his video is brought to you by ATLAS VPN. Over the last several years there have been
demands for more LGBTQ represention in Hollywood movies. But something that many people don’t
know is that the first movie to ever win Best Picture at the Academy Awards, was also the
first major Hollywood film to show a gay kiss. William A. Wellman’s film Wings. Released in 1927. In "Wings," two World War I aviators compete
for the affections of the same woman while coming to terms with their growing feelings for
one another. Despite being labeled a "friendship" for the duration of the film (perhaps
to circumvent censorship requirements), it is evident that these two men
are developing romantic feelings for one another. Made clear by
the climactic dramatic kiss. Wellman's silent film captures one of
the earliest examples of LGBTQ cinema by carefully toeing the censorship line; the
film examines the expressed passions of two men entangled in the conflict of WWI and the
emotional torment of a forbidden connection. Wings went on to be a box office smash, and
even at a time when the film industry was quickly transitioning to sound, became the
only truly silent film to win Best Picture. But WINGS is actually not where our story begins. The history of Hollywood has always
had an asterisk beside it. Hidden in the footnotes in tiny little print, are
the queer actors, filmmakers, executives, and tradespeople that helped turn Hollywood from
a backwater orange grove in California to the city in which thousands of young dreamers make their
way each year in hopes of becoming a star. It’s a long story. And like most classic American tales…
it actually doesn’t begin in America at all. But before we get too deep into this history,
let me tell you about the sponsor of this video. ATLAS VPN. Many of the films we’ll be talking
about in this series may not actually be streamable in your country, but by using ATLAS
VPN’s geolocation features you can unlock access to the wide history of queer cinema that doesn’t
always make it to streaming services everywhere. ATLAS VPN also keeps your internet and
google search history safe from prying eyes, so you can still look up and
watch these films without certain, maybe unaccepting, members
of your family finding out. And now is a great time to sign up because
ATLAS VPN is currently offering a special, limited time offer where their premium service
is just $1.83 per month + 3 months for free! All with a 30-day money-back guarantee. But be
quick because it’s only a limited-time offer! Explore the history of queer
cinema without restrictions and get many other benefits of Atlas
VPN for this ridiculously low price. Check the link in the description for
more information and to sign up today. The love that dared not speak its name
in America was surprisingly fluent when speaking German throughout the silent era
of film. While America was using its new toy to glorify the Old West, recreating
the fading dreams of its own mythology, European cinema was shaping a more realistic
look at the diversity of sex and gender. In much of Europe at the time, homosexuality was often just another aspect of the
panorama of human relationships. The Institute for Sexual Science,
founded by Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld, became ground zero in the fight against
Germany's anti-gay paragraph 175, which criminalized homosexual actions between
men, during the era of sexual enlightenment that occurred in pre-war Berlin. It also produced
the first film to discuss homosexuality openly, and to contain many of the fundamental
issues of the gay liberation movement. Directed by Richard Oswald, ‘Different from
the Others,’ released in 1919 openly pleaded tolerance, for what is termed the third sex.
The program given out at screenings even read: “False beliefs and unjustified
prejudices concerning a sector of male and female sexual behavior known
as homosexuality, or love of the same sex, have been predominant up to the present and
still influence a large part of our population. These homosexual men and women who are
attracted to persons of their own sex, are often regarded as wicked criminals and
libertines. But scientific research has determined that homosexuality is an inborn tendency for
which the individual cannot be held responsible… There are homosexuals in every class, among
the educated and among the uneducated, and in the highest and lowest sectors
of the population, in the great cities and the small towns, among the strict
moralists and among the most easygoing; that love for one's own sex can be just as
pure and noble as love for the opposite sex, the only difference being the object of
desire, not the nature of one's love.” The film, along with other works from the same era
that dealt with topics such as abortion, incest, sex education, and venereal disease,
was propagandistic in its approach. In the early 1930s, Nazis were responsible for
the destruction of most prints of the film. Christopher Isherwood recalls that at the
time, Nazis frequently disrupted screenings of the film. In Vienna, one of them discharged a
handgun into the crowd, injuring multiple people. In his book “Christopher and his kind,” Isherwood
provides a first-person description of the movie: “Three scenes remain in my memory. One is that
a ball at which the dancers — all male — are standing, fully clothed in what seems about
to become a daisy chain. It is here that the character played by Conrad Veidt meets the
blackmailer who seduces him, and then ruins him. The next scene is a vision in which
Veidt has a long procession of kings, poets, scientists, philosophers, and other
famous victims of homophobia, moving slowly, and sadly with hands bowed. Dr. Hirshfield himself
appears. I think the corpse of (Conrad) Veidt, who has committed suicide at this
point is laying in the background. Hirshfield delivers a speech
that is to say a series of titles pleading tolerance for the third sex.” And so it was that the very first gay man
to ever be portrayed on film met his tragic end by taking his own life. This would
determine the future of LGBT characters on film and television for many years to
come. The suicide of Veidt and the idea of blackmail predicted the fates of American
screen characters who would suffer for their sexuality in like manner when American
cinema reached a similar point of inclusion about 50 years later.
