La Ron S. Readus
patreon
The Problematic Queers of J. Blakeson (VIDEO SCRIPT)
🕑 Added 2024-03-08 23:00:03 +0000 UTCI wanna talk about J. Blakeson
___________________
/J. Blakeson is a writer and director from England, born and raised in Harrogate, North Yorkshire. As of the recording of this video, he has a combined total of 10 projects under his belt; 3 of which he just wrote the stories for, 2 that he only directed, and 5 where he did both./
Americans first heard of Blakeson when he was tapped on the shoulder to direct the film adaptation of the young adult novel The 5th Wave in 2016.
This was at the end of the time period where, after the success of 2008’s Twilight, movie studios were doing adaptations of every popular YA book trilogy and series they could get the rights for, /with only The Hunger Games and The Maze Runner adaptations doing well enough by the end of it to see their entire series adapted./
However, some would be surprised to hear that The 5th Wave was only the second feature-length film that J Blakeson directed.
His indie work, including the two short films he wrote and directed 2005’s “Pitch Perfect” and 2009’s “The Appointment” were both written and directed by Blakeson. These two and his first feature length film he both wrote and directed in 2009 -- along with the habit of American movie studios finding indie talent because its cheaper than established names -- are more than likely what landed him the gig. And with that credibility he was able to create and produce more of his own works as he grew as both a writer and director.
But here’s the thing about his work that I want to focus on in this video; for every feature-length film and television show that J. Blakeson has both written and directed, the main characters in all of them -- even the ones that reached critical acclaim here in America -- are queer.
And if both the title of this video and the foreshadowed use of that tweet from earlier is any indication, these queer main characters are complex. Three dimensional. Manipulative. Unapologetic. Problematic. Everything that mainstream American media has been afraid to depict queer characters as, since feats have been made to increase the amount of queer representation we have access to.
How I found this out was when I first watched NOT The 5th Wave -- I’m probably never gonna watch that movie, real talk -- but the one he wrote and directed that reached critical acclaim here in the states that he made 4 years after that.
It caused me to look at his body of work, in which I noticed exactly what I stated prior; the two feature length films he’s both written and directed plus a television series he conceptualized, became the showrunner for, and both wrote and directed half of the episodes for had queer main characters that one wouldn’t necessarily consider to be “good” representation.
Does that mean J Blakeson is also queer? Imma be honest with you, Readers; I don’t know.
He’s that very strong combination of being unknown enough as a writer/director to where there isn’t that much known information about his private life, while also being VERY lock and key ABOUT his private life at the same time.
/You know he’s married because you see a wedding ring on his finger during press interviews, but his spouse never appears on camera with him at red carpet events, and no photos of the two of them are chronicled on the internet./
Hell, the amount of digging I had to do to find out this man’s BIRTHDAY was extensive, and that’s usually basic information when it comes to someone in this industry.
Now I want it on record that the reason why I needed that information was to cross-reference his existence in specific events that will be relevant later on in this video. And the reason WHY I wanted to know if he was queer was for similar reasons.
Straight creatives CAN write queer characters. But unless the homework is done to gain proper understanding of the complexities, struggles and expressions of said characters in a way that doesn’t turn them into caricatures -- like my video on what to and what not to do when you’re applying the culture and background of a new ethnicity to a traditionally white character -- you’re only gonna play into a lot of the things that make people afraid of seeing the type of queer representation J. Blakeson is known for, at this point.
And the fact that he IS known for this type of queer representation, in my opinion, is a good thing. Not just in regards to his films and television shows, but also in regards to how we as queer people have been wanting well-rounded representation.
That’s what I primarily want to focus on in this video, using J. Blakeson’s work as the backbone. Specifically why it took us this long to achieve this type of representation...
How Blakeson’s decisions in crafting his queer characters are so impactful, why a certain demographic of queer people may find this side of queer representation -- understandably so -- a bit troubling...
And what a possible underlying message in all of his queer projects might be in relation to why it’s important. Because it IS important, and we need to talk about it.
But first, a bit of history.
Respect v. Respectability
If you’re wondering why it’s taken such a long time for problematic queer characters to be highlighted as much as their morally upright counterparts -- regardless if they were conceived by J Blakeson or not -- part of, if not, the main reason for that is due to the concept of respectable queerness.
If you’ve seen my video on how heteronormativity affects queer representation in media, then you can kinda see where I’m going with this.
Just as I explained in my video, there’s a tertiary-like root system where white supremacy is the main root in order to keep the American system in place. Heteronormativity -- the pervasive and largely invisible heterosexual norms that underpin society -- pushes intercorse solely as a tool to create more workers to participate in capitalism, which allows white supremacy to indoctrinate them over the course of their lives via patriarchy and divide them enough from each other so that they don’t effectively think to come together and challenge the system.
Queerness naturally challenges this structure with its very existence, right at the heteronormative step in the assembly line. After all, heteronormativity is meant to urge the creation of more people to eventually participate in capitalism, not for personal expression.
You know, unless you’re a man. Then your feelings are considered more privileged thanks to white supremacy utilizing patriarchal indoctrination in order to reinforce capitalism. It’s the reason why no one bats an eye when a man chooses to get a vasectomy, but women in this country are losing their own bodily autonomy day after day in regards to being able to choose to get either their tubes tied or an abortion.
Starting off, heteronormativity didn’t want anything involving queerness to get in the way of its job in western society. Then during the mid to late 60’s the queer liberation movement took off in different spectrums of the political sphere. While Marsha P. Johnson throwing the first brick at Stonewall in New York on June 28 1969 to start the Stonewall riots was more progressive, one of the first gay protests that happened 4 years prior on Independence Day of 1965 was more conservative in nature; those participating in the demonstration utilizing respectability politics.
