Anna Ehredt
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Warren Wilson College
May 2012
1

I. Abstract
Heterosexual imagery has been pervasively present in the history of
American cinema, while homosexuality has rarely been acknowledged. Filmmakers shied away from obvious homosexual characters and homosexual embraces or kisses were never depicted in early American cinema. Since the onset of the sexual revolution in the 60s, major film studios have included a larger variety of sexual orientations in their films. Because Hollywood film is so prevalent in American culture (as well as world culture), it is important to study how queer individuals are represented to American society within the content of films. This study uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to study the representations of queer individuals and same-sex relationships in 15 of the top-grossing “gay/lesbian” films from the 1990s up to the present. Compiled from previous literature and research on the topic, a collection of some of the most common stereotypes of queer individuals and same-sex relationships was assembled and developed into a coding system. The amount and type of affection displayed between queer characters was also examined. Using manifest and latent content analysis (the coding system and extensive note-taking) and the theories of heteronormativity and compulsory heterosexuality as a framework, this study illuminates the common stereotypes and reveals whether these stereotypes have been changing and/or staying the same. The question as to whether or not the theories of heteronormativity and compulsory heterosexuality still exist in contemporary films specifically listed under the gay/lesbian genre could not be answered but only examined further. The quantitative analysis debunked the theories, suggesting that the theories do not still exist in the films; while the qualitative analysis reinforced them, suggesting that they are still prevalent.
2

Anna Ehredt
I. Abstract
II. Introduction
Table of Contents
2
4
III. Statement of the Problem and Purpose of the Study 6
IV. Literature Review
1. Media’s Affect on the Viewer 8
2. Compulsory Heterosexuality and Heteronormativity 11
V. Research Questions
VI. Methods
8
17
17
VII. Sampling
VIII. Instrumentation
1. Coding Categories for Relationships with Primary Characters
2. Coding Categories for Queer Individuals
3. Stereotypes from Previous Literature
19
22
22
23
24
IX. Data Analysis
1. Quantitative Analysis
2. Qualitative Analysis a. Homophobia & Discrimination i. Trend #1: A Positive Ending? ii. Trend #2: Negating Sexualities iii. Trend #3: Subscribing to Heteronormativity iv. Trend #4: Derogatory Language b. Stereotypes c. Miscellaneous i. Trend #1:Difference Between Homosexual & Heterosexual
Intimate Relationships ii. Trend #2: Reference to Significant Other iii. Trend #3: A Positive View of LGBTQ
X. Limitations and Delimitations
XI. Significance of the Study
XII. Conclusion
XIII. References
XIV. Appendices:
1. Appendix A: Films Selected for Analysis
2. Appendix B: Axial and Open Coding Categories
3. Appendix C: Quantitative Data Analysis
3. Appendix D: Definitions for Coding System
34
35
36
39
25
26
29
31
31
33
39
40
40
40
41
42
43
46
47
52
64
3

Anna Ehredt
I. Introduction
"In a hundred years of movies, homosexuality has only rarely been depicted on the screen. When it did appear, it was there as something to laugh at—or something to pity—or even something to fear. These were fleeting images, but they were unforgettable, and they left a lasting legacy. Hollywood, that great maker of myths, taught straight people what to think about gay people … and gay people what to think about themselves."
-Vito Russo, The Celluloid Closet
Print has been with us for 500 years, photography for 150, movies for about
100, radio for almost 80, and television for half a century (Gross, 2001:6). These technologies represent one of the most distinct ways in which humans are distinguished from all other animals through the process of storytelling via words, pictures, music, and dance. Today, storytelling is more prevalent than ever with the accelerating advancements in technology, especially in film. In the late 1990s about
420 movies appeared on the screens of more than 25,000 theaters, and Americans bought about 1.3 billion movie tickets per year (nearly half of these bought by 12-
29-year-olds, who represented about 30 percent of the population) (Gross, 2001:6).
There have been many studies done on the relationship between films and the effects they have on the viewers. Literature has also examined queer characters within Hollywood films and queer individuals working behind-the-scenes within the film industry (Gross, 2009; Russo, 1987; Ehrenstein, 1998; Barrios, 2003). However, thus far, there has been a lack of research done on the content of contemporary mainstream films in which (1) the main characters are queer, and/or (2) intimate same-sex relationships exist. Therefore, this study attempts to fill this gap.
4

Anna Ehredt
Based on cultivation theory 1 , exposure to media representation of queers may help cultivate viewers’ own attitudes about queers (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan,
Signorielli, & Shanahan, 2002). According to the Pew Research Center (2003), media portrayals may be a primary source of information for 40% of American adults who claim to not personally know a gay person. If negative stereotypes dominate in the media, then consumption and regular exposure could make people less accepting, leading them to accept those unfavorable portrayals (Gross, 1991). However, positive representations could, in contrast, lead to more accepting attitudes.
Because of the link between media and attitudes about homosexuality, it is important to study the portrayals of queers and same-sex relationships in one of the largest media outlets – the film industry. A thorough content analysis of the representations of queer individuals and same-sex relationships in contemporary mainstream film will help identify and analyze the stereotypes that viewers might be exposed to and unconsciously internalizing.
For the purpose of this study, it must be noted that film and its audience simultaneously influence each other. While the audience has determined film’s course throughout the past century, at the same time movies have led the audience to internalize certain beliefs about race, class, gender and sexuality. Richard Barrios describes how movies were the first modern style setters, showing viewers how to behave, speak, relate to others, love and hate, and even how to know oneself. “Film,
1 A theory that posits that viewers exposed over a prolonged period of time to portrayals of reality as defined by the media may come to develop perceptions that are consistent with these portrayals.
5

Anna Ehredt in exchange, cannot invent what doesn’t already exist . . . It learns from its audiences and imparts to them” (Barrios, 2003:2).
Most of these images that are “setting styles”, however, also reflect the experiences and interest of the majority groups in our society, particularly those who constitute the large audiences producers wish to sell to advertisers. According to a group of researchers, major television channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX) tend to represent more normative characteristics such as heterosexuality in their primetime shows (Gross, 2001:11). Characteristics opposing normative characteristics
(i.e. non-heterosexuality) are considered to be deviants and thus considered minorities, sharing a common media fate of relative invisibility and demeaning stereotypes. By their very existence, sexual minorities constitute a presumed threat to the “natural” sexual order of things and tend to be seen as controversial by the mass media. Thus, queer depictions in the media are invariably limited due to being defined as “controversial”. Therefore, further analysis is needed to determine whether or not these portrayals are changing in contemporary mainstream film.
II. Statement of the Problem & Purpose of the Study
Various books such as The Celluloid Closet (1987), Open Secret (1998), and
Screened Out (2003) have examined homosexuality in movies, however little research has analyzed the content of contemporary Hollywood films specifically listed under the “gay/lesbian” genre. To fill this gap, this study uses content analysis to examine 15 of the top-grossing “gay/lesbian” films from the past 20 years (1990present). It is important to note that although these films are in the “gay/lesbian”
6

Anna Ehredt genre, they also depict other non-procreative sexual orientations (such as bisexuality) in addition to homosexuality.
This study looks closely at some of the most prominent stereotypes of queer individuals in modern Hollywood films as described by previous research (such as the “sissy” stereotype of gay men or the “tough woman” stereotype of lesbians). Not only are the stereotypes of queer individuals examined, but study this also analyzes the stereotypes and portrayals of same-sex relationships 3 . In the majority of
Hollywood films that primarily deal with non-heterosexual themes or where the main characters are queer, the same-sex relationships tend to have a stereotypical ending where one or both of the homosexual characters die, they break-up, or one of the characters realizes their “true” nature as a heterosexual (Moddelmog,
2009:164). Rarely do the films end in the classic Hollywood “happily ever after” for the same-sex couple except for perhaps in independent and art-house 4 films. This research analyzes these stereotypes and relates the findings to previous literature to determine if and to what extent they still exist.
3 When the word “relationship” is used in this paper, it is referring to a n i ntimate relationship, which is defined as a particularly close interpersonal relationship that involves physical or emotional intimacy. Physical intimacy is characterized by romantic or passionate love and attachment, or sexual activity. The term is also sometimes used euphemistically for a sexual relationship.
4 An art-house film is the result of filmmaking which is typically a serious, independent film aimed at a niche market rather than a mass-market audience. Film critics and film studies scholars typically define an "art film" using a "...canon of films and those formal qualities that mark them as different from mainstream Hollywood films", which includes, among other elements: a social realism style; an emphasis on the authorial expressivity of the director; and a focus on the thoughts and dreams of characters, rather than presenting a clear, goal-driven story.
7

Anna Ehredt
III. Literature Review
1. Media’s Effect on the Viewer
Studies, such as those done by Black & Bevan (1992), Omotayo Banjo (2002),
Johnson & Holmes (2009) and Calzo & Ward (2009) have addressed various media effects on viewers’ behavior. One study conducted by Black & Bevan (1992) reports that movies with violent content influence people to become more aggressive. In another study focusing on the relationship between watching romantic movie scenes and individuals’ ideas about love, Moline argues that if violent movies can bring out more feelings of aggression, then why wouldn’t romance movies bring out stronger feelings of love (Moline, 2009)? Studies related to this question done by
Banjo (2002) and Holmes (2007) attempted to find possible correlations between media consumption and unrealistic expectations and perceptions about romantic relationships. Results from Banjo’s study suggest that, contrary to cultivation theory, the amount of media consumption isn’t as good a predictor as the genre (i.e. action, romantic comedy, horror) of media. Holmes’ study found an association between belief in predestined soul mates and preference for romance media
(Holmes, 2007). Several researchers (Bachen & Illouz, 1996; Haferkamp, 1999;
Holmes, 2007; Rubin, 1985; Segrin & Nabi, 2002; Shapiro & Kroeger, 1991;
Signorielli, 1991) have argued that popular media may serve as an important source of information on the nature of romantic relationships, particularly for teens and young adults who tend to embrace cultural models of romance and sexuality
(Bachen & Illouz, 1996). Although studies show that media sources play a
8

