The docufilm, The Celluloid Closet (1995) is enlightening on several levels. It has illustrated how film can be re-interpreted. In this case a few references have re-interpreted carefully selected film clips as a subtext of homosexuality. This is a retrospective prism from the perspective of a homosexual audience. This revised perspective of film becomes the premise from which to forge a tool to critique English speaking cinema, primarily that of the Hollywood variety.
In other words the issue of 'homosexuality' is utilised in order to highlight the power of Hollywood and its conservative bent (pun not intended) on morals and values. The set of values are a reflection of public morality throughout the ages. This perception of morality by the audience is a further reflection of the contested and contrasting ideas of ideals between conservative and liberal factions. This is reflected as an ever shifting attitude by Hollywood's toward homosexuality, thereby exacerbating the public's confusion of morality.
On closer examination this confusion is explained less by whether homosexuality should be referenced on film, but more about how it should be portrayed and interpreted. Where the stereotyped 'pansy' has been portrayed by film makers and promoters as none-threatening as it's more palatable, the actual practise of homosexual sex acts within film, is pushing the boundaries in order to force the audience to question their own values. Ironically, this forces an almost inverse immorality where the film makers portraying homosexual acts are moral whilst the audience are made to feel unethical even for questioning whether this is acceptable causing a collective, guilt trip among the latter.
This 'guilt trip' of the film audience has been averted by the Conservative rulers of morality, which frees the public of their obligation towards shaping morality democratically. These conservative moral formers manifested themselves via the likes of the Hays' Code which actually permitted audiences to view films without moral obligations. At this point film became conceived as merely entertaining, rather than an artistic medium to challenge perceptions of morality.
Conversly the Hays' code gave artistic license to creative film makers and actors to introduce subtexts into the plots. As such,The Hay's Code was an involuntary contributor to creative film makers who utilised the 'subtext' as a tool for the re-interpretation by differing audiences. The question is were these subtexts introduced to bypass the Hays' Code, challenge it, or an excuse for to advance the ego of the film maker, thereby promoting her or his credentials as an artist? The docufilm is after all a showcase of talented editing!
Paradoxically, where the Hay's Code alleviated audiences of moral obligations, it awakened the conscience of some who became post modern moral leaders. These new moral leaders insist their interpretation of film is superior based solely on the fact that they assert that they can see what others can't. As such, these interpretations of film merely serve as instruments to promote a sense (as opposed to actual) authority to certain post modern commentators. Many of these commentators infer that Hollywood is a conspiratorial medium to cause an unthinking, unconscious, naive audience. Rather the post modern idealists who pride themselves on their advocacy of the individual who thinks for her or himself have hijacked film in an artistic coup for their own agenda.
In sum, the celluloid closet is a most enlightening, informative docufilm. Highly recommended.
In other words the issue of 'homosexuality' is utilised in order to highlight the power of Hollywood and its conservative bent (pun not intended) on morals and values. The set of values are a reflection of public morality throughout the ages. This perception of morality by the audience is a further reflection of the contested and contrasting ideas of ideals between conservative and liberal factions. This is reflected as an ever shifting attitude by Hollywood's toward homosexuality, thereby exacerbating the public's confusion of morality.
On closer examination this confusion is explained less by whether homosexuality should be referenced on film, but more about how it should be portrayed and interpreted. Where the stereotyped 'pansy' has been portrayed by film makers and promoters as none-threatening as it's more palatable, the actual practise of homosexual sex acts within film, is pushing the boundaries in order to force the audience to question their own values. Ironically, this forces an almost inverse immorality where the film makers portraying homosexual acts are moral whilst the audience are made to feel unethical even for questioning whether this is acceptable causing a collective, guilt trip among the latter.
This 'guilt trip' of the film audience has been averted by the Conservative rulers of morality, which frees the public of their obligation towards shaping morality democratically. These conservative moral formers manifested themselves via the likes of the Hays' Code which actually permitted audiences to view films without moral obligations. At this point film became conceived as merely entertaining, rather than an artistic medium to challenge perceptions of morality.
Conversly the Hays' code gave artistic license to creative film makers and actors to introduce subtexts into the plots. As such,The Hay's Code was an involuntary contributor to creative film makers who utilised the 'subtext' as a tool for the re-interpretation by differing audiences. The question is were these subtexts introduced to bypass the Hays' Code, challenge it, or an excuse for to advance the ego of the film maker, thereby promoting her or his credentials as an artist? The docufilm is after all a showcase of talented editing!
Paradoxically, where the Hay's Code alleviated audiences of moral obligations, it awakened the conscience of some who became post modern moral leaders. These new moral leaders insist their interpretation of film is superior based solely on the fact that they assert that they can see what others can't. As such, these interpretations of film merely serve as instruments to promote a sense (as opposed to actual) authority to certain post modern commentators. Many of these commentators infer that Hollywood is a conspiratorial medium to cause an unthinking, unconscious, naive audience. Rather the post modern idealists who pride themselves on their advocacy of the individual who thinks for her or himself have hijacked film in an artistic coup for their own agenda.
In sum, the celluloid closet is a most enlightening, informative docufilm. Highly recommended.