As we would learn, this difference between respect and respectability is what would separate the true intentions of those who sought queer rights. While most fight for respect -- the ability to be their true and whole selves in the public eye as if it were the private without having to conform to the structure of any societal norm but your own and knowing you’ll still be treated the same as everyone else if you do -- others compromise with respectability -- sacrificing, repressing and policing their true selves in order to live within a societal norm that would have no problem excluding them if they did not keep those aspects about themselves private instead of public.
And if their true selves were already within the parameters of said societal norm, it would give them the self-proclaimed right to judge those who sought respect over respectability as if they were an embarrassment to their collective group and sought to further separate themselves from them in order to stay on the good side of the societal norm.
Now keep in mind that thanks to its place in the white supremacy tertiary root system, to cater to the social norm of heteronormativity is to cater to the parameters of being male, white, middle-class and higher and, of course, heterosexual. And as various civil rights activists and movements have proven -- both past and present -- the fight between respect and respectability was present in more venues than just queer ones.
But eventually, the back and forth between queer respect and queer respectability made those who benefited from the societal norm of heteronormativity realize that by accepting queerness into its mold...
(There’s money to be made)
However, in order to make that money while maintaining control, respectability had to be the main form of inclusion throughout every facet of civil rights demonstrated across the nation when it came to representation, othering those who sought respect in the process.
/This included race.../ (Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner: You think of yourself as a colored man. I think of myself as a man)
/Gender.../ (Batman & Robin: Using feminine wiles to get what you want? Trading on your looks? Read a book sister; that passive aggressive number went out long ago. Chicks like you give women a bad name)
/And as you expected, queerness/ (Uncoupled: OMG I can’t wait, AAH! Please, no squealing, Eric. You’re the reason blue states turn red)
While that last example came from a show that was released on Netflix in during the summer of 2022 -- and DROPPED by Netflix at the beginning of 2023 -- this was the vibe when it came to queer characters when they were allowed in film and television for the longest time.
Those who represented aspects of queer respect and went against the space that heteronormativity allowed queer identities to stay in were ridiculed; their flamboyance, provocativeness, femininity and sense of self were made both the comic relief and an example of how not to act if you wanted to be accepted in heteronormative society.
Meanwhile those who acted within queer respectability by withholding said flamboyance, provocativeness, pride, or even casual traces of their identity from the public were seen as the aspiration and goal, especially if they transitioned from the former to the latter. Bonus points if they were more or less straight-acting, white and healthily contributed to late-stage capitalism.
Here’s my hot take of the video: Despite how much I enjoyed watching it growing up and regardless of how groundbreaking it was, NBC’s Will & Grace also perpetuated this aspect of queer respect versus queer respectability. And if you are asking me to elaborate, please re-watch this entire segment of this video essay, while also keeping in mind who the two gay male characters of the show are.
For a lot of individuals in minority groups seeking “normalcy,” to follow the politics of respectability was to find “proper” validation in your existence. Not just from the society you’re trying to live within, but also among your own peers and people.
And it’s in caring more about “fitting in” to the confines of these social constructs such as heteronormativity and even the concept of whiteness that internalized racism, sexism and queerphobia begins to rear its ugly head within the people who are participating in said respectability politics in order to cater to a system that never cared about them in the first place.
In the case of fair and well-rounded queer representation among the confines of heteronormativity, it only started to recently expand the mindset and limitations of what is and isn’t acceptable queerness from the straight-acting respectable queer socialite to the flamboyance and provocativeness that it once condemned because the capitalism of heteronormativity realized that, once again, by doing so...
(there’s money to be made)
Specifically from companies realizing that Pride Month and events surrounding it can be monetized, and from shows like RuPaul’s Drag Race that reverenced the flamboyance, the effeminate and the provocativeness that queer respectability previously condemned when its popularity quickly grew past the target demographic of queer viewers to the mainstream audience it has now that consists of straight women.
Basically, capitalism realized how much money could be generated if they expanded the parameters of how much queerness is acceptable in heteronormativity. And while there are still queer individuals who prefer the previous parameters because their level of queerness still doesn’t sync with what all has been added...
(Smosh: I just say “Werk”)
We have to remember that at the end of the day, that’s all that this is. An EXPANSION
Respectability still reigns supreme when it comes to the type of queerness heteronormativity allows and that capitalism leeches itself onto. And what it currently allows are affirmations of a character's queer identity while receiving very little backlash from other characters' reactions to it that might otherwise allow both them or the intolerant one to learn and grow for development in order to be both properly fleshed out characters and entertaining to watch.
Because the quicker these queer characters realize their truth and overcome their adversity, the quicker they and the ones watching the show or movie they’re in can be legitimized by “normal” society ala this new expansion of respectability, while capitalism through heteronormativity utilizes their queerness as a new source of revenue when the big multimedia companies change their profile pics to a rainbow version of their logo every June.
Capitalism can’t do that with problematic queer characters. It hasn’t figured out how to include queer villains, antagonists, those who are morally misaligned or represent aspects about society that it had a hand in creating into the current expansion of queer respectability, because a lot of the ones that exist are either so removed from what counts as “normalcy” or are so reflective of true queer liberation that the only way they can justify even talking about them is to, once again, use them as an example of how NOT to be if respectability is the goal.
Not to mention that, due to the nature of the characters in question, their very existence causes a lot of those who are either true queer conservatives or those who don’t want to be associated with a specific brand of representation thanks to the past actions of certain situations damn near 90 years ago to get on their “This is why the straights won’t give us rights” soapbox, which, believe me, I’ll touch on in a minute.
But it’s no coincidence that when you look at movies and television with queer characters that are meant to be either complex, problematic, or even horrible people, you get the reactions and the storytelling that a lot of people have been seeking from queer rep since this expansion of queer respectability hit the market. And in the case of J. Blakeson, his first examination with said storytelling in the format of a feature length film, involved the foolproof plan of two queer kidnappers...
