SCREEN-L Archives

November 1999, Week 3

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Krzysztof Jozajtis <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 16 Nov 1999 21:08:13 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (20 lines)
At 9:42 am 16/11/99, paul wiener wrote:
>I don't seew how you can say this. Female sexuality - long before West and
>Marlene - has always been visible, exploited, enacted and expected in
>films. It is MALE sexuality that almost never appeared before Brando.

Slightly off the point: Whilst I accept that female sexuality has always
<been visible, exploited, enacted and expected in films> I'm not sure that
male sexuality was never visible pre-Brando. What about (e.g.) Valentino,
Gable, Wayne (even), and the wonderful Victor Mature? This is by no means
my field, but it seems to me that what Brando did was complicate things by
making visible (and top-box office) a more ambivalent, homo-erotic (even
sado-masochistic) dimension to male desire. Has there been much work on
male sexuality in the movies pre WWII?
Yours aye
Kris

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2