The Homophobia is Out There in New "X-Files" Movie

I try not to complain about "gay villains" or "stereotypical gay characters" in the media. I figure you have to take the good representations with that bad.

The X-Files had a gay-pedophile-priest looking to redeem himself with psychic visions from God. A gay-Marlboro-Russian-killer that would risk his life for his husband. A child sexually molested (and now gay) that would do anything to stay with his husband. The only other reference to sexuality was by Anderson and Duchovny. The Gay Files was more like it? And yet I wasn't turned on in the slightest. I only laughed once and that was when you hear the theme music as the face of George Bush is shown. How can you have a gay film without humor?

So I wouldn't call the representation homophobic, just bad; Just like the writing, most of the acting, the plot, the score, etc. I was more bothered (being a fan of the show) about the movie over-all then the about the gay content. Like I said I won't complain about the gay portrayals of the movie. It just the "facts of life." But I never said anything about turning a cult classic into something with worse believability and better cinematography than "Batman Returns."

There are much easier ways to undergo sexual re-assignment surgery.  I am so glad that this is the sole and only time I have ever seen anything X-Files.  I want my aliens from outer space, not the Ukraine.  This movie made me want to re-watch the complete works of Rob Schneider, which now seems like high art compared to this, I did it for the cash rehash.

I don't buy that the film was really trying to get at the astounding power of one man's love for another or the strength of the gay character's relationship.  Here's why: there's not one scene-- not even one-- that spends any time with these gay characters in any way that suggests basic humanity at the heart of their relationship, let alone love. Are we supposed to give the filmmakers credit for really attempting to humanize these characters for only one quick blink-and-you-miss-it shot of the film's main villain looking doe-eyed at the Nosferatu-like near-corpse of his lover on the operating table?  Please. Do we ever even see these characters speak to one another?  No. (Sure, they presumably speak Russian, but there's a little invention known as subtitles).  Instead, these men are always presented as the shadowy "other," the creep, the voiceless villain, the monster in the basement (or, in this case, the scary dog kennel). 

If Chris Carter and company had truly intended to make these gay villains story a "paralell" to Mulder and Scully's romance (as the film's co-writer Frank Spotnitz tried to claim after being called out on the film's homophobia), then there was a very easy way for them to make that point.  Give us even a quick scene or two where we actually see the humanity in these men's relationship, or where we see them as more than just warped monstorous predators.  Carter and company sure found enough time in the film (several scenes) where they attempt to complicate and "humanize" their pedophile character. But the gay couple never even get a thirty second scene where they speak or actually interact?  Think about that discrepancy for a second, and you begin to see how sick a film this really is.

More to the point, if the intent was to run a parallel story to Scully and Mulder's romance, then why wasn't the dying diseased lover a woman?  It would make a more noticeable connection to the main romance and  would make a whole heck of a lot more sense as to why her husband was trying to graft her head onto young women's bodies.

Exactly why did Carter and Spotnitz decide it should be a gay couple?  Here's why: not only does it allow them to cheaply throw in yet another "hot topic"-- gay marriage (see my post above)-- but also because it lets them use effects (when, as I noted above, there are few special effects in the film) for things like close-up images of the woman's decapitated arm, with its painted fingernails, attached to the male lover's diseased body. They're going for a shock "oh, gross" reaction from the audience.  (Similarly, why exactly does a gay man with "cancer" look so inhuman and deformed?). 

And why don't Carter and Spotnitz include a scene or two where we actually see some humanization of the gay characters-- where they talk to one another or worry or speak about their love in a way that actually complicates their villainous actions?  Because to do so would rob the film of its "monster"-- the frightening shadowy "other" that Carter needs at the heart of any X-Files story.  And, in this case, that "other," unspeakable and literally unspeaking, is a grotesque representation of a gay man's diseased body.  There's a huge difference between having a complex gay villain versus having a gay "other" or gay "monster."

The film is inexcusable.

I recall a director talking about a movie that he made at the end of WWII when anti Nazi sentiment still was running high. The story had a German soldier maroon on English soil, (no Germans ever set foot on Britain in real life). There was an uproar because he showed the Nazi sympathetically. That's something that hadn't really been done. When asked why, he explained something like this: They gave me only one Nazi, I had to show him sympathetically, if they had given me two Nazis I could have shown one good and one bad. All I had to work with was the one Nazi. (can someone help me out with this quote, I can't find it?)