Anna Ehredt prominent role as sex educators (for review, see Ward, 2003), few have assessed media contributions to viewers’ attitudes towards same-sex relationships.
One of the few studies that centers on attitudes towards non-heterosexuality was carried out by Calzo & Ward (2009). They explored connections between media use and college students’ acceptance towards homosexuality. Their results varied by the gender, ethnicity, and religiosity of the participants. Overall, analyses of gender and ethnic group differences in students’ attitudes were largely consistent with previous research, finding that women were more accepting of homosexuality in the media than men, and that Black participants were least accepting. Individuals who self-identified as highly religious exhibited more negative attitudes towards homosexuality than those who were less religious. Although the associations were modest, their results support evidence of a mainstreaming effect, whereby increased media exposure may draw groups with disparate attitudes towards a more similar viewpoint on homosexuality (2009:280). Johnson & Holmes, Banjo, and Calzo & Ward illustrate how media, specifically films, can have a definite effect on the viewer. Taking this into consideration, this study uses content analysis to identify what types of portrayals of queer characters and same-sex relationships viewers are being exposed to in contemporary mainstream films.
Content analyses have played important roles in analyzing the impact of the content of films on the viewers. However, these content analysis studies are limited in number. Holmes’ states that, “Although many would anecdotally agree that romantic themes prevail in much popular media content, thorough systematic content analyses on the topic are much needed” (2007:11). Thus two years later
9

Anna Ehredt
Johnson & Holmes conducted a content analysis on 40 romantic comedy films. The motivating idea behind their research is that if adolescents are indeed looking to the media’s exaggerated and unrealistic portrayals to gain insight into what to expect in their own relationships, research must determine what specifically they are being exposed to (Johnson & Holmes, 2009). Just as they wanted to understand what specific content adolescents are being exposed to, this study aims to better understand what viewers are being exposed to in regards to representations of queer individuals and same-sex relationships.
While heterosexual imagery was pervasively present in early American cinema, homosexuality was rarely acknowledged (Benshoff & Griffin, 2009).
Filmmakers shied away from obvious homosexual characters and homosexual embraces or kisses were never depicted (Benshoff & Griffin, 2009:312), partly due to the Production Code 6 . Because of the equality movements of the 1960s, the
Production Code was amended in 1961 to allow for the depiction and discussion of homosexuality, as long as it was done with “care, discretion, and restraint” (Benshoff
& Griffin, 2009:323). Even though the amendment seemingly created more freedom in Hollywood, it still emphasized set rules that may have perpetuated discrimination. Gross describes the dichotomy between the increasing freedom to express sexuality in films (after the amendment) and the ever-present discrimination of sexuality in the film industry today. He explains that since the demise of the Production Code, gay and lesbian people have gradually moved into
6 A self-censoring set of rules and regulations that Hollywood adopted in 1930 and imposed upon itself that upheld the idea that heterosexual monogamy was the only proper sexual behavior.
10

Anna Ehredt the media in growing numbers. However, even though lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people have entered the ranks of our culture’s permanent cast of characters, they rarely exist in leading roles and are almost never permitted to express physical expressions (Gross, 2009:xv-xvi).
The presence of homosexuals in film that Gross speaks of and how viewers interpret these representations can be associated with social cognitive theory, which posits that portions of an individual's knowledge acquisition can be directly related to observing others within the context of social interactions, experiences, and outside media influences. With this theory in mind, I believe it is necessary to study what content individuals are observing and internalizing in contemporary mainstream films regarding queer individuals and same-sex relationships to ultimately provide a clearer sense of the discriminations that still exist.
While research on media effects is generally carried out within the framework of one of two major theories, that of either cultivation theory or social cognitive theory, this study uses the framework of Adrienne Rich’s notion of compulsory heterosexuality and Michael Warner’s term of “heternormativity”.
These two theories are applied to this study because they both focus on the socially constructed nature of sexuality (as well as the hegemonic patriarchy that constructs it) and the affects it has on society.
2. Compulsory Heterosexuality & Heteronormativity
The concept of compulsory heterosexuality was initially developed by lesbian feminists and gay liberationists in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Compulsory heterosexuality proved to be a major conceptual innovation because it
11

Anna Ehredt led to the development of a structural sociology of sexuality. The center of analysis shifted from the individual homosexual and from individual acts of discrimination to the institutional enforcement of normative heterosexuality and its consequences for non-heterosexuals. In her essay entitled Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian
Experience, Adrienne Rich underlines heterosexuality’s construction as the only viable option for relationships. She discusses how female-male couplings have been enforced throughout Western history. Focusing on women's suffering of sexual violence and lesbian sexualities' historical denial, erasure and punishment, Rich emphasizes the often-aggressive material ways in which heterosexuality is imposed.
Nevertheless, significantly implicated in this process is the consciousness controlling of "cultural propaganda of heterosexuality" (Rich, 1980: 660). She argues that fairy stories, popular music and wedding iconography - cultural forms clearly resonating within the love-stories in the movies - through their enforcement of particular relationships between men and women, contribute to women's acceptance of sexual abuse and slavery (644-645). The romantic discourse by which women are "inevitably" drawn towards men receives particular criticism, for asserting that "primary love between the sexes is 'normal'; and that women need men as social and economic protectors, for adult sexuality, and for psychological completion" (657). This creates relatively homogenous perspectives on romantic relationships.
A post-modern critique of Rich's description of compulsory heterosexuality questions its assumption that it is possible for any sexual identity to exist “naturally”
(i.e. biologically). Another critique is that Rich places too much emphasis on woman-
12

Anna Ehredt identification as the basis for lesbian activity and almost ignores sexuality. In her essay, sexuality is seen as masculine and not a part of woman-identification, thus perpetuating the idea that women are not naturally sexual.
Despite the critiques, what is most important to take from Rich’s notion of compulsory (or obligatory) heterosexuality for this study is the over-arching idea that heterosexuality is the “natural” and “right” way. Rich’s idea that what is considered right, wrong, good or bad, is subjective holds importance for this study.
Rich discusses the problems of creating a discussion around homosexuality that only seeks to tolerate homosexuality and maintain its position in the margins. When thinking about the representations of homosexuals in films, we must consider who and what institutions these representations are coming from and to what extent intimate relationships in films serve as one of the main institutions to perpetuate and enhance the ideology of heterosexuality. Benshoff & Griffin touch on compulsory heterosexuality when discussing the Hollywood narrative form, which has changed very little over the last few decades. This formula consists of a straight male protagonist defeating the villain and “getting the girl”. Occasionally, the heterosexual romance is between people of different races or ethnicities, but heterosexual monogamy is almost always the implied endpoint of those cinematic relationships (2009:331). This classic narrative formula is also an example of the profusion of heteronormativity in mainstream films.
Rooted in Adrienne Rich's notion of compulsory heterosexuality, the term
“heteronormativity” was coined in 1991 by Michael Warner in one of the first major works of queer theory. Heteronormativity is described as the structures and
13

Anna Ehredt ideologies that privilege heterosexuality as natural or given within Western societies (Benshoff & Griffin, 2009; 412). It is similar to heterosexism, which is the assumption that heterosexuality is the best or only sexual orientation.
Heteronormativity describes any set of lifestyle norms that hold that people fall into distinct and complementary genders (man and woman) with natural roles in life. It also holds that heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation, and states that sexual and marital relations are most (or only) fitting between a man and a woman.
Consequently, a "heteronormative" view is one that involves alignment of biological sex, sexuality, gender identity, and gender roles (Lovaas & Jenkins, 2006). As Stevi
Jackson observes, heterosexuality represents "the accepted singular norm against which sexual pluralism must be defended" (1996: 29). Like whiteness, heterosexuality "seems not to be there as a subject at all", securing its cultural dominance "by seeming not to be anything in particular" (Dyer, 2002: 126).
Benshoff & Griffin (2009) explain how “Hollywood gains strength and power by making its form and practice seem to be basic common sense. For example, like whiteness or masculinity, heterosexuality has often been hard to “see” because it has been naturalized by patriarchal ideologies as being the “normal” state of affairs.
This tends to hide the fact that Hollywood form and practice developed over time in response to specific socio-political factors…” (21-22) and that Hollywood is influenced by dominant cultural patterns and values.
These socio-political factors are highlighted in Vito Russo’s book entitled The
Celluloid Closet about homosexuality in the movies. It consists of the history of homosexuality in American film from its inception to the late 1980s. The book was
14

Anna Ehredt published in the 80s and therefore does not include films past that decade. Russo demonstrates Hollywood’s consistent refusal to portray lesbians and gay men
(when it portrayed them at all) as anything but one-dimensional characters.
However, not all recent findings suggest that media portrayals of homosexuality are universally negative. Calzo & Ward give the example of a qualitative analysis of the lesbian teenager, Bianca, on the daytime soap opera All My Children: “Harrington
(2003) argues that the presentation of a stable lesbian character who accepts her sexual identity, has successful romantic relationships, and continues to develop other aspects of her identity (not just sexually) may improve viewers’ attitudes toward homosexuality” (Calzo & Ward, 2009:282). As inspiring as this example is, it is only one positive representation out of the countless negative representations of queers in media. Also, it is important to note that this positive representation is from the television, which is arguably a more queer-friendly realm than is Hollywood narrative filmmaking (Benshoff & Griffin, 2009:351). However, because of the inconsistent findings of previous studies and possible increasing diversity, it is important to do further research.
In the majority of mainstream films, not only is heterosexuality considered better than other sexual orientations, it is presented as the only sexual orientation.
Such an assumption – that heterosexuality is the only (or only normal) sexual orientation – is a powerful aspect of Hollywood’s heterosexism. Benshoff & Griffin claim that even as Hollywood films have more recently begun to acknowledge that the American population encompasses a variety of sexual identities, heterosexuality remains “the privileged position, the center around which all others revolve, the
15

Anna Ehredt norm against which all others are compared” (2009:310). They give the example that while heterosexual behavior is considered ordinary and unexceptional in mainstream cinema, the few non-straight people that do appear in Hollywood films tend to be conspicuously different. While their profession, their income bracket, or a variety of aspects other than their sexuality defines straight people, non-straight characters are usually primarily defined by their sexuality. And in relation to the stereotypes being studied, often this trend presents non-heterosexual figures as odd and eccentric, or even scary, threatening, and evil (Benshoff & Griffin, 2009:310).
Kirkland takes a look at the construction of heterosexuality as the “normal” or “natural” sexual orientation in romantic comedies from the 1990s and early
2000s (2011). Pulling from his work, the genre of films reviewed is tweaked for this study (looking at the “gay/lesbian” genre instead of just the “romantic comedy” genre) as well as the issue being studied (homosexuality instead of heterosexuality).
However, his work is extremely important in illuminating the pervasive notion of heteronormativity in films.
Ultimately, Benshoff & Griffin point out that the important issue to recognize about heteronormativity in film is that Hollywood films always construct images of heterosexuality, just as they also (if more rarely) construct images of homosexuality
(2009). Thus, American film works ideologically to shape the way that both individuals and the nation as a whole make sense of sexuality in general. Hollywood film is so prevalent in American culture (and world culture) and because of this it is important to study how queers are represented to American society within the content of these films.
16

