[KINDLE] ✿ The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies By Vito Russo – Saudionline.co.uk

The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies chapter 1 The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies, meaning The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies, genre The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies, book cover The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies, flies The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies, The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies 50fe54b7460d0 The Celluloid Closet FilmAlloCin The Celluloid Closet Est Un Film Ralis Par Rob Epstein Et Jeffrey Friedman Avec Lily Tomlin, Tony Curtis Synopsis L Homosexualite Vue A Travers Cent Ans De Cinema Hollywoodien Pour LesThe Celluloid Closet WikipdiaThe Celluloid ClosetIMDb Directed By Rob Epstein, Jeffrey Friedman With Lily Tomlin, Tony Curtis, Susie Bright, Arthur Laurents A Documentary Surveying The Various Hollywood Screen Depictions Of Homosexuals And The Attitudes Behind Them Throughout The History Of North American Film The Cellulod ClosetAntonio Banderas, TonyDescription Du Produit The Celluloid Closet,DVDMont Par Rob Epstein Et Jeffrey Friedman, Ce Documentaire Dont La Ralisation A T Inspire Par Un Livre De Vito Russo, S Attaque Un Thme Tabou Du Cinma Hollywoodien Jusqu La Fin Des Annesl Homosexualit Critique Du Film The Celluloid Closet AlloCin The Celluloid Closet Est Une Parfaite Analyse Sur La Visibilit Ngative Des Homosexuels Dans Les Films Des Annes Nous Passons De La Moquerie, La Mise Mort Quasi SystmatiqueThe Celluloid ClosetRotten Tomatoes Opening The Door Of The Celluloid Closet Reveals A Shifting Kaleidoscope That Underlines Just How Influential, For Good Or Bad, The Movies Can Be Apr , Arte, H, The Cellulod Closet, Documentaire SurThe Celluloid Closet A Brief History Of Queer The Celluloid Closet Notes That Hollywood Departed From Portraying Homosexual Men As Sissies And Lightly Condemning Homosexuality By Showing It As Something Odd, Funny, Or Shameful Depending On The Tone Of The Film Ie Dramas Often Depicted Characters Overcome With Guilt Because Of Their Sexual Orientation And Comedies Poked Fun At It, ForThe Celluloid Closet Wikipedia Lily Tomlin

10 thoughts on “The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies

  1. says:

    Reread this as it was the main textbook of a Queer Film undergrad class I helped out with last semester, and my initial reaction was or less confirmed when analyzing LGBTQ representation in classic Hollywood and other early cinemas Russo is as enlightening as he fun to read, but when he gets to post Code representation he goes into Righteous Anger mode and it just all starts getting very numbing and increasingly unnuanced For some reason Russo can locate endless resistance and subversiveness in the Sissies and Bulldykes in old Hollywood musicals and comedies, but something like Suddenly Last Summer or The Boys in the Band are pegged as an irredeemable exercise in negative stereotyping I just don t buy that line of thinking and so I didn t even bother revisiting the last chapter or two I also have mixed feelings because Celluloid Closet is widely hailed as the first study of its kind, while the late, great and now forgotten Parker Tyler s Screening the Sexes Homosexuality in the Movies is hardly ever ever remembered, though it was written nearly a decade earlier Not that it s hard to see why this is the case where Russo is Serious and Scholarly, Tyler is, characteristically, campy, tongue in cheek and can at times be baffling in regards to its allusions and in jokes in many ways Richard Dyer s Now You See It and Richard Barrios s Screened Out Playing Gay in Hollywood from Edison to Stonewall are nice medians, as rigorous as Russo but retaining Tyler s sense of fun But it can t be denied that The Celluloid Closet serves as a good primer on queer film it certainly was mine, and I ll always appreciate it for that.

  2. says:

    Rating 3 of fiveA groundbreaking revelation when it came out almost 30 years ago, this book, as revised by its author in 1987, is very dated and it s never been my idea of a prose paradigm.I admit I was going down the primrose path of nostalgia when I decided to read this revised edition I d read the first edition as an eager young slut about town, yearning to impress the Older Men 25 30 Oh, those old roues I was seducing in job lots with my encyclopedic knowledge of their old fashioned world snort But I did learn a lot, and it s always useful to do so I wasn t aware that queer subtexts in Hollywood movies were the prime motivating factor for the introduction of the Production Code I wasn t aware that the hoi polloi didn t know some of its major heartthrobs only throbbed for their own kind Rock, of course, but Farley Granger, Randolph Scott, Burt Lancaster, ye gods what fun it would have been to be there then but I ve known all that for a long time now, and I found it dreary to go back and read the uninspired prose of the late Mr Russo without the sense of discovery and amazement I brought to it the first time.You can t go home again I suppose one shouldn t want to, either, but the urge hits once in a way, less and less often as the years pile up I expect I ll stub my toe on this rock again I d say, if you re an average straight person, this book could be informative and possibly even interesting if you like the movies a lot But it sure won t be entertaining.

