The following films: Rope (1948), Psycho (1960) and Some Like It Hot (1959) all represent queer identities even though they are not implied directly. The use of connotative homosexuality became used in Hollywood film to represent these queer identities. In the chapter, “Those Wonderful People Out There in the Dark,” Benshoff and Griffen express, “Since connotative homosexuality is expressed through signs that are veiled or suggestive, there is no way to prove that they are absolutely meant to be homosexual or, conversely, that they are absolutely not meant to be homosexual. Suddenly everything becomes suspect, and an entire universe of cinematic queerness becomes possible” (66). Here, whether or not something is meant to be homosexual, audience at the time would search for queer subtext in Hollywood films and the more the Production Code banned such elements of “sex perversion,” the more audience would interpret films in their own ways.
In the film, Rope (1948), Philip and Brandon are the two main characters. From the use of ropes, to the murderous act portrayed in the film, queer subtexts are made clear from a queer audience’s perspective. In “The Murderous Gays: Hitchcock’s Homophobia,” Robin Wood states, “Rope can be read as associating homosexuality with the unnatural, the sick, the perverse – with “evil” and fascism” (209). The term evil is associated with the act of murdering David Kentley. Since “Rope could not possibly “deal with” the subject of homosexuality…” (211), the reference to a sexual act between Philip and Brandon was made possible by the act of murder. The diverse relationship between Philip and Brandon is shown from the very beginning of the film where they share the intimate moment of murdering David Kentley. The queer subtext portrayed in the film is evident throughout moments after the murderous act. In all, Hitchcock was able to place the act of murder on screen rather than a homosexual act because of the Production Code. However, the reference to a sexual act is there and is interpreted different from the views of a queer audience at the time.
One part of the film that caught my attention by surprise was the symbolism of the champagne bottle opening after the murder. I was not aware of this as I was watching the film, but Wood states how “The image of the champagne bottle can be read as the clearest – though heavily coded – information as to what Brandon ad Philip actually “do”: self-masturbating rather than intercourse” (212). This statement is the clear way of how Hollywood filmmakers at the time passed the Production Code and in turn, allowed for such homosexual references to be displayed on screen.
As “evil” developed into a negative notion in relation to homosexuality activity/reference in Rope (1948), postwar behavior from general audience may have developed into actually fearing it. In “Fear and Loathing in Postwar Hollywood,” Benshoff and Griffen give the fact that “According to psychiatric rubrics, homosexuality was considered a dangerous form of sexual psychopathology linked to all sorts of antisocial behaviors. Homosexuals were branded “sex murderers” in the press…Male homosexuality was increasingly associated with child molestation and seen as a possible cause or link to the rampant juvenile delinquency with which the era was also obsessed” (87). Different viewpoints changed during postwar and people’s opinions about homosexuality were rather negative. However, with the change of the Production Code, Hollywood filmmakers were able to imply sexual behaviors and weren’t as limited.
With the evolving weakening of the Production Code, films like Psycho (1960) became more open to queerness. The term “transvestite” was actually stated directly in the ending of the film. As a result of films like these, the Production Code had to reevaluate its strategies and then allowed for a sensitive representation of homosexuality if it was treated carefully. However, Norman Bates, as a character, is seen as heterosexual because of his psychological behavior. He sees Marion as a sexual object. Even the scene were Norman and Marion are sharing a meal together, Norman’s taxidermy on the wall (owls) represents what Marion is to him as the camera cuts to shots of the birds while Norman stares and is perceptive as to how Marion eats her food. All these different elements contribute to what queerness may be in reference to. The term “queer” originates form the meaning of strange or peculiar (see Week 1 Discussion). Norman Bates could be seen as queer just by the fact that he impersonates his mother, but he isn’t homosexual because of his infatuation with Marion. Also, by reading “Psycho: Queering Hitchcock’s Classics,” it is evident how technicalities and scene development made it unique to Hithchcock’s cinematic techniques (as with the various cuts of Norman’s owls on the walls to Marion eating).
As for Some Like It Hot (1959), a somewhat different approach is taken on queer identities. Going from thriller to comedy may come as a drastic change, but this film depicts audience’s views during the time of the film. However, cross-dressing at the time and ever since the beginning of film history, portrays these men as a laughing matter. It’s silly for men to go and dress as a woman and for the sake of this film, the queer aspect is definitely shown here when Joe and Jerry disguise themselves as women. It is quite strange to see men this way. When viewing this film, it was clear to me that the audience at the time probably took this as a joke and laughed a lot at it. Different perspectives are what make this film and other films at the time, unique in relation to queerness.
However, there have been vastly different representations of queered gender and sexuality as stated in “Exploitation or Art?” from the way films such as Rope (1948), Psycho (1960) or Some Like It Hot (1959) were depicted. As stated in “Exploitation or Art?” “Hollywood-inspired physique films are excellent examples of how historical queers campily rewrote Hollywood cinema for their own goals” (115). Maybe these goals were personal goals or maybe they wanted to send a message to audience members at the time. These types of films were, indeed, more graphic than the previous mentioned films. These forms of exploitation were creative ways to show forms of “sex perversion.” The camp style of these films changed the way, with the use of cheap sets, lighting, props, etc., audience would interpret these films.
Overall, it is interesting how queerness is portrayed on screen and with postwar development, different audience groups had different opinions. We are all different, yet I believe these Hollywood films wanted to give out a message to its audience members, even though they weren’t necessarily implied directly.