Anna Ehredt
IV. Research Questions
Using both qualitative (latent) and quantitative (manifest) analyses, the following research questions will be addressed:
1.
What common stereotypes of queer individuals and same-sex relationships are still prevalent in the top-grossing contemporary “gay/lesbian” Hollywood films?
2.
How do these stereotypes differ between the three decades (1990s, 2000s, and 2010s)?
3.
Is there a difference in the amount and type of affection displayed between queer characters in their heterosexual relationship (if they have one) and their same-sex relationship as well as between the decades?
V. Methods
Using latent and manifest coding, this study explores the top 15 highest-grossing
Hollywood films from 1990 up to the present categorized under the “gay/lesbian” genre. This genre includes films that primarily deal with non-heterosexual themes or where the main characters are queer. Even though much of the research and literature has been using the term “homosexual,” this study includes other nonheterosexual orientations. This is due to the fact that the homosexual-heterosexual binary oversimplifies and denies the variety of sexual desires and identities that human beings experience (i.e. bisexuality, asexuality, etc.) Therefore, this study uses the term “queer” as it is more inclusive.
17

Anna Ehredt
According to Benshoff & Griffin, the term “queer” refers collectively to all of the various non-procreative sexual identities. It is meant to describe sexualities that encompass but also exist outside of the simple straight-gay binary that most
Western popular culture, including Hollywood film, usually configures. In so doing,
Hollywood film ignores the sexualities of the millions of people who are in multifarious ways “not straight,” that is, queer, and continues to contribute to the marginalization of and prejudice against those people within culture-at-large
(Benshoff & Griffin, 2009:308). Again, this study examines both the stereotypes associated with same-sex relationships as well as stereotypes of queer individuals.
Within the selected Hollywood films, it is important to recognize that they do not necessarily portray explicit same-sex relationships; however underlying themes and references towards same-sex relationships do exist. For example, in the film Milk, a kiss between two males is not explicit (you don’t actually see it) but instead it is implicit (you hear a kissing sound).
“Hollywood film” is a term used throughout this study that is important to define. Benshoff & Griffin define Hollywood film as “movies made and released by a handful of filmmaking companies located in and around Hollywood, California”
(2009:21). A defining characteristic of Hollywood film is that it plays to a general audience. Because these companies have produced and distributed tens of thousands of films, they often make it seem (especially in other countries) that
Hollywood film is American film. Because of this, the films produced by Hollywood are frequently perceived as representations of American cultures.
18

Anna Ehredt
For the purpose of this study, stereotypes will be defined as “oversimplified images of a person or group” (Benshoff & Griffin, 2009:428). Benshoff & Griffin explain, “When such oversimplified and overgeneralized assumptions (i.e. gay men lisp) – in speech, in movies, on TV – they become stereotypes” (2009:7). Stereotypes are often said to have a “kernel of truth” (some gay men lisp) but it becomes a problem when people make unsupported leaps in logic and assume that everyone of a certain group is “naturally inclined” to exhibit these traits. This reduces complex human diversity to simple-minded and judgmental assumptions (Benshoff & Griffin,
2009:7).
Stereotypes become more problematic when they are used to favor certain groups over others. Benshoff & Griffin explain that within sexual orientation heterosexuality is more accepted and privileged than other orientations. Russo explains “False beliefs and unjustified prejudiced 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”
(1987:19). So is true for other non-procreative sexual identities.
VI. Sampling
The sampling frame 7 was derived from an online list 8 of the top-grossing films under the “gay/lesbian” genre including only those films from the 1990s up to the present. This online list includes “movies that primarily deal with homosexual themes or where the main characters are gay or lesbian.” However, after reviewing
7 See Appendix A for a list of the films selected for analysis.
8 Top-grossing gay/lesbian films found at: http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?view=main&id=gay.htm&p=.htm
19

Anna Ehredt the films selected for analysis not all of them deal primarily with just homosexuality, thus the terms “queer individuals” and “same-sex relationships” are used. Because of time constraint, only 15 films are included in the study.
The sampling technique used is a non-probability technique and more specifically purposive sampling. The sample should fulfill three criteria: (1) availability of films, (2) recent films, and (3) top-grossing films.
To provide more details on the criteria, each one will be discussed a bit further. (1) The films needed to be available via Netflix or DVD. The availability of the films did not affect which films were included because after following the other three criteria, all of the top-grossing films from the past 20 years were available. (2)
Films must have been released within the past 20 years, so from 1990-present.
Because of the vast historical literature (Gross, 2009; Russo, 1987; Ehrenstein, 1998;
Barrios, 2003) leading up to the study, focusing on contemporary representations will further the research by continuing into the present day. To ensure the representations of these films even further, the 15 films were divided up by decades.
I chose six films from 1990-1999, six films from 2000-2009, and three films from
2010-present. The reason fewer films from 2010-present were chosen was to account for the difference in the amount of years included in each decade selection
(there are only two years included in 2010-present as opposed to 10 years in the other two decades). (3) For the purpose of this study, art-house films are not included because of the limited exposure to a widespread audience and only those films that are most available and most widely received will be reviewed. The majority of the top-grossing films selected for analysis come from the ‘Big 6’
20

Anna Ehredt
Hollywood Studios 12 (most of the top-grossing films in general are produced at the
‘Big 6’) but the selection also includes some independent films 13 that are in the list of the top-grossing “gay/lesbian” films. The choice of which type of film (i.e. mainstream, independent, art-house) and which film studios to include was made with widespread exposure to the largest audiences in mind.
Borrowing part of the coding system from Johnson & Holmes 2009 study in which they established interrater reliability ensures validity and reliability 14 . Their study entitled Contradictory Messages: A Content Analysis of Hollywood-Produced
Romantic Comedy Feature Films aimed to “identify what messages on romantic relationships adolescents are being exposed to by systematically documenting all relationship-oriented themes that feature in the popular genre of romantic comedy films, with a secondary aim to establish interrater reliability on the themes found”
(Johnson & Holmes, 2009:355). Although not all of the films selected for this study are in the “romantic comedy” genre (in addition to the “gay/lesbian” genre), they will all include same-sex intimate relationships whether or not they are implicitly or explicitly shown. Therefore, Johnson & Holmes’ coding system was modified to fit this study.
12 Hollywood’s ‘Big 6’ Studios include: Warner Bros., Paramount, 20 th Century Fox, Disney,
Sony, and Universal.
13 An independent film is a professional film production resulting in a feature film that is produced mostly or completely outside of the major film studio system. In addition to being produced and distributed by independent entertainment companies, independent films are also produced and/or distributed by subsidiaries of major film studios.
14
Interrater reliability is the extent to which two or more coders that evaluate data reach the same conclusions.
21

Anna Ehredt
VII. Instrumentation
Johnson & Holmes coding system included 16 axial categories: affection, commitment, demonstrating and caring, gestures, importance of partner, etc. For this study, “affection” is the only axial category used.
It is important to study affection because as Gross writes, “Even though lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people have entered the ranks of our culture’s permanent cast of characters, they…are almost never permitted to express physical expressions” (2009:xv-xvi). These codes illuminate how much affection is displayed in the films selected for analysis, ultimately reflecting if there is truth to the stereotypical portrayal of same-sex relationships that Benshoff & Griffin highlight:
Filmmakers shied away from obvious homosexual characters, and almost never depicted homosexual embraces or kisses (311).
Under “Affection” exists thirteen open categories: physical intimacy, arms linking, carrying, dancing, flirting, gazing, holding hands, hugging, cuddling, kissing, sharing an intimate private moment, and sexual activity.
1. Coding Categories for Relationships of Primary Characters
After setting up the axial and open coding categories each of the 15 films was viewed. Affection shown between both same-sex and opposite-sex partners of the primary queer characters were coded for by marking the length of time each open category occurred. The letters SS (Same-Sex) and OS (Opposite-Sex) were in
22

Anna Ehredt parenthesis next to each open category to distinguish between the two different types of relationships.
2. Coding Categories for Queer Individuals
Hollywood films often tend to have a trend of presenting non-heterosexual figures as odd and eccentric, or even scary, threatening, and evil. Stereotypes such as these were divided into six axial groups 16 : passion stereotypes, relationship stereotypes, stereotypical endings, sex stereotypes, lifestyle stereotypes, and personality & appearance stereotypes. Each stereotype within the six groups was either marked as true, false, or n/a (not applicable). For example, under lifestyle stereotypes, “promiscuous” was marked true for the film Philadelphia because the main queer character mentioned hooking up with another man while he was still in a serious relationship. All of the stereotypes were collected from previous literature on the subject.
3. Stereotypes From Previous Literature
In an article reviewing homophobia since 1987, Ahmad & Bhugra (2010) list nine assumptions (stereotypes) commonly equated to homosexuals. The article reviews how significant shifts in society have caused ever changing attitudes to gender, sex, sexuality and identity – notably by the Internet, changes in HIV treatment, media representation of homosexuality and feminism and the role of women in society. These assumptions include (but are not limited to):
1. Homosexuals are all knowledgeable and open about sex
16 See Appendix B for coding system.
23

Anna Ehredt
2. Homosexuals (males particularly) are sexually very active and enjoy sex of all types more readily than heterosexual counterparts
3. Homosexuals have more disposable income than heterosexual counterparts and earn well
4. Homosexuals are hedonistic and are not weighed down by
responsibilities (like their heterosexual counterparts)
5. It is desirable for heterosexual females to have a ‘gay best friend’ and they are conversely labeled ‘fag hags’
6. Gay men are (overly) concerned with their physical appearance and are always well groomed, dress well and are stylish
7. Civil partnership and gay parenting are ways of homosexuals fitting into society more effectively
8. Gay men are funny and cheerful
9. Lesbians either wish to look and act like men or are feminine ‘lipstick
lesbians’ (Ahmad & Bhugra, 2010:451-452)
Open codes 18 were compiled from this list to determine which of these common stereotypes are most represented in the selected films. After further research, additional stereotypes for the coding system were derived from an article in The
Journal of Popular Film and Televison by Debra Moddelmog, a professor and codirector of the sexuality studies program at Ohio State University. She highlights the stereotypical act of commercial theaters playing films (of any genre) that portray longterm relationships among same-sex partners only when those unions are presented as completely comic (The Birdcage), ultimately tragic
(Philadelphia and Brokeback Mountain), mostly non-sexual, and always white. In the few instances when these same theaters show
18 See Appendix B for coding system.
24

