When they're not simply a supporting character for comedic relief, the "gay character" in American films are usually outward stereotypical. It's been getting better over the years, but mostly only in the independent scene (most recently "Moonlight").
But even beyond that, gay films themselves have been seemingly only interested in their sexualities. The film's plots – with gay characters – are strictly, and only, about being gay – as if that's the one and only attribute of such a human being. Films rarely ever explore things beyond their sexual orientation (the only recent one I can think of is Ira Sachs' "Keep the Lights On", which was a film about drug addiction tearing up a gay couple).
When will American film be able to present a gay character in such a way? So uninteresting or "normal" like heterosexual characters are presented in various genres?
There's a really great documentary about precisely this topic, called The Celluloid Closet. It would be necessary for whoever attempts to write this article to watch that, and take it as a jumping-off point. Being made in 1996, I see this article as a good "picking up where they left off," particularly dealing with how the increase of social tolerance toward LGBTQ people at the turn of the 21st century may or may not be reflected in cinematic representation. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
reesepd, maybe explaining how gay cinema outside of the USA better handles the topic might help to clarify the problem of gay stereotypes in American cinema. I hope you don't think I'm criticizing the topic negatively. It will be enlightening for me to read, and I appreciate you writing the topic. – Tigey8 years ago
Reesepd, here's another thought: You mention Ira Sachs’ "Keep the Lights On" as the only recent example of a film not using gay stereotypes. Maybe part of the topic is the question, "Is the use of gay stereotypes actually getting worse in American cinema? Why?" Again, a very interesting topic. – Tigey8 years ago
This would be such an important and engaging topic to explore. Maybe even further exploring the history and progression of LGBT representation, and touch on the fact that we see more instances of m/m gay romance more so than any other part of the LGBT community. Looking forward to reading this! – Abby Wilson8 years ago
This article will analyze the relationship between modern day film and film of the earlier eras. It will be a comparison of story plot to draw out the cause of American paranoia. During the 20th century, film was a depiction of hope, change, and what our idea of the American Dream should be. Today in film, we see the consequences of our own decisions and individualities. There is the message of "if you do this, this will happen" which wasn't a thing in American Culture and film during the 20th century. The newly released film When The Bough Breaks takes the innocent act of surrogacy and twists it into a diabolical plot against an unsuspecting couple.
Rock and Roll as a genre is extremely controversial. Given its appropriative history, this goes without saying. Often times, Rock and Roll is also viewed as the hyper-masculine genre of music. Looking at the soundtrack and music references in Richard Linklater's School of Rock, does this film reinforce the misogynistic reputation of Rock and Roll?
Nice suggestion however, you might want provide some specific examples of where this occurred in the film? – Jason0527149 years ago
If we look at works which are both critically and financially successful we often see writers adapting previous works a la comics, books and in some cases films to tv (Fargo) Do writers hinder their own original ideas because of how an existing property is already ripe with ideas that can be changed or looked at in a different way.
Could you give some more examples of adaptations and specify according to type of translation to medium?
For example: Sex and the City - TV to book to movie
MASH - movie to TV
La femme Nikita - movie to TV
Wouldn't it be to a writer's advantage to get more mileage out of their ideas? The only written work I know of is SAGA, a comic book series that was specifically written so it would not be conducive to a film adaptation. Other stories like Spiderman were instances where Stan Lee chose to wait for the technology to do justice to his comics. I think it would be good to look at writers of novels or comics or movies that did not want to transcend the original medium in order to answer the question you have put forward. I hope this helps in what you are intending to answer. – Munjeera9 years ago
In response to Munjeera. The principle writer that has not supported adaptations of their work is Alan Moore. He has noted time and time again that the adaptions of his work are not good because of his own personal feelings on adaptation and that his work is designed for comic book (or graphic novel if you must be that guy) and with comics blowing up in terms of popularity his creation 'Constantine' is now a tv show without his consent and has no interest in exploring the class themes that the character was designed to explore. When it comes to novels to film successes there are countless, o name a few: Jaws, Blade Runner, Snowpiercer, any Kubrick. But there is a significant number of authors that do not agree with their work adapted to another medium. My question was whether this stifles writers, if a writer is constantly building off an already made work then do they limit their own imaginative works? – JChic9 years ago
Thanks for clarifying. I looked up Alan Moore and the topic suggested could be narrowed down to just on Alan Moore himself, a fascinating topic for an article. I would suggest writing about him and his work on this platform so that people like myself, who do not know much about him, can learn about his views. I only knew about him from "V for Vendetta." His beliefs and philosophies are definitely relevant to your topic and there is enough material to write a good article. Also Bill Watterson, of Calvin and Hobbes fame, successfully resisted all efforts to make his comic strip a movie. His dad was a patent lawyer so I am sure he was conscious of how his art could be exploited right from the beginning, an advantage that other artists may not be as aware as an "evil" they may have to guard against to retain their artistic purity. Watterson's rare interviews always touched on this topic. He is another example of an artist who eschewed financial gain for artistic integrity. If I am understanding you correctly, then perhaps the concept you are referring to could be how creative control, or lack thereof, affects the writer? When writers develop their concepts and these concepts are exploited, how does affect an artist? It would be interesting to learn about artists who do not sell out, create and protect their material in the original form. Let me know if I have understood you, at last. – Munjeera9 years ago
It also seems noteworthy that if a adaptation does not do well as a film, or in Tv, then then producers always look to the other one as the saviour. This seems to convolute the markets as now the original work has been adapted twice, therefore taken twice the amount of space for original Tv and film. – thomassutton949 years ago
I think this idea is interesting because it's different from the typical "book vs. movie" argument. I would opt to focus on TV adaptions for sure. The first two series that come to mind are naturally "The Walking Dead" and "Game of Thrones," both of which tend to have vastly different opinions between the book/comic readers and those who watch the show. Something like that could be interesting to discuss. For example, when does "changing the material" take away from the original source? If you are looking into movie to TV adaptions, "Fargo" is an excellent example, along with "Hannibal," "Ash vs. Evil Dead," and, though the original movie was rather poorly received, the stellar TV series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." – Filippo9 years ago
Focusing on what makes these 80s and 90s movies classics (Clueless, Fast Times at Ridgemont High) and what she can bring to her new movie currently in the works.
