Queer-baiting and other representations of LGBTQA+ people in popular entertainment

Image Source: Disney motion picture Beauty and the Beast (2017)

Eugenia Kwok

Eugenia Kwok is an HKU law student enrolled in the BA&LLB programme.

From Call Me by Your Name to Moonlight, from Boy Erased to Ossan’s Love, fiction readers and motion picture audiences encounter more and more non-heterosexual and gender diverse characters in recent years. This article aims at introducing different kinds of media representations of the LGBTQA+ community, and what the appropriate attitudes towards such content are.

Media representation of sexual minorities can enhance public awareness and foster social acceptance. A study conducted in 2015 [1] concluded that when an heterosexual audience is more exposed to gay characters on television, they become more accepting of gay equality. In addition, a 2020 survey [2] found that queer representation increased social acceptance by up to 45% among its American interviewees. Although these studies were not conducted in Hong Kong, similar results can be expected. 

However, negative representation of LGBTQA+ people as deplorable characters based on stigmatising stereotypes often still stick around in popular entertainment. For example, a Singaporean drama series, My Guardian Angels, decided to create a gay character who is a paedophile and who spreads sexually transmitted diseases to unwitting victims. The studio eventually apologized for its homophobic misrepresentation of the queer community [3]. Such kinds of discriminatory depictions were commonplace in the early history of media inclusion of LGBTQA+ characters. If audience like you and me blindly follow such misinformation without critical thinking and not noticing our bias based on defamatory stereotypes, we are reinforcing unnecessary hostility and misunderstanding of real-life queer people who are in fact just ordinary like you and me. 

Another problem is token representation, which was more common in the past. Token LGBTQA+ characters either do not play a notable role in the plot, or do not have their identity and storyline meaningfully explored. Token representation is adopted as a marketing strategy to recruit LGBTQA+ viewership. For instance, in the 2017 readaptation movie, Beauty and the Beast, LeFou (Josh Gad) has a “gay moment”, when he dances with a man in the final ball sequence. Also, during the battle sequence of the same film, the wardrobe (Audra McDonald) dresses three men in women's clothes – two of them run away, while one appears happier in his new clothes. Such cameos last for a few seconds, most of the audience would have missed it. These cameos went viral among the LGBTQA+ community and were applauded for its progressive representation, but they remain tokenistic as the characters’ identities and stories are too underdeveloped, and their sexuality and sexual orientation had no significance to the plot or even subplots apart from virtue-signalling as a “queer-bait” to redeem the movie’s otherwise entirely cis-straight storyline. Diversity and inclusion are merely marketed without actual and meaningful representation. Audience should not mistake these throwaway moments for equal and diverse representation on movies and TV. 

Queer-baiting also happens when a number of scenes suggest that a character may be LGBTQA+, but the show as a whole does not confirm or deny it, as these characters’ queerness only serve to, literally, bait LGBTQA+ viewership. Examples may include the relationship between Rachel Berry and Quinn Fabray in Glee, and Finn and Poe’s relationship in Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. That these fictional relationships still stop short at blossoming into truly fulfilling partnerships seem to reinforce societal rejection of openly lesbian, gay or other non-heterosexual relationships to “come under the sun” with homophobic undertones. These hush-hush portrayals unfortunately only echoes with the less accepting parts of the society where queer individuals are allowed to exist but must hide their queerness lest other people might notice. 

Retroactive representation is another type of problematic LGBTQA+ representation in which the original authors claim that a character is LGBTQA+ without evidence from the plot to confirm it. A famous example is J.K. Rowling’s claim in 2007 that Albus Dumbledore is queer. This is essentially not a representation where there is no evidence from the canonical storyline. If readers easily accept such authoritative, yet effectively speculative, claims from the authors about queerness of some characters but the queerness never actually shows, the authors would succeed in evading the need to make convincing representations. These are merely afterthoughts to queer-bait and profit from support from LGBTQA+ community. 

On more realistic depiction of queer life, there is a fine line between convincing portrayal the hardships and daily struggles faced by LGBTQA+ people, and a sob story which only uses these challenging circumstances to move a tragic plot. Some popular movies depict gay relationships as sob stories, such as Call Me by Your Name (the protagonist’s gay love interest chooses heterosexual marriage over their love at the end) and Moonlight (the gay protagonist experiences discrimination and questions his own identity). These movies help outsiders of the LGBTQA+ community to understand and emphathise the queer experience by visualizing the real-life injustice and struggles; hopefully these depictions may encourge positive change. However, a poorly constructed sob story can be too clichéd and borders on self-merchandising kitsch. Meanwhile, for the more robust sob story plots, one problem it poses is that it is too real for those struggling with the same stigmas to enjoy. Unfortunate people who personally experience the hardships portrayed in the films may not want to be reminded of the brutal reality they already live in. 

On the contrary, there are idealistic LGBTQA+ representations that create a world without stigmas, marginalization and discrimination. These representations may offer members of the LGBTQA+ community much needed consolation and escape from the cruelties they face for a moment. However, these idealistic depictions are fantasies, after all, and those outside the community would not be able to see and reflect on the imbalanced status quo. 

Media representation is complex and cannot be perfect. There are always representations intended for profit-making that are in effect meaningless and unconducive to understanding and inclusion. There are always some factions in the LGBTQA+ community who are prioritised and more accepted, such as gay characters, and some factions that are often erased, such as transexuals. The audience should remember that LGBTQA+ people come in all backgrounds, appearances and statuses. Being vigilant of the media is important not only for our personal pleasure but also for the marginalised groups. With the inclusion of more queer characters in Hong Kong’s drama series, it is hoped that more unbiased and diverse representations of the LGBTQA+ community will be produced to reflect real-life diversity among the LGBTQA+ people and the society as a whole. 

References

[1] Bond, Bradley & Compton, Benjamin. (2015). Gay On-Screen: The Relationship Between Exposure to Gay Characters on Television and Heterosexual Audiences' Endorsement of Gay Equality. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 59. 717-732. 

[2] GLAAD, Procter & Gamble. (2020). “LGBTQ Inclusion in Advertising and Media” study. 

[3] Tessa Kaur. (2021). Queer representation in media: the good, the bad, and the ugly. <https://heckinunicorn.com/blogs/heckin-unicorn-blog/queer-representation-in-media-comprehensive-list-breakdown-lgbt>