The progression of LGBTQ+ representation in Hollywood

“I really think y’all are trying to force this LGBT shit in everybody lifestyle”. This was a reaction on Twitter to Seventeen Magazine reporting of the Moana directors saying a LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and everything else in the spectrum) Disney Princess could be coming soon. The reacting tweet on the Seventeen Magazine got 200.000 likes (Sizer, 2017).

Twitter shows that some people are still not open to more representation of the LGBTQ+ community on mainstream media. However, positive representation of the LGBTQ+ community is present and started in the 1970s and 80s with LGBTQ+ characters in TV shows and movies. After the show “Ellen” (1997) there was a rise of shows that featured regular and recurring gay characters (Cook, 2018). As the rise of LGBTQ+ representation continued, in 2017 representation of LGBTQ+ characters were at an all time high, with 4.8% of regular characters on TV identifying within the community (O’Brien, 2017). Increasing representation is important because it means that the LGBTQ+identity is being expressed and empathized to groups who, otherwise, would have little interaction with them or idea of them. Representation also matters to the individuals being represented because it affirms their identity, being able to identify with characters going through similar struggles. (O’Brien, 2017)

For over a thousand years, gay characters have been relevant in society and art, starting with Greek mythology where lesbianism, homosexuality, and anything in between was accepted amongst the Gods and Goddesses (Chrystal, 2018). This acceptance slowly diminished in pre-modern society with the introduction of several moral ideologies and widespread belief of what is the “correct” lifestyle, which included the anything surrounding the purpose and act of sex. The LGBTQ+ community was shoved to the background. However, the past few decades have been significant in the increase of LGBTQ+ characters in one outlet of modern storytelling; movies. Movies featuring LGBTQ+ characters have always existed, whether characters were blatantly involved in the homosexual agenda (The Boys in the Band, 1971), sexually indiscriminate (Basic Instinct, 1992), victims of abuse (Boys Don’t Cry, 1999), or used for queerbaiting (Bend it like Beckham, 2002), but they were not often included in mainstream media. Nonetheless, inclusion of LGBTQ+ characters in the mainstream media has increased over the last 20 years, but their storylines remain simplistic and stereotypical. Yet, some movies such as Brokeback Mountain, 2005, Moonlight, 2016, and Blue is the Warmest Color, 2013, won several esteemed awards (Best writing Oscars, Best Picture Oscars and Cannes’ film festival Palme d’or).

For an accurate representation in the media regarding the LGBTQ+ community, there is an organization called GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian alliance against defamation). They are a non-profit organization that works on accurate LGBTQ representation in the media, they exists to “rewrite the script for LGBTQ acceptance” (n.a. 2017). Since 2012, they write annual reports on LGBTQ representation in the movie industry; they have seen a constant increase, 4,6%, between 2012 and 2016, in LGBTQ characters appearing in major motion pictures. After all, in 2017 there was a drop of 5,6%, the lowest rate since GLAAD has been realising annual report. This is relevant to the conversation of representation because it shows that representation actually took a step back. This leaves the question for what this means for the future of representation. It leaves to wonder if movie producers take an exciting step regarding the representation of the LGBTQ+ community in 2019. According to The Cinemaholic, there are 9 movies that include LBGTQ+ characters for the upcoming year (Sundriyal, 2018). While representation has its ups and downs, it is not where the community would want it to be. Since nothing in 2019 has been released yet, there is probability that even more films will be released to support and represent the community.

Contrary to the movie industry in 2017, the number of LGBTQ+ characters reached an ultimate high on broadcast scripted series in 2018. GLAAD looked at original scripted series expected to (return to) air on primetime TV between June 1, 2018 and May 31, 2019, where the casting has been announced or confirmed. Only 8.8% of characters in TV shows identify as LGBTQ+ (GLAAD, 2019). When looking at LGBTQ+ characters as a whole, there has been an increase compared to previous years. In 2017, the number of LGBTQ+ characters was 6.4%, and in 2016 the amount of LGBTQ+ characters was only 4%. As a result of its record high, representation achieved its numbers from series like “Arrow” from the network “The CW”. Certain series on this network have an unusual high number of LGBTQ+ characters compared to other networks, thereby raising the overall percentage of representation. In the series “Arrow”, there are 8 regulars that are in the LGBTQ+ community, and during the series complete running time, a total of 42 LGBTQ+ characters show up (Darhk, 2018). A series that shows a very different representation of LGBTQ+ characters is the show “Vikings” from History Channel. This show has only 2 regulars that are LGBTQ+ characters (BGFAL, 2018).

