Alfred Hitchcock and the Mainstreaming of Gay Characters in the Movies

Among the many reasons to watch an Alfred Hitchcock film is that few other directors of the period featured so many homosexual characters in major roles. Some might well say that Hitchcock should be taken to task since most of his gay characters were also villains, but the flip side of that argument is that those characters also happen to be the most interesting. Consider how much more memorable the Martin Landau character is than the James Mason character in North by Northwest. Landau's character was probably an inspiration for the Smithers character on The Simpsons. Many-including those in the gay community-will say that contemporary depictions of "outed" gay characters in so many movies and TV shows today is proof that homosexuals are finally entering the mainstream. I would counter that today's gays are introduced specifically because of their homosexuality and so represent a step backward. The gay characters in Alfred Hitchcock's movies were not written so as to introduce a multicultural element nor do they exist in order to provide easy access to characterization and jokes. In fact, none of the gay characters in Hitchcock's movies are explicitly presented as homosexual. And that makes all the difference. For you see, they are people first and gay second.

Aside from the obsequious and slightly perverse character that Martin Landau plays in North by Northwest the most obviously gay characters in the Hitchcock canon are Mrs. Danvers in Rebecca, Norman Bates in Psycho and, my favorite Hitchcock character of all time, Bruno in Strangers on a Train. Of course, there are many others and you might even make an argument that such big time characters as Uncle Charlie in Shadow of a Doubt is gay. Yes, it is quite obvious that psychologically Hitchcock was a homophobe of the biggest type; every single one of these characters is not only gay, but psychotic. But, like I said, they are also the most interesting people in their respective movies.

Mrs. Danvers has long been established as a lesbian and it was probably pretty obvious even to most moviegoers when Rebecca came out. Much like the Landau character, Mrs. Danvers is a bit overly committed to her boss, Rebecca. There is certainly much more of a lesbian element in the novel and quite clearly Hitchcock had to take a step back from that in making a movie in 1940, but there is no questioning that Mrs. Danvers' love for Rebecca runs deeper than is openly discussed. It is also quite obvious from Rebecca's slutty qualities that men for her were just toys to play with her pleasure. Never for a moment think that Mrs. Danvers was a Smithers, plunging into the waters of unrequited love.

Norman Bates is a bit tougher to make the argument for according to some people. Those who doubt that Norman Bates is meant to be homosexual point to his habit of peeping in on female showers. But the important thing is what Norman Bates does after he watches the unfortunate Marion Crane get naked. That murderous impulse to drive a knife into her sweet white flesh over and over again is not the psychological reaction that a heterosexual person would have. If Norman Bates were a heterosexual in that situation, you can bet that Marion Crane's body would not have disappeared without some of his semen inside her. But there was no sexual assault; it was all venomous self-hatred that Norman Bates expressed in that motel bathroom.

As famous as Norman Bates is and as popular as Norman Bates is, I contend that he is far from the greatest character-much less the greatest gay character-to appear in an Alfred Hitchcock film. That honor simply has to go to Bruno in Strangers on a Train, played to the hilt by Robert Walker in what is far and away his greatest performance. Strangers on a Train is Robert Walker's show; Farley Granger is certainly good in his own way as the typical Hitchcock character who finds himself trapped in a web of deceit not of his own making, but there is no questioning that without Walker's titanic performance-the fact he didn't nab an Oscar is one of the all-time great Academy Awards crimes-Strangers on a Train would be one terrific little thriller, but nowhere near the masterwork it is.

You know the story. If you haven't seen Strangers on a Train, then you've seen it in Throw Momma from the Train or one of its other dozens of incarnations. Two strangers meet and discuss the perfect murder. One puts forth the idea that the perfect scenario for a murder would be two people with no connections to each other agreeing to off the object of the other's misery. The result would appear to be the bane of the police: a murder without motive. Robert Walker plays a wealthy gadabout with terrific shoes who meets tennis star Farley Granger on a train. The discussion is theoretical for Granger who just want to get rid of Walker. But Walker's Bruno leaves the train assuming the agreement is set. And therein lies the rub of this well-plotted tale of suspense.

There is, as usual, nothing overt to suggest that Bruno is a homosexual. If made today, the filmmakers would go to great pains to show Bruno's lustful hunger for the Granger character. That is the difference between movies made today and long ago. Despite all the alleged sophistication of today's movies where anything goes and there is no censorship, the fact is that when limitations were imposed filmmakers were forced to be more creative. How much more artful it is that audiences aren't hit over the head with Bruno's sexuality. It accomplishes two things: The first is that Bruno's gay qualities are not the driving force behind his personality. The second is that audiences are forced to work and think. Subtlety is a lost art in the cinema today. With everything spelled out, audiences today are actually far more confused by difficult films than they used to be. Witness the almost universal criticism of Syriana, a movie that can hardly be described as difficult-in comparison to a movie made by Godard or Bunuel, for instance-but does possess just enough subtlety that people actually had to connect the dots themselves.

Film representations of homosexuals have no doubt become more plentiful as well as more explicit in recent decades. But I do wonder if that's a good thing. The ability to portray gay sex scenes and the gay culture so unambiguously hasn't really resulted in making homosexuality more mainstream and accepted. How many people would studiously avoid Strangers on a Train if they knew going in that there was an explicit homosexual sex scene? Now, consider how many people over the decades have watched Strangers on a Train, or Rebecca, or Psycho without even realizing they were watching movies with major characters who are gay? That's what I call mainstream.