Open Forum Friday: Is it Wrong to Omit Gay Relationships from a Movie’s Marketing?
I know I’m about to broach a potentially touchy topic here, but well… I’m going to do it anyway. There have been a couple of movies recently that have launched somewhat controversial marketing campaigns, but probably not for the reasons you might think. The trailers for A Single Man and Valentine’s Day have drawn some criticism, but the problem isn’t that the ads are trying to grab attention by being edgy and outrageous — rather, the opposite. They have seen it fit to gloss over one important detail in order to avoid making anyone uncomfortable: they both neglect to mention that they feature main characters who are gay.
A Single Man, in particular, avoids revealing much about the story at all, although it definitely seems to hint at a relationship between Colin Firth and Julianne Moore (in actuality, their characters are just friends). As for Valentine’s Day, they have cleverly hidden Eric Dane’s character from most of the ads because he happens to be the boyfriend of Bradley Cooper’s character. It’s a little less noticeable since there are so many other well-known cast members in the movie, but it’s certainly no accident. This deceptive practice is becoming more common than you might think, and has often been referred to as “de-gaying”.
Now there are a few ways to look at this. One is that the job of a marketer is to sell a movie, and that if they think they can make more money by catering to the more conservative moviegoers, then perhaps they are justified in doing so. However, it’s also a bit dishonest, because the same conservative moviegoers will be even more shocked when they find gay characters in the movie that they didn’t expect. It’s definitely false advertising in a way, but on the other hand, trailers are shown to a captive audience who can’t change the channel if they don’t like what they see. On the flip side of that, maybe by sneaking the gay themes past the conservative folks and getting them out to see the movie, they will end up learning that it’s not such a bad thing after all? It’s hard to say, but I’m curious whether anyone else is bothered by this practice. Is it wrong to de-gay a movie’s marketing material? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (30)
I was once watching Hot Fuzz with a friend and her father, who both enjoyed the movie. The joke in the gag reel, however, was all of the seemingly gay tension between Nick and Simon. This reel ruined the film for my friend’s extremely homophobic dad, who was horrified. This kind of attitude I can’t understand, because a subject being broached does not a political statement make. I just think this is such a non-issue, but I’d be interested in knowing if any other people here have been completely turned off by a movie they have watched based on it being of a certain thinly-veiled political persuasion, like that of Valentine’s Day.
Posted by Kim on February 5th, 2010Its obviously a conspiracy, First they were trying to turn you Gay using TV
Now they expanded into the movies, nevertheless part of the same evil plan.
-Turn everyone into Gay- ..So that the small-elite who know this secret will be able in a few years to enjoy all the women in the world.
-Thats right douchebag teenage boy.. watch your movies.. thats right.. is not that bad being gay.. thats it..
Posted by KYriakos on February 5th, 2010This all seems strange to me because I have never known anyone who wouldn’t see a movie because there is a gay person in it. I know they are out there though. All I know is that I have seen A LOT of movies where you can tell they really cut the trailer to give you a false impression of a movie. Whether playing up action to make a slower film seem like an action movie etc. It can be a very deceptive, and I guess I could see how a extremely conservative person may feel manipulated by the practice.
On the marketers end, haven’t studios realized that their movies more often then not benefit from the “controversies” generated by the religious right?
Posted by Matt on February 5th, 2010Unless the trailer is a complete misrepresentation of a movie I don’t think it has an obligation to include characters or plots that are in the final product. Whats next, they have to tell you if there is an interracial couple in the movie in case that offends any racists?
Posted by Niklas on February 5th, 2010I think it’s a false statement to claim, even if there is the intentional omitting of such information, that it’s geared towards catering to conservatives. I honestly don’t think being conservative has anything to do with it. It’s a matter concerning those who, for any reason, do not believe and/or advocate homosexuality.
Now, regarding whether or not such a thing exists. Yes, it does. The real question is: how often? This is a gray area, as I’m sure a number of studios would like to avoid any controversy that may come with a single film. It’s easy to assume that, if homosexuality is an essential aspect of a movie, it must be included in the trailer. To omit it is wrong.
Take the film I Love You Phillip Morris. It’s a gay film, simple as that. To exclude any signs of homosexuality from the trailer is wrong, as it’s key to the storyline. But if a movie happens to have a gay character, it’s understandable that a studio may want to play a wait-and-see game so possible moviegoers won’t be turned off. That’s strictly a business strategy, not an attack on the gay community.
Posted by Crews on February 5th, 2010There are a lot of ways you can look at it. I mean, in Valentine’s Day for example, I think the plan is to surprise everyone with the relationship bewtween Eric Dane and Bradley Coopers’ character– so that’s why they aren’t exactly throwing it out there in the trailers.
