SCREEN-L Archives

November 1995, Week 1


Options: Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mike Frank <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 3 Nov 1995 12:45:39 -0400
text/plain (29 lines)
a quick, off the top of my head, and perhaps precipitous response to the
question of morally ambiguous females in CHC
seems to me apparent that to the extent that classical hollywood was really
ABOUT men they would be the ones who were shaded, whether morally or otherwise
 . . . and since women mattered mainly as functions of the stopry of the male
lead they would be drawn more schematically . . .
 . . . but when i think back to films of the forties and fities that were not
ABOUT men--or at least not ONLY about men--i find moral shading as common in
women characters as in their male counterparts . . .
. . . think of an assortment of k hepburn or i dunne films . . . in fact i
suspect that an equivalence of moral definition/ambiguity would have to be
central to romantic comedy as a genre . . .
. . . and of course in hitchcock the morally ambiguous woman is the defining
figure . . . daisy in lodger, alice in blackmail, marion in psycho, judy [NOT
madeleine] in vertigo, to choose a few more or less at random . . .
and most dramatically and even emblematically, young charlie in SOAD . . .
so i'm a little suspicious of the agenda here but eager to see how it develops
mike frank [[log in to unmask]]
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]