I dropped into the Mediatheque for a laugh last night, and recieved some food for thought. The Mediatheque is a sort of youtube for film buffs, on site at the BFI. You pop into a booth, and a odd selection of cinema is your oyster - from TV and shorts, to PSAs and full movies. Frustratingly, it is almost always the final episode of any series, but whatever.

There was a perhaps unsurprising lack of comedy, with the most interesting item a series of short, 1900s movies about hilarious Jews. Which you would think would really interest me, considering the wealth of offensive material hidden at the back of my wardrobe, but I think something about filmed oppression freaks me out. I found the Black and White Minstrel show deeply disturbing, and had to turn it off, but can't apply the same visceral horror to the various homophobic/racist pamphlets I collect.

So I watched a bit of Carry on Camping, and then the underwhelming Five Go Mad in Dorset (merely stating the facts of what you are parodying in a context when you're meant to laugh isn't any funnier than just presenting what you are parodying). And then found Are You Being Served?, which was just the type of thing I'd hoped for.

Very daft, quite marvellous, I've a crush on Mr Lucas that's some four decades out of date. But I was interesting to read the notes. The BFI uploads new content in "collections" - this was part of their Queer Lives collection, and had been chosen because the Mr Humphries character was controvertial and had been protested.

Is it offensive? I don't find it so, but were I a gay man I may feel differently. Perhaps in the context when that's the only gay representation on screen, but then I feel it is in a way better than nothing. Fun is poked at Mr Humphries effeminacy, but it's never at the expense of him also being a well loved character. The humour is not cruel, and a similar sort of humour is used of Miss Brahm's sexuality. It's a comedy, after all.

Furthermore, I don't think the stereotype is unreasonable: look at Quentin Crisp. Effeminate, bitchy chaps do exist - but then the rules about stereotypes are always a bit tricky to people outside said group. Wikipedia tells me his orientation was never specified, and that gags about Mrs Slocumbe's pussy (cat) also recieved complaints.

Much controversy at the time came from the portrayal of Mr Humphries, the screamingly camp menswear assistant. Certainly at a time when there were so few representations of gay men it was a stereotypical one. However, now it seems much less offensive, partly because Mr Humphries emerges as the only character with any dignity and self-respect. Compared to the self-loathing of his downtrodden colleagues, his cry of 'I'm free' seems apt.
- BFI screenonline.

Was this controversy from homos or homophobos? Similarly, there was pressure from the BBC to drop the character - but what sort of pressure was this? Sympathetic allies, or Green Ink From Slime On The Grot? And wikipedia adds:

Inman reported that four or five members of the group Campaign for Homosexual Equality picketed one of his shows in protest as they believed his persona did not help their cause. Inman said that "they thought I was over exaggerating the gay character. But I don't think I do. In fact there are people far more camp than Mr. Humphries walking around this country. Anyway, I know for a fact that an enormous number of viewers like Mr. Humphries and don't really care whether he's camp or not. So far from doing harm to the homosexual image, I feel I might be doing some good."

I'm with him on this - but people have the right to be offended at what they wish. As the US proved, by viewing him as a gay icon.


If you'd rather get angry at female rights than gay rights today, toddle over to this fabulous Female Characters Flowchart.