Some of the most impactful cinema has been composed of fantastical realms far set from reality. What is it about such fantasy that keeps audiences entranced? How are filmmakers still able, after all these years of a seemingly everlasting genre, to create groundbreaking films which continue to fascinate enormous groups of people?
I'd suggest mentioning the movie Pan's Labyrinth. The film is a fantastic example of blurring the line between fantasy and reality, which not many films do. – StefAnghel9 years ago
I don't know that one article can tackle successful fantasy in cinema. I'd recommend utilizing a case study of world-building through Hollywood and noting how it went right by citing and sampling instances through which it's gone wrong. I would definitely read a case study, and that would help focus the topic. – Piper CJ9 years ago
Unfortunately, not all films under the fantasy genre have this impact on audiences, so it would be better to write about this by picking a specific fantasy film, or series, that makes viewers feel 'entranced'. Also, if you look up "fantasy" in IMDB as a genre, you get a list with about 10,000 movies from "Suicide Squad" to "Shrek", so maybe identify further what you have in mind (eg. Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc.) – Suman9 years ago
Great topic, but I do agree with the preceding notes suggesting possibly adding in a title, or two, to set the mood for what you are attempting to highlight. As for fantasy, it is the ultimate means of escapism--except when the fantastical world is highlighting all that is wrong with society, such as dystopian society. Let's take, for instance, Harry Potter. It is a wondrous place of excitement, nostalgia, familial relations, friendships, emotional and mental growth, and has a wonderful score. How many times have you wished you could eat in the dining hall and have the owls deliver mail to you :-)? – danielle5779 years ago
Over the past 5 years or so, there has been a dramatic decline in cinema theater going, as home technologies such as Netflix, Hulu, and the Amazon Firestick, have grown in popularity. With that in mind, what does this mean for the future of the movie going experience? How do they maintain relevance in an industry that is quickly out growing their services?
I have said this before, and I will say it again, I do think monetary issues are a key reason in the decline in movie theater viewership. I have heard people countless times remark that they would obtain the film via. online streaming, a DVD, etc., to avoid the high cost of the movies. Also, now with the rise of 3-D televisions, people are able to watch the movies, as intended, upon filming. Not to mention the high-tech sound systems people have in their homes that allow for the same surround sound feeling that people go to the movies for. Another important aspect is the lack of quality of movies. All that appears to be released is another subsequent edition to a franchise, a remake, or a blockbuster film with hardly any dialogue and abundant reliance on special effects and CGI. On another note: I do not think your title--though I know this is just a suggested topic--adequately describes your topic. When reading the title, it appears as though you are going to discuss film in a positive light, yet you bring up all of these relevant questions that dispute the title. Even if you were to just add a question mark after your title, it would make more sense. – danielle5779 years ago
Freddy, Jason, Micheal, Pinhead, Chucky… all original horror characters (some with funny jokes) but today the Horror movie genre seems dead (no pun intended). The only thing still keeping the genre is alive is turning old books into films, or films attempting to copy the mastermind, Wes Craven.
There is a rise in the number of horror short films and many are quite good. Perhaps these will replace full-length feature movies in the genre.
– Jeffery Moser9 years ago
Short horror stories, especially the best of Creepy Pastas available out there, would only last about a half hour at most in a visual format. But these are the stories that have managed to scare me and affect me the most, except for maybe "Hellraiser" 1 and 2. These stories, written by everyday teens and young adults, are clever, innovative, original, and surprising. Something that modern horror cinema has failed time and time again to do. Modern horror films, for the most part, do not understand what is truly scary. They do not try to be terrifying. Rather they go for the quick and simple thrills and jump scares, and disturbing imagery. But the funny thing is, even the imagery isn't as freaky or disturbing as it could be. Because something as innocent as a doll facing just the right way in the middle of an empty old room with one eye missing can be scarier than a dead person's body cut open on a table or something. It's more about subtlety, misdirection, showing people one thing, but then revealing it to be more than what it appeared at first. "Sinister" managed to do some of this at first, but then went so far beyond itself that it became laughable by the end. It tried to be creative and original, and really mysterious, but then it broke that barrier between scary and stupid, and it just lost its grip. If horror wants to get better, then it needs to look into Creepy Pastas for inspiration, and not just to fit them into the tried-and-true molds that already exist, but to present them as they were intended, where they can actually elicit a palpable and lasting reaction. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I would give reasons why the genre "seems dead" to you. What did past horror characters have that may be lacking today? What makes Wes Craven "the mastermind"? – StephenMatthias9 years ago
Was Wes a "Mastermind?" I mean, he had like two big films that are respected to this day, and then a bunch of sequels that slowly got less and less innovative. The other things he did I couldn't even name for you. Whereas someone like John Carpenter created "Halloween," "The Thing," "The Fog," and "In the Mouth of Madness." Even his first feature, "Dark Star," went on to inspire Ridley Scott's "Alien," because both films had a similar plot-line, the same writer, and the same VFX supervisor. I get that Craven has always been a big deal, I just don't quite get why compared to other horror directors. I mean, heck, what about Tobe Hooper? – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
One area of focus could be the numerous sequels to certain horror movie franchises. – JDJankowski9 years ago