It would appear that the recognition of the "third sex" in Europe was not associated
with a particular concept of masculinity, as was the case in the United States.
The focus of the drama and intrigue was not on the sexual aspects of the passions that
were awakened in human relationships; rather, the emotional qualities of the passions
that were aroused in human relationships. In ‘Mikael,’ produced in 1924, we see a
gay love story in which a famous artist falls in love with his young male model. The
model, however, is an opportunist who saps his benefactor’s artistic spirit, eventually spurning
his affections for the more promising charms of a wealthy young princess. In the end, the artist
leaves all of his possessions to the youth, and on his deathbed declares: "I can
die in peace. I have known a great love” The film, which was adapted from the book of the
same name, was released in America for a limited time in 1926 under murky circumstances.
What would come to be titled: ‘Chained: The Story of The Third Sex’ ran for a
short time at New York's Fifth Avenue Playhouse. American censors objected to its
first issued English title: ‘The Inverts.’ The modifications to the titles
provide an excellent illustration to the American thinking about
homosexuality at that time. The subtitle “the story of the third sex" suggests
that any narrative that deals with gay love, regardless of how seriously it does so, is
considered to be a story about homosexuality, while stories that deal with heterosexual
love are simply seen as stories. This appears to be just as much of an issue
for American filmmakers and producers today, as they appear to be unable to conceive of the
existence of queer characters in a movie, unless the subject matter of the movie is being queer, as
understood and depicted by mostly straight people. This discussion of gay men shouldn’t suggest
that lesbians didn’t also get attention. In the film ‘Pandora's Box,’ which was originally
shown in Germany in 1929, there is a figure who is most likely the first lesbian on screen to be
portrayed overtly. The film presented the story of the great unrequited love and passion between
two women, the countess Geschwitz and the lady she is enamored with, Lulu. Although the love
that Geschwitz feels for Lulu is referred to as ‘sterile’ within the context of the movie, it is
a driving force in the action, and it makes the introduction of a sapphic passion onscreen
an exciting and historical cinematic event. An event American audiences likely would
never know of. British censors deleted the character of Countess Geschwitz from the film
before prints were sent to America. Though original German prints did eventually
make it across the pond in the 1960s. When it comes to American-made gay characters, one
of the earliest direct references to homosexuality was a parody. Which is… predictable, I suppose.
The one-reel comedy short ‘The Soilers’, starring Stan Laurel, was a parody of
the successful western ‘The Spoilers’. A drawn-out battle sequence between the film's
lead, Laurel, and a corrupt sheriff takes up the majority of the running time. But another,
very gay, cowboy suddenly appears on the scene in the middle of the brawl. As the two
men continue to quarrel, he makes a show of batting his eyes at both of them and primping
a little bit before sashaying out of the room. Laurel wins the fight against the sheriff,
but no one appears to care. As a result, he is left sitting outside the tavern, looking
disheartened. The gay cowboy pokes his head out of a second-floor window and lavishly blows
Laurel a kiss while mouthing the words ‘my hero.’ When Laurel rejects him, he
drops a flower pot on his head. This is one of the first examples of the
use of the ‘harmless sissy’ image to present homosexuality in film. But in the context
of rough-and-tough men in the soon-to-be industry-dominant western genre, we were laying
the foundations of the trope from the word ‘GO.’ There is a very overt connection between
the effeminate and apparent homosexual in this film. Even though the cowboy was
not supposed to be impersonating a woman, the primping and fussing characteristics that
he displayed were unmistakably those of a woman. At least as men at the time expected women to act.
