The Portrayal of Gay Characters in Television Comedy since 1980

Prominent gay characters within television comedy has been a fairly recent phenomenon, with thanks mainly to high profile US series’ Ellen and Will & Grace. Ellen DeGeneres played one of the first gay lead characters in a television comedy as Ellen Morgan in Ellen. During the 1997-1998 season, she came out both as a character and an actress in a much-anticipated episode of sitcom, highlighting the seeming acceptance of gay characters within both the industry and in television comedy. TIME magazine reported on the increase in gay characters on television in the late 1990’s, stating “prime time has seen an influx of popular, prominent and well rounded gay characters.” (Poniewozik, 1999) The article continues by highlighting how the boundaries between gay and straight characters have become increasingly blurred – “there’s so much cachet in being gay that even straight characters are trying it.” (Poniewozik, 1999)
But how true is this evolution of the gay character on television? Despite the seeming acceptance and positive portrayal of these characters by the late 90’s, the magazine, in a separate article, reports how gay characters account for only 2% of televisions’ overall roster of characters. (Poniewozik, 1999) Poniewozik argues that straight actors playing gay characters are more readily accepted – the demise of Ellen after her coming-out episode is an example of this, vs. Eric McCormack, a straight actor, playing Will Truman in Will and Grace. (Poniewozik, 1999) In line with the popularity of the ‘gay best friend’, Poniewozik argues that gay characters are often placed within television comedies to “bestow hipness on their shows, serving as a conduit to cred for the majority group, just as racial minorities have in the past.” (Poniewozik, 1999) Does this demonstrate that despite growth in prominence, the inclusion of a gay character is not a true representation of a gay person – are we still relying on stereotypes to increase audience acceptance? Much of the discussion surrounding the issues raised in this paper is concerned with culture, identity and media representation – “media-and-consumer society, where reality disintegrates altogether into images and spectacles, epitomised by television and the tabloid press.”(Thompson, 1997) Key theories on ‘queer culture’ suggest that “both gender and sexuality are ambiguous, shifting, unstable and too complex to fit neatly in an either/or model.” (Dines, 2002) This concept could be perceived as being difficult to show within the realm of comedy, and perhaps this is why gay characters have been quicker to appear more as fully drawn characters within the drama genre. The evolution of the gay character, I believe, forms part of the timeline of cultural growth and acceptance of the homosexual within society as a whole, and this paper will demonstrate this evolution, citing key programmes which have formed part of the development.
In the UK, homegrown television hasn’t been quick to embrace gay characters. From the invention of television in the 1920’s and up to the 1960’s, television’s role was “to provide the moral virtues of the time with the traditional nuclear family and heterosexual relationships.” (BBC, 2002) In 1970, the BBC broadcast an adaptation of The Roads to Freedom that included an overtly gay character. Whilst this programme wasn’t intended for, or indeed reached a mass audience, it did “mark the beginning of the change of the portrayal of gay people in television.” (BBC, 2002) The start of the 1980’s signified a change in the portrayal of gay characters on television screens, as they began to be included into programmes with a wider range of audiences. (BBC, 2002) Are You Being Served, running from 1972 to 1985 featured gay menswear assistant, Mr Humphries, played by John Inman. At the end of the 1990’s, Channel 4 aired Queer as Folk, a controversial drama following the lives and loves of Vince, Stuart, and Stuart’s relationship with Nathan, a 15 year old he meets in a bar. In a pre-broadcast poll take, by the late 90’s, “66% of 16-24 year olds, 70% of 24-35 year olds and 45% of 55-64 year olds found gay sex scenes acceptable on TV.” (BBC, 2002)
In terms of television drama and soaps, gay characters were increasing in prominence. However, within the comedy genre, movement was still slow following the end of Are You Being Served. Hall states that a modern example of Mr Humphries’ influence can clearly be seen within the character of Sebastian Love, aid to the Prime Minister in one of the sketches in Little Britain. (Hall, 2006) Hall argues that “Sebastian is a creation of today, not the seventies – the differences between him and Mr. Humphries are significant.” (Hall, 2006). Where Mr Humphries was comedic through his effeminate nature, he was never specifically identified as gay on screen. Sebastian is openly camp, effeminate and the fact that he is a homosexual is making perfectly clear within the sketch, an element which was not true of the Mr Humphries character. Matt Lucas – openly gay comedian, actor and co-writer of Little Britain – states the camp actors of his childhood influences his work -“the character of Sebastian demonstrates one of the ways in which Lucas appropriates these old representations of gay men, and recycles them with a knowing, modern twist and a strong queer sensibility.” (Hall, 2006)
Since the early 1980’s, especially through the introduction of characters like Mr Humphries, and comedians such as Kenny Everett, gay characters seemed to be moving to a higher prominence and acceptability. However, as the Channel 4 documentary, I’m Free: Inside the Comedy Closet, aired in July 2004 explored, “tolerance took a back step in 1984, as AIDS hit the UK and with it a media storm…the growing permissiveness of previous decades gave way to a new austerity and paranoia, reflected in sobering TV broadcasts and homophobic hysteria across the popular press.” (Boome, 2004) For Boome, it wasn’t until Julian Clary was given a primetime slot on Channel 4 in 1988 that audiences began to accept a gay comedian on their screens.