Anna Ehredt films containing scenes of same-sex passion, that passion is typically subordinated to the heterosexuality of the film, meaning same-sex eroticism occurs within a minor character or that the main character who experiences same-sex passion does so briefly before returning to heterosexuality . . .In short, in the mainstream theater, the unspoken rules seem to be (1) a same-sex romance must feature white actors, and (2) the romantic same-sex relationship must be portrayed as having little or no sexual desire, or (3) if same-sex desire is shown, it must occur outside the context of a committed relationship or one of the lovers must die. (2009:164)
VIII. Data Analysis
SPSS ( Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), a computer program for statistical analysis, was used to obtain percentages of each stereotype as well as the amount of affection within each film. The frequency, average length, and total length were calculated for each of the 13 types of affection.
Because of the vast range of numbers in the frequency, average length, and total length calculations, a specific scale was created for each type of affection. A likert scale was used in SPSS: 1 represented none, 2 low, 3 moderate, and 4 high.
Once all of the scales were created and the data was typed into SPSS, descriptive statistics were conducted. Percentages, bar charts, and pie charts were generated for both stereotypes and affection to analyze research questions #1: What common stereotypes of queer individuals and same-sex relationships are still prevalent in the
top-grossing contemporary “gay/lesbian” Hollywood films?
25

Anna Ehredt
Further analysis divided the data into the three different decades (1990s,
2000s, and 2010s) to analyze research question #2: How do these stereotypes differ
between the three decades? Again, percentages, bar charts, and pie charts were generated for both stereotypes and affection. Analysis was then carried out to determine any significant changes throughout the decades.
Each of the codes under the affection category was compared between SS and
OS to analyze research question #3: Is there a difference in the amount and type of affection displayed between queer characters in their opposite-sex relationship (if they have one) and their same-sex relationship as well as between the decades?
1. Quantitative Analysis
To analyze research question #1, both quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out. After coding for each stereotype throughout the films, it was noted that the majority of the films did not still include many of the common stereotypes of queer individuals and same-sex relationships. In the chart below, the highest percentages are highlighted to demonstrate how all but three of the stereotypes were marked as false. “White characters” and “sexual orientation is the main trait” were the only two stereotypes marked as true in a majority of the films. “Lip-stick lesbians” (see Appendix D for definition) was not marked true in any of the films and had a majority percentage under not applicable. This was probably due to the fact that only three out of the 15 films as women as the main queer characters.
26

Anna Ehredt
Stereotypes
Type of Stereotype
Little or no sexual desire
False True N/A
60% 40% 0%
Eroticism occurring within minor character
Brief same-sex passion before returning to heterosexuality
67%
80%
33%
20%
0%
0%
Same-sex desire shown outside the context of committed relationship 53% 47% 0%
Long-term relationship completely comic 53% 13% 33%
Long-term relationship completely tragic
One or both characters die
40%
67%
27%
44%
33%
0%
Separation/Break-up
One or both characters return to heterosexuality
All knowledgeable about sex
67% 7% 27%
80% 20% 0%
93% 7% 0%
Open about sex
Promiscuous
Infected with HIV
Earn well (money-wise)
Disposable income
Civil partnership
Gay parenting
Hedonistic
Not weighed down by responsibilities
80%
60%
93%
53%
73%
53%
40%
20%
40%
7%
47%
27%
13%
33%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
27%
80% 20% 0%
80% 20% 0%
White characters
Gay men are cheerful and funny
Gay men are well-groomed
“Lip-stick” lesbians
Sissy gay man
Gay men lisp and/or female-like tone and lilt
Gay men are flamboyant
Effeminacy
Villain
Psychopath
Dangerous
Campy
Sexual orientation is main trait
7% 93% 0%
67% 20% 13%
67% 20% 13%
13% 0% 87%
73% 13% 13%
60% 27% 13%
73% 13% 13%
67% 13% 20%
80% 20% 0%
87% 13% 0%
73% 27% 0%
87% 13% 0%
33% 67% 0%
As inspiring as it is for the quantitative analysis to show improvements in the amount of stereotypical portrayals, it is important to note that the qualitative analysis (discussed in the next section) recorded many stereotypical instances throughout the films. This indicates that similar to Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s notion of new racism a new discrimination of homosexuals may be in practice in
27

Anna Ehredt contemporary mainstream films. New racism is an ideology described by Bonilla-
Silva as “racism lite”. A central element of this structure is the increasingly covert nature of racial discourse and practices. He describes a study of restaurants done in
1981 that found a substantial amount of discrimination remained and it was of a
subtle nature. The words covert and subtle are important because the results of this study imply the same type of discrimination of LGBTQ individuals in the films. Just like racism, homophobia and discrimination towards those in the queer community are still existent in contemporary mainstream films but in a more subtle and implicit way.
To look further into this “new discrimination” and see how the portrayals in films are changing (research question #2), the three different decades were divided and analyzed individually 19 . For a majority of the stereotypes, between each decade there was an increase in the percentage of “false”, indicating that from the 1990s up to the present, the most common stereotypes have been gradually fading out.
However, some of the stereotypes such as one or both of the queer characters dying actually increased in the 2000s and 2010s. Another notable increase is the stereotype “sexual orientation is the main trait”. In the 1990s, this stereotype was true in three out of the six films (50%). In the 2000s it increased to 67% true and in the 2010s it was true in all three of the films.
The chart below was used to analyze the first part of research question #3. It looks at the difference in the types and amount of affection shown between samesex partners and opposite-sex partners of the queer characters. For all of the
19 See Appendix C for complete quantitative analyses
28

Anna Ehredt opposite-sex partners of the queer characters, there was no affection shown a majority of the time. This is due to the fact that as the films were listed under the
“gay/lesbian” genre, they most often did not have a partner of the opposite-sex thus resulting in very low percentages of affection.
At first glance, some of the data showed “none” as the highest percentage.
However, if the other three values (low, moderate, and high) were added together they totaled a greater percentage than the value of “none”. Therefore, “present” a recoding of the original codes and is used in the table below to indicate that the three values have been totaled together.
For five out of the 12 types of affection, a majority of the films did not have any instances. For three out of the 12 types, a majority of the films had instances with a low amount and for four out of the 12 types, a majority had a mix between low, moderate, and high occurrences (present).
Frequency of Affection
Type of Affection Same-Sex Opposite-Sex
Physical Intimacy Low (67%) None (73%)
Arms Linking
Carrying
Dancing
Flirting
Gazing
Holding Hands
Hugging
Cuddling
Present (47%)
None (80%)
None (67%)
Present (47%)
None (80%)
Low (53%)
Present (53%)
None (73%)
None (93%)
None (80%)
None (93%)
None (100%)
None (93%)
None (87%)
None (87%)
None (93%)
Kissing
Private Moment
Sexual Activity
Low (47%)
Present (60%)
None (67%)
None (73%)
None (80%)
None (87%)
29

Anna Ehredt
2. Qualitative Analysis
Along with the quantitative data (manifest coding), qualitative data (latent coding) was also gathered by taking extensive notes on each film. Notes were taken on anything (relationships, conversations, words, symbols, etc.) in the films that had to do with same-sex relationships or queer individuals. I then divided the notes into three separate documents: homophobia 20 and discrimination 21 , stereotypes, and miscellaneous. These three categories were chosen after reviewing and recognizing specific trends throughout all of the notes.
The homophobia & discrimination category includes specific quotes from characters or scenes where queer characters are discriminated against and/or homophobia is displayed. The stereotype category, like homophobia and discrimination, includes specific quotes or scenes where stereotypical beliefs about queer individuals/relationships are expressed. Previous stereotypes that were not already coded for in the manifest coding were examined and recorded through the latent coding. For example, in Philadelphia, one of the characters says, “that beautiful, sensual, voluptuous woman is a lesbian?” illustrating his stereotypical view of lesbians. This type of verbal stereotype could not be coded for in the coding system.
20
Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people who are identified as or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear. Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of a non-heterosexual orientation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia)
21
Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership - or perceived membership - in a certain group or category
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination). In the case of this study, it is the prejudicial treatment of queer individuals
30

Anna Ehredt
The miscellaneous category was important because after dividing the notes into the two previously discussed categories many notes were still left to categorize.
These notes included scenes such as in The Birdcage when Armand calls his samesex partner his “friend and companion” or in Brokeback Mountain when Ennis says,
“What’re we going to do now?” and his lover Jack responds with “There’s nothing we can do”. These are important instances to record but needed a miscellaneous category, as they did not fit into the other two. “Miscellaneous” was also used because there were not enough similar instances of any type to create a new category. a. Homophobia and Discrimination i. A Positive Ending?
In the homophobia and discrimination category, almost all of the films had a reoccurring trend of a seemingly positive ending for the queer characters in the film.
For example, in Philadelphia a gay man, Andy, is fired for having AIDS. Joe, the character who eventually becomes Andy’s lawyer, is talking with his wife about homosexuals:
Fine, I’m prejudice, I don’t like homosexuals, the way they do that thing when they’re confused [mocking homosexuals by flicking his wrists in a feminine manner]…I think you have to be a man to understand how disgusting that is. I can’t stand them trying to be macho and faggot at the same time.
However, by the end of the film Joe ends up being hired as Andy’s lawyer to sue the company that fired Andy. They become good friends and even though Andy dies
31

Anna Ehredt
(executing - no pun intended - one of the classic stereotypical endings for queer characters) he wins his case. Thus, even though harsh discrimination and homophobia is happening throughout the film, the audience is made to believe
(despite death) that it ultimately ends in a positive way for the queer character.
Another good example of the contrast between homophobia/discrimination and a “positive ending” for the queer characters is in the film In & Out. In this film, an actor named Cameron Drake wins an Oscar for his portrayal of a gay soldier. In his acceptance speech he thanks his former high school teacher, Howard Brackett, adding in “…and he’s gay!” at the end of the speech. All of Howard’s family, friends, coworkers, students and his fiancé are naturally shocked, but that is nothing compared to Howard's own reaction of disbelief and indignation, and he angrily tries to reassure those who know him that he is heterosexual. Howard experiences discrimination by getting fired from his job. Another scene illustrates negative thoughts about queer individuals when a jock says, “There’s only two times where it’s ok to do gay stuff, like emergency situations. One is prison when it’s a substitute and another is guys in space”. He then goes on to say, “I know it’s [homosexuality] wrong, it’s against nature…”
Even in the character Cameron Drake’s film there is discrimination against homosexuals. A clip of the film is shown at the Oscars of the army kicking a gay man out for writing a letter and sending a picture to another soldier as well as having a copy of Beaches starring Bette Midler. Discrimination and stereotypes of queers were portrayed in a film within a film! However, at the end of the film Cameron
Drake arrives at an award ceremony (where Mr. Brackett is not presented with any
32

