Genres Issues

4.2 Genres Issues

When we were discussing gay male representation in contemporary TV series on the British small screen, most of the participants discussed it within the context of genres of TV series, namely, comedy, sitcom, drama, and soap. As Hall (1993) points out, if an event needs to be broadcasted as television news then it must encoded as a television story; in this way television news as a genre impacts on the way in which they encode it. In the view of my participants, it seems that in their decoding processes, genre still matters. In fact the genre here is just a discourse, making meaning in the representation practices.

“Comedies, I think you have to take them with a pinch of salt, they’re all kind of stereotypes.” – Stoner

For comedy, some participants felt that the representation is an extreme version of what is found in real life, so they would not be offended by the stereotypical portrayals of gay men. For instance, Stoner told me that because it is a comedy, people expect it to be slightly exaggerated. He said : “they’re almost all big versions of characters who really exist in For comedy, some participants felt that the representation is an extreme version of what is found in real life, so they would not be offended by the stereotypical portrayals of gay men. For instance, Stoner told me that because it is a comedy, people expect it to be slightly exaggerated. He said : “they’re almost all big versions of characters who really exist in

They all felt that that extreme and stereotypical character representations in comedy exists not only when gay people are being portrayed, but also that these extremes are applied to straight people. Randy thought that people would generally laugh at anything that is foreign to them, especially the extreme differences. Femininity is the binary opposition of masculinity. Traditionally, men are supposed to be masculine. Therefore the extreme femininity (camp) of gay men is just what makes people laugh. Jim even thought that camp can be quite posi tive. He said: “Some people are offended if people laugh at things that are camp, but it is meant to be laughed at, it’s meant to be fun and it’s meant to be enjoyed. So it is a part of it really. Usually, part of the portrayal is that they are very quick- witted, they have an answer to something, fairly sarcastic, big use of irony, clever, really”. He thought that because the media generally portray gay people as being very camp, and people like Graham Norton and Alan Carr are able to make a living on acting in a camp manner. People have become more familiar with camp characters, so they are more They all felt that that extreme and stereotypical character representations in comedy exists not only when gay people are being portrayed, but also that these extremes are applied to straight people. Randy thought that people would generally laugh at anything that is foreign to them, especially the extreme differences. Femininity is the binary opposition of masculinity. Traditionally, men are supposed to be masculine. Therefore the extreme femininity (camp) of gay men is just what makes people laugh. Jim even thought that camp can be quite posi tive. He said: “Some people are offended if people laugh at things that are camp, but it is meant to be laughed at, it’s meant to be fun and it’s meant to be enjoyed. So it is a part of it really. Usually, part of the portrayal is that they are very quick- witted, they have an answer to something, fairly sarcastic, big use of irony, clever, really”. He thought that because the media generally portray gay people as being very camp, and people like Graham Norton and Alan Carr are able to make a living on acting in a camp manner. People have become more familiar with camp characters, so they are more

Stoner developed this idea a bit further. He thought that because people expect and like to see gay people being camp in comedies and clearly accept it, when gay people first develop their gay identity, they want to behave camp and funny to make people laugh, and to fit in with the media image of gay men in order to let people accept them. However, this may not be the true self of the gay person. Stoner told me: “Until I became secure in who I am myself, then I realised, wait a minute, hang on, I don’t have to wave my arms about constantly. I can just sit there and relax and be myself”.

However, my participants showed more disagreement with one another when they talked about the recent situation comedy, Vicious , which portrayed an elderly gay couple’s life. Jim viewed Vicious as a series featuring older people who behave like they did when they were younger. The humour came mainly from the time discrepancy rather than their sexuality. He thought it is realistic because he knows two people very much like the couple in the progra mme. He still found there was a balance in this series featuring the life of “two bitchy puffs”. On one hand, part of their relationship is that they do not show each other much affection. They score points off each other; they say things to put each other down all the time. He viewed this as part of the comedy just like Roseanne where all the characters treat each other in a similar way. On the other hand, he said: “All the time, you However, my participants showed more disagreement with one another when they talked about the recent situation comedy, Vicious , which portrayed an elderly gay couple’s life. Jim viewed Vicious as a series featuring older people who behave like they did when they were younger. The humour came mainly from the time discrepancy rather than their sexuality. He thought it is realistic because he knows two people very much like the couple in the progra mme. He still found there was a balance in this series featuring the life of “two bitchy puffs”. On one hand, part of their relationship is that they do not show each other much affection. They score points off each other; they say things to put each other down all the time. He viewed this as part of the comedy just like Roseanne where all the characters treat each other in a similar way. On the other hand, he said: “All the time, you

