When the villains are queerness hiding in plain sight

We can’t talk about what it felt like to watch the villain and recognise something familiar about yourself without talking about how they got to be that way in the first place.

Because the queer-coded villain didn’t emerge from nowhere.

They are the direct product of a specific historical moment, a specific document, and a specific act of creative survival. Understanding that history doesn’t diminish the feeling.

It explains the architecture underneath it.

To get the picture we need to journey back in time, because before the rules, there was freedom.

In the 1920s and early 1930s — the period film historians call Pre-Code Hollywood — American cinema was genuinely, messily open.

Sexually liberated women. Moral ambiguity. Interracial relationships.

And queerness: present, relatively undisguised, not celebrated or centred but visible in a way it would not be again for decades.

Marlene Dietrich in a tuxedo, kissing a woman on the mouth in Morocco (1930). Greta Garbo (who was defined by her mysterious, androgynous screen presence and off-screen bisexual relationships) captivated queer audiences through gender-bending roles, most notably in Queen Christina (1933), where she wore men’s suits, passionately kissed her lady-in-waiting, and subverted traditional gender roles.

Pre-Code Hollywood films gestured toward queer lifestyles without the elaborate machinery of denial that would come later. It wasn’t liberation. But it was presence.

This is the baseline the Hays Code was responding to. That matters. The Code is not a neutral industry standard that emerged from nowhere. It is a backlash document. Freedom existed first, and it frightened people.

Cinema moved from silent film into “talkies” in the late 1920s. Al Jolson’s The Jazz Singer is typically credited as the first feature to integrate sound and dialogue.

The late 1920s also saw the onset of the Great Depression in the US, and, at least as far as entertainment is concerned, many scholars link displays of sexuality and queerness in films (in the late 1920s and early 1930s) to a larger crisis in masculinity.

Economic collapse, the story goes, leads to a broader crisis of identity and gender role.

“In short, men found their gender status, linked to notions of ‘work’ and ‘value’ promulgated by capitalist structures and ideologies, in jeopardy.”
— Film professor David Lugowski in Queering the (New) Deal: Lesbian and Gay Representation and the Depression-Era Cultural Politics of Hollywood’s Production Code

In 1930, trade publisher Martin J. Quigley and Jesuit priest Daniel A. Lord wrote the Motion Picture Production Code.

A set of moral guidelines they wanted the film industry to follow. It was explicitly Catholic in origin and Catholic in values.

When the industry initially resisted, the Catholic Church formed the National Legion of Decency, which began organising boycotts in the urban Catholic strongholds that represented significant box office revenue.

The studios caved.

By 1934, the Code was being actively enforced by Joseph Breen, and Will H. Hays — president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors — had made the studios’ position clear: “The Catholic authorities can have anything they want.”

What they wanted was Hollywood remade in the image of Catholic moral doctrine.

No adultery depicted sympathetically. No interracial relationships. No “sex perversion” — the Code’s term for homosexuality — portrayed in any positive light whatsoever.

Women contained. Deviance punished. The moral order of the universe restored at the end of every film.

This was not an American consensus document. It was a specific religious institution’s values, enforced through economic pressure, applied to the most powerful cultural export in the world.

What the Code actually did to queerness.

Here is what the Hays Code did not do: it did not make queerness disappear.

What it did was force queerness out of any positive or neutral depiction and into the only space the Code’s moral architecture left open — the space already marked as deviant, already outside the sanctioned order, already scheduled for punishment.

The villain.

The Code required that wrongdoing be punished and that the audience never be invited to sympathise with it.

But it couldn’t regulate what made a villain compelling. It couldn’t legislate against flair. It couldn’t forbid theatricality, aesthetic intelligence, a particular quality of presence that made the wrong character the most alive person in the room.

So queerness went there.

Not as strategy — not as some organised act of resistance — but because that was the only available space with enough room in it.

The figure who was already outside the moral order could be excessive in ways the hero never could. They could be ornamented, fluid, expressive, camp. He could take up space differently.

And queer artists, working inside a system that had no positive container for what they were, shaped those characters from the inside.

The Code even reached into animation.

Betty Boop — whose flapper energy had been one of Pre-Code Hollywood’s most joyfully transgressive figures — had her famous outfit replaced with a modest housewife’s uniform once enforcement began. The freewheeling woman was domesticated. The moral order was restored. Even cartoons were not exempt.

But the villain was already beyond domestication. That was the point of them.

The queer hand that shaped the hiding place.

Jafar from Aladdin was animated by Andreas Deja — openly gay — and voiced by Jonathan Freeman, also gay. Deja also animated Scar from The Lion King and Gaston from Beauty and the Beast.

Consider that for a moment. The same gay animator shaping the flamboyant sorcerer, the silken usurper, and the aggressively hypermasculine buffoon villain.

Three different registers of ‘wrongness’, all passing through the same sensibility.

This was not conspiracy. Disney did not sit down and decide to assign its queer animators to its queer-coded villains as a deliberate policy.

What happened is both simpler and more interesting than that: queer artists brought their authentic aesthetic intelligence to the characters they were given.

The villain had room for that intelligence in a way the hero never did. Aladdin is a blank — charming, functional, designed to be a vehicle.

Jafar has presence. He has wit and fury and a particular quality of theatrical self-possession that makes him impossible to look away from.

That aliveness came from somewhere. It came from a queer hand that understood, at some level, what it meant to be the figure who doesn’t fit inside the story’s moral universe.

The characters became magnetic because of it. And the system that employed those artists then used that magnetism — that flair, that excess, that refusal to be small — as the evidence of the villain’s unworthiness.

The very qualities that made him compelling are the qualities the film destroys at the end.

Why the straight audience needed the ending.

This is the part that gets left out of most accounts of queer coding, because most accounts of queer coding are still, at some level, addressed to straight audiences.

They explain the pattern. They document the harm. They stop short of asking why the pattern produced such reliable satisfaction for the audiences watching it.

Here is what I think was happening.

The queer villain’s existence posed a specific threat that had nothing to do with their plot function.

A figure who is theatrical, excessive, aesthetically alive, unapologetically themself — who refuses the moral order’s demand that they be smaller, quieter, more contained — makes something visible that the moral order depends on keeping invisible.

The cage.

Most people living inside a set of social constraints don’t experience those constraints as a cage. They experience them as just… the shape of the world. The way things are. The only reasonable way to live.

The free person doesn’t say a word about the cage. They don’t have to. Their existence is the argument.

Simply by being visibly, unashamedly outside the constraints that everyone else has accepted, they make those constraints suddenly, uncomfortably visible.

But here is what made it uncomfortable for straight audiences in particular: the cage they were sitting in was a sexual one.

The Hays Code didn’t just suppress queerness. It suppressed desire in general — adultery punished, women’s sexuality contained, any arrangement that deviated from sanctioned heterosexual marriage marked as deviance.

The straight audience was also being managed. They had also accepted constraints they weren’t encouraged to name.

The queer villain’s freedom didn’t only imply you could be queer. It implied you could want things you’ve decided not to want. It made the renunciation visible. It raised the question nobody asked out loud: what if you didn’t have to live like this.

The ending answered it: “This is what happens if you don’t. The cage is correct. The person who refused it was destroyed. You were right to stay.”

Contemporary reviewers didn’t have language for this dynamic — the Hays Code era’s critical vocabulary had no framework for naming what queerness was doing in a film it officially wasn’t in.

But audience research from the 1940s and 50s consistently found that villain characters generated the highest emotional engagement, the most vivid recall, the strongest post-screening discussion.

The thing the Hays Code was supposed to neutralise was the thing people couldn’t stop talking about. The reassurance was working – but the fascination underneath it was working harder.

This is why the destruction of the queer-coded villain felt like more than narrative resolution. It was the restoration of the cage’s invisibility.

The threat — not to society, but to the comfortable numbness of a conformity everyone had agreed to stop questioning — neutralised.

The Hays Code required that deviance be punished within the framework provided by Catholic moral doctrine.

Disney’s storytelling machinery delivered the reassurance, globally, in the most beautiful animation a generation had ever seen, with songs they would remember for the rest of their lives.

And the European child watching had no idea she was receiving a 1934 American Catholic backlash document as the universal grammar of how stories work, a handbook for what it means to be queer in the world.

It didn’t arrive labelled as ideology. It arrived as fairy tale.

---

If you want to hear more from me, you can subscribe to my newsletter. Take your pick of freebie you’d like to get when you sign up 👇