Anna Ehredt awards) and asks if the school staff believes that Mr. Brackett will “rub off” on the students just because he is gay. Eventually, the entire community stands up for
Howard Brackett, again ending on a positive note for the queer character. ii. Negating Sexualities
Discrimination and homophobia are displayed in other ways within the films as well. Another trend is that of being disgusted by the idea of being homosexual.
For example, in Monster the main character Aileen is asked by another woman named Selby (with whom she ends up eventually dating) if she can buy her a drink.
Aileen responds in a very negative way, saying that she’s not gay and calling Selby a
“dumb dyke”. Another example of this type of disgust towards homosexuality is in
Brokeback Mountain between the two main queer characters Ennis and Jack. Ennis tells Jack “it’s a one shot thing we have going on” and Jack responds by saying that it’s no one’s business but theirs. Ennis goes on saying, “you know I ain’t queer”, and
Jack responds with “me neither”. Both men make it a point to try to dissolve any sort of negative label while at the same time negating their own sexual identities. Their previous boss won’t hire both Ennis and Jack again because he knew that they had been involved with each other. Pulling from the notion of compulsory heterosexuality, it is clear that this story illustrates how female-male couplings have been enforced throughout Western history. Another example occurs in I Love You,
Phillip Morris, when the main queer character Steve gets hit by a car and on the stretcher going into the ambulance he announces that, after years of hiding his true sexual identity, he’s going to be a fag: “Faggot! That’s what they’re going to call me!”
33

Anna Ehredt
Even though Steve uses derogatory language about himself, he was announcing this in a proud way, as this was his moment of “coming out”.
What is important in I Love You, Phillip Morris, Monster and Brokeback
Mountain is that the queer characters themselves are the one’s that are displaying discrimination and homophobia. This might tell audience members who are queer that they should feel negatively about themselves if the queer characters in the films that they might relate to the most talk and act negatively about their own sexuality.
Even the queer characters are subscribing to heteronormativity, which only perpetuates and enhances heteronormative ideologies within society. No previous studies have noted this occurrence therefore this finding is one of the contributions of this study. iii. Subscribing to Heteronormativity
Brüno is a film that expresses an extreme amount of discrimination and homophobia. Brüno is a queer character who wants to be famous. At one point in the film, Brüno gets booed on a talk show for saying he hopes he finds “Mr. Right”, and a lady in the audience says he’s “confused”. This is an example of how many people believe that homosexuality is not a natural form of sexuality, just as much as heterosexuality is. This scene illuminates the notion of heteronormativity just as in another film Beginners when the gay father was told that homosexuality was an illness that could be cured.
Another example is when Brüno is trying to seduce Ron Paul. He lights candles, starts dancing sexually, and takes off his pants. Ron Paul storms out saying
“he’s queer to the blazes, he’s crazy!” What is important to note about this
34

Anna Ehredt occurrence (and many others throughout the film) is that it was not staged, so the reaction from Ron Paul was not from a script but was his real reaction. During another scene Brüno is at a swingers party watching a heterosexual couple having sex. He touches the male’s shoulders and tells him that he’s doing a great job and asks him to look him in the eyes. The male gets mad and says he didn’t come there for that “queer shit”. Again, this was not a staged situation and illustrates real life homophobia. iv. Derogatory Language
There are many other instances throughout the films where discrimination is displayed such as “God hates fags” signs being held on the street and the crowd at a wrestling match yelling “fuck that shit” when Brüno and Lutz (another queer character) are kissing in Brüno. Many of the instances are included into the films to help show discrimination and homophobia in a negative light. In The Kids Are
Alright, the son of the two lesbian moms has a friend who uses the word “fag” in a derogatory way twice saying, “he’s a fag” and “why are you such a fag”. It is important to note in this film that the friend plays an antagonist who eventually the son parts ways with because he is not a very good person.
In Milk, real footage of one of Anita Bryant’s speeches is shown where she is being extremely discriminatory. There is another scene where a Senator calls gay teachers “gay perverts and pedophiles”. In yet another scene, the Senator and
Harvey Milk are having a debate and the senator suggests that because gays cannot reproduce, they become teachers so that they can get the children to join them and become gay to keep their people [gays] going. Harvey Milk makes a snide comment
35

Anna Ehredt back asking if the senator is actually suggesting that homosexuality is learned, “like
French or something”. The filmmakers present all of these scenes of discrimination and homophobia in Milk in such a way that the viewer understands how wrong they are, instead of like in many other films that either unconsciously or consciously
promote discrimination towards queers.
Overall, in the films in which homophobia and discrimination were noted, they seemed to be counter-balanced by the “positive ending” for the queer characters in the films. The queer characters most often come out on top such as in
In & Out, Philadelphia, and Brüno, while in other films those characters who were homophobic were antagonistic characters such as in The Kids Are Alright, Brokeback
Mountain, and Milk. They displayed homophobic and discriminatory characteristics while being presented in the film as a bad/mean/evil character. b. Stereotypes
Hand in hand with discrimination and homophobia are stereotypes. Coding was done for the most prominent stereotypes of queers and same-sex relationships, but extensive notes were also taken.
Many of the stereotypes noted for were based off of queer characters’ appearance and mannerisms. Some of the queer characters displayed stereotypical mannerisms such as lisps or effeminate type of dressing. In The Birdcage, one of the minor queer characters has a lisp and for most of the film wears really short jean shorts and a woman’s see-thru shirt that reveals his stomach. The heterosexual character even tells him he needs to get a uniform because he is the maid and he responds by saying that he is going to “dress like a fag”. At another point in the film
36

Anna Ehredt the same-sex couple, Albert and Armand, are discussing how to make Albert seem heterosexual:
Albert: I could play it straight.
Armand: No you couldn’t, look at your pinky, your posture. I’m showing you how to be a man. Men smear [showing him how to smear butter on a bagel].
Armand then goes on trying to teach Albert how to walk like a man, using
John Wayne as an example, and how to shake hands by straightening and tightening his wrist instead of being “flimsy”.
In Philadelphia, a heterosexual character asks, “That beautiful, sensual, voluptuous woman is a lesbian?” insinuating that all of the descriptive words he used don’t fit with “lesbian”. Students in In & Out discuss their teacher, Mr. Brackett, and all of the signs of him being gay: he’s well-dressed, really clean, kind of prissy, rides a bike, and is a “totally decent human being”. A similar situation happens in
Bruno:
Bruno: How do you spot a homosexual?
Karate teacher: It’s very hard to do because some don’t dress any different [than heterosexuals]…it’s kind of like terrorism.
Bruno: What are some obvious signs?
Karate teacher: Someone being very nice…
Many of the characters display stereotypes such as gay men crossing their legs and dancing in a very feminine way, gay men singing in high-pitched voices, gay men having a stylist, lesbians being called dykes, and gay men knowing a lot about
37

Anna Ehredt and being concerned with fashion and style. Howard Brackett in In & Out puts on a tape about exploring masculinity. The man on the tape asks, “Are you dressed in masculine attire? Are you in control?” The man says that the most critical area of masculine behavior is dancing: “Truly manly men don’t dance, they drink and work”.
Despite what the man on the tape says, Howard breaks into a dance not able to resist. Heteronormativity relies on a well-defined concept of masculinity that is totally separated and in many cases contradictory to femininity. There is also the assumption that masculinity has a better status and this is part of the reason why queer individuals, especially gay men, are portrayed as having effeminate characteristics.
A lot of the stereotypes that are presented in the films are also connected to the lifestyles of the queer characters. In Philadelphia, one of the lawyers against the main queer character, Andy, says that Andy’s lifestyle is “reckless” and his behavior
“is killing him”. The lawyer also asks Andy in court if he’d ever been to a theater that shows gay movies, asks if men have sex in it, and finally asks if Andy had sex in it.
Promiscuity is also suggested in Brokeback Mountain when one of the queer characters decides to pick up a prostitute in Mexico.
Brüno was extreme in its amount of stereotypes, partly due to the fact that this film is a satire. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, in satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon. Within Brüno, there is effeminacy, promiscuity, and stereotypical attire. An
38

Anna Ehredt important scene to mention is when Brüno visits a gay converter and asks him if there’s any music he shouldn’t listen to if he wants to be heterosexual. The converter responds with, “Shaney O’Connor, Indigo Girls, The Village People…”
Brüno then asks if there are any new hobbies that he should take up. The converter mentions hiking, working out, and building muscles around men who aren’t gay.
For so many of the queer characters their sexual orientation is their main trait. It is important to remember when discussing stereotypes, that the reason they exist is because there is a kernel of truth to them – yes, some gay men lisp and some lesbians dress in more masculine attire – but not every gay man or lesbian woman display these characteristics. c. Miscellaneous
Other noteworthy trends were noted while watching the films, which were not recognized prior to viewing them. i. Trend #1: Difference Between Homosexual & Heterosexual Intimate
Relationships
One of these trends was the difference between the heterosexual intimate relationships and the same-sex intimate relationships. In the majority of the films, if a heterosexual intimate relationship existed as well as a same-sex intimate relationship (for the primary queer character), the heterosexual relationship displayed much more physical affection. An example of this is in Alexander between
Alexander and his wife and Alexander and Hephaistion. It is obvious that Alexander and Hephaistion are in love but there is very little physical affection between the two men. However, the amount of physical affection shown between Alexander and his wife is much higher (there is a very explicit sex scene between them) even
39

Anna Ehredt though Alexander does not seem to have the same type of love for her as he does for
Hephaistion. The same is true in The Talented Mr. Ripley, however in this film there is no real same-sex relationship (the main queer character is obsessed with another man but the affection is not reciprocated) so it makes sense that the amount of affection on the same-sex end would be less. ii. Trend #2: Reference to Significant Other
Another notable trend in the films was the way that same-sex partners talked about their significant other. In The Birdcage Armand refers to Albert as his “friend and companion” while in The Hours Clarissa refers to her same-sex partner of 10 years simply as her “friend”. iii. Trend #3: A Positive View of LGBTQ
Even as most of these trends seem to be negatively portraying queers and same-sex relationships, there are a few positive trends appearing in these films as well. For instance, in In & Out Howard’s (the queer character) mom and other women are sitting together discussing how Howard “came out” as gay and they end up “spilling the beans” after one of the women asks what is so wrong with coming out. Another instance like this is at the end of Bruno where Snoop Dog is singing a song and part of the lyrics are: “Hey, hey, he’s gay…okay” as in “whatever, it doesn’t matter if he’s gay or not”.
IX. Limitations and Delimitations
Because of time constraints, I only used 15 films in my study. The low amount of films analyzed is a limitation because a more in-depth analysis is necessary to conduct to be able to make more valid generalizations. Because my
40