Scott also liked Vicious, he felt that this programme tried to sell the straight population a particular kind of image of gay lifestyle – very glamorous, a kind of faded glory that was from an earlier era. He pointed out one particularly good feature of this series is that it is about older gay people. He said: “Lots of LGBT programmes focus on younger people; they forget that there are older LGBT people, while Vicious does not. The subliminal message to the audiences is that gay people do grow older”. Another element which he liked about this series was that it simply showed an older couple living in a very normal kind of relationship. He said: “Yeah, they’re bitchy, they’re funny. There might be lots of gay humour, but at the end of the day, it shows you a very loving couple who have been dedicated to each other for 25 years”. He also told me when he watching this show he always imagined how life with his partner would be when he was in his 60s.

Carr enjoyed watching it, but he felt it could be done better. “You got two brilliant gay actors – Ian McKellen and Derek Jacobi – especially Ian did so much for the gay community. I felt a bit disappointed because there wasn’t anything spectacular. It only goes for cheap laughs, the double entendre” he said. He thought it was still stereotypical – the old theatre queens.

Although some participants watched Vicious for fun and did not take it seriously, there were several participants who expressed concern about this programmes, or who could not stand it. Matt recalled a conversation he had with his personal trainer when Vicious was being televised. The straight personal trainer had watched it, and he had felt uncomf ortable about it. He then asked Matt’s feelings on it (he knew Matt is gay), because

he was not sure whether or not he should laugh at it. He was worried that it would be the same as laughing at black people or disabled people. Matt believed that this indicated progress in our society, in that straight people are feeling uncomfortable with certain aspects of the representation of gay men on TV. He thought it is generally because there have been many improvements in such portrayals in the media over the past 30 years. Matt felt that the representation of gay men in Vicious was a throwback to old days and it was like a review of programmes like Rising Damp. He can see no progress in either the way of presenting the programme or the portrayals of gay people.

He recalled the name-calling and bullying experiences he suffered from his peers when he was a child, and when programmes with stereotypical camp gay characters were on air. So now, 30 years later, he said he did not feel comfortable with this representation, especially as it was written by a gay writer and starred two famous gay actors. If they felt comfortable with it then he also should feel comfortable, however, he did not. He also wondered whether this kind of representation will damage the progress which has been made in the past decades. He was worried that name-calling and bullying of effeminate boys will start again because of the show. He believed that kids will pick up stuff from TV very quickly. His partner Cain agreed with him.

Luke and his partner did not like the programme at all; they both thought it was awful and it was deliberately written to provide humour for straight people. “I was so depressed seeing it even being allowed to air on TV. It was just like 50 years ago. It was terrible. It’s

depressing that they put on a programme like that. It was just two old men being very bitchy and queeny to each other for laughs. It was not funny at all. It was a very destructive relationship. There is not a single scene where one partner supports the other, they just score points off each other, put each other down. I think that’s really contradictive” Freeman interrupted Luke after he said he does not like the way the portraying gay men in Vicious. They see it as a throwback to the 60s or 70s. Luke said it was an anachronism depressing that they put on a programme like that. It was just two old men being very bitchy and queeny to each other for laughs. It was not funny at all. It was a very destructive relationship. There is not a single scene where one partner supports the other, they just score points off each other, put each other down. I think that’s really contradictive” Freeman interrupted Luke after he said he does not like the way the portraying gay men in Vicious. They see it as a throwback to the 60s or 70s. Luke said it was an anachronism

