The Queer-Coded Villain Trope, Explained | Tragic Queer Cinema EPISODE 2

MM-Film-A-Troubling-History-of-The-Queer-Coded-Villain_Z3D0T2

Welcome to MsMojo, and today were shining light on Hollywoods grim history of queer-coding villains. From Hays code era scoundrels to Disneys gender bending baddies, audiences have long been bombarded with the message that queerness is equated with, or even a cause for villainy. These evil characters sexualities are never outright confirmed, but the subtext crafted by filmmakers implies that theres something off about them. So why this obsession with devilish wrongdoers who seem to defy heteronormativity? Heres everything you need to know about queer-coded villains on-screen, and the disturbing reasons why were meant to be afraid of them.

Classic Hollywood

The 1900s were not kind to queer people, who had to fight for their rights and equal treatment. And so, society's historic prejudice against same-sex attraction cropped up in filmmaking time and time again. Adopted in the 30s, the Hays code established guidelines for what could and could not be shown on-screen. Of course, this meant that any depiction of gayness, or as the code called it: sex perversion, was strictly forbidden. In order to get past censors, directors had to be incredibly careful about how they profiled queer characters. Hence, the term queer-coding. When these characters did appear in film, they were often morally bankrupt bad guys who had to be punished for their sins by the end of the storyanother requirement of the code. In a sense, filmmakers were condemning these antagonists for everything they stood for, their subtle queeneress wrapped up in all the terrible things wrong with them.

In 1941s The Maltese Falcon, we are first made aware of the villains presence via a pungent perfume. In the novel the noir is based on, criminal Joel Cairo is outwardly referred to as a queer fairy. However, in the film, this characterization had to be hidden in his eccentricities. Actor Peter Lorre played Joel with effeminate mannerisms, constantly gnawing at his phallic cane. Just a year prior, Hitchcock's Rebecca released with not one, but two queer-coded villains. The iconic Mrs. Danvers is fueled by a complex for the late aristocrat she once waited on. Dandy secondary antagonist, Jack Favell, is presented as hyper, manipulative, and afflicted with incestous cravings. Given homosexuality was once considered a perversion, its no coincidence that hes written to participate in deviant desires. Hitchcock clearly had a penchant for the queer-coded villain, because he based the antagonists of his 1948 film Rope on lovers/killers Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. In the actual 1924 trial, the two men were described by prosecutors as cowardly perverts, whose sexualities actually spurred their vile actions. By todays standards, this idea that same-sex attraction engenders violent crime is obviously ludicrous. And of course, Rope is in many ways a product of its time. But this highlights precisely how dangerous real world stereotypes bleed into film, and reaffirm negative beliefs about queer people.

Plenty of female queer-coded villains have received similar historic treatments as well. Like with most vampire flicks, the hedonistic subtext is palpable in the 1936 film Draculas Daughter. The female gaze is weaponized here, as reluctant monster Marya undresses and feasts upon women in her Chelsea apartment. Plenty of dialogue points to Maryas wish to escape this lifestyle and live a normal life. Caged, a 1950 noir set in a female prison, depicts the ways in which women behind bars must lean on one other in more ways than one. Filmmakers hardly hid the fact that big bad Elvira is a lesbian. In the end, protagonist Marie abandons her morals and her femininity to join the ranks of Elviras gang. In both Draculas Daughter and Caged the femme fatale is older, and her maternal seduction is decidedly poisonous. These wicked women are shown to lead younger girls astray, which was a common fear about lesbians at the time. Theres also a masculine edge to their composition, as if theyre filling in for an enigmatic man who commands and exploits attention from women. This trick of toying with gender roles and expression is commonly used when Hollywood queer-codes villains. And its even occurred in some incredibly unexpected places.

Disney Films

Children's programming has regularly followed this formula, most notably Walt Disney Studios! Though many of the films were about to discuss were created well after the Hays code was abandoned in 1968, the seeds continued to germinate through decades of repetitive tropes in filmmaking. Quick disclaimer! Were not here to argue that the Disney villains were specifically designed to be queer, or to signal to kids that being queer is terribly wicked. Suffice to say, the stain of Hays-era crooks seeped into the behaviors, quirks, and dark desires audiences came to expect from antagonists. So when put into context, a compelling case can be made. Disney villains are treated like outcasts. Theyve been relegated to the sidelines by a society that doesnt wish to participate in their fancies. Sound familiar? Avid Disney fans have long pointed out the ways in which they encapsulate elements of the queer experience. And their treacherous schemes are supplemented with designs that present them in a peculiar light, subconsciously echoing their earlier counterparts.

Many of the queer-coded male Disney villains are fitted with feminine features; take Ratcliffes magenta wardrobe and hairbows for instance. The men often have dark shadows around their eyes too, which resembles makeup. Looking at you Jafar! King John, the sissy lion in Robin Hood, has mommy issues and routinely sucks on his thumb. King Candy of Wreck-It-Ralph lives in a pink princess castle he stole from a little girl. On the other hand, queer-coded female villains are turned into masculine tyrants. Their hair is short, they take up space, and their voices are deep. Cruella de Vil (whos based on a queer actress) can be read as a cautionary tale for the rotten result of a woman exchanging marriage and motherly duties for self serving whimsies. Meanwhile, the sharp-jawed Evil Queen spends most of the film obsessing over her stepdaughter's beauty.

One of the clearest examples of a queer-coded Disney Villain is The Lion Kings Scar. Hes meek compared to Mufasa, and has been overlooked by a natural order that values hyper-masculinity. His effeminate features are not unlike drag costuming, and Jeremy Irons delivers a deliciously campy performance. Scars tempered, calculated approach to usurping the throne hearkens back to the mincing queer-coded villains before him. So while theres obviously no canon where Scar is secretly pining after other male lions, his construction is still blatantly on the nose when contrasted with Hollywood queer-coding that demonizes perceived homosexual traits. Ursula is an over-the-top example too, especially given she isnt just inspired by the loose idea of a queer person; rather explicitly drawing from drag artist Divine. The Little Mermaid is steeped in queer history, and Ursula is no exception. She speaks to the importance of body language, delivering a powerful ballad to celebrate her conniving trickery. In modern terms, Ursula boots the house down. When it comes to Beauty and the Beast, its worth mentioning how baddie underling Le Fou crushes hard on his superior, Gaston. In the live-action remake, audiences were promised explicit confirmation regarding his formerly hushed sexuality. What we got instead was about three seconds of him dancing with another man. So while Disney tends to play it safe when it comes to true queer representation, one can always look to the villains for all of their codified, norm-shattering sinfulness.

Slashers

No conversation on queer-coded villains is complete without discussing the most egregious offender out there: the crossdressing killer. Most prominent in smutty horror films of the 80s and 90s, this character type actually has roots in iconic 1960 slasher Psycho. Unsurprisingly directed by Alfred Hitchcock, the story follows madman Norman Bates, who gets his kicks by dressing as his mother while he commits a string of murders. The success of this film spawned decades of menacing sociopaths on-screen who don womens clothing to signal to audiences that theres something deeply unwell within them. Real life serial killer Ed Gein was the inspiration for Bates, and a number of others after. One copycat, Leatherface is portrayed as a practically braindead brute. But he inexplicably starts dressing as a woman in one of the sequels for no other reason than to prey on viewers unease about seeing a man in drag. Another Gein-inspired villain is Buffalo Bill from The Silence of the Lambs. In a famous scene, Bill records himself as he applies makeup and tucks his genitals. The way he plays with gender is presented as a mental impairmenta sign of psychosis. After all, his crimes are depraved beyond what investigators have ever seen before.

A common thread that unites these crossdressing killers is a complicated relationship with their mothers. Whether hypersexualizing her or secretly wanting to be her, this link compounds the twisted nature of their erotically demented minds. It also aims to rationalize the desire to crossdress, inaccurately watering down this queer experience into something born out of paraphilia. These depictions reinforce negative stereotypes that anyone who crossdresses, or may actually be transgender, is crazy. Rather than codifying queerness, its made explicit in Dressed to Kill, where the murderers gender dysphoria is described as multiple personality disorder. This appears again in Split, where James McAvoy plays a psychopath with several personasone of which, Patricia, requires him to wear female clothing. These gross plot points are a dark evolution of the queer-coded villain, where the vaguely misrepresented idea of transgenderism can be the creepy compulsion that makes a killer tick. This is even played as a twist ending, when its revealed that the killer was parading as the opposite sex all along in Sleepaway Camp. Like most slashers of this era, a moral code is slipped into the subtext by filmmakers. Dont do drugs, dont have sex, and dont be gay.

Looking back at the history of queer-coded villains is a tragically bleak exercise. Whats lost by only affording these characters the nuances of queerness is the opportunity to properly flesh out a villainous queer person. On the flipside, whats gained is the subliminal reinforcement of biases against the LGBTQ+ community. At the end of the day, representation is important! And theres no reason why queer people shouldnt be occasionally presented as duplicitous monstersso long as it isnt shrewdly correlated to their sexuality. Cinema subtly informs so much of our worldview, especially about people we may not often come in contact with. So queer characters on-screen should reflect reality; sometimes sweet, sometimes messy, sometimes flawed, and yes, sometimes villainous. But filmmakers need to do this with care. One of the most offensive aspects of the queer-coded villain trope is how it so fundamentally misunderstands human nature. So next time you sit down to watch a movie, look closely at what drives the villain. Can you identify any suspicious queer-coding still at play? Share your thoughts on this complex issue in the comments below.