Customer Reviews

The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The Celluloid Closet provides usefeul information about the presence of gay/lesbian imagery in film as a reference guide. What I find most useful is the discussion of what did not make it to the screen. Russo discusses scenes, such as that between Tony Curtis and Laurence Olivier in Spartacus, which were removed before release. These scenes may not have impacted society as much as final scenes, but they are important when conidering the internal politics that shaped Hollywood. Russo is careful to acknowledge both the negative and positive aspects of visability, and to distinguish between visability and comic stereotyping. Probably more useful as a reference book than an enjoyable read, this book is packed with useful information from which people can start their own research/opinion making

Russo, now deceased, published the first edition of this book in 1981, in the dark ages before queer independent cinema, and before mainstream cinema began the tradition of giving every female lead a gay man for a best buddy -- back when gay men appeared only as swishy queens or psychotic killers, and lesbians appeared only as psychotic killers, period. He exhumed hundreds of long-forgotten films, from moody German expressionism through the fluffy bedroom farces of the 1950's, and created an invaluable survey of the way movies look at gay people, comparable in scope to Donald Bogle's survey of African-Americans in film, "Toms, Coons, Mulattos, Mammies, and Bucks." We desperately need an update, but for everything from Laurel and Hardy shorts to "Personal Best," this is the place to go.

Although Vito Russo (1946-1985) was well known as a gay activist and was extremely influential in the creation of such AIDS-activist organizations as ACT UP, today his reputation rests almost exclusively on THE CELLULOID CLOSET, a powerful commentary on the way Hollywood portrayed homosexuality on film from the silent era to the early 1980s. The book received considerable attention when first published in 1981, and it continues to receive considerable attention to this day--and justly so, for Russo's examination of the various gay characters created by Hollywood explores not only how such images were created by Hollywood, but how they shaped "straight" America's ideas about homosexuals and often altered the gay community's own self image as well.

The position Russo takes and the interpretations he offers are nothing short of fascinating, and THE CELLULOID CLOSET holds up extremely well to re-reading. Even so, it is essentially an excellent work by an amateur writer. For all the power of its interpretations and arguments, the text is badly structured, and too often the tone of the prose seems less about the films under consideration than about the personality that considers them. And there are frequent factual errors in the text, with Russo's comments on the cult favorite The Rocky Horror Show perhaps the most glaring case in point.

Although Russo's omnipresent personality tends to undercut his prose at times, it is an engaging personality, and in a certain sense it drives the narrative--and indeed does a great deal to make the book's shifting structure seem more acceptable than it would have otherwise been. And after a careful re-reading of the text, I have come to the conclusion that the errors involved are best described as "surface" errors; they do not seem to me to undercut the power of Russo's interpretations, arguments, or positions, all of which are extremely well presented and very astute. Even so, given the book's somewhat problematic nature, I would take issue with those who describe it as "definitive," which is a rather sweeping word. I would prefer to describe it as a fascinating analysis of a difficult subject written by a gifted amateur author--who manages to overcome his limitations to present an endlessly fascinating series of interpretations, arguments, and positions. The book deserves a place on the bookshelf of every one who loves film as much as the writer did, and I recommend it strongly. But it would be a mistake to take it as an absolute.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

This is one of the very few books that has useful information on gays in cinema from the beginning of the film industry to (somewhat) present day. I used it as research for a writing project on homosexuals in film and it was probably the most useful source as a stepping stone of information. By current standards, some academics may say that this book is outdated and "overdone" however I consider it to be the best single source of information on gays in film to date. I question why there are so few other "popular" publications that branch out from the wonderful points and concepts that Vito Russo makes.

The movie "The Celluloid Closet" is great, but you
occasionally get the feeling that the directors
are straining to make a point about homosexuality
in old movies. But you never feel this way reading
Russo's book. Russo is not a gifted prose stylist,
the writing of the book is wel, it's prosaic, but
he's a good writer with a keen eye and an excellent
memory. If you've seen the movie and enjoyed it get this
book to complete the experience.

Valley Gay Press Book Reviewer: Liz Bradbury (Author of Angel Food and Devil Dogs - A Maggie Gale Mystery)
This was a ground breaking book in 1985, and it still is a fascinating, information filled read that is essential to any student of GLBT history. Film historian Vito Russo offers dozens of stories and photos that show how our community has been portrayed on film since the silent era. A significant amount of Russo's research focuses on gay and lesbian portrayals as both sex objects and seductive villains, before the advent of the Hayes office in 1934. The Hayes office effectively "outlawed" the presence of any gay character on film unless they were shown as despicable villains who were ultimately punished, usually dying by the end of the movie.

By the time Russo's book was published in the mid 80s, Hayes office restrictions against sex, crime, and violence had generally faded away, however, Russo shows how film depictions of GLBT people were still showing the intolerant views of pre-war conservative attitudes.

In 1995, Lily Tomlin helped to finance a documentary film version of Russo's research. It not only features dozens of classic movie clips, but contains a series of interviews by Hollywood stars, writers and historians, including openly GLBT people like Farley Granger and Gore Vidal, and supportive allies like Tom Hanks and Susan Sarandon. (It's worth seeing just for Sarandon's take on sex scenes with Catherine Deneve).

The documentary presents a great deal of information that is not in the book. But readers should note that the book contains a vast amount of material not in the movie. Don't miss either. They are both funny, sexy and thought provoking.

Russo's Celluloid Closet helps to show the progression of gays throughout film history. I enjoyed reading about small points in movies that I had not noticed before, but sometimes the details got tedious and I lost interest. The plot successfully defines how Hollywood accepts lesbians more, but they are viewed as exotic and play -things for heterosexual men. Such as Lesbian Vampires in Vampyres, 1974. Gay men are seen as effeminate and sissies. They are seen as gross, pathetic, and needing to be saved, while strong women are accepted more Greta Garbo in Queen Christina 1933). This seems to be a very male centered reality. I reccamend this book to anyone interested in film or gay history,

Make no mistake, this book gives us a vital picture of homosexuality in the movies, both in front of and behind the camera. Excellent in many ways.

But. There are some troubling errors in this book, some just plain silly mistakes that no first-year film student would make. For example, Mr. Russo gets one crucial element of the plot of the Rocky Horror Picture Show wrong, and then proceeds to make assorted assertions based on this mistake. Not to spoil the plot of Rocky Horror, but Russo's mistake is akin to saying that the Wicked Witch in the Wizard of Oz returns from the dead for one last song.

Apparently no one caught this error, either before publication or after(This is a supposedly revised edition!!). This may not seem like a big deal, but think about it. If he makes mistakes about something as basic as Rocky Horror, what is he doing with movies that are more obscure?