Cruella shows that Disney is still struggling to get its “first gay character” right
Film Features Cruella
This post discusses the plot of Cruella.
Once Hollywood realized that representation was good for box office, every new Disney property was suddenly breaking new ground. The 101 Dalmations prequel Cruella is just the latest in a series of Mouse House releases accompanied by industry crowing about a groundbreaking LGBTQ+ character, and the déjà vu reading headlines like this one is so intense it’s starting to feel like gaslighting. For the past five years, a series of stories have run on entertainment news sites, with only a few words changed: Swap out “Disney’s first LGBTQ+ character” with “Pixar’s,” or “Marvel Studios’,” add a modifier here and there, and they’re all cut and paste versions of the same hollow sentiment. Not only is Disney not a leader on this issue, it’s quickly falling behind.
For Cruella, the line is that Artie (John McCrea) is Disney’s first “major” gay character, which is only true if you don’t count Josh Gad’s LeFou in the live-action Beauty And The Beast. Even then, it’s only on a technicality: The same language was used to describe a character in Jungle Cruise in 2018, and if that long-delayed film had come out on time, the “hugely effete, very camp” brother of Emily Blunt’s Dr. Lily Houghton would have taken the prize.
In Cruella, Artie is the quippy, down-for-anything owner of a vintage shop in a fashionable area of London. Artie’s gender presentation is ambiguous (“he” pronouns are used to refer to him in the movie) and his Ziggy Stardust mullet and lightning-bolt makeup marks him as a devotee of the glam rock movement that blurred the binary in the early- to mid-’70s. His wardrobe of sheer blouses, velvet jumpsuits, and platform shoes prompts Estella (Emma Stone), the fashionista soon to be known as Cruella de Vil, to ask, “how’s that look go on the streets?,” the first time they meet in his store. “Some abuse and insults, of course, but I like to say that ‘normal’ is the cruelest insult of them all. And at least I never get that,” he replies.
It’s never explicitly stated that Artie is queer, although we’re supposed to infer as much from his comment that the racks of couture gowns in his store are “everything a girl—or boy—could ever want.” And that’s misleading, not only because gender and sexuality are two different things, but because the glam rock movement was more heteronormative than the frills and heels would lead one to expect. Trumpeting an androgynous glam rocker as queer representation isn’t incorrect—fluid sexuality was downright chic in glam circles—but plenty of straight people dressed like Marc Bolan in 1975, too. McCrea has acknowledged this, saying that “I think it’s important to say he is queer because obviously, lots of people were dressed like that at the time that weren’t necessarily queer, but in my head, he always was,” in an interview with the U.K.’s Gay Times.
But while Artie’s sexual identity is fixed in McCrea’s head, the fact that “glam” and “gay” are not and never were synonymous also gives Disney an easy out. Determined to appeal to as many demographics as possible, the company craves positive press for its inclusivity, but is too timid to openly thumb its nose at the homophobes in the audience. Artie’s part can’t be cut out of Cruella as easily as the “exclusively gay moment” in Beauty And The Beast, which lasts for literally two seconds. But if it was challenged by censors in say, China, where homosexuality is legal but films with LGBTQ+ themes are still subject to cuts, plausible deniability about Artie’s sexuality could still be maintained. McCrea has said in interviews that the character was originally written as a drag queen, a form of expression that can’t be so easily untangled from gay culture. The fact that this detail was changed speaks to the fact that while Disney is loud about tooting its own representational horn, it prefers its LGBTQ+ characters to stay discreet.
Artie doesn’t have a love interest in Cruella, and to be fair, Cruella doesn’t either. McCrea says that this is the movie “not beating you on the head with a stick. But [Artie’s] lifestyle is fabulous, he loves his life and it was so fun to play him.” And that’s fine. Romantic love is but one of the many types of relationships that make up a full life, and a queer person doesn’t need to be partnered for their queerness to be valid. But the nuances of conveying that a character is LGBTQ+ without either relying on stereotypes or having them engage in an onscreen romance is, frankly, beyond Disney’s capabilities at this point.
Even when it comes to (chaste, family-friendly) queer romance, the best the company’s subsidiaries have been able to do is a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it kiss between two women in Star Wars: Episode IX—The Rise Of Skywalker. In its films, Disney prefers offhand remarks about spouses who are safely kept offscreen, like the throwaway line in Onward where a one-eyed purple cop with a unicorn horn says, “It’s not easy being a new parent—my girlfriend’s daughter got me pulling my hair out.” If a LGBTQ+ character’s spouse is dead, even better—like the much-ballyhooed “first gay character in the MCU,” a traumatized man in Avengers: Endgame who tells a support group about how he burst into tears on a date five years after losing his husband to Thanos’ Snap.
An LGBTQ+ couple can appear together on screen if the characters don’t speak, like the moms seen in the background picking their kid up from school in Toy Story 4 or the squabbling antelopes in Zootopia you wouldn’t know are married unless you pay close attention to the credits. These characters are disposable, and so is Artie, who appears in Cruella whenever Emma Stone’s character, regardless of what name she’s going by, needs a quick hit of fashion credibility. Once Artie is introduced, he drops out of the story for a while, only to be re-introduced after Estella debuts her her latest and most fabulous creation: Her alter ego, Cruella de Vil.
What happens next is far more objectionable than Artie’s lack of a love interest. Although they’re framed as fashion soul mates, Cruella has little use for the character of Artie beyond serving as a stylish prop. The thing that pushed the villain formerly known as Estella to become Cruella was her anger over having someone else take credit for her work, but she seems perfectly happy to do the same thing when Artie joins her crew as a seamster. From then on, he’s content to stay in the background of Cruella’s workshop, leading the team that cuts and sews the outfits she will later present as her own creations. He doesn’t complain about Cruella’s lack of gratitude, like Joel Fry’s Jasper; no, simple proximity to a fashionable woman is enough for him. By the end of the movie, he’s become a full-fledged henchman, seen karate chopping a security guard who threatens his boss’ master plan. His reward for his loyalty? He gets to move into her manor and work for her some more. It’s true that assistants create most everything in the art world, from hand-beaded gowns to abstract paintings. But even in fiction, where the injustices and inequalities of the real world only apply if a creator puts them there, a person like Artie is a means to an end—for Cruella and for Disney.
Disney has learned a few things over its eight attempts to get its “first” LGBTQ+ character right: Unlike Jack Whitehall, the straight actor cast as Jungle Cruise’s “first major gay character,” McCrea identifies as a gay man, which makes the bejeweled pill of his Cruella character a little easier to swallow. McCrea’s comments in the press are all defending the film and his role in it, which is to be expected; if McCrea has dissenting opinions about Cruella’s treatment of his character, he’s no more likely to air them publicly than an Avenger is to leak a major spoiler on TV. Actors are coached and given lengthy lists of what they can and cannot talk about when promoting films like Cruella, and it’s not McCrea’s job to fix Disney’s poor track record of LGBTQ+ representation, besides. But he did reveal one telling detail in an interview with Attitude where, asked directly if the character is LGBTQ+, he says, “it depends on who you’re asking, I suppose.”
Seizing on subtle hints and winking implications and making them part of the camp canon has long been a strategy for LGBTQ+ audiences starved to see themselves on the big screen. But it’s cowardly for for a major film studio to expect them to do this in an era where, as Dani di Placido points out in Forbes, successful children’s shows like Adventure Time, Steven Universe, and Kipo And The Age Of Wonderbeasts feature out and proud queer characters. And if Disney thinks its strategy isn’t being noticed, let us disabuse it of this notion. A wave of canned hype about the “first” in Cruella was met with intense mockery online, with one user tweeting:
By letting its fear of offending the most retrograde elements of its audience dictate how it approaches its LGBTQ+ characters, Disney is out of touch with a vast audience that craves depictions of queer people as fully rounded human beings in stories that center their experiences. And expecting to be celebrated for doing the bare minimum is insulting—to the fans, to the press, and to the films themselves. If Disney wants its attempts at LGBTQ+ representation to ever be anything more than performative, it’s going to have to start treating these characters like Fashion Week showstoppers, not fast fashion throwaways.
303 Comments
Are you seriously trying to convince me that Ursula preferred the D? (Not buying it.)
My head cannon is that Ursula has a big ol’ beak surrounding her axe wound like a real ocotopod, so the prospect of penetrative sex is slim to none.
Ursula was based on the drag queen Divine – yet in the live action movie Melissa McCarthy will portray her (which is far from an inspired choice – bankable yes, but not like people won’t go see Disney movies regardless). This would have been a great opportunity for a queer character/actor like so:
Melissa McCarthy as Ursula is solving one problem with Disney’s live-action films by exacerbating another. On one hand, that’s definitely a different angle for the character, which has been a big problem with a lot of their remakes; there’s no tangible, interesting directorial differences to make, say, their Jungle Book or Lion King remakes stand apart from the originals. It’s kinda like Will Smith as Aladdin’s Genie—sure, that might not be a good difference to everyone, but it’s definitely a strong one, something that makes the remake a different beast worthy of existing by itself. McCarthy’s Ursula will be a lot of things, but it won’t be the same as the original, and there’s some curiosity in me just in seeing how she handles a hammy Disney villain role.But… yeah. It’s taking away a form of representation; even if you don’t read Ursula as queer-coded from the drag queen inspirations, her skin tone has always brought associations with black performers; in fact, a quick googling says that live-action Ursulas have been performed by Yvette Nicole Brown, Whoopi Goldberg, and Queen Latifah. Even with Ariel as a black woman, that’s a huge shame.
Honestly, can you think of any other reason than McCarthy being a) bankable, b) female, c) not freakishly skinny, d) current, why she got the part?She’s a fine actress in many things but swimming in the wrong water this time. And there are so many great queer actors who could take it on, or yes, even a black female (queer or otherwise).
Queen Latifah may not be an A-list star anymore, but she could’ve worked, and has played the role in the past (she was Ursula on Broadway). I know Lizzo wanted the role, too, she could’ve knocked it out of the park.
Can Lizzo act though? Honestly don’t know. She has the physique and the voice but singing and acting used to be different things…Not saying she couldn’t be great – just saying she doesn’t have the acting background to make it an obvious choice.I would have loved Titus in the role, but honestly, any queer performer over a non-queer actor given the original design of the character and an easy but awesome way for representation (even though the gay villain is a troubling trope all in itself – and one Disney has used time and time again).
Lizzo has acted before—she was a voice in UglyDolls and was in Hustlers, both in 2019. I haven’t seen those movies, so I don’t know how good she was in them, but casting her wouldn’t come from nothing. If anything, the only let-down I can think of might be her voice; something that makes Poor Unfortunate Souls work is that Ursula has that older, deeper, slightly raspy voice that gives her a bit of an air of seniority, which helps to imply she’s basically a match in that respect for King Triton. Lizzo’s got a much clearer, more youthful voice, which I love but you’d need to take a different direction to make Ursula and her big number work.(Incidentally, while I don’t know McCarthy’s singing voice, I could picture her doing a fun take on Poor Unfortunate Souls while changing little; do the quieter parts in that sort of ‘suburban mom’ tone she can do well, then let the mask slip and get more deranged as the song gets bigger. Not my ideal form of the song, but it could work.)Ursula’s a very difficult cast for exactly this reason, though; she’s a very specific character and personality, that could only really exist as the confluence of interesting minority representation she is because she was an animated character, so they could make a character who had all those qualities without finding a real-life person who does, too. You have to pick a more specific direction, and while the direction they did go for was disappointing to the two of us and everyone else who liked her for being black and/or queer-coded, it does appeal to some people. I can tell you right now for free, McCarthy’s Poor Unfortunate Souls is gonna be a hit for a lot of moms taking their daughters to see the Little Mermaid remake. And while I’d love to see Lizzo’s Ursula, or my dream pick of ‘I’m pretty sure at least one of the women who sang It’s Raining Men is still alive’, I will admit it woulddn’t be a hit for everyone.
Her skin tone brings to mind an evil character lmao. The good guys wear white and the bad guys wear black, remember? If you’re associating evil with black people, you’ve got some issues.
Honestly, when I was a kid I never really engaged with the Little Mermaid like that, I was commenting on the general perception. A lot of the black audience for the movie read Ursula as black (probably because the movie is otherwise just overwhelmingly white), and that has persisted to such a degree that every live-action depiction of Ursula except the upcoming remake has used a black actress.
Is that other problem her husband hanging around? Because I think we’ve all seen just about enough of him
Fuck it. Sold. Titus Burgess for Ursula.
Everything about Titus would make him perfect for the role!This performance is sadly the only glimpse of it we are likely to ever see…
I think if you had Tituss do it in drag the movie would just fold in on itself and become about Ursula. It would become utterly impossible to identify anyone else as the protagonist. It would be like how Arnie stole the Terminator franchise.
Don’t think that would be an issue, especially given that Ursula shows up only later in the movie and her part is relatively small. But even if so, how would that work different for McCarthy? She has a much higher profile, especially global, than Burgess.
I just don’t find most of her performances super engaging, and I’m not feeling her for this part. I think Mccarthy is in kind of the same boat as mid-career Jim Carrey – she’s a good performer but the schtick she usually gets stuck doing is tiresome.
I was pretty much with you until I saw Can You Ever Forgive Me? where she plays Lee Israel – which was a completely different and honestly great performance (and earned her many accolades) and I sincerely hope for her she finds more roles like these.But indeed, not Ursula and I won’t be in a hurry to see the movie once it comes out (despite loving the idea of a black Ariel).
Elsa and Oaken are obviously gay, too. There’s plenty of other potentially gay characters in Disney movies over the last 30 years.
Im surprised that character made it past the drawing board. The animators openly admitted she was inspired by Devine circa Pink Flamingo. That film is from 1989, wow!
They’re keeping Ursula for the big reveal of the “Disney Sympathetic Villain Universe”: She’s Cruella’s mom! After getting her ass bowled into the ocean she is seduced by a sexy merman who magically givers her gills or some shit, gets knocked up, and gives birth to Ariel. Because she is not one of the ocean-people she loses custody after a bitter ocean-divorce and the stress of being torn away from a second child leads to her becoming Ursula.
Is there no gay man at the AV Club who could write an article about queer casting in the only movie my gay ass has been excited about since 1997? I feel like I just ran into Lena Dunham in the bathroom at a gay bar. Artie could be the love child of Blaine Edwards and Antoine Merriweather and he still wouldn’t be as offensive as the appropriative expertise of the gay male voice I just read.
Do you complain about American writers covering foreign affairs? Black writers covering white people? ^^^This is why people don’t respect progressive thought anymore.
Your name is so fitting. Because you’re an idiot, in case you’re too simple to understand the original insult.
As you are obviously very smart and not at all a triggered little asshole bitch, you should not be allowed to write anything to me or about me? Because only idiots can write about idiots. That’s your position disagreeing with me. piss off now child.
LMAO and you use the word triggered without irony. You really are simple.
im a troll remember? it’s all ironic. I’m sorry your mother didn’t hold you enough as a child.But when you decide that villains who literally skin puppies are worthy of admiration and idolization because they’re ‘punk rock edgy and diverse!”, can I really act that surprised?
I’m sorry your mother didn’t eat you.Remind me. Where did I say Cruella deserves to be aired?
so youre just here to add to the “trolling” then. WELCOME!I love you.
No I just stopped by to let you know you’re an idiot and a terrible troll.
“I feel like I just ran into Lena Dunham in the bathroom at a gay bar.”This is one of the greatest things I’ve ever read. Thank you for it!
You would definitely feel it if that fat pig ran into you.
Just writing to agree with the other commenter about the Lena Dunham line, bravo
It’s just a great pull, so good.
God damn I hate lena dunham.
Hey. She was the first person to use a Canon 5D to shoot a TV show, according to Lena Dunham.
Who? Cruella De Ville or Lena Dunham?In any case they’re both wrong, because E.R. beat them to it by at least a decade….
Good lord, savage! Randy Savage, elbow off the top rope!!!
OFF THE TOP OF THE CAGE
Double cage with barbwire on the top! That is one of the best lines I’ve read on this site.
I genuinely appreciated the piece, it seemed fairly well researched. Also I don’t know enough about Rife’s personal life to rule out if she’s elsewhere involved in the spectrum but it seems like this isn’t a purely MLM situation— it extends to female presenting characters, like she acknowledged with the Onward cop. (I am a little surprised that with actors playing coy though, that Kelly Marie Tran’s intentions for Raya never came up in the article.)I’m unclear if there even are gay beats in the G/O world of sites, but I think it is handy seeing LGBT topics handled by multiple perspectives sensitive towards the topic rather than pigeonholing one writer to handle it all. (Like a local alt weekly of mine where I can pretty much immediately recognize someone’s writing style after a paragraph or two and seethe my way through only to double check the by line.)As for the exact question— I’ve kind of spaced on a lot of the current AV Club staff but at least one of the gay men I’m aware of mostly handles video/interviews? Are there still any others?
That’s a well stated counterpoint. My comment was specifically about Artie and Cruella, and how Rife seemed to be expressing an opinion on behalf of gay men, rather than making it clear they were opinions from another perspective. There’s certainly nothing wrong with a multitude of demographics covering just as many. Like you suggested, it’s frustrating when one writer is pigeonholed into a single subject matter just because they happen to be (fill in the blank). Our namesake magazine here has been guilty of that too.It’s refreshing to hear different perspectives, which is why I liked your counterpoint. But this isn’t a journalistic article simply about LGBTQ casting, it’s an opinion piece, and it felt like Rife – who I’m sure had only the best intentions – was speaking for gay men regarding Artie. As a gay man, I’ve personally never been offended by Disney’s stereotypical take on gay men, in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if historically many of those characters were the result of Disney’s lavender closet. If Artie happens to wind up as a prop in the background; well this isn’t a movie about Artie or our community. It’s about Cruella de Vil, and Cruella de Vil isn’t a very nice person.
Very well said. And also hilariously savage. Top marks!
AV club is very much a straight boys club.
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn boy. You should be tried at Nuremberg, because you don’t take prisoners.
everyone’s sucking you off over the lena dunham line, but ignoring the fact that the only movie you’ve cared about in nearly 30 years is disney’s cruella??? why are you on this website?
Cruella is the only movie you’ve been excited about in 25 years??? Cruella?I don’t get it.
lolok as a gay man this movie fucking rocked.
I feel like I just ran into Lena Dunham in the bathroom at a gay bar.We found it, people. One of the most perfect lines ever to grace the AVClub.And you’re right: whole article reads like the perspective of a white, straight woman who really gets gay guys because she spent a hen’s night getting white guuuuuurl wasted at a gay bar (for two hours until the bouncers kicked her coterie out).
i absolutely agree. Katie Rife writing this piece is as offensive to me as Emma Stone playing roles “she should have no business accepting”.*
However, if Katie Rife identified herself as Male attracted to Men for the duration of the research and writing, i think it’s okay, because i’m sure we’re allowed to identify ourselves as we want more or less as often as we want.
* https://www.avclub.com/emma-stone-can-still-do-steve-martins-f-bomb-speech-fro-1846989900
Mate, I raise a fucking glass of vodka to you and salute you! And I agree – can we get a gay male perspective on this character? Jesus Fucking Christ, but this site is stuffed to the gills with Interchangeable Emma’s with Turquoise Hair and sweet nothing else to contribute.
I’m really, really sorry to hear that the first movie your gay ass has been excited about since 1997 is the 101 Dalmatians prequel. It sucks to hear that the last quarter-century of queer cinema either went under your radar or simply wasn’t to your tastes, but either-way, have you considered that perhaps you’re just not someone who likes cinema as a medium?
Apologies. I’m a gay man, and I exaggerate. Of course I’ve been excited about movies in the last 24 years. Although with regard to queer cinema, I’m usually pleasantly surprised after the fact because they tend to come out long before I hear of them. Trick, Psycho Beach Party, Jawbreaker, Drop Dead Gorgeous (not queer but it is) are in my top 10. I picked 1997 because I wrongly remembered the year Clueless came out (it was 1995), which is still my #1, and had one of the best early representations of a gay man, especially for those of us who happened to be around the same age at the time. But please, I wouldn’t read The AVClub if I didn’t like movies. In fact nowadays The AVClub, Jalopnik, and TheTakeout are pretty much the only news I read, and I can’t wait for the smell of popcorn to finally return to movie theaters here next month!
Hey somebody else who remembers Psycho Beach Party! What a fun movie that was.
I mean I talk a big game but it’s not like I know a goddamn thing about queer cinema in a timely fashion until a Yotuber I likes makes a video about it, saving me the time of having to watch it. I’m an internet commentor – all I can do is make snarky comebacks I forget I wrote.
So you’re saying you, “Hated it!”. The article, I mean.
