Veteran Straight Directors Whose Work Has Improved Gay Visibilty (And Some Whose Hasn't)

Interesting list, but I can't agree with you at all about Hitchcock. To this day Rope remains the most sophisticated film ever made about urban upper-crust gay men. While nominally based on Patrick Hamilton's play (which was set entirely in England) this drama of post-WWII New York was written by the very gay Arthur Laurents and starred his then-lover Farley Granger. Granger's costar John Dall was gay as was the film's set designer (who was injured in a gay-bashing incident that took place during the shooting) In other words EVEN THE SETS WERE GAY! Laurent's memoir "Original Story By" has all the dish. I daresay Hitchcock's sophistication on this score blazed a trail taken up decades later by Anthony Minghella.

How you can diss Hitch and laud Verhoeven -- who in Spetters advances rape as an ideal "coming out" tool -- is beyond me.

I totally disagree with Hitchcock and Spielberg making your list of anti-gay directors. For one thing, many people think that Hitch was bisexual. I agree with the previous post about Hitchcock's contribution to queer cinema. It should also be noted that he was involved behind the scenes in gay culture as well.

I thought that the lesbian storyline in The Color Purple was beautiful. Maybe it could have been focused on more, but it was definitely clear! The lesbian attraction was also treated with dignity, and even as something noble.

Spielberg also was not just butting in with some leftist anti-boy-scout opinion.  He sat on an advisory board for the Boy Scouts and was a long time supporter of the group.  But he felt he could no longer support a group that championed discrimination so he publically resigned and spoke against the policy.  Here's Wikipedia on Spielberg's connection:

As a teenager, Spielberg was involved in the Boy Scouts of America, and was committed long enough to earn the highest honor of Eagle Scout. In 1989, Spielberg appeared at the National Scouting Jamboree, where he introduced a new merit badge called Cinematography. The merit badge has the movie slate for its appearance. Scouts earn the badge by doing amateur film work. That same year, 1989, was the release of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, whose opening scene had a teenage Indiana Jones being a member of a Boy Scout troop. Spielberg stated he made Indiana Jones a Boy Scout in honor of his experience in Scouting. For having the distinction of one of the few men to introduce a new merit badge to Scouting, Spielberg was awarded the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award.

The lack of a single clear gay story in his massive body of work speaks volumes about his commitment to gay visibility. - Tim Parks

You're challenging Spielberg's commitment to gay visibility?

Based on what?

No one owes the gay community a commitment to gay visibility. WTF?

His films are what they are.

Why read more into his films then what is evident?

Spielberg and his wife are very pro-gay.

His philanthropy speaks volumes to his commitment to humanity.

QTC

This article focuses on the films of these directors and what those films have contributed (or not) to gay visibility. Spielberg has done great things for all kinds of people in his personal and public actions, yes -- and in a discussion of advocacy he would undoubtedly be considered an ally due to his work involving the Boy Scouts.

But his films on their own (which, again, are what are being discussed here) have never depicted gays as being a part of the greater community ... or even as existing at all. It is pointed out in the intro that the focus is on gay men (which is what this site discusses) in film, and the hint of a lesbian sub-story in The Color Purple (one of my favorite films of all time) is only included to demonstrate just how little visibility gays have in his films at all. The point here is that exclusion of gay characters from the big picture is problematic -- particularly in such an immense body of work.

As for Hitchcock (again, one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, no arguing that), what has he done for gay visibility with his films, other than paint gay men and women to be monstrous? We were hard-pressed to find one gay character from a Hitchcock film with any positive qualities, and plenty of negative ones -- and the killer queer cliche that he helped form and perpetuated is one that we're still battling today.

... is generalizing at best, irresponsible at least.

There are many directors whose body of work would provide little to no gay (positive or negative) representation.  To group Spielberg among at least three obvious examples of directors (I'm not sold on your assessment of Hitchcock, a director who's work in one genre would tend to embrace the dark side of all his characters, regardless of sexuality) who could be called not just "not gay-friendly" but "anti-gay" is a slap in the face of one who has so publicly been an ally of our community.  

Sure, Spielberg's films could have gay storylines, but there has been many directors who could be more likely called on the carpet for including gay storylines that turned out to be derogatory, negative or non-existant (considering historical fact or setting that would likely yield a gay storyline), such as Herbert Ross (The Goodbye Girl, The Turning Point), Alan Parker (Fame, Midnight Express), Otto Preminger (Laura, Advise and Consent), Ron Howard (Night Shift, A Beautiful Mind), Walter Hill (48 HRS, The Warriors) and Keenan Ivory Wayans (Scary Movie, White Chicks), to name but a few.

Whether or not such a "top 5" ranking was intended or implied, to place Spielberg on such a list for not including gay storylines while the other four examples were listed for including negative gay storylines seems to be reckless journalism, and may ultimately prove to be counter-productive in the long run if (or when) this article is picked up by the mainstream (straight) press.

As for Hitchcock (again, one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, no arguing that), what has he done for gay visibility with his films - Brian Juergens

AfterElton entitled the article "Ten Gay-Friendly Straight Directors (and Five Who Aren't)"

AfterElton did not entitle the article "Ten Gay-Friendly Films (and Five that are not).

Obviously you are implying that the directors are either pro-gay or anti-gay based on their films.

A little perspective is needed.

Hitchcock was born in 1899 and died in 1980.

The concept of "gay visibility" is relatively new for the gay community at large and even newer for most straights.

Do you honestly believe that Hitchcock knew of the concept of "gay visibility" and furthermore owed it to the gay and lesbian community to promote it?

This discussion has veered towards Film and Queer theory.

If one follows this logic...

In the political arena for example:

George Washington fails miserably for his lack of "promoting gay visibility".

Do you see how this type of logic is flawed?

To imply that Spielberg's films are homophobic or anti-gay simply because they lack a gay character(s) is C-grade Film Theory analysis.

Yes - I agree that it should be mentioned that there is an omission of gays and lesbians in Spielberg's films but to say that he or his films are anti-gay is irresponsible.

QTC

in anyway anti-gay, I can see how the title implied something of that sort. Therefore, I've gone ahead and changed the title to more accurately reflect the fact that the article is simply about these director's bodies of work in relation to gay visibility. And as Brian said above, we stand by that assertion. The section that included Spielberg wasn't about the worst directors, but simply five who hadn't demonstrated any positive contribution to gay visibility. And Spielberg, despite his good works in his private and public life, hasn't done that in his filmmaking despite his vast power and the fact he can make pretty much any movie he wants. Indeed, in The Color Purple he actually made the lesbian relationship much less visible--and we think that's a bad thing.

I do apologize for the confusion generated by the title and appreciate the passion you folks bring to the discussion. That's we always hope to do here--stimulate passionate talk about gay visibility. Of course, I prefer to do it without upsetting you good folks in the process.  

Yes, but that's exactly the point. By pointing out how sub-par Speilberg has been, it might actually change things. After all, Jonathan Demme specifically made PHILADELPHIA because of the (accurate, IMHO) criticism he received that THE SILENCER OF THE LAMBS was homophobic.

Speilberg has done good work. But not for gays. Ever. Which is interesting given all his films. If he's never done a film that had the "black" perspective, he'd be criticized. In fact, he was--that he'd ignored black issues except for THE COLOR PURPLE, a notable omission given his power and prominence. So he responded by making AMISTAD.

This list, and Speilberg's inclusion on it, is a good thing, a quiet prod exactly where it belongs.

Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com

and for all his welcome support on issues that matter to us he doesn't know gay people very well cinematically. Maybe this will change in the future, maybe not. But Jonathan Demme going out of his way to "make amends" via Philadelphia resulted in a "well-meaning" but inert film that was not only sexless it wasn't even romantic. Tom Hanks and Antonio Banderas barely seemed to know one another.

So far the two straight directors I can point to who really "get" gay people and gay issues are Stephen Frears and Wong Kar Wai. Of course the fact that Happy Together deals with a couple breaking up kept it from getting a GLAAD award.

I'm  much more concerned by the fact that most gay directors fail to "get" gay life themselves. The U.S. has yet to produce anything within mere shouting distance of Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train.

But then I always ask for too much.

I would have to add to David's list by suggesting that Ang Lee also "gets it".  While Brokeback is not about "gay life", I think The Wedding Banquet (while not an amazing film) did accurately capture the frustrations inherent in a couple with differing degrees of "outness". 

But that may have just been astute observation.  The Wedding Banquet was based on a real event with one of Lee's friends.

Regarding Hitchcock, I have to wonder whether his inclusion of gay men was entirely a negative thing.  I don't think there were any (or hardly any) positive portrayals at that time nor could there be before 1967 with the Hays Code.  I think a claim might be able to be made that he included what portrayals that he could and even negative visibility is in some ways better than none at all.  But that, of course, is debatable.

While a lot of ink (such as it is) has already been devoted to this topic, I just wanted to weigh in as well, and agree with those who have commented that inclusion of Spielberg on this list is unwarranted.  With all due respect to our dear editors and Mr. Hartinger, I really think that the defenses of the article and the criticisms of Spielberg do not stand up to scrutiny.

First, the comparison to Demme is inapposite. To the extent that Philadelphia was an "apology" for the perceived homophobia of Silence of the Lambs, Spielberg has not put anything on screen for which he "owes" us any such apology.  As to the idea that had Spielberg not directed Amistad or The Color Purple, he would have been faulted for ignoring the African-American experience, are there any facts on which this statement is based? Until now, I am not aware that Spielberg had ever been subject to criticism for his choice of what topics he had not chosen for his movies.

Further with respect to The Color Purple, you have to recall that when he made that movie, in 1985, while he had already achieved a great deal of commercial success, it was his first "serious" film. As it is, the movie addresses some difficult subject matter, and runs two and a half hours long.  No movie is ever able to capture all the thematic depth of a book like The Color Purple. If anything Spielberg should be praised for keeping in the movie as much of the lesbian relationship as he did, rather than faulted for minimizing it.  He could have easily excised it completely, which would have been a much safer commercial choice, especially for a director best known at the time for a man-eating shark, a Reeses Pieces eating alien, and a monkey brain eating professor of archeology. In context, I really think it unfair to criticize him for not devoting more screen time to or being more explicit in his portrayal of the lesbian relationship.  

Finally, why should it be that simply because Spielberg has a large body of work, has had commercial success, and has significant Hollywood clout, that he should have some obligation to improving gay visibility in his films. He is not a public servant with some duty to his constituents. He is a movie director. To the extent that he has any obligation to the viewing public, it is to be true to his artistic vision. Inherent in the concluding statement about Spielberg -- which is clearly meant to condemn -- that "the lack of a single clear gay story in his massive of work speaks volumes about his commitment to gay visibility" seems to be the premise that, for some reason, Spielberg should have a commitment to gay visibility that he has somehow failed to act on.  Why?  He is not gay.  He has no responsibility to make sure his body of work represents the whole of human experience.  It would be one thing to criticize him if his films were homophobic or perpetuated gay stereotypes, as is arguably the case with the other directors in the article, or if he had made some commitment to our community and then utterly failed to act on it, but neither of these is the case.  The fact that Spielberg simply has not adequately (so you say) addressed gay issues -- and therefore has not done anything affirmative to increase gay visibility -- is qualitatively different from the negative and stereotypical portrayals perpetrated by other directors on the list.  

Especially in light of all of the above, while I understand that this list was intended to discuss what these directors have done professionally, in their films, I also think it a valid criticism that some consideration should have been given to the fact that Spielberg is acknowledged as a friend of the community. Sometimes, you do have to look at the bigger picture, and beyond the topic of the article itself.  What message does it send to friends of the community when you are putting Steven Spielberg on the same list as Mel Gibson?   

There are dozens of T&A movies that come out each year using gay people as constant punch lines (such as the Disaster/Epic, etc. Movie series; Chuck and Larry, et al.) and appeal to an impressionable audience.

Then there are violently anti gay movies, such as Irreversible, which - I haven't seen it - evidentally attempts to blame violent female rape on gay people, and culminates in an angry gay bashing.

 I could go on... I think there are plenty of crueler villains than those you have presented here.

I consider myself fairly PC on gay visibility and I was not particularly offended by Hitchcock's representations or The Silence of the Lambs, and yet I have been offended many times by angrily dismissive attitudes in testosterone fueled entertainment.