Tweet Gay Men and Silent Movies

Not to stir away from the discussion of silent films being praised by the gay population but I was also curious why there always seems to be more males than females whenever I go to a silent film screening.

Are silent films more appealing to males than females?

Actually, the amazing thing to one who has been involved in this area of interest as long as I have is the expanding of the female population into what was once pretty much a completely male-populated interest. Cinephile conventions used to be 99% male attended, with a few rather-bored spouses dragged along against their wills. That slowly began to change in the 80's with a goodly and growing number of the new female attendees first getting interested through working in the Archives and academic channels, to now a larger number of women whom I believe developed their interests with a lot of help from Turner Classic Movies and an easier, more general, less technical availibility of movies to see. Twenty-five years and several divorces ago, I would have never believed that I'd meet my current long-time significant other and former LOC archivist at a Film Convention, where I used to go to escape my spouses and rest assured that one would not be having to deal with feminine companionship that particular weekend.

Then again, in this modern culture, perhaps the female nerd population is just larger than it used to be.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

While there are several gay authors who have written about silent film, there are also plenty of straight males who post on this board who have also written books.

[Mike Gebert]

Then again, in this modern culture, perhaps the female nerd population is just larger than it used to be.

Definitely true in the science fiction and comics worlds, so probably true in the silent movie one as well.

I don't see a big female population at the conventions though to Richard's point, I expect it is bigger than it used to be. But at the Silent Film Society of Chicago, which draws a more mainstream audience (i.e., it's easier for normal folks to attend a single film than to go off for a weekend), you see a lot of women in their 20s in groups of friends (either all female or mixed). Probably more of the younger crowd at these things is female than male. This is in marked contrast, still, to the crowd for older movies at either the Siskel Film Center or Facets, where a sort of monkdom of movie nerdery remains the dominant customer profile for older films.

Not to stir away from the discussion of silent films being praised by the gay population but I was also curious why there always seems to be more males than females whenever I go to a silent film screening.

Are silent films more appealing to males than females?

I think that a disproportionate slice of silent film fandom centers around comedy and a taste for physical comedy, which seems to skew male. Also, if there is a larger proportion of gay silent movie fans than in society at large -- which would be a difficult thing to track -- it might skew because it's easier to see silent films in large cities, where overt gay activity is more common. There also might be a skew because silent film acting tends to be more flamboyant than modern acting techniques; flamboyance is a word with a lot of resonance in the gay sections of society.

As I don't think there have been any scientific studies of silent film fandom, I find it impossible to state anything except in the wishy-washy way I have above. There is so much secondary societal substance that any connections would be anecdotal and non-rigorous. I recall a comedian of East Indian extraction talking about the way he saw Indian men behaving in public, holding hands. In the US this would be considered gay behavior. Even in western society, there has been a major shift in behavior. Haven't we all heard people suggesting that Laurel & hardy were gay because they shared a bed?

Bob

[Mike Gebert]

With Laurel and Hardy we get into a different thing. One is that there's still the hangover of Victorian floweriness in attitudes, which has people suggesting that Lincoln was gay because of the letters he wrote to Joshua Speed* when those were really just the way friends expressed themselves, and at the same time the actual mechanics of sex were much more out of mind, so they can joke up to the edge of overt gayness in what seems a plainly romantic way without their lampooning suggesting "Hey, maybe they actually do..." The comedy where they act out a seduction and abandonment scene involving a baby-- is it Their First Mistake?-- is a perfect example, it couldn't be more obvious in putting them in male and female sexual roles familiar to the time, yet at the same time, since they clearly couldn't have actually had a baby, we would never think that they did what led to this baby, and that's the joke. Because we're more open, we're way too literal for this kind of comedy.

* Before anyone tries to make the case, my point is, in 1840 two men actually having an affair and two men having a close friendship would have written basically the same flowery letters-- and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Re Richard M Roberts' 'female nerds' comment - I'm a woman who has always been interested in silent film. But I have always viewed the film convention as a preserve of geeky males, and have found that largely to be the case on the few times I have attended them. Screenings though are quite another matter, and have a more mixed audience.

I'm not a straight or gay woman, btw.

With Laurel and Hardy we get into a different thing. One is that there's still the hangover of Victorian floweriness in attitudes, which has people suggesting that Lincoln was gay because of the letters he wrote to Joshua Speed* when those were really just the way friends expressed themselves, and at the same time the actual mechanics of sex were much more out of mind, so they can joke up to the edge of overt gayness in what seems a plainly romantic way without their lampooning suggesting "Hey, maybe they actually do..." The comedy where they act out a seduction and abandonment scene involving a baby-- is it Their First Mistake?-- is a perfect example, it couldn't be more obvious in putting them in male and female sexual roles familiar to the time, yet at the same time, since they clearly couldn't have actually had a baby, we would never think that they did what led to this baby, and that's the joke. Because we're more open, we're way too literal for this kind of comedy.

* Before anyone tries to make the case, my point is, in 1840 two men actually having an affair and two men having a close friendship would have written basically the same flowery letters-- and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

That's largely my point, Mike. It argues a loss of subtlety and distinction in modern society. When I saw the Robert Downey/Jude Law Sherlock Holmes movie (the first one), on leaving the theater I heard a young female voice ask in a puzzled tone "Are they gay?" Apparently that level of trust in her mind is associated only with a sexual relationship.\

Thanks for making my point for me.

Bob

With Laurel and Hardy we get into a different thing. One is that there's still the hangover of Victorian floweriness in attitudes, which has people suggesting that Lincoln was gay because of the letters he wrote to Joshua Speed* when those were really just the way friends expressed themselves, and at the same time the actual mechanics of sex were much more out of mind, so they can joke up to the edge of overt gayness in what seems a plainly romantic way without their lampooning suggesting "Hey, maybe they actually do..." The comedy where they act out a seduction and abandonment scene involving a baby-- is it Their First Mistake?-- is a perfect example, it couldn't be more obvious in putting them in male and female sexual roles familiar to the time, yet at the same time, since they clearly couldn't have actually had a baby, we would never think that they did what led to this baby, and that's the joke. Because we're more open, we're way too literal for this kind of comedy.

* Before anyone tries to make the case, my point is, in 1840 two men actually having an affair and two men having a close friendship would have written basically the same flowery letters-- and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

This reminds me of "A GREAT LIFE" with the Duncan sisters. To a modern viewer there are very strong incestuous lesbian
undertones to this film which is hard to ignore. Casey's and Babes love for each seems to overwhelm their respective affection for their male love interests.

Many gay men get their interest in early film simply by finding basic information on their social history. My own interest in silent film came from catching The Celluloid Closet on TV one night when I was about 20 or 21. It sparked an interest in gay film history - and a rapid buying of Russo's book - which, in turn led to a love of (or fascination with) silent cinema itself.

There is much for gay men to love in silent cinema - the homoeroticism is extremely palpable - just look at the image on the banner for this website, for example. What's more, the leading men of the 1920s were often very "pretty" rather than rugged and manly. Valentino was kind of a cross between the two, but before him we had the likes of Fairbanks, but Valentino's popularity seemed to spark a multitude of often pretty leading men, such as Charles Rogers, George Lewis, Ben Lyons, Richard Arlen, William Haines, Jack Pickford, Charles Ray (although both of those were around before Valentino) - but you get the idea.

Silent cinema leaves much more open for interpretation. Without the use of dialogue you can read what you want into relationships and characters, and I think that helps. I also think us gay men are more open-minded to non-mainstream material, whether that be in film, music, art or whatever. I can't explain why. But as a teenager twenty years ago I was fast becoming a huge jazz fan - got beat up a few times for it too - but perhaps we just understand that not everyone has to conform to what is deemed "right" and "popular" and so niche interests are what we specialise in finding.

