tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575280877085021446.post2377711492671032075..comments2024-01-22T17:42:46.416+01:00Comments on Lolita's Classics: Hitchcock's fascination with fecal matterLolita of the Classicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03596876234508882958noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575280877085021446.post-65165140218667374252011-01-25T12:02:22.802+01:002011-01-25T12:02:22.802+01:00Meredith:
I say: RUN! And fast. No, but read the a...Meredith:<br />I say: RUN! And fast. No, but read the analysis if you run across it, but I think I picked out the best parts ;)Lolita of the Classicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03596876234508882958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575280877085021446.post-58906483891347818432011-01-15T17:25:14.019+01:002011-01-15T17:25:14.019+01:00I absolutely agree, there's so much unexplored...I absolutely agree, there's so much unexplored film territory! I don't know if Sterritt is a 'Hitchcock scholar' and that led him to produce something so outlandish or no. Part of me wants to read this out of sheer curiosity and the other wants to run far, far away. I doubt it will be as fun to read as your interpretation of his interpretation. ;)Meredithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15156051197099180915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575280877085021446.post-40061137692761627582011-01-13T10:41:16.410+01:002011-01-13T10:41:16.410+01:00Meredith!
Thank you!
Haha, I like that theory of y...Meredith!<br />Thank you!<br />Haha, I like that theory of yours. But still, if you don't think you can write anything new about Hitchcock without getting perverted, why not try to analyze another director? There are some out there to chose from.<br />You are so right about the homosexuality matter. I did probably understand that too, but it upset me that he didn't explain himself like you did. If one writes a text like this and sounds like he generalizes homosexuality to be perverse, then one should add one little sentence of clarification. You're much smarter than Sterritt, in other words, Meredith!<br />Oh, and I thought the analysis was interesting, even though I laughed and cried while reading it. It IS a valid interpretation, although totally bizarre. And my post wouldn't be as entertaining if I didn't make fun of it ;) (I hope my professor don't find this blog, haha.)<br /><br />JESCIE:<br />Thank you for that link!<br /><br />Deb:<br />Hmm, a phallic shaped hammer coated with feces? A combination should be most appropriate ;)<br /><br />Kalli:<br />Thanks, that's great! I am not being this sarcastic and bitchy in school, but in my blog I feel i can take the liberty to ridicule this kind of stuff!Lolita of the Classicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03596876234508882958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575280877085021446.post-32838257152404514202011-01-12T05:43:16.273+01:002011-01-12T05:43:16.273+01:00This is a fantastic post! Made me laugh.This is a fantastic post! Made me laugh.Kallihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17450682167840838704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575280877085021446.post-70182808437966123892011-01-11T18:55:57.722+01:002011-01-11T18:55:57.722+01:00A phallic shaped hammer?A phallic shaped hammer?Debhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05137459224972973353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575280877085021446.post-13950245324935786492011-01-11T18:19:44.036+01:002011-01-11T18:19:44.036+01:00http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1823225.Hitchco...http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1823225.Hitchcock_and_HomosexualityJESCIEhttp://www.jescie.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575280877085021446.post-10204525294379118522011-01-11T17:29:03.458+01:002011-01-11T17:29:03.458+01:00this is fantastic, lolita! however ludicrous, hey,...this is fantastic, lolita! however ludicrous, hey, his work sure prompts discussion. ;)<br /><br />I think this points to a larger issue specific to Hitchcock scholarship as someone who has had lots and lots and LOTS written about his films, to the point that some may feel they have to go to insane extremes to find a new angle on his work (I say this as someone attempting to write about his work as well as avoid such trappings, and reading this sort of thing certainly helps.) <br /><br />Though one thing I question is your take on his take on homosexuality as perverse. Of course if this were within the world at large then yes, shame on you Sterritt. But as related to Rope, (even if he takes it out on a ledge, lets an anvil fall on it, then blows up the whole damn building) within the context of the late 40s isn't it possible it was meant to make some sort of statement about homosexuality, not necessarily Hitchcock saying it was perverse but as another way to make close minded audiences uncomfortable or highlight misconceptions about homosexuality? I don't know what (or if) Hitchcock had anything to say about this, but bringing it up seems valid to me.<br /><br />And last but not least, heaven help me but I actually feel I must come to the defense of Laura Mulvey. She and others who stick to a psychoanalytic model do become tiresome and overwrought but however heavy handed I think a lot of her points about how women are portrayed on screen are valid and still relevant today. Especially considering a lot of her best written/cited work was written in the 70s when that sort of thing seemed more groundbreaking.<br /><br />And the last thing I will ask for the sake of discussion is if you think the intent of the creators of a film must be the stopping block for analysis. Hitchcock especially welcomed repeat viewings and wanted audience work to pay off, so just because Hitchcock might not have intended for such a reading does that decrease its validity?<br /><br />-from one films studies personage to another :)Meredithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15156051197099180915noreply@blogger.com