That is one of the criteria I use to judge fair treatment of gays. Also, Would this story be worse if they were straight villains? If yes, why did they must be gay?

From your review I gather that there are three gays in the story. All are bad and represent horrid stereotypes. 1: Diseased (even if it isn't AIDS), 2: Psychotic (his murderous Lover) and 3: Perverted (for those of you who don't know that means child molester.) Besides the fact that they show the horrific body of a gay man as we can only imagine it.

But where the hell is the GOOD NAZI?

I could abide by the bad gays if there was even one Dr. George Huang who would come on and be the Good Gay and say, "this is so wrong and I'm going to help you stop it."

They didn't do that, right? It's homophobic. Now, explain why I need to waist my money on that crap.

Real equality means you can have the occassional minority villain without putting in a hero of the same minority just to to balance it out. But we're not there yet. 

A gay villain with depth helps but it still gives off some association between homosexuality and villainy if said villain is the only gay character onscreen.

Chris Carpenter, the film critic over at my blog, had this to say about this issue:

http://moviedearest.blogspot.com/2008/08/believe-it-or-not.html

- Kirby, moviedearest.blogspot.com

I have no problem with the characters in the film. If they are a creepy gay couple then fine. It is not necessarily being homophobic. With all the other creepy characters and serial killers in movies being straight you don't hear claims of heterophobia. As the reviewer said the couple could easily be straight....so why can't they easily be gay? It is like having a creepy black guy and claiming racism because of it. I dont think people come out of the movie thinking "dirty homos". they dont come out associating regular gays with these characters. People know the difference at this stage.

whatever about the actual movie I don't think it should be classed as Homophobic.

I'd better clarify. I take everyones points and understand them completely. I'm coming at it from a slightly different angle. I'm a screenwriter myself and I would just as easily put a gay hero as a gay villain, it all depends on the plot. Also I'm in Ireland, so while I may not fully understand the worries and opinions of "middle america",film is an international medium and the reaction that it may provoke in america is not necessarily the same that will occur in Europe, hence my point about people leaving the movie with an opinion about homosexuals. I was speaking from a global perspective, not simply american.

...when Silence of the Lambs came out. The problem is, you could make the same argument with the HEROES of these moves: they're straight, but they could just as easily be gay.

Only they never are. Where's the movie where a gay guy solves the crimes, rescues the victim in peril, saves the day-the gay guy the audience roots for to triumph?

If there are characters like that in feature films, they're so few and far between as to be nonexistant. Gay villians? Plenty!

...was in response to what colmd wrote. I forgot to post it as a reply. I think I posted it at almost the same time as Brent posted his, and weirdly, we're almost saying the same thing, except he's saying it better. Then Psionycx goes and says it better than me too. 

I heard about the homophobic allegations when the movie was out, but ignored them since I never intended to see it. Then I was stuck in hotel room last week, with free HBO, and it was on, so...

For a while I thought the main objection must have been the pedophile priest, but I was actually enjoying that part of the film. It worked well with Scully's Catholicism, and the whole "I want to believe" theme.

But my jaw hit the floor with the "dun-dun-DUNNN!" revelation that the two characters were married... in MASSACHSETTS! And then, with the revelation of the head-transplant onto the woman's body, and the painted nails.... yeeeesh. Beyond the pale.

And I don't object to gay villains. On "One Life to Live" a few years ago, I actually liked the idea (not so much the execution) of a plot where a married guy turns out to be secretly gay and, later, killing people to keep his secret. It's a soap, so the serial killer piece is par for the course - didn't bother me at all. And I've long maintained (to myself, at least) that soaps need gay characters who are good, bad, and morally gray; it's the nature of the genre to need characters who are multifaceted and linked to many other characters. When characters are brought on as representatives of a certain community or issue, they usually depart the soap canvas for good after a while, without making any deep impression on the world of the soap or the audience.

So yeah, gay villains can work. But in this X Files movie, they didn't. And they were incredibly insulting.