Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 17 Nov 1999 17:01:42 -0600 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Not to mention Robert Mitchum in "Pursued."
-----Original Message-----
From: Krzysztof Jozajtis <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Male Sexuality
>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
>
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
|
|
|