It is important to note that in the time between Russo’s first and later revised editions, the AIDS crisis had taken hold, and with that negative images particularly of gay men gained renewed currency, which did not convince Russo of Hollywood’s progressive politics with regards to queerness but rather only reconfirmed his initial outrage, as he states at the very end of his study: “The history of the portrayal of lesbians and gay men in mainstream cinema is politically indefensible and aesthetically revolting. Instead, for him and presumably many like-minded, queers for much of mainstream Hollywood’s history have been depicted as “Other”-despicable, pitiable, laughable. Russo refers to his own experience as a gay spectator lacking models for identification, emulation, and empathy. In contrast to niche-oriented art house films, big Hollywood productions aim for profit, and this has consequences when it comes to including and depicting queer characters and plots. Mainstream films therefore are made to entertain the broadest possible audience. How should ‘we’ (society) react to ‘them’ (me)?” (325). “They address themselves exclusively to the majority. Originally published in 1981, Russo in his afterword for the revised edition of 1987 points out a crucial marker of distinction: “Mainstream films about homosexuality are not for gays,” he claims. A case in point regarding the development of mainstream cinema is Vito Russo’s The Celluloid Closet, which traces queers in film even back to the late 19 th century. And whereas mainstream Hollywood films have featured the rare queer lead, it has been up to the independent and art house cinemas to produce a greater variety of characters with multifaceted screen lives. While queers-as I will refer to LGBTIQ* persons unless I want to specify a particular group such as lesbians or transgender persons-can be spotted even in earliest film productions, granting them leading roles in substantial numbers of films is a recent phenomenon. Haut de pageġWhen revisiting the ways in which LGBTIQ* characters have been represented in American films throughout history, one comes to various conclusions, some of which strikingly contradict others. Focusing on the generic conventions, the narrative strategies and aesthetic means of these films, I probe into the ways they aim to affectively engage the audience and discuss their respective cinematic approaches of envisioning justice for people from the LGBTIQ* community who have experienced violence in sexualized contexts. Hedwig and the Angry Inch, The Skinny, Vacationland, and Mysterious Skin), films arising out the independent film movement known as New Queer Cinema.
First highlighting the controversies around prominent films such as Cruising and Boys Don’t Cry, I then look at lesser known, but noteworthy examples (e.g. I am looking at a number of significant films that refrain from stereotypically correlating queerness, sexuality, and violence, opting for a critical assessment of this conflation and offering alternative viewpoints, instead. This essay discusses ways both mainstream Hollywood films and independent cinema have addressed sexualized violence against queers.