relevant imagery, that gave birth to a new kind of cinematic spectatorship. After all, if unlike the majority, representations of your sexuality, and/or life, are unavailable at cinematic surface level, where do you look? E. Becker, M. Citron, J. Lessage and B.R Rich state in Lesbians and film: Lesbian issues are not addressed in the films, the word does not appear in their catalog, and only rarely does any woman even appear to be a lesbian in the interviews and portraits that form their film treatments of social issues.67 Lesbian audiences do however have one possible outlet, allowing them a more rounded portrayal of lesbianism and lesbian life: television. In recent years there have been an influx of lesbian characters in most of our soap operas: Emmerdales Jasmine Thomas and Debbie Dingle (2006), Eastenders Sonia Fowler and Naomi Juien (2007), Corronation Streets Sian Powers and Sophie Webster (2010) etc. although, in my opinion, the use of lesbianism in these shows is purely to create more, fresh, drama to bring the shock factor and not as an aid, or to bring the feeling of inclusion to the wider lesbian community. The most influential move forward for lesbianism on our screens has come from lesbian orientated television shows such as The L Word (2004-2009), Lip Service (20102012), Sugar Rush (20052006) and even Skins (2007present). In comparison to their cinematic counterparts, the television lesbian manages to be slightly more than onedimensional. However, we are still worlds away from creating lesbian orientated imagery that compares to the heterosexual imagery on offer to the majority. Unfortunately I cannot even begin to scratch the surface of lesbianism in television it is deserving of an entire paper itself however, there are a number of comments I feel are necessary to make in order to explain how this forward thinking television seemingly takes us a step in the right direction whilst still remaining unsatisfactory. Whilst the lesbian characters in shows like The L Word are inherently gay, unlike their cinematic counterparts they are not defined by their sexuality: they have other, more important characteristics. This is obviously an encouraging step in the right direction. But just because there are positives does not mean the lesbian represented on television is not somewhat problematic. With these

66 See Appendix Number 1: The One Sided Mirror of the Movies: Survey on lesbian representations in cinema. 67 E, Citron, M, Lessage, J and Rich, B.R Lesbians and Film in Out In Culture: Gay, Lesbian and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, p.33 (Duke University Press: USA, 1995)


positives come more than a handful of negatives. For instance, in The L Word, a progressive modern day lesbian television feature, written by openly lesbian Ilene Chaiken, lesbianism is still referred to as demonic: Editor: Wow thats interesting. Youve fallen in love with a woman. Jenny: No, no, no. I dont know if its love. It might be sort of like this, like fantastic, sort of like demon possession sort of thing. [He gets excited] Oh stop it. Dont look so shocked. Editor: Im not shocked. Im surprised. Im excited. I mean, its exotic Jenny: [Giggles] Oh shut up you pervert. Editor: demon possession. Thats it!68 The idea that lesbianism is wrong and shameful is so engrained into the lesbian community that even when writing progressive television shows and movies it is almost inevitable that lesbian orientated writers and directors are putting lesbianism into these stereotypical and negative boxes. The commonly used

41

reference to the devil when describing lesbian tendencies is an extremely damaging one diminishing lesbianism to an act only partaken by those under demonic influences. Another problem faced by the television lesbian, besides simply her sexuality, is the discrimination she faces for being a woman. Females face discrimination for their gender in many aspects of our society and the same over sexualisation of the heterosexual female occurs to the lesbian (See Figure 12).

(Fig. 12) Showing the over sexualisation of both women and lesbians in an advertisement for The L Word.

68

The L Word, Season 1, Episode 5, 00:38:45, DVD, Dir. Dan Minahan, Showtime, 2011.


This very point takes me back to the first paragraph of this chapter - the lesbian

42

onscreen is subjected to some of the same fundamental flaws and negativities as the female faces onscreen. The line dividing feminist film criticism and lesbian film criticism needs to be eradicated, merging the boundaries currently keeping the two separate. Doing so will inevitably help both sides progress forward allowing equality, and adequate representations to exist onscreen more readily and much sooner than expected. Reading against the grain (a minority reading of a feature that is not in accord with the majority of viewers) or between the metaphorical lines of dominant cinema something all lesbian audience members have to participate in - creates possibilities but not actualities. The female spectator is offered only the three rather frustrating options of masculinisation, masochism or marginality,69 and [i]n order to identify with active desire, the female spectator must assume an (uncomfortable) masculine position.70 The lesbian audience requires actualities and it requires them now. The way in which lesbianism is portrayed onscreen must change and this change needs to happen for two simple reasons: to allow lesbian spectators, both young and old, to feel included, to allow them the same treatment as the heterosexual characters onscreen and more importantly for heterosexual viewers - mainly young heterosexual viewers - in order to teach the newer members of our growing society that there are no real differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality that fundamentally, we are all the same. The latter fact is a necessity in order to allow lesbianism the space to exist in the movies and on our television screens as a normality. Because, quite simply, it is one.