We’re Nearly There
/The Disappearance of Alice Creed is the first feature length film that J. Blakeson both wrote and directed./
Its cast only consists of three people; the two kidnappers Vic and Danny, played by Hancock’s Eddie Marsan and Martin Compson respectively...
And Gemma Arterton as Alice Creed, who -- thanks to her performances in Guy Ritchie’s RocknRolla and Daniel Craig’s second Bond film Quantum of Solace -- went on to become that familiar face you saw in the female lead roles of a handful of “eh” fantasy films and remakes of the early 2010’s.
Like the remake of Clash of the Titans, Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer’s poor white-washed attempt at adapting Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, and Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters.
While the choice of only focusing on the three characters with 80 percent of it being in one location over the course of its 100 minute runtime definitely helps with atmosphere, development, pacing and stakes, part of it also came from the movie being a completely independent film. Adrian Sturges was its only producer, and it was financially backed by Isle of Man’s film investment company CinemaNX, not to mention it being completely shot there. It was released in 2009 and premiered at The Times BFI 53rd London Film Festival at the Vue West End.
/This is also, coincidentally, the film that would help set the tone regarding every project J. Blakeson would both write and direct in his career going forward./
When you’re first introduced to Vic and Danny, they’re about business.
/Extra locks on the door, soundproofing the bedroom, burner phones, ways of disposing evidence, they -- and by they, I mean Vic -- have a plan./
Danny however, from what we see in the beginning of the movie, is compromised.
/Alice, the victim, is someone he used to be involved with, unbeknownst to Vic. And thanks to Vic’s controlling methodical nature in regards to this plan being executed with little to no hiccups, we’re made to feel a bit of sympathy for Danny’s want of protecting Alice whenever the violent nature of his partner rears its head at even the hint of Danny not following the plan to a T./
So when we find out that these two characters are queer and in a relationship, our expectations of the two start to become subverted. The revelation of the characters' queerness happens gradually for those who couldn’t already tell.
/The beginning dialogue between the two makes it subtle at first, as if talking about the job/ (we’re gonna be rich, me and you. We’re gonna be millionaires).
Then it gets more blatant in how Vic touches him, how Danny responds to Vic touching him...
/And the language used transitioning from criminal shop-talk to future pipedream plans of intimacy/ (Two days. We’re gonna be on the other side of the world. Just me and you).
That way when the mutual and consensual kiss between the two happens...
/No troll, denier or archaeologist can look at this film and say with complete confidence that these two are “just friends.”/
Now while the revelation of Vic and Danny’s queerness opens up a brand new avenue regarding how the audience engages with this story, a lot of early 2000’s queer men that didn’t have access to channels like Logo or Showtime were experiencing this type of queer representation for the very first time.
I say that, because not only was this kiss mutually and consensually shared between two cis men, but it was shared between two cis men who are also kidnappers, just released from prison and spent three days subjecting a woman to torture and an incredibly traumatic experience. /They are clearly not good people, and we SHOULD be rooting for their downfall even IF they’re queer./
However -- and these are my honest feelings and opinions -- that doesn’t necessarily happen.
Because yes, it is fun to watch the portion of the movie where Danny refuses to eat and Vic gets mad at him for not doing so, then when you find out the two are together you go “Oh, Danny’s just a Brat switch then.”
But then thanks to that kiss, you start to remember the portions of the film where he began to feel compromised regarding helping Vic kidnap Alice.
You remember the reveal that the two used to be involved before Danny went to prison, that Vic doesn’t know that they know each other, and that Danny promised Alice that after her father dropped off the ransom money that he would take it from Vic in an act of betrayal and the two would keep it for themselves.
As the movie continues to play out after the reveal of Vic and Danny’s queerness, Danny’s actions begin to show that the only person he truly cares about in this film is himself.
Before we get complete confirmation that he never intended to set her free or split the ransom with her after her father paid it, it was heavily hinted at in Martin Compson’s performance in the scene where he let his guard down with her while Vic was away making the dropoff arrangements.
And when he’s found out by Vic, it becomes clearly apparent through aspects of his personality that Danny was only with him because of the safety Vic provided him when they were in prison. Danny doesn’t care about either Alice or Vic in this film, and instead uses them both as a means for his own survival.
Because of this, and also because of how he slowly found out about Danny’s true nature and intentions, I personally started to shift my sympathy from Danny to Vic. And I say that knowing completely the type of individual the narrative is trying to tell me he is before the reveal of the two’s romantic connections.
Before finding out that they have a Dom/Sub thing going on with their romantic relationship, also before finding that they’re even IN a romantic relationship, Vic came off as overbearingly controlling. And while that made sense considering they’re trying to conduct acquiring a ransom as clean, efficient, and untraceable as possible, the violence he displayed before the romantic reveal was designed to make the audience believe he was the primary antagonist of the story in order to draw sympathy to Danny upon having second thoughts about the whole thing at the beginning of Act 1.
/Then it’s revealed that they’re in a relationship. That being the controlling one is part of their shared kink and what drew Danny to him when they met in prison. That Vic LOVES Danny, enough to where even though he was able to do what was necessary when first acting on his betrayal at the end of the movie, he was still willing to try and reach out to Danny because of what they shared even when Danny had every intention of shooting him. Watching Vic slowly realize through the combination of him sensing Danny’s lies and Alice confessing that she and Danny were intimate in the past and break down bit by bit because of it was heartbreaking to watch. Even when he was forced to steel himself in order to put him in the mindset of eliminating Danny because of how much of a liability he’d become. And while I knew that it more than likely wouldn’t positively work out for either of them in the end, Vic was the one that gained my sympathy by the end of the film./
Now I want it on record that Danny’s actions over the course of the film do NOT invalidate his queerness.
Yes, it is fair to say that Danny never truly reciprocated the feelings Vic had for him. But saying that just to invalidate the queerness being displayed in the film, when no invalidation of sexuality is ever done when straight people both in the past and in the present mutually and consensually enter relationships with other straight people despite having little to no romantic or sexual reciprocation present in one or all parties involved is both hypocritical and queerphobic.