Above all, we can see that the participants’ understandings of the gay male representation are extremely varied. Although there are some similar opinions, none of their understandings is the same. If we refer back to Hall (1993)’s decoding theory. We can assume that the “preferred reading” of this programme is simply that it is an enjoyable show, and that it is not offensive from th e producer or writer’s position, because no-one would want to make an offensive programme. So Jim’s understanding (“It is a show about an old couple who are still living a life like when they were younger. They put each other down but they do care about each other. Sexuality is incidental from the humour”) and Scott’s understanding (“it simply showed an older couple living in a very normal kind of relationship” “Although they are bitchy and funny, they love each other”) are the “preferred rea dings”. Carr offered a “preferred reading” as well, but it may possibly be seen also as a “negotiated reading” (he thought that it is enjoyable, but it could be done better). Matt and Cain’s reading would be “negotiated reading” (they doubted whether this programme is offensive or not). Luke and Freeman thus offer the oppositional reading (they thought it is offensive). It may be considered odd to count the number of holders of the three kinds of readings, because it is not a quantitative research and is the view of only a very small number of participants. However, it is still interesting to point out that actually only two of Above all, we can see that the participants’ understandings of the gay male representation are extremely varied. Although there are some similar opinions, none of their understandings is the same. If we refer back to Hall (1993)’s decoding theory. We can assume that the “preferred reading” of this programme is simply that it is an enjoyable show, and that it is not offensive from th e producer or writer’s position, because no-one would want to make an offensive programme. So Jim’s understanding (“It is a show about an old couple who are still living a life like when they were younger. They put each other down but they do care about each other. Sexuality is incidental from the humour”) and Scott’s understanding (“it simply showed an older couple living in a very normal kind of relationship” “Although they are bitchy and funny, they love each other”) are the “preferred rea dings”. Carr offered a “preferred reading” as well, but it may possibly be seen also as a “negotiated reading” (he thought that it is enjoyable, but it could be done better). Matt and Cain’s reading would be “negotiated reading” (they doubted whether this programme is offensive or not). Luke and Freeman thus offer the oppositional reading (they thought it is offensive). It may be considered odd to count the number of holders of the three kinds of readings, because it is not a quantitative research and is the view of only a very small number of participants. However, it is still interesting to point out that actually only two of

So what may happen in their decoding moment or what may influence them when they are decoding the same text? He re is a possible account from my participants’ different readings: Matt told me that he had bad experiences when he was a child after some shows delivering stereotypical gay male characters. Luke also told me that his colleagues did not treat him very well because he behaved slightly effeminately. They both expressed worries about whether the throwback representation will damage the improvements of the representation of gay men on TV. These imply that they do care about the representation of “themselves” on TV and they hold the opinion that those representations will affect people’s thinking and behaviour. Therefore, when Vicious came on TV with certain elements or characteristics similar to the old stereotypical portrayals, they feared the negative effects of such representation. So they cannot see the positive points in the series which leads them to do negotiated or oppositional reading.

On the other hand, Jim told me he does not care what other people think. Carr said he tended to not follow what is expected of a gay man in the media. This means they are in a relatively independent position away from the media representation. As an LGBT charity director, Scott cares about the visibility of older LGBT people, so he considered it to be of primary significance that older LGBT people’s lives were portrayed. In the decoding moments, these positions lead them to read the representation in a “preferred” way.

From the special case of Vicious, we can see that in the decoding moment, people do negotiate with the meaning in such a way reflecting their own position, experiences and interests. Another interesting general trend here which needs to be pointed out is that, apart from Jim, participants who tend to have negotiated reading or oppositional reading are more than 45 years old. This means that they experienced the “ridicule” stage of gay male representation in TV. They have witnessed the change in the representation. So this would also be an important factor that influences their reading of the representation.

“In a soap opera, usually a gay person is introduced as a storyline.” – Cain

Participants noticed that there is a turning point in the numbers of gay characters appearing in soaps on the British small screen, some of them believe that there must be some political reasons for that. Their view confirms the studies of Arthurs (2004) and Bradley (2013) which point out the importance of political and cultural impetus in dramas Participants noticed that there is a turning point in the numbers of gay characters appearing in soaps on the British small screen, some of them believe that there must be some political reasons for that. Their view confirms the studies of Arthurs (2004) and Bradley (2013) which point out the importance of political and cultural impetus in dramas

Cain felt that being gay is a plot device for those gay characters in soap operas. He said “There must be a storyline attached to a gay person. Like the lad [Johnny] who is dealing with his mother in EastEnders now, it’s a plot line”. He welcomed the fact that people such

as the TV presenters or sports persons who have recently come out are represented in a positive way in the real world . “You may say he is a Rugby player, but he also happens to

be gay” said Cain. But he cannot find any example of this in soap operas or dramas. Matt added “If there is a gay couple in Emmerdale or Coronation Street, they can’t live there forever, like Stan & Hilda. They only go so far and are then got r id of; they can’t be constant characters.” Matt also felt that it is rare to see ethnic minority gay couples. If those couples are shown, there must be a power shift or a crisis which is the plot line device again. It is rare to see an equal relationship if it involves gay ethnic minorities. There are not “ordinary” gay individuals or couples; they never portray the unremarkable lives of gay people. They still have to have some elements of tragedy or to be very dramatic. Matt used Syed in EastEnders who gave up his marriage and developed a relationship with a white guy, and another gay character in Emmerdale who had been killed off by accident, as typical examples. “There must be some elements of be gay” said Cain. But he cannot find any example of this in soap operas or dramas. Matt added “If there is a gay couple in Emmerdale or Coronation Street, they can’t live there forever, like Stan & Hilda. They only go so far and are then got r id of; they can’t be constant characters.” Matt also felt that it is rare to see ethnic minority gay couples. If those couples are shown, there must be a power shift or a crisis which is the plot line device again. It is rare to see an equal relationship if it involves gay ethnic minorities. There are not “ordinary” gay individuals or couples; they never portray the unremarkable lives of gay people. They still have to have some elements of tragedy or to be very dramatic. Matt used Syed in EastEnders who gave up his marriage and developed a relationship with a white guy, and another gay character in Emmerdale who had been killed off by accident, as typical examples. “There must be some elements of