Boome also points out that though he sees that “throughout the history of great gay entertainers, it is clear that each performer pushed the door open wider for those who were to follow” (Boome, 2004) he also believes that other areas of the media industry “are still leagues behind in terms of honesty and tolerance, plagued by the same restrictions and taboos of 40 years ago.” (Boome, 2004) It would seem that for Boome, despite the portrayal and acceptance of gay characters on television having increased in both visibility and audience ratings, they are still a minority in some areas of the media, and that it will always be a battle to bring these characters into the same realm as their straight counterparts.
Perhaps one of the best examples of a recent television comedy exploring the issues of homosexuality within its characters is US sitcom Will & Grace. For Connolly, the show serves two purposes: one, “to explore a totally platonic relationship between two best friends of opposite sexes” (Connolly, 2003), and secondly, “to feature two gay male leads with polar opposite personalities in order to destigmatise the representation of the homosexual man.” (Connolly, 2003) In these terms, for the gay character in television comedy, Will & Grace should demonstrate a good example of characterisation, however as Connolly notes, “in order to make a show with such controversial subject matter palatable for the masses, both scriptwriters and the mainstream media have taken to talking about the show’s two leads more like a romantic couple rather than a pair of best friends.” (Connolly, 2003) Connolly believes that this metaphor can make the fact that the show has a homosexual lead character more easily acceptable to mainstream audiences, but “it can also have negative effects on the inroads the show has made in making homosexuality more acceptable on mainstream television.” (Connolly, 2003)
In her paper, Connolly also explores the after effects that Ellen had on gay characters in television comedy. After the coming out episode, “initial viewer and public reaction to Ellen’s revealed sexuality was positive.” (Connolly, 2003) Despite this, as the season continued, audience figures dropped and criticism of the show increased, resulting in its cancellation at the end of the season. Keller, in his book Queer (Un) Friendly Film and Television notes that “the consensus among scholars was that Ellen was too political and didactic, containing veritable lessons in queer socio-politics.” (Keller, 2002) For Connolly, despite the seeming acceptance of Ellen as a gay actress and gay character, audiences weren’t interested in the change in premise of the show, as “episodes continued to delve into Ellen’s self-discovery and the hardships she faced as a lesbian in today’s society.” (Connolly, 2003)
With a different premise, Will & Grace garnered both critical praise and praise from prominent homosexual groups within the media – “GLAAD (the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) hailed the show for its portrayal of two different representations of gay men.” (Connolly, 2003) For Battles and Hilton-Morrow, when the show was up against Dharma and Greg, another US comedy centring around a hextrosexual couple and holding its own, “it seemed that mainstream society had grown to accept the gay community on its television programmes.” (Battles and Hilton-Morrow, 2002) They attribute the success of the show, especially after the demise of Ellen, to the “delayed consummation – a plot line that puts off the match up of the leading male and female characters in order to keep the audience tuning in on a weekly basis.” (Battles and Hilton-Morrow, 2002) They also attribute audiences acceptance of the gay central characters to the heterosexual ‘family’ format that the characters function within, specifically through the characters of Jack and Karen – “their behaviour is shown as almost infantile, playing to a familial relationship among the four characters.” They suggest that “Karen and Jack are the children to Will and Grace’s parental figures, and that fact alone plays into the inherent heterosexual relationship between gay Will and straight Grace.”(Battles and Hilton-Morrow, 2002)
Will & Grace is an interesting example in order to examine if the portrayal of the gay character has evolved since the 1980’s, or whether the introduction of the homosexual is still as much of a gamble in terms of audience acceptance. An additional element is that it subverts the stereotype of the two main central gay characters, as they are not a couple. Although there is no doubt that the show attempted to dismiss other gay male stereotypes by demonstrating two different gay personalities, has the intimate nature of Will and Grace’s friendship, especially cumulating in them attempting to have a child together, negated any real change in audience acceptance and not demonstrated any great evolution of the gay character? For Connolly, the pseudo-romantic overtones lead her to conclude that “the emphasis will be on Will, Grace, and the love that constantly seems to speak his name.” (Connolly, 2003)
It seems that that there is no doubt that the prominence of gay characters in television comedy has increased since the 1980’s, and that these characters have evolved to be more than camp, effeminate figures only providing comic turns. The emergence in the UK of more gay musicians, actors and comedians can only mean that this characterisation should continue to evolve. Prominent gay figures in British television have, for Boome, “paved the way for a more modern breed of gay television performer.” (Boome, 2004) He cites, “Paul O’Grady swiftly graduated from gay club to primetime TV and straight into the nation’s hearts, reaching a widespread fan-base of young and old….Graham Norton too became one of the nation’s favourites.” (Boome, 2004) Actor James Dreyfus also demonstrated how the gay character had evolved in the 1999 series, Gimme Gimme Gimme, playing gay actor Tom, living with Lynda, played by Kathy Burke. As a character, Tom “fought above his weight but holding his own…too scurrilous for some tastes but a huge hit with those who could wholeheartedly embrace its vibrant blending of gay wit and the earthy bawdiness.” (Lewisohn, 2003) Despite the character of Tom being more of the camp stereotypical characters previously seen, his vulnerability and ability to hold his own against his formidable housemate shows the evolution of characterisation. To conclude, I feel that there have been huge steps forward in the evolution and portrayal of the gay character since the 1980’s, however it is still seemingly – even in a society deeply concerned with acceptance and difference – a struggle for acceptance, both on screen and off.