Movie Industry Lags Behind TV in LGBT Roles

GLAAD Faults Hollywood Studios

Media watchdog group GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) criticizes Hollywood in its first substantial study of releases from the major film studios. Called “2013 Studio Responsibility Index,” the study found that of 101 films from the six major studios in 2012, only fourteen included characters who were identified as LGB, and none were transgender.
GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz found that as opposed to movies, television has become increasingly inclusive , including a record high percentage of LGBT characters in the 2012-2013 broadcast season. Says Cruz, “as a major influence in American culture and one of our nation’s largest media exports abroad, the lack of LGBT characters in big-budget films needs to change. Until LGBT characters are depicted in these films in a substantial way with more regularity, there will remain the appearance of LGBT bias on the studio’s part. Whether it’s an action hero or a supporting character, moviegoers should be able to see LGBT people as integral players in the stories told by leading Hollywood studios.” Although this year’s hit, Skyfall, had a bisexual main character, Javier Bardem, he was portrayed as devious and villainous.

Cruz’s organization plans to meet with the major studios about the absence of LGBT characters. Just two decades ago, there were more films, 48 with significant LGBT characters, that grossed over $1 million dollars at the box office.

Conclusions of the Study

The study also found that:
• 56% of those inclusive films featured gay male characters, 33% featured lesbian characters, and 11% contained bisexual characters.
• Of the 31 different characters counted: 26 were white, four were Black/African-American, and one was Latino. There were no Asian-Pacific Islander or recognizably multi-racial characters counted.
• There were more LGBT characters in 2012 releases in comedies. 34 genre films (action, sci-fi, fantasy) made up the majority of the 2012 releases, though only three of those included any LGBT characters. Only one of 21 dramas and one of four documentaries were inclusive.

Report Card for the Studios

The criteria to measure the quality of the LGBT roles was whether a character was identifiably LGBT: whether it was not solely or predominantly defined by its sexual orientation or gender identity, and whether it was tied into the plot in such a way that its removal would have significant effect.
Cruz uses the animated family film “ParaNorman” as a good example of an LGBT-inclusive film in 2012.

The six studios were rated by the SRI and their grades are as follows:
• 20th Century Fox and Disney received failing grades.
• Paramount, Sony, Universal and Warner Bros. got “adequate” grades.

Other Tests to Pass

Before the SRI Index, there was the Bechdel Test to ascertain if a movie properly represented female characters. A Bechdel-inspired set of criteria developed into the Russo Test, named for GLAAD co-founder and film historian Vito Russo. Less than half of the films of 2012 passed the Russo Test.

Criteria for Vito Russo Test
• The film contains a character that is identifiably lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender.
• That character must not be solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity (i.e. the character is made up of the same sort of unique character traits commonly used to differentiate straight characters).
• The LGBT character must be tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect.
• Only 6 of the 14 studio films featuring LGB characters actually passed the Vito Russo Test, including Cloud Atlas, Pitch Perfect, Rock of Ages and The Five Year Engagement.

Mainstream Hollywood Needs To Come Out A Little

This year marks the first year GLAAD, an organization that works with media (social, cultural, and entertainment) on the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and issues, has released a report that measures the representation of lgbt people in the mainstream film industry.

GLAAD reports that it has followed and advocated for lgbt character and issue inclusion in television for almost twenty years, and that this year, because of how quickly television shows have become inclusive, the organization has shifted its focus to the behind-the-times film industry. It started the research because “major film studios appear reluctant to include LGBT characters in significant roles or franchises,” and from its research, that certainly seems to be the case.

The “Studio Responsibility Index” looked at the six largest film studios in Hollywood: 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, Sony Columbia, Universal Pictures, Warner Brothers, and The Walt Disney Studios. Only films released during the 2012 calendar year were chosen, amounting to 101 films (and Dalmatians). What was searched for in each film was an lgbt character, they were classified into minor or major characters, and then counted under demographic information, including race/ethnicity and sexual orientation/gender identity.

What the report found is that less than 14% of the films had a character which identified as lgbt. The majority of these (56%) were gay males, followed by lesbians (33%), although male representation almost doubled females. Almost 84% of all queer characters were white, and none were Asian, Pacific Islanders, or multi-racial. The films which were the most inclusive? Comedies, while no family-oriented movies contained a hint of queerness in them.

Of the six studios studied, none got a passing grade. Two—20th Century Fox and The Walt Disney Studios—are considered failing, with one lgbt character between the two studio powerhouses.

The report also establishes its own barometer test for the stereotyping and flatness involved in creating queer characters. The “Vito Russo Test” takes its name from GLAAD co-founder and celebrated film historian, has three points a film has to pass in order to be considered having a queer character that matters. The test takes direction from the famous “Bechdel Test” for women, and reads:

1.     The film contains a character that is identifiably lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender.

 2.     That character must not be solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity. I.E. they are made up of the same sort of unique character traits commonly used to differentiate straight characters from one another.

 3.     The LGBT character must be tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect. Meaning they are not there to simply provide colorful commentary, paint urban authenticity, or (perhaps most commonly) set up a punchline. The character should matter.

Of the 14 films identified with lgbt characters, less than half of them pass this test, showing that the “LGBT community may be increasingly well represented on television, but clearly there is a lot of work remaining in Hollywood film.”

Recommendations made by GLAAD for the film industry touch on the importance of queer characters and their positive portrayal, especially in greater frequency and in more important roles, though at the very least in “normalizing” roles of everyday encounters. The report also underscored the importance of diversity which the entire entertainment industry has been struggling with for years. Issues of race, gender, socio-economic background, religion, and age are just as important as lgbt issues and are routinely glazed over. Lastly and perhaps most expectedly, there needs to be far more improvements when it comes to transgender inclusion in film. GLAAD points out that “transgender representations remain at least 20 years behind the curve [in both film and television].” They go on to say that since there has been more publicity about trans issues nationwide, the portrayal of trans issues should keep pace, rather than contribute to the marginalization of the trans community, something that has been becoming far too commonplace.