SCREEN-L Archives

October 2007, Week 5

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

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
Subject:
From:
"Shari L. Rosenblum" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:19:03 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (68 lines)
I somehow missed the original query, so please forgive me if I'm asking 
questions you've
answered.

Are you looking for explicitness in the invitation, per se? Or just in the
acknowledgment of
the act, or anticipation of the act? And are you limiting this query to
American films? I'm
thinking of David Lean's Brief Encounter from 1945. As proper as a drama
about adultery
can be, if you ignore the unexploited train and station setting, they do
arrange a consummation.

Also, I can't conjure any of the dialogue at the moment, but there's Two for
the SeeSaw
(1962), but it's straight midwest (Robert Mitchum) meets hippie Village
(Shirley Maclaine),
and there's hardly room for misunderstanding. And the dance of wolf and
worldly-but-wary
prey in the Doris Day/Rock Hudson films camps up the allusions, but they're
all there.

Frank, Michael wrote:
> [with the usual apologies for duplication]
>

>
> in 1958 [north by northwest] eva marie saint says to cary grant
> something like "i have no plans for tonight and my book isn't very
> interesting" -- and we know she's inviting him to her bed . . . in 1971
> [play misty for me] jessica walter says to clint eastwood "right, no
> strings attached, but that doesn't mean we can't sleep together tonight
> if we want to" . . . while this may fall short of the "let's screw"
> which one might expect today, the increased explicitness clearly
> reflects the changes [in both sexual mores and codes of representation]
> that are a function of what have since come to call the sexual
> revolution of the sixties 
>

>
> it would be interesting to trace these changes, which leads to the
> question:  can anyone cite earlier examples in mainstream cinema [i.e.
> films aimed at a mass audience] of this kind of sexual explicitness - or
> of later developments that raised the bar even higher [or lower,
> depending on your POV] . . .
>

>
> thoughts??
>

>
> mike
>
>
> ----
> Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
> University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu



**************************************
 See what's new at http://www.aol.com

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.ScreenSite.org

ATOM RSS1 RSS2