The comedy here was highlighting how out-of-place this sissy boy was in this rough-and-tumble
world of the men who won the west. The irony of course is that… there is significant
historical evidence to suggest that the west was in fact RIFE with gay men (many from Europe) and
was largely settled by women in sex work. However even though The Soilers is a mockery of queerness,
among other things, the use of satire indicates that Homosexuality, especially in the context of
it existing in traditionally masculine spaces, was on the mind of the public at large. Satire
can’t function well if it’s not deriving content from popular ideas. Even as the sissy cowboy
isn’t flattering, though he is slaying, his inclusion indicates that the public was, perhaps
at the time, willing to accept us as harmless, though strange and out of place. However, this was precisely the kind of event that
the censors were keeping an eye out for. Public Ordinances already enabled censoring organizations
around the country to look at pictures in advance of their public showing. Although all of those
such entities had little actual authority, their rules for morality in the movies clearly
mentioned ‘sex perversion’ as a key don’t. Even if queerness was the subject of ridicule. The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1915: “The exhibition of motion pictures is a business,
pure and simple and is conducted for-profit, like other spectacles not to be regarded
or intended to be regarded as a part of the presence of the nation or
the organs of public opinion." This decision meant that movies were not protected
by the first amendment guarantee of free speech. Due to this ruling, harsh censorship legislation
was eventually enacted in the states of New York, Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Virginia
within a few years following this judgment. The gold standard in the United States was in
the New York statute that was passed in 1921. It stated that: “A film should be licensed by the state,
unless such a film or a part thereof is of such a character that its exhibition would
tend to corrupt morals or incite crime.” Indecency, immorality, and obscenity were
nowhere described or defined in the statute, and thus there was considerable
latitude for interpretations. Essentially giving free reign
to wealthy, white, right-wing, Christian men to dictate what could and could not
be in any given film released in these states. One of the first instances of lesbians
kissing on screen was in a brief orgy scene in Cecil B DeMille's ‘Manslaughter’
in 1922. The vision of two passionate women locked in a forbidden embrace, was used
by DeMille to condemn the excesses of sex that he was portraying so
graphically, and excessively. In return for his judgment of the
‘crime’ he was consistently allowed to paint a more explicit picture
of evil, especially sexual sins, then was ordinarily permitted by Hollywood
censors. Showing things like sex, homosexuality, interracial relationships, and other such things
was fine, as long the participants were punished. This was particularly true when the
retribution transpired in a biblical city. Quoting Scripture on their title cards,
DeMille films became moral lessons, rather than exploitation. Or so was said.
They also became box office extravaganzas. Which… leads me to wonder just how far back the
connection between these distinctly American sets of pop-Christianity neo-puritanical values
and American entertainment really goes. By 1922 there were censorship bills
before the legislatures of 32 states, and throughout the nation the distinct rank
of moral indignation was wafting its way toward an industry that at times seemed
to embody wicked behavior of all sorts. The censors were horrified by ‘Salome,’ a
1923 film with a reportedly all queer cast made in tribute to Oscar Wilde. Forcing
several sequences to be cut all together, including one showing the gay
relationship between two Syrian soldiers. The handwritten report of the
examining censor in New York concluded: "This picture is in no way religious in theme or
interpretation. In my judgment, it is a story of depravity and immorality made worse because of
its biblical background. Absolutely sacrilegious.” American censors became even more potent in
the late 1920s and early 30s. The inclusion of audio into what were briefly dubbed as ‘talkies’
brought a new element of realism to the screen, and public morality watch dogs began to bear
down on the industry. But while censorship laws were becoming more specific, their outlook on gay
representation was kept vaguely broad. You didn’t need two men or women kissing to get banned. Cross
dressing, weakness or softness in male characters, and even overly intellectual male characters
were enough to draw the ire of censors. Will Hayes was appointed president of the Motion
Picture Producers and Distributors of America — or MPPDA — in the late 1920s. Hayes served as both
an elder in the Presbyterian church and as a former Postmaster General of the United States.
That was the extent of his qualifications. The organization was established primarily with the
goals of fostering positive public relations for the studios and shielding the business from
the potential for more restrictions from the outside world, which they mostly achieved in
1930 when the motion picture production code, which served as the basis for the industry's
self-regulation and censorship, was actually written. When the code was strengthened
in 1934 under intense pressure from the Catholic Church, even gently alluded
gay characters began to disappear. The image of the film business as being harsh
and manly, with no tolerance for foolishness, was in continual conflict with the
industry's reputation for being effeminate. The censors used the ‘sissy’
archetype to target on-screen characters, using it as a thinly-veiled scapegoat to
put pressure on a relatively progressive media industry which had been a safe haven
for queer creators of all types up to then. But filmmakers knew how to skirt the
censors in many cases. The fact that most early movie ‘sissies’ were only gay if
one chose to see them as being gay was simply a reflection of the fact that the existence
of queer people in society was acknowledged only when society chose to do so. Instead
of being overtly queer — characters like, say, the femme cowboy from The Soilers, were
viewed as symbols for ‘failed’ masculinity, rather than actual homosexuals. And
so they were allowed to stick around. Most ‘sissies’ during the reign of the
code were not necessarily demeaned, nor were they used in cruel or
offensive ways. It was not the sissy, but what he stood for that was offensive. Some
actors created memorable galleries of gossipy snoops and snippy shopkeepers, who were often
a little on the innocent side. But not always. Gays were also associated with dangerous revolutionaries hiding beneath
the surface of normal society. The ghetto was one otherworld in which gay
characters might frequently be seen on-screen before and after the reign of the Motion Picture
Production Code. This represented the reality of the majority of Gay experiences at the time,
which had been restricted to manifestations in slums of one kind or another. The underground
life as a shelter for gays is a common theme. In many instances, the gay ghetto has been
linked to the criminal underground. This is due to the fact that whenever there is an increase in
illegal activity of any kind, even homosexuality, organized crime moves in to take control of
the situation and make a profit. (Though it should be noted that organized crime functions
VERY differently than Hollywood often depicts, and in some cases, especially from the 40s and
onward, can be beneficial to growing a community and preventing gentrification and climbing rental
rates.) Though as far as Hollywood played into misconceptions of criminal behavior, homosexuals
were widely considered to be a criminal group, which differentiated them from other types of
minority groups. Crime rates might be high in some majority non-white areas, but just
being a person of color was not, itself, technically illegal. (Though representatives
and law enforcement may act otherwise.) The film ‘Blood Money,’ released in 1933,
showed a great deal of ambiguous sexual tension in a wider underworld. In the movie, the
existence of homosexuality is openly acknowledged in the subculture that is a shelter on the
fringes of acceptable society. In the film, Sandra Shaw is featured in several sequences
as a fun-loving blonde who likes men's clothes. At one point in the film, her boyfriend is
preparing for a date along with his sister, a nightclub owner, who warns
him about the kind of women he's running with, but he waves her fears aside. “Oh this one is nothing but class.