Saying all this to say that there’s complexity to Vic and Danny because of these dynamics. Not only does their queerness instantly subvert the expectations that are associated with the character tropes the two represent, but it causes you to look at them in a light that you otherwise wouldn’t have seen them in if they were just two straight men trying to pull off a kidnapping job.
Feeling a certain type of way when you see how they treat Alice over the course of the movie is normal, because these two men are criminals. Criminals who are committed to do what is necessary to secure a large ransom from a wealthy individual by kidnapping his daughter.
/But while that’s enough to tell yourself where you should morally align, you find out that they’re together, you get a better look at and understanding of their dynamic now that you know they’re together, and you watch with genuine intrigue how they individually react when things start to shift./
Doing so impacts you to where there’s now conflict within you regarding these queer characters that are just as capable of committing to such an act as a regularly depicted couple of straight characters as you watch, and that’s the point.
Thankfully, the gag here is that as far as J. Blakeson’s career as a writer/director is concerned, this won’t be the only time he adds this level of queer complexity in his main characters. It will be, however, the first time his brand of said queer complexity will be properly introduced to the American mainstream.
I Own You
/“I Care A Lot” was released in September at the 2020 Toronto International Film Festival, 11 years after The Disappearance of Alice Creed. It was picked up for streaming distribution across multiple regions afterward between Netflix and Amazon Prime Video; the former catering to the US, France, Germany, Latin America, South Africa, the Middle East and India, while the latter distributed it to their subscribers in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand and the UK./
Not counting the movie adaptation of The 5th Wave because he didn’t do both, this movie was a lot of North Americans' introduction to J. Blakeson as both a writer and a director. And when it was released on both Netflix and Prime on February 19 2021, it was the most watched film the weekend of its release on Netflix and the second-most the week after.
/Part of that is thanks to Rosamund Pike’s performance as Marla Grayson, who made a name for herself in American stardom after starring in the film adaptation of Gone Girl 6 years prior./
Marla is a con woman whose hustle is gaining legal guardianship over the elderly with a considerable amount of wealth and assets, even when said elderly are in their right mind and are still capable of taking care of themselves.
/She has doctors in her pocket who give her potential victims and speak in court on her behalf regarding their “evaluation” and if they’re capable of taking care of themselves. Same with nursing home operators who give her vacancies and ways of keeping said elderly under control while providing the bare minimum care in some instances. Meanwhile, she liquidates their assets, sells their belongings, and steadily acquires their money for herself until they die./ (Fuck, I only had him 6 months. I thought he’d last us another 5 years)
Despite J. Blakeson saying in interviews for the movie that he was inspired by real-life instances that had happened in the United States and being shocked that such a thing could happen while still being completely legal to do so, “I Care A Lot” is listed as a black comedy.
/And this is thanks to Marla’s latest victim of her con being -- unbeknownst to her -- the mother of a very dangerous Russian mob boss who finds out that she’s been displaced and is willing to do whatever it takes to get her back./
That means going after her legally, threatening and attacking her associates, and even going after her partner Fran, who just so happens to be both her professional and romantic partner.
/And just like in The Disappearance of Alice Creed 11 years prior, we get hints of it early on in the movie/ (keep your eyes on the road)
/Before it's blatantly revealed later on in the movie to shut up the homophobic skeptics before they even fix their mouths to say “She’s not THAT kind of partner.”/
However, while her queerness is important to Marla’s character in regards to showing us things and people in her life that she cares about, that same queerness stirred up a dilemma of morality in a good chunk of queer individuals who watched this film for the first time, when, if it wasn’t present, would’ve made things a bit easier for the audience in question not to side with her.
First of all, considering the story J Blakeson was trying to tell and in order for it to be plausible in a universe so heavily rooted in our reality, Marla Grayson could only be depicted as a white woman.
/She knows the law will always operate in her favor which is why the law and the courtroom is her preferred weapon and battlefield of choice respectively. Because the law is her preferred weapon, she knows the patriarchal roots of it enough to know how to properly weaponize feminism in her favor without having to change the system that she greatly benefits from. And despite the title of the movie and her saying that she does at the beginning of it, it is clear through both her actions, dialogue with her partners in on the con, and even in the narration at the beginning and end of the movie that she has very little empathy for anyone that is not within her circle -- which is already pretty small -- and she only puts on a show to convince the right people that she DOES have the care and empathy necessary to keep up appearances, in order to get what she wants./
(Go ahead. I don’t care about that fucking sociopath) /Says the fucking sociopath/
Blakeson wanted to show this dynamic in her character in a more blunt and direct fashion in the movie, but according to him never got a chance to do so.
/In an interview he had with Collider explaining what he wanted to convey, he said:
/“If you met Marla in real life, at like, let’s say, a party or something, you’d think ‘well, she’s like very attractive, very well put together, well dressed (...) she seems to have a great caring relationship with her girlfriend (...) she seems like a really great person (...) this lady’s great; she’s a saint.’ But, y’know, (there’s) that thing of people looking to the world as if there are good people who do good things, but actually there’s lots of bad things underneath the hood. I think (that) is something very true of that world, and true of lots of different people in positions of authority who get away with a lot because people just trust them. Because ‘they’re the guy that we know’.”/
While he may not have gotten an opportunity to present that scene specifically, those who watched the movie and caught the undertones, successfully read between the lines, and noticed both the direction and the performance Rosamund Pike took with Marla were able to see it present as bright as day.
/To put in pop culture terms, Marla Grayson is a sociopathic Lawful Evil Girlboss. One that doesn’t deserve any of the victories she achieves over Peter Dinklage’s Roman Lunyov, and rightfully so gets exactly what she deserves by the end of the film./
Yet despite knowing this -- and also despite the movie being a black comedy -- a good chunk of the audience of I Care A Lot couldn’t help but put both their morality and their own conscience to the side in order to stand in her corner.
