Deconstructing queer cinema: how the horror genre challenges concepts of gender binary and heteronormativity

Queer theory emerged in the early 1990s, developing from the basis of women’s studies and queer studies. According to Benshoff and Griffin, the term queer was originally used to gather multiple marginalized groups into a shared political struggle, it was used in a derogatory way to encompass and oppress all sexually defined minorities whom were not within the binary of hetrosexual or homosexual, such as transgendered people, cross dressers, bisexuals, interracial couples etc. (Benshoff and Griffin, 2005). Nowadays, people have reclaimed the term and it is commonly used to acknowledge that there are many different ways to identify as a part of the LGBTQ+ community. David Halperin from the University of Michigan argued that “A word that was once commonly understood to mean unusual or abnormal now intimates possibilities so complex and rarified that entire volumes are devoted to spelling them out. Even to define queer, we now think, is to limit its potential, its magical power to usher in a new age of sexual radicalism and fluid gender possibilities” (Halperin, 2003).

As with other minority groups, there are many queer stereotypes in cinema. Queer people has always been represented in the media in one of these two roles - victim or villain (Gross 1989). This convention can be seen in multiple genres of film, from Disney animations to horror slashers. Queer coding villains was commonly seen in the renaissance era of Disney animations. Fan favourite Ursula from The Little Mermaid (1989) is a classic example, the character was created based on the late drag queen Divine. Many of her design choices were inspired by Divine, such as colourful makeup, dramatic eyelashes, extravagant jewellery, and even her figure. Another defining characteristic is Ursula's tentacles. In comparison to all the other mermaids in the film possessing fins and tails, Ursula is the only one with tentacles which many people consider to be a phallic symbol. Another source of villainization against LGBT+ individuals is the stereotype that they are more likely to engage in violent behaviour due to their ‘malicious’ sexuality. In addition, the casual homophobia of 1980s films and the toxic masculinity portrayed within contributed to the violence against queer people, as they were outcasted by society and were deemed as dangerous by ‘normal’ people. 

Alternatively, the convention of queer characters being the victim has been explicitly called out in slasher comedy Freaky (2020). In one scene, Josh, the protagonist’s ‘gay best friend’ exclaims to Nyla, an African American character “You’re black. I’m gay. We are so dead!” Horror films explore a wide range of human fears despite focusing on pain and suffering. These fears are often projections of mass societal anxieties that touch upon psychology, politics, sociology, and relationships between vastly different life experiences. The horror genre consistently mirrors the fears and concerns of society as a whole (Phillips, 2005). Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) depicts the apprehension of the 1950s regarding an alien or foreign invasion, The Hunger (1983) and Fright Night (1985) portray the infectiousness of queer culture in the 1980s, and the final moments of Night of the Living Dead (1968) shed light on the racism of the 1960s. Horror utilises the fantastic to develop the internal fears of these and countless other periods, thereby extrapolating their shared realities. 

The film chosen for this essay is The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975), a comedy horror musical directed by Jim Sharman. The film originated from a stage production of the same name created by Sherman and actor Richard O'Brien. The film is a tribute to 1960s sci-fi and horror B films, the plot centres around couple Brad and Janet and their bizarre encounter with transvestite alien scientist Dr. Frank-N-Furter and his accomplices from outer space. This film created a fantasy-like space where social norms and ideologies such as heteronormativity, gender roles and binaries are challenged. 

The opening sequence and the time warp performance both mirror and contrast each other. Both scenes include a low angle shot of Brad and Janet standing together in front of a grand double door. However, their expressions in the opening scene suggest that they are happy and relaxed, both of them looking in unison towards the same direction, at their family and friends. In the time warp scene, they are looking away from each other at the peculiar guests in Frank’s mansion, appearing afraid, confused and anxious. The slightly more close up shot in the later scene also hints at the audience’s need to be aware of how the characters are feeling, and that the characters’ emotions or state of mind are important. The use of high-key natural lighting in the former scene and the use of low-key artificial lighting in the later also helps illustrate the differences in terms of mood and atmosphere between the scenes. This juxtaposition suggests the themes of binary opposition, showing the concept of us vs them and alien vs humans. Using Brad and Janet as the audience’s POV, metaphorically and literally alienating queer coded characters as the ‘other’. Despite this film having a narrator, it is arguably still told from the POV of the more conservative, ‘normal’ protagonists of the film, conforming to the conventional objectification of the ‘other’ queer characters being exploited as devices to shock, terrify and amuse the audience. 

The concept of religion, virginity and ‘waiting till marriage’ is also hinted at from the ‘wait til tonite’ graffiti on the newly wedded couple’s car in the opening scene. The subversion of this ideology is then shown through the lyrics of Time Warp, “In another dimension, with voyeuristic intention. Well secluded, I'll see all”. Using a musical performance as a device to introduce the audience to queer characters also connects to the notion of gender performativity (Tickle, 2014). The costume and makeup in this film also emphasises Tickle’s notion of gender being a performance. During “Sweet Transvestite”, Frank was introduced to us in a look which strongly mimics vampires - black cape, pale makeup and dark red lipstick. As the song continues, he reveals to be wearing a lingerie inspired corset, suspenders and fishnet tights. This transition from looking frightening to seductive represents how Brad and Janet, as well as the audience viewed Frank as the film progresses. This can also be an anchorage to the theme of fear of the unfamiliar, where most audiences are hesitant to side with or root for Dr Frank-N-Furter until the very last quarter of the film. Frank’s switch from the villain to the vulnerable hero is the film’s most powerful subversion, and the reason why this character resonates with many.

Bibliography:

Benshoff, H.M. and Griffin, S., 2021. America on film: Representing race, class, gender, and sexuality at the movies. John Wiley & Sons.

Cover, R., 2000. First contact: Queer theory, sexual identity, and “mainstream” film. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, 5(1), pp. 71-89.

Gross, L., 1991. Out of the mainstream: Sexual minorities and the mass media. Journal of Homosexuality, 21(1-2), pp.19-46.

Gross, L., 1994. 8. What Is Wrong with This Picture? Lesbian Women and Gay Men on Television. In Queer words, queer images (pp. 143-156). New York University Press.

Halperin, D.M., 2003. The normalization of queer theory. Journal of homosexuality, 45(2-4), pp.339-343.

Hennessy, R., 1994. Queer theory, left politics. Rethinking Marxism, 7(3), pp. 85-111.

Jancovich, M., 1996. Rational fears: American horror in the 1950s. Manchester University Press. pp. 10-46

Phillips, K.R., 2005. Projected Fears: Horror Films and American Culture: Horror Films and American Culture. ABC-CLIO.

Tickle, V., 2014. Gender Performativity and The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Film International, 12(3), pp.147-150.