Stoner has the same feeling about the gay characters in soaps. He joked “Is there a book somewhere? Every writer needs a gay character, then go through it. Oh, we gonna have someone coming out with difficulty this time, we gonna have someone having an affair with

a married man. Like a list of things that the y can do with gay characters”. They felt that when a gay character is first introduced into a soap opera he cannot be portrayed as simply a gay character moving into a straight community, there must be some high drama surrounding him.

Randy gave me a specific example of how a gay character was introduced into a soap opera and he did not think it is a good way to do it. In EastEnders recently, a new character arrived in the square. His family had taken over the Vic pub, and he was the youngest son named Johnny. The lingering camera shots made it clear that something was going to happen, and the stares between him and an older customer in the pub made it clear that there was some attraction between them. Just a few minutes later, Johnny was sitting on a public bench in the square a couple of feet from the same guy, and, without any warning, Johnny suddenly grabbed the guy and kissed him passionately on the lips. However, in the following episodes, Johnny seemed hesitant and unsure about his sexuality, and was reluctant to visit a gay club or event. He thought this obvious Randy gave me a specific example of how a gay character was introduced into a soap opera and he did not think it is a good way to do it. In EastEnders recently, a new character arrived in the square. His family had taken over the Vic pub, and he was the youngest son named Johnny. The lingering camera shots made it clear that something was going to happen, and the stares between him and an older customer in the pub made it clear that there was some attraction between them. Just a few minutes later, Johnny was sitting on a public bench in the square a couple of feet from the same guy, and, without any warning, Johnny suddenly grabbed the guy and kissed him passionately on the lips. However, in the following episodes, Johnny seemed hesitant and unsure about his sexuality, and was reluctant to visit a gay club or event. He thought this obvious

Other participants seem to agree with Randy’s suggestion that there may be some gay people who behave in the manner represented in those TV series. They all acknowledged that those representations are realistic to some extent. Some of them told me that they knew one or more people who behaved like that. Jim told me that he knows two people very much like the couple in Vicious, therefore, although he thought it was 60s or 70s stereotypical gay representation, he still believed it is not unrealistic. Watching Nurse Jackie (in which there was a gay nurse Thor) reminded Chris of his two gay nurse friends and how they are at work. Differently, John felt Sean in Coronation Street is realistic because he actually met the actor who played the character in real life, and the character is exactly how he is.

On the other hand, most of my participants did not view the gay male representation in recent or current TV series as positive. “They tend to show only limited aspects of what is perceived to be a homosexual man, but not a rounded character” said Carr. He felt that a On the other hand, most of my participants did not view the gay male representation in recent or current TV series as positive. “They tend to show only limited aspects of what is perceived to be a homosexual man, but not a rounded character” said Carr. He felt that a

Freeman offered me a positive way of portraying gay people by referring to the books that

he recently read. He has read several books that introduced the central characters using non-gender- specific terms, like “doctor”. They described the person in a certain position of power, making difficult decisions on running things. He thought this brings the assumption that the character is a male. However, ten or twenty pages later, it suddenly revealed that the character is a woman. He admired how the writers dealt with the characters in those books, because he thought in this way, it shows all the prejudices that you have. So he suggested that the portrayals of gay men should be the same. “It is a more powerful way of doing it” he said.

Luke described another representation of a gay male that he thought was positive in a science fiction drama. It is Sam Adama in Caprica who was the enforcer of criminal Luke described another representation of a gay male that he thought was positive in a science fiction drama. It is Sam Adama in Caprica who was the enforcer of criminal

Most of the participants held the same view, that they want the characters in those programmes to just happen to be gay instead of having to be a gay character. They prefer that the sexuality would be of secondary, or even minimal, significance when the programme writer or producer decided to portray a gay character. In this sense, it seems possible to argue that my participants do not actually think it is a good way to challenge the heteronormativity in those representations through over-emphasis on the differences of sexuality. In fact, they think the better way to do it is to show the commonality that people enco unter in life. “Sexuality should be an incidental part of the representations, not just the cause” said Jim.