69 Jackie Stacey, Desperately seeking difference, http://jmc.colorado.edu/ryan/Site/Week_Nine_Readings_files/Stacey.pdf (20.02.2013) 70 Jackie Stacey, Desperately seeking difference, http://jmc.colorado.edu/ryan/Site/Week_Nine_Readings_files/Stacey.pdf (20.02.2013)

 Conclusion.
If I am to look back over the years and then fast forward through

43

everything to the here and now I can safely say I am lucky enough to be secure in my own sexuality, despite the negative and/or missing societal influences. However, in order to get to this point I had to go the long way round. The extensive worlds of cinema (and television) did not consciously, or even subconsciously, affirm the normality that is homosexuality especially not in the same way as it does with heterosexuality. I am very much aware that this is less likely to be down to overt homophobia and more likely to do with the consumerist ideals deemed necessary to make mainstream cinema more than just a form of entertainment money, as I have stated before, is more important to these large establishments than the fair inclusion onscreen, of more than just societys norms. Whilst I tend to brush the negative portrayals of lesbianism in cinema under the carpet and am past a point of allowing them to directly influence my sexuality, it is impossible to remain completely unphased. *** Concluding this paper is not going to be an easy task. I feel that whilst I have covered the surface level issues of the misrepresentation of the lesbian in cinema there is a vast amount that remains to be commented on and, as far as mainstream cinema goes, remains to be seen. I do not believe the stereotypical lesbian imagery the vampire and villain; the predator; the sexually explicit eye-candy and the butch should be eradicated from our screens: quite the contrary. I believe these images can exist so long as they are counterweighted by realistic, fair lesbian representation. This has yet to be realised by those creating mainstream cinematic features. After all, in their eyes, if what they are making is selling, there cannot be flaws in their structures. There are similarities in this mindset with the mindset of both American and British censorship organisations. With the majority looking out for our children protecting children is of utmost importance but it seems our society is hell bent on going overboard to the point of mollycoddling that which falls outside normal societal structures is met with wary and often uncomfortable eyes. With this in mind, who is looking out for lesbian children? It seems that mainstream aspects of society believe lesbian themes and imagery are somewhat damaging or harmful to children. Why is lesbianism considered to be something potentially damaging to children? This translates into higher certifications for lesbian themed movies and


ultimately means those in need of this imagery the younger members of the lesbian community are left with nothing or, at the very most, crumbs. It is these very crumbs that form the final topic of discussion in this paper: the lesbian spectator. The lesbian spectator is often aware, but not overtly so, of her underrepresentation, but because she is so used to having to settle for crumbs often forgets the unjust nature of her portrayals. Until these facts change, lesbian

44

audiences and especially younger lesbian audiences, will be starved of relevant and more importantly necessary imagery of themselves. To those whose sexual identities are confirmed inherently in all aspects of our lives especially entertainment understanding the necessity of this happening may be difficult. However, just because something is not understood by the majority does not mean it is any less necessary. Understandably lesbianism is never going to get the same screen time as heterosexuality no LGBT*Q storyline will. But thats not what the lesbian community are after. We are very much aware that as minority group we will not become a front-runner in cinematic showcases, but basic unstereotypical inclusion and a fair representation should not be too much to ask for. As I have mentioned throughout this paper this inclusion should not be difficult to achieve so long as film studio executives can begin to notice the flaws in their current systems. Once they begin to see past the wrongful censorship of homosexual sex in comparison to heterosexual sex; the damaging use of stereotypical imagery for the purpose of perpetuating heterosexual masculinity to the top of the societal food chain and, that giving lesbian audiences possible relatable storylines, if they read far enough into the feature, does not equal onscreen visibility hopefully, they will show enough knowledge and understanding to realise the opposite of these points are not disgusting or harmful. If this happens (I would rather say when, but I believe this is still up in arms) we may begin moving forward.

In order to gain even basic self-acceptance we first need to acknowledge that we are not alone and it is this lack of real lesbianism in the mainstream that makes this a daunting, and often lonely, unachievable task. The film industry needs to write lesbianism back into filmic history, and therefore history altogether. They need to showcase the lives of lesbians living on welfare, lesbians fighting nationalist struggles, lesbian of colour, lesbians contributing to struggles both inside and outside the lesbian movement per se.71 The lesbian audience needs society to realise

71 E. Becker, M. Citron, J. Lessage, B.R. Rich, Lesbians and Film in Out In Culture: Gay, Lesbian and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, (Duke University Press: USA, 1995) p.36

45

their subconscious heteronormative prejudices, pushing them aside and starting to include the wider aspects of society in our most influential media outlet: the screen.

