Current Issues Portfolio Example

Thursday, 1 October 2015

Is LGBT narrowcasting becoming too wide?

Reality shows about child beauty queens, sitcoms about straight girls living in an apartment and a dog makeover show. These shows might seem the usual for American cable, but it comes at a bit of a surprise that this is the line up for one of the only LGBT specific channels.

These programs are currently on the list of LogoTV, Viacom’s LGBT focused channel, which until recently featured gays and lesbians at the heart of their programming.
The fear is that LogoTV and other LGBT catered for channels could undervalue or ignore its LGBT audiences by pursuing a programming format that attracts more mainstream viewers and advertisers.

An example of the variety of programmes currently on LogoTV's website

LogoTv is one of four LGBT specific channels, within the hundreds that US cable households are provided. It seems the channel is mainly running off the success of RuPaul’s Drag Race, which brought in from its season five premiere 1.3 million viewers, a 33% increase from the last premiere. But one off hits like this might not be enough to sustain such a niche channel.

Having researched into the history of LGBT related channels, many have shut down due to low revenue and financial problems. Q Television Network closed in 2006, Gay Cable Network closed in 2001, GAY.tv closed in 2008 and Pink TV can only financially broadcast two hours of programmes a day.

So networks are having to expand into non-LGBT content to broaden their audiences. The channels that are doing so seem to be doing well with the initiative. OutTV has a sizeable 1.2 million subscribers and LogoTV is broadcast to a staggering 45% of American households that own a TV. Not bad for such small narrowcast channels.

So expanding content is good for the television channels, with even more additional profits being made with partnerships in premium subscription YouTube channels aswell! But whether or not it is good for LGBT audiences is questionable. So I took a survey asking this exact question to a group of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual 20-30 year olds (the target audiences for these channels) on social media.

Out of the twenty that answered (12 Gay men, five lesbians and three bisexuals) only three said that they would expect LGBT channels to show only LGBT content.

However eighteen agreed that they don’t feel they receive enough LGBT specific content.

When asked to comment about what they would want to see on LGBT channels many commented on new dramas, with different and new views on LGBT life. Looking at what's on LogoTV tonight, it doesn’t exactly look promising for new original content.

Tonights not so current line up.

What seemed to be the biggest similarity within this survey was the amount of people that said they agreed that they would not be interested in LGBT specific channels at all because of the idea of the LGBT community once again being singled out.

Just one of the many comments I had within my survey

Lisa Sherman, Logo's exec VP-general manager, said building a slate of shows that are not specifically about gay people isn't a move to attract a wider audience.

"The truth is, we're doing it to grow our gay base," Ms. Sherman said. "We do agree that we will be bringing in more gay viewers as well as their friends and allies, but we've always been about focusing on our core audience. We need to show them programming that speaks to their interests and sensibilities if we're going to stay relevant to them."

In a study Logo conducted with Starcom Mediavest Group, data showed that more than half of gay viewers don't consider showcasing their orientation a priority, and only 30% said they preferred living and socializing inexclusively gay communities. "Keeping gay people ghettoized is an old idea," Ms. Sherman added.

It is clear the mixing of ‘non-LGBT centered’ and ‘LGBT centered’ content is not the problem, instead this seems to be what is keeping companies like LogoTV so popular. However the majority of LGBT content that gay people are actually being shown (for example Golden Girls, Will and Grace and 1 Girl, Five Gays) is out dated and stereotypical and this is what is letting these niche channels down.

Links to all the info provided above and below!

Transgender: And its Pull for TV Audiences

Last week it was announced that Laverne Cox, Orange is the New Black breakout and transgender role model, has been tapped to co-star in CBS’ legal drama Doubt. Cox will star as Cameron Wirth, a role specifically created for a transgender actress. The role marks Cox’s largest part to date following her Emmy nomination in July for her part in Orange is the New Black, becoming the first openly transgender actress to garner such recognition from the TV academy.

Laverne Cox cast in big broadcaster CBS's new drama.

Diversity, transgender in particular, seems to be a major theme in the recent pilot season in the US. After successes such as Empire, How to Get Away With Murder and Transparent. Broadcast networks in particular look to be investing in becoming more representative and court new audiences. With Doubt being suggested as one of the strongest up and coming pilots for next season, with offers to some big names and Greys Anatomy writers on board.

So why does it seem television programmers are using transgender story lines and actors as a device to pull in audiences?

