Free Delivery Over $100
|
|
|||
|
||||
OverviewFull Product DetailsAuthor: Patricia WhitePublisher: Indiana University Press Imprint: Indiana University Press Edition: New edition Dimensions: Width: 15.50cm , Height: 2.10cm , Length: 23.50cm Weight: 0.494kg ISBN: 9780253213457ISBN 10: 0253213452 Pages: 396 Publication Date: 22 October 1999 Audience: College/higher education , Professional and scholarly , Undergraduate , Professional & Vocational Format: Paperback Publisher's Status: Active Availability: In Print  This item will be ordered in for you from one of our suppliers. Upon receipt, we will promptly dispatch it out to you. For in store availability, please contact us. Table of Contents"Introduction Chapter 1: Reading the Code(s) Chapter 2: Lesbian Cinephilia Chapter 3: Female Spectator, Lesbian Spectator Chapter 4: Films for Girls: Lesbian Sentiment and the Maternal Melodrama Chapter 5: Supporting ""Character"" Chapter 6: On Retrospectatorship Notes Works Cited Index"ReviewsWhite (Swarthmore College) seeks traces of lesbian desire and difference in the films of the classic era. Since the Production Code forbade even the slightest hint of sexual deviancy, White must engage in a great deal of what she calls retrospectatorship, with somewhat mixed results. She begins by discussing the Code itself; moves on to a discussion of star personae (e.g., Davis, Hepburn, Dietrich, Garbo), the gothic/horror film and maternal melodrama, overt lesbian overtones among supporting players such as McDaniel, Waters, Fitter, McCambridge, and-especially-Moorehead; and closes with a chapter on retrospectatorship. She draws on all of the major figures in feminist film theory, if only to chastise them for ignoring the lesbian spectator. Since White covers much of the same ground that Mary Ann Doane does in The Desire to Desire: The Woman's Films of the 1940s (CH, Oct'87), she is particularly concerned with correcting Doane's omissions. White writes with considerable flair, and her arguments are always interesting, if not always fully convincing. A useful addition to studies of spectatorship in and of the classic era. Upper-division undergraduates through professionals.W. A. Vincent, Michigan State University, Choice, July 2000 <p>White (Swarthmore College) seeks traces of lesbian desire and difference in the films of the classic era. Since the Production Code forbade even the slightest hint of sexual deviancy, White must engage in a great deal of what she calls retrospectatorship, with somewhat mixed results. She begins by discussing the Code itself; moves on to a discussion of star personae (e.g., Davis, Hepburn, Dietrich, Garbo), the gothic/horror film and maternal melodrama, overt lesbian overtones among supporting players such as McDaniel, Waters, Fitter, McCambridge, and--especially--Moorehead; and closes with a chapter on retrospectatorship. She draws on all of the major figures in feminist film theory, if only to chastise them for ignoring the lesbian spectator. Since White covers much of the same ground that Mary Ann Doane does in The Desire to Desire: The Woman's Films of the 1940s (CH, Oct'87), she is particularly concerned with correcting Doane's omissions. White writes with considerable flair, and her arguments are always interesting, if not always fully convincing. A useful addition to studies of spectatorship in and of the classic era. Upper--division undergraduates through professionals.W. A./P>--W. A. Vincent, Michigan State University Choice (01/01/2000) <p>White (Swarthmore College) seeks traces of lesbian desire and differencein the films of the classic era. Since the Production Code forbade even theslightest hint of sexual deviancy, White must engage in a great deal of what shecalls retrospectatorship, with somewhat mixed results. She begins by discussing theCode itself; moves on to a discussion of star personae (e.g., Davis, Hepburn, Dietrich, Garbo), the gothic/horror film and maternal melodrama, overt lesbianovertones among supporting players such as McDaniel, Waters, Fitter, McCambridge, and -- especially -- Moorehead; and closes with a chapter on retrospectatorship. Shedraws on all of the major figures in feminist film theory, if only to chastise themfor ignoring the lesbian spectator. Since White covers much of the same ground thatMary Ann Doane does in The Desire to Desire: The Woman's Films of the 1940s (CH, Oct'87), she is particularly concerned with correcting Doane's omissions. Whitewrites with considerable flair, and her White (Swarthmore College) seeks traces of lesbian desire and difference in the films of the classic era. Since the Production Code forbade even the slightest hint of sexual deviancy, White must engage in a great deal of what she calls retrospectatorship, with somewhat mixed results. She begins by discussing the Code itself; moves on to a discussion of star personae (e.g., Davis, Hepburn, Dietrich, Garbo), the gothic/horror film and maternal melodrama, overt lesbian overtones among supporting players such as McDaniel, Waters, Fitter, McCambridge, and-especially-Moorehead; and closes with a chapter on retrospectatorship. She draws on all of the major figures in feminist film theory, if only to chastise them for ignoring the lesbian spectator. Since White covers much of the same ground that Mary Ann Doane does in The Desire to Desire: The Woman's Films of the 1940s (CH, Oct'87), she is particularly concerned with correcting Doane's omissions. White writes with considerable flair, and her arguments are always interesting, if not always fully convincing. A useful addition to studies of spectatorship in and of the classic era. Upper-division undergraduates through professionals. -- W. A. Vincent]]>, <
