fellas, is it gay to murder someone

Most stories that prominently feature LGBTQ+ characters are horror stories. Looking at this, it might be easy to say that the reason that much of the media that centers on LGBTQ+ characters, either canonically or subtextually, is part of the horror/supernatural genre is because that is what fans like. Shows like Hannibal and Killing Eve have a large online presence and a dedicated community of fans, on and offline, but the idea that queer horror exists because that is what LGBTQ+ fans want is not true. Rather, historically, the perceived otherness of queerness has meant that it has been depicted in genres that carried that same “otherness”, such as Gothic horror. Furthermore, as media consumption evolved, the same stereotypes did as well. The same queer coding that was used to further emphasize the “unnatural otherness” in literature continued in films. In horror movies, the queer coding of characters allowed for directors to further heighten the fear of “other” that horror movies prey on.

Queerness has long been used as a method to denote otherness, impurity, and deviance in horror, and centuries later, the same stigmas persist, but despite this, the LGBTQ+ community has begun to reclaim many of the queer villains and stereotypes that were originally used to demonize them.

Through this blog, I hope to unpack not only the harm that the practice of othering queer people has but also how reclaiming these queer villains is an important step in the right direction to a more nuanced and holistic depiction of the queer experience. It is important to acknowledge this harmful relegation because stigmas persist outside of the screen. By continuously painting LGBTQ+ characters as a villain, people start to associate stereotypically queer characteristics (dressing or acting a certain way for example) with stereotypical villainous characteristics (such as being predatory or psychotic). Even if it’s unconscious, there are centuries of media enforcing these untrue ideas, so it is important to not only understand and dismantle these biases but also work towards a more holistic approach to the user experience.

This is not to say that queer characters shouldn’t be allowed in horror, but rather that queer characters should have characterization outside of just being characters. Characters can be queer and evil, but it is important to distinguish the two as different parts of the same person rather than directly related traits. Through this blog, I hope to explore how deeply rooted these stereotypes are (see Dracula), how dangerous these stereotypes can be (see Psycho), and the progress that's being made in both reclaiming these stereotypes and creating better representation (see Jennifer's Body and Hannibal).

Last year, Dracula got yet another retelling in BBC’s revolutionary named new show, Dracula. Many fans were excited to see Dracula brought to life as a gay or bisexual character, mirroring the queer subtext of his namesake novel, but when the show came out, it was notably lacking in LGBT representation. Steven Moffat, the show’s creator, went as far as to say that Dracula is “bi-homicidal, it's not the same thing. He's killing them, not dating them.”

Comments like this reflect a lot of backlashes that proponents of canonically queering Dracula received. Many opponents claimed that having Dracula be canonically queer would inject an “SJW agenda” into a classic, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.

The queerness has always been present in Dracula and, in fact, the entire vampire subculture as a whole. For a long time, the dangerous, secret societies of vampires that met secretly in the cover of the darkness to do “sinful” things represented what society thought of queer people. In most, if not all, of the early vampire literature/media pictured below, the relationship between the vampire and the object of their desires was predatory.

For example, in Carmilla, there is strong subtextual evidence to support that Carmilla is in fact a lesbian. From her choice to only prey on women to her animal form (a large black cat--a representation of female sexuality), Carmilla is shown as a character that exists outside of the confines of the staunchly traditional Victorian sexuality of the time period of the book written in. By writing her as a monster, who eventually gets hunted down, Sheridan Le Fanu--consciously or subconsciously--tied lesbian relationships to predatory behavior. It is important to note that Le Fanu may not even have done this on purpose, but rather when exploring the dangers of embracing female sexuality (a scandalous concept at the time), he simply defaulted to what he saw as the “most other”--lesbian relationships. This reflects another way that authors, especially from centuries ago, used queer coding as a way to further deviance. When writing horror stories, much of the suspense is subtextual--using methods of explicitly stating something and implying others to build tension. Because of this, authors would use subtle queer subtext to further emphasize that there is something that is subtly off about their character because queerness was denoted as something wrong.

Vampires have always reflected the queer community--its trials and tribulations, its successes and stigmas--and it is almost impossible to separate our idea of the modern vampire from that. The fact that queerness has become so intertwined with vampires, who were until very recently exclusively the villains of most stories, is indicative of how deep the demonization of queer people goes. And even today, it persists. For example, when Moffat called Dracula “bi-homicidal”, he is implying that Dracula’s attraction to men and women is predatory.

By allowing characters like Dracula to be unabashedly queer on the screen, writers are allowing the queer community to reclaim a part of their history they were previously denied.

Sources/further reading:

To read an article unpacking BBC's Dracula, read this: https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/a30415965/dracula-bbc-tv-gay-lgbtq-queer-netflix/

To read about a more in-depth history of vampires, try this: https://culturedvultures.com/lgbt-vampire-media/

Whether you know it for its iconic shower stabbing scene or its perhaps even more iconic villain, odds are you know or have heard of Psycho. One of the most iconic horror films, Psycho tells the story of Norman Bates--motel owner by day and murderer by night--as he tries to hunt and kill his guests. One of the core relationships of his film is between Bates and his mother, who we are initially led to believe is alive, but at the end of the film, we find out is actually dead and that Bates is impersonating her by wearing her clothes and initiating her voice. Many scholars credit Hitchcock’s cross-dressing villain in Psycho as the origin of the cross-dressing villain trope. These characters, who rarely actively identify as trans, are often depicted as deviating from the gender binary, and while their supposed “deviance” is not usually the root of their evil, it is an inextricable part of it--enforcing the idea that not conforming to a gender binary is inherently wrong.

Psycho is a perfect example. Norman Bates the epitome of a queer character. As the article '“We Are All In Our Private Traps”: Transphobia in Hitchcock's Psycho”' explains, Norman Bates does not fit into binaries and his gender and sexuality are fluid. Furthermore, he cannot be strictly characterized as a “cut-and-dried ‘gay villains’” or a “heterosexual men in ‘gender crises’” as Hitchcock’s villains often are.

Throughout the story, Norman’s character is a nuanced combination of him and his mother. It is only in the final scene of Psycho when Norman and his mother are imposed on each other to create one person, are we able to see Norman at his queerest when he is able to exist outside of the rigid structure of the binary. But, in this very same scene, Hitchcock uses this to demonize him. Before the camera pans into this image, we see Bates sitting by himself--isolated and imprisoned. This scene represents a typical, neat ending to a horror story: the evil, psychotic villain has locked up alone where he won’t be able to terrorize the general public ever again. By referencing both his queerness and his capacity for violence in the same scene, Hitchock depicts Bates’ queerness as something villainous that must be kept away from normal society.

Rather than existing in binaries, Bates defies them. His defiance immediately others him which lends him to be the villain of the story. The characters don’t understand him and because of that, they fear him. This motif of fearing what you don’t understand reflects the underlying reason that many queer characters are relegated to villain roles and the horror genre

Since the release of Psycho, this trope has resurfaced many times. From Buffalo Bill in The Silence of the Lambs (1991) to Queeny in Corbin Nash (2018), characters who resist conforming to gender continue to perpetuate the idea that those who exist outside of the “normal” are dangerous and it doesn’t stop at movies. Myths that trans people are more likely to be killers are completely false and lack any scientific data to back them yet they continue to be pushed as the truth by anti-trans groups. And people still believe them because most of their mainstream representation has done nothing to disprove this fact. Furthermore, the lack of trans representation in other genres further compounds the myth that not conforming to the gender binary is something horror movie-worthy.

It’s hard to begin to unravel transphobia from many cult classic horror films, but it's important that we do. Much like gay-coded villains have started to gain nuance in their representation (see my post about Hannibal), trans characters deserve to be treated simply as characters. As Logan Ashley, a trans author, puts it, “our transness is an important aspect of ourselves, but it is not the only aspect”.

Sources/further reading:

Bate’s queerness analyzed through film terminology: https://thescatteredpelican.com/2018/04/29/we-are-all-in-our-private-traps-transphobia-in-hitchcocks-psycho/

An expansive guide to transgender horror: https://aninjusticemag.com/a-timeline-of-transgender-horror-90d707b71e2d

How transgender horror affects transgender people in real life:

Jennifer’s Body was a horror film that came out in 2009 and immediately completely flopped due to the complete mismanagement of its advertising by its studio (which you can read about here). But now, almost a decade later, Jennifer’s Body is beginning to get the recognition it deserves as a cult classic.

The movie follows Jennifer as she transforms into a succubus after a failed sacrifice attempt by some boys at her school. Her best friend, Needy, tries to stop her from killing and subsequently eating all the boys at their school while also navigating her relationship with her boyfriend Chip and her rapidly devolving relationship with Jennifer.

While the plot may seem to mirror every other high school slasher film, what really makes Jennifer’s Body stand out is that the main villain was openly attracted to both genders. Even though Jennifer never calls herself bisexual, she does say she “goes both ways” and maintains an intimate relationship with Needy. Their relationship is horribly toxic--plagued with jealousy, manipulation, and murder--but it’s important to note that the movie never blames any of this on their queerness.

Rather their relationship is bad, simply because it is--mirroring the media’s treatment of heterosexual couples. Furthermore, even though Jennifer is a succubus and is openly promiscuous throughout the film, this also isn’t something that is linked to her queerness. She isn’t promiscuous because she’s bisexual, but rather she is promiscuous and bisexual. Furthermore, the movie even highlights this by constantly comparing her to Needy--who is shy and insecure. By doing this, the movie Jennifer plays into a bisexual stereotype that bisexuals tend to be promiscuous and cheat but what makes the movie so great is that they don't demonize her for it. In a different movie, we would possibly see Jennifer's bisexuality simply be another component of her moral corruption and she would most likely be defeated by a heterosexual character who plays by society's rules of relationships. Instead, Jennifer's Body turns this stereotype on its head and allows Jennifer to be evil simply because she is. Furthermore, the movie emphasizes this point when Needy gets bitten by Jennifer, transforming into a succubus, and she also goes on a murdering rampage.

This strategic choice in the movie allows queer people to begin to reclaim a stereotype. For far too long, promiscuity has been tied up in concepts of sexuality (especially bisexuality) and impurity and has thus been prime material for villainizing characters. By depicting villains as queer, creators are demonizing the perceived "impurity" of being queer but Jennifer's Body turns that on its head. Jennifer and Needy are foils--Jennifer being the seductive temptress and needy being the innocent hero--but when push comes to shove, they both commit villainous acts.

Allowing for queer characters to exist outside the realm of their sexuality is important. As the article “Why Bisexual Representation In Jennifer's Body Matters” puts it, ”we need the bad ones just as much as we need the good ones”. By allowing for a more nuanced representation of a queer character, Jennifer’s Body allows the queer community to enjoy horror movies that do not demonize them for their queerness, but rather simply incorporate it into the movie.

Jennifer’s Body was a quintessential horror movie ahead of its time as it explored the dangers of a toxic relationship through the lens of a queer relationship without making it about queerness. Even though it only recently rose to popularity, Jennifer’s Body shows a step in the right direction for the queer community.

Sources/further reading:

If you want to read more, check out the referenced article here:

For those of you unfamiliar with it, Hannibal is the hit NBC TV show that retold Thomas’ Greene’s Hannibal Lecter series (or as some of you many know it, the movie The Silence of the Lambs). It is an expertly crafted story that revolves around Will Graham, a gifted profiler who has his fair share of issues, and Hannibal Lecter, his therapist and occasional cannibal. Together, the two of them solve crime, and also, if you listen to any one of the thousands of fans the show has accrued, fall in love.

In spite of, or maybe even because of, its gory, horror-centered plotline, Hannibal crafts a beautiful love story (romantically or platonically) between Hannibal and Will and is one of the first retellings of the original source material that embraces the queer undertones of the story, and fans have capitalized on this fact.

The relationship between Will and Hannibal, lovingly dubbed “Murder Husbands” or Hannigram by the online community, has led to the creation of thousands of fanfictions and fanart. This is not anything new--fan culture has existed for as long as there has been media--but what really stands out about it is how receptive the show’s creator has been. Bryan Fuller has, since the starting of the show, always been accepting and even supports, fans who ship Will and Hannibal. Furthermore, in interviews, he goes as far as to call the story a “romantic horror story” that tells the story of a “love relationship between two men: one of them is a cannibal, and one of them understands those cannibalistic instincts all too well.” Comparing this to the reception of actors and producers for other shows with very popular, queer-coded ships, this is immense progress. In shows, like Supernatural, the main actors have flat out denied the existence of queer subtext with their characters and shows like Teen Wolf, have exploited it for viewership.

Bryan Fuller himself is openly gay, so in the creation of Hannibal and his subsequent support of fans, Fuller has shown us what it means to reclaim a narrative. The original narrative of the Greene books used Hannibal’s queerness as a way to demonize him, to set him at odds with Will, but Fuller uses it as a way to build Hannibal’s character and his relationship with Will. By separating his queerness from his evilness, Fuller has written a story that has allowed thousands of queer people to reclaim the villainous stereotypes that were used to oppress them.

Sources/Further Reading:

To read more about what Bryan Fuller has said about Hannibal, check out this article: https://filmdaily.co/obsessions/hannibal/hannigram-receipts/