Gee whiz.  Last time I checked being eager for sex--i.e., "randy"--was not
narrowly limited to heterosexuals.
 
As to why "latent homosexuality" should be harder to broach on short
notice--harder, say, than "oedipal tinge[s]"--I can't really fathom.
 
But I do seem to recall a review of Welle's last, unfilmed screenplay in
_The New York Review of Books_  published around 1983-84 written by no less
than Gore Vidal.  (Not a bit latent, he.)
 
I can't be sure about the date, but I remember him commenting that Welles
was not afraid of coming off as gay when chumming up to one of his
biographers.
 
Would that other people were as fearless.
 
--Edward R. O'Neill
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: HrgSmes <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, December 18, 1997 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: Orson Welles S.O.S
 
 
>geez, as far as this psychoanalyst knows, he was one of the more randy
fellows
>around. Don't get involved overly much on short notice with concepts of
>Welles' latent homosexuality. But if you buy the distinction, there is much
>homosociality and latent and not so latent competitiveness with an oedipal
>tinge in the canon -- LADY FROM SHANGHAI   MR ARKADIN  TOUCH OF EVIL  so
>forth.
>
>harvey roy greenberg, md
>
>----
>To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
>in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
>
 
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama.