Building a Timeline for LGBTQ+ Global Cinemas (1910–2019): Movie Production Trends from a Collaborative Internet Cinema Database

Abstract

the lgbtq+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual identities and orientations) community has struggled to achieve social acceptance, political representation, and recognition of their civil rights. Their demands respond to exclusions and oppressions suffered historically. Even today, this struggle continues in many countries. Equal rights to marriage and adoption have not yet been recognized in all societies, and in some countries, sexual diversity is even punishable by death. Audiovisual media, particularly cinema, has the ability not only to function as a device for the production and creation of reality, but also to act as a reflection of reality and social changes (Gross; Williams), such as when recognizing sexual diversity. Media has a key role as a socializer, comparable to the role held by institutions such as school or family (Rosengren 6).Cinema, as the most influential medium of the twentieth century, has reflected the struggles of the LGBTQ+ community, mirroring a significant period in the history of humanity regarding the advancement of civil and political rights. This has taken place through different channels. The first channel consists of commercial and mainstream movies that typically have come out of Hollywood and the United States. As one of the main cinema “super producers,” Hollywood industry has shaped the market, ruling over the box office and influencing the content of movies. However, in the last few decades, content also has reflected transnationalization as a way of appealing to different cultural markets and reflecting the diversity of global audiences (Crane 378). A second venue for reflection of these changes has been the independent cinema circuits, though they have been aimed, traditionally, at a rather minority audience. While both of these production models—the so-called mainstream and indie films—participate in the representation of characters and themes of the LGBTQ+ community, these have been decoded in different and often opposite ways. Independent cinema, including documentary and avant-garde cinema, has been conceptualized in part as a response to the “dominant mode of American (heterosexist) filmmaking” and, therefore, identified with the “queer” (Benshoff and Griffin, Queer Images: A History 11). On the other hand, for other authors, the parameters defining queer cinema are diverse and fluid, beyond binary classifications. Queerness is here understood as a component that can be presented through different types of cinemas, manifesting different forms of queer representation and participation/identification among filmmakers (Schoonover and Galt 15).Until now, studies on the representation of the LGBTQ+ community in the media have focused on particular case studies instead of adopting a holistic approach; for instance, the film outputs in specific decades, such as the media ecosystem of the 1990s (Becker). There also have been studies about specific national markets, but often the focus is on USA productions (Benshoff and Griffin, Queer Images: A History of Gay). Although LGBTQ+ and queer cinemas have been researched from a global perspective, the research has been carried out as different forms of qualitative textual analysis (Davies; Russo; Tyler), with a focus on a cultural interpretation of the qualities of filmic texts. Some exceptions in the form of research with a global and quantitative focus have been successful but, to our knowledge, only in other audiovisual markets such as digital games (Shaw and Friesem). Therefore, a quantitative analysis of global cinema seems to be needed to establish an updated comparative criterion on a global scale and to verify the real state of affairs. Hitherto, databases constructed through users’ collaboration and big data analysis have been usually compared with users’ attitudes to social behavior including gender or violence (Gosselt et al.) or the success of a particular product, measured through users’ movie rating and recommendation systems (Canet Centellas et al.). The approach adopted in this article also is innovative, employing a collaborative-constructed database with the aim of studying synchronic and diachronic trends within global LGBTQ+ cinemas.We propose a historical review and the global mapping of two phenomena: film production and the development of social rights. With this objective, a methodology based on content analysis is proposed, using information collected from the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) digital repository. Our aim is, on one hand, to trace the evolution of cinema and the presence of LGBTQ+ characters and plots. On the other hand, we seek to ascertain the current situation of these representations among national productions in quantitative terms.Attempting to define LGBTQ+ cinema is somewhat controversial. Despite “queer” and “gay cinema” having been a common subject of study in abundant academic research (Benshoff and Griffin, Queer Cinema: Film Reader; Benshoff and Griffin, Queer Images: A History; Russo; Vaughn), in this article we prefer to use the more specific term of “LGBTQ+” cinema. By using a more inclusive term, we intend to reflect the diversity within this community and their multiple identities.LGBTQ+ cinema can be understood as a cultural object that is determined by the participation of audiences, and therefore, it is not a textual property, since even texts that are originally “heterosexual” can be transformed into queer texts by participative audiences (Schoonover and Galt 11). While cinema is a representational form of social reality, it is often conveyed through fiction and stereotypes. Authorship has been a common way of defining queer cinema (Benshoff and Griffin, Queer Images: A History 10). However, some voices, including that of filmmaker Rodolfo Graziano, prefer to restrict queer cinema to documentaries about the community (Peña Zerpa 42), discarding purely fictional texts. Other historians point out that due to the social and institutional censorship cinema has been subjected to in its history, many of the characters and plots that could be classified within what has been considered LGBTQ+ cinema often must be identified through subtexts (Benshoff and Griffin, Queer Images: A History; Mira 51).Cinema has the capacity to mirror the values and social constructs of a given space-time period, but it also has the potential to change them. The presence of positive LGBTQ+ portraits in feature films also can promote the elimination of prejudice about the community and greater social acceptance by audiences (Madžarević and Soto-Sanfiel 18), which in turn could have a favorable impact on the recognition of their claims. Furthermore, the idea that there have been significant changes in the profile of audiences in many societies should also be considered. Over time, a transnational LGBTQ+ cinema market may have been created in response to the commercial interest of audiences towards a more diverse and inclusive cinema.The history of LGBTQ+ civil rights features advances and setbacks, and its starting points can be traced back to the first civilizations around the world. In creating an LGBTQ+ timeline, however, this research focuses only on the twentieth and twenty-first centuries’ social milestones on the global scene, which have been parallel to the development of cinema industry and cinema language. Furthermore, although this timeline aims to be universal in nature, we acknowledge that each country has a different history as well as particular social, political, and economic features. Therefore, our analysis attempts to strike a compromise between global development and local or national features.Because of the preceding factors, we propose the following timeline, which includes a number of key globally recognized milestones in relation to the LGBTQ+ community and its effect on film, as it is the object of study in this research. This timeline is based on the literature review carried out (Black; Mira; Russo) and is intended to offer an overview of the main social milestones that may have affected global cinema production, without being an exhaustive account of LGBTQ+ civil rights and social progression.There is copious literature on the representation of the LGBTQ+ community in early cinema. The film Algie the Miner (Alice Guy, Harry Schenck, and Edward Warren, 1912) has been commonly regarded as the first cinematic production featuring a queer character. Although Algie has a girlfriend in the story, his character's queerness “shows through in everything he says, does and is” (Barrios 18). One scene, for example, presents Algie with painted lips, featuring hand movements associated with femininity as he erotically caresses the barrel of a gun, an object that could be interpreted as a phallic symbol.Silent movies and the beginnings of the sound age featured many queer characters. This period also contributed to the social imagery by creating both positive and negative stereotypes of the LGBTQ+ community (Brown 7). In contrast to these subtle hostile narratives, Different from the Others (Anders als die Andern, Richard Oswald, 1919) is largely acknowledged to be the first feature film that was openly tolerant toward LGBTQ+ identities (Summers 125). Funded by the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin, the film was created in protest of German laws that criminalized homosexuality. Sometimes we can talk more about different degrees of moral judgment as well. While in Algie the Miner being queer was represented as an element to be corrected and therefore was central to the plot, in other movies such as The Soilers (Ralph Ceder, 1923), the homosexual character was rather a comic relief. In the case of The Soilers, the LGBTQ+ character's condition is not even taken seriously. Although identification was not always explicit, some conventions helped audiences to identify LGBTQ+ characters, such as stories in which cross-dressing was practiced or where code words were used to designate other characters (Barrios 19; Benshoff and Griffin, Queer Images: A History 65).In 1934, agreements between the Catholic Church in the United States and Hollywood, the main center of transnational film production, managed to implement the production code of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA). The so-called “Hays Code,” informally named after Will Hays, the head of the MPPDA, led to the creation of the Production Code Administration (PCA) seal of approval and an interpretative committee monitored by representatives of the Catholic Church. From this point forward, the PCA would decide which films could be distributed, proactively and retroactively, and had the power to fine distributors who violated the code (Black 167). For the PCA, homosexuality was considered a “sexual perversion” and was a common cause for editing movie content (Russo 73) when a movie was reviewed, either as a script or once filmed. This was the case for the feature film The Maltese Falcon (John Huston, 1941). One of the characters, Joel Cairo, was openly homosexual in the novel on which the film is based. The committee, however, demanded that the filmmakers eliminate any mention of his homosexuality and also made the filmmakers present the character as a villain.Movie censorship has existed in Europe almost since the inception of cinema (Robertson). Different European governments since the 1920s have established content control mechanisms, with a particular interest in movie productions, including the Filmprüfstelle (Film Review Office) in the German Republic of Weimar (1920–34) and the diplomatic censorship exerted by the Primo de Rivera regime in Spain (1923–30). Prior to the creation of these censoring bodies, content control already existed, although it was unevenly exercised among local authorities. Vaughn (40) points to different examples of pre-code censorship in the USA imposed for moral or political reasons, which hint at the social anxieties caused by the cinema medium's supposedly negative influence on society. This was the case for The Easiest Way (1917), about a woman who attempts suicide, and Birth Control (1917), written and directed by Margaret Sanger, an activist in favor of sexual education and family planning.The Hays Code was decisive in the history of film content because of the weight of American production on the international market in the subsequent years. Characters and plots reflecting homosexual attitudes or behaviors were censored out, and LGBTQ+ characters would not reappear until the final years under regulatory codes. Two types of characters predominated: the evil antagonist, whose final punishment had a moral reading, and the comical sidekick, a typically ridiculous portrait of the “sissy” and effeminate archetype. The latter is a type of representation with a long history dating back to the beginnings of cinema (Barrios 67; Brown; Mira).The Hays code disappeared in 1967, having conditioned American cinema production for more than three decades—and also having influenced international markets. Eventually, production codes and censorship boards were replaced with other regulatory bodies, institutionalized as rating systems. Even today, these entities still have a relevant influence on audiences, particularly parents and exhibitors. The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), created in 1912, for example, may not have a direct effect on content, but its most restrictive labels can have serious effects on the financial success of a film.BBFC case studies collect examples in which films obtained different ratings corresponding with different cuts, but also different classifications depending on their target market (e.g., domestic video, streaming, cinema release). Scenes depicting sexual violence (i.e., rape) rather than consensual intercourse, explicit reference to pornography, or explicit sex depictions justify the more restrictive 15 classification from the BBFC, over its 12A/12 classifications. Strong language and sex may have negatively affected films such as Happy Together (Wong Kar-Wai, 1997), and it was the combination of sex and violence that made the distribution of Brokeback Mountain (Ang Lee, 2005) more restrictive. The category 18 (“Suitable only for adults”) is observed for presence of violence and sexual violence, while R18 means “To be shown only in specially licensed cinemas, or supplied only in licensed sex shops, and to adults only.”It is important also to understand that it is the overall combination of contents that is assessed. For example, the movie Pride (Matthew Barchus, 2014) is classified as “15” due to sex references and strong language, which generated some controversy because of the social relevance of its plot and its relationship to the history of gay civil rights in the UK. Under UK legislation and international laws, the BBFC guidelines must apply the same standards to homosexual as to heterosexual activity (British Board of Film Classification).The 1970s saw new significant milestones in the acquisition of LGBTQ+ rights. The most crucial event originated with the riots that took place at Stonewall Inn, in Greenwich Village in New York City in June 1969. Commemorating the first anniversary of the events, the first march for recognition took place in New York City in 1970, marking a new era of visibility for LGBTQ+ groups. Stonewall was also the origin of the Gay Liberation Front, which would fight throughout the following years for LGBTQ+ rights in the USA and inspire the creation of other fronts in different countries. These movements led not only to greater visibility of the community but also to an institutionalization of their demands, including the annual celebration popularly known as LGBTQ+ Pride. Increased visibility during the decades after Stonewall did not always have positive consequences for the community, as LGBTQ+ people faced an increasing homophobic reaction from society (Barrios 11). With regard to representation of the community in film, although representation was quantitatively greater, it was not necessarily of greater quality. Feature films continued to present homosexuality as a marginal condition that tormented characters, leading them to madness, criminal acts, or even suicide (Davies 67). Homosexuality was a conflictive topic at this time and appeared mostly as subtext.For the film Midnight Express (Alan Parker, 1978), Oliver Stone won an Academy Award for adapting the biographical novel written by Billy Hayes, by making significant changes in the script regarding homosexuality. In the book, consensual sex among men was a common practice in the prison, but the film script shows Billy's kind rejections to his friend's sexual approaches. By contrast, Stone's last scene involves a fictional climax in which the sadistic chief guard of this Turkish prison attempts to rape the main character. The film's success and its social relevance are of great importance in the history of cinema, but even more, perhaps, for what it could have been and was not. Douglas Messerli summarizes the matter: Eight years after Stonewall and in a decade that had seen major works of LGBTQ cinema by the likes of Fassbinder, Luchino Visconti, Rosa von Praunheim, Sidney Lumet, Lino Brocka, Lasse Nielsen, Derek Jarman, Ron Peck, Wolfgang Petersen, and others, to say nothing of Andy Warhol of a decade earlier there was no longer any excuse to refuse to express homosexual relationships on film, especially in prison. Midnight Express appeared, it is important to remember, a full eight years after Stonewall. Americans should no longer have had to been told only half-truths of such important stories.By the end of the 1970s, cinema and TV had turned their attention to the dangers behind risky sexual practices and drug abuse. Feature films linked to LGBTQ+ representation captured these concerns, as illustrated by the controversial Cruising (William Friedkin, 1980), in which the investigation into a series of murders leads the main character to go undercover in the New York gay subculture to chase a homosexual serial killer. Rather than a sexual identity, homosexuality is depicted as synonymous with practices such as sadomasochism and “cruising.” In short, homosexuality in these films is treated just as another element of moral decline affecting society at the time (Davies 93). The AIDS crisis, which started in 1981, affected the LGBTQ+ community severely in its early days. The disease was unequivocally linked to homosexuality through derogatory names employed by the media, such as “gay cancer,” “gay plague,” and “gay-related immune deficiency syndrome,” terms that were used profusely in the years prior to the discovery of HIV (Fee and Parry 55). This speech was sustained by conservative sectors in the United States, such as the Republican Party, and the Christian right contributed to the stigmatization of the gay collective and divided American society (King). Jerry Falwell Sr., founder of the American political organization Moral Majority, referred to AIDS as “the wrath of God” in a significant debate around this disease in July 1983. As a consequence, the LGBTQ+ population was stigmatized along with other groups that the research at that time had linked to AIDS. By 1984, the expression “4H Club” had become popular, referring to those communities who had been found to be at greater risk of acquiring the virus, according to the evidence at that time: heroin addicts, hemophiliacs, Haitians, and homosexuals (Jean-Charles 64).In the 1990s, progress was made in recognizing the LGBTQ+ community's collective rights, and legislation to reduce discrimination was introduced. A relevant example is the removal of homosexuality in 1992 from the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases, or ICD. Although the ninth version of the handbook, published in 1977, had remained ambiguous and suggested, “Code homosexuality here whether or not it is considered as a mental disorder,” to classify some ego-dystonic disorders, the WHO decided to delete that reference in the tenth version, unlinking for good homosexuality and mental illness (van Drimmelen-Krabbe et al.). In 1994, as a consequence of the trial Toonen v. Australia, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) announced that criminalizing consensual same-sex relations between adults would be in the future a violation of international human rights law (Human Rights Committee).Around this time, Hollywood began to introduce LGBTQ+ characters and themes into commercial films with higher budgets. Tom Hanks won the Academy Award for his performance in Philadelphia (1993). The commercial success of this drama on AIDS and gay rights contributed to a greater recognition of the LGBTQ+ collective by audiences and cultural critics. In this decade other symbolic advances took place that favored the integration of LGBTQ+ people; for example, American comedian and then television star Ellen DeGeneres's coming out as lesbian in a Time magazine interview—and shortly after, on her sitcom Ellen (1994–98)—had great social significance and increased the community's visibility in the media.The 2000s were a period of great progress in civil rights, and many of these achievements extended to the LGBTQ+ community. In 2001, same-sex marriage was legalized for the first time in the Netherlands, which encouraged the adoption of similar laws in the rest of the world. Henceforth, same-sex marriage would be, together with same-sex adoption, the legislative rights most sought after by the LGBTQ+ collective (Rydström, Odd Couples 112; Rydström, “Same-Sex Marriage” 145). Countries such as the United Kingdom and Germany approved, for the first time, legal measures that penalized discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. In the 2010s, the number of countries that introduced laws favorable to the LGBTQ+ community increased, which meant an advancement in protections against discrimination. Same-sex marriage was extended to the entire United States in 2015, although it was still banned in a majority of countries in the world. Starting in 2018, trans identities were no longer considered a mental disorder by the WHO. It is only natural that all these advances were reflected in a cultural medium as relevant as cinema. Since 1985, GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) has been publishing reports on representation of the LGBTQ+ community throughout media, with special focus on American TV and Hollywood cinema, in order to monitor the inclusive and positive representation of the community. While its 2019 report confirmed an increase in the number of LGBTQ+ characters, it also pointed out the need to increase their presence and criticized cinema studios’ tendency to stereotype these characters. Specifically, GLAAD observed the still scarce number of trans characters in media (10). It also criticized the lack of intersectionality among LGBTQ+ and other communities (e.g., ethnic groups, individual disabilities).The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) is the largest free-access online database for films and is constantly updated by millions of daily users. Because IMDb provides a collaborative database, with “crowdsourced content” (Gosselt et al.), a significant part of the information collected on the site corresponds to classifications or taxonomies that are created and maintained by users. These so-called folksonomies are idiosyncratic of digital social environments such as the Web 2.0 and its associated “tagging” behaviors. In contrast to professionally curated databases, folksonomies have the advantage of being closer to natural language, but they are unsystematic, and as a consequence, there is some controversy around using them against ontologies (Veres 59).For this study, the sample of films includes all types of sexual diversity represented through film plots and keywords in IMDb. This