 Bibliography.
Books: Aaron, Michele, New Queer Cinema: A Critical Reader, (Rutgers University Press: 2004) Bad Object Choices, How do I look? Queer film and video (Bay Press: Seattle 1991) Creekmur, Corey. K, & Doty, Alexander, Queer Culture: Lesbian and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, (Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.: 1995) Davies, Steven Paul, Out at the movies: A History of gay cinema, (Kamera Books: 2008) De Lauretis, Teresa, The Practice of Love: Lesbian sexuality and perverse desire, (John Wiley & Sons: 1994) Dyer, Richard, Now you see it: Studies on lesbian and gay film, (Routledge: London 1990) Elleray, Michelle, Heavenly Creatures in Godzone, p223-240, Out Takes: Essays on Queer Theory and Film, (Duke University Press: Durham & London 1999) Evans, Caroline & Gamman, Lorraine, Reviewing Queer Viewing, p209-224, Queer Cinema: The film reader, (Routledge: New York 2004) Gillham, Bill, Developing a Questionnaire, (Real World Research: London 2000) Hanson, Ellis, Lesbians Who Bite, p183-222, Out Takes, Essays on Queer Theory and Film, (Duke University Press: Durham & London 1999) Hart, Lynda, Fatal Women: Lesbian Sexuality and the Mark of Aggression, (Routledge: London, 1994) Hollows, Joanne, Feminism, femininity and popular culture, (Manchester University Press: Manchester, 2000), Jenkins, Henry, Out of the Closet and into the Universe, p189-207, Queer Cinema: The film reader, (Routledge: New York 2004) Kaplan, E. Ann, Women and Film: Both sides of the camera, (Methuen Inc: 1983) Kuhn, Annette, Cinema, Censorship and Sexuality 1909 1925, (Routledge: London 1988) Kuhn, Annette, The Power of the Image, Essays on Representation and Sexuality, (Routledge: London, 1985) Rich, B. Ruby, The New Queer Cinema, p52-59, Queer Cinema: The film reader, (Routledge: New York 2004)

46

Savoy, Eric, That aint all she aint Doris Day and Queer Performativity, p151-182, Out Takes, Essays on Queer Theory and Film, (Duke University Press: Durham & London 1999) Smelik, Anneke, Feminist Film Theory, p491-585, The Cinema Book, (BFI: London 2007) Stacey, Jackie, Queer Screen: A Screen Reader (Screen Readers), (Routledge: 2007) Tinkcom, Matthew, Scandalous!, p271-287, Out Takes: Essays on Queer Theory and Film, (Duke University Press: Durham & London 1999) Weeks, Jeffrey, Sexuality and its Discontents, Meanings, Myths & Modern Sexualities, (Routledge: London 1986) Weeks, Jeffrey, Sexuality, Third edition, (Routledge: London 2010) Weiss, Andre, Transgressive Cinema: Lesbian Independent Film, p137-161, Vampires and Violets, Lesbians in the cinema, (Jonathan Cape: London 1992) White, Patricia, Uninvited: Classical Hollywood Cinema and Lesbian Representability (Theories of Representation and Difference), (Indiana University Press: Indiana 2000) Filmography: All Over Me, DVD, Dir. Alex Sichel, Image Entertainment, 1997 (2005) Basic Instinct, DVD, Dir. Paul Verhoeven, Optimum Home Entertainment, 1992 (2008)


Black Widow, DVD, Dir. Bob Rafelson, 20th Centaury Fox Home Ent., 1987 (2004) Bound, DVD, Dir. Andy & Lana Wachowski, Republic Pictures, 1996 (2001) Boys Dont Cry, DVD, Dir. Kimberly Peirce, Fox Searchlight Pictures, 1999 (2009) The Brandon Teena Story, DVD, Dir. Grta Olafsdttir, Docurama, 1999 (2000) But Im a Cheerleader, DVD, Dir. Jamie Babbit, Lions Gate, 1999 (2003)

