By Jessica Downer
“Why do they need more representation?” is a comment often thrown around online after the release of a new show or film with LGBT+ representation. It’s true that in recent years, and even months, that the media has explored more LGBT+ stories. Since the first British film, Victim in 1961, used the term ‘homosexual’- and arguably before that in subtext- we’ve had Moonlight, The Way He Looks, Carol, Queer as Folk and much more. However, whilst progress is welcomed with open arms, what about the stories that aren’t being told?
There seems to be a lack of LGBT+ characters who exist simply because they can, writers instead throw in a ‘token’ gay character to be politicised or to make the writer appear in a favourable way, regardless whether that character is actually an offensive stereotype or not. Shows like Inside No. 9 (in which the episode ‘Sardines’ include two men who are a minor part of the story), Doctor Who and Killing Eve, amongst others, are perfect examples of shows that do the opposite. The idea of having gay characters that exist simply because they can, and their characters not being the over the top and borderline offensive stereotype that Hollywood can’t seem to let go of, not only normalises it, but also tells LGBT youth that it’s okay to just exist exactly as they are, outside of the outdated stereotypes.
Furthermore, there seems to be a lack of normalised representation compared to films that have it overtly (ones that follow the characters sexuality as the focus point of the entire piece of media). It’s important to have those stories, especially when our history is so important. Films like Pride, The Miseducation of Cameron Post and TV shows, like Cucumber and Banana, tell real stories that follow homophobia, the impact of the AIDS crisis on the community, conversion therapy and coming out. They are extremely valuable stories that need to be told. There certainly is a need for story lines that depict positive representation by normalising shows that aren’t as westernised, or so white, straight and cisgendered focused. It is not hypocritical to also wish for more stories in which sexuality is not the focus. Media where they are perfectly comfortable with their identity, coming of age stories where they are simply navigating the world in the same way heterosexual teenagers do, because they are not exempt from these experiences simply because of their sexuality.
But what about when that representation is harmful? Call Me By Your Name follows the relationship of Elio and Oliver, ages 17 and 24 respectively, and is well received. However, it has also attracted criticism for pedalling the harmful homophobic trope of gay men as inherently predatory, perhaps most explicitly referenced in the 1950s PSA: “Boys Beware.” Why, then, does film in the 21st Century achieve great acclaim for bringing it back? Not only is this problematic for a number of reasons, but it is even more dangerous when it has been packaged as a romantic film rather than one that perpetuates harmful and offensive stereotypes that the community constantly battles to dispel, and normalises relationships with significant power imbalances. Of course, it is not always so overt.
‘Queerbaiting’ got thrown into the wider public forum around 2010-2012 during the golden age of the internet and more specifically, Tumblr. ‘Queerbaiting’ is deliberately hinting that a character is gay or rather that two characters are in a same sex relationship, but also whilst vehemently denying this is happening and never giving the audience what they want. In simpler terms, it’s setting the audience up with blatant chemistry between two characters, and then pulling the rug out from under them by never actually following through. The general accepted payoff for ‘Queerbaiting’ is that you keep hold of a portion of your fanbase who are hoping you turn it into explicit representation, whilst also not losing portion of your base who are homophobic. It differs from subtext, which is more subtle and seen as reading into a piece of media (literature) and coming to their own conclusions. Theoretically, it’s meant to keep everyone happy. However, such a theory doesn’t account for the people who notice and eventually give it a name.
Perhaps the best and most iconic pairing is that of ‘Johnlock’ (Watson and Sherlock, specifically the BBC incarnations). Sherlock as a character has been shrouded in subtext, from the canon text by Conan Doyle, to the Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, which perhaps is the most explicit hint that Sherlock is not straight. Of course, it’s entirely possible to gut Sherlock of any hint of romance. Elementary has avoided it entirely, with most of the fandom seeing ‘Joanlock’ as entirely platonic. Why then, did BBC Sherlock change everything?
The answer is complicated. There is no doubt that fanfiction culture that has often spread into the fetishisation of mlm (mostly by heterosexual women), is partly responsible, but it’s unfair and offensive to pigeonhole LGBT+ fans to that group. Flirty scenes such as the two on a date, paired with Watson asking if Sherlock has a boyfriend. “Which is fine, by the way” sent the fandom into absolute meltdown, demanding how such a scene could be viewed as two totally straight friends on a stakeout. If I were to analyse every scene as torn apart by the fandom (so much so that phrases like “I don’t mind” and “not my real name” will haunt me forever) it would take a lifetime. The point is that to some, these scenes signalled something more than a friendship. This gave birth to the iconic ‘there must be a secret fourth episode where Watson and Sherlock kiss’ theory. After the show ended, you had a fanbase who, frankly, felt cheated. Amongst them were LGBT+ fans who were hoping that Gatiss and Moffat really would follow through and give them representation in a show that they loved. After all, for argument's sake, why not?
The ‘why not’ is easily answered: the reaction from the casual viewer. Hardcore fans make up only a small portion of the viewership, and to call a spade a spade: the general public are not as accepting as they pretend to be. Every time there is representation on TV, the headlines the next day are about how many OFCOM reports they got because of it. That is not to say that Gatiss himself, a gay man, sat down one day and decided he was going to bait an entire community, of which he is a part of, for higher viewership. It’s grossly offensive to suggest so. It is of my personal opinion that it can sometimes happen accidentally. That doesn’t mean it's not a problem, and it must be considered that the viewers will see things differently to how the writer intends. The reaction at the time to the idea of following through with the pairing, was a blasé “what difference would it make?” If you have to ask that question, you are most likely not someone that desperately needs representation or feels unseen by the media.
There is hope on the horizon, though. For every TV show that carries out the cruel practice of ‘Queerbaiting’, and for every queer coded villain, you have media that is finally waking up to how important representation is to a community. Sex Education possibly has the most wide ranging, positive and honest representation, with asexuality also being a topic of discussion amongst others. More stories are being told, particularly by LGBT+ directors and writers themselves, as well as there being a massive push towards trans actors playing trans roles. On top of that, you have stories of long-lasting same sex relationships, as well as uplifting stories of people discovering who they really are, not only when they’re between 16-30. These stories help people realise that it’s never too late to be happy and to be unapologetically you. We are entitled to our own fictional heroes as well as our own happy endings.
Comments