Anna Ehredt sampling technique is non-probability it could lend itself to bias and error and there is limited ability to generalize the results.
This study also does not take into account the duality of the genres within each film. For example, all the films selected for analysis are under the genre of
“gay/lesbian” films but also exist under other genre categories such as “romantic comedy”, “drama”, or “action”. This could affect the amount of affection shown in each film, as an action film might have less affection than a romance film.
Because this study uses the top-grossing Hollywood films, it does not necessarily include popular low-budget independent films from other online lists 22 that are targeted at the queer community. This leaves out a large portion of the most popular films that a lot of people involved in the queer culture are being exposed to.
However, the purpose of the specific selection of the films was to analyze those films that reach the largest audience population that are not necessarily informed about the topic.
X. Significance of the Study
The results of this study are not intended to make (nor are they able to make) any generalized statements about what society as a whole might believe about same-sex relationships and queer individuals. Rather, they aim to illuminate the power of media on individuals. Because this study can only look at the trend of the depiction and representation of sexuality hopefully, if anything, it will demonstrate how important it is to simply be aware of the representations in film of not only sexuality but also gender, race, and class.
22 www.afterellen.com and www.afterelton.com are two examples of popular online lists
41

Anna Ehredt
It is hopeful that a study of this sort will reach out to those working in the film industry because not only do these stereotypes and discriminations exist within the films themselves, but also behind-the-scenes, in the lives of the actors, directors, screenwriters and so forth and so on. Therefore, this study can be used to effectively increase awareness of discrimination among those working in the film industry as well as society at large.
XI. Conclusion
In conclusion, the question as to whether or not the theories of heteronormativity and compulsory heterosexuality still exist in contemporary films specifically listed under the gay/lesbian genre cannot be answered but only examined further. The quantitative analysis debunked the theories, suggesting that the theories do not still exist in the films; while the qualitative analysis reinforced them, suggesting that they are still prevalent.
42

XII. References
Ahmad, Sheraz and Dinesh Bhugra. 2010. “Homophobia: an updated review of literature.” Sexual and Relationship Therapy 25:4(447-455).
Bachen, C. M., & Illouz, E. 1996. “Imagining romance: Young people’s cultural models of romance and love.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 13:279-308.
Banjo, Omotayo. 2002. "The Effect of Media Consumption on Perceptions of
Romantic Relationships." Senior Research Project, College of
Communications, Penn State University. Retrieved September 5, 2011 from
Media Effects Research Lab.
(http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/researchpage/newabstracts/consump tion.html)
Barrios, Richard. 2003. Screened. New York, NY: Routledge.
Benshoff, Harry M. and Sean Griffin. 2009. America on Film: Representing Race, Class,
Gender, and Sexuality at the Movies. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Black, S. L. and Bevan, S. 1992. This confirms that viewers of violent films have a higher level of aggressiveness to begin with, and that this is elevated following attendance of the film [Abstract]. Aggressive Behavior 18(1):37.
Calzo, J. P., & Monique L Ward. 2009. “Media Exposure and Viewer’s Attitudes
Toward Homosexuality: Evidence for Mainstreaming or Resonance?” Journal
of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 53(2):280-299.
Dyer, Richard. 2002. The Matter of Images. 2 nd edition. London: Routledge.
Ehrenstein, David. 1998. Open Secret. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Haferkamp, C. J. 1999. “Beliefs about relationships in relation to television viewing, soap opera viewing, and self-monitoring.” Current Psychology: Developmental,
Learning, Personality, Social 18:193-204.
Holmes, B. M. 2007. “In search of my ‘‘one-and-only’’: Romance-oriented media and beliefs in romantic relationship destiny.” Electronic Journal of
Communication, 17, (3&4). Retrieved September 20, 2011
(http://www.attachmentresearch.org/pdfs/Holmes,%20B.M.%20(2007)%2
0EJC,%20Vol%203-4.pdf).
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. 2002. “Growing up with Television: Cultivation Processes.” Pp. 43-67 in Media Effects: Advances
in Theory and Research edited by J. Bryant & D. Zillmann. Mahwah, NJ:
43

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gross, L. 1991. “Out of the Mainstream: Sexual Minorities and the Mass Media.”
Journal of Homosexuality 21:19-46.
Gross, Larry P. 2001. Up from Invisibility. New York: Columbia University Press.
Harrington, C. 2003. “Homosexuality on All My Children: Transforming the Daytime
Landscape.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 47(2):216-235.
Hart, K-P. 2000. “Representing Gay Men on American Television.” Journal of Men's
Studies 9:59.
Herman, D. 2005. "‘I'm Gay’: Declarations, Desire, and Coming Out on Prime-time
Television.” Sexualities 8(1):7-29.
Jackson, Stevi. 1996. Heterosexuality and Feminist Theory, in Diane Richardson (ed.),
Theorising Heterosexuality. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Johnson, Kimberly R. and Bjarne M. Holmes. 2009. "Contradictory Messages: A
Content Analysis of Hollywood-Produced Romantic Comedy Feature Films."
Communication Quarterly 57:3. Retrieved September 5, 2011
(http://www.attachmentresearch.org/pdfs/Johnson%20&%20Holmes%20C omm%20Quarterly%20draft.pdf).
Kirkland, Ewan. 2011. “Romantic Comedy and the Construction of Heterosexuality”
Scope. Retreived November 1, 2011
(http://www.scope.nottingham.ac.uk/article.php?issue=9&id=957).
Lovaas, Karen, and Mercilee M. Jenkins. 2006. “Charting a Path through the ‘Desert of Nothing.’” Sexualities and Communication in Everyday Life: A Reader. 1
Sage Publications Inc. st ed.
Moddelmog, Debra A. 2009. “Can Romantic Comedy Be Gay?” Journal of Popular Film
and Television 36(4):162-173.
Pew Research Center. 2003. “Republicans unified, democrats split on gay marriage:
Religious beliefs underpin opposition to homosexuality.” Retrieved
November 1, 2011 (http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DoclD=39).
Rubin, A. M. 1985. “Uses of daytime TV soap operas by college students.” Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media 29:241-258.
Russo, Vito. 1987. The Celluloid Closet. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
Segrin, C., and Nabi, R. L. 2002. “Does television viewing cultivate unrealistic expectations about marriage?” Journal of Communication 52:247–263.
44

Shapiro, J., and Kroeger, L. 1991. “Is life just a romantic novel? The relationship between attitudes about intimate relationships and the popular media.” The
American Journal of Family Therapy 19:226–236.
Signorielli, N. 1991. “Adolescents and ambivalence toward marriage: A cultivation analysis.” Youth & Society 23:121–149.
Ward, L. M. 2003. “Understanding the role of entertainment media in the sexual socialization of American youth: A review of empirical research.”
Developmental Review 23:347-388.
45

Films Selected for Analysis Appendix A
Movie Title
1) The Birdcage
2) Interview with the Vampire
3) Brokeback Mountain
4) The Talented Mr. Ripley
5) Philadelphia
6) In & Out
7) The Crying Game
8) Bruno
9) The Hours
10) Monster
11) Alexander
12) Milk
13) The Kids Are All Right
14) Beginners
15) I Love You, Phillip Morris
Distributor
MGM
Warner Bros.
Focus
Paramount
Sony
Paramount
Miramax
Universal
Paramount
New Market
Warner Bros.
Focus
Focus
11/24/04
11/26/08
7/9/10
Focus 6/3/11
Roadside Attractions 12/3/10
Release Date
3/8/96
11/11/94
12/9/05
12/25/99
12/24/93
9/19/97
1/27/92
7/10/09
12/27/02
12/24/03
46
R
R
R
R
R
Rating
R
R
R
R
PG-13
PG-13
R
R
PG-13
R
Genre (other than gay/lesbian)
Comedy
Period Horror
Western
Thriller
Drama
Comedy
Drama/Thriller
Comedy
Drama
Drama/Thriller
Historical Epic
Drama
Comedy
Drama
Comedy

Axial and Open Coding Categories Appendix B
Axial and Open Coding Categories for Relationships of Primary Characters (unless otherwise noted – i.e. SC for Secondary
Character) Adapted from Johnson & Holmes (2009) and Moddelmog (2009) *SS = Same Sex relationship *OS = Opposite Sex relationship
 Affection o Physical Intimacy (SS) o Dancing Together (OS) o Physical Intimacy (OS) o Flirting (SS) o Arms linking (SS) o Arms linking (OS) o o
Flirting (OS)
Gazing (SS) o Carrying (SS) o Gazing (OS) o Carrying (OS) o Holding hands (SS) o Dancing Together (SS) o Holding hands (OS)
47

Axial and Open Coding Categories Appendix B o Hugging (SS) o Hugging (OS) o Cuddling (SS) o Cuddling (OS) o Kissing (SS) o Kissing (OS) o Sharing an intimate private moment (SS) o Sharing an intimate private moment (OS) o Sexual activity (SS) o Sexual activity (OS)
48

Axial and Open Coding Categories Appendix B

Passion Stereotypes o Little or no sexual desire o Eroticism occurring within minor character o Main character who experiences same-sex passion does so briefly before returning to heterosexuality o If same-sex desire is shown, it must occur outside the context of a committed relationship

Relationships Stereotypes o Long-term relationship presented as completely comic o Long-term relationship presented as ultimately tragic

Stereotypical Endings o One or both characters die o Separation/Break-up o One or both character returns to heterosexuality
49

Axial and Open Coding Categories Appendix B
Axial and Open Coding Categories for Queer Individuals Adapted from Hart (2000), Herman (2005), Ahmad & Bhugara (2010), and
Moddelmog (2009)

Sex Stereotypes o All knowledgeable about sex o Promiscuous o Open about sex o Infected with HIV

Lifestyle Stereotypes o Earn well (money-wise) o Disposable income

Personality and Appearance Stereotypes o White characters o Gay men are cheerful and funny o Civil partnership o Gay parenting o Gay men well-groomed o Hedonistic o ‘Lip-stick’ lesbians o Not weighed down by responsibilities o Sissy gay man
50

Axial and Open Coding Categories Appendix B o o
Gay men lisp and/or female-like tone and lilt
Gay men are flamboyant o Effeminacy o Villain o o o o
Psychopath
Dangerous
Campy
Sexual orientation is main trait
51