Wears a monocle and a man’s tuxedo.” “Then you’re safe.” Though he gets what she means, and protests, later in the film Shaw turns up again in a tweed
jacket, this time with another woman in tow. Movies like this were what led to further
intensification of censorship in the mid 1930s. In addition to strengthening the Code, Will Hays
reacted to criticism by inserting morality clauses into the contracts of actors, and compiled a
"doom book" of 117 names of those deemed "unsafe" because of their personal lives. Homosexuality
was denied as fervently offscreen as it was on, a literally unspeakable part of the culture. Hollywood has always been more restrained
on the screen than in real life. In “blood money” homosexuality is just another pocket
of an underworld that exists outside the law. Sexual connotations often surrounded the
attitude of powerful men toward hired boys, or servile companions. Although the villainous
character of Joel Cairo in “The Maltese Falcon,” is identified by Sam Spade's secretary in the
novel as homosexual, the film version, instead, just turns him into a perfume wearing,
cane kissing, ‘sissy’ with lace hankies. Elisha Cook jr. as Sidney Greenstreet's
bodyguard Wilmer, however, is implicitly homosexual. He is referred to as "sonny,"
"boy" and "kid," and Bogart derisively calls him a "gunsel." Since about 1915, prisoners had
used the German word gunsel to mean a bottom, especially young inexperienced criminal bottoms. All of this was meant to connect the queer
underworld with the underworld run, mostly, by the Sicillian mafia who, due to
movies like Scarface and Public Enemy, were roundly feared across the country. This “fear the queer” mindset was brought
to its logical conclusion in the horror films of the 1930s, where gays appeared
as predatory, twilight creatures with a sense of style. The equation of horror
with the sins of the flesh is easily seen in monster movies of the period.
Creatures like Frankenstein’s monster and Count Dracula were almost always linked
with the baser instincts of human beings. The essence of homosexuality as a predatory
weakness permeates the depiction of gay characters in horror films. In Dracula's Daughter, Countess
Maria Zalesca has a special attraction to women, a preference that was even highlighted
in some of the original ads for the film. Queer parallels in 1931’s ‘Frankenstein’ and
its 1935 sequel, ‘The Bride of Frankenstein,’ arose from a vision both films had
of the monster as an impossible, antisocial figure in the same way that gay people
were "things" that should not have happened. In both films, the homosexuality of director
James Whale may have been the spark of the vision. Robert Aldrich, director of camp progenitor:
‘Whatever Happened to Baby Jane,’ recalls that: ”Jimmy Whale was the first guy who was
blackballed because he refused to stay in the closet. Mitchell Leisen and all those other
guys played it straight, and they were onboard, but Whale said, “**** it, I'm a great director
and I don't have to put up with this bull**** And he was a great director, not
just a company director. And he was just unemployed after
that. Never worked again.” It should be noted that many articles on James
Whale do not reference his refusal to be closeted, nor the Hayes Code in general, as a reason
for the decline of his career. In spite of available first-hand testimonials demonstrating
that it wasn’t just a contributing factor — that it was THE main reason. And Aldrich, who WAS a
company director, if not an incredibly good one, would have been in-the-know about what producers
and studio heads were saying behind the scenes. According to Aldrich, an obviously lesbian
director like Dorthy Arzner got away with her lifestyle because she was officially closeted.
A gay woman keeping her ‘lifestyle’ on the sly was fine because “it made her one of
the boys.” But a man who, like Whale, openly admitted to his loving relationship with
another man, in this case producer David Lewis, did not stand a chance. Although James
Whale worked again briefly in 1943, he fell into obscurity soon after. In 1957 he was
found dead at the bottom of his swimming pool. Frankenstein’s monster was the creation
that would eventually destroy its creator just as Whale’s own ‘aberration’ would
eventually destroy his career. The monster in ‘Frankenstein’ bears the brunt of society's
reaction to his existence, and in the sequel, the bride of Frankenstein, the monster himself
is painfully aware of his own unnaturalness. In ‘Frankenstein,’ it is the monster who
limits Henry Frankenstein's contact with the normal world. The old Baron, Frankenstein's
father, continually begs his son to "leave this madness," to come home, and marry the
young Elizabeth. Finally the father, Elizabeth and Henry's best friend go to the lab
and force him, for his own good, to leave his creation behind… to be free from his "obsession".
