SCREEN-L Archives

June 1994


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
"Mary C. Kalfatovic" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 6 Jun 1994 02:49:25 -0400
text/plain (19 lines)
In response to Patrick Bjork's question about studios covering up the true
private lives of their stars, as the author of a book on Montgomery Clift,
I don't think the studios really needed to do much "covering up." The
Hollywood press corps (Louella, Hedda, Sheilah, etc.) had nothing to gain
by disillusioning the public about the stars.  Montgomery Clift was never
under contract to a studio (the closest he came was a three picture deal
with Paramount).  Clift had no studio to protect him yet nobody ever
"outed" him (at least not in the mainstream press, scandal sheets like
"Confidential" are another matter).  Furthermore, why do we need to talk
about the past?  The mainstream press still doesn't mention a performer's
sexual preference unless the person in question says it's OK.  And isn't
Sir Ian McKellen the only mainstream performer so far to say it's OK?
Although drink, drugs, and promiscuity (hetero) can now be talked about
openly, homosexuality still remains taboo.  That's rather amazing in these
days of sleazy "investigative" journalism and exhibitionist celebrities
like Roseanne Arnold, Madonna, Joan Rivers, etc.
Mary Kalfatovic