This increase of LGBTQ+ characters is considered to be good, since seeing a representation of yourself on TV validates you. Representation is, however, not always accurate, and this number of increased representations does not necessarily mean that the representations portray a fair and diverse LGBTQ+ community.

In fact, while reading the report on LGBTQ+ representation on television we notice that representation is not equally divided within the LGBTQ+ community. For example, transgender people have very little representation; in broadcast networks, they only represent 4% of the LGBTQ+ representation. Gays and lesbians are the most represented in the different medias, in particular, white gay men (Moylan, 2015). There are several reasons why the “white gay” is the most commonly portrayed LGBTQ+ personality, but the main reason that sticks out is because they are the “okay to be gay” gay. They are the character that is often popped in to add some “spice” to the cast list (TVTropes, n.d.). This means there is still change to be made in modern representation to include other queer characters, and queer characters of different backgrounds and interests. In streaming content, lesbians count for 43% of the LGBTQ+ representation and in primetime programming cable, gays represent 46% of the LGBTQ+ representation. Representation might increase overall but it remains very uneven. Equal representation within the LGBTQ+ community is important because society needs to realise that the LGBTQ+ community doesn’t only consist of gays and lesbians; it is much broader and diverse than that. In recent news, one of the influences regarding LGBTQ+ representation in the media is politics. Since the United States produces a large percentage of the entertainment that is seen by the rest of the world, on TV and other streaming services, it should be noted that as of 2018, there have been long strides taken in the open sexualities of congress and other political members (Reese, 2012) which will influence what is included in media. However, it leaves to wonder if the visible representation of queer minorities will ever be equal.

As we mentioned before we see that LGBTQ+ characters in the media have become more common (Shakeri, 2017). Yet, since given a lot of public attention in 2015, the phenomenon “Bury your gays” have been part of the LGBTQ+ representation in the media. The phenomenon entails killing off queer characters in television series, especially lesbian and bisexual women, particularly known as “Dead lesbian syndrome”. The public outcry is not that a gay character is being killed off: the problem is the tendency that gay characters are killed off in a story full of mostly straight characters, or when the characters are killed off because they are gay (TV Tropes, n.d.). A relevant example of this is in 2016, the TV show, The 100, a popular lesbian character was killed off immediately by a stray bullet after an intimate scene with her girlfriend. This created such an outrage that Jason Rothenberg, the creator and executive producer, had to release a public apology (Rothenberg, 2016). The justification that he gave for doing this was that “no one is safe, and anyone, even a beloved character, can die at any time.” (Rothenberg, 2016). When Rothenberg finally realized the capacity of this death, he came out and apologized more sincerely, explaining his understanding of the significance of this death, and expressed his regret in hurting so many of his fans that saw themselves in these characters (Piester, 2016). The consequence of “bury your gays” or “dead lesbian syndrome” is that those individuals who are struggling with their identities may find happiness, but it is short-lived and perhaps requires a bulletproof vest (Waggoner, 2017). Additionally, the lack of awareness of how producers and writers are killing off their queer characters is concerning (Hulan, 2017). A lesbian contributor to the website Autostraddle made a list of every regular or recurring lesbian or bisexual female character killed on television. Almost every lesbian or bisexual female character is murdered (Riece, 2016). It seems that no lesbian or bisexual female can die happily. This is why the public has having a hard time accepting deaths of these kind of characters. Plus, it is any creator’s responsibility to understand the context into which their work will fit once it has been released .

There will always be characters dying in TV series whether they are queer or heterosexual. However, it is about the way these characters are removed from the screen. Can we kill off the LGBTQ+ characters with dignity and grace?

While inclusive attitudes of marginalized groups has started to gain traction, e.g. the record high numbers of LGBTQ+ characters on primetime scripted TV, there is still work to be done. Many people within the LGBTQ+ community feel that they are not being heard enough, evident by the inaccurate or brief representation of their characters but also to the lack of certain characters, mainly anything else then lesbian and gay. There is a level of inequality within the community, between different LGBTQ+ members. The feeling is that characters are not shown with accurate representation, this leads to the feeling that they are not being taken seriously. Their characters are a joke, or were thought of in hindsight, therefore making it okay to kill them off or leave them out of the storyline. This problem is one that the media industry should take more seriously than they currently do. The question that should be asked is: Will the future bring more accurate representation from the media?