Gays and Minorities as villians in fictional media... Good? Bad?

[DudeistBelieve]

So.... I just got done watching Lindsay "Nostalgia Chick" Ellis' video on Disney through a Queer lens. If you haven't watch it, go do it. I'll wait.

...

So a lot of talk there how Disney villains are coded gay and ectera ectera, now I have a question and it follows a personal experience of mine. Back when GTAIV came out, I came to the two missions in the game that certain around selling and then later revenge on buyers of the jewels. Now I play the game and I'm shocked to see the buyers are, presumably, orthodox Jews based solely on their style of dress. I sat there, watching the scene expecting some grand stereotype to be displayed that weren't. Even when allegedly backstabbed by them not a single character utters a racial slur to my knowledge. I recall I walked away from that part of the game thinking how progressive that was, to be able to slip them into that role and not make even reference to their racial denomination. Perhaps I'm wrong and it was anti-Semitic but I didn't read it that way, and if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me.

So suppose we had a straight up Disney film, with an openly gay villain character who's sexuality bared nothing on the plot. Is that by it's very nature, a negative because he is the villain or should it be considered a positive due to his antagonistic role being unrelated to his sexuality? Is it morally okay to have villains with different sexual orientation, or race, or religion?

 

[aba1]

Does it really matter a persons sexuality has nothing to do with being a villain or not people are always so fixated on such arbitrary physical or personality traits I don't get it.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

You mean like in Skyfall?

 

[Spinozaad]

Trying to craft a character which has no characteristics once associated with some social group or ethnicity will eventually lead to the Greendale Human Being.

Life is not politically correct, nor will it ever be. The very fact that individual and communal identity works via an Us/Them-dynamic will ensure that you'll always have racism, classism, sexism, nationalism and all those other fancy 'isms.

Anyway, it also depends on the plot. If this hypothetical homosexual plans to HOMOGAY-NIZE (that's a horrible, horrible pun) the world through kiddie rape; then yeah. That's a negative depiction. If he's flamboyantly gay and wants to steal, I don't know, Christmas or something, that's okay in my book.

I'm surely some butthurt negative nancy somewhere will see a parable of how gays hate Christmas because they hate the Lord or whatever, but that's speculation. PC-speculation.

 

[Darken12]

I will take this opportunity to quote the wonderful Chimamanda Adichie, who coined the excellent phrase "the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete." In her conference "The Danger of the Single Story" she explains that the danger of having only a single story when it comes to minorities is that it colours the perceptions of those who are not like them. If your first (and sometimes only) exposure to a minority is the same story that you hear over and over, your perceptions are going to be coloured by it, and it might take a lot of effort to change what has been taught to you.

The problem with minorities as villains is that we do not have equal representation in the media. We do not have a plurality of stories. What we have is stereotypes and erasure. The danger of the minority as antagonist is that it runs the risk of incorporating the "antagonist" trait into the already firmly entrenched stereotypes. So we would not only be portrayed incompletely, we would also be portrayed as the Other (because the audience is encouraged to identify with the protagonist as the Self, the antagonist becomes the Other by default), which reinforces harmful societal conceptions.

As a member of a minority, I would rather see myself in the role of protagonist (instead of antagonist, deuteragonist or secondary character) in a plurality of representations, before being put in the role of antagonist.

 

[Eleuthera]

If it's an openly gay (muslim, black, whatever) vilain where their minority doesn't influence their villainy I don't see a problem with it. We don't claim '101 Dalmatians' is a sexist movie because the villain is a woman (do we? God I hope not...)

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

As a writer I actively try to cast characters in interesting ways, playing with common expectations about ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Not so much to make a point (though I do think the ultimate "cure" to discrimination is simply to demolish the idea that race/gender/ethnicity/etc has some sort of bearing on who you are as a person), but because it is a literary goldmine.

Seriously, people are so "genre savvy" these days they can catch on to just about anything you can come up with. But something that nobody ever catches on to is the fact that the openly gay Mexican is actually the professional hitman. 98% of people will never see that coming, simply because badass assassins are supposed to be tall white heterosexual men.