It just so happens that a portion of that audience did so because Marla Grayson is queer representation, both in the figurative sense ala “I support women’s rights but also women’s wrongs,”...
/But also in the literal sense in regards to seeing queer characters be just as devious as their straight counterparts/ (Marla Grayson and her partner here are stalking their next victim, and I have to say: I don’t just want inclusion in movies. Show gay people for the often awful people they are. I love this woman so far. I know she’s supposed to be a villain, whatever. Take the elderly, wring them out like rags, bitch. And get your haircut every six days)
Marla being queer and also being as nefarious as she is in I Care A Lot is for a lot of individuals the first time they have ever seen queer characters be depicted and included in stories that allow them to be complicated, or -- in the case of Marla -- nefarious.
And while this isn’t the first time J. Blakeson has depicted queer characters in a way that provides such representation while at the same time allowing them to be capable of doing bad things and being morally complicated, this film is the first that -- thanks to Netflix and Prime Video -- introduced the possibility to a wider audience of queer people for those who, at the time, didn’t know The Disappearance of Alice Creed existed.
However, as I showed the movie to one of my gay male friends recently, I found out that this type of representation isn’t necessarily welcomed in some queer circles as one would expect it to be. And in order to explain why, we have to go over the Hays Code.
The Hays Dilemma
As I stated previously, queerness naturally challenges the structure of capitalist-driven heteronormativity with its very existence. And before finally going to a “Make Queerness Work For YOU!” seminar, heteronormativity constantly opposed it.
The Hays Code was one of those ways of opposing it in regards to American film and television. Film wasn’t protected under the first amendment at the time, and various organizations seeking film censorship were going after Hollywood.
The most powerful one because of its association with the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America was the Motion Picture Production Code -- aka the Hays Code, named after chairman of the Republican National Committee William Harrison Hays -- and was regularly enforced by the Production Code Administration in 1934 after the code was created in 1930.
Because the movie studios at the time owned the movie theaters they aired their movies in instead of the AMC-like franchises or indie houses we have today, the PCA had the power through the MPPDA to keep the movies that didn’t follow the Hays Code out of theaters.
The three main rules of the Hays Code were as follows:
- No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience shall never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil, or sin.
- “Correct” standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.
- Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.
Now as you can imagine, a lot of films we all know and love would’ve been absolutely RUINED by these guidelines if they were applied today.
So when this was weaponized against depictions of queerness in film -- thanks to homosexuality and the like being considered sexual perversion during those times -- queer characters, scenarios, and movements -- if depicted -- couldn’t be shown as sympathetic, righteous or preferred over heteronormativity’s status quo at the time.
Queer characters could only be depicted as villains, queerness could only be depicted as an unlawful intrusion on “normal” way of life, and they had to be punished by the end in order to make sure the “sympathy of the audience shall never be throne to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil, or sin.” Thus why we have a slew of negative queer-centered story tropes such as “Kill Your Gays” and the like.
This is also why there’s not only such a heavy time period in American film history where there’s so many queer coded characters and stories instead of ACTUAL queer characters and stories, but why that same period is filled with queer-coded characters that are considered villains and a chunk of them are depicted trying to seduce the “innocent” protagonist to this “life of sin and debauchery,” instead of promoting healthy exploration of the self and whatnot.
However, the fuel that lots in the corner of queer respectability like to use in their fires regarding this time in American media, is that because of how the Hays code forced filmmakers to portray queer people if they wanted us in their films, doing so reinforced a lot of negative stereotypes that followed us and our communities way past the end of its enforcement when film was finally granted first amendment rights in the late 50’s. And even when the code finally went out of effect in 1968, queer coding characters as villains as we’ve seen through various closeted queer creatives at Disney for example was still the best direct way of getting representation on screen due to the relatability of how ostracized the community and its people were to the rest of society.
Y’know, unless someone like Madonna decided to talk about voguing in one of her songs because she was obsessed with underground black and brown queer culture for the entirety of like, five minutes.
Don’t look at me in that tone of voice; she’s YOUR queen, not mine.
It’s because of this history that for some queer folks, watching a movie like “I Care A Lot” that puts the focus on a nefarious queer character like Marla Grayson feels like a step in the wrong direction, regardless if they stand for or against queer respectability.
They watch I Care A Lot, see the positive reception of Marla and Fran from their fellow queer communities regarding representation, and ask “Why would you want to see us portrayed like this, when we have suffered 30+ years having no choice but to be seen as vile, villainous and manipulative?” And depending on the person asking it, this question can be taken one of two ways: Either in earnest -- and fairly so -- or as a way to further “preach” why respectability is the way to go.
So in order to acknowledge the one who does not ask such a question in order to further the tired agenda of respectability, we have to first acknowledge where J. Blakeson is from, and that’s across the pond in England. And there was never really a Hayes Code equivalent that put limitations on queer representation in media over there.
The closest he got to that type of experience was him being born in 1977, growing up when Margaret Thatcher was in charge, and surviving the period of the Video Nasties where lots of media from America and Italy was pretty much banned from video stores over there.
/Eddache actually does a WAY better job explaining the censorship debacle regarding Video Nasties and the like over on his channel where he explains how they made the OG TMNT cartoon more “kid friendly” over there, so give it a watch after you’re done here./
Because there was no equivalent of the Hays Code in the UK, there were no restrictions placed on studios and filmmakers regarding how queer characters had to be depicted in film and television over there.
And because there were no restrictions, those who wanted to feature queer main characters in their stories like J. Blakeson...
/And even queer actor turned writer/director Francis Lee who’s tweet I started this video off with and Blakeson’s body of work embodies.../
Weren’t brought up under the belief that they could only do so if they were characterized to reinforce harmful stereotypes that only played into the benefit of the social norm of heteronormativity.
