Reasons I'm going to fail Film Theory, number 68:

[charloween]

This take-home exam is going nowhere. I keep trying to write about the complexity of identification in these films (Rear Window and Near Dark from the psychoanalytic POV of various 1970s commentators), but I keep coming back to... "And Adrian Pasdar looked really good without his shirt on in that one scene."

GET A HOLD OF YOURSELF, WOMAN.

Comments

[blackiceuphoria.livejournal.com]

<- ?

Nobody will blame you, lol, I'd be squealing too much to even type properly :D

[naturelf.livejournal.com]

HOO boy!

[blackiceuphoria.livejournal.com]

*cackles and steals naturelf's stuff while her eyes are glued to Adrian's pecs*

lol, jk xD

[naturelf.livejournal.com]

Zuuuuuuuh... pretty boy... this is not helping me write feminist film theory paper... can't look away...

I CAN STOP ANY TIME I WANT.

... where'd all my stuff go?

[serrico.livejournal.com]

*Dude.* Quit trying to force the identification topic! Go for something about the male and/or female gaze, instead!

*Nothing* is as easy as discussing gaze when you can't get your mind off of someone pretty.

(Good luck with the exam!)

[naturelf.livejournal.com]

Eh, the identification thing is a bit easier with how I've backed myself into this particular corner. Mulvey says that Rear Window forces women to identify with the male protagonist and view the females as inferior, I say that Near Dark forces the (presumably human) spectator to identify with the ev0l vampires and view the human characters as inferior. And since we gain plesure from watching the films, it's masochism for everyone! Yay!

*is ded*

(danke, danke.)