It seems Amazon’s recent highly acclaimed and Golden Globe winning drama series Transparent has a little something to do with it. The show seemed to be a pivotal point on the transgender tipping point. It was a huge and bold risk for Amazon, which had tried and failed to get recognition for its previous original content programs. And Transparent seems to have started a running theme. Similar to gay and lesbian characters who were in the spotlight in the nineties, with shows like Wills and Grace, transgender characters are increasingly in the spotlight today, from Alex Newell and Dot Jones in Glee, Tom Phelan in The Fosters and Tony Sawicki in Orphan Black.

Jeffery Tambour plays Maura Pfefferman, transitioning trans-women and parent

When talking about commissioning Transparent, Amazon comedy supervisor Joe Lewis said it being about a transgender person was a big hook for the show. "It allows you to tell a story that you haven't told before," he says. "I think that makes it more exciting to watch." It seems then that being gay and or lesbian is not quite as new and different as it once was and audiences want to see something different and something they don’t really know that much about. Transgender falls perfectly in these categories.

This is overwhelmingly positive for the trans community after a significant lack of representation for the past few years. With GLAAD concluding portrayals of transgender characters from 2002 to 2012 had a massive 54% containing negative representations, with another 35% being ‘problematic’. But GLAAD’s recently released ‘Trans Images on TV’ report suggested an improvement, with only six of the thirteen episodes with transgender characters classed as containing negative representation. They also had special praise for the portrayal of transgender characters as seen on ABC Family's The Fosters, Fox's Glee and Showtime's House of Lies and praised the casting of transgender actresses Laverne Cox and Erika Ervin in non-trans roles on MTV's Faking It and FX's American Horror Story: Freak Show. But mainly cited the "groundbreaking" material of online streamers such as Amazon's Transparent and Netflix's Orange is the New Black.

Transparent Trailer

But even though the majority of transgender characters and stories at the moment does seem to be from online outlets such as Amazon and less on airing TV networks, there still seems to be a positive rise of trans voices. Good, not only for the trans community but it seems to working for the big television bosses as well. With British television programmers being so enamoured by the trans boom and popularity in America, our very own BBC will be making a new groundbreaking sitcom following a transgender women. Finally we are seeing positive and popular television shows that allow the transgender community to gain a voice in America and Britain!

Actor and stand-up comedian Rebecca Root will star in the BBC series.

To find out more about todays blog following the links above and below!

Whats Behind the Rise of Transgender TV?

Where does LGBT fit on the television schedule?

Much has been debated in the last few weeks of the Cucumber trilogy’s success after viewer figures were released last week. The new Russell T Davies drama’s pilot was watched by 1.2 million viewers, with just over 400,000 tuning in for its E4 spin-off show Banana. The channel four drama starred a reasonably decent cast, Vincent Franklin from The Thick Of It and Twenty Twelve and Julie Hesmondhalgh of Coronation Street fame. Yet this could only bring in a 5.5% share of the total audience at 9pm on Thursday night. Greeted by reviewers as ‘disappointing TV’ and to others ‘terrifically entertaining’, the show was down 34% on Channel four's three-month slot average. However Banana, Cucumber’s sister show, had 408,000, 80% up on E4’s slot average.

So why was Banana more successful than Cucumber for its channel? Well, it comes down to scheduling. Channel Four decided to put Cucumber up against a tough crowd. The all conquering heavy weight Death in Paradise, which brought in 6.5 million viewers, a 29% share of audiences, was the big success of the night. With Bring back Borstal , ITV’s primetime competition, similar to Channel Four also struggling against the heavy weight with just 1.7 million, 6.9% of overall audience.The most watched pay-TV programme of the night went to Ross Kemp's documentary series Extreme World on Sky1, a staggering 2.4% of total viewers, big numbers for a pay for channel. BBC Three also did well on Thursday having its new reality documentary Bangkok Airport pull in 821,000, almost double its three month average.

Looking at Channel Four's viewing figures for this week, the original drama Cucumber sits low at 29 below everyday soap Hollyoaks.

Its seems that for Channel Four, usually keeping the 9pm Thursday slot for reality and documentary programming, placing a new eccentric drama instead has been a step too far for the forward thinking channel. Compare this to E4 with its 10pm Thursday night slot almost always being made for new British dramas appealing to young audiences such as Skins and Hollyoaks Later. And also American import Looking, on at ten thirty on Thursday nights on Sky 1 which is a gay drama hugely similar Cucumber, which is critically acclaimed and bringing in a decent 130,000 a week.