Even though heteronormativity’s attempt to limit queerness is the reason why said stereotypes exist in the first place.
So instead of being caricatures that embodied everything about queerness that American capitalism via heteronormativity aimed to destroy back in the day, the queer characters that were conceived are instead just as real and messy as the straight ones.
Yes, the use of queer characters as propaganda to illustrate the dangers of letting queer people stray you away from everything that heteronormativity has always highlighted as good, decent and normal did a lot of damage; I’m not denying that.
But using that as a reason to limit the type of representation we’re deserving of is just as conforming as the limitations heteronormativity gives us. Especially if WE are placing the limitations on ourselves.
That’s how much respectability has seeped into the cultures of minorities that don’t immediately fit the molds of heteronormativity or white supremacy.
It causes us to second-guess how the actions of certain characters represent us to a world that already doesn’t give a damn about us as a whole, as opposed to the actions of one or a few characters that can spawn such complex emotions that we can’t help but see it as a positive, because it makes us FEEL something.
And that feeling will transcend past the community that character belongs to and be felt across multiple others if it’s written and performed in a way that properly delivers it.
/It’s just like Verily Bitchie said in her video about how boring the expansion of heteronormativity made “good” queer representation in film and television:
/“An emotional connection happens when you tell a good engaging story. Quality storytelling can make you empathize with a villain; it can make you root for a murderer.”/
That’s the difference between the queer coded trope developers of America’s Hays Code period, and the problematic queer characters that have come across our screen today, regardless if they were created by J Blakeson or not.
They are allowed the same complexity, complications and messiness as their straight counterparts, and are allowed to be just as empathetic and sympathetic as a result.
/That’s why I was able to feel sorry for Vic as he started to piece together Danny’s inevitable betrayal in “The Disappearance of Alice Creed.” It’s how I found myself waiting to see if Marla Grayson was gonna win this battle between her and Roman Lunyov in “I Care A Lot” even though I knew at the bottom of my SOUL that she didn’t deserve to./
/And, as you can imagine, that’s why I was able to watch all eight episodes of Culprits./
What Do YOU Want?
After the success of WandaVision, Disney commissioned a bunch of 8 episode shows from multiple creators in the UK in order to add them to the adult only add-on service to Disney Plus for those who live in countries that don’t have Hulu, Disney Plus Star.
/J. Blakeson’s Culprits was one of those shows, and the decision to add “From the creator of I Care A Lot” in the marketing for it upon the movie’s sudden popularity when it was released on Netflix was pretty much a no-brainer./
Speaking of the marketing, the queerness of Nathan Steward-Jarrett’s David Marking in the marketing was front and center.
/And the combination of seeing the character be black, queer, in a relationship with another queer black man --/ yes, that is ALSO important -- /while also being depicted as someone with a checkered past similar to that of how anti-heroes are usually depicted in modern day action films was enough to catch my interest immediately./
To me, this was the representation I wanted to see after acknowledging that what was being released to the mainstream public...
Stories like “Love, Simon” and “Heartstopper” that focused on accepting your sexuality and yourself enough to come out, and how well they fit with the combination of “coming of age” and “slice of life” in regards to mixing in romance...
That while necessary for a certain demographic of queer individuals, wasn’t for me; someone who had already come out, accepted himself, and was already ready to see someone like me -- a cisgendered black man -- as the John McClaine, the James Bond, or even the Batman that wanted and got the guy instead of the girl.
I mean, I’m bisexual so the guy getting the girl is still on the table, but the former is RARELY seen, real talk.
/That’s who David was in Culprits. He was a man who was allowed to be a badass, good at what he does and be one step ahead of the game when it came to covering his tracks. He was also complicated, comfortable with lying to and intimidating people, quick to cut people off, and fine with using individuals as a means to an end in order to get things done; David was flawed and he knew it./
His desire to leave his life of bloodshed behind while others constantly tried to tell him who he truly is ala Bill to Beatrix Kiddo has been the core of his overall journey over the course of the story of Culprits, and seeing what he’s willing to do in order to achieve it is vital.
/And it’s because he’s this flawed individual -- not this perfect shining beacon of queer aspiration or a vessel for tolerance and acceptance for the sake of marketability -- that he becomes such a relatable character that others can connect with even if they aren’t queer themselves./
That doesn’t mean his blackness or queerness isn’t integral to portions of the story or his character, because they are.
/While I don’t know if it was in collaboration with Nathan Steward-Jarrett or not, Blakeson does a great job in accurately capturing through David’s American persona Joe what black men go through trying to play the game that’s always been rigged in white men’s favor. Even with his particular set of skills, even with the results of capitalism at his disposal, even with him going about the appropriate avenues and channels, the first three episodes of Culprits accurately depict the struggle that people of color go through when it comes to the combination of systemic racism and white privilege./ (Trust the system, Kyle. It was made for people like you)
His queerness is also displayed in a similar light, just as much part of his character as his blackness.
/Us seeing David’s love for Jules and his children, how much it pains him to have to come clean about his past life to Jules and the extent he’s willing to go to make sure they don’t get hurt, how quickly he was willing to put his ex-boyfriend Colin behind him when presented with a way out of his violent life via taking Dianne’s job./
And that’s just David as a character.
Thanks to bringing on board other queer talent from the UK, such as British writer/director Claire Oakley to direct half the series and queer writer and performer Rose Lewenstein on board with three other writers for the show’s second half, Culprits is J. Blakeson’s queerest creation to date, both in front of and behind the camera.
The symbolism in episode 6 “Vessels” -- written by Lewenstein -- is clearly present in the decisions of David -- aka Muscle -- Officer, Specialist and Aza; specifically them taking refuge in the gay nightclub owned by David’s ex-boyfriend as they figure out a way to handle the heterochromia assassin that’s after them.