My god, this reply is just… perfect.
could someone parse “as offensive as the appropriative expertise of the gay male voice” for me?Good rant, but I couldn’t follow that part.That said, I land on Katie’s side of the debate. I kind of eyerolled at the headline, but she convinced me by the end — Disney claiming the gay “first”, but then doing nothing to actually establish the character as gay other than make him fabulous, is a pretty bullshit move.This rant definitely was much punchier, but didn’t engage with or in any way refute the substance of her argument, so didn’t change my thinking at all.
“appropriative expertise of the gay male voice”Settle down champ, you aren’t writing a term paper right now.
At first glance at that picture I thought ‘wtf is up with Courtney Thorne-Smith?!’
Can’t unsee it now.
I have not seen this yet, but hearing Tom and Lorenzo’s (gay male fashion bloggers) thoughts first. I’m not sure the take away from the movie is as problematic as you’re making it out to be. Sure Disney has not done enough and is not necessarily doing enough here, because c’mon have an actual lead be queer for once. They didn’t express anything about him being problematic, no one expresses that he’s gay specifically, but it’s all right there and not a coming out story or something. He just is who he is and it’s accepted. I’ll have to make my own decision on it when I finally see it. This just comes across as asking for a not necessarily great movie to have a perfectly great depiction of a queer dude in one character. It seems like a big ask for one movie, when maybe it’s a good start? Though they should have started out a long time ago of course.
I’ll add a quote from their written review for good measure. “this is the first mainstream Disney film to feature a clearly queer-coded character (played by gay actor John McCrea) whose flamboyant nature is praised by other characters even as he acknowledges that it comes with a price in a homophobic world. To be fair, all of this is extremely subtly (one might say “gingerly” or even “over-cautiously”) handled in comparison to how most mainstream entertainment deals with gay characters, but it’s definitely a bolder take than one would ever expect from Disney.”
but it’s definitely a bolder take than one would ever expect from DisneyI think this is the part that irks me the most.Disney’s set the bar for themselves so goddamn low that a character that’s coded queer, but not actually stated to be queer, is considered a positive step for them. That they’re somehow so far behind the curve that a 90’s Sitcom Gay-Best-Friend would be a massive step up for them.And yeah, I get the financial reasons they’re being slow on this, but guess what, I don’t care. They don’t get a pass anymore for this Homeopathic Representation bullshit, not when basically every other form of media is going “oh, yeah, sure, major characters that are openly gay, their love lives are part of the main story same as they would for straight characters, this is something new?”
You read this is a specific way to make it seem wrong. I listened to them on it and it was not conveyed this way. You just created your own narrative. Goodbye.
Wow, a lot of the other comments in this thread are dire, but yea. I haven’t bothered confirming if it did end up being true, but I recall hearing that Paranorman had the first explicitly LGBT character in a mainstream family cartoon in 2012– yet nearly a decade later Disney is trying to get props for finally doing the same thing. (An oblivious jock bro with a lot of masc trappings is hit on throughout the film by the lead’s sister, only to tell her at the very end of the film he has a boyfriend he thinks she’d get along with.) In addition to the offscreen love interest gimmick, I remember one of their 2014 teaser trailers also featured silent same-sex couple as extras.While there’s been a much longer history of Disney characters that can be coded gay, it’s a little underwhelming as they very slowly take greater steps towards having more of the thematic subtext as well.After they banished Love Victor to Hulu instead of Disney+For being too “mature” it does seem like the trailer for the second season is following through on less sanitized content for younger audiences— more swearing and Victor throwing dollar bills at a scantly clad gogo dancer— but it would be nice to see them take greater if still audience mindful steps towards inclusive representation. (A good number of these comments skew towards “none of you will be happy until there’s onscreen penetration”.)I’m still of two minds about how Netflix/Sony handled The Mitchells vs. the Machines since while it’s the same kind of situation of reading the subtext and one offhanded line of confirmation, they did that with the *protagonist* of the story.
CUNT
I think the point that’s perhaps being missed – not taking away from T&L, or Katie or your own take – being that it’s a matter of being “problematic” (say, in the vein of whitewashed casting choices for comparison).It’s the insidiousness of forced incrementalism imposed upon LGBTQ+ representation in the ultra-large, mega-budget blockbuster wing that fuels the economic engine of modern entertainment. Intellectually, we can absolutely point to the global economics drivers of that incrementalism – aggressive censoring in non-Western countries, coupled to the increasing importance of those non-Western societies in supporting the continued growth of the ultra-large, mega-budget blockbuster spectacle.Or we can also point to historical and roughly analagous struggles for representation, whether the evolution from blaxsploitation to Black Panther, or a similar story about incrementalist LGBTQ+ representation on television throughout the 90’s and aught’s.Coupled to the pace of that incrementalism – the point of the article is at least as much that coding is absolutely Disney’s (and absolutely other parties, to be fair) approach for patting itself on the back for representation, while also giving themselves plenty of room to shuffle and cover for the societies, governments, and cultural forces that are overtly, explicitly aligned towards queer erasure.
You’re reading so far into this narrative to spin it your own way when they’re just showing a fashionable nightlife person in the glam seventies London who’s just gender flexible fashion wise. Growing up going to clubs in Nyc and knowing nightlife people or say people that worked at Patricia Fields this is a representation of a person I find familiar. You know they’re gay and they love to dress up. Who else would the protagonist of Cruella be friends with, a married gay accountant who commuted in from the suburbs? It’s a fashion based movie with big personalities, T+L literally wrote the book on queer folks throughout subcultures and this dude is like Cruella’s version of McQueen’s Isabella Blow.
I think you’re definitely ascribing intentions to me.I’ll fully defend representations of LGBTQ+ men, in particular, who are femme, swishy, light in the loafers – all of the above. Representation means depictions as we are, not as someone else thinks you/we should be.That’s not the point, and I think you’re wrong to read that as the point.If anything, Cruella’s setting and premise in fashion makes sense. That’s why Artie’s femme-glam presentation isn’t the point.The point is the patterns of representation – masc or femme – that pervade the incrementalist approach that Disney’s (among others) are undertaking to representation in these formats. In recent years, we’ve seen from the mouse: femme, non-femme, men, women – but all are subject to incrementalism, and more importantly, coding for how LGBTQ+ persons get represented.Artie’s coding as a glam fashionista makes sense given Cruella’s setting – but it’s absolutely still coding.
So you’re saying there’s absolutely no winning with this character and you have no point. Fantastic.
I don’t believe any of that was said.
Your manner of conveying yourself is similar to how Ivanka Trump speaks in riddles with pseudo intellectual nonsense. I don’t think you’ve said much of anything.
Accusing Ivanka or any of the family Trump with psuedo-intellectual anything is more credit than even they’re deserving of.I’ll reiterate it for you.You’re not wrong to defend a character within a given piece. But representation questions can and should take into account cultural and historical context and in this specific case, patterns of representation that Disney – a multi-billion dollar multimedia juggernaut that’s already enjoyed decades of adoration and attachment from the LGBTQ+ community – can’t and shouldn’t be immune from being probed.We can and should ask how and why Disney is making these kinds of choices for individual products, for their many products that thousands, millions of queer dollars can be poured into. That’s the point.Is this in any way, an advancement of LGBTQ+ representation that warrants accolade? The point of the article is probably not. Which you don’t address, because you don’t engage with the history and context outside of this specific product.
You’re free to keep up with ad hominem attacks, but they do nothing to address the point.
You don’t even know how to use ad hominem correctly I am nuking every useless piece of nonsense you’ve stated.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Is literally the definition.Engage the arguments, not what you think of me.
Omfg. I never want to hear from you again.
And yet you keep posting!:D
the movie is so fucking queer and I loved it. everything about it was queer and campy, they even pay homage to queer icon Tallulah Bankhead who Cruella is based on. And omg the costumes. I mean yes this character could have been pointedly gay, but I don’t know aside from saying “I’m gay” how someone wouldn’t know he’s gay lol.
congratulations, a corporation took gay culture, removed actual gay people, and sold it to you. and you bought it and you’re proud of that. cool.
fair assessment, but I can’t separate my gayby nostalgic self who knew Cruella was very campy and queer from them making an entire spectacle based on that very idea. It’s that gay kid in me who was in joy the whole movie even though there’s gay erasure being present. it’s complicated I know.
I know people are trying to be (or at least seem) progressive, but its a bummer that so many debates seem to miss out on your point that people can still enjoy things that have questionable or problematic elements, as you say “its complicated.” I believe in non-violence and would be happy with basically a complete ban on firearms, but I can’t wait to watch another two hours of John Wick blasting dudes into oblivion. I enjoy plenty of old horror movies despite misogyny and other gross elements that go against my beliefs.
There’s nothing wrong with enjoying a trashy piece of media because it’s fun. Bunch of folks love to talk about The Joker or Fast & Furious nonsense also corporately owned, fun to some, garbage nonsense. Sheesh there can’t be fashionable gay trashy shit for gay people? Does it all have to be “important” or “groundbreaking” because someone should tell Tyler Perry.
How many of these ‘diversity first’ films have to flop before Hollywood realizes character driven good storytelling is more important than ticking boxes?
Oh fuck off.
Come back at me after the box office receipts you poor little triggered crybaby. Until then? You can fuck off too.
Using “triggered” unironically eh? So you voted for Trump right?
You told a stranger to fuck off over a comment on a dumb movie. If the word fits I’ll use it. And for your info I voted for Biden. And Clinton before him. And Obama twice before that. And liberal candidates in every state and local election since I turned 18.That doesn’t mean I have to buy 100% into this idea that identity politics is gospel and that one’s worth as a human being is based on how many minority identifiers they claim.It sure as hell doesn’t mean I have to pretend to enjoy shit cinema because it values representation over quality.And it also doesn’t mean I have to read anymore of your bullshit. Your next message will remove everything we’ve discussed to this point because you are an insufferable asshole.have a blessed day.
Standard overreaction that hilariously acts like the other person was the one that got triggered.Yawn.
Little Trump voter using “triggered” unironically dismissed my comment funny enough.
Commenting history includes – “You know how we can tell The Root readers are bigots? They only ever seem to comment on articles bashing white people. Black Lives ONLY Matter if you can blame whiteness for it.Meanwhile writers here blissfully ignore black on black crime…”
So you’re trash.
You keep dismissing me and called me triggered –
You keep dismissing me and called me triggered –
You keep dismissing me and called me triggered –
You keep dismissing me and called me triggered –
You keep dismissing me and called me triggered –
You keep dismissing me and called me triggered –
You keep dismissing me and called me triggered –
You keep dismissing me and called me triggered –
THIS IS FUN!
You keep dismissing me and called me triggered –
THIS IS FUN
You keep dismissing me and called me triggered –
You keep dismissing me and called me triggered –
You keep dismissing me and called me triggered –
The tone hear makes it sound like you would settle for nothing less than 30 minutes of male on male penetration in order to signify someone’s sexual preference in children’s movie set in 1970s London.
I might actually want to watch it then
Well, we know Pongo and Perdita did it doggy-style to get their pups…
So…?Why bitch about a character from a children’s movie? If that’s what you want to watch, then Pornhub my friend. No shortage of 30 minute male on male penetration there.
If Disney wants me to sign up for Disney+ this would do it though. Can’t wait for the ride!
That’s what HBO is for. some of us like to be able to reliably watch something with family where you wont have to spend 5 minutes staring at the popcorn bowl pretending to be looking for the right kernel because you don’t want to look at the same 4 ft dong on the screen as you mother because they need to make sure you are aware that these two men in a movie have feelings for one another.
Oh. You took my comment seriously.Either way – representation is possible without sex, even hints of sex – many if not most straight characters have been doing it for literal centuries.
But that’s the advantage of gay sex – you and your mother can be looking at DIFFERENT 4 ft dongs on the screen. Problem solved!
i’m sorry you think you have to shield your kids from the fact that some people in the world are gay
the fact that you think openly acknowledging that gay people exist (as opposed to just hinting at it implicitly) makes a movie not appropriate for children is homophobic, whether you’re ready to admit that you, like everyone else, have uninspected biases or not.“Gay rights! They can exist, I just never want to have to see them or think about them! Rainbow merch at Target for everyone!” fuck off with that
Dammit, won’t somebody please think of the children who might see two men kissing in a PG-13 movie where dogs kill the main character’s mother? They might be traumatized!
Cool so after all your comments on this, you haven’t seen the movie and don’t intend to. Nor do you have Disney +. Great so thanks for that.
I wouldn’t include “not intending to see the Cruella De Vil origin movie that features CGI dalmatians murdering Cruella’s mother” in a list of insults.
It’s almost like there’s absolutely no way for people to express their sexual/romantic preferences in a way that’s not overtly sexual! We all know that Bell communicated her preference for men by singing that one song “I like dicks, just not this dick” at Gaston.
(The article lists several children’s shows that portray gay relationships in ways that are still very appropriate for children.)
How about a single film where a major (not necessarily main) character has a romantic subplot that’s not straight?You know, something that’s the exact goddamn same sort of treatment that most-to-all Disney films do with straight characters?
or they could like, hold hands with a man? mention a boyfriend? gay people aren’t only defined by hot bareback action. you don’t need to show a character sucking dick to establish their sexuality. Disney is trying to pretend like they’re doing something here when they’re really really not. gay people existed and were out of the closet in the 70s. we weren’t just waiting until 1998 for will and grace to tell us it was okay.
Rough penetration, with one in a prone position, while the one mounting him, sobs into the back of his head, inside a filthy subway restroom. Make this good for me! Err, I mean, make this good for representation!
In all the many years of Disney princesses finding their princes, not once did any of those princesses choke on a big fat cock on screen, and yet their sexuality and relationships were still blindingly obvious.Weird how that works out.
You’re…kind of obsessed with anal penetration, 420BOT.You might want to speak with your therapist about the best strategies for coming out of the closet….
Trust me – that is not enough.
As a gay man, representation to me means the existence of LGBT people. It does not mean unnaturally “thumbing the nose” at bigots. They literally cannot win. I say this because I don’t want people to think all people in the LGBT community think like this, willing to spout paragraph after paragraph to slam any attempt at inclusivity unless it is “just right,” while slamming it if they don’t try as well. They literally cannot win.
I like reading the insights here, but I am sick to death of the dripping tone of sneer everything must have these days when I read supposedly progressive pieces. As Obama said, people need to get over this attitude that being as judgmental as possible is the way to show activism.
This article isn’t nearly as bad as the shameful New York Pride incidents, where wearing the exact language of bigots police officers, the majority of which serve their communities, were barred. To see an organization like that embrace prejudice is nauseating to me, and then to overrule their members when most of their members rejected the shameful act.
I can only hope the cancer of this sneering judgmental attitude comes to fade. It’s a movement I don’t want to be associated with, and that’s very sad. The extremists must not win the culture war or we’re replacing the freedom-hating far right conservatives with an ugly version of the left that spews judgement and hate in the name of supposed progressivism.
It’s because the flip side of diversity politics is that it gives more credence to your thoughts and voice the more diversity boxes you tick. Therefore a lesbian black woman has more say than a heterosexual black woman or a white lesbian. Cis white males are at the very bottom of the list and therefore should be insulted and made to feel inferior at every opportunity.
Honestly, i think it’s about easing it into normal viewing. Too many people will walk away if they feel like a studio is doing it to force feed you. So a gradual easing, means that they can have a gay lead in the future, and nobody will feel like it was forced on them. It’s kind of like the BLM content that is being added into every single story that involves a black character. They’re forcing it in, and I know it’s annoying people, and not because they’re against the movement. Mainly because they’re not just having it exist. They stop the whole movie to have a conversation about it. It becomes more annoying than helpful. As an side example, Army of Dead had two conversations in it that completely killed the flow of the movie. So it’s not exclusive to specific topics. As soon as one of these movie stopping conversations starts, you hear audible moans of annoyance. Regarding LGBT, there’s a tendency to force not through conversation necessarily, but through actions or a bunch of personality traits and one liners that are pushing that person being gay or lesbian to the point that whenever they’re on camera, you aren’t looking forward to it.I think they’re trying to learn how to add characters in without it feeling like it’s being forced into the movie. So casually mentioning, and then moving on to the plot of the movie, is the way they’re doing it. It’ll get more and more until you don’t notice, i think.
Counterpoint: it’s 2021.There are plenty of ways to include openly queer – unequivocally queer – characters without forcing it through dialogue or personality traits.
countercounterpoint: the movie is set 50 years agoIt is a disservice to change the way we represent the past as if we pretend like people could be out and open and the liberation movement had already happened. Were you expecting Cruella to walk to a room to strike up a convo while her friend has a dick in their butt ala GOT in order to establish their queer identity? or is a lisp and a flowy blouse enough?
First of all, there were plenty of out and proud people back then – many weren’t, true, but many were even with the backlash and potential danger they faced.Also, the movie may have been set 50 years back, the release date is firmly in the present.
Countercountercounterpoint: homosexuals have always existed. 50 years ago. 150 years ago. 5050 years ago.Also the rest of your post… woof… you sound like a bag of shit.
*pours the vodka* You earned it. These silly little kids and their silly little views that LGBT society only began in the 1980s!!
I wasn’t going to comment on this thread or article generally for a variety of reason, but I do have to take a moment and just offer my unneeded, unsolicited, and likely undesired seal of approval re: vodka.
Countercountercounterpoint – The 1970s were right in the middle of the gay liberation movement and being out and proud was possible in some places already.Also you can easily establish a gay male character by giving them a boyfriend who they hug and maybe kiss, you don’t need to get graphic. You don’t establish a straight character by having them talk about the sex they’re having either.
Yes, thank you, Citric! The Seventies were when gay people came out in the face of public scorn (and against the law in many places!), and a number of non-gay people experimented with bisexuality…Yes, They Did It While Wearing Lab Coats, Because It Was For SCIENCE! The Seventies were a period of (relative) tolerance of the LGBTQ community, although that “tolerance” often came in the form of straight people telling the kind of gay jokes that we now see as really, really insulting.
50 years ago would place Cruella’s setting as the high fashion industry of the early 1970s. That would not have been an unusual place to see an out and open gay person either irl or in the fiction of the time.
So, it’s fine to depict outlandish fashionista heists that never (and could not have) happened, but having an out gay character in this fictional story is not okay? It’s not a documentary, dude.
Agreed. The Cruella Devil 70s-by-way-of-Roaring-Godknowswhen punk fantasia must be kept “historically accurate”. … Hmm, suddenly I hear a bunch of dogs barking their heads off outside, and it’s not even twilight.
they force us to hide ourselves from the world. they try to kill us and prevent their children from ever learning we existed. then say we can’t be in movies because we’re not common and accepted enough, as if movies are built on real world statistics. it never changes and it’s crushing me
And I agree. I know there are plenty of movies and shows with LGBT characters without forcing it. I’m just saying that many studios have been forcing it in, and it’s noticeably done.
Fuck you, asshole.
What exactly did I say in my comment to offend you? Because your comment is completely empty of anything but toxicity.I agreed with the person that commented above the comment you are yelling at. Are you telling me I’m an asshole for agreeing that they should focus on making the character good, instead of just ticking all the currently political climate check boxes? Because that would make you the asshole.
It’s 2021… in some parts of America (and most of Europe). Disney, however, lives in a world that stretches from Alabama to Beijing, via Cairo and Delhi. In Disney’s world, it’s about 1956, by London standards. They’ve recently heard about these ‘hippy’ people with their ‘rock music’, but they seem scary and they don’t understand them yet.
Then they should not do it – if they fear it will hurt their bottom line. I won’t applaud them for it but it’s a decision they can make.This queerbaiting however – not ok. And not in line with the times (more and more global times).It’s the communication – we celebrate everyone, we are getting more and more diverse – and actions that just don’t back it up.
There’s an indie game I was watching a playthrough of last night that did it pretty well, I thought. It’s called Going Under, and the whole conceit of the game is that you work for a big corporation that’s been voraciously devouring smaller startups. At one point, a conversation like this happens:
Protagonist: We just bought a dating site, have you ever used it?
Character 1 (a woman): Yeah, but the guys on there were all hellspawn, and the girls never messaged me back.
Character 2 (also a woman): Yeah, it was hard finding women on there.
It’s just kind of casual and never really made a big deal out of.
Exactly, that’s one of the many ways. Or at someone’s desk a picture of his husband or her wife, or casually complaining about one’s spouse as you do, or a character with two dads or moms – no questions asked. There are sooo many options that aren’t even remotely sexual but do make a character explicitly queer without having to revert to stereotypes.
You sound VERY white and heteronormative.
I am very white. However your wrong about my stance on sexuality. My mom’s best friend in high school was gay, and so she instilled acceptance in our upbringing. My comment was referring to HOW it’s being done. As an example of doing it right: Schitts Creek. It’s not forced in. It flows, and there’s no moment where they stop everything to discuss it. It just is. Disney is definitely worried about forcing it in, instead of it just being. And there’s a 100% chance that they’re looking at the monetary loss they face if they have a movie that features an LGBT lead, regardless if it’s tacked on or just is. So, by sneaking it in to start, and making it more and more of a “just is” kind of thing, they can avoid the monetary loss from people that aren’t accepting of it, because those people will phase out, or hopefully accept it through a gradual introducing of it.This’ll be a weird example, but it’s similar. Grocery stores. The Acai berry was introduced to consumers by being an addition to other juices. Over time, they added the berry to cereals. And i think you can now buy them in some stores. It was gradual. Otherwise, had they just tried to sell them, they would have suffered a loss. Same goes for the future of insect protein. You can buy Cricket Flour, so far. Eventually, as it’s eased in, we’ll have an insect section in the grocery store. It’s a ridiculously slow process, that’s typically generational, so that by the time you’re a generation or two in, the current consumer sees no issue with it.
Yes, gays are just like acai berries… because your only example of knowing “a gay” was… someone your mom knew when she was younger.I get that you’re trying, but like, none of this really looks or sounds good.
Why did you put “a gay” in quotes?
Because I’m mocking him, you smooth brained goon.
It’s probably in reference to the concept that heterosexual people – you know, the commoners – would excitedly proclaim or whisper hurriedly that they were friends with Janice or Brian and, you know, they’re not “normal”, they’re “one of them”, you know, “a gay”. It’s one of those terms us UK LGBT people have commandeered and turned into a symbol of ignorance and underlying intolerance.
Three of my closest friends in high school were gay. Two friends from work. I didn’t feel like bringing up a list, because people get all up in arms and laugh when you say “I have a so and so friend.” I was using the grocery store thing as an example of how companies routinely introduce things slowly overtime in order to prevent back lash or a loss of profit. It’s the same shit Disney is doing. Slowly introduce it so that it doesn’t bother anybody, until it’s mainstream. One guy up top made a good comment though. China and other big money censor heavy countries are the driving force behind them hiding it. They can easily just do different lipsync to cover their bases in those instances if it’s all only mentions in conversation.
listing all your gay friends is really not a good look. I’ve got plenty of straight friends, but listening to me talk about grindr and carly rae jepsen doesn’t mean they’re all perfect unproblematic allies. They regularly say fucked up shit. Sometimes I call them out, but other times it isn’t worth it. Nobody’s calling you a homophobe, but having gay buddies doesn’t make you the authority on the gays that you’re presenting yourself as. Gay kids exist, and they deserve to see people like them in media targeted toward them. The way you talk about gay characters “checking boxes” implies that you think straightness is the default and any other orientation being shown in media is somehow motivated by political correctness. Gay people don’t exist for political reasons, and it’s unfair to claim stories about us are just an attempt at being “woke”.Acceptance and tolerance for gay stuff has come a long way (though that tolerance is precarious and highly conditional) and the only people in America that are likely to object are Evangelicals and hyper-conservatives. You can gradually introduce them to queers all you want, but they’re never going to be happy about it. They probably aren’t drinking acai juice either because it’s stealing the jobs of hardworking American berries. Disney is very much trying to play these “groundbreaking” “openly gay” characters both ways, to appeal to LGBTQ audiences and liberals in America in a pinkwashed and trivial way that can be easily dubbed over overseas. They’re greedy cowards.If Disney (or any other megacorp) really cared about representation, they would just do it. But they care about money first, and optics second. It’s weird that you’re trying to defend or at least apologize for their greedy and meaningless tokenization.
Yes. they care about money. That was my entire speel up top. They’re looking at this from a business angle. It’s pretty obvious. I mean I even wrote in my comment that I wasn’t going to say anythign about my friends or whatnot because it’s considered a bad look. But I’m being told i’m basically intollerant, when I know that i’m not. There’s been good conversation in this thread, and there’s been extremely toxic ones, like that Snyder Cut guy, which brings me to suddenly defending myself, even though I have no reason to.
a. you’re literally saying you cannot tolerate us in movies for reasons that are clearly illogical to everyone but youb. if gay people tell you that you are intolerant of gay people, you probably are! please be a better ally if you’re going to try to pull the gay friend card. start by listening to us.
a) I never said I couldn’t tolerate LGBT in movies. I was speaking on what I believe Disney’s perspective is. One of my favorite shows is Schitts Creek, if that says anything about how I feel. b)Try listening works both ways. Disney is in it for money. They’re obviously bringing LGBT into their mainline of content gradually in order to not piss off a large portion of the wallets that they get that money from. That’s all I said. You guys all twisted it into me saying I’m intolerant, making me defend myself by explaining my life to you.
We agree this is about money, so then why the comment section apology tour on behalf of a gigantic corporation? Just because it makes sense doesn’t mean it’s defensible, unless you also believe that there’s something unseemly about gay people existing outside of innuendo. Gay people declaring their identities and showing chaste affection to a same-sex partner isn’t rubbing it in anyone’s face, it’s not (necessarily) an attempt at scoring woke cred, nor is it any more family-unfriendly than it is when straight people do the same. I don’t think you’re a vile homophobe or anything like that, but you should ask yourself why you feel so moved to play devil’s advocate here. The more you dig your heels in, the worse you look. I get the impulse to defend yourself, but it probably isn’t worth it. Take it in and move on.
I was stating what I think Disney is doing. That’s it. I wasn’t defending it.
‘Three of my closest friends in high school were gay. Two friends from work. I didn’t feel like bringing up a list, because people get all up in arms and laugh when you say “I have a so and so friend.”’From your wording you don’t quite understand why this is the case, which TBH would explain where you were coming from with that language around ‘forcing’ it in.
My mom’s best friend in high school was gay Dude, sit down and shut the fuck up. You are a fucking moron.
Wow. So I have parents who made sure to raise me right, and accept all walks of life, and here you are… what exactly? Being toxic because I put an anecdote in my comment to back up who I am as a person? I think you need to stay out of conversations unless you’re going to actually bring something of substance to the table.
No such thing as heteronormative. The words you’re looking for are straight and normal.
Kill yourself you pathetic fucking loser.
No such thing as heteronormative. ::looks up word; finds that it does, in fact, exist::Stop being fucking stupid. Choose to be less stupid.
I just wish they would worry more about character driven story than they do about ticking boxes.
Agreed. I could care less about the sexual preference of the character, as long as they tell a good story and keep the flow going.
You ungreyed the racist troll who, you should dismiss them and be embarrassed you agreed with them. See commenting history -“You know how we can tell The Root readers are bigots? They only ever seem to comment on articles bashing white people. Black Lives ONLY Matter if you can blame whiteness for it.Meanwhile writers here blissfully ignore black on black crime and black people committing hate crimes…”
i GOT NOTHING BETTER TO DO…YOU REALLY WANNA GO DOWN THIS ROAD BITCH?
You realize how easy it is to start another burner account? You think spamming harassment my way accomplishes anything other than making you look like a psychopath? Realize you’re waging a personal war because I said that story and well written characters matter more than diversity. Diversity shoved down our throats as the primary force in filmmaking has backfired how many times now? Women didn’t make women ghostbusters a hit. The new star wars trilogy was critically hated by most. Girl-power Ocean’s 8 flopped. I can list at least a dozen more that have come out in the past 5 years. Honestly. Answer me a question. Why is it that those who claim to be the most progressive, whose ideals include equality for all and open and honest expression of opinions and perspectives are the most puritanical tightassed fuckwads on the planet? You’re insufferable and I pity you. So do what ya gotta do. I’ll be back with a new name continuing to post within seconds. You’re not worth my time anymore.I hope hating me has made your miserable existence better. I bless you and hope the best for you and those you love.
I think it’s fun to upset you and it’s clearly working.
Sorry, I don’t research every single commenter I reply to. His comment was that he wants good story telling, and not just making sure it’s got x this, x that, etc. Make a good movie. I don’t care who’s in it or who they want to sleep with. If it’s good, i’ll enjoy it. Regarding his BLM comments. I dont agree with it. The Root has been pretty thorough in it’s news coverage. I’ll give my opinion to The Root in general. As a white person, I do find The Root to be quite racist towards white people. I don’t think it helps black people when they are constantly calling all white people racist. To me, it creates annoyance, resentment, and hate from both black people and white people that read it. A good chunk of commenters on The Root seem to genuinely hate all white people. They do need to stop pooling all white people with the racist white people. I personally want nothing to do with racist people in general.
Oh you’re a fucking piece of shit too.
It’s amazing how films with 9 digit budgets are somehow completely incapable of doing things that books, theater, television, video games, comic books, basically every single other form of pop-culture fiction, has been doing for over a decade without issue.
I think in this case, it’s Disney’s current target audience that is the driving factor. Unfortunately an LGBT story for kids isn’t something that would be seen as acceptable, because the idea of LGTB is locked into a mature adult conversation right now. Too many people feel that kids shouldn’t be subjected to it, because they’re attributing it to something that only adults should deal with. I mean, most people are uncomfortable having their kids do Sex Ed in school. I believe it’s the same mindset that’s at play here. Gradually, when it comes to kids, is the path with the least resistance.
Except Adventure Time, Steven Universe, Voltron, She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts, Star Vs. The Forces of Evil, and The Owl House all exist. Two of those animated shows aimed at kids are from Disney, but they aren’t going to air in China so it’s fine. This isn’t about Disney warming up an audience to LGBT characters. This is about limiting LGBT representation to easily excised bits in order to sell billion-dollar blockbusters in markets with heavy censorship. Poe and Finn should have been a romantic couple, but they weren’t because Disney is hell-bent on capturing the Chinese market even though Star Wars has never and never will do well there. At this point, Disney is sacrificing narrative cohesion for marketability, and everyone can see through it.
I think Disney knows where their bread and butter comes from compared to other companies. Disney has dominated the movie industry because of this.
Poe and Finn should have been a romantic couple,Why won’t major movie studios listen to my fan fiction stories!
“Poe and Finn should have been a romantic couple”Correction: Finn and Rey should have been a romantic couple, but Disney were too scared to not have a white couple at the centre of the story.
You think there are no gay kids in the world, dumb shit?
Of course not. Gays don’t “turn” until puberty… just like X-men. Also, it’s a choice. He should know, after all, his mom knew one in the 80s!
Ah, yes, can’t have anything kid-focused that deals with LGTBQ characters, something that She-Ra started out doing in late 2018 and became more and more matter-of-factly “yeah, these significant characters are in same-sex relationships” over time, including the final season having the show’s two central female characters explicitly having their romance.Lets not kid ourselves, this is 100% a movie issue. Hell, Disney’s Mighty Ducks reboot has an unambiguously lesbian couple in the form of one of the kids’ parents. It has nothing to do with children, and everything to do with protecting films in international releases (not just China, they’re not the only intensely regressive nation out there).