However this wasn't simply bad scheduling, Channel Four are not trying to make a drama to compete against the BBCs but instead they are making programs that are specifically aiming at a niche audience.
This became clear when just last week Channel Four released its very own Diversity Charter, which informed the public it would in the next year have more minority, disabled and LGBT characters and content throughout its plethora of programmes. This comes at a time where Channel Four, having 32% of total television audiences in 1997 now has a measly 12.5%. It seems Channel Four are beginning to set up a new system of scheduling, in which they aim at niche audiences.

This is a rather daring tactic for the already struggling channel, but could really work in Channel Fours favour as it seems to be working for online streaming already. A major category in all online streaming services, (Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, Fandor etc) is LGBT. Here the niche LGBT audience is being directly targeted, something Channel Four are now beginning to use themselves and with good reason.

When I gathered data from a survey of a group of twenty LGBT identified individuals, all twenty agreed that the main reason for them having or wanting a subscriptions to Netflix, Amazon Prime or Hulu Plus was its huge variety of LGBT content. Many stating in the comment section that these sites were the only way to get this kind of content.

Though not the entire audience for online streaming, the LGBT audience does seem to be a part of online streaming platforms success. Netflix alone has fifty million subscribers, if just 5 percent where LGBT, thats two and a half million viewers Channel Four could invest in.

Success or not Cucumber was ground breaking broadcast television. And even if Channel Four may regrets some their daring decisions, this is one they should be proud of. We could argue all day long of the shows representation of gay men, to sex-obsessed narcissists to sad creepy men. Yet Cucumber and its spin off shows are programs that need to be tried and need to fail to be able to give audiences a wide variety of LGBT characters that eventually won't be stereotypes but instead fully rounded characters. So I challenge television programmers to take notice of Channel Four and dare to make these shows, not once every fifteen years like we have had to wait for Cucumber but consistently to reflect what the real world really looks like. Not to mention if channel Four can pull in this huge LGBT online audience, it could help put itself back on the map once more.

For all todays blog's facts and figures:

Independent Films: Investing in LGBT?

The film industry has been given a hard time in the last month over its lack of diversity, with Selma star David Oyelowo criticizing the academy for favoring “subservient” black roles, last years figures being released to show a staggering lack of female leads, and, last but not least, Benedict Cumberbatch’s recent slip up calling black actors “coloured”.

But it seems the British film industry are fighting back with a new initiative to prove its diversity, one that suggests its about time we saw some more lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans voices take centre stage.

The BFI, as of last week, have connected with Flare, the BFI’s London-based LGBT film festival, to create a new mentorship designed to bring more up and coming LGBT film-makers and their stories into the public spotlight. The five successful applicants will be paired with veteran film makers for nine months to study and grow as artists.
"Much has been written about the industry’s failure to recruit and develop female and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) filmmakers, and rightly so," the BFI said in a statement. "But the plight of LGBT film and filmmakers is less visible, and no less pressing."
This comes at a unique time in the British industry with a recent influx of critically and commercially successful LGBT films such as Pride and Imitation Game,of course, but also Hon Khaou's recent BAFTA nomination for Lilting and Andrew Haigh's breakthrough with his UK indie feature Weekend, leading him to now be working on HBO's Looking. So this begs the question are LGBT films good investments for Independent film studios who, at a time of Hollywood dominance, are struggling already?

The trailer for Lilting

Well lets look at the figures. When looking at the seven major Hollywood studios (20th Century Fox, Lionsgate, Paramount Pictures, Sony Columbia, Universal Pictures, The Walt Disney Studios and Warner Brothers) a representation of LGBT characters is rare.

Even though it's rare, when we look at the top grossing LGBT films of all time, hollywood does still have a slight edge, but only a slight edge, having six successes compared to four independent successes.

When looking more currently at the highest grossing LGBT films in the last four years, shockingly none in the top eleven where made by a major Hollywood studio. Four were american productions, two were american joint productions and five were European (UK, France and Spain). It seems therefore recently Hollywood isn't embracing LGBT films as much as other smaller independent studios.

But is investing in LGBT films paying off for these smaller film studios? Well, recently it was announced that The Imitation Game was the top grossing indie feature film of all time. With a domestic box office of over sixty million and a global box office of over one hundred and ten million. A rare occasion you might argue, well not exactly. As a small budget film (under 50k) Weekend by Andrew Haigh is the second top grossing UK film of all time, Pride has already made seven million worldwide, Blue is the Warmest Colour made almost twenty million, five times its budget and independents films like Brokeback Mountain, Monster and Y Tu Mama Tambien made over 130 million altogether. Admittedly it might be nothing in comparison to todays box office, where The SpongeBob Movie has earned 56 million in its opening weekend. However it cost 66 million to make, needing to make 330 million to be as successful as Blue is The Warmest Colour. So for smaller studios with smaller pockets, choosing a niche audience such as LGBT means pulling in an audience clearly not catered for within the major Hollywood studios, and seems to be working well so far.