/The main indicator that this club is a safezone for them is seeing the large unmistakable pride flag placed outside the building; a real life practice that helps queer people know that the place displaying the flag is supposed to be a safe and accepting space for them. Of course that changes when the assassin in question is able to follow them there, which unfortunately also symbolizes what happens when said queer safe spaces are invaded by individuals meaning harm./
And then there’s the talents of worldwide stand-up comedian and queer icon Suzy Eddie Izzard, who -- after spending years labeling herself as an “executive transvestite” in her comedy specials -- came out as genderfluid in 2020 who prefers she/her pronouns but is fine with being referenced as he/him, now that the language properly explaining how she personally identified existed, thanks to the identity being under the transgender umbrella.
And for context, famed comic book writer Grant Morrison came out as non-binary that same year for the same reasons.
Suzy plays the villain of Culprits, billionaire Vincent Hawkes.
/It’s his money that was stolen by the crew Dianne put together and David was part of./
/And its in Suzy’s portrayal of Hawkes’ character -- both the leadup to him as the target for the heist and as the mastermind behind eliminating the crew three years later...
/That we see the actual message of the show that the queerness presented throughout it thanks to David being the lead naturally helps reinforce./
We get an idea about the type of person Dianne and her crew would be stealing from in episode 2, when she explains that they would be breaking into a vault that was commissioned from a famous vault maker by a wealthy millowner named Titus Wayneright, specifically to keep his wealth hidden from his workers.
/Then after liquidating the building that hid the vault because of the end of the industrial boom it was undiscovered for over a hundred years when, as Dianne explained.../ (a whole new generation of fat cats has unearthed it, resurrected it, and repurposed it to hide their wealth, and you brought us together to rob it)
This was the first indicator that the story Culprits is telling is one with socialist undertones.
Something that -- along with focusing the plot on creating empathy and sympathy on a group of robbers -- if made in America during the 30 plus years of film and television works not being protected by the first amendment, wouldn’t have made it to TV thanks to McCarthyism alone, let alone the Hays Code. More on that later.
Soon, by the end of the penultimate episode we learn that it’s not multiple fat cats that they stole from, but one; Hawkes.
And when we get to the final episode and David has successfully located Dianne after Hawkes threatened him to murder her to secure the safety of his family, we find out Dianne’s personal reasons for breaking into the vault and stealing from Hawkes.
/And it revolves around seeking vengeance over lost family via faulty and cheaply made investments, and the decision to divert the entirety of his wealth in an untouchable cryptocurrency that can only be accessed if the box containing it is unlocked by a special key./
All things that, if the existence of Elon Musk wasn’t a thing IRL, individuals would otherwise think was incredibly unbelievable.
And Suzy Eddie Izzard tapped into that previous improbability in her portrayal of Hawkes. While not a full-blown Socialist and more of a Social Democrat ala Bernie Sanders, her portrayal of Hawkes as an individual so out of touch with the world because of his wealth and status was incredibly effective in the two episodes the character showed up in.
And more than likely thanks to her background in acting and as a prominent figurehead in the UK’s socialist-inspired Labor Party, her personal understanding that there’s no such thing as an ethical billionaire made her portrayal of Hawkes just as fun to watch as it was diabolical.
/Stephen Garrett, the executive producer for Culprits, said it best in an interview that both he and Blakeson participated in for “The Upcoming”:
/“(While) she knows this because she came to us quite late in the day... The character that (Suzy) Eddie Izzard plays was very different to the character that was written and the character in our heads... I think that often happens where you get an evolution almost of the writing process where a piece of casting comes along that rapidly reinterprets everyone’s vision in a thrilling way.”/
All of these factors in regards to how Suzy Eddie Izzard was able to successfully deliver Hawke’s personality, and Dianne’s overall motive for wanting to steal from him because of said delivery -- both the physical millions and the key that unlocked his digital billions within the vault -- were the second indicator of Culprits’ overall point.
The third and final one however, was after David successfully double-crossed Hawke when he and Dianne found the box...
/And seeing what he decided to do with the key/ (There was billions in there. I know. No one should have that much money. That much money is poison)
This was what made it click for me. Not just in regards to Culprits, but the entirety of J Blakeson’s work when it comes to his media with queer leads.
That one scene caused me to recall every bit of J. Blakeson’s work he wrote and directed with queer main characters. And upon doing so, I realized that not only is he AWARE of the dangers and the damage the Hays Code placed on queer representation in film and television here in America, but that he made all three projects that I covered in this video -- intentional or otherwise -- in spite of it.
The True Gay Agenda
Before I get into this segment, I want to acknowledge that there is a good chance everything I’m about to say here is merely conjecture; that there are no ulterior reasons why J Blakeson’s projects with queer leads in them surround certain subject matter outside of being completely coincidental.
I will say, however, that ignoring said possibilities and immediately writing them off as coincidences BECAUSE of said chance is part of the reason why media literacy is dying.
It’s ENTIRELY possible that the author did not intend for there to be any symbolism behind why the door is red, but that is not the REAL reason why you don’t want to explore that possibility. You don’t want to explore that possibility because you don’t want to go the extra mile to do so. Especially if going the extra mile causes you to think about the topics that said symbolism and meaning may be hinting at.
Like validating the existence of a group of marginalized people you don’t like to think about, acknowledging something outside of your basic understanding of life, or challenging the only status quo you’ve ever known.
With that being said, when you watch and absorb The Disappearance of Alice Creed, I Care A Lot, and Culprits -- three pieces of media created by writer/director J Blakeson with queer main characters that have all done bad things in their lives -- then combine their stories with ALL the ways that the Hays Code censored American cinema for 30+ years, you start to realize that they have more in common with each other than you think.
The Disappearance of Alice Creed breaks all three of the main rules of the Hays Code.
