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:
"Frank, Michael" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:18:14 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (42 lines)
oh what a tangled web we weave when first we venture to ask about sex .
. .

 

at the very least this exercise has made me aware of the multitude of
issues lurking behind an apparently simple question, and it has also
allowed me to realize more clearly than at first what i rally mean to be
asking about, so let me try yet one more time

 

in most of the examples offered in this thread, sex is viewed as somehow
[and i'm afraid none of these words is quite exact] naughty, delicious,
scandalous, irresistible . . . the movies seem to be winking at us about
sex  . . . this was no doubt the result of two complementary factors: on
the one hand there was the production code that made overt sexuality
verboten, and on the other a cultural code that severely problematized
extra marital sex  . . .  whatever the reasons, the cinematic result is
- admittedly - often very erotic . . . 

 

but i now realize what i'm after is tracing the process by which movies
became able to take sex so much for granted that it becomes hardly
erotic at all, where making love [or even making lust or having an
affair] is replaced by merely hooking up . . .  or, to put it
differently, the distance from mae west to paris hilton

 

mike

 

 


----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2