Why was there a time where transgender people were murderers in movies?
- Thread starter fireflame
- Start date
You’re starting from a standpoint of legitimizing the distinction, which transphobia does not always do. Negative portrayals of crossdressers in media directly contribute to transphobia.
Non-gender conforming people can be trans, even if they don’t want reassignment surgery.
Creating an OP with a potentially inflammatory premise and supporting it with 2 half-baked examples does not earn someone the automatic acceptance of that premise.
There's no need for dumbass accusations.
It's explained in the book and somewhat in the movie.
http://hannibal.wikia.com/wiki/Jame_Gumb
If you want to disagree with that, it's the author's fault.
Before I bounce, just thought I'd point this out:
Crossdresser =/=Transgender
Since you seem like you'll be arguing with a lot of people in this thread, I just thought you should be more informed on the subject.
It doesn’t matter. Clarice also utters the ridiculous line “There is no correlation between transsexualism and violence. Transsexuals are very passive”, where she’s rewarded with a “Clever girl” from Hannibal, as if that’s evidence that Bill isn’t transgender. This nonsense pop psychology is less important than the substance of what comes next in the film.
As I said, the movie depicts Bill’s dressing up as inherently perverse or frightening. Hannibal’s dialogue is one facet of the film but the camera and direction is another. The very act of putting on women’s clothing is shown to be creepy, frightening. Why? Bill’s not killing anyone, all Bill’s doing is putting on a dress and dancing and yet the film’s clearly positioning this as a disturbing thing.
Also she killed the first guy because She wasn't honest about herself and he was going to leave. Adding to the fact that She had a fixation on him because he beat her out of a place on the football team when they were younger makes the whole thing super complex. She is a villian But not because she is a transexual, She wasn't mentally all there to begin with and had a fixation on a person that ended in that persons death.
I'm not familiar with this movie but just because a character isn't literally transgender doesn't mean it's irrelevant imo, it's still reflective of gender identity as a mental illness and re-enforcing public perception of gender identity and anything non-binary or not-cis as disgusting, something to be feared, etc. This isn't to say that these subjects must be taboo and never used, but I think it thoroughly qualifies as a trope and trying to splice hairs about individual movies isn't really productive.
Norman Bates is totally transphobic representation. Doesn't mean Psycho isn't a classic or culturally important, but I think it's important that people see why these kinds of depictions are damaging and hurtful to transpeople.
Um... it's creepy because he's making a dress out of women's skins.
It’s only “potentially inflammatory” in a community where acknowleging discrimination on a basic level sets people off.
Bill is trying to be someone else. That's the point. The skin-wear is to nail that home.
Yeah there’s a shit ton thats wrong with that quote. Don’t say he’s “not transgender” then because that’s a lie and probably wrong.
Wrong.
You don't get to make a thread with a "what's the deal with this fucked up time in movie history" without spending more than 7 seconds bothering to substantiate your claim.
Anyway that's not really the point. Sure the OP could have been better, but the bullshit is you going off accusing people of having an agenda at the drop of a hat.
Maybe I should have said "he wasn't actually transgender according to the diagnosis by doctors at Johns Hopkins".
As are you. I don’t mean to equate cross dressing with being trans, but the distinction in this thread is primarily being used by posters who want to dismiss the premise that trans representation in media is problematic.
I have actually never heard of this. But I must admit I don't watch that many 80's movies besides Indiana Jones and Back to The Future.
That's not really the point. The idea behind all of this is just that transgender representation in media is typically really negative, and a lot of this has been appropriated into serial killers taking on transgender traits or being transgender themselves. The fact that they have other issues tied into it is part of what makes it a negative portrayal, because it goes with the idea that trans people are crazier.
What's the purpose of these shots?
Looking at the film more critically beyond just taking literally the narrative that these cisgender filmmakers presented about a topic they're not experts in, it's obvious that they're employing techniques to other Bill as much as possible. The reaction they want out of the audience member during this sequence is "Ew! That's just WRONG!". Nevermind the fact that he wants to make clothing out of skin, that's not what's going on during this scene. They're not showing him making clothing out of skin. They're spending time showing him put on makeup and dancing, and to the casual filmgoer who doesn't know anything about anything regarding transgender people in 1991, transphobia is only going to be reinforced regardless of what Hannibal's professional diagnosis is.
Um, yes you do. There is no steadfast rule about how much evidence you need in order to start a discussion. Stop trying to pretend that all of the people reacting to this with disbelief are just innocently curious about being educated.
Are you upset because you were going to post something similar to the post I responded to and you felt targeted?
It is Bill being someone who he is not. He has a personaility disorder, he's not transgender. He wears their skin and clothes to be them, not to be who he truly is. He is a chameleon in a sense. The optics aren't there, but that's more of a misunderstanding on the audience instead of the movie.What are the purpose of these shots?
Looking at the film more critically beyond just taking literally the narrative that these cisgender filmmakers presented about a topic they're not experts in, it's obvious that they're employing techniques to other Bill as much as possible. The reaction they want out of the audience member during this sequence is "Ew! That's just WRONG!". Nevermind the fact that he wants to make clothing out of skin, that's not what's going on during this scene. They're not showing him making clothing out of skin. They're spending time showing him put on makeup and dancing, and to the casual filmgoer who doesn't know anything about anything regarding transgender people in 1991, transphobia is only going to be reinforced regardless of what Hannibal's professional diagnosis is.
Same reason gay people all used to be psychotic killers, and blacks and hispanics were all gang-bangers, because they were other.
If you would ask a normal transphobic person in 1991 what they think about trans people, what do you think would be the odds of "being someone who he is not, he has a personality disorder" appearing as the answer?
Then don't be surprised when people ask questions. That's all.
Right when you stop trying to pretend that anyone questioning something when presented with poor supporting evidence is automatically trying to shit on an entire community.
Deal?
This "are they or are they not transgender" argument is pointless. Is the movie trying to invoke discomfort or disgust towards the idea of people representing themselves as something other than the sex they were born as? Then it's transphobic.
I'm not so sure. Einhirn was a hiker who dissappeared, and the murderer took her identity to enact their revenge plan. You can definitely say there's at least gay panic with Ace's reaction to kissing Einhirn, but I think you'd have to ask the character if they're trans or not.
What do you mean it doesn't matter? Its absolutely contextual. You are isolating one scene to fit your narrative. Buffalo Bill is a monster because he is cuts up women and wants to wear them as a suit. Not because he dresses up as a women. Besides, silence of the lambs (book and movie) are deep works of art with boat loads of deep issues going on. You have to look at the entire body of work to get a sense of what is going on instead of reducing it down to a few shots.
No. When someone says “trans people are discriminated against”, the burden of proof should not fall exclusively on the person claiming such, because it shouldn’t be a controversial statement. More importantly, the lack of immediately apparent evidence should not lead to outward disbelief as a starting point.
If you can’t see why this is harmful, you are likely part of the problem.
The kicker's name was Finkle. From wikipedia (note that the movie does not make the distinction about gender, only that Einhorn was really Finkle): "Finkle used the fact that the actual Einhorn was missing and presumed dead (but with no body found), and took on her identity, had surgery to change his gender, and began a career with the Miami Police Department to eventually get revenge on Marino and the Dolphins."
Don't we already know at that point what he does? Dude could be cooking an egg and it would come off creepy.What's the purpose of these shots?
Looking at the film more critically beyond just taking literally the narrative that these cisgender filmmakers presented about a topic they're not experts in, it's obvious that they're employing techniques to other Bill as much as possible. The reaction they want out of the audience member during this sequence is "Ew! That's just WRONG!". Nevermind the fact that he wants to make clothing out of skin, that's not what's going on during this scene. They're not showing him making clothing out of skin. They're spending time showing him put on makeup and dancing, and to the casual filmgoer who doesn't know anything about anything regarding transgender people in 1991, transphobia is only going to be reinforced regardless of what Hannibal's professional diagnosis is.
As discussed already, maybe it was seldom to have an actual "true" transgender character as the villain.
Still, using "dresses as woman" still felt like shorthand to indicate that someone was crazy or not "right" in the head.
I feel like even The Simpsons dipped into this well. I can't remember the episode, but I watched an older episode recently where they were talking about a mentally disturbed old friend or relative. Someone asked what happened to him and the answer was basically "oh, he's a woman now."
Still, using "dresses as woman" still felt like shorthand to indicate that someone was crazy or not "right" in the head.
I feel like even The Simpsons dipped into this well. I can't remember the episode, but I watched an older episode recently where they were talking about a mentally disturbed old friend or relative. Someone asked what happened to him and the answer was basically "oh, he's a woman now."
Should be noted that the movie is VERY obvious that she didn't had genital surgery. She had lots of surgeries and hormones (or something like that, probably more surgeries since every "movie sex change" happens from day to night =P) to the point she had the body of the hot girl from blade runner
As a huge SoL fan I'm sorta baffled by the "it's not clear that Jame Gumb isn't transgender." It's explicitly said in the movie, implied at other points, and made even more explicit in the book.
If it wasn't clear to you when you watched it it's more likely because you were too young and/or not paying attention.
If it wasn't clear to you when you watched it it's more likely because you were too young and/or not paying attention.
What I got out of Silence Of The Lambs was Buffalo Bill wanted to be a women so badly he was creating a "new skin" for himself out of women.
I never thought to myself it's fucked up he wants to be a women.
I thought to myself it is fucked up he is willing to kill women in order to make a new identity for himself.
I no doubt get what you are saying OP, why does it have to be a transgender person to begin with, but I personally think it just made for an interesting twist on things.
Basically I never thought it was wrong he wanted to be a women. Just that it was wrong he was willing to cut them up.
I would even go as far as saying I actually viewed it as commentary about the entire situation itself.
I never thought to myself it's fucked up he wants to be a women.
I thought to myself it is fucked up he is willing to kill women in order to make a new identity for himself.
I no doubt get what you are saying OP, why does it have to be a transgender person to begin with, but I personally think it just made for an interesting twist on things.
Basically I never thought it was wrong he wanted to be a women. Just that it was wrong he was willing to cut them up.
I would even go as far as saying I actually viewed it as commentary about the entire situation itself.
oh right, i confused finkle and einhorn. maybe i should watch the movie again. or maybe not.
There's probably like millions of movies made in the history of mankind. Why can't a few have transgender murderers.
"The celluloid closet" is pretty good documentary about LGBT in cinema from the beginning of its inception (cinema, that is), up to, about, I'd say, somewhere around 2001-2002 (with, if I remember correctly, a slightly more hopeful bent on what was to come, than what actually came about).
I'm assuming that the OP is revisiting older media, and is now picking up on something that once was normalized, and only now, when some time has elapsed - and through the work of millions of individual contributors of all walks of life - we now find culture to be in an altogether different "head space".
It's an interesting topic, and not something that should be buried because the OP's topic-message didn't pass everyone's muster.
The celluloid closet is a really good starting point for anyone who is curious about this topic as it is explored through (western, and mostly american) cinema.
"this film is not yet rated" is another, more recent documentary, that has a much more narrow focus, and deals specifically about the internal logic of rating US movies, which can't help but comment - directly or indirectly - on LGBT stuff. It's no celluloid closet, and it's a little unfocused in tone, but well worth a watch if you have the interest, time and a glass of wine nearby.
Both movies should be fairly easy to get access to. The Celluloid closet has been on youtube and vimeo from time to time, and have stayed there for long enough that it probably wasn't a case of piracy. I don't have a Netflix account - and its content depends on regions - but I vaguely remember both being widely available on Netflix (at least at some point).
If nothing else, flick a dollar to a trusted source and watch it, and "this film is nor yet rated" has a second-tier consideration.
And then watch "Paris is Burning" (again), because.
Cheers; love.
I'm assuming that the OP is revisiting older media, and is now picking up on something that once was normalized, and only now, when some time has elapsed - and through the work of millions of individual contributors of all walks of life - we now find culture to be in an altogether different "head space".
It's an interesting topic, and not something that should be buried because the OP's topic-message didn't pass everyone's muster.
The celluloid closet is a really good starting point for anyone who is curious about this topic as it is explored through (western, and mostly american) cinema.
"this film is not yet rated" is another, more recent documentary, that has a much more narrow focus, and deals specifically about the internal logic of rating US movies, which can't help but comment - directly or indirectly - on LGBT stuff. It's no celluloid closet, and it's a little unfocused in tone, but well worth a watch if you have the interest, time and a glass of wine nearby.
Both movies should be fairly easy to get access to. The Celluloid closet has been on youtube and vimeo from time to time, and have stayed there for long enough that it probably wasn't a case of piracy. I don't have a Netflix account - and its content depends on regions - but I vaguely remember both being widely available on Netflix (at least at some point).
If nothing else, flick a dollar to a trusted source and watch it, and "this film is nor yet rated" has a second-tier consideration.
And then watch "Paris is Burning" (again), because.
Cheers; love.
Last edited:
I'm not so sure people are disagreeing that trans individuals are discriminated against (or that representation in media is either sorely lacking, or is done very poorly), but rather questioning the specific discussion which the original poster raised (that there was a period of time in the 80s when trans individuals were often portrayed as serial killers). Asking for evidence that there was a period of time when trans individuals were portrayed specifically as serial killers (or questioning the evidence the OP provided that there was a period of time when this was often the case) is not the same as asking for evidence that trans individuals are poorly represented in media.
Personally, while I don't know of many movies from that time period in which a character is portrayed explicitly as trans (rather than say a cross-dresser or drag queen) and is a killer (I would probably include 'Sleepaway Camp' which I know features similar elements but I've not actually seen the movie), I think there are quite a few movies from that time period where cross-dressing of any form is portrayed as perverse, creepy, horrifying, or used for humorous effect (at the expense of the character) and is rooted from a transphobia which was present at the time (and still is in many areas of society). I'm not sure of the origin of the trope of trans/cross-dressing killers explicitly, but I would make a rather naive guess that inspiration was drawn from Psycho (and Ed Gein) combined with transphobia of the time. Another facet that's relevant is even if characters who are murderers are highlighted in the plot as not explicitly being trans individuals, this is largely irrelevant if the public perception of the character is as a trans individual.
I would second the recommendation of the Celluloid Closet.
There's also Glenn/Glenda from Seed of Chucky
But it wasn't so much that Glenn was trans so much as Glenn had two personalities and one was a woman named Glenda, and that one is the one that inherited Chuck and Tiffany's homicidal tendencies. When they transfer their souls into human bodies, Glenn and Glenda get separate bodies because Jennifer Tilly had twins (also Jennifer Tilly exists as herself in this series despite playing another character, and that other character possessed Jennifer Tilly. So now Jennifer Tilly is playing Tiffany playing Jennifer Tilly). Granted the split personalities thing was brought on by the fact that Glenn/Glenda is genderless, being a doll, and Chucky wanted a son while Tiffany wanted a daughter.
Then there's Ray Finkle from Ace Ventura: Pet Detective but it's assumed that he only did it as part of his elaborate revenge plot on the Dolphins.
But it wasn't so much that Glenn was trans so much as Glenn had two personalities and one was a woman named Glenda, and that one is the one that inherited Chuck and Tiffany's homicidal tendencies. When they transfer their souls into human bodies, Glenn and Glenda get separate bodies because Jennifer Tilly had twins (also Jennifer Tilly exists as herself in this series despite playing another character, and that other character possessed Jennifer Tilly. So now Jennifer Tilly is playing Tiffany playing Jennifer Tilly). Granted the split personalities thing was brought on by the fact that Glenn/Glenda is genderless, being a doll, and Chucky wanted a son while Tiffany wanted a daughter.
Then there's Ray Finkle from Ace Ventura: Pet Detective but it's assumed that he only did it as part of his elaborate revenge plot on the Dolphins.
I never saw Bates as trans or even in relation to being trans. I think the character came closer in to falling under being Two-Spirited and as a result the representation of Bates causes a lot of poor understandings of what it is to be two-spirited.
Sleepaway camp doesn't count as it was not the kids choice, the aunt made him dress and act like a girl. At least to my recollection.
Edit. I see it was already clarified
OP
OP
I am not saying to censor the idea or forbid them, but wondering if the choices to feature them was driven by a genuine artistic idea, looking or an unexpected plot point,etc or of the choices to have transgender murdererers was driven by prejudices or being misled by generalperception ,etc., or even fascination(something that generates a mix of interest and fear).
I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest that these posts were motivated by a genuine desire to learn about something. There is a palpable resistance to the mere premise despite none of these posters indicating that they have ever really given the premise much thought. That is a problem:
Being Two-Spirited is a specifically Native American thing. Do you mean nonbinary? And can you explain how you don't see that related to trans people, especially back then?
This is completely disingenuous. I was motivated, but then I came in and saw that OP really didn't have a compelling argument and as more posts came in, even with other people's contributions, there still wasn't much proof to support the premise. The burden is on the OP to provide examples that show off a trend or what could be considered a "trope" or "archetype" and they didn't really succeed in that
I'm not doubting it exists, although I'd call it a stereotype more than a trope at this point. Because if the only evidence presented is what we see in the OP, the argument is weak. For film/media. Real life on the other hand...of course it's a stereotype. A lot of people believe transgender people are mentally ill, and that leads to all types of ugly and wrong stereotypes including "they're violent/dangerous/predators."
There are cases of cross dressing serial killers...but using Ed Gein to paint all trans people is terrible and it definitely happens.