Seat at the Table: The Sudden Rise of Queer Pop Culture and How It’s Displayed on Screen

By Orla Lloyd 

H-O-T-T-O-G-O, YOU CAN TAKE ME HOT TO GO! 

With the seemingly overnight, cataclysmic rise of Chappel Roan, queer pop culture has been the hottest dish on the menu as of late. Compare this to the abject treatment of Lady Gaga as she rose on the scene, there has been a notable shift in how queerness is treated in pop culture. The times are a changin’. Or are they? 

On the Outside Looking In 

Queerness has always been treated with aggression, expected to stay on the fringe of society, where it belonged. To be queer was to be an outsider, to ruin your career, to have everything taken from you. Take Alan Turing- computer scientist and inventor of the Enigma Code- a key codebreaking machine that helped the Allies win the Second World War. Yet, he was convicted of gross indecency for his sexuality, forcefully castrated and completely outcasted until he killed himself in 1941. His career and life was destroyed for nothing but his sexuality.

This demonisation of queerness was also reflected in the film industry at the time with the introduction of the Hays Code in the 1930s, forbidding the depiction of same-sex attraction in films. This led to a practice of queer coding- eluding to a character’s homosexuality covertly but never confirming. Oftentimes it was the villain who was portrayed effeminately. Take Bruno Antony in Hitchcock’s ‘Stranger on a Train’ (1951), or Mrs. Danvers in Rebecca (1940). Gay characters were depicted as punchlines, such as in Charlie Chaplin’s ‘A Woman’ (1915) or Billy Wilder’s ‘Some Like It Hot’ (1959), starring Marilyn Monroe. Alternatively, a disappointing trop emerged with gay characters rarely receiving a happy ending, usually tragically dying. This happened often enough because the Hays Code had to be complied with that a term emerged- ‘bury your gays.’¹

A New Hope 

The Hays Code was lifted in 1968, and Hollywood was hit with a new era- ‘The Blockbuster’. Bonnie and Clyde (Arthur Penn, 1967) showed graphic depictions of sex and violence and audiences loved it. Studios loved that audiences were attending theatres again, following a decline in numbers thanks to the convenience of the Golden Age of Television. Taking risks was what would make studios money, appeasing their customers. The Rocky Horror Picture Show (Jim Sharman, 1975) was a failure upon its initial release but has since gained a fervent fan following, grossing $170 million (£134 million) worldwide. A story celebrating sexual awakening and gender fluidity, it found its home with outsiders, reversing the typical narrative tropes by making the straight white couple in the film the so-called ‘freaks’. The film embodies an inherent freedom, released during a tenuous time for gay rights, following the Stonewall riots in the summer of ‘69. It was an outright celebration of queerness that demanded to be seen. 

Is this freedom that has been so hard fought for by the likes of Harvey Milk and Marsha P. Johnson, along with countless others, what is so scintillating to people now? Following Moonlight’s (Barry Jenkins) Big Picture win in 2016 (the first feature film depicting a gay narrative to win), there has been a bigger focus on queer stories.  In film, we’ve seen beautiful narratives like ‘Portrait of a Lady On Fire’ (Céline Sciamma, 2019) and comical inclusivity in ‘Bottoms.’ (Emma Seligman, 2023)  Notably, there was Luca Guadigino’s ‘Call Me By Your Name’ which took 2017 Tumblr by storm. Recently he released ‘Queer’, though it wasn’t a contender for the Oscars, unlike the infamous ‘Emilia Pérez’ (Jacques Audiard, 2024). Interestingly, trans groups like GLAAD², as well as Mexican people in particular, have been quite critical of the film. This story isn’t resonating with the very audience it should be…. why? This film epitomises capitalising off of queerness without actually caring about the story, or group, that’s being portrayed. It is Oscar bait in its truest form, appealing to what might entice Academy voters rather than a story that transgender people can actually identify with. It is ‘progressive’ without substance. 

Why is representation important? 

Representation on screen is so unbelievably important. When people; young people in particular; see somebody who is different, enduring a struggle that they know all too well, it represents a hope that there is a future in a world that doesn’t always welcome them. The power of film is undeniable and we need to be critical of who is getting a seat at the table. Settling for anything less than proper representation is a disgrace to every queer person who has come before, who has been treated as an outsider for simply being who they are. If Emilia Perez is being lauded, it leaves me questioning how much we care about representation and whether we value progression or performance. 

Sources 

1. Hulan, H. (2017). Bury Your Gays: History, Usage, and Context. McNair Scholars Journal, [online] 21(1). Available at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1579&context=mcnair.

2. GLAAD (2024). ‘Emilia Pérez’ is Not Good Trans Representation. [online] GLAAD | GLAAD rewrites the script for LGBTQ acceptance. Available at: https://glaad.org/emilia-perez-is-not-good-trans-representation/.