This has almost nothing to do with films, but I thought Gene Malin would fit in quite nicely here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3l7vj-z ... re=related

Malin had small parts in two pictures and would have been in a third- but the president of R.K.O., B. B. Kahane, disgusted by Malin's flamboyance, noted, "I do not think we ought to have this man on the lot on any picture—shorts or features."

Sadly in 1933 he was killed in a freakish auto accident that almost killed Patsy Kelly, a passenger. Mistakenly putting his car in reverse he drove backwards off a pier in Venice Cal. and drowned pinned under the steering wheel.

Not to stir away from the discussion of silent films being praised by the gay population but I was also curious why there always seems to be more males than females whenever I go to a silent film screening.

Are silent films more appealing to males than females?

Neither. According to the "Journal of Anorexic Male and Female Models", in a rather off-topic item for them, hermaphrodites are more prone to enjoy the appeal of silent films. Of course, the base standard on which the study was based was only 8 people, but because they represent two kinds in a single species, they were counted as 16, and because that number sounds pubescent, the author expanded it to 3200 - much as most journals due when trying to promote an idea that really has little importance at all...

I think lots of people, gay or straight, have their first interest in silents sparked by "event" programming: a restored 35mm print projected on a big screen accompanied by an orchestra. Since these kinds of things happen more often in NY, LA and SF than say, Mobile AL, it's unsurprising that there are more urban dwellers with an interest in silents than farm belt types.

Actually, the amazing thing to one who has been involved in this area of interest as long as I have is the expanding of the female population into what was once pretty much a completely male-populated interest. Cinephile conventions used to be 99% male attended, with a few rather-bored spouses dragged along against their wills. That slowly began to change in the 80's with a goodly and growing number of the new female attendees first getting interested through working in the Archives and academic channels, to now a larger number of women whom I believe developed their interests with a lot of help from Turner Classic Movies and an easier, more general, less technical availibility of movies to see. Twenty-five years and several divorces ago, I would have never believed that I'd meet my current long-time significant other and former LOC archivist at a Film Convention, where I used to go to escape my spouses and rest assured that one would not be having to deal with feminine companionship that particular weekend.

Then again, in this modern culture, perhaps the female nerd population is just larger than it used to be.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

I would expect that part of the equation, as mentioned as an aside earlier, is the techno-geek aspect of the fan: those who collect 16mm prints to screen at home and have impassioned discussions about about proper projection speeds tend to be men. And most (though certainly not all) of these men are straight.

With the advent of home video and, later, TCM, one did not need to bother with threading a projector to indulge in this passion, and so women began to attend screenings and conventions in greater (although still far from equal) numbers.

And another factor is that the front offices that designed and sold these films were overwhelmingly run by starighht men. For every scantily clad Valentino and George O'Briens, there are ten or more Clara Bows. Women and (some) gay men may delight in couture, but the flesh appeals to the mens.

Not to stir away from the discussion of silent films being praised by the gay population but I was also curious why there always seems to be more males than females whenever I go to a silent film screening.

Are silent films more appealing to males than females?

I think it's because silent films are a niche genre. I've noticed that nerdy, niche pursuits tend to be male dominated. For all sorts of things like comic books, modding cars, experimental music, vintage photography, especially for pursuits that involve obsessive studying and aquisitions. When I think of niche pursuits that are predominantly female, like crafting, roller derbies, performing burlesque, they tend to be more directly participatory and tend to be more about presentation of the self. I think it has a lot to do with what sort of hobbies and interests were assumed to be normal and socially acceptable for each gender. But like RMR says, it seems like there are just more female nerds nowadays.

For what it's worth, a gay friend of mine wanted to see The Artist, and none of his gay friends had any interest in seeing it with him, even after all the post-Oscar nomination hype about it.

Lucky for him, I wanted to go a second time anyway.