However, I think what gets the LGBT community angry about this stuff isn't so much the characters themselves, but the perceived intent behind the portrayal of those characters. If making the villain gay appears to be a conscious decision to demonise gay people, I can see why there would be upset.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

I don't think there's much grounds in avoiding making a villain gay/black/whatever on the basis that it's discrimatory to have an evil gay/black/whatever.

There's more danger of a gay/black/whatever character being shown as a villainous stereotype. Like, a cop show where all the black people were drug dealers. It's okay to have a black drug dealer in your cop show, but it's not okay to act as if all black people are drug dealers.

 

[Glasgow]

Any role of minorities/homosexuals that don't demonize them because of their nature (of being a minority/homosexual) is something fine with me.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

For all you know, any character who doesnt actually show the audience their sexuality, through remarks or a romantic interest or whatever, could be gay.

Because they are just like you and me! Zomg!

 

[SomeLameStuff]

You mean like in Skyfall?

I've always thought that scene was him just trying to make Bond uncomfortable. I have a completely straight friend who just loves doing crap like that >.>

Trying to build a character with the starting point of "He's Gay" can turn up some really awful stuff. If it's just one more point to an already well written character, I don't see a problem. But it doesn't mean we have to keep shoehorning a load of Gay Black Jewish Canadian Villains into movies and games.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

I've always thought that scene was him just trying to make Bond uncomfortable. I have a completely straight friend who just loves doing crap like that >.>

Oh I know, I even know a homophobe who used to do that on me.
I just think he would have gone through with it had there been fear in 007, and enjoyed it in the process.

 

[Newtonyd]

Really depends how it's done. I've seen well rounded characters who also happened to be gay / bisexual / pansexual. I've seen gay characters well depicted, where their sexual identity is important to the story because it helps define the character and affects the story.

Then again, I've seen two dimensional people. Doesn't matter what orientation, race, or ideals a character has, all I'm going to see is a flat and pointless character. Unfortunately, gay characters tend to be cardboard cutouts far more frequently than other archetypes.

As with everything, good stories aren't determined by whether or not it has GLBT characters or not, but how talented the writer is, as well as the skill of the actor, if there is one. Real talent can scavenge artistic integrity from even the most asinine projects.

 

[Lieju]

But would it really be realistic that there were no racism expressed by the characters in a situation like that? Portraying racism s not the same thing as endorsing it. But given the subject matter, that was probably the right way to go, if you weren't going to spend much time on this plot and charaters.

I will take this opportunity to quote the wonderful Chimamanda Adichie, who coined the excellent phrase "the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete." In her conference "The Danger of the Single Story" she explains that the danger of having only a single story when it comes to minorities is that it colours the perceptions of those who are not like them. If your first (and sometimes only) exposure to a minority is the same story that you hear over and over, your perceptions are going to be coloured by it, and it might take a lot of effort to change what has been taught to you.

The problem with minorities as villains is that we do not have equal representation in the media. We do not have a plurality of stories. What we have is stereotypes and erasure. The danger of the minority as antagonist is that it runs the risk of incorporating the "antagonist" trait into the already firmly entrenched stereotypes. So we would not only be portrayed incompletely, we would also be portrayed as the Other (because the audience is encouraged to identify with the protagonist as the Self, the antagonist becomes the Other by default), which reinforces harmful societal conceptions.

As a member of a minority, I would rather see myself in the role of protagonist (instead of antagonist, deuteragonist or secondary character) in a plurality of representations, before being put in the role of antagonist.

I see what you're saying. On the other hand, I've always identified with antagonists quite a bit, and liked interesting ones.
So it would be ok as long as the antagonist has depth, but I'd like to see minorities cast in diversity of roles.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The pitfalls with creating a gay villain or any gay character is that you start off from the concept of "Okay, so he's gay...". Instead of building a character on their characteristics you build them on their sexuality. Now sexuality defines a lot of what we do, but when writing a character it should be interwoven with their personality, not used as a starting point or a plateau for their personality to stand on.