47

The Celluloid Closet, DVD, Dir. Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman, Sony Picture Home Entertainment, 1996 (2001) Chasing Amy, DVD, Dir. Kevin Smith, Walt Disney Studios Home Ent., 1997 (2002) D.E.B.S., DVD, Dir. Angela Robinson, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2004 (2005) Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Caf, DVD, Dir. Jon Avnet, ITV Studios Home Entertainment, 1991 (2007) Fucking ml/Show Me Love, DVD, Dir. Lukas Moodysson, Strand Releasing, 1998 (2000) Gia, DVD, Dir. Michael Cristofer, Warner Home Video/Hbo, 1998 (2008) Imagine Me and You, DVD, Dir. Ol Parker, 20th Centaury Fox, 2005 (2006) Heavenly Creatures, DVD, Dir. Peter Jackson, Mirimax, 1994 (2002) High Art, DVD, Dir. Lisa Cholodenko, Universal Studios, 1998, (2005) The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls In Love, DVD, Dir. Maria Maggenti, New Line Home Video, 1995 (2004) Kissing Jessica Stein, DVD, Dir. Charles Herman-Wurmfeld, 20th Centaury Fox Home Ent., 2001 (2003) Lesbian Vampire Killers, DVD, Dir. Phil Claydon, Weinstein Company, 2009 (2009) Lost and Delirious, DVD, Dir. La Pool, Lions Gate, 2001 (2001) Loving Annabelle, DVD, Dir. Katherine Brookes, WOLFE VIDEO, 2006 (2006) Monster, DVD, Dir. Patty Jenkins, Prism Leisure Corporation, 2003 (2005) Room in Rome, DVD, Dir. Julio Medem, Optimum Home Entertainment, 2010 (2010) This Film Is Not Yet Rated, DVD, Dir. Kirby Dick, Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2006 (2009) The Vampire Lovers, DVD, Dir. Roy Ward Baker, MGM, 1970 (2000) Vampyros Lesbos, DVD, Dir. Jesus Franko, Umbrella, 1971 (2004) Wild Things, DVD, Dir. John McNaughton, Ev, 1998 (1999) Television Filmography: The L Word, Complete Series, DVD, Dir. Many, Showtime, 2011 The Real L Word: Los Angeles, Season 1, Dir. Ilene Chaiken, 2010 The Real L Word: Los Angeles, Season 2, Dir. Ilene Chaiken, 2011 Lip Service, Complete series, Dir. John McKay, 2010-12 Journals and articles: Butler, Alison, She Must Be Seeing Things: An interview with Sheila McLaughlin, from Screen, Volume 28, Issue 4 (1987) p. 20-29 Hollinger, Karen, Theorizing Mainstream Female Spectatorship: The Case of the Popular Lebsian Film, from the Cinema Journal, Vol. 37, No.2 (Winter, 1998) p. 3-17 (University of Texas Press: 1998) Lugowski, David. M, Queering the (New) Deal: Lesbian and Gay Representation and the Depression-Era Cultural Politics of Hollywoods Production Code, from the Cinema Journal, Vol. 38, No.2 (Winter, 1999) p. 3-35, (University of Texas Press: 1999)

48

Mulvey, Laura, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema from Screen, Volume 16, Issue 3 (1975) p.6-18 Noriega, Chon, Somethings Missing Here!: Homosexuality and Film Reviews during the Production Code Era, 1934-1962 from the Cinema Journal, Vol 30, No.1 (Autumn, 1990) p. 20-41 (University of Texas Press: 1990) Rich, Adrienne, Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence, from Signs Vol.5, No. 4, Women: Sex and Sexuality (Summer, 1980), p. 631-660, (The University of Chicago Press, 1980) Online Journals: Becker, Edith, Citron, Michelle, Lesage, Julia, Rich, B. Ruby, Lesbians and film, in Jump Cut no. 24-25 http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/LesbiansAndFilm.html - (09.10.2012) Becker, Edith, Citron, Michelle, Lesage, Julia, Rich, B. Ruby, Lesbians and film p. 2, in Jump Cut no. 2425 http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/LesbiansAndFilm2.html - (09.10.2012) Charbonneau, Claudette & Winer, Lucy, Lesbians in nice films, in Jump Cut no.24-25 http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/NiceLesbianFilms.html - (09.10.2012) Gaines, Jane, Queering Feminist Film Theory, http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC35folder/VoyagedouceEntrenous.html - (09.10.2012) Montgomery, Jennifer, Lesbian Viewing and Perversity, http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC35folder/VoyagedouceEntrenous.html - (09.10.2012) Straayer, Chris, The Hypothetical Lesbian Heronine, http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC35folder/VoyagedouceEntrenous.html Stacey, Jackie, Desperately seeking difference, http://jmc.colorado.edu/ryan/Site/Week_Nine_Readings_files/Stacey.pdf (20.02.2013) Weiss, Andrea, Women I Love. Double Strength. Lesbian Cinema and Romantic Love, in Jump Cut no 2425 http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/BarbHammerWeiss.html (09.10.2012) Zimmerman, Bonnie, Daughters of Darkness, Lesbian Vampires, in Jump Cut no. 24-25 http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/LesbianVampires.html - (09.10.2012) Zita, Jaqueline, The films of Barbara Hammer, Counter-currencies of a lesbian iconography, in Jump Cut no. 24-25 http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/BarbaraHammerZita.html (09.10.2012) Online Articles: British Board of Film Classification, How does classification work? http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/how-does-classification-work (02.02.2013) Claire of the Moon reviews page IMDb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103977/ (09.01.2013) Claire of the Moon review page Rotten Tomatoes http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/claire_of_the_moon/ (09.01.2013) Miller, Lindsay, Your Guide to Dissipointing Lesbian Cinema, http://thehairpin.com/2011/08/your-guide-to-disappointing-lesbian-cinema (04.01.2013) Unknown writer, New Queer Cinema: But Im a Cheerleader http://moviecenter.us/article/new-queer-cinema-but-im-cheerleader (02.02.2013) Unknown writer, Supermarkets censor Lesbian Vampire Killers DVD http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/08/18/supermarkets-censor-lesbian-vampire-killers-dvd/ (28.11.2012) Unknown writer, Top Ten Best Lesbian Movies: 10 Queer Movies That Dont Suck. http://www.autostraddle.com/top-ten-best-lesbian-movies-yes-thats-right-10-queer-girl-movies-thatdont-suck/ (04.01.2013) Unknown writer, Why are lesbian films so bad? http://www.lesbilicious.co.uk/why-are-lesbian-films-so-bad/ (04.01.2013)


