Talk:History of homosexuality in American film

Intolerance : Love's Struggle Through the Ages (1916)
Two males kiss at the 2:46:56 mark (according to the following link): goo.gl/yD9jjc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.22.238 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
You may want to add Philadelphia (film) and Longtime Companion to the Modern Day Film sections; those made a big impact in mainstream and were the base for the renaissance of the subgenre in the 90's. Diego (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Early 60's films should be included...
As the Hayes code became less of an enforcement tool during the early 60's, films with a homosexual plot/subplot, did test again the boundaries of what was deemed "acceptable" for an American audience. The Children's Hour (1961) was a mainstream film, and included critically acclaimed actors (e.g., Audrey Hepburn, Shirley MacLaine, James Garner) and dealt rather forthrightly with lesbianism once the plot was revealed. The director appears to have purposefully avoided use of direct terminology in order to spare a very conservative 60's audience. This film was a critical success- but was not popular upon release.

This film should be mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosware (talk • contribs) 00:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

My Own Private Idaho (1991)
Not mentioned despite securing two mainstream commercial actors in Keanu Reeves and River Phoenix to play the leads, which saw the film play in mainstream theatres, and a scene in which a sincere declaration of love is made from one lead to the other?

homosexual film is not only in responsbility to describe this kind of a little bit different love story, it is also to show that this is a normal sense, we are just human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.174.48 (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

'Queer'
The repeated use of this term rather than a more neutral one suggests that the author is writing from a particular political stance - nothing wrong with that in itself, but it's not something you'd normally expect in a Wikipedia article. Yet I don't see any warning at the top about lack of neutrality.188.230.248.85 (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Style
The author's personal style is very (too?) evident, for instance in the repeated use, within a few lines, of the term 'clout' (rather than, say, 'influence'). The statement that the situation 'improved', in the sense 'became less homophobic', also implies a particular stance. It's surely possible to make this article sound more neutral, as Wikipedia would normally require. The information provided is fine, but not all readers are necessarily pro-LGBT.188.230.248.85 (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Spartacus
How is there no mention of Spartacus? The homosexuality in it surprisingly clear for a 1960 film, which was rather daring of Kubrick.108.46.112.2 (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Not sure, but the whole page definitely needs to be updated... and if I have some time, I'll surely update it. Historyday01 (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)