/Alice Creed is a trust fund baby who, until her kidnapping, gets by on her father’s dime. And while we don’t know what the two went to jail for initially, the combination of Vic and Danny seeking the money from the ransom to start new lives while watching Vic learn of Danny’s betrayal -- especially after its revealed the two are queer and in a relationship together -- causes us to feel sympathy for an individual who, according to the first main rule, represents the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil, and/or sin./
Because of this, rule number 2 of presenting “correct” standards of life and rule number 3 of not ridiculing either natural or human law is never enforced. Because what is a “correct” standard of life when you live in a society that forces you to do something like this in order to HAVE a life?
These rules are made even a harder mockery of in I Care A Lot.
The movie is a critique on the laws and standards that people without proper moral conscience easily exploit and harm individuals who rely on it regularly for personal gain and without remorse -- the same laws and standards that the Hays Code was created to preserve, mind you -- and shows how easy it is for individuals with that lack of conscience to dive in and start capitalizing off of it.
/It shows the “correct” standards of life as rule number 2 says. But in doing so ridicules the human laws created in the name of said “correct” standards./ (Well, she’s definitely a bad bitch. The real evil is the fact that what she’s doing is 100% legal)
Because the queer main character uses said laws and standards for her own gain, the lawful evil of Marla is put up against the chaotic evil of Roman.
/And because both of them are on the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil and/or sin, it doesn’t matter which one you want to come out as the victor; the first rule of the Hays Code is being broken either way./
And while Culprits has a queer protagonist that is more of an anti-hero in regards to his flaws as a character in comparison to Vic, Danny and Marla...
/The entirety of the show's plot surrounds the extent of what the rich will do to make sure they stay rich./
By focusing on a group of thieves -- some who have reputations they’re not necessarily proud of -- who are stealing millions of dollars from a social elite, sympathy is automatically given to them.
Any “correct” standard of life that the Hays Code represents is tarnished because what counts as “correct” is either accomplished by the team after stealing from a billionaire, or is portrayed by the elite member of the bourgeoisie that they stole from.
/And that member in question LOVES to talk down to those who stole from him and remind them of the nature that they’re not necessarily proud of; another commentary of how those who live by the “correct” standards of life are being critiqued to the point where it counts as ridicule according to Hays Code standards./
All in all, the main thread that ties every creative work conceived by J. Blakeson with queer leads in it together is capitalism.
Capitalism is the reason why heteronormativity is the main social norm. Capitalism aided in the creation of the Hays Code as a way to silence any voices that might speak out against it or outright challenge it. Capitalism helped set the parameters of how much queerness and the like heteronormativity can accept within itself once it realized it can benefit from it, and has had minorities debate respectability over respect ever since.
What J Blakeson has done over the course of two feature length films and an eight episode television series is show us how imperative liberation and respect is -- whether its racial, gendered or queer -- in order to properly critique capitalism through art.
It’s so essential that multiple tools have been used in America since the 1930’s to make sure that those who aren’t in the fight think that such systems are only in place to protect traditional values ala the Hays Code, or that we as minorities have to limit our true selves in order to properly fit in to the societal norms that it benefits from in order to receive “proper” representation ala respectability.
Because capitalism knows that if respect beats out respectability in the fight for queer liberation, then the entire facade of societies that rely on late stage capitalism that the Hays Code tried to silence those who could speak against it for those who are straight, white and upper middle class and higher would come tumbling down.
It’s no coincidence that J. Blakeson was able to highlight all these problems in capitalistic societies in his films and tv shows because he not only put queer characters front and center in them, but also made them flawed; showed how susceptible they are to trying to exist in the world as it is now just like other straight characters have been shown since the Hays Code went bye-bye.
/The tragedy of Vic and Danny wouldn’t have hit as hard as it did in The Disappearance of Alice Creed if capitalism and greed didn’t get between them. Queer people like Marla Grayson exist in real life, and showing them off like Blakeson did in I Care A Lot also makes people aware of how capitalism is regularly exploited to those who have the resources while nothing is done about it. And you have no idea how important it is to watch a character like David in Culprits destroy a key that could’ve given him BILLIONS and say what he said to justify the decision. All because J Blakeson took the saying “Be Gay, Do Crimes” to heart./
Conclusion
Now I think it’s both obvious and safe to say that J Blakeson isn’t the first creative to bring this type of much needed queer representation in scripted media to mainstream audiences. There have been others before him, and there’s definitely gonna be others after him.
Just off the top of my head, you could say that Carrie-Anne Moss’s portrayal of Jeri Hogarth in season 1 of Marvel’s Jessica Jones -- who was gender-switched from male in the comics to be an out lesbian in the MCU -- was somewhat of a progenitor to I Care A Lot’s Marla Grayson...
An out lesbian who’s ESPECIALLY vicious, knows how to make the system work for her, and isn’t afraid to display her level of sociopathy despite living in a world where someone has the ability to control others with their words.
That came out in 2015, while I Care A Lot wouldn’t get made until 5 years later.
But at the same time, not acknowledging what Blakeson’s been doing since 2009 just for that sake alone does a bit of a disservice in both what and who came after.
Hell, Francis Lee didn’t make his coming of age queer film God’s Own Country until 2017; eight years after The Disappearance of Alice Creed and three years before I Care A Lot. And true to his very tweet that prompted this entire video, one of the queer characters in it is just as much of an asshole.
And while they’re more along the lines of how David is characterized in Culprits as opposed to Marla in I Care A Lot, more projects -- live action, animation, novel and comic forms alike -- are coming out with queer main characters that aren’t the picture-perfect idealization of representation that capitalism can utilize now that heteronormativity expanded on the queerness that’s allowed in its bubble. And just like J. Blakeson’s work, most of those projects also critique the capitalism responsible for why said respectability exists to begin with.
More and more creatives around the world are realizing that this feat can’t be accomplished using the guidelines that the likes of capitalism and heteronormativity still use to keep us pacified. You cannot hope for change by staying in a system that spent years and years degrading you, only to recently acknowledge you because it can finally benefit from your existence.
After all, it’s just like Audre Lorde said: The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House.
