Gee whiz. Last time I checked being eager for sex--i.e., "randy"--was not narrowly limited to heterosexuals. As to why "latent homosexuality" should be harder to broach on short notice--harder, say, than "oedipal tinge[s]"--I can't really fathom. But I do seem to recall a review of Welle's last, unfilmed screenplay in _The New York Review of Books_ published around 1983-84 written by no less than Gore Vidal. (Not a bit latent, he.) I can't be sure about the date, but I remember him commenting that Welles was not afraid of coming off as gay when chumming up to one of his biographers. Would that other people were as fearless. --Edward R. O'Neill -----Original Message----- From: HrgSmes <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thursday, December 18, 1997 7:41 AM Subject: Re: Orson Welles S.O.S >geez, as far as this psychoanalyst knows, he was one of the more randy fellows >around. Don't get involved overly much on short notice with concepts of >Welles' latent homosexuality. But if you buy the distinction, there is much >homosociality and latent and not so latent competitiveness with an oedipal >tinge in the canon -- LADY FROM SHANGHAI MR ARKADIN TOUCH OF EVIL so >forth. > >harvey roy greenberg, md > >---- >To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L >in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask] > ---- Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the University of Alabama.