To be normal. Later the monster fulfills Mary Shelley's initial prophecy by joining his creator
on his wedding night, carrying off Elizabeth, and thereby preventing the consummation
of the heterosexual marriage. The monster is then hunted by the townspeople. In ‘The Bride of Frankenstein,’ it is the odd,
sissified Dr. Praetorius who comes to entice Henry Frankenstein from his bridal bed in the middle
of the night. Praetorius too has created life, and Henry's curiosity again overcomes his
"good" instincts and proves his downfall. Praetorius proclaims himself to be in love
with evil and professes to detest goodness. No accident, then, that the monster, seeing the
unnaturalness and folly of his own existence, takes the evil Praetorius with him when he pulls
the lever to destroy himself and his bride, crying out to the young heterosexual
couple of Henry and Elizabeth: “Go! You live. Go. You stay. We belong dead.” In later decades, the queerness
of the Frankenstein story would reach its logical camp conclusion with ‘The
Rocky Horror Picture Show.’ A cult-classic rock-musical that Twentieth Century-Fox
never gave a proper wide release in the United States. And it’s unlikely that,
now that they own it, Disney will either. Since 1976, the film has been playing
midnight shows in cities throughout the country. A truly subversive film
on the subjects of sexuality, movies, sex roles, and the queer as monster,
Rocky Horror features two innocent, presumed straight protagonists (Brad and Janet)
who have car troubles not far from a dubious mansion. This foreboding manor is the residence of
one Dr. Frank N Furter, the apotheosis of deviant sexuality, who introduces himself as “a Sweet
Transvestite from Transsexual, Transylvania." Frank N Furter is an androgynous alien from outer
space. When the timid straight couple arrive, he is in the process of showing off his
latest creation, a hunky blond named Rocky, who is straight off the slab and wears nothing
but tight gold trunks. Pointing to Rocky, Frank N Furter sings a lusty "In Just Seven Days, I Can Make You a Man," then proceeds to
introduce Brad and Janet to, well, his penis. Possible penis. We can’t know for
certain. He is an alien, after all. As both a catalog, and a spoof of old
monster movies and science fiction films, ‘The Rocky Horror Picture Show’ becomes almost
dizzying in its references, but its most expert satire is of the age-old fear with which
mainstream society encounters deviant sexuality. And is then followed through to the very end,
when Frank N Furter is destroyed “for the good of society.” Nevertheless he has one last
chance in life to perform with the entire cast, an underwater ballet version of the film’s
main message “Don’t dream it. Be it.” A song that becomes a message of hope
for everyone who feels like they’re not quite who they’re supposed to be just yet. Tim Curry's performance, especially in
his rendition of "Sweet Transvestite," is the essence of what every parent in America
feared would happen if our sexual standards were relaxed. It becomes the living horror of making
deviant sexuality visible and tangible in the only kind of setting in which it could possibly work,
an old dark house populated by every letter of the LGBTQ alphabet soup, as they sing rock and
roll to seduce the innocent youth of America. Hollywood didn't know what to do with
the Rocky horror picture show then and probably wouldn't know what to do with it
now. But despite its shabby treatment it has grossed hundreds of millions of
dollars over the years and continues to play throughout the world to audiences
made up of largely young people who attend screenings with bags of rice, stale
toast, corsets, boas, and fishnets. Rocky Horror was shining a spotlight on the
dimly lit representation of queer monsters in the 1930s golden age of Hollywood. Giving
them one last hurrah as a posthumous victory against the Hayes code, which collapsed
entirely just a few years before its release. But back in the 1930s, filmmakers still had
to be clever about coding the characters, specifically to make it past the censors. General American audiences though
could easily see through the coding. However, it wasn’t long
before the easily read coding was forced to become almost,
if not completely illegible. Thank you for watching this video, which is
actually the first of eight videos I’ll be releasing over the next few months exploring the
history of queer representation in Hollywood. If you’d like to see more historical videos like
this, as well as my usual video essays, podcasts, behind the scenes videos, and a whole lot more,
please consider joining my Patreon, linked in the description. YouTube does have a habit of
hiding queer content, especially educational queer content, so it’s only because of my patrons
that I can do videos like this. And for as little as a dollar a month you can join this surprisingly
awesome community that keeps this channel going. Now that I’ve awkwardly promoted my Patreon, I’ll let the credits roll and I’ll see you soon
for Unrequited Episode 2: The Invisible Men.
2: https://backend.ecstaticstatic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/The-Celluloid-Closet.pdf