Considering the increasingly anti-gay Russian laws that are causing a firestorm of international controversy, it’s little surprise that a planned biopic of famed composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky is planning to whitewash his sexuality. While most people agree that Tchaikovsky was gay – or at least as gay you could be in 19th Century Russia – screenwriter Yuri Arabov is having none of it.

As the New York Times reports, via a Russian interview, Arabov says, “It is far from a fact that Tchaikovsky was a homosexual. Only philistines think this. What philistines believe should not be shown in films.”

This is despite plenty of evidence of Tchaikovsky’s attraction to men, including a biography by his brother, as well as letters by the composer himself where he talks openly about his nature.

Arabov seems to think his biopic will set the record straight on a man who “is marked by rumors and suffers greatly from this.” Even if those ‘rumors’ appear to be the truth.

The writer also offers the slightly odd statement that he would, “Not sign my name to a film that advertises homosexuality. Not because I don’t have a gay friend, but because this is outside the sphere of art.”

However, he doesn’t say why homosexuality is outside art. It may be outside the law though, as most of the recent controversy in Russia has surrounded the introduction of laws that ban the ‘promotion’ of ‘non-traditional relationships’ to people under 18. It is possible that the film, simply titled Tchaikovsky, could be considered to break that law if it said one of Russia’s greatest historical figures was gay.

Indeed, Stephen Fry said just that in a letter to British Prime Minister David Cameron and the International Olympic Committee about the controversy surrounding the upcoming Sochi Olympics, that “Any statement, for example, that Tchaikovsky was gay and that his art and life reflects this sexuality and are an inspiration to other gay artists would be punishable by imprisonment.”

So it seems we’re getting a straight Tchaikovsky in the upcoming 2015 movie, no matter how far from the truth that is. Perhaps now those outside Russia need to make their own biopic of the composer to set the record straight (or rather, gay).

For several years GLAAD has compiled a report on gay characters and storylines on US network television in an attempt to hold the stations to account. However it’s only now they’ve gotten around to doing the same for Hollywood. They’ve released a ‘Studio Responsibility Report’, looking at the releases by the big six studios (20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, Sony Columbia, Universal Pictures, The Walt Disney Studios and Warner Brothers) in 2012.

Of the 101 movies released, just 14 had  characters identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual. Shockingly there were absolutely no transgender characters at all. Of the 14 movies with lesbian, gay or bisexual characters, just four of those could be considered major characters.

The majority of these characters showed up in comedies, with nine out of 23 movie being inclusive. And while the majority of 2012 movies were genre flicks (action, fantasy, sci-fi, horror), only three of them had LGBT characters – and one of those was a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it appearance by a gay news anchor in The Avengers. Perhaps surprisingly, while drama is often considered the preserve of the gay character, only one of the 21 dramas released by Hollywood was inclusive.

GLAAD rated Disney and Fox as failing, while the other studios were adequate. Even that was generous considering how few LGBT major characters there were in 2012 movies, and how mixed even those inclusive movies were to their LGBT character. Almost impressively, Fox managed to include absolutely no gay, bisexual or transgender characters in the films it released at all.

GLLAD also used the report to introduce the ‘Vito Russo Test’, based on the ‘Bechdel Test’, which looks at how films depict women. The new test sets three criteria which GLAAD hopes will become a benchmark by which Hollywood can create more multidimensional LGBT character, rather than just token appearance.

The criteria are:
1. The film contains a character that is identifiably lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender.
2. That character must not be solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity. I.E. they are made up of the same sort of unique character traits commonly used to differentiate straight characters from one another.
3. The LGBT character must be tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect. Meaning they are not there to simply provide colorful commentary, paint urban authenticity, or (perhaps most commonly) set up a punchline. The character should matter.

GLAAD jusged that six 2012 films passed this test. Many would say they took a fairly loose interpretation of their own standard, as GLAAD was critical of even most of the movies it says passed.

The index certainly shows there’s massive room for improvement, with most gay characters either being there purely to provide humour (either through camp or as the butt of jokes), or to be representative (such as being there so a main character can show themselves being modern and tolerant because they don’t mind gay people).

It’s well worth reading through the whole report, as well as taking a look at the infographic below. GLAAD is also hoping people will write to Hollywood to ask them to improve their depiction of LGBT people. On the evidence GLAAD uncovered, mainstream film certainly needs to do a lot better.