Quantitative Analysis Appendix C
All Data:
Affection
Physical Intimacy – Frequency was low (67%) for SS and none (73%) for OS.
However, the average length for SS was fairly divided between none, low, moderate, and high and the majority total length for SS was high (40%).
Arms Linking – Frequency was none (53%) for SS and none (93%) for OS. When it did occur for SS, the majority of the instances were high (26%).
Carrying – Frequency was none (80%) for SS and OS (80%).
Dancing – Frequency was none (67%) for SS and OS (93%). However, when there were instances in 5 out of the 15 films, the average and total lengths for both SS and
OS were high.
Flirting – Frequency was none (53%) for SS and OS (100%).
Gazing – Frequency was none (80%) for SS and OS (93%).
Holding Hands – Frequency was low (53%) for SS with the majority of the other films having none (40%) and none (87%) for OS. Five out of the 15 films had high total lengths.
Hugging – Frequency was fairly even between none (47%) and a combination of the low (27%), moderate (13%), and high (13%) categories. 87% was none for OS.
Cuddling – Frequency was none (73%) for SS and OS (93%).
Kissing – Frequency was low (47%) and none (73%) for OS. The average length for
SS was low (67%).
Sharing an Intimate Private Moment – Frequency and total length were none
(40%) and low (33%) for SS. Frequency was none (80%) for OS.
Sexual Activity – Frequency was none (67%) with three films at low, one at moderate, and one at high for SS. Frequency was none (87%) for OS.
Stereotypes
A: Little or no sexual desire – True (60%)
B:
Eroticism occurring within minor character
– False (67%)
C:
Main character who experiences same-sex passion does so briefly before returning to heterosexuality
– False (80%)
52

Quantitative Analysis Appendix C
D:
If same-sex desire is shown, it must occur outside the context of a committed relationship
– Fairly even: false (53%) & true (47%)
E:
Long-term relationship presented as completely comic
– False (53%)
F:
Long-term relationship presented as ultimately tragic
– False (40%)
G:
One or both characters die
– False (67%)
H:
Separation/Break-up
– False (67%)
I:
One or both character returns to heterosexuality
– False (80%)
J:
All knowledgeable about sex
– False (93%)
K:
Open about sex
– False (80%)
L:
Promiscuous
– Fairly even: False (60%) & True (40%)
M:
Infected with HIV
– False (93%)
N:
Earn well (money-wise)
– Fairly even: False (53%) & True (47%)
O:
Disposable income
– False (73%)
P:
Civil partnership
– False (53%)
Q:
Gay parenting
– False (60%)
R:
Hedonistic
– False (80%)
S:
Not weighed down by responsibilities
– False (80%)
T:
White characters
– True (93%)
U:
Gay men are cheerful and funny
– False (67%)
V:
Gay men well-groomed
– False (67%)
W: ‘Lip-stick’ lesbians – Not applicable (87%)
X:
Sissy gay man
– False (73%)
Y:
Gay men lisp and/or female-like tone and lilt
– False (60%)
53

Quantitative Analysis
Z:
Gay men are flamboyant
– False (73%)
Aa:
Effeminacy
– False (67%)
Bb:
Villain
– False (67%)
Cc:
Psychopath
– False (80%)
Dd:
Dangerous
– False (87%)
Ee:
Campy
– False (87%)
Ff:
Sexual orientation is main trait
– True (67%)
Appendix C
54

Quantitative Analysis Appendix C
1990s:
Affection
Physical Intimacy – Frequency was low (67%) for SS and none (67%) for OS.
However, the total length for SS was and high (50%).
Arms Linking – Frequency was none (50%) for SS and none (83%) for OS. When it did occur for SS, the majority of the instances were high (26%).
Carrying – Frequency was none (83%) for SS and OS (100%).
Dancing – Frequency was none (67%) for SS and OS (100%).
Flirting – Frequency was none (83%) for SS and OS (100%).
Gazing – Frequency was none (83%) for SS and OS (100%).
Holding Hands – Frequency was fairly divided between none (50%), and the combination of low (33%) and high (17%) for SS. The frequency was none (67%) for OS. The total length for SS was divided evenly between none and high.
Hugging – Frequency was evenly divided between none and low. The frequency for
OS was none (83%). The total length for SS was divided between none and a combination of low (17%), moderate (17%), and high (17%).
Cuddling – Frequency was none (83%) for SS and OS (83%).
Kissing – Frequency and total length was divided between none (50%) and a combination of low (33%) and high (17%). The frequency for OS was none (83%).
The average length for SS was divided between none (50%) and a combination of low (33%) and moderate (17%).
Sharing an Intimate Private Moment – Frequency was none (67%) for SS and none (83%) for OS.
Sexual Activity – Frequency was none (83%) with only one film at low for SS.
Frequency was none (100%) for OS.
Stereotypes
A: Little or no sexual desire – True (67%)
B:
Eroticism occurring within minor character
– False (67%)
55

Quantitative Analysis Appendix C
C:
Main character who experiences same-sex passion does so briefly before returning to heterosexuality
– False (100%)
D:
If same-sex desire is shown, it must occur outside the context of a committed relationship
– False (67%)
E:
Long-term relationship presented as completely comic
– Not applicable (67%)
F:
Long-term relationship presented as ultimately tragic
– Not applicable (67%)
G:
One or both characters die
– False (83%)
H:
Separation/Break-up
– Divided between not applicable (50%) and false (50%)
I:
One or both character returns to heterosexuality
– False (100%)
J:
All knowledgeable about sex
– False (100%)
K:
Open about sex
– False (100%)
L:
Promiscuous
– False (67%)
M:
Infected with HIV
– False (83%)
N:
Earn well (money-wise)
– Divided between: False (50%) & True (50%)
O:
Disposable income
– False (83%)
P:
Civil partnership
– Not applicable (67%)
Q:
Gay parenting
– Not applicable (67%)
R:
Hedonistic
– False (83%)
S:
Not weighed down by responsibilities
– False (100%)
T:
White characters
– True (83%)
U:
Gay men are cheerful and funny
– False (83%)
V:
Gay men well-groomed
– False (83%)
W: ‘Lip-stick’ lesbians – Not applicable (100%)
X:
Sissy gay man
– False (83%)
56

Quantitative Analysis Appendix C
Y:
Gay men lisp and/or female-like tone and lilt
– False (83%)
Z:
Gay men are flamboyant
– False (83%)
Aa:
Effeminacy
– False (83%)
Bb:
Villain
– False (67%)
Cc:
Psychopath
– False (83%)
Dd:
Dangerous
– Divided between true (50%) and false (50%)
Ee:
Campy
– False (83%)
Ff:
Sexual orientation is main trait
– Divided between true (50%) and false (50%)
57

Quantitative Analysis Appendix C
2000s:
Affection
Physical Intimacy – Frequency was low (67%) for SS and none (83%) for OS.
However, majority of films (4 out of 6) fell under moderate and high for the total length for SS.
Arms Linking – Frequency was none (53%) for SS and none (93%) for OS. When it did occur for SS, the majority of the instances were high (26%).
Carrying – Frequency was none (67%) for SS and OS (100%).
Dancing – Frequency was none (83%) for SS and OS (83%).
Flirting – Frequency was evenly divided between none (33%), low (33%), and high
(33%) for SS and OS (100%).
Gazing – Frequency was none (67%) for SS and none (83%) for OS.
Holding Hands – Frequency was low (67%) for SS and none (100%) for OS.
Hugging – Frequency was divided evenly between none (50%) and a combination of the moderate (17%), high (33%) categories. The frequency was none (83%) for
OS.
Cuddling – Frequency was none (67%) for SS and OS (100%).
Kissing – Frequency was low (67%) for SS and none (67%) for OS. Every film had some amount of kissing for SS, however the average amount was low (83%).
Sharing an Intimate Private Moment – Frequency was tied between low (33%) and moderate (33%) for SS. Frequency was none (83%) for OS. The average length for SS was tied between low (33%) and high (33%), while the total length was high
(67%).
Sexual Activity – Frequency was none (67%) with one out of six films at low and one at moderate for SS. Frequency was none (83%) for OS.
Stereotypes
A: Little or no sexual desire – True (67%)
B:
Eroticism occurring within minor character
– Divided between false (50%) and true (50%).
58

Quantitative Analysis Appendix C
C:
Main character who experiences same-sex passion does so briefly before returning to heterosexuality
– Divided between false (50%) and true (50%).
D:
If same-sex desire is shown, it must occur outside the context of a committed relationship
– Divided between false (50%) and true (50%).
E:
Long-term relationship presented as completely comic
– False (67%)
F:
Long-term relationship presented as ultimately tragic
– False (50%)
G:
One or both characters die
– Divided between false (50%) and true (50%).
H:
Separation/Break-up
– False (67%)
I:
One or both character returns to heterosexuality
– Divided between false (50%) and true (50%).
J:
All knowledgeable about sex
– False (93%)
K:
Open about sex
– False (80%)
L:
Promiscuous
– Divided between false (50%) and true (50%).
M:
Infected with HIV
– False (100%)
N:
Earn well (money-wise)
– False (67%)
O:
Disposable income
– False (67%)
P:
Civil partnership
– False (83%)
Q:
Gay parenting
– False (50%), True (33%)
R:
Hedonistic
– False (83%)
S:
Not weighed down by responsibilities
– False (67%)
T:
White characters
– True (100%)
U:
Gay men are cheerful and funny
– False (67%)
V:
Gay men well-groomed
– False (67%)
W: ‘Lip-stick’ lesbians – Not applicable (83%)
X:
Sissy gay man
– False (67%)
59

Quantitative Analysis
Y:
Gay men lisp and/or female-like tone and lilt
– False (67%)
Z:
Gay men are flamboyant
– False (67%)
Aa:
Effeminacy
– False (50%)
Bb:
Villain
– False (83%)
Cc:
Psychopath
– False (83%)
Dd:
Dangerous
– False (83%)
Ee:
Campy
– False (83%)
Ff:
Sexual orientation is main trait
– True (67%)
Appendix C
60

Quantitative Analysis Appendix C
2010s:
Affection
Physical Intimacy – Frequency was low (67%) for SS and none (67%) for OS.
However, the average length for SS was moderate (67%).
Arms Linking – Frequency was evenly divided between none (33%), low (33%), and moderate (33%) for SS and none (100%) for OS. The average length was high
(67%) for SS.
Carrying – Frequency was none (100%) for SS and OS (100%).
Dancing – Frequency was evenly divided between none (33%), low (33%), and moderate (33%) for SS and OS (100%).
Flirting – Frequency was low (67%) for SS and OS (100%).
Gazing – Frequency was none (100%) for SS and OS (100%).
Holding Hands – Frequency was low (67%) for SS and none (100%) for OS.
Hugging – Frequency was fairly even between none (33%), low (33%), and moderate (33%). Frequency was none (100%) for OS.
Cuddling – Frequency was none (67%) for SS and OS (100%).
Kissing – Frequency was moderate (67%) and none (67%) for OS. The average length for SS was low (100%).
Sharing an Intimate Private Moment – Frequency was low (67%) for SS and none
(67%) for OS.
Sexual Activity – Frequency was evenly divided between none (33%), low (33%), and high (33%) for SS. Frequency was none (67%) for OS.
Stereotypes
A: Little or no sexual desire – True (67%)
B:
Eroticism occurring within minor character
– False (100%)
C:
Main character who experiences same-sex passion does so briefly before returning to heterosexuality
– False (100%)
61

