Ask the Flying Monkey: It’s the Golden Age of Gay Television — So Why Isn’t It Also a Golden Age of Gay Movies?

Today: Why is gay TV so much better than what’s gay in movie theaters?

Have a question about gay male entertainment? Contact me here (and be sure and include your city and state and/or country!

Q: I don’t get it: gay characters on television are more common, more prominent, and more multi-dimensional than ever before. So why aren’t we seeing more gay characters in film? Sure, there are one or two high-profile movies every year – Milk last year, I Love You, Phillip Morris this year. But that’s it? What gives? – Mouse, Lansing, Michigan

A: First, let me validate your reality, even as I disagree slightly: with all the great gay (and gay-inclusive) TV programming, I too often think, “Wait. Where are the great gay movies?”

Then I remind myself that there have been a number of mid-budgeted gay “indie” films – most not truly “independent,” since they’re financed by the major studios through subsidiaries – including Howl, A Single Man, and the lesbian-themed movie The Kids Are All Right. The recently-released Every Day, meanwhile, had significant gay teen content, and Precious had lesbian content.

There are also more and more decent gay micro-budgeted truly indie films (even as there’s also the usual amount of crap).

As for gay-inclusivity in supporting roles, I think that’s on the rise too, in mainstream movies from the last year like Sex and the City 2, Easy A, Life As We Know It, Death at a Funeral, and Valentine’s Day. Some of this, as in Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World, has been truly extraordinary.

 Kieran Culkin (right) as the gay roommate in Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World

What we’re really talking about is basically a complete dearth of a big-budget studio films with gay leading characters – the film equivalent to popular TV shows like Glee, Modern Family, True Blood, and Brothers & Sisters.

Why? Mostly because that would require some element of creativity or risk on the part of the Hollywood studios, and that’s simply not what they do any more (except sometimes through their budget-constrained indie subsidiaries). As movie-makers, Hollywood is now mostly in the business of producing sequels, remakes, and superhero movies, along with the occasional animated kid’s movie which they can hopefully turn into a new “franchise.”

I’m not being sarcastic. Of the 20 top-grossing movies of 2010, 11 were sequels or remakes – and four more were non-sequel animated children's movies. Of the 40 top-grossing movies of the year, the only ones that seem to me to be creatively risky in any way are Inception, The Town, The Social Network, The King’s Speech, and Black Swan – and it’s arguable that the latter three would’ve made much smaller splashes if not for Oscar buzz and nominations. (I confess, given the pedigree, I don’t know where to put True Grit.)

Why the complete lack of creativity and risk? Frankly, because audiences are voting with their dollars, and they totally love derivative crap (IMHO); meanwhile, older viewers, presumably more intelligent, are often not going to the movies at all anymore, choosing to wait for DVD and streaming releases – and, as such, these viewers have gone way, way down on Hollywood's list of priorities. But movies have also become more stupid (and less risky) as they've become much more expensive to make and market, because broad, easy-to-understand films supposedly play better in international markets, and that's now a major part of Hollywood’s revenue stream.

You’d think that the break-out success of Inception and The Town would communicate to Hollywood that there is also a significant market for intelligent non-crap movies, but Hollywood never seems to get that memo. And it’s worth noting that intelligent movies are much harder to produce than they look; basically, something is “risky” for a reason. It’s always going to be easier to just remake The Karate Kid, and as long as audiences flock to films like this, what’s the incentive to change?

So why are gay characters popping up everywhere on mainstream TV shows? Because the economics of television are completely different from that of film and, as such, having a leading gay character is not perceived as nearly as risky.

Modern Family's Mitchell (Jesse Tyler Ferguson) and Cameron (Eric Stonestreet)

Basically, audiences have proven they’ll watch TV shows with gay characters in huge numbers, but they haven’t yet done so with gay leading film characters the way they have with, say, leading African American characters.

It’s also worth noting that the medium of television is able to respond to cultural trends much more quickly than film, where a project is often in development for many years. I’ve covered the shows Glee and Modern Family since long before their TV debuts, and I don’t think anyone involved, including the creators but also the networks, expected those gay characters would get anywhere near the enthusiastic response they ended up receiving.

In other words, it’s only a matter of time until Hollywood movie studios discover that “gay” is no longer not only not a detriment to mainstream movie success – it could actually even help.

I’ve been saying this for decades now. One of these years it has to be true!

Have a question about gay male entertainment? Contact me here (and be sure and include your city and state and/or country!)