And that NChick episode was kind of missing or just ignoring the purpose of the characteristics behind the Disney villians they used as examples. Those villians are foppish not because the filmmakers are trying to use gay stereotypes (subconsciously or not) to villify the characters, but because they're trying to present them as shallow, greedy, and duplicitous.

Also, Timon and Pumba aren't allowed to be just friends anymore either?! For Christ's sake...

 

[Darken12]

I see what you're saying. On the other hand, I've always identified with antagonists quite a bit, and liked interesting ones.
So it would be ok as long as the antagonist has depth, but I'd like to see minorities cast in diversity of roles.

The problem is that the authorial intent is that you identify with the protagonist. If the authorial intent was that you identified with the "bad guy", then the "bad guy" would be the protagonist and the "good guy" would be the antagonist (as it has happened in many works before). Casting a minority in an antagonistic role implies the authorial intent of portraying the minority as the Other. Not someone to identify with (though that doesn't preclude the antagonist from being sympathetic), but someone to oppose and be ultimately defeated (except for the most cynical of works).

I don't have a problem, intellectually, with minorities in the roles of antagonists, but I think that they should be given a plurality of different portrayals in every other character role (protagonist, mainly, since we have deuteragonist and secondary character more or less covered thanks to tokenism) before portraying them as antagonists.

In general, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when the deuteragonists, the secondary characters and even the antagonists are allowed to be minorities but the role of the protagonist is so sacred that only the straight cis white male (and, very rarely, the straight cis white female or the straight cis male of colour) is allowed to occupy it. If your antagonist is a member of this or that minority, you know that minorities exist, so why not make the protagonist a minority instead? Or, gasp, both?

 

[The Night Angel]

As a few people have said, if their sexual orientation or race or faith has nothing to do with their villainy, then there should be absolutely no problem with it. As mentioned above, Skyfall does this, and it was perfectly acceptable. It is only if the villain is portrayed as being evil because he/she is from whichever minority that there is a problem. Also, as you said about GTA4, it is important that the hero doesn't make any slurs out of anger or whatever, because, as the person we identify with in the story, their use of slurs will make us think that it's ok to use them or that it was justified...

 

[Vault101]

And that NChick episode was kind of missing or just ignoring the purpose of the characteristics behind the Disney villians they used as examples. Those villians are foppish not because the filmmakers are trying to use gay stereotypes (subconsciously or not) to villify the characters, but because they're trying to present them as shallow, greedy, and duplicitous.

I thought thats pretty much exactly she/sassy gay freind said...

though I am now annoyed at the speculation that the princes form brave *must* have been a lesbain if she wasnt into boys *sigh*

I never got into boys untill....ummm....I don't know how does one define "into" boys?

In general, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when the deuteragonists, the secondary characters and even the antagonists are allowed to be minorities but the role of the protagonist is so sacred that only the straight cis white male (and, very rarely, the straight cis white female or the straight cis male of colour) is allowed to occupy it. If your antagonist is a member of this or that minority, you know that minorities exist, so why not make the protagonist a minority instead? Or, gasp, both?

unfortunatly true...plenty of good female charachters but sadly not as often in the "protagonist" seat

like I doubt we would have gotten a game like the latest tomb raider had it not had that name and years of gaming history behind it

 

[Thaluikhain]

Depends.

If you have a villain who is a minority in a story, fine on its own. If every story featuring that minority has them as villains (or minor roles), and never as heroes/major characters, then you are part of a dubious trend. Even if you weren't consciously following it, people are going to sorta assume you are.

 

[LongAndShort]

You mean like in Skyfall?

Thought the same thing, especially after reading this: http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/homophobia-lite-20130208-2e2yw.html

I'm a fan of a good well-rounded character, and certainly don't mind my villains being multi-coloured/cultural/sexual. At the same time we need to make sure that this is balanced out with a good range of heroes/protagonists as well. I just don't want it to be the only thing the character is remembered for.

Edit: and the link worked. Cool, I've been having trouble lately with my computer and it appears to have fixed itself.