So although independent films may have to fight the heavy-weight of Hollywood studios day in day out, I would have to say not only is the BFI's new initiative one that will help the LGBT voice get heard more and support and entertain the LGBT community more. But also one that will help the British and Independent film studios, resulting in them making small yet critically and financially successful films.

More more facts and figures follow the links below and above!

The Academy & Marketing To Win An Oscar

Just last week Michelle Obama, first lady, philanthropist, style icon the list goes on and on, spoke to a group of television and screenwriters in Washington, D.C., praising the movie and television industry for celebrating its representations of LGBT life.

“Every day, through the movies and TV shows and ads you all create, you have the power to shape our understanding of the world around us,” said Mrs. Obama. “You challenge our most strongly held beliefs. You influence our opinions on current events, just take an issue like gay rights. It wasn’t all that long ago that this was a third-rail kind of issue, not just in politics, but in entertainment as well. It was considered sensitive, even controversial. But in the early ‘90s, that started to change. Tom Hanks won an Oscar for his portrayal of a gay character in Philadelphia...And today, The Imitation Game is up for Best Picture at the Oscars”

First Lady Michelle Obama speaking at the Got Your 6 event for screenwriters in Washington, D.C

From this quote and further into her speech she hails the academy specifically for its diverse range of LGBT winner and films. So with the Oscars just around the corner once again, it’s interesting to look at how well the academy is doing in relation to its portrayals of LGBT life. With my own research I found that shockingly only one openly gay actor has won an Oscar, Sir John Gielgud for his performance in Arthur, thirty three years ago. With the only gay actress being Jodie foster, which is debatable as no ones entire sure if she is openly out or not. Straight actors playing gay have had better figures, within the past twelve years we have had ten nominations for actors playing gay and lesbian roles (two of which were transsexual with no bisexual or queer nominations at all) disappointedly only four won. In the same twelve years five LGBT themed films have been up for best picture, all of which lost out.

(Check out this graph for more details)

So how do film distributers sell these, rarely academy award successful films. Well The Imitation Game is a perfect example, The Weinstein Co. originally promoted The Imitation Game as a period thriller that paid tribute to Alan Turing, the father of modern computing. But on Jan. 19, appearing on CBS This Morning, Harvey Weinstein introduced a new tactic, arguing that though Turing received a royal pardon in 2013 for his conviction of being homosexual ( a crime at the time), he deserved to be honored by the British government. He added the government also should pardon the thousands of British citizens convicted under laws forbidding homosexuality. Weinstein, even went so far to say he "was willing to give up my own CBE" to make that happen.

Harvey Weinstein appearing on CBS This Morning to discuss The Imitation Game

Two days later at a screening for BAFTA members, Stephen Fry joined in stating how he felt Alan Turing should be pardoned. The following day the Human Rights Campaign also flew its rainbow flag for the film, honouring the film at a gala dinner in New York, taking out full page advertisements in The New York Times and more. The ads stated clearly “Honour this movie. Honour this man. And honour the movement to bring justice to the other 49,000”.
The strategy for the oscars was clear, support gay rights? Well vote The Imitation Game. Agree that these innocent men should be pardoned? Well vote The Imitation Game.

This marketing strategy is not new, attaching a movie to a worthy cause is clear through 12 Years a Slave last years black empowerment epic and the success of Sliver Linings Playbook which purposefully set about promoting the film through mental health legislations and laws.
However, just when it looks like the academy’s making mild improvements to be ‘gay-friendly’, with three years in a row homosexual hosts, the academy is still ignoring gay movies. This year several gay-themed films, were pushed to the back of the votes. Such as Pride, the British drama comedy about gay activists who lent their support to striking mine workers, and The Case Against 8, the documentary about the legal battle to overturn California's ban against same-sex marriage, missing out on the final five in the documentary shortlist. Whereas The Imitation Game, which did get the academy's notice, has been under heavy debate to whether the final result of the film could be sold as a gay film, as it didn’t really show Alan Turing’s sexuality all that much (something I would personally agree with).