  3. says:

    HIGHEST RECOMMENDATION Russo s is an impeccably argued tract I can t imagine a better thought out analysis of the predicament of gays and lesbians and their presentation in film in the pre and immediate post Stonewall era of the cinema He zeroes in on the wider attitudes of society, nails the nature of the mixed messages in films with overt or coded gay content, even in films that were supposedly relatively enlightened This book proves a film study can be written with a popular clarity and still adhere to scholarly rigor Bravo all the fucking way on this one earlier I m well into this now and it s impressive Russo finds a happy median between academic comprehensiveness precision and a popular authorial voice in expressing the concepts and keeping them interesting In fact, this book is quite fun it seems like there was no film with even the slightest hint of homosexual suggestiveness going all the way back to the very earliest silents that Russo did not see or give mention to here I m learning a lot and enjoying this Tons of well selected stills that illustrate precisely the points that Russo makes first impression I saw the 1995 same titled documentary of this a decade ago I don t really remember much about it other than the parade of Hollywood star narrators and talking heads, including Lily Tomlin and others I think I was moved by some of it but also remember it being somewhat simplistic and exuding self satisfied self importance I have a copy of the original 1981 book in its time just about the only game in town in terms of a popular study of gay cinema I m sorry, but I don t envision ever using the word queer So far it has just enough academic authority without being obscurantist It is definitely geared to a wide popular audience The examples it cites are well selected and researched Reading on

  4. says:

    This was a very interesting book that deserves its reputation as a classic but does have at least in my opinion a few flaws.First and foremost, the research that went into this book is excellent Russo describes the development of gay characters in motion pictures from the silent movies and the early talkies until the mid 1980s The best part is the one about the early days up to the 1950s or what Russo calls the stereotyp of the sissy It s very detailed and features a very good analysis of why characters were described as they are, how the audience reacted and which actors specialized in those roles and what their characteristics are It also describes early lesbian parts and how for example the real life character of an actress like Greta Garbo added to what was finally shown on film.Very interresting if extremely depressing is the part that covers the 1960s and 70s Russo shows how homosexuality was not as one could have hoped in those times shown in a realistic or sympathetic way but how it degenerated into some kind of freak show, designed to shock normal audiences and confirming the worst clich s.And here we come to the book s most serious flaw apart from the fact that it sometimes comes down to a listing of movies that lack the elaborate analysis that went into the earlier works from the 1920 to 50s the author has a message Well, of course he has he wants to show how stereotypical and ultimatly wrong and damaging the portrait of homosexual people in movies is What gets lost on the way is the fact that there are a few if only a very few movies that are not like that He mentions them in passing, but never do they get a spotlight and that s sad As important as it is to show all that is wrong in the movie industry, I don t think you should ignore when something s actually good Also he has a tendency to ignore or propably he really doesn t see it irony or a twisted sense of humour For example, someone who criticises Victor Victoria for not showing an explicit sex scene between Toddy and his lover hasn t understood the movie I agree about his criticism about the fact that James Garner s character had to see that Julie Andrews is a woman before he kissed her I love that they altered this in the stage version The same can be said about his comments about over the top farces like La cage aux folles and Tootsie but most of the time his evaluations of the movies he s discussing are well written and to the point for example The children s hour which I always thought was overrated Russo shows beautifully how this movie actually enforced prejudices.It would have been great if this book had been updated since the revised edition was published in 1987 I d like to see what the author would have had to say to contemporary cinema and the gay characters today.All in all a good and informative book.

  5. says:

    Albeit a dated book, it s a very informative look at the portrayal of homosexuality on film and the extent of which it has been previously caged Despite flaws, I never lost interest it was for me the first glimpse into the transformation of film and how far it has come in the past century or two It also introduced me to a number of new movies I watched and enjoyed and for that I am eternally grateful also the 1995 documentary The Celluloid Closet by Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman is a compelling watch too The likes of Susan Sarandon, Tom Hanks and Whoopi Goldberg cameo to talk about roles they ve took e.g Tom Hanks in Philadelphia and Whoopi in The Color Purple accompanied by their own opinions as to how perceptions have shifted in society as well as the journey of both acceptance and intolerance of same sex affection with regards to filmmaking I enjoyed it than the book, but Tom Hanks face likely swayed my opinion.

  6. says:

    Uneven The first section is great the early years of American cinema and the representation of homosexuality Russo is informed and congenial Later, he appears to know less about his subject oddly enough The same films are discussed at length and some strange omissions slights occur Once we hit the 1980s, the slights and omissions become glaring Still, an important work and one I m glad to have read.

  7. says:

    Read this for an essay, and I enjoyed it, having seen the docu a few times The book has space for a deeper look at some of the examples that flies back on film One of my favourite random facts in the book Greta Garbo once expressedher desire to play in a film version of Oscar Wilde s The Picture of Dorian Gray with herself in the title role and Marilyn Monroe as a young girl ruined by Dorian Imagine how AWESOME that could ve been

  8. says:

    One of the books that really shaped the way I look at life and my favorite art form, the movies I had to buy it over and over because I would lend it to friends who would baldly state, without any doubt, You know I m not giving this back, don t you.

  9. says:

    People s roles within a society are defined by those in power For centuries homosexuality was defined by those in power as alternatively pathologiccal a mental disorder or morally deviant and evil Vito Russo shows how in the medium of film, from silents through the 1990 s, the portrayal of gays and lesbians on film was defined by the powers that be as villainous, tainted, manipulative schemers hiding in shadows or flamboyantly hip swaying down the street, limp wrists akimbo, and alternately murderous or suicidal.Some of the examples Russo provides are hilarious in their extremity some heartbreakingly sad If you remove the issue of homosexuality from the equation, the definition of letting others decide the image with which society labels us can apply to any minority group The issue is universal This book is an excellent example of that point.

  10. says:

    While Vito Russo s ground breaking and definitive tomb mapping the representation of homosexuals and homosexuality on film published in 1981 and updated in 1987 it is far from dated Whether you re into queer studies or not, this is a must read to see how far we have come and how far we still have to go in regards to how to homosexuals and all minorities, really have been treated throughout the history of the American cinema Highly recommend

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *