Scan barcode
froggo's review
я смотрела документалку раза четыре это ноу джоук был мой комфорт муви
потом однажды когда я писала финальное эссе по истории кино я решила что я зря что ли квир нерд и вспомнила что это существует и вся информация про репрезентацию лгбт в американском кино у меня в голове не с неба взята хотя может это мой божественный лесбиан дар
но в общем я решила для солидности сослаться все таки на первоисточник то есть книгу
в общем то и все
немножко я почитала нашла нужные мне странички и все
книжка написана давно и очень странным тоном, есть подозрение что все таки она ахуительно устарела и читать ее как-то уже немного все таки кринж
потом однажды когда я писала финальное эссе по истории кино я решила что я зря что ли квир нерд и вспомнила что это существует и вся информация про репрезентацию лгбт в американском кино у меня в голове не с неба взята хотя может это мой божественный лесбиан дар
но в общем я решила для солидности сослаться все таки на первоисточник то есть книгу
в общем то и все
немножко я почитала нашла нужные мне странички и все
книжка написана давно и очень странным тоном, есть подозрение что все таки она ахуительно устарела и читать ее как-то уже немного все таки кринж
micahhortonhallett's review
5.0
This brilliant book needs to be updated now. It has a few flaws, but just a few, and for a book that purports to simply detail the history of homosexual representation in mainstream American movies from the silent era to 1986, Vitto Russo accomplishes so much more. The Celluloid Closet is a manifesto, a road map and a mid-eighties view from the trenches on the struggle for visibility, viability, representation and social and artistic expressions of gender, sexuality and difference that are STILL being fought across media Russo could not even imagine at the time of his writing.
Read this book.
Read it and weep. Read it and empathize. Read it and remember. Read it and get angry. Read it and get ready to take to the streets again. Read it and know that you aren't alone. Read it and hear the deafening silence of all who died feeling alone or monstrous or like the butt of a throwaway joke because of a conspiracy of lawmakers, religious dogmatics and the false mirror they held (and hold), up to the world.
Read this book.
Read it and weep. Read it and empathize. Read it and remember. Read it and get angry. Read it and get ready to take to the streets again. Read it and know that you aren't alone. Read it and hear the deafening silence of all who died feeling alone or monstrous or like the butt of a throwaway joke because of a conspiracy of lawmakers, religious dogmatics and the false mirror they held (and hold), up to the world.
dja777's review
5.0
Still kicking myself to this day for not taking Russo's class when I had the chance. They made a great documentary from this, too.
yung_sch0lar's review
4.0
I have a lot of not-fully-formed thoughts about this book but mostly, I feel deeply indebted to the tremendous amount of work and ground covered by Vito Russo in this book and in his (sadly, shortened) lifetime.
Something that did bother me, and especially because it tends to happen even now with white gay/queer people making arguments against homophobia in mainstream culture, is the constant pitting of race against sexuality — i.e., the constant "it wouldn't be okay to say this about black people but it's okay to say it about gay people..." What if I told you that some people are black AND gay? And experience these identities and the oppressions that come with them at the same exact time? And cannot be meted out so cleanly? Also, it isn't true! Even in many of the examples Russo cites, these same publications and films DO say and promote harmful and racist ideologies, and with impunity. What's interesting is that I believe Russo made these arguments out of a sense of solidarity, but for a black queer reader, it alienated me from many of the arguments in the text. And I felt that there wasn't a very robust consideration of alternative (in this case, I specifically mean non-white) cinemas. What if some of the subversion that Russo was looking for was actually in independent non-white cinema? What if there were a more nuanced understanding of how race, gender, and sexuality play out on screen in ways that are not always analogous and require more balance, more nuance, and more depth? Require us to not make assumptions based on a presumed default whiteness?
Ultimately, no book on a subject like this can be comprehensive. There is a lot that is still radical and revolutionary about Celluloid Closet and a lot that needs revision and to be updated. Which I believe Russo knew and understood. If only he had had more time. If only we had had more of his time. I think there's a whole world of thinking and writing about cinema that could have been possible.
Something that did bother me, and especially because it tends to happen even now with white gay/queer people making arguments against homophobia in mainstream culture, is the constant pitting of race against sexuality — i.e., the constant "it wouldn't be okay to say this about black people but it's okay to say it about gay people..." What if I told you that some people are black AND gay? And experience these identities and the oppressions that come with them at the same exact time? And cannot be meted out so cleanly? Also, it isn't true! Even in many of the examples Russo cites, these same publications and films DO say and promote harmful and racist ideologies, and with impunity. What's interesting is that I believe Russo made these arguments out of a sense of solidarity, but for a black queer reader, it alienated me from many of the arguments in the text. And I felt that there wasn't a very robust consideration of alternative (in this case, I specifically mean non-white) cinemas. What if some of the subversion that Russo was looking for was actually in independent non-white cinema? What if there were a more nuanced understanding of how race, gender, and sexuality play out on screen in ways that are not always analogous and require more balance, more nuance, and more depth? Require us to not make assumptions based on a presumed default whiteness?
Ultimately, no book on a subject like this can be comprehensive. There is a lot that is still radical and revolutionary about Celluloid Closet and a lot that needs revision and to be updated. Which I believe Russo knew and understood. If only he had had more time. If only we had had more of his time. I think there's a whole world of thinking and writing about cinema that could have been possible.
endotheline's review
3.0
I don't know if I'll ever truly be interested in non-fiction books, but this book was pretty interesting. It felt kind of repetitive and even outdated at certain points, but overall, it's an important and informative book.
Over the past few weeks, I've been getting kind of bored and tired of doing the same mind-numbing shit every day, so I decided to read more. And like I said before, I've never been particularly interested in non-fiction books, but I decided to read this non-fiction book because I was genuinely interested in learning about the depictions of gay people in Hollywood films. And after reading this book, I feel like I learned a lot about that, particularly how shitty it has been and how shitty it still is.
So, I feel like I learned a lot, but I do have some problems with this book. I thought some parts were repetitive because the author would give an example of a horrible depiction and then another example and then another one. I know that the author was trying to prove a point with many examples, but reading a ton of film titles and character names all at once can be overwhelming. And I thought some parts were outdated because the author sometimes treated homophobia, racism, and other forms of bigotry as if they were mutually exclusive, as if there aren't people who simultaneously deal with homophobia and racism. I don't completely fault the author for that because his focus was on Hollywood films and Hollywood films rarely depict gay people of color. But it would've been nice if this author had a more intersectional view about the depictions of gay people.
But overall, this book is really important. I think anyone who has an interest in film should read this book.
(I'm writing this review right after finishing the book so I might change my rating later)
Rating: 3/5
Over the past few weeks, I've been getting kind of bored and tired of doing the same mind-numbing shit every day, so I decided to read more. And like I said before, I've never been particularly interested in non-fiction books, but I decided to read this non-fiction book because I was genuinely interested in learning about the depictions of gay people in Hollywood films. And after reading this book, I feel like I learned a lot about that, particularly how shitty it has been and how shitty it still is.
So, I feel like I learned a lot, but I do have some problems with this book. I thought some parts were repetitive because the author would give an example of a horrible depiction and then another example and then another one. I know that the author was trying to prove a point with many examples, but reading a ton of film titles and character names all at once can be overwhelming. And I thought some parts were outdated because the author sometimes treated homophobia, racism, and other forms of bigotry as if they were mutually exclusive, as if there aren't people who simultaneously deal with homophobia and racism. I don't completely fault the author for that because his focus was on Hollywood films and Hollywood films rarely depict gay people of color. But it would've been nice if this author had a more intersectional view about the depictions of gay people.
But overall, this book is really important. I think anyone who has an interest in film should read this book.
(I'm writing this review right after finishing the book so I might change my rating later)
Rating: 3/5
kitnotmarlowe's review
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
i'm a huge fan of the celluloid closet documentary; it introduced me to some of my favourite classic movies. now, more than ever, we need film analysis and criticism like russo's; when people so poisoned by the trap of "good gay representation" and assimilation call the children's hour "bury your gays" or say that rebel without a cause queerbaits rather than codes. history is not our enemy, and the archaeology of need is still so so so necessary!
russo's clear-eyed observations make the theory easy to understand. the righteous fury and bitchiness of his voice is SO refreshing for me personally because i feel like in the 30ish years since this book has been published the mainstream discourse around queer people has shifted from "are queers human beings?" to "queers have to be nice to be considered human beings". unfortunately, russo also chooses to be blind to nuance--writing off the films of william friedkin wholesale, and relying to heavy on the logic of "(x) would be Bad if the same thing were said or done to a black person, so why is it ok to say or do (x) to a gay person," without acknowledging that people...can be both. still, it's important to read everything in context and i do think this should be mandatory reading for anyone wanting to talk about queerness in film.
selfishly, i wish the revised edition had come out a year later because i desperately want to know what russo thought of my beloved maurice (1987) !! also wish we could know what he would think about some more recent queer films...i'm specifically thinking of the insane psychosexual melodrama of the power of the dog or the unromantic power plays of the favourite or even some of the truly inane the-bar-is-on-the-floor-if-something's-gay-audiences-will-devour-it drivel that netflix puts out. excellent filmography at the back! i was really stressed trying to add everything i wanted to watch to my letterboxd watchlist before realizing i could just consult the end matter.
russo's clear-eyed observations make the theory easy to understand. the righteous fury and bitchiness of his voice is SO refreshing for me personally because i feel like in the 30ish years since this book has been published the mainstream discourse around queer people has shifted from "are queers human beings?" to "queers have to be nice to be considered human beings". unfortunately, russo also chooses to be blind to nuance--writing off the films of william friedkin wholesale, and relying to heavy on the logic of "(x) would be Bad if the same thing were said or done to a black person, so why is it ok to say or do (x) to a gay person," without acknowledging that people...can be both. still, it's important to read everything in context and i do think this should be mandatory reading for anyone wanting to talk about queerness in film.
selfishly, i wish the revised edition had come out a year later because i desperately want to know what russo thought of my beloved maurice (1987) !! also wish we could know what he would think about some more recent queer films...i'm specifically thinking of the insane psychosexual melodrama of the power of the dog or the unromantic power plays of the favourite or even some of the truly inane the-bar-is-on-the-floor-if-something's-gay-audiences-will-devour-it drivel that netflix puts out. excellent filmography at the back! i was really stressed trying to add everything i wanted to watch to my letterboxd watchlist before realizing i could just consult the end matter.
spacestationtrustfund's review
4.0
This is one of those classic texts that pretty much everyone has read if they're in any way connected to queer studies, and it absolutely lives up to the hype.
mixxie67's review
4.0
I read this book around the time it first came out. Since then I've read it at least 2 more times. I've since read a very scathing review of it which was written in response to its 30th anniversary edition that has made me rethink it to a degree but I still think it is a valuable contribution to film history. It certainly helped to fuel my abiding interest in film and film lore. I think the reviewer made some valid points but he is coming from the point of view of a much younger gay man who grew up in Australia in what has to have been a very different environment compared to Russo's childhood in NYC against the backdrop of the turbulent McCarthy era. So, take it with a grain of salt. Mark Adnum's review of The Celluloid Closet