So for a perfectly well-made historical drama with an impeccable cast, a shadow of previous winner The King’s Speech, it seems silly that the academy are finding this a hard sell. Or that it must be sold as a film simply not about sexuality or the opposite, a completely whistle blowing homosexual film. Can’t we have a Oscar winner that doesn’t focus on the politics behind the film, a film which doesn’t win for being about the struggles of homosexuality or being about the struggles of racism, but have a winner who wins because it’s simply a good film. That would be true equality.

For more info follow the links

Censorship of LGBT television

Billy Crystal, beloved Hollywood A-lister, made rather controversial and startling comments at the Television Critics Association last Sunday. It seems that for Crystal, an actor who helped break down barriers for gay characters on television decades ago, can still to this day be shocked and quite frankly repulsed by LGBT life on screen.

Billy Crystal at the Television Critics Association.

When asked about his role on the ‘70s sitcom Soap, where he played one of the first gay characters on network TV, he stated, “it was awkward and it was tough” and how the audience would “laugh nervously”. When some of the most watch American dramas of last year (Modern Family, American Horror Story) prominently feature gay characters and when the Oscars where hosted by an out gay women (Ellen DeGeneres) to then be past on this year to out gay man (Neil Patrick Harris), is it important to remember when gay characters affection was met with nervous laughter.

However, Crystal then went on to suggest that perhaps the progress in LGBT content on TV, had gone too far, stating “I’ve seen some stuff recently on TV in different kinds of shows where the language or the explicit sex is really you know, sometimes I get it, and sometimes I just feel like, ‘Ah, that’s too much for me.”

Why does it seem here that Crystal, and I’m sure other audience members, are uncomfortable with the presence of sexual gay scenes? Obviously, plenty has changed in the more than 40 years after Soap but progress is worryingly slow.

So this makes me ask, is censorship to blame for the slow progress?

In America the Federal Communications Commission, which has regulated broadcast television since 1934, has always had unclear guidelines, defining indecency as “patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium and [describing] sexual or excretory activities and organs.” According to the FCC, indecency is not appropriate until later in the evening, between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

But these days — after a series of lawsuits created, by such discrepancies such as M.I.A’s middle finger at the 2012 Super Bowl, the FCC has largely stopped punishing indecency violations: instead punishing obscenity, defined as something being ‘offensively sexual with no redeeming artistic qualities.’

The FCC is not only the reason for restricted content with many television networks now imposing their own ‘indecency’ standards. Similar to the film industry, the National Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters adopted a code of standards in 1952 stating “Such subjects as violence and sex shall be presented without undue emphasis and only as required by plot development or character delineation.”

But both theses codes seem shockingly hypocritical, to say straight characters love lives warrant visible sexual acts on screen whereas homosexual character's sex lives are seen as inappropriate.

All in the family was one of the first programs in the US pushing boundaries with sex and sexuality. But with this came pressure on the FCC, leading to the adoption of the 7 p.m to 9p.m being ‘exclusively family-friendly content’ and indecent content (violence and sex) being shown later. However this meant ABC executives worried they would have to move popular shows to later slots, law suits followed until the family viewing hour was abandoned, just in time for Billy Crystal to debut in Soap. However even these minor gay characters where enough to cause even more lawsuits to drag on through the eighties, resulting in more individual network standards.

In the nineties things weren't much better, Ellen had its main character and its leading actress come out at the same time, leading to warnings having to be put in before the show started, addressing its 'homosexual content' and the show didn't even have any sexual scenes other than a kiss! This is despite the fact that in the nineties America was seeing nudity and straight sex regularly, yet the first male gay kiss wasn't until 2000 in teen drama Dawson's Creek.

Dawson's Creek showing the first male kiss on primetime TV.

So it is clear there are no restrictions specified for homosexuality content under broadcast laws, yet LGBT content has continually been under pressure by conservative audiences, leading a majority of desexualised gay characters. It is clear that today gay sex on screen is no longer the threat it once was. However seeing gay sex on TV is still seen by a few as being more shocking than any form of straight sex and the majority of television programs live up to this notion. If homosexuality is really seen as equal, with marriage equality for example, then why are television makers still treating homosexuals differently? Because in doing so people, like Billy Crystal, are still treating and thinking of homosexuality as different and ultimately a taboo.

Links for todays Blog below!

Hollywood Cinema: What to do with LGBT content?

It’s 2015, a year where gay marriage is legal in 36 states, many where its legal for same sex partners to adopt and where the Olympic Committee, just yesterday, finally added sexual orientation to its non-discrimination policies.

So why then in the beginning of this seemingly progressive and modern year is the film industry noticeably behind the times?

It was shockingly revealed last week Pride, a film based on the true story of Lesbian and Gay activists supporting a group of striking miners in 1984 Britain, had been purposely altered to downplay LGBT themes in it US marketing.

;width:320;wrap:false;" width="320" height="266" style="display:block;margin:5px auto;text-align:center;" class="igm">

Pride which was recently nominated for a golden globe for Best Comedy was released in the U.S. on DVD in December, however as Pink News first noticed, the synopsis on the back of the DVD has been altered from the one on the movie’s official press release changing the original synopsis reading “London-based group of gay and lesbian activists” to simply “London-based activists.” Additionally a banner in the original artwork that read “Lesbians & gays support the miners” has been removed from the image on the U.S. DVD box entirely.

The original artwork for Pride

The back of the U.S. DVD box for Pride

It seems CBS who acquired the U.S distribution rights in July couldn’t seem to figure out how to sell it. They released the movie in limited release in September but try as they might couldn't get audiences to show up. However, you might think after critical success and high praise winning multiple awards at the British Independent Film Awards and recent nominations at the BAFTAs, CBS might have given the film another shot on home video, but it seems they've botched that too.

However, a source from CBS has told the press this was not an intentional move. The DVD distribution were outsourced to Sony Home Entertainment which, it has been claimed, means CBS had no control over or knowledge of the alterations to the DVD boxes, and those at the studio are unclear as to who made the changes.

But here's the thing: unless it was unlikely design communication error, it seems to have been a purpose decision to remove LGBT references.

Ben Robert, director of the BFI Film Fund, noted on the matter "I'm not surprised that the US distributors have taken a decision to sell more copies by watering down the gay content. It's an unfortunate commercial reality both here and in the US that distributors have to deal with and consider in getting films onto the shop shelf. LGBT material is largely marginalised outside of rare hits.”

Matthew Warchus, the director of Pride, also commented on the scandal stating “Marketing Pride has proved an interesting challenge from day one, and there are many people in the mainstream who have yet to see the film. My guess is some of those people are imagining that the film is maybe ‘too political’ for them, and some others are imagining it could possibly be ‘too gay’.”

So if we are living in an era of film globalization, where to maximize profit films are being made with international audiences in mind, how can marketers sell LGBT films to the dominant Hollywood market?

Well it seems the most successful and straight forward way, is to simply not to sell them as LGBT films in the first place…

One of the most talked about films of last year was the critically acclaimed Imitation Game, the film focuses on mathematician Alan Turing, during World War II, trying to crack the enigma code to help end the war. However, so far what is quite rarely spoken about in the reviews and articles of the film, is the fact that Alan Turing was gay and put on trial for it, which was in fact a central plot line towards the end of the film.

;width:320;wrap:false;" width="320" height="266" style="display:block;margin:5px auto;text-align:center;" class="igm">

Here and in many other cases the LGBT themes are dimmed to gain a wider audiences and to fit into ‘mainstream Hollywood cinema’. Sadly it seems to call a film a LGBT film or openly acknowledged LGBT themes will ostracize the film and marginalise it in a separate genre, resulting in it simply not fitting into the bigger global audiences.

But it is clear removing LGBT themes purposely to fit into global mainstream cinema is untoward. Avoiding mentioning gay characters to try and get a bigger audience is to say that mainstream Hollywood audiences do not want to see LGBT characters in films. Which is simply not true.

Looking at the box office list of films, that primarily deal with homosexual themes or where the main characters are gay, the top twenty have all made over 25 million worldwide with the top ten having a combination of 29 oscar nominations and 7 wins. Clearly Hollywood audiences will watch LGBT content.

Highest Grossing Gay/Lesbian Movies at the Box Office

However, it can be positive not explicitly addressing these films as 'gay films'. Here LGBT characters can be portrayed as interesting developed characters without the sole focus being on their sexuality. Matthew Warchus went further in his statement about the controversy over Pride to say "I don’t consider Pride a ‘Gay Film’ or a ‘Straight Film’. I’m not interested in those labels. It is an honest film about compassion, tolerance, and courage."Its clear therefore that by losing these labels, LGBT characters and themes can be allowed to be involved in mainstream Hollywood cinema without it being an issue of solely identifying them and the film through sexuality.

In the end I believe having LGBT characters and content should not be what defines a film. However, LGBT characters and content should be embraced and celebrated in a variety of mainstream Hollywood films without marketers feeling that by doing this they will segregate their films from big Hollywood audiences.

Follow the links above for more info!