Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 15 members and 653 guests online.
|
Big Gay Picture: Are You Better Off Than You Were Eight Years Ago?Time will tell if the recent downturn in major gay characters is just a momentary respite based on the failure of individual shows, or if it is part a deliberate attempt to de-gay the most widely-seen television (here at AfterElton.com, we have already heard word that the producers of at least one show have been told, “No more gay characters”).
Brothers & Sisters' Scotty & Kevin: Two of the most interesting Network executives might be thinking, probably mistakenly, that they can hold onto their dwindling viewership by homogenizing and “mainstreaming” their programming. Shows with prominent gay characters then become “niche” programming — shows that can be sought out on cable by the viewers who are specifically interested in this. In fact, most of the interesting gay stuff on television has been on cable precisely because of the “niche” business model of the cable networks; they rely on original or outrageous stuff to attract viewers who might otherwise ignore them. The cable landscape is a large one, and it takes a viewer who is passionately interested in a topic, or at least in the idea of something truly different, to find his or her way through all the clutter. Picking up passionate, pro-gay viewers was more important to Bravo, for example, than losing a few anti-gay fundamentalists who probably wouldn’t be watching Tim Gunn’s Guide to Style anyway. It’s exactly the way the fledgling WB network made a name for itself by targeting African Americans in the 1990s when that group was being mostly ignored by the broadcast networks. And guess what? Niche is the future of all television programming. Up until very recently in the history of television, there were only a few prime time spots each night, so the broadcast networks produced programming that would appeal to as many people as possible. But television is now more like a library, with hundreds of selections; the programming is now becoming more like the books in a library, with lots of quirky, individualized options. The internet, and Youtube.com, is only accelerating this trend. What does this mean for the future? In the short term, it might mean fewer prominent gay characters on what remains of television’s broad-based programming (which also would mean fewer casual heterosexual viewers of any programming with gay characters). But in the long term, it means far more, and far more interesting, gay programming for us gay folks and the people interested in our lives. And surely it’s only a matter of time before some television writer or executive realizes that bisexual men exist too. The danger comes if television executives decide that gay and bisexual people should be segregated into their own TV ghettos, appearing only on gay or gay-related shows and networks. But on cable television, this doesn’t seem to have been a problem so far — probably because gays appeal to the young, educated, forward-thinking viewers that advertisers most crave. In short, in political terms, the United States may be much, much worse off than it was eight years ago. But on television, we gay folks are much better off. And things are getting better all the time. And that is the Big Gay Picture.
Submitted by on Wed, 2008-10-15 21:44.  Like I always say--Submitted by
David Ehrenstein (7805 points) (1725 posts) on Thu, 2008-10-16 11:33.You can argue about the glass being half-empty or half-full until the Disney cows come home. Back in the day there wasn't even a glass!
Personally what I'm looking for now is quality rather than quantity. I'm not all that moved to look at a show just because it has an LBGT character. It's the show that will make the character work, or not. Do Not Disturb died a deserved death. My Name is Earl doesn't interest me at all. Brothers and Sisters is lovely, and so is Ugly Betty. Candace Cayne is teriffic on Dirty Sexy Money -- whcih is one show that could use more gay characters. On top of all of this Mad Men is detailing the gay closet of the early pre-Stonewall 60's in truly fascinating and richl well-observed ways. That's what I want now -- depth.  forceful pro-gay voicesSubmitted by
snoopypez (60 points) (12 posts) on Fri, 2008-10-17 00:56.forceful pro-gay voices like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and (yes) Steven Colbert didn’t yet exist. Jon Stewart had barely just debuted on The Daily Show. Because I am an annoying person, it's Stephen. ;) Plus, just to continue to prove my one-track mind, Stephen actually started at The Daily Show before Jon did, so he definitely existed. But I know what you're saying by that, so ignore that; I just like to point things out. Annoying, remember?  You buried the ledeSubmitted by
uncle vanya (60 points) (14 posts) on Fri, 2008-10-17 04:36.Meanwhile, back in 2000, the dedicated gay cable networks of here! and Logo (which owns AfterElton.com) did not even exist.
