SCREEN-L Archives

April 1995, Week 4


Options: Use Monospaced 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
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 21 Apr 1995 15:47:12 CDT
text/plain (23 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
On Thu Apr 19, Ronald Tuch wrote:
>  "The reason the rape of women is not discussed with the same
>  enthusiasm given PF, is that it is too disturbing to consider,
>  it places spectator into such a moral and aesthetic state of
>  confusion that the only response could be denial and avoidance.
>  Ironically enough, I feel, that male rape is somehow less
>  disturbing: men can talk about it, joke about it,
>   and take distance on it.
Disregarding the possibility that men perceive male rape as *less disturbing*
and  *more distant* than images of the rape of women,  and with respect to
Tuch's reference to Mulvey -- it appears to me that even before yer basic
homophobia, there is also the stress for men generally in being *the object
of the gaze,* which is part of Tarantino's game, IMHO.
      As we learned during the "gays in the military" controversy, "straight"
men are not very comfortable being the *object* of anyone's sexual gaze --
men's or women's -- they own the gaze.  To view Tarantino's (involuntary
sodomy) scenes is to see/feel objectified and subjugated.
Ray Ishigata  Arts Analysis Inst Cambridge MA [log in to unmask]