Films overseas censor all the time by cutting whatever scenes the country decides are inappropriate. (India until very recently had issues with straight kissing as well.) So there is a limit to how much this makes sense as justification for keeping a side character ambiguous.
Sure, but that’s why Disney’s keeping this stuff to the subtext and isolated scenes/dialog, because that’s easy to cut and change without significantly altering the film. If they made an LBGTQ character’s… well, LGBTQ-ness a critical factor of the film, the editing would require either massive cuts to a central pillar of the movie, making it worse, or would be “Sailor Neptune and Uranus are Cousins” levels of dubbing.And why make it hard for repressive regimes to bury the truth about people, especially when it might hurt the almighty bottom line?
I’m saying there’s a limit because they could easily have a scene for tolerant audiences/countries that is unambiguous, but still easy to cut. But yeah. It absolutely harms LGTBQIA+ lead representation when studios are obsessed with overseas money.
bahahhaa gods I remember the cousins thing. Middle school so my friend very gleefully was like “THEY’RE LESBIANS”
I believe they’d be less obsessed with overseas money if American dollars were still lucrative. Americans don’t even go to the theaters anymore.
Yeahh. On the other hand, they could *gasp* stop overstuffing the goddamn budgets. (I get this is never going to happen, but it’s nice to dream.)
You just explained what the problem is. It’s a film with a 9 digit budget that’s courting a both conservative and liberal families as well as not trying to get censored in China. People are expecting giant corporations to care about anything except money. They’re slightly entertaining diversity because the cultural pendulum has swung to the left and more liberal generations are louder in the media/social media. If the pendulum was to swing back to the right, Disney would abandon gay character in a heartbeat. Corporations are not your friends and they don’t really care. Give your money to real film makers and quit feeding the beast.
I think in television shows it’s a lot easier to create a nuanced character without shoehorning a relationship in it. They can give more background to queer characters without it feeling random or preachy. Whereas on screen where there is limited time between story to even speak about romance, romance is only good if it ties into the main plot and doesn’t take away from the movie. This is why lovers in movies tend to be one dimensional. I’m bi, gray ace, and black person and yet I kind of find the way Hollywood shoehorns diversity is so strange. None of them know how to do things in a natural way without either getting on a soap box or mentioning it in the middle of a story just to say “look we have diversity” when its not even the meat of the story at all. I prefer actual romantic comedies about LGBTQ+ people. I don’t care to have us in every movie and to be frank I hate when there is any romance in a movie that is an interference. Same with black people. I find it weird that Hollywood is trying to culturally colonize black people by inserting us as the face of European type of movies like The Little Mermaid and the like without actually celebrating black stories or cultures like Anansi. Again, diversity doesn’t mean “good”. It has to be done right.
1: Fully agreed that Disney could do a lot to really embrace African stories. It’s an entire continent of stories and legends that most of their audience would find fresh and interesting (the story of Sundiata just seems perfect for film treatment,).2: Here’s the problem with the whole “they shouldn’t shoehorn it” argument: They do shoehorn it. All the time. Just with straight characters.It’s faster to name all of the Disney films where there isn’t a romance subplot between major characters of the opposite sex than there is to name Disney films with them, including almost the entirety of the Disney Reinassance. That’s why I’m done pretending to give Disney any credit for their homeopathic representation shit.If it’s rote for straight characters, but impossible for non-straight characters? Then, yeah, there’s a huge fucking disparity here that needs to be addressed.
Right wing people will always shit their pants about gay people. There is no “easing in” with it.
At first I was in disagreement with you, but I think I get where you’re coming from. Though only if you’re describing the risk averse, inherently conservative mentality of a multinational corporation. Because the truth is, that integration process has happened, so many narrative mediums, non-narrative productions, and communities have accepted and welcomed LGBT+ people/perspectives, that not only has it become it’s own subset of industry worth a great deal of money, it’s also considered backwards not to include that perspective in some way. I mean Drag Race has been a popular show for over 10 years, Will and Grace was one of the largest sitcoms around, so big it got a very late revival. There have been tons of mainstream, gay focused narratives, and they haven’t all been adult fare. Gay characters are incredibly mainstream. Huge companies like Disney are incredibly conservative, they only take a step they know will not cause their increasingly imbalanced and weighty construct to tumble. The mistake is in thinking these obese titans legitimize things, it’s actually the reverse. They wait, often too long, to step forward to where everyone else already is, and they do that very intentionally while crowing about inclusivity and being leaders. They are elephants on ice, watching the multitude walk ahead of them, and then congratulating themselves when they don’t fall through ice others have already marked as safe. What’s ironic is that the pond is only four feet deep, they’d be fine if they fell through, but everyone else would drown or freeze to death. They’re the most risk averse, but have the most ability to survive risks.
Yeah. It lies entirely on Disney’s bottom line. They won’t rock the boat if they can help it. Money is definitely a driving force at keeping them from putting it at the front.
Because all this shit is a tired agenda that the majority of people, regardless of race, gender, etc. could care less about. Real people don’t actually talk about this dumb shit and if they do it’s to mock it.
Uhh, not sure where you watch your Netflix, but I think it’s pretty safe to assume this ‘audible moan of annoyance’ you heard during Army of the Dead was coming from *you*.You’re perfectly welcome to your own reactions, but let’s not hide behind the “too many people will walk away” framing. It’s *you* who doesn’t want to be subject to all this “forced in” representation. Own it.
I don’t care if it’s represented. It’s just a general opinion on how movies will stop everything to have a conversation that has nothing to do with what’s going on. Doesn’t matter what it is.
I like how you put the wrong words in quotations in the header.I think the word you should have put in quotes is “right”, and if you can’t figure out why maybe you should rethink your myopic view of what “qualifies” as appropriate representation.
Wait a sec… what about LeFeu, Cyrus Goodman, the cop from Onward, the character in the Jungle Cruise movie, animated Maleficent & the Evil Queen (drag queens), etc..
if only you were replying to an article that covers this topic. alas!
Preeeeetty sure they were making a joke.
what’s the joke, the article specifically mentions Lefou, Onward and Jungle Cruise, if it’s a joke it sucks
The joke is they’re pretending to be somebody who has taken Disney seriously about their previous characters and is somehow shocked people could forget such “important” characters as these ones. It’s in line with the premise of the article.Maybe we should take a step back in order to be clearer: sometimes people will pretend to take positions that they don’t actually believe in because the idea anybody would hold that position is laughable.
dude you are reaching, OP didn’t read the article. it’s not that deep
Sometimes it takes a few tries to get it right, and it sounds like we might have 3-5 more first gay characters before they get it right. Allfather Valkyrie is going to somehow end up setting them back 2 tries.
That isn’t unexpected but to bury the others and have articles proclaim the latest is the first seems like a misstep. Next month we will hear how the boys from Luca are the first gay characters.
This was really a missed opportunity. Disney is always saying “don’t mess with the bag” but if they put out the Asian-themed (perhaps too generically Asian-themed, but it was still pretty darn good) “Raya and the Last Dragon” and Cruella with an openly gay character at the same time they could still have had a strong performer in China and other repressive areas even if China censored some parts of Cruella or refused to show it at all. It’s not like Cruella looks like it will be a good performer in China anyway! I also don’t want to encourage them making easy cuts for repressive regimes…but it would be easier if they confined the explicit gayness to shots that China can cut out if that’s what it takes to keep them in the US. That’s at least better than having it be a character who isn’t even a character in a scene that can be cut entirely like in Avengers.
I’m sorry, Ursula is the “first gay Disney character” they got right. Well, I guess the “right” part is subjective but c’mon, Ursula was great.
Not a soul can convince me that the dwarves weren’t gettin it on.
They weren’t gay, they just didn’t have any other options.
Grumpy and Doc are in love, how dare you.
Not a lot of women down the shaft…‘Course, as Pratchett tells us, there’s no visible difference between male and female dwarves, anyway. The whole point of chainmail is to reveal as little as possible, and they both have beards.
I have been saying this since, well, 1989 when The Little Mermaid was released. And Ursula was great. Upon viewing TLM as an adult, I am pretty much #TeamUrsula (or at least I think she deserves more shrift as a solid anti-heroine). She’s outcast from the kingdom, and no reason is given in the movie (the live action version is making her the deposed sister of Triton). Ursula doesn’t “fit” with the rest of the mer-people. She’s big bodied in an ocean full of svelte swimmers. She’s also loud and unapologetic, and she understands this as a source of power. Ariel and the other minions of Triton do not speak up to challenge him when he’s wrong or when he oversteps. They shut up. Ursula refuses to be silent. And she understands people’s nature. She knows how to use people to get what she wants. Sure, that means she eventually has a grotto of imprisoned seaweed-people, but who doesn’t at this point? Homegirl knew the value of her services and was well within her rights to enforce a lawful contract. And what did her independence and entrepreneurial spirit get her? Run through with the prow of a ship. There is no justice.
Also, King Triton is a muscle-daddy fuckboi.
She’s an evil witch that hands curses out and calls them blessings. Idiots like you will praise BLM rioters and evil characters like Ursula, then gasp and clutch your pearls when a character decides to be Christian and pass up on partying and having sex until they’re dead in a gutter.
Ursula breached her contract when she sent the eels to sabotage Ariel & Eric’s kiss. Stop using tumblr-esque “representation justifies the means” logic to endorse a grown adult conning a child.
Dude, you’re taking a tongue-in-cheek post way too seriously.
Unless you’re saying the past decade of people saying the exact same thing as you were all tongue-in-cheek, then Poe’s Law applies.
Hasn’t Disney had about 15 “first gay characters” by now? When are we getting the second?
They’ll promote them at the first second gay character.
Wasn’t there a gay character in Beauty and the Beast?
Never understood this “First gay Disney character” thing when Disney’s first movie featured 7 men in a polyamorist relationship. Those dwarfs were sucking and fucking all the damn day
Hiiii hooooooo
If you’re not actively fornicating on screen, how can anyone *truly* know your sexual preferences?
They struggle because they are stuck in the paradox of wanting to please the LGBT+ community to get their money and look progressive but also be able to erase them to please the Chinese market and get their money
The thing that pushed the villain formerly known as Estella to become Cruella was her anger over having someone else take credit for her workIs this true? Because what I read was much funnier. Spoiler——-Someone said dalmations killed her parents, which is amazing.
Yep. Dalmations killed her mother who isn’t really her mother but she acts like she was. Also they ate her necklace. Its hysterical.
I might actually have to watch this.
Its dumb but not funny dumb mostly. The stuff with the mom is absolutely hilarious in that SNL parody kinda way.
That seems a measured and reasonable response. Could she at least don a Dalmatian costume and fight crime in the sequel?
After falling into a pit of Dalmatians? Suuuuuure.
Notably aggressive and easily trained dog breed… Dalmatians. I just watched the clip and it’s quite hilarious, she just stands there. Crouch or something.
Everything about this moment is hilarious, and the writers seemingly don’t know it.
Wait was I friggin right?https://www.avclub.com/1846975983
So totally here for the ongoing confusion about which AV Club comments are serious and which are ironic for all us poors who can’t afford/don’t care about Disney+. Glad I’m not alone.
Unironically yes. They went there. They did what feels like an SNL parody plot point.
I looooved it. it was bonkers and they know it.
the movie was really fucking fun and campy. the movie knows all the mom stuff is ridiculous, it’s a full on high production drag show with both Emma’s as our mothers. The movie is very queer despite it sorta tip toeing around this gay character.
Are we sure this fits the idea of camp? Because an over two hundred million dollar movie with five screen writers doing something this insulting stupid doesn’t sound campy.
It makes me think of how Nostalgia Critic rips off “Be Kind, Rewind” for his no-clips reviews, but because he’s an incompetent and abusive asshole, he doesn’t understand why the original worked in the first place. That’s what Disney being campy feels like.
It’s still campy in the same way any old Hollywood movie is. It knows it’s a callback to a certain point of reference while still bringing some actors really hamming it up. Has anybody here even watched the movie lol? It’s fun, zany and over the top. I don’t know what everyone is so upset about.
Y’know, that’s what I gathered from all the Twitter comments along the lines of “OK, so in the next Disney villain origin story, we’re going to learn that llamas ate Yzma’s parents”, but… aggressive Dalmatians? Seriously? For the backstory of a future wannabe puppy-skinner?
Hey Disney! How about some LGBTQ representation in your films.
Disney: proceeds to put person that fits many types into movie. More Gay than not.
LGBTQ crowd: Its not good enough.
Why can’t the character just be. It feels like it’ll never be good enough.
Disney is close to having a monopoly over blockbuster filmmaking, and so far their LGBTQ representation is… [crickets]
It’s NOT really good enough. But also that’s not the point.
It’s not that THIS MOVIE needed a gay character. It’s that this movie is ANOTHER time that Disney has told us it HAD a gay character in it, and then… he’s just a camp guy.If Disney believed they were actually giving representation when they pulled this shit, they would be touting this as their fourth(fifth?) gay character, not their first.They can put significant queer representation in whatever movies they want to. But they still haven’t yet, and until they do they should stop claiming they have every time they write an effeminate or flamboyant character.
~~Why is she supposed to be gay now? Simply for gayness’ sake?~~~~“Hi, we took an established character and she’s gay now. Aren’t your proud everyone?”~~ Well I’m a moron who should read more carefully.
I’m only just now learning about queer coding and Disney villains, and I’ll admit I don’t get it, but I see people who seem to have expectations from a modern Disney empire, which seems to have only made laughable attempts at creating representations, and I get that even less.
Genuinely asking (not snarking): What don’t you get about the queer coding of many Disney villains? Off the top of my head, Jafar (Aladdin), Hades (Hercules), Ratcliffe (Pocahontas), King John (Robin Hood) and even Scar (The Lion King) are all characterized by a sort of effeminate masculinity that runs counter to heterosexual coding. On some level, each’s villainous behavior is suggested to be rooted in (or at least expressed through) a sort of sissiness that is in their nature, something in them that is not macho masculine. Scar is sassy and has the whole eye-rolling, swishy paws thing going on. Hades and Jafar wear drag-queen levels of makeup. Hell, Ratcliffe carries a poncey dog and travels with his own twink.Ursula was legitimately modeled on a drag queen. She’s super butch.
Most of these villains are opposed by male characters (usually but not always the hero), who are coded explicitly hetero and who exhibit very traditional modes of masculinity. So you’ve got Scar vs. Simba. Scar is slight of frame and cunning, while Simba is guileless (and honestly kind of dopey) and strong. Ursula’s fat butchness and dyke haircut contrasts with Triton’s chiseled physique and manly beard. In the end, she’s struck down by the literal embodiment of Prince Charming as he avenges/protects his love object. Ratcliffe’s glittery and polished exterior and his prissy avoidance of work and dirt contrast with the rugged explorer John Smith. It goes on and on: Hercules vs. Hades, Aladdin vs. Jafar, yadda yadda yadda…The heroes in all of these cases exhibit traditional or hyper-masculinity (even the bad parts of it, like Triton’s overbearing control over his daughters or John Smith’s arrogant self-assurance that he is always correct) as opposed to the femininity embedded in the “bad guys.” Slight frames and effeminate movements get explicitly tied to deviousness and/or cowardice. That’s how Disney (and many, many other studios), use queer coding in problematic ways to establish their villains.
“And travels with his own twink”I am *sent*.
IDK, I’m aware that these things have been identified with gay coding, but I also kind of feel like a lot of this in the eyes of the average viewer comes off more as representing a lot of these characters’ greedy royal decadence vs. the heroes’ underdog gumption. Radcliffe is supposed to be a greedy colonist, so he’s fat and wears outlandish fashion. Scar is supposed to be a scheming backstabber who can’t win a fair fight so he’s made more slender and misshapen. Jafar more or less just looks like the comparable character in The Thief of Baghdad, and Hades mostly comes off like a seedy Hollywood agent or executive which is not really an archetype that screams “gay” to me. It kind of just sounds like a homophobic society decided to put a bunch of negative traits onto gay people and now when those same negative traits are used to characterize villains people suddenly shout “that’s gay,” which is kind of fucked up.
Why don’t we just admit that this is China’s doing? Movie studios put in simple, isolated scenes that China’s censor’s can remove. Even The Mitchells vs. the Machines left the explicit reveal of the main character’s sexuality to a throwaway line in a post-credit scene that could be easily edited. It isn’t a single factor, it’s THE factor.
I get your point, but in The Mitchells, she’s got the lesbian flag, pride flag, and lesbian cultural symbols all over her stuff. She also has a promposal to a girl in her film reel.
China, certainly – but it’s reductionist to leave out the plenty ‘nuff other countries we’ve seen LGBTQ+ content edited out or overtly suppressed.Certainly none have the singular size, scale, and scope of what China’s censorship apparatus is capable of. But add them up, and we have plenty enough other examples – Malaysia, Indonesia, Russia, India, the Gulf States. Hell, our progressive neighbor-to-the-north, Canada’s been historically impermissive with exceptionally transgressive expressions of queer media.I don’t think you’re wrong to underscore that China’s singularity and size make it front-and-center; but I’d be hard pressed to say studio quants and suits ignore numbers in other parts of the world, or operate by the assumption that the Chinese market is the only applicable bastion of censorship in the world, particularly for content that isn’t of the big budget, CGI-SFX super-spectacle variety.
It’s true China may not be the only culprit but as the now largest box office in the world, and only growing, they are very much becoming (probably already are) the deciding factor. Here’s a good podcast episode on the subject:https://www.cfr.org/podcasts/chinas-starring-role-hollywood
I’m just saying, the amount of very successful children’s TV programs that have LGBTQ+ characters show that kids don’t care about this stuff, and I’m sure Disney isn’t thrilled about constantly having their movies picked apart by thinkpieces like this one. There’s a larger factor at play.
You clued into one of the counterpoints I’d had in mind – representational strides have been continuing throughout television, and even Disney’s own properties in some cases.But then, television properties are generally nowhere near as exportable.If anything, I wonder if it just lampshades the relative stasis of their progress on the big screen. The dollars over dollars over dollars that Disney makes between their Fox and Marvel properties, I’m reasonably confident make up for any hurt feelings thinkpieces from here, or really any outlet can inflict upon them.
If they don’t want to get picked apart by think pieces why don’t they just stick to heterosexual stuff instead of playing these games with their gay audience? If they’re going to be heteronormative prudes they should at least be honest about it.
Because they don’t want to be thought of as heteronormative prudes either, MJS…?
Now that I’ve had a chance to throw cash at the Mouse House, it occurs to me that part of the variance I’m talking about is just the differences in what constitutes ‘objectionable’ in different places.Artie is coded just enough – and it’s talked about elsewhere in these threads – that he just as easily reads glam, as facile as he reads queer. East Asia in general is pretty flexible when it comes to males-in-makeup; makeup by itself doesn’t immediately confer femmeness*.Even though Canto-pop is decidedly more conservative than its K- and J- neighbors, I’d be hard-pressed to imagine Chinese audiences aren’t at least passingly familiar with (albeit more modern expressions of) glam as part of a pop cultural and fashion landscape.Compare it to say, conservative ME countries that are pretty well-known for barring transpersons from entry, where raids on LGBTQ+ society are routine, where any expressions of gender variance (including makeup) are at least as punishable as actual sexual behaviors.It’s hypothetical, but eminently plausible that Chinese censors could find Artie totally cool, whereas authorities in the Gulf might find him as objectionable as a 10-man fisting orgy.Circling back, the real point of the article is that Artie – fun and fabulous as he is – is sadly, also inessential to the movie. As much as I enjoyed him, and the movie, paying attention to him particularly – it occurred to me that he could be 100% edited out with virtually no impact to the rest of the movie. Disney can catch all the birds with just that one stone, and that’s the lavender ceiling that keeps them from making any significant progress in advancing representation.*cultural manifestations of “pretty” males definitely have non-synonymous overlap to our gender and sexuality ideas – will happily invite folx with more detailed knowledge of the intersection of gender and sexuality from yaoi, BL, and bara and the like to refine and correct
China is definitely a factor here, but it’s not accurate to say this is their doing. Yes, they heavily censor gay characters and stories, but they didn’t make this movie. This is all Disney’s doing. They (and companies like them) are all too happy to brag about how progressive they are, all while keeping that “progressive representation” limited to subtext for conservative and anti-gay audiences. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
We should blame the people who are actually responsible, instead of shaking our fists at people on the other side of the world.
Back when MGM did musicals, they would have a “specialty number” with Black dancers or singers (often by the Nicholas Brothers doing a dance, but also by Lena Horne singing) that was separate from the main plot, and could be trimmed out if local censor boards found it “undesirable”. Surprise — most of the Southern censor boards used that excuse and cut the number! I guess Disney (and other studios too!) see the openly LGBTQ character as this generation’s “specialty number”…..
we love to exist at the whims of straight white capitalists!!! censor me daddy
From what’s being said here though, there aren’t even scenes in this movie that could be cut for whatever overseas country decides gay kisses are bad. (El Generalissimo is right, it’s hardly just China.)
right now multiple states in the US are trying to make it illegal to teach children that gay and trans people exist, and the federal government vocally announces its support of us but does nothing to protect our right to exist. But okay sure, China is the only problem.
As far as the Mitchells vs. the Machines goes, I have to disagree to a point. All through the movie are tons of references, phrases commonly used in the LGBT community, rainbow pin on her clothing, and lesbian flag pin on her back pack. There are also plenty of references about her favorite movies, directors and writers that are openly gay.You are correct that there is a single after credit line that directly acknowledges it which could easily be edited out, but because of the culture we live in we don’t view LGBT characters like we do straight characters. Where we veiw the brother having an obvious crush on the neighbor girl, we veiw the sister constantly video chatting with another girl as normal non relationship potential. If she had been constantly talking to an attractive boy, we’d most likely automatically assume she had a romantic relationship.Another line or two in casual conversation would have been nice, but there were plenty of signs throughout the movie, with no real noticable stereotype forced on the character like in many films.
Fair enough. Tbh the movie was so propulsive that I probably just didn’t notice that stuff (I only watched it once, but based on my kiddo’s reaction I’m sure I’ll see it again soon).
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/asia/bohemian-rhapsody-censorship-china-intl/index.htmlalso https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/12/censors-cut-star-wars-historic-lesbian-kiss-foreign-release/i know the kiss is just a small example but what i’m saying is that there’s clearly ways to deliver an lgbtq movie and still get past censors. like el generalissimo has said, it seems reductionist to blame one specific country but also when there’s plenty evidence of kowtowing domestically too.https://medium.com/swlh/gina-carano-is-wrong-disney-is-not-anti-conservative-8230771efbe0but honestly im tired of the whole “hollywood can’t do anything gay bc of censorship in china” bc 1. there are a ton of things that get censored/films banned in china(nudity, brad pitt, etc.) but that didn’t stop once upon a time in hollywood, ie. 2. disney does a lot of self-censorship in media that isn’t released in china.regardless, not trying to argue w you. obviously i don’t love censorship that happens in china and other countries but im particularly sensitive to ppl “hollywood can’t do x bc of china” partially bc of the rise of sinophobia here in the us, so i might not be too unbiased. but i do have hope. china’s gen z kids are way more open and wanting media that is very diverse, so i am hoping that the government recognizes that and eases up on the censorship at least. fingers crossed
Why don’t we just admit that this is China’s doing?We say this a lot, but if a Freddy Mercury biopic can be made with an unambiguously queer protagonist and then edit it down later for China, Disney has no excuse for limiting themselves to throwaway lines and blink-and-you’ll-miss-it scenes that are clearly designed to be easily cut.Honestly, I reckon they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too. Limit the queerness onscreen so it’s easier for the domestic audiences to ignore, while also trumpeting themselves as champions of representation. China’s just a useful excuse.
Hollywood was giving excuses to leave gay characters out of movies and tv long before they started pandering to China.
The reason for Disney’s skittishness is almost certainly the global market. I did the college program at Disney in 2001. At that time they were one of the few places offering same sex partner benefits and had a gay night club on campus at Disney World. This doesn’t make them beacons of social progress, it just points to them being flexible in their “Family Friendly” image when it suits them. Getting banned in any country, China or otherwise, is not great business. Getting edited in another country…eh. Fine. I’m not defending it, it’s cowardly as fuck and their attempts to have it both ways by celebrating easily excised snippets of queerness is more so. But I’m pretty confident it has nothing to do with Disney The Brand not being comfortable with the gay community, they’re just uncomfortable with risking money if they don’t have to.
This. A “boycott” in Klansville, Mississippi, just means there will be loud people outside the building bringing attention to the film, & people can walk past them to buy a ticket. It’ll suck, but it’s still viewable.A ban in China means the film doesn’t play at all in one of the 3 biggest movie markets on the planet.
Cruella shows that Disney is still just making endless reboots and rehashes because they know they’ll make money instead of poring their effort into less, but better, IPs and new IPs.This whole movie just means nothing, will do nothing, and will not be remembered. We really didn’t need Joker but 101 Dalmatians.
They cast a queer actor to fill a queer role. That alone is better than most queer representation.
Reminds me of when Kate McKinnon was suppose to be openly a lesbian in the Ghostbusters remake but Sony shut down that fast. This is never going to feel anything more then half hearted. Companies like Disney are doing this to entice younger more progressive people by acting like they agree politically, but its always small enough that they can just erase it for China or a country with less positive LGBTQ attitudes. Its supremely soulless.
Why do the script writers always have to make this such a big deal about this? You can show me the character is queer without telling me.
it’s part of the marketingthis article is also part of the marketing
This right here is the danger of trusting corporations to be “woke”. Disney is a spineless, amoral enterprise only doing this because that’s the way the popular winds are blowing, and they only care about diversity as far as it makes them money. To paraphrase Michael Jordan, Republicans watch Disney movies too, so of course the Mouse is going to try and make their properties as banal and inoffensive as they possibly can, even if that means reducing the characters from historically marginalized communities to bland nobodies.
It’s the same reason I cringe every time I see a Pride parade that’s sponsored by Nike or Delta or whoever. It’s so painfully obvious that they would just as willingly sponsor the Westboro Baptist Church if that would make them money and that’s what a majority of their customers wanted.
Rainbow capitalism is an affront to queers everywhere.
I’d never heard that term before. Thanks for sharing.
I don’t see why its necessary for a character to be explicitly gay or straight when it has nothing to do with the story. Who cares whether the side characters sleep with males or females? It is completely irrelevant.
This is what happens when you are worried about the almighty renminbi.
Considering Beauty and the Beast having a gay character who was in no way mentioned as gay within the movie almost got the movie banned in states with powerful church groups, nothing about this article is surprising.
“the fact that “glam” and “gay” are not and never were synonymous” – The NY Dolls
The headline of your article shows your general intolerance towards homosexuals.
Honestly, I want to know how many times Disney THEMSELVES have actually announced these characters as their “first gay characters”. Every time this happens and you follow the articles to the source, it generally ends up being either a commentator, like a columnist or a reviewer or a twitter person, declaring it the first gay character, or its an actor or actress saying something like “I thought of my character as queer” and that being turned into “first queer character”. In this case, if you follow the link you find that the declaration of first came from Grace Randolph, who is the host of a Youtube channel; nothing against her, but somebody outside of Disney mislabeling a character as first queer is very different than Disney themselves announcing them as first queer. Im not defending Disney’s reluctance to do queer characters as it is frustrating for them to be so mealy-mouthed, but I do wonder how much of the issue with Firsts is about the way the current movie news cycle takes small things and blows them up to be big enough to write articles about
You are right that this stuff gets powered by a lot of silly traits in journalism… but I also think Disney is well aware of what they’re doing and that they fully expect that to happen when they make this these winks at representation so they can have their cake while maintaining plausible deniability. Also I believe the Beauty and the Beast one did in fact come from a quote from the director (who was an openly gay man for whatever that’s worth) that got blown out of purportion.
WHO? O Who cares!
Looks like Willam Belli missed out on this role
legit question: why is it when other movies/shows does the same shit disney does with LGBT charicters its called “groundbreaking” or “revolutionary”
…
First gay…. Wait a minute. What about these two?And then there’s these “roommates” who share a tiny apartment, are constantly bickering, and can be spotted taking a stroll at the nudist’s resort.
Once Hollywood realized that representation was good for box office
—also, “pandering”. Hard to tell the difference, it’s in the dignity of all involved.
I know I’m going to piss a few with this comment: Marc Bolan was infinitely sexier to watch perform than David Bowie ever was.
Here’s a novel idea: how about we stop worrying about the skin color, gender/sex, and sexual preferences of characters in movies and treat them like actual characters? The first step on this road is to stop acting like the color of your skin, what’s between your legs, and what you want to do with what’s between your legs have anything to do with who you are as a person.None of these arbitrary characteristics tell you anything about a person. You don’t know how they’ll act or behave, you don’t know what they think or believe, you don’t know anything about them. Stop peddling these things like they have something to do with someone’s identity. Maybe then we’ll just get films where people are black cause they happen to be black, and not because the movie needs a “black voice” which doesn’t exist. Maybe then we’ll get a movie about a woman just being a woman, and not being a woman be ause she has something to prove to a world that already knows the “lesson”. Maybe we’ll get a movie about a gay person who just happens to be gay and that’s the least interesting thing about them, just like being straight is the least interesting thing about a straight person.Stop turning characters into caricatures.
Okay…just because Disney finally realized there’s money to be made in being more inclusive doesn’t mean they understand why. They barely have a handle on race and women what made anything believe they would be more insightful/understanding with LGBTQ+? Disney believe I’ll put a character that’s LGBTQ+ or imply they are and they think their work is done. And honestly, despite the criticism, they don’t have to try so hard. They have a straglehold on audiences/film critics. They don’t really have to work that hard and worry about perception. Audiences will show up because Disney owns them.
Let’s be real here. LGBTQ+ issues are – while important – far from the only issues that this movie has. I mean the whole thing is a goddamned disaster.
The problem isn’t that Disney’s trying to “be safe”. The problem is that they don’t have enough LGBTQ employees in charge of these projects. It’s like an all male group telling the story of female empowerment or an all white group trying to explain the oppression of racism. It’s disconnected and comes off as a joke.If a story needs to be told, let the protagonist speak. White male narrators are a thing of the past. Let it go Disney…
And this article shows that AV Club is still struggling to write coherent clickbait.Have some class. io9’s Charles Pulliam Moore is the hot take, manufactured outrage clickbait shitheel. You guys are the blog that Legends of Tomorrow references. Don’t lose that with stuff like this.
“…‘normal’ is the cruelest insult of them all. And at least I never get that,…” Well, you have nothing to worry about until people STOP talking about you.
I just don’t want to root for the woman who wants to skin puppies.
Interesting that in their list of animated shows they specifically chose not to include the Disney animated shows with prominent LGBTQ characters? Luz and Amnity in OwlHouse (aka the main character and her gf), Jackie Lynn Thomas in SVTFOE, Blubs and Durland in Gravity falls. Is Disney doing amazing? No. Should they do better? Yes. But lets not pretend they’re farther behind than any other studio. We’re getting more and more minor characters, a few mains, but no studio seems to have more than one lgbt Lead and it’s almost entirely female.