Quantitative Analysis Appendix C
D:
If same-sex desire is shown, it must occur outside the context of a committed relationship
– False (100%)
E:
Long-term relationship presented as completely comic
– False (100%)
F:
Long-term relationship presented as ultimately tragic
– False (67%)
G:
One or both characters die
– False (67%)
H:
Separation/Break-up
– False (100%)
I:
One or both character returns to heterosexuality
– False (100%)
J:
All knowledgeable about sex
– False (100%)
K:
Open about sex
– True (67%)
L:
Promiscuous
– False (67%)
M:
Infected with HIV
– False (100%)
N:
Earn well (money-wise)
–True (67%)
O:
Disposable income
– False (67%)
P:
Civil partnership
– False (67%)
Q:
Gay parenting
– False (67%)
R:
Hedonistic
– False (67%)
S:
Not weighed down by responsibilities
– False (67%)
T:
White characters
– True (100%)
U:
Gay men are cheerful and funny
– Evenly divided between false (33%), true
(33%), and not applicable (33%)
V:
Gay men well-groomed
– Evenly divided between false (33%), true (33%), and not applicable (33%)
W: ‘Lip-stick’ lesbians – Not applicable (67%)
X:
Sissy gay man
– False (67%)
Y:
Gay men lisp and/or female-like tone and lilt
– True (67%)
62

Quantitative Analysis
Z:
Gay men are flamboyant
– False (67%)
Aa:
Effeminacy
– False (67%)
Bb:
Villain
– False (100%)
Cc:
Psychopath
– False (100%)
Dd:
Dangerous
– False (100%)
Ee:
Campy
– False (100%)
Ff:
Sexual orientation is main trait
– True (100%)
Appendix C
63

Definitions for Coding System Appendix D
 Affection
Conceptual/Operational Definitions for Coding System o Physical Intimacy i : caressing (e.g. hands and arms), tickling, massage, (e.g. neck, back, thighs), leg-to-leg touching, and sitting on partner’s lap. o Arms linking around each other: arms linking through each other’s arms or around waist or shoulders o Carrying ii : to hold or support while moving o Dancing Together iii : To move rhythmically usually to music, using prescribed or improvised steps and gestures. To leap or skip about excitedly. o Flirting iv : a playful romantic or sexual overture by one person to another subtly indicating an interest in a deeper relationship with the other person, and can involve verbal communication as well as body language. Flirting usually involves speaking and behaving in a way that suggests a mildly greater intimacy than the actual relationship between the parties would justify, though within the rules of social etiquette, which generally disapproves of a direct expression of sexual interest. This may be accomplished by communicating a sense of playfulness or irony. Double entendres, with one meaning more formally appropriate and another more suggestive, may be used. Flirting may consist of stylized gestures, language, body language, postures, and physiologic signs which act as cues to another person. Among these, at least in Western society, are:

Eye contact, batting eyelashes, staring, winking, etc.

"Protean" signals, such as touching/flicking one's hair

Giggling, or laughing encouragingly at any slight hint of intimacy in the other's behavior

Smiling suggestively

Sending notes, poems, or small gifts

Flattery (regarding beauty, sexual attractiveness)

Online chat, texting and other one-on-one and direct messaging services while hinting affection.

Footsie, a form of flirtation in which people use their feet to play with each others' feet. This generally takes place under a table or in bed while rubbing feet. Participants often remove their shoes and play barefoot; however, it can also be played in socks, or wearing shoes. Though this method can backfire, as the general opinion of feet can depend on the culture and society of the area.

Teasing

Banter

Staging of "chance" encounters

Imitating of behaviors (e.g. taking a drink when the other person takes a drink, changing posture as the other does, etc.)
64

Definitions for Coding System Appendix D

Coyness, affectedly shy or modest, marked by cute, coquettish, or artful playfulness (e.g. pickup lines).

Giving flying kisses (blowing a kiss)

Singing love songs in presence of the girl/boy.

Maintaining very short distance during casual talking.

Peacocking, where a man dresses up in order to attract a woman o Gazing v : To look steadily, intently, and with fixed attention o Holding hands vi
: a form of physical intimacy involving two or more people. It may or may not be sexual. Holding hands to enjoy physical intimacy and express love. o Hugging vii
: a form of physical intimacy, that usually involves closing or holding the arms around the neck, back, or waist of another person while standing.
Hugging as a form of romantic exchange. o Cuddling viii : to hold another person close or to hold each other close, as for affection, comfort, or warmth; embrace while lying or sitting down; to curl or snuggle up into a comfortable or warm position; a close embrace, especially when prolonged o Kissing : To touch or caress with the lips as an expression of affection, greeting, respect, or amorousness ix
. Kissing that expresses passion, love, or affection. When lips are pressed together for an extended period, usually accompanied with an embrace, it is an expression of romantic and sexual desire x o Sharing an intimate private moment: Proclaiming love/affection for romantic interest/partner. Supporting by providing comfort and assistance through listening and providing suggestions or advice.
o Sexual activity xi
: manual intercourse (when the sex organs of one partner are in contact with the hand(s) of the other), oral intercourse (when the sex-organs of one partner are in contact with the mouth of the other), genital intercourse (when the sex organs of one partner are in contact with the sex organs of the other), anal intercourse (when the sex organs of one partner are in contact with the anus of the other)

Sex Stereotypes o All knowledgable about sex : people come to him/her asking questions about sexual activity, (s)he talks about and/or presents his/her self in such a way that
(s)he is extremely knowledgeable and familiar with sexual activity
65

Definitions for Coding System Appendix D o Open about sex: character will discuss sexual activity with any and everyone and/or present sexual activity to any and everyone o Promiscuous xii
: in human sexual behavior, refers to the practice of casual sex with multiple sexual partners. The term can carry a moral judgment and is viewed in the context of the mainstream social ideal for sexual activity to take place within exclusive committed relationships. A common example of behavior viewed as promiscuous within the mainstream social ideals of many cultures is a one night stand. According to Ahmad & Bhugra (2010), “Homosexuals (males particularly) are sexually very active and enjoy sex of all 
types more readily than heterosexual counterparts”.
 Lifestyle Stereotypes o Civil partnership and gay parenting xiii : Civil partnership and gay parenting are ways of homosexuals fitting into society more effectively o Hedonistic xiv : a person whose life is devoted to the pursuit of pleasure and selfgratification o Not weighed down by responsibilities: such as family, job, children, health, relationships, etc. compared to heterosexual counterparts xv

Personality and Appearance Stereotypes o Gay men well-groomed xvi : Gay men are (overly) concerned with their physical appearance and are always well groomed, dress well and are stylish o ‘Lip-stick’ lesbians xvii : a slang term used to describe lesbian and bisexual women who exhibit extremely feminine gender attributes, such as wearing make-up (thus, lipstick), wearing dresses or skirts and having other characteristics associated with feminine women o Sissy gay man xviii : “Sissy” is a pejorative term for a boy or man who violates or does not meet the traditional male gender role. Generally, sissy implies a lack of courage and stoicism, which are thought important to the male role. A man might also be considered a sissy for being interested in traditionally feminine hobbies or employment (e.g., being fond of fashion, going to meditation sessions, or cooking), for displaying effeminate behavior (e.g., saying "mua mua" before hanging up the phone or using creams), for being unathletic, or for being homosexual
66

Definitions for Coding System Appendix D o Gay men are flamboyant xix
: dashing, swashbuckling, showy, rich, elaborate, over the top, extravagant, ornate, ostentatious, colorful, striking, exciting, brilliant, glamorous, stylish, dazzling, glitzy, showy. o Effeminacy : interest in women's fashion, effusive emotional expressions among other males, cross-dressing or use of makeup, adoption of stereotypically feminine mannerisms o Villain xx
: a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel; or a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot o Psychopath xxi : personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others. It is defined in different ways, but can involve a lack of empathy or remorse, false emotions, selfishness, grandiosity or deceptiveness; it can also involve impulsiveness, irritability, aggression, or inability to perceive danger and protect one's self o Dangerous xxii
: risky, hazardous, unsafe, able or likely to cause physical injury o Campy: ostentatious, exaggerated, affected, theatrical
 Passion Stereotypes o Little or no sexual desire: if physical affection is shown between characters, it is more often in a comforting or supportive way rather than an act of sexuality. o Eroticism occurring within minor character xxiii : In the few instances when commercial theaters show films containing scenes of same-sex passion, that passion is typically subordinated to the heterosexuality of the film, meaning samesex eroticism occurs within a minor character. “Eroticism” is defined as “a state of sexual arousal and/or insistent sexual impulse or desire”.

Relationships Stereotypes o Long-term relationship presented as completely comic xxiv : referring to a relationship that does not have any significant amount of “seriousness” involved and where the relationship is presented in a way so as to amuse the audience such as in The Birdcage o Long-term relationship presented as ultimately tragic xxv : referring to a relationship that ends in a negative way through one character dying or the couple breaking up such as in Brokeback Mountain i http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_intimacy
67

Definitions for Coding System Appendix D ii http://www.thefreedictionary.com/carrying iii http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dancing iv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flirting v http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gaze vi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_hands vii http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugging viii http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cuddle ix http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kissing x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss xi http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ECE6/html/basic_types_of_sexual_intercou.html xii http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity xiii Ahmad & Bhugra, 2010:451-452 xiv http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hedonist xv Ahmad & Bhugra, 2010:451-452 xvi Ahmad & Bhugra, 2010:451-452 xvii http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_lesbian xviii http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sissy xix http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flamboyant xx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villain xxi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy xxii http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dangerous xxiii http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eroticism and Moddelmog, Debra A. 2009. “Can
Romantic Comedy Be Gay?” Journal of Popular Film and Television 36(4):162-173.
xxiv Moddelmog, Debra A. 2009. “Can Romantic Comedy Be Gay?” Journal of Popular Film and Television
36(4):162-173.
xxv Moddelmog, Debra A. 2009. “Can Romantic Comedy Be Gay?” Journal of Popular Film and Television
36(4):162-173.
68