collection of terms refers exclusively to feature films that include LGBTQ+ characters, even those who are not relevant in the movie plots. It is important to note that in one of the limitations of this study, the research will not reflect the degree of representation of these identities, the role of the characters, or their time on screen. Our working hypothesis, based on the theoretical framework presented previously, is that we expect there to be a quantitative increase in the production of LGBTQ+ film outputs that, in part, may be linked to the development of the social rights of these groups. Furthermore, other aspects are analyzed, including the national productions of LGBTQ+ cinema and the prevalence of descriptive terms of the LGBTQ+ community.IMDb is the only source from which data was extracted. The sample was constructed using the tool search engines, filtering “feature films” (over forty-five minutes in length), excluding “adult titles,” and excluding those “non-released.” In order to obtain a comprehensive time period, we included all productions from 1910 to December 2019, and the search was conducted in March 2020. This sample avoids the large disruption occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic on international film distribution in cinemas. To collect only those films about which there could be detailed information, the number of items was limited to those with more than fifty user ratings (N = 119,809) as a way of controlling for the popularity of the published works.The presence of descriptors in the field “plot” was coded, and all movies that included any of the terms related to the LGBTQ+ community were selected (N = 1,768). Some of the terms and their variants with similar etymology were homosexual (homo/homosexuality), gay, lesbian, trans (transsexual, transgender), and queer.If instead of considering only the field “plot,” we selected those productions that had a descriptor from this list in their keywords field, the sample was larger (N = 9,409). This decision responds to the need to include in the sample those films in which the subject of study is represented, but is not necessarily part of the plot or is revealed as such through the course of it. It is also supported by the documentary tradition, according to which keywords tend to overlap with the plot or summary (La Barre and de Novais Cordeiro 241).The following information was extracted from each item (i.e., movie): Production by country and production by language in each year. In coproductions, only the first producing country was considered, and the other countries were discarded.Identity of the group (gay, lesbian, trans, etc.) as per the plot keywords. Several identities and expressions, such as transsexuality and transgender identity, have been included under the label “trans” because it was impossible to recognize the correct expression from the labels provided by IMDb.Cinema genres. Using the first two descriptors, a list of genre pairs was created, which were later grouped into thirteen generic categories, as per the formal qualities of the theme: drama (any combinations of the drama category that were not included in other categories); comedy (combinations including comedy that were not considered in other categories); action/adventure; combinations of drama and comedy; horror; crime (including thrillers); fantasy (including science fiction); biography (in both fictional and documentary forms); documentary (excluding biographies and fake documentaries but including news); romantic comedy (romance plus comedy); animation (excluding documentary formats); music/musical feature films; and those belonging to no specific category, which were not considered in later analysis.Age ratings. Parental advisory guidelines have changed significantly over the decades, from the first classifications in the United Kingdom, Germany, and United States to today. In order to establish a suitable comparison, the descriptor provided by IMDb, which is usually established by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), was used. When this was omitted, the descriptor used for this study was determined from the recommended age: “universal,” “parental guidance” (PG), 12–13, 14–16, and 17–18, as well as “X” and “banned,” according to the historical equivalence as provided by IMDb.Data was pooled to consider evolution by historical periods and trends in a single group or correlational ex post facto design. Subsequently, the data was analyzed with the statistical package SPSS v.26. To visualize the main trends from the data, Tableau 2020 software was used.The Pearson test reveals a very high correlation between production and representation of any of the group identities for periods (r [11] = 0.991; p = 0.000) and years (r [108] = 0.932; p = 0.000), so it is expected that national production goes in parallel with LGBTQ+ film production. In this sense, the results show an overwhelming US hegemony with respect to LGBTQ+ representation, as 44.98% of all films feature descriptors of the group. This supports the consideration of the United States as the largest producer of LGBTQ+ content (Crane) and the fact that the vast majority of feature films released in theaters worldwide are American. The United States is proportionally followed by other Western countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, Germany, and Spain.The differences between US production and that of other countries, such as the European group, may be due to differences in the volume of production. The data related to the global production level, and the relationship between these levels and LGBTQ+ cinema, as well as the percentage of LGBTQ+ films in relation to national production, all were collected in order to establish a comparison criterion (Table 1).The average of the national representation in relation to national production, considering the ninety-eight countries common to both samples, is 8.27% (SD = 11.34). The rate is especially low in historically large