But also, in movies with only heterosexual relationships you don’t really see people making out in the trailers or anything, maybe flirting, but… I mean there are trailers for movies where you know there are gay characters in it from what you hear online, etc. So I mean, information can get out…like in Valentine’s Day, people have known there is going to be a gay couple for a while now.
So, even if they try to “de-gay” a movie in the trailers, the word is going to get out and I think the producers realize that. And I know there are people out there that don’t agree with me when I say that it shouldn’t matter if there’s a gay couple in a movie…who cares? I don’t understand why people are so much about how others live, unless it’s personally affecting them somehow.
And for those who think that just because there’s a gay, or bi, or straight, person in a movie that the producers are secretely trying to win you over to some specific side…you’re idiots. It’s a movie. And whether you like it or not, there are people out there who are different and live differently than you, no matter what sexuality, religion, etc that you are.
Posted by nick on February 5th, 2010People are just afraid to admit they like man on man action.
Posted by Hugo on February 5th, 2010You know it’s winter because Sean is really struggling to find good Open Forum Friday topics. But to paraphrase Sean I’ll jump in anyway. Not that I’ll ever watch Valentine’s Day but it’s pretty obvious that with so many characters and storylines, the gay relationship is not a major one. If it wasn’t in the movie at all I don’t think it would diminish it and I don’t think anyone would sit there saying, “Wait a minute, where’s the token gay character/ relationship?” In the same light, movie ads and trailers never give away major plot points and twists, or at least they shouldn’t. Would that be considered “false advertising”? Is it deceptive to not reveal too much in advertising because you want to maintain the entertainment factor? I think it’s one thing to not overly publicize an aspect of a movie involving gays that is not absolutely central to the movie’s plot versus where it is the whole core of the movie. For example, if they never mentioned that the two main male leads in Brokeback Mountain are gay, then I think that would be totally deceptive. On the other hand, if it’s a plot twist that is only revealed at the end of the movie, then it wouldn’t be deceptive.
Posted by Maopheus on February 5th, 2010On the other hand, I knew that Colin Firth’s character is gay in A Single Man and I’ve never seen one advert or trailer for it. So I guess whatever they’re doing is not too effective.
Posted by Maopheus on February 5th, 2010A Single Man was distributed by The Weinstein Company, the same people whose advertising for Inglourious Basterds was pretty deceptively lowbrow.
Posted by MJS on February 5th, 2010The reason that the studios make no gay people be in tralers is cuz to be gay is to be gross. Sex with men is bad and quite sickening. To think of a naked, greased man’s bottom thrusting up against another man’s pelvis while the penis is inserted into the anoos is pretty repulsive. When i think about my prostate being tickled by the engorged head of a man’s erect meats i get all tickly in my stomach. Sick tickles i call them.
a man’s penis is meant for a woman’s genitals to fit in. it’s as simple as that. Whether or not you want to put your penis in a lady’s muffin is besides the point. That’s just where it’s meant to go. A man’s sexy puckered butt, while very enticing, is not for you. It’s for poo.
In closing, gay people shouldn’t even be allowed in movies. Hollywood isn’t meant for gays anyway. There’s barely any there to begin with so why hold the spotlight on the one’s that snuck their way through the cracks? Let’s just all pretend we never even heard of butt play among men and go back to our ladies, shall we boys?
Posted by Fatbologna on February 5th, 2010I was looking forward to reading a retarded comment on here and Fatbologna won the prize. Congrats!
Posted by Chris on February 6th, 2010I am hoping Fatbologna was being sarcastic because the statements come across as pretty ridiculous. Either way, I realize I’m opening things up for some asshole-ish comments here. So be it.
On the topic of de-gayed marketing, there is also the curious case of the Humpday DVD artwork:
http://www.cinematical.com/2009/08/26/the-humpday-dvd-cover-has-been-de-gayed/
Posted by Sean on February 6th, 2010…i dream of those days when having a funny quirky homosexual inside your comedy was a crowd magnet for a movie..
They just had to ruin it by portraying homos how they actually are..
Posted by KYriakos on February 6th, 2010Concerning Fatbologna, it’s almost certainly sarcastic because it’s too well written. There’s only really one error. It’s pretty funny too, with the reference to Borat’s pronunciation of ‘anus’ as ‘anoos’. So I don’t really think it should be taken seriously.
Posted by Maopheus on February 6th, 2010@Maopheus:
Ya got me! it was all jk/jk/jk!
Seriously though, If large corporations can get away with underhanded marketing tactics to ensure the widest consumer base they’ll utilize every tactic in the book. All the way back to subliminal messaging to GIANT MGD logos on every square inch of Bad Boys 2. The meetings where this stuff is decided are among men who would never allow a gay man to make it into their neck of the woods.
Watching something like MAD MEN is supposed to evoke the feeling of “wow, things were so quaint and different back then”, but the pure irony of that show is that while you’re thinking about the wildly different world of advertising in the 60s, you come to realize that things aren’t all that different. Middle aged white men still control what you see, they just hire younger folks to make it more palatable, the strings harder to see.
I think that films being de-gayed isn’t at all shocking. There’s a reason that something like Humpday was made on a shoestring budget with minimal advertising. When you have actors like Rupert Everett and Colin Firth recommending that actors never publicize their sexual orientation for fear of NEVER getting work again (since Everett came out, where’d he go?)you know that, as accepting as a lot of people are, the people in power…ain’t.
Gay rights is the last frontier in the Civil Rights movement, and it’s an equally, if not harder, fight to win as gayness has MANY colors, all unacceptable to many average North American men AND women. You could take the most racist two friends who bond together their whole lives over how much they hate non-whites, make one of them gay, and the other will most likely kill his very best friend.
Homophobia is still going strong and advertising execs know that. It’s as simple as that…
Posted by Fatbologna on February 6th, 2010Honestly though, if your a male watching any of these two movies without your girlfriend, chances are your gay. So they should pump that up in the marketing. ” from universal pictures, the gayest film you ll see all year”
Posted by Drewsifer on February 6th, 2010There’s definitely something to be said for honest marketing. It’s true that any dude going to see these films is probably at the very least open minded about homosexuality. I’d be interested to know how many people were actually “tricked” into seeing either film without understanding what they’re getting into.
Posted by Fatbologna on February 6th, 2010it happens because theres a perception of conservative america that is simultaneously accurate but also insulting and presumptuous. at the same time theres a presumption that the coastal liberal markets are fine with anything gay when Prop 8 shows there’s plenty of people across all political lines who have a problem.
with all the problems in the world gay rights should be a pretty small curb. if people can’t climb it, its one issue i’m completely willing to write a person off about, i have no use for people like that, even if i were to agree with them about just about everything else.
Posted by Goon on February 6th, 2010Yeah any person who makes a distinction between Gay rights and Human rights is an asshole.
Posted by Henrik on February 6th, 2010mmmmmm asshole…
Posted by KYriakos on February 7th, 2010Seriously though this whole gay thing gave us some awesome videos on utube..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE0H5BKQuw4
You can laugh days and days with the U-stupidity of the world and forget almost all your everyday problems..
Posted by KYriakos on February 7th, 2010It is what it is.
Posted by Drewsifer on February 7th, 2010I friend of mine who use to work at Blockbuster told me about a woman who angrily returned a copy of Happy Feet, claiming that the film had ‘pro-gay undertones’ and that it was part of the ‘gay agenda’ to make her children gay.
Posted by Scott on February 7th, 2010I was enticed to see A Single Man and when i went to watch it I was surprised it was anything to do with a gay relationship. It was so dismissed and unimplied in the trailer. I thought he was having a relationship with Julianna Moore.
Despite that, it is one of the best films I’ve seen in recent months.
Posted by Billy Boyd Cape on February 7th, 2010I think it will be interesting to see how the upcoming Jim Carrey movie (I Love You, Phillip Morris) is marketed to a mainstream audience. I have not to seen any ads for it on TV yet, but if they manage to somehow de-gay the very gay trailer then I think you have to give credit to the marketing company because the title alone sounds pretty gay. As far as movies that were de-gayed go, the best example I can think of is Zack and Miri Make a Porno. I can’t recall seeing any ads featuring the gay couple in that one scene, but I’m glad they didn’t use that because it was the best shit in the movie.
Posted by Frank on February 8th, 2010i completely agree with crews. well stated and well put
Posted by Rick on February 8th, 2010Thanks for this post. I think this is a good topic for discussion!
As for my two cents, I am not sure if the studios “de-gayed” the trailer to raise the chances of getting a more mainstream audience or not, but I am not offended by that choice any more than I am offended by trailers being misleading for other reasons. I don’t like spoilery trailers or misleading trailers in general.
Posted by Less Lee Moore on February 8th, 2010The hyprocisy of Hollywood cramps my behind. They are all for homosexuality as long as it doesn’t negatively impact their bottom line; in other words, they want to sweep it under the rug, hide it in a closet, anything but flaunt it, when it comes down to the money, honey. It’s actually double hyprocrisy – they espouse that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality, but won’t put their money where their mouth is, and they shouted from the rooftops that George Bush misled the American people and kept information from them, but they feel justified in degaying their movie trailers and other marketing vehicles; they purposely mislead the American people and withhold critical information the American people need in order to make informed decisions in their viewing selections. I can see why so many in Hollywood identify themselves as Democrats – it’s a character identity thing.
Posted by ACW on May 7th, 2010The hypocrisy is Hollywood saying one thing and doing another.
Posted by ACW on May 7th, 2010Leave a Reply