Other: Self conducted survey using Survey Gizmo. See Appendices Number 1 and Number 2.

49


Appendix No. 1: The One Sided Mirror of the Movies: Survey on lesbian representations in cinema. i) Participant information The One Sided Mirror of the Movies: The (mis)representation of the lesbian on the cinema screen.

50

____________________________________________________________________________________________ Information for participants: This page is to inform you of my area of research and why I have to chosen to research this subject area. To participate in this survey it is crucial you identify as LGBT*Q Project title: The One Sided 'Mirror' of the Movies: The (mis)representation of the lesbian on the cinema screen. What is the research about? We are inviting you to take part in a questionnaire, aiming to find out how members of the LGBT*Q community feel they are represented in cinema. The main focus for my final dissertation is the portrayal of a smaller sub-group of this community - the lesbian - however, all responses by members of wider LGBT*Q are completely relevant. This survey is being conducted as part of my, Brogan Ramm's, BA(Hons) in Fine Art Photography degree at The Glasgow School of Art. Survey length: This questionnaire consists of 17 questions and should take you between 10 to 20 minutes to complete. Do I have to take part? Participation is not mandatory, and you are free to withdraw at any point. All information you provide will be confidential and fully anonymised. No named responses or references will be in my dissertation. What would I be required to do? You would be required to fill out a completely anonymous online questionnaire. I will be using the data collected from this survey to discover your perspective, opinion and experience about the representation of the LGBT*Q community in cinema. Will my participation be of use? Yes. The information anonymously provided in this questionnaire will accentuate my critical findings on the above topic. Will my participation be Anonymous and Confidential? Participation is completely anonymous, and all information will be viewed by myself and my supervisor. All results will be destroyed upon completion of my dissertation, on 26th February 2013. No named responses or references will be in my dissertation. What will happen to the results of the questionnaire? The results will be finalised by February 2013 and used as part of BA(Hons) degree dissertation in Fine Art Photography. Questions: Should you have any questions in relation to this questionnaire or project, before, or during this survey, my email address will be provided at the bottom of this page. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Contact details: Brogan Ramm (b.ramm1@student.gsa.ac.uk)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

51

ii) Full Survey Questions Age: 1) Which age group do you fall into? [ [ [ [ [ [ ] ] ] ] ] ] 12-14 15-17 18-20 21-24 25-29 30+

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Sexual Identity: 2) Which best describes your sexual orientation? [ [ [ [ [ ] ] ] ] ] Lesbian Gay Bisexual Queer Other

If you answered Other, please specify. ______________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Mainstream Coverage: 3) How do you feel mainstream cinema depicts LGBT*Q life? ______________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

4) Do you feel you can relate to LGBT*Q characters in mainstream cinema? Please explain your answer. ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Other

____________________________________________________________________________________________


5) How do these mainstream portrayals make you feel? (Keywords or longer explanations are both acceptable answers.) ______________________________________

52

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Non-Mainstream Coverage: 6) How do you feel indie/art-house (LGBT*Q) films depict LGBT*Q life? ______________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

7) Do you feel you can relate to the LGBT*Q characters in these Indie/Art-house films? Please explain your answer. ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Other

____________________________________________________________________________________________

8) How do these indie/art-house portrayals make you feel? (Keywords, or longer explanations are both acceptable answers.) ______________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Personal experience: 9) When growing up did you ever wish there were more/less LGBT*Q characters in films? Please explain your answer. ( ) More ( ) Less

____________________________________________________________________________________________

10) Did the way LGBT*Q characters are/were portrayed in films affect your perception of your own sexuality? Please explain your answer. ( ) Yes


( ) No ( ) Other

53

____________________________________________________________________________________________

11) Do you think you would have benefited from a more mainstream coverage of LGBT*Q life? Please explain your answer. ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Other

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Censorship: 12) Films with homosexual characters or content often receive higher certificates/ratings (UK: 15 or 18 and US: R or NC-17/X) - even when involving little to no sexual content - in comparison to their heterosexual counterparts. Do you think these higher ratings are deserved? Please explain your answer. ______________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Accessibility: 13) Due to these higher ratings LGBT*Q films become less accessible - often bypassing mainstream cinema screens altogether. How readily available do you find films with LGBT*Q story-lines are? ______________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

14) How are you most likely to access these LGBT*Q films? Please select all that apply. [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] Illegal downloads/torrents Online streaming websites (e.g. Megavideo, Stagevu, etc.) Online stores (e.g. Amazon, Ebay, Play.com, etc.) Rental stores (e.g. Blockbuster etc.) The Cinema Film showings on television Via other LGBT*Q friends Other

If you answered Other, please specify where: ______________________________________

54

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Cinematic lesbian stereotypes: If you identify as a lesbian, please answer the following question. If you do not identify as lesbian please leave this box blank and move onto the next page 15) The cinematic portrayal of the lesbian is derived from a number of stereotypes. Using single words, or short statements, can you describe these portrayals? (For example: Vampires, Predatory, etc.) ______________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

LGBT*Q portrayals: 16) How do you feel the LGBT*Q community should be portrayed in films (both mainstream and indie/art-house)? ______________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional thoughts: 17) Do you have any other thoughts on LGBT*Q portrayals in cinema? ______________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________


iii) Results This section provides a general breakdown of some of the data collected from my survey, including the age, sexuality and general opinions of my respondents.

55

Important Information: 104 participants ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1) Which age bracket do you fall into?

Age 30+ 3.9% Age 25 - 29 13.5%

Age 15 - 17 1.9%

Age 18 - 20 33.7%

Age 12-14 Age 15 - 17 Age 18 - 20 Age 21 - 24 Age 25 - 29 Age 30+

Age 21-24 47.1%

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2) Which best describes your sexual orientation?

Other 3.9%

Queer 11.5%

Lesbian 48.1% Lesbian

Bisexual 17.3%

Gay Bisexual Queer Other

Gay 18.3%
____________________________________________________________________________________________


4) Do you feel you can relate to LGBT*Q characters in mainstream films?

56

Yes 8% Other 18%

Yes No Other

No 74%
____________________________________________________________________________________________

7) Do you feel you can relate to the LGBT*Q characters in these indie/art-house films?

Yes 38% Other 38%

Yes No Other

No 26%
____________________________________________________________________________________________

57

9) When growing up did you ever wish there were more/less LGBT*Q characters in films?

Less 3%

More Less

More 97%
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 10) Did the way LGBT*Q characters are/were portrayed in films affect your perception of your own sexuality?

Other 25%

Yes No Other Yes 53% No 21%

____________________________________________________________________________________________

58

11) Do you think you would have benefitted from a more mainstream coverage of LGBT*Q life?

No 8%

Yes No

Yes 92%

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 12) Films with homosexual characters or content often receive higher certificates/ratings (UK: 15 or 18 and US: R or NC-17/X) - even when involving little to no sexual content - in comparison to their heterosexual counterparts. Do you think these higher ratings are deserved?

Other 2%

Yes 8%

Yes No Other

No 90%
____________________________________________________________________________________________

59

14) How are you most likely to access these LGBT*Q films? Please select all that apply.

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2% 59.4% 40.6% 15.8% 22.8% 6.9% 80.2% 60.4%

____________________________________________________________________________________________


Appendix No. 2 MPAA and BBFC certification/rating guidelines.
All information in this Appendix is quoted from either the official MPAA website or BBFC guidelines document.

60

MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America):

A G-rated motion picture contains nothing in theme, language, nudity, sex, violence or other matters that, in the view of the Rating Board, would offend parents whose younger children view the motion picture. The G rating is not a "certificate of approval," nor does it signify a "childrens" motion picture. Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated motion pictures. Depictions of violence are minimal. No nudity, sex scenes or drug use are present in the motion picture.

A PG-rated motion picture should be investigated by parents before they let their younger children attend. The PG rating indicates, in the view of the Rating Board, that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, and parents should make that decision. The more mature themes in some PG-rated motion pictures may call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity and some depictions of violence or brief nudity. But these elements are not deemed so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated motion picture.

A PG-13 rating is a sterner warning by the Rating Board to parents to determine whether their children under age 13 should view the motion picture, as some material might not be suited for them. A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. A motion pictures single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous.

An R-rated motion picture, in the view of the Rating Board, contains some adult material. An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements, so that parents are counseled to take this rating very seriously. Children under 17 are not allowed to attend R-rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about R-rated motion pictures in determining their suitability for their children. Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.

An NC-17 rated motion picture is one that, in the view of the Rating Board, most parents would consider patently too adult for their children 17 and under. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not mean

61

"obscene" or "pornographic" in the common or legal meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense. The rating simply signals that the content is appropriate only for an adult audience. An NC-17 rating can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children

BBFC (British Board of Film Certification):

It is impossible to predict what might upset any particular child. But a U film should be suitable for audiences aged four years and over. U films should be set within a positive moral framework and should offer reassuring counterbalances to any violence, threat or horror. If a work is particularly suitable for a pre-school child to view alone, this will be indicated in the Consumer Advice. Discrimination: No discriminatory language or behaviour unless clearly disapproved of. Drugs: No references to illegal drugs or drug misuse unless they are infrequent and innocuous, or there is a clear educational purpose or anti-drug message suitable for young children. Horror: Scary sequences should be mild, brief and unlikely to cause undue anxiety to young children. The outcome should be reassuring. Imitable behaviour: No potentially dangerous behaviour which young children are likely to copy. No emphasis on realistic or easily accessible weapons. Language: Infrequent use only of very mild bad language. Nudity: Occasional natural nudity, with no sexual context. Sex: Mild sexual behaviour (for example, kissing) and references only (for example, to making love). Theme: While problematic themes may be present, their treatment must be sensitive and appropriate for young children. Violence: Mild violence only. Occasional mild threat or menace only.

PG Parental Guidance General viewing, but some scenes may be unsuitable for young children. Unaccompanied children of any age may watch. A PG film should not disturb a child aged around eight or older. However, parents are advised to consider whether the content may upset younger or more sensitive children. Discrimination: Discriminatory language or behaviour is unlikely to be acceptable unless clearly disapproved of or in an educational or historical context. Discrimination by a character with which children can readily identify is unlikely to be acceptable. Drugs: References to illegal drugs or drug misuse must be innocuous or carry a suitable anti-drug message. Horror: Frightening sequences should not be prolonged or intense. Fantasy settings may be a mitigating factor. Imitable behaviour: No detail of potentially dangerous behaviour which young children are likely to copy. No glamorisation of realistic or easily accessible weapons. Language: Mild bad language only. Nudity: Natural nudity, with no sexual context.


Sex: Sexual activity may be implied, but should be discreet and infrequent. Mild sex references and innuendo only. Theme: Where more serious issues are featured (for example, domestic violence) nothing in their treatment should condone unacceptable behaviour. Violence: Moderate violence, without detail, may be allowed, if justified by its context (for example, history, comedy or fantasy).

62

12A/12 Suitable for 12 years and over. Exactly the same criteria are used to classify works at 12A and 12. These categories are awarded where the material is suitable, in general, only for those aged 12 and over. Works classified at these categories may upset children under 12 or contain material which many parents will find unsuitable for them. The 12A category exists only for cinema films. No one younger than 12 may see a 12A film in a cinema unless accompanied by an adult, and films classified 12A are not recommended for a child below 12. An adult may take a younger child if, in their judgement, the film is suitable for that particular child. In such circumstances, responsibility for allowing a child under 12 to view lies with the accompanying adult. The 12 category exists only for video works. No one younger than 12 may rent or buy a 12 rated video work. Discrimination: Discriminatory language or behaviour must not be endorsed by the work as a whole. Aggressive discriminatory language or behaviour is unlikely to be acceptable unless clearly condemned. Drugs: Any misuse of drugs must be infrequent and should not be glamorised or give instructional detail. Horror: Moderate physical and psychological threat may be permitted, provided disturbing sequences are not frequent or sustained. Imitable behaviour: Dangerous behaviour (for example, hanging, suicide and self-harming) should not dwell on detail which could be copied, or appear pain or harm free. Easily accessible weapons should not be glamorised. Language: Moderate language is allowed. The use of strong language (for example, fuck) must be infrequent. Nudity: Nudity is allowed, but in a sexual context must be brief and discreet. Sex: Sexual activity may be briefly and discreetly portrayed. Sex references should not go beyond what is suitable for young teenagers. Frequent crude references are unlikely to be acceptable. Theme: Mature themes are acceptable, but their treatment must be suitable for young teenagers. Violence: Moderate violence is allowed but should not dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood, but occasional gory moments may be permitted if justified by the context. Sexual violence may only be implied or briefly and discreetly indicated, and must have a strong contextual justification.

15 Suitable only for 15 years and over. No one younger than 15 may see a 15 film in a cinema. No one younger than 15 may rent or buy a 15 rated video work. Discrimination: The work as a whole must not endorse discriminatory language or behaviour.

63

Drugs: Drug taking may be shown but the film as a whole must not promote or encourage drug misuse. The misuse of easily accessible and highly dangerous substances (for example, aerosols or solvents) is unlikely to be acceptable. Horror: Strong threat and menace are permitted unless sadistic or sexualised. Imitable behaviour: Dangerous behaviour (for example, hanging, suicide and self-harming) should not dwell on detail which could be copied. Easily accessible weapons should not be glamorised. Language: There may be frequent use of strong language (for example, fuck). The strongest terms (for example, cunt) may be acceptable if justified by the context. Aggressive or repeated use of the strongest language is unlikely to be acceptable. Nudity: Nudity may be allowed in a sexual context but without strong detail. There are no constraints on nudity in a non-sexual or educational context. Sex: Sexual activity may be portrayed without strong detail. There may be strong verbal references to sexual behaviour, but the strongest references are unlikely to be acceptable unless justified by context. Works whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation are unlikely to be acceptable. Theme: No theme is prohibited, provided the treatment is appropriate for 15 year olds. Violence: Violence may be strong but should not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury. The strongest gory images are unlikely to be acceptable. Strong sadistic or sexualised violence is also unlikely to be acceptable. There may be detailed verbal references to sexual violence but any portrayal of sexual violence must be discreet and have a strong contextual justification.

Suitable only for adults. No-one younger than 18 may see an 18 film in a cinema. No-one younger than 18 may rent or buy an 18 rated video. In line with the consistent findings of the BBFCs public consultations and The Human Rights Act 1998, at 18 the BBFCs guideline concerns will not normally override the principle that adults should be free to choose their own entertainment. Exceptions are most likely in the following areas: where the material is in breach of the criminal law, or has been created through the commission of a criminal offence where material or treatment appears to the BBFC to risk harm to individuals or, through their behaviour, to society for example, any detailed portrayal of violent or dangerous acts, or of illegal drug use, which may cause harm to public health or morals. This may include portrayals of sexual or sexualised violence which might, for example, eroticise or endorse sexual assault where there are more explicit images of sexual activity which cannot be justified by context. Such images may be appropriate in R18 works, and in sex works (see below) would normally be confined to that category. In the case of video works (including video games), which may be more accessible to younger viewers, intervention may be more frequent than for cinema films. Sex education at 18. Where sex material genuinely seeks to inform and educate in matters such as human sexuality, safer sex and health, explicit images of sexual activity may be permitted. Sex works at 18 Sex works are works whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation. Sex works containing only material which may be simulated are generally passed 18. Sex works containing clear images of real sex, strong fetish material, sexually explicit animated images, or other very strong sexual images will be confined to the R18 category. Material which is unacceptable in a sex work at R18 is also unacceptable in a sex work at 18.

64

R18 - To be shown only in specially licensed cinemas, or supplied only in licensed sex shops, and to adults of not less than 18 years. The R18 category is a special and legally restricted classification primarily for explicit works of consenting sex or strong fetish material involving adults. Films may only be shown to adults in specially licensed cinemas, and video works may be supplied to adults only in licensed sex shops. R18 video works may not be supplied by mail order. The following content is not acceptable: any material which is in breach of the criminal law, including material judged to be obscene under the current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 material (including dialogue) likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity (for example, paedophilia, incest or rape) which may include adults role-playing as non-adults. the portrayal of any sexual activity which involves lack of consent (whether real or simulated). Any form of physical restraint which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent. the infliction of pain or acts which may cause lasting physical harm, whether real or (in a sexual context) simulated. Some allowance may be made for moderate, non-abusive, consensual activity. penetration by any object associated with violence or likely to cause physical harm. any sexual threats, humiliation or abuse which does not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing game. Strong physical or verbal abuse, even if consensual, is unlikely to be acceptable. These Guidelines will be applied to the same standard regardless of sexual orientation.