I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Expected more

A Masterpiece!

A documentary surveying the various Hollywood screen depictions of homosexuals and the attitudes behind them throughout the history of North American film.Even today (2017) when homosexuality is more or less considered normal, this is an impressive documentary. Some of the scenes covered have long been known to be filled with gay subtext. But many others had never occurred to me, and to hear the stars and writers freely speak about them is quite a treat and changes the way a film is approached.Even more amazing, this film came out in 1995, when homosexuality was still not quite mainstream. Growing up in the 1990s, I never found gay themes strange (thanks to such directors as Gregg Araki) but knew it was not socially acceptable. To find the film is based on a much earlier book, which in turn had started as lectures as far back as 1972... wow!

Before writing this, I briefly scanned the other IMDb reviews, to see how many of them had earned a yes/no reaction from the readers, and how many were left blank. It scored an incredible 44 out of 45, revealing an intense, and perhaps secretive curiosity about the shadows of gay Hollywood.If you're looking for landmarks, there's one from 1895 in an experimental clip by Edison showing two men in a slow, embracing dance. This startling scene, from the very pre-dawn of the movies, carries no explanation, but it confirms how little you and I know about the sheer persistence of the gay theme in the story of film.For most of that time, gay messages had to be made in code, just as they did in real life, 'lavender' and 'artistic' being among the more regular codewords. But inevitably, the government hit back with its own code (the Production Code of 1930), banning any narratives that threatened the sanctity of hearth and home. This, of course, was when the talkies were starting-up, the silent medium having provided its own discreet opportunities for slipping homo-eroticism into the story.For about the next thirty years, you could feature a more-or-less openly gay character, as long as he was seen to be distinctly evil, something to be feared and excoriated, preferably killed-off. Or it might not even be a 'he'. One early example of code-busting was Gloria Holden as a predatory lesbian, only permitted as long as she was cast as Dracula's Daughter! But the codes had to be rather more subtle when the man in question was not the campy one but the masculine hero with the Achilles heel - on which point Spartacus, Ben-Hur and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof come in for well-earned psycho-analysis. According to Ben-Hur scriptwriter Gore Vidal, they never revealed the gay subtext to the assertively normal Charlton Heston, for fear that he would walk out.By now, the industry was heading for another landmark. Just before the 60's became the 60's, the secretly-gay British filmstar Dirk Bogarde risked his career in a film called Victim, about a decent and responsible man confessing all - though he too is made to suffer for his sins. Not till 1970 and The Boys in the Band is the gay scene allowed to appear harmless and wholesome. One critic makes an interesting point about judging other eras: "There was a time when men were free to express tenderness on the screen." Ironically, in supposedly enlightened times, it may be our own generation who have become cynical, always ready to believe the worst.Narration is supposed to be by Lily Tomlin, but so many other commentators join in the debate that she is largely lost. We assume that Secret Love, sung by Doris Day, is supposed to be a lesbian coming-out song, but we aren't told. And there's a great irony in the clip from Pillow Talk, showing Rock Hudson acting a straight man pretending to be gay. News of Hudson's secret gaiety and death from AIDS was surely another landmark in the long, tortured history of the celluloid closet.

"The Celluloid Closet", released in 1995, gives a keen insight into the history of homosexuals depicted in the art of film. This documentary has a great set up of commentators. They are all qualified to be speaking on the subject matter. Names and job descriptions are all given in the documentary. A younger audience can even recognize commentators such as Whoopi Goldberg and Tom Hanks. There is a sneak peek into the political influence on film production. The classic movie "Ben-Hur" released in 1959 and directed by William Wyler, is just one of the examples given for film with underlying homosexual influences. This justifies the use of "Closet" in the title. In many of the films used in the documentary the sexuality of the characters is not directly addressed, but none the less evident after watching "The Celluloid Closet". The documentary follows the changing social views of sexuality and what is acceptable chronologically, all the way from black and white films to colored films. Watching this documentary is sure to enlighten the viewer, and would be helpful to all who would like to have a better understanding of homosexuality in relation to films and film production. While being very informative the documentary is also enjoyable and engaging.

This is an excellent documentary, narrated by Lily Tomlin, on queer subtext and gays in American cinema from the 1930s to the 1990s, loosely based on Vito Russo's groundbreaking book (1981, revised edition 1987) of the same name. In it, a wide range of thoughtfully-chosen film clips is paired with director, producer and actor interviews (such as Gore Vidal, Tom Hanks, Susan Sarandon, Armistead Maupin, Tony Curtis, and Whoopi Goldberg). Beyond containing lots of wonderful behind-the-scenes factoids, major issues to queer filmmaking such as coded language, censorship/ratings, the Hayes Codes, and straight/gay actors playing gay are addressed. The only thing one could wish for is a revised/extended film that would include the important gay films made after 1993 or so.