Buffy rant: Andrew is gay.

[laserboy]

I'd always been a big fan of Andrew in Buffy and have argued over and over about how pathetic and insulting it was that his motivation in later series 6 and 7 was ignored or treated as a joke

Comments

[khbrown]

My worry here is that you're maybe granting the author too much importance: What does it matter if his understanding here confirms yours (this character is gay) rather than another fan's (this character isn't gay)? Isn't part of the fun of engaging with a series like Buffy forming your own ideas about the characters and what they are 'really' like, especially in relation to queer readings.

[laserboy]

To an extent perhaps and certainly in the case of a show like Smallville, for example.

But here the creator of the character and chief head of the show is saying that HIS character is gay. That makes it more valid than fan speculation. It's canon.

[khbrown]

So the same would apply, in reverse, to a situation where the fans have speculated a character in a show is gay and its creator has denied that? Because then I think that's going to limit any search for gay characters in older media.

For example - and I don't know if this is the case - suppose George Takei says his portrayal of Sulu was influenced by his sexuality, that the crew of the Enterprise might have been multi-ethnic but it was otherwise heterosexual, but Gene Roddenberry were to have made no mention of Sulu's gayness?

[laserboy]

No, I think that's the divide between fan fun and fact. I think ultimately the buck stops with the creator.

I can appreciate what you're driving at though, but I don't think it necessarily fits here.

On a slight tangent, have you seen The Celluloid Closet? I'd definitely recommend the documentary over the book for the value of seeing the clips yourself. Very interesting stuff.
http://www.theskinny.co.uk/article/45701-the-celluloid-closet

[khbrown]

I've seen The Celluloid Closet and have the book. For British film and TV I'd also recommend A Bit of Scarlet, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115687/

The kind of situation that was in The Celluloid Closet, where a character couldn't be said to be gay but would be coded as such - or might be read as such - is what I was getting at, that such codings could always be denied or the decodings of them asserted to be wrong.

I think there's then the issue in film and TV of their being collaborate media, such that the writer, director and actor might have different views of a character.

[laserboy]

I'll definitely check that one out, thanks!

I can see the queer coding as very significant in days gone by, but do you think it would still apply with modern shows? (I know they did that in one instance with Babylon 5 in the 90s for example, but anything more recent?).

The collaborative element is a very interesting and really valuable point that I guess I bypassed. I wish I could think of more examples, but the one that comes to mind is that John Inman always insisted that Mr Humpries was not actually gay and that he saw the character as playing around with peoples assumptions and prejudices. I'm quite certain that most of the writers, producers and directors didn't share that view but it fascinated me when I heard him talk about it.

There must be more examples out there. Can you think of any?

[khbrown]

I don't watch much TV, so am not the best person to comment on that point. In film, however, you have the likes of the 'buddy movie' where the characters will never be said to be gay, but could be interpreted that way by the viewer if he / she wants to.

In the Inman case I guess he was the most important collaborator in the creation and development of his character (to the extent that there is development in a situation comedy) and that the writers and directors would perhaps change with episode or series.