The biggest advancement in gay television in the last eight years is relegated to one sentence halfway into the article? There are other dots to connect: maybe the broadcast network execs think that, since "the gays" have their own networks now, the pressure is off them to have to bus gay characters into their shows. That is, until gay producers and writers get all up in their grills...I could be wrong, just a thought.  Network versus CableSubmitted by
Psionycx (7941 points) (1611 posts) on Fri, 2008-10-17 09:38.I suppose the question is weighted heavily by the Network versus Cable question. On cable things have never been better for gays. We have Logo and Here geared specifically towards us as an audience. Though not "officially" gay, Bravo nonetheless rounds out the "big three" gay cable networks. It's almost impossible to tune into one of the home shows on HGTV or TLC without either seeing gay guys running around fixing people's houses, or else showing off their own fabulous digs. Gays are also mainstays on most of the "objectify me" modelling shows. Things on the premium channels are also generally pretty good. MTV and VH1 are also havens for gays, especially on reality TV. The network TV picture is much bleaker. While we have done okay with gay characters in ensemble casts (mostly on ABC) I have to say we've fallen a long way from the hey day of Will & Grace. Most of the gay characters appearing on network TV shows are walk-on's that don't even show up in every episode. Often when they do appear it's very briefly and then they vanish again. So the question itself is mixed and has a mixed answer. Things are both better and worse depending on which channels you frequent. Many of the hot network shows have either marginalized or excluded gays characters (Heroes, Lost, etc.). There is little evidence that this will be improving, since producers seem to think they're fulfilling the need with the infrequent walk-on characters that GLAAD seems so happy about. We're also still woefully under-represented in certain genres, such as science fiction (which is bizarre given that sci-fi/fantasy literature once formed the front line of gay visibility in mainstream media) and action/adventure (due to a lingering perception that gays cannot be tough and heroic). Also, once you step away from the gay-oriented networks the number of shows with gay leading characters drops to nil. No, Kevin on Brothers & Sisters doesn't count. He's at best a second-tier character in an ensemble cast dominated by two big names. So really I think that the answer is that things are much better on cable, and much worse on network.  Yup, that's itSubmitted by
 With a few caveats: I do think we're much better of everywhere, cable and network both, in terms of (1) diversity (gay slobs, younger gay teens, etc), (2) racial diversity, (3) willingness to show physical affection/kissing, and (4) inclusion on reality shows (which weren't nearly as prominent in 2000). Overall, I still think the gay is much, much better off, but that's less true when you're talking about the casual straight viewer's exposure to gay stuff.
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com no votes I don't agree about networkSubmitted by
Psionycx (7941 points) (1611 posts) on Fri, 2008-10-17 13:17.I think we're worse off there. Too many of the gay characters on network TV are extremely minor, basically extras, in the shows they're in. Plus they're often stereotypical, which is clearly meant to make them fit into the expectations of a predominantly straight audience. Truthfully I think we were doing better in 2000 than now on network TV. We have no gay leads now at all. The closest we get is Kevin on Brothers & Sisters and he's really a second-tier character rather than a lead. While he's not invisible the show isn't about him (or Scott, or Saul). If the measure is what kinds of gay characters that straight viewers are seeing then I would say we're doing very poorly on network. Kevin gets more of a pass from us than he does from straight viewers. I've seen many complain how bitchy he is. We also have a lot of minstrel types scattered around the dial. I think it would be a stretch to say that the gays of network are generally characters that would have a significant positive influence on straight people's perception of gays. Our strengthened position on cable is thus offset by our growing irrelevance on network. There may be more gay faces on network than eight years ago, but they are less significant faces. There's plenty to keep a gay viewer entertained on cable, but if the issue is one of public relations then I would say our progress has been minimal. Agreed, but I think you'reSubmitted by
Agreed, but I think you're minimizing the progress even on broadcast: affection, diversity, and reality TV. The glass is half full even on broadcast, and it's 2/3's full when you look at the overall TV landscape (IMHO). But I totally agree about all the "barely there" gay characters, the minstrel ones, and the lack of a show with a gay lead. (Then again, I think WILL & GRACE was a gimmick that can only be done once, and was suited to that particular moment in history. I'm not sure a gay lead lends itself to broadcast programming in a TV landscape that includes niche cable networks. I think the best we might hope for in a "mainstream" broadcast show is something like UGLY BETTY, with a great gay sensibility, or B & S, a show where one of several leads is gay.)
One thing I didn't mention in the article is that not only do we have age diversity in the form of younger gays (on SWINGTOWN, UGLY BETTY, etc.), we also have older gays like Saul on B & S and another show whose name escapes me, which is rather refreshing.
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com no votes But what is a "gay sensibility"?Submitted by
Psionycx (7941 points) (1611 posts) on Sun, 2008-10-19 16:39.I suppose my issue is with the notion that characters like Marc and shows like Ugly Betty are somehow representative of gays. Maybe it is, in the eyes of a straight America that equates gays with being prissy, fashion-obsessed and prone to acting essentially like women with male genitalia. Even Cliff, who is not a prettyboy, still comes across as a male at the bottom of the pecking order.The there's Justin, apparently coded as "gay" (it would be ahoot if her weren't). Maybe a point of reference for the classic effeminate gay teen, but what about the gay kid on the football team? Now, those of us in the gay community that cannot stomach all the "model" reality TV shows, don't worship either bitchy women or empowered undog gals and who really have minimal interest in fashion culture are left wondering what this "gay sensibility" really is. Does it genuinely benefit us in any way, or does it simply reinforce stereotypes? What you want is the "anti-stereotype" stereotypeSubmitted by
David Ehrenstein (7805 points) (1725 posts) on Sun, 2008-10-19 18:48.IOW "straight-acting/ straight-appearing" gays. B-O-R-I-N-G ! (among other things)
 TAKES ALL COLORS TO MAKE A RAINBOWSubmitted by
nordic balance (not verified) on Sun, 2008-10-19 19:49.Yes I'm saying it again. It takes as much courage to come out when you're some super butchie fratboy as it does when you're some super FABULOUS club kid. What about the prissy gay boy teens who need to see themselves on television and in movies? What about the gay boys and men who ARE obsessed with fashion (would there even be a fashion industry without them?) I think may be a lot easier for straight men to "TAKE" hanging with gay men who "act just like" straight men, but that doesn't make it a "Better" representation of gay men. It's just self-hating to verbally bash gay male characters (and actors) because they're not all butched up and easily digestible by straight folks. Gay men should be reresented on television in all their diversified glory. I have been out and lived amoungst the gay community of New York City since I was 14 years old (I'm 40) and I can tell you that there are a lot more Marcs and Wills and Jacks walking around NYC then there are Calvins but that doesn't mean that I don't know there are tons of Calvins and Noahs. But that doesn't mean I don't think there should be more "butch and but for the fact that I like to sleep with men I'm just like you" gay guys on television. I think there should be a spinkling of mincy queenie gays and a sprinklng of jocky butchie fratboy gays and a sprinkling of emo gays and a dash of fashion obsessed gays. Otherwise, I agree with David - "Boring" and definitely not any more representative of the spectrum of gay men then it is now. I'm an african american lesbian who happens to be very grrly and I'll tell you that I've watched 5 seasons of the L word just wishing and hoping for some bald-headed, buzz-cut or tattooed or dread-Locked lesbian to show up in a background scene or a guest spot all to no avail. How realistic is that? NOT. Yes, I know there is a "stereotype" amongst straight folks that all dykes are mannish and flanneled out and fashion challenged but WHO CARES?! SOME DYKES ARE ALL OF THOSE THINGS. So the L Word just pretends that butchie dykes don't exist so unless the look like Shane so as not to play into the stereotype? PLEASE! By being so terrified of promoting stereotypes, the L Word presents a COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC AND UNREPRESENTATIVE vision of what lesbians look like (even in LA).
It feels like this is what a lot of gay men want to have happen for gay men on TV and in Film. All the gay men on television and in film should just be very butch and manly and completely invisible vis a vis their sexuality? And all Latino and Italian actors should change their name to "Smith" or "Jones" so that they can get more parts? And all black roles should be played by not-to-black, non kinky-haired actors so they can blend in? It all comes from the same place. Fear of stereotypes forcing the "oppressed" or "minority" to try to blend into the majority. Why is that better? If people really adhered to that fear of stereotypes, there would never have been shows like OZ and The Wire. Shouldn't the long term goal for actual gays and minorities as well as fictional gays and minorities be to be Accepted and Appreciated (not Tolerated) exactly as we are?
Shouldn't the goal be for gay men to be represented and respected for their Differences as as well for the ways in which they are Exactly The Same as straight men. Shouldn't all of that show up in film and on television.
Sick of the arroganceSubmitted by
Psionycx (7941 points) (1611 posts) on Sun, 2008-10-19 20:20.Speaking as a "straight acting" gay, I am personally sick to death of elitist queens who think that they, and only they, are truly representative of the gay community and who more or less diss those of us that couldn't care less about show tunes or divas. The attitude being that despite the fact that stereotypical gays having been a mainstay of gay representation on TV for decades, you can never have too much of it. However, asking for straight-acting gays is an unreasonable demand rooted in some kind of supposed internalized homophobia. It was very hard to accept the notion of being gay because I didn't feel like any of the gay images that were around at the time "fit" me. The idea that the "gay sensibility" calls for a love of fashion, divas and fabulousness only serves to make coming out a lot harder for gay guys that don't relate to those things. Truthfully, the arrogant insistence that those things are essential to being gay is what drives a lot of questioning men into painful efforts to resist coming out because they don't feel like they belong in the gay community unless they pretend to act and think a certain way. The irony being that I have heard many times from effeminate gay guys complaints about butch "self-hating homo closet cases" who give them grief. "Can't we all just get along"?Submitted by
For the record, when I said I thought UGLY BETTY had a "gay sensibility," it's not because it's set in a fashion world. It's because it concerns a very gay-like (to me) outsider in the main role, Betty. Her character is what makes the show so gay--that and the fact that it has two gay supporting character, Mark and Justin (who I think are both in keeping with the show's campy, larger-than-life tone, which also seems somewhat "gay" to me somehow).
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com no votes  Maybe some equlibrium is neededSubmitted by
Cat (715 points) (143 posts) on Sun, 2008-10-19 23:59.Psionyx said - Speaking as a "straight acting" gay, I am personally sick to death of elitist queens who think that they, and only they, are truly representative of the gay community and who more or less diss those of us that couldn't care less about show tunes or divas. Damn. Forgive me but do we really need to have this fight? "Straight acting gays" and "elitist queens?" Who are these people? Stereotypes that we project on each other is what I think. Why do we polarize ourselves into these - I don't know how else to term it - opposing camps? I'm one of those who can simultaneously worship at the shrines of both Stephen Sondheim and the New England Patriots. Nobody is all nelly or all butch. How fabulously boring would that be? It may sound hackneyed but we're all just people first. Maybe we, more than anyone else, need to keep that in mind if we hope to convince the straight world that we aren't the stereotypes they portray us to be.  LabelsSubmitted by
Janet (2391 points) (466 posts) on Mon, 2008-10-20 01:19.These are all just labels. Who really can or should be "representing" the community to which they belong? That is one helluva huge shoe to fill. Everyone is part and parcel of a whole, and all the bits and pieces put together is what makes a community. Cat- you nailed it. It would be fundamentally boring if everyone were only one flavour. Thank heavens for diversity, not just within the community, but within each member of the community.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course. Maybe it's because...Submitted by
Psionycx (7941 points) (1611 posts) on Mon, 2008-10-20 20:46.Some of us are sick of being treated as unreasonable just because we don't believe that there is such a thing as a "gay sensibility". That includes the "outsider" thing by the way. Altogether too many gay people hold up their "outsider" status as some kind of badge of honor, and actively try to sustain it if they find themselves in danger of being ignored as being just like other folks. I think that I have as much right to want to see gay people that I can relate to as the Marc's of the world have of seeing him.  Gayness being ignoredSubmitted by
The_Void (10 points) (2 posts) on Fri, 2008-10-17 14:23."...and when they do appear, their storylines often ignore their gayness completely" Surely that's a good thing? Do we really want gay and bisexual characters to be completely characterised by their sexuality? Do we really want shows going "Look, we've got a GAY character! Look at how GAY he is! Always GAY, he's nothing but GAY!"? I don't know about you, but I think it's better to include characters that just happen to be gay or bisexual, without that being the core of their character. Making a big deal out of their sexuality just furthers the gay/straight divide, rather than normalising it.
No, obviously we don't wantSubmitted by
No, obviously we don't want character defined by their sexuality. But shouldn't it be naturally integrated into their character? I'm merely saying that Andrew on Desperate Housewives is no great indication of gay visibility as per the GLAAD report: first he's a psychopath, then he's a hustler, now he's a eunuch. I love the show and like the character, but I would hope he isn't all that network TV offers...but sadly many of the characters the GLAAD report cites seem to have no romantic/personal lives. I'm merely noting that, not calling for them to be draped in rainbow jewelry.
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com no votes But Marc on Ugly Betty is Completely Desxualized even though heSubmitted by
nordic balance (not verified) on Fri, 2008-10-17 15:44.has a boyfriend.
Do we ever see Marc and Cliff in bed or making out or holding hands or cuddling? (We don't even get to see Calvin do any of those things on Greek and that's on Cable)
So I don't get way Ugly Betty is seen as being so much more pro gay than any other show that has a gay character on it that shows up frequently to support the other characters.
The only episode that focused on Marc was the one when his mother showed up and he had to out himself.
It just seems like the show gets extra points for being about the field of fashion (which obviously has a lot of gay folks in it so the show would have to have gay characters from time to time even if Marc wasn't on it)
Don't get me wrong. I really like Ugly Betty.
But there seems to be such different standards applied.
We saw Marc and Cliff holding handsSubmitted by
David Ehrenstein (7805 points) (1725 posts) on Fri, 2008-10-17 16:26.at the start of their relationship. But here you've brought up the "damned if you do/ damned if you don't" of gay characters. Your complaint that they're "desexualized" would be countered by "Why are we always seen in sexual terms?" had they been goin' at it like Louis Garrel and Gregoire LePrince-Ringuet. There's room for all sorts of LBGT characters. Marc is a comic foil but with an edge and real intelligence. He's not (here comes that word again!) a mere gay stereotype. And Cliff is a character we know from real life but haven't seen on TV or in the movies at all.
 The other thing about Ugly Betty...Submitted by
Joseph (7150 points) (1458 posts) on Fri, 2008-10-17 16:27....is that there is all-around gay sensibility to the show, unlike any other program on the air. It's not just the fashion industry, or Marc's "fabulousness," it's how the entire program is distilled through the mind of a gay man, in a way that I don't think I've ever seen before. Its humor, its humanity, and its pathos, is thoroughly reflective of that. Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/  There's more gay TV than I thoughtSubmitted by
Hephaestion (385 points) (89 posts) on Mon, 2008-10-20 20:12.All this discussion of current gays on TV reminds me that there are more of us on the telly than I thought, and you didn't even mention my favorite gay shows: Project Runway, Top Chef Chicago, the BBC's Torchwood, the gay cowboy on the last Big Brother, the Margaret Cho Show, Kathy Griffin's D List, and Ronnie & Ben on Make Me a Supermodel. These are mostly reality shows, so thank God for reality shows. The Queer Eye guys still pop up on lots of shows, too. Now if we could just get Anderson Cooper to come out we would truly enter a Golden Age of Gay-Inclusive TV. And now we have LOGO!!!! |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
by 
Now Brent, don't tease
Now Brent, don't tease us with things like :
...we have already heard word that the producers of at least one show have been told, “No more gay characters”).
Care to name the show ?
Think I've got a pretty good guess.
Ha! No, I can't say
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com no votes
Is it an American show?