Homoerotica

[frualeydis]

I am about to expose my own lack of pop cultural knowledge, by saying that I had never seen Gentlemen prefer blondes until yesterday (OK, knowledge isn't the right word, since I knew all about, but I hadn't seen it). I had no idea it was such a great film. But, in any case, what really surprised me was this homo erotic dance number. In 1953? Hollywood?

I adore Jane Russell in this film.

Comments

[fool000.livejournal.com]

I never saw that movie either. I guess that makes me a pop-culture-barbarian.

Anyway, I found this scene amusing, remarkable, definately erotic, but I don't see the homo-erotic aspect.
It's remarkable though.
A lot of movies in those days showed spectacular semi-erotic ballets with girls, but I never saw a semi-erotic ballet with men, especially not from the 1950s.
Jane Russel is great in this scene, and very liberated. She seems in complete control, she picks a man, grabs him and kisses him, and not the other way around.
I think that if a woman in Europe did that in 1953, there would have been a problem. But apparently in the USA, this could be done.
Interesting.

[billyoblivionx.livejournal.com]

I recently bought a 19 film boxed set of Marilyn Monroe DVDs and there were a few I'd never seen before, including Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. I watched them over three days and it was wonderful. I've got an Audrey Hepburn boxed set to do next. I love the golden age of Hollywood.

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

I just bought three Audrey films (Breakfast at Tiffany's, Funny Fae, and Sabrina), which are on the list to see soon.

/Eva

[billyoblivionx.livejournal.com]

My set has those three and Roman Holiday.

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

Then we have the same ones, because I already had "Roman holiday", which has been one of my favourite films since I was a kid.

/Eva

[clothsprogs.livejournal.com]

what really surprised me was this homo erotic dance number. In 1953? Hollywood?

Silly girl!

It's for the entertainment of women in the audience, not the men.... honest...

Teddy

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

Yeah right.

/Eva

[jehanearbonne.livejournal.com]

I don't believe that objectivisation of men is necessarily homo-erotic as much as erotic in general (after all, girls enjoy a nice hard body too), but I agree that the Greek decor raises some questions.

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

Tru, but the female as the voyeuristic object isn't well represented in the 1950s. To say the least. Women were still seen almost exclusively as objects and not as subjects of desire.

/Eva

[sismith42.livejournal.com]

I've never seen the film, but I did read the 1920's novella (and it's sequal, "But Gentlemen Marry Brunettes").

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

I've wanted to read those for a decade at least, but have never gotten around to it.

/Eva

[sarahbellem.livejournal.com]

Forget the homoeroticism...

I want Jane Russell's pantsuit. OMG.

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

Me too! Except that I wouldn't look half as you in it.

/Eva

[therru.livejournal.com]

I don't really see the homoeroticism. Just a lot of romanticization (is that a word?) of athletics. But then I'm usually a bit clueless about these things. :)

[idahoswede.livejournal.com]

THE best film, although I like the "2 Little Girls from Little Rock" because I love the red costumes.

[chigrima.livejournal.com]

That was...ehh... something....

I can definitely see the homoerotic undertones in this (heck, it's more of a big blinking neon sign). I wonder if the audience was supposed to see it, or if it was a "inside" joke of the select few?