by Melanie, Jason, and Christopher
Conformation to what is deemed normal VS Being different
As
human beings we all belong to a category of people that define who we are in a
sense but with this in mind we are all unique and different, no one is the
same. Specific groups may be created because the color of one's skin to one's
own personal beliefs, but do these levels define exactly who we are and how we
should act? People that are different from what is considered normal are
crucially criticized by society and categorized (put in an identified group of
people) which tend to be largely stereotyped. Social types of
people are accepted because they willingly choose to follow the rules of
society while everybody else is confined to a specific stereotype that won't
allow social acceptance. Who says what is normal? The answer to this is: the
people in power, they can fashion the world however way they want by using
hegemony. These people decide what is acceptable with the power they hold and
by allowing certain things to be shown in cinema or not. An example of this can
be found in The Celluloid Closet;
restrictions were set against the portrayal of homosexuality in movies because the
people in power found this to be an unacceptable group of people.
Homosexuality
in The Celluloid Closet
The Celluloid Closet
is a 102 minute American documentary film released in
1995, directed and written by Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman. The film is
essentially based on Vito Russo's famous book with the same name. The Celluloid Closet is a combination of
clips from many influential Hollywood films that illustrate in detail the
depiction of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) characters in
cinema. Between each clip are layered interviews with different filmmakers and
actors commenting on these clips and their own personal experiences of this
subject. In film, homosexuals were portrayed as weak, mentally and physically
fragile, malicious and powerless. They fell under the category of sissies,
victims, and villains in the film industry. These characters and their fierce
stereotypes significantly influenced the viewers of film for decades. We build
our identities partly through the gaze of other people, which may lead to
stereotyping and potentially violence.
Stereotypes are ideas,
images, or definitions, widely agreed upon and believed to be correct rather
than social types, where people live by the rules of society. Stereotypes refer
to what is, as it were, within and beyond the borders of normalcy (white,
middle-class, heterosexual, male). The rules are designed to exclude certain
groups that people are condemned to, consequently gays like the sadistic queer,
the neurotic faggot, etc. Gay iconography, (gay stereotypes) inflexibly
classifies homosexuality and keeps it isolated. In the movie The Celluloid Closet, homosexuals live
from and generate hatred, fear, ridicule, and ignorance. Resulting our civilization
to read people and divide them into four different categories, a role, an
individual, a type and a member. The level identifies humans from their
everyday occupations and what role they play in the world. Next is the
individual who is affiliated to social structures. A type falls into the
following category. This is where a person is recognized as complex or unique.
The final status is a member. A member is when someone is assigning general qualities
and criteria to a person. Divisions in society such as class, gender, race, and
sexuality determine the inclusion to a group. Thus, the LGBT characters from The Celluloid Closet.
However, homosexuals
are an invisible minority. This sexual character of homosexual difference is
not physical; and therefore cannot be seen, unlike African Americans and
females, for example. As a result, the synecdoche
comes into play. Synecdoche is taking the part for the whole (ten sails
rather than ten ships). The fact that these characters are gay in the film
signifies that homosexuality is supposed to explicate to the viewer everything
else about the personality or actions of gays. Moreover, gayness can be an
erratic position. "Fluidity threatens the rigidity of categories and the
maintenance of heterosexual hegemony". Hegemony
is defined as the dominance, especially by
one country or social group, over all others. People criticize society according
to their own views of the world; they make their way of life appear “natural”
and “inevitable." An example of hegemony in the film is when,
middle-class, heterosexual, male are thought to be superior to homosexuals. Hegemony
through stereotyping works via ethnocentrism. This means that the norms of one
group are the norms for everyone, and the assumption that some social groups
have inborn and unaltered psychological characteristics. The
concept of ethnocentrism is evident in The
Celluloid Closet because some heterosexuals do not understand homosexuality
and feel as though it is wrong. In some countries homosexuality is considered a
crime, because it does not conform to heterosexuality. Many filmmakers and
actors in the film claim that heterosexuals think that homosexuality is a phase
that they will simply grow out of. They believe that men were meant to be with
women because that is how it is supposedly should be. Like homosexuals, being Native was once believed to be an aspect of oneself that could easily be erased over time but through the movie Reel Injun we can see that this is not the case.
Histories Portrayal of Natives....Reel Injun
Reel Injun,
directed by Neil Diamond, is a documentary film that demonstrates the depiction
of natives throughout film history. This movie was made in Canada in the year 2009, it runs for 85 minutes. Many stereotypes have been linked to this
race of people because of their representation in film; Diamond goes about this
documentary trying to give the viewers the real story of who these beings are.
It is stated very early in the film that cinema was made for one main reason:
to capture something foreign and fascinating to our society which happened to
be the lives of the Indians. At the beginning of cinema Natives were portrayed
at stoic, un-stoppable and spiritual people. One of the main people linked to
this specific depiction is Crazy Horse (the better translation is spirited
horse). Crazy Horse was a Native warrior who today is an embodiment of what the
Natives were capable of doing. After his death the Natives were forced onto
reservations where their language and freedom was taken away.
The battle between
the "white man" and Natives have been a constant struggle shown in
cinema. In reality these struggles are the struggle of hegemony: the dominance of the ever expanding colonials over Indians. One event in particular is striking: when the seventh Calvary opened
fire on the last free community of Natives on the Pine Ridge reservation
leaving 300 woman, children and men dead (this event is an example of ethnocentrism: belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group over another). The romance of this occurrence was shown
in movies because it is a demonstration of the power and domination over a once
beautiful and populated group of beings. After their near extinction, the
Native population had become a hero in a period called the Silent Era. In this
period the Indian community brought their own views of who they were into
cinema to capture their fast diminishing race of people known as the noble
savage.
As North America encountered a tragedy called the Great
Depression a new hero was presented to up lift the nations broken spirits:
cowboys. During this period many changes were made to movies that consisted the
"brutal savages", it became very popular for white men to be used as
main Native characters (above anything else Natives found this funny), actual
Indians were used as extras (they would talk in their actual tong but once it
had been translated many years later it has realized that the Natives had been
making a fool of the actors right on screen), and every native portrayed was a
plains Indian Native (there was no distinction between the different tribes).
By the way Natives were represented in cinema the population was lead to
believe that all Natives were horrible head band wearing, horse riding
murderers who should be feared above anything else. Yet when we look at them
today a majority of them don't even ride horses and they never actually wore
head bands (this was introduced in films so that the heads bands could hold the
actors wigs on). This last fact is an example of stereotype: what is being shown on screen is a widely held image of a Native. The difference between us and them is the color or of skin and
the starvation we have for power over everything, other than that we are like
them in every way.
600 years ago the word Native or Indians was foreign to
the people we now identify it with, however, it should be realized that these
people are not Natives or Indians...they are older than this concept. Over time
these human beings have adapted these names but all this shows is how they are
beginning to forget who they are as human beings, they are doing this by
preserving something (the name Native or Indians) forced upon them by an
intruding race of men. It is easy to forget who we are and adapt something
forced upon us. A prime example of this is a man called Iron Eyes Cody. He was
known as the most famous icon of a good Native but it was discovered later on
in his career that he was in fact Italian, not Native. As time went on and the
cameras had stopped rolling for him he kept the image of being a Native to such
an extent that he would actually play his movies repeatedly in his home...he
believed he was what he saw on the screen until he died. He forgot who he was
and became accustomed to something else.
Iron Eyes Cody was also the beginning of a new Era for
the representation of Natives, the Hippie Era. The Hippies put forward a facade
that screamed Native. They loved these free spirited people but what they put
forward was what they saw in movies, it was all fiction. Sacheen Little feather
openly criticises the hippies for that one reason (because of classic but un true stereotypes of Indians), they were not even
demonstrating the Indian culture correctly. In this period Natives also became
the stand in for oppressed people, they finally started trying to assert
themselves politically which gave other races of people (blacks, woman, ect)
the strive to do the same thing. Everyone is made to believe that all men are
supposed to be free, then why weren't Natives given this opportunity?
It is more recent cinema that allows for Natives to be
portrayed correctly. Atanarjuat is a
prime example of this. This film is directed by an actual Indian who sees this
movie as his opportunity to speak to the world and a way to record history the
real way. A new image of Indians is put forward; the running naked man that can
be found in the film is not an actor because an actor wouldn't do that, he is a
representation of all the Native people who have been unjustly represented until
this point in time. They are not asking to be portrayed positively all the time
(a naked man running is obviously not the best image), they are asking to be
portrayed humanely. The white man tried and is still trying to force hegemony
on these human beings but once the Natives did not conform to their ideological
ways colonials tried to suppress them furthermore by presenting stereotypes.
With this in mind they have still stayed true to themselves and have never
changed. They are and always be different.
Compare and contrast
Being different is nothing to be ashamed of. We have
the choice to choose the life we want even if it brings good or bad
consequences. Everybody gets judged about the life they are living or their
appearance but there is nothing wrong with that. Accepting yourself is
important weather you fit a specific stereotype or have a different lifestyle
than others. For example, in Celluloid Closet, gay people were not
accepted by society and they were thought to have a mental disability but with
this criticism in mind homosexual kept being them self. In Reel Injun,
the natives never changed themselves even though they seen differently because
of their past. Both stereotypes were seen differently by others as abnormal
human beings, the way they had been portrayed in movies was affecting our views
of who these people actually were.
The movies Celluloid Closet and Reel Injun
teach us how we live in a world full of discrimination, however, it can be
realized that this prejudice never ends. The way the director makes the movie,
they have the ability to make the homosexuals look like the bad guy but with
the help of iconography, they can make them look like good guys. In Hollywood, the truths in films use to be
changed to deem the movie appropriate for viewers (when films would be made,
the director would take control and transform parts of the film to make it
appropriate). For example, in Celluloid Closet, the director would make
a movie about gay bashing and murder into anti-Semitism and murder. This is one
demonstration of how easily it is to hide the truth from the viewers watching
the movie. Some people and countries around the world have a problem with
ethnocentrism and are not yet able to accept one another when it comes to race
or appearance. We only think of our own well being not others without taking
consideration of how the targeted people are feeling.
By simply seeing these kinds of documentaries, our
visions of the world can be transformed. As ordinary people, what is being
portrayed in films does not affect us as much as those who fit the stereotypes
being described in certain films. We become emotional at certain points of the
film and accept what is happening, but for those who it concerns, like the gays
and natives, they become victims. In Celluloid Closet, the gays who were
being laughed at would cry or commit suicide for not being accepted. In Reel
Injun, the actual Indians are not able to watch parts where their own kinds
were being killed during cowboy movies. One out of many uses of a documentary
film is to influence the world population to try and live together so that
everybody can be seen as an equal or to demonstrate the people going through
hardships so that we may show compassion. There are places that acknowledge
what happened between the cowboys and Indians. In Navao, anybody can experience
the life of a cowboy. A camp was made to give a positive portrayal of the
natives by giving white boys the opportunity to act like Indians and fight like
Indians. Those who where once discriminated by others are now being remembered.
The overall message being sent to us through these
films is to accept one another no matter what. We are all different in our own
ways and even though the society we live in today may push a certain depiction
of how we should look or act to be “perfect”, be happy in whom we are as unique
human beings. We need to take the time to get to know the people around us
without discriminating each other in order to better our society.
Who do we want to be as human beings?
Everybody is different, we all hold our own beliefs and follow our own morals. Just because some people may not all conform to societies view of normalcy does not make them a lower race of people then another. Cinema is used to help teach the world the ways of life but how can this happen if you don't even feel like you belong? Cinema has begun to evolve by allowing more diverse stories to be told (allowing homosexuals or Natives to tell their own stories). Since this has become the norm, the world is beginning to become a more inclusive place for everybody. Prejudice must stop for a better future. Stereotypes should not define who we are, we should be able to create this by the actions we make individually.
This was a great entry. Some of the scenes in Celluloid Closet are really breathtaking because of the time they were introduced. Also, the fact that some institutions like the Catholic Church established some ridiculous propaganda against various aspects in the film industry was truly shocking. In Reel Injun, We can see the injustice Natives had to face in the industry and the tragedies faced for so long in history. I truly believe that the film industry has a huge influence. We may not realize it, but I think that we often judge or view a group of people because of what we see. And what we see of homosexuals and Natives is often misleading. People can draw all sorts of stereotypes from these images regardless of what the actuality of the situation is. I can admit that my generalized views of specific groups of people arose from what I saw on television. Although this type of ignorance in film has reduced recently, it still is prevalent because of the large number uninformed people that believe everything they see on the big screen. That is why these two films are so significant, not only for those specific groups but also for the public to see the truth.
ReplyDelete-Amol Bhardwaj
Great work guys! Really nice way to introduce and analyze the effects of stereotypes on homosexuality and other social classes like the Natives, who are being victims of the people in power that almost decides what is normal and what is not. I really liked when you guys said that homesexuals are an invisible minority, which is really true because when you think about it, at the base when you look at them and get to know them better, they are people just like us with goals and dreams, so why when we know they are homosexuals are opinion just suddenly change just for this minor detail? Mostly because those stereotypes are still out there and getting people to believe in them.
ReplyDelete-Alexandre Delisle
First off, awesome blog guys! I like how the topic of gender preference was linked to the discrimination of first nation Natives. Both are groups of people who are treated unfairly because they have different values, different likes and different principles. However, as you guys mentioned, that doesn't make them less human than anyone else. It’s true that Cinema is starting to portrait these groups of people more and thus allowing not only homosexuals and Natives to tell their stories, but it also allows other groups (such as Africans, Asians, women and many others) to put their stories, their history and their heritage into picture. By telling these stories, our knowledge on other cultures, preferences and beliefs doesn't just grow, but it helps us judge these groups less and less. I think that stereotypes will always exist everywhere, no matter what. In a way, they help us identify a person or a group of individuals. However we have to be careful and we must remember that the only way of really getting to know someone is not by associating them to a stereotype, but by meeting and discovering them as human beings.
ReplyDelete-Nicholas Salama-Siroishka
First off, you guys wrote a really good entry. Your introduction really interested me and approached the subject of that week in a clear and concise way. For the first part, I liked how you explained what the ‘normalcy’ was, but I would’ve liked that you explained more about the sissies, victims and villains. I totally agree with you on how the homosexuals are an invisible minority. Because of the cinema, viewers feel like they know everything about that homosexual character, like he or she cannot be any different than the stereotypes. Also, there are so many people saying that they are ‘okay’ with homosexuality, but that they just don’t want to see homosexuals. It then pushes the homosexuals in the dark. For the second part, I liked how you clearly explained the Natives situations, with some humour here and there (like with the translation part). Finally, I liked your conclusion; how we should all deny the stereotypes and be beautiful as unique people.
ReplyDelete-Stefanie Pharand
A job well done by this team! Your entry really cleared up elements of stereotypes that I think many people don't know about, like that the way we view people is divided into four categories: role, individual, type and member, and that sometimes we do this subconsciously.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Amol that cinema is very manipulative of what we can think about certain people and that we have to stay informed by other sources to really know the truth about them. Having said this, I couldn't agree more with your closing sentence: "Stereotypes should not define who we are, we should be able to create this by the actions we make individually." I strongly believe that you must get to know someone before you are able to make any judgments, because way too often, people make false judgements about people they don't even really know.
Laura Cloutier
Firstly, great job! The blog was very descriptive and I was interested on the group’s point of view of both films. The examples you used to give us a better understanding of the concept from class, helps shed light on what these concepts mean. The term “invisible minority” is a perfect term to describe homosexuals, because as you said, there aren't any physical differences, which helps people distinguish each other. During the 20th century, coming out was very difficult, and finding a role model was even harder because no one ever said that they were homosexual. Finding role models in movies was the next greatest thing, but even finding a role model in film started to diminish, due to the ban of certain themes in film. The comparison of the movies, and there moral or both is what people should be doing, loving themselves for who they are. You mentioned that cinema is slowly accepting all forms of lifestyles and cultures, and it makes us lucky to have such a wide variety of information at our fingertips, and have films open our mind to new ideas.
ReplyDelete-Madalena Valiante
You guys did an amazing job!
ReplyDeleteThis entry was strongly opinionated and very clear. Like Madalena mentioned, the use of the term "invisible minority" is a very clever way to describe homosexuals. The way Reel Injun was talked about in this entry really encouraged me to watch it and i wasn't disappointed. How they refused to give in to the ideological ways and how important it was for them to stay true to themselves was inspirational. also, you guys mentioned how the world is starting to become a more inclusive place for everybody. and i totally agree.
Very well done! I really like your introduction to your blog because it cleared the air to how cruel society can be when judging different people when half the time we don’t even realize it; it becomes almost human nature.
ReplyDeleteStereotypes we have in today’s world can be so harsh that people become, as you mentioned, “a silent minority”. Films continue to spoof homosexuals in an unrealistic way that can be very hurtful. Such producers - such as Sacha Baron Cohen who created the film Bruno – continue to jab at the minority that has already been attacked since the Catholic Church banned such types of people in films. However, it seems that in television, homosexuals have been more than just a villain, a sissy, or the victim. In the show Modern Family, Cam and Mitch can be seen as heroes for their determination of living a normal life and adopting a Vietnamese child and trying to adopt another. All in all, stereotypes aren’t things you should follow or judge someone by.
-Zachary Pilling
Awesome blog guys, especially the compare and contrast part. It makes it more interesting for viewers that haven't seen these documentaries. In the Celluloid Closet I believe that it reflected a fear of AIDS or the rising intolerance that caused an increase in hate crimes and further emphasized the twisted way homosexuals have been depicted throughout history. This documentary shows us how gays get bullied in life whether its physical, mental or social. As a non homosexual, I found this documentary very disturbing but it made me realize that homosexuals live in a sheltered life and sometimes don't want to get noticed because they would get intimidated.
ReplyDeleteAs a personal experience, people call other friends gay just as a joke but if a homosexual person would notice this, he wouldn't feel good about himself. So, I'm saying that calling other friends names could even hurt other people even if you don't notice it.
Weslé Aucoin
Great job! I really enjoyed reading this blog. I like how you mentioned how the homosexuals are an invisible minority and how, unlike being able to tell someone's ethnicity or gender, you can never be sure if someone is gay just by looking at them aside from those who embrace it and actively show that they are gay. The connection that you drew between the LGBT community and the Natives was one that I found very interesting. I find it fascinating how film was able to push people to think something that they do not know for certain. By doing this, they create stereotypes which the general public take as fact and then they do not want to meet any homosexuals because the films portray them as evil or just plain wrong. As Madalena stated, it was hard for homosexuals to come out in the first place and to find a role model. Though they could turn to film to find a role model, a lot of the homosexuals were not proper representations or they were unaccepted and the homosexuals did not want to be associated with them. These stereotypes have been stifling social progress and in my opinion need to stop, whether they be true or not.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Kwok
Great blog entry for the movie!
ReplyDeleteI find in vividly astonishing the ignorance our society encompasses in it’s structural beliefs and perception upon one’s natural being. As a communal group, we have been taught to numb ourselves to the hatred and inequality being dispersed upon our human nature. We are shown by corrupted institutes and tarnished governments the supposed “correct” ways to behave and simply be, without even trusting our inner selves to guide us. We put aside our own belief’s to be replaced by lies we are being fed on a daily basis by manipulative media, all deliberately set in place to dumb down the population for full control of power. Our ignorance is in full sight in this movie; social categories of people are being constituted and twisted into negative facades. Why is it wrong to be born a homosexual, or so hard for one to accept their homosexuality? Why is such hatred attached to homosexuality? Why is racism and homophobia so vividly present in our society today? Why does our society have such problems accepting a human for who he is or desires to be? We turn a blind eye on these questions – and let the mass become victims of form of demoralizing and vicious corporate propaganda. It’s wonderful movies like these that bring our ignorance to end and opening our eyes to these demoralizing actions.
Fiona MacPhee
I had the privilege of watching "Reel Injun" in a previous course, and have to agree that the parallels that are drawn between it and "The Celluloid Closet" are deeply related.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don’t entirely agree with the statement: “As ordinary people, what is being portrayed in films does not affect us as much as those who fit the stereotypes being described in certain films,” I do understand what was trying to be said. What I believe is that the message being conveyed should indeed affect all of us, and that nobody in the real world is “normal” or “ordinary.” “Normal” is just a set of standards developed over time by forms of social communication such as television, films, and magazines. I believe that is what films like "The Celluloid Closet" and "Reel Injun" are trying to prove.
That being said, this was a great reflective entry.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete