Psycho
So, was it just me or did anyone else laugh out loud when they finally saw Norman dressed up as his mother?
I’ll explain why I’ve got David Blunkett’s doppelganger posted up here. His name is Jimmy Worm and he’s professor Emeritus of Connoisseurship, (specifically of the going to the cinema variety), at the Lanark academy. He’s also, unfortunately for us both, my supervisor at present.
Enthusiastic about writing a slab on feminist approaches to Hitchcock, I spent the last week trawling through everything I could find on the subject, and then on Sunday afternoon, I found some interesting comments by Professor Worm himself. Referring to feminist critic Laura Mulvey’s seminal 1975 text (containing the first coherent articulation of the fact that the camera treats male and female subjects differently in conventional cinema), Worm asserts that:
“Mulvey’s text inspired a generation of feminists who had mis-read it to obsess over the male gaze in Hitchcock’s work which simply isn’t there”
I have several problems with this:
1. Worm gives no evidence or even explanation as to how the feminists have “mis-read” Mulvey, he simply assumes he has the authority to denounce whoever he likes without coherent argument because he tows the line of official culture.
2. Worm is quite happy for himself and others to waste research money (funded by the taxpayer) on autistic obsessions linked to political, academic and cultural agendas that he sympathises with.
3. You don’t need to obsess in the slightest (I do of course, but it’s not necessary) to find countless examples of the male gaze throughout Hitchcock’s work, and representations of female subjectivity are few and far between to say the least.
So I went round to have a chat with Worm this morning. He didn’t even look up from his desk until I quoted his words on Mulvey and the feminists, at which point he said, “Well, you know, Mulvey doesn’t even really believe that stuff you know”, “Really”, I answer, surprised, “Does she say this anywhere?”. “No not exactly”, he replies, frustrated, “But I do know her you know”. Right, so I just footnote that opinion as private, undocumented confession to Jimmy Worm do I? And if she has said that to you, why does she keep referring to “that stuff” in her current writing? And then Worm continues “And she was writing that stuff in 1975” Right, yeah, the dark ages…or is it just other things happening in 1975 that you’re not to hot on, Worm?
So I realise it’s time to go in for the kill, I cite all the problems with the argument following Worm’s quote, and give him a list of contradictory examples to which the best he can come up with was:
“Well, I don’t see how you can assume it’s a male gaze, I mean men never even watch Hitchcock, they like action movies”
As I stomped home (clogs and cobbles- you can really make a lot of noise) I realised that there are two things alike about worm and my dear father, not only do they have the same arguing style Well I don’t care if you’ve actually read this person’s stuff, I met them at a party once and you see what they actually think is exactly the same as me, in fact I’ve been a great influence, but they must also be the only two men on the planet to have an autistic Hitchcock interest. The rest of the man’s career must have been built on the back of dungaree wearers.
So Worm, you missed your opportunity not to patronise me in private, that’s fine because one day I’ll shred you up in public.
In the meantime you can suck my big, fat clit.
So, was it just me or did anyone else laugh out loud when they finally saw Norman dressed up as his mother?
I’ll explain why I’ve got David Blunkett’s doppelganger posted up here. His name is Jimmy Worm and he’s professor Emeritus of Connoisseurship, (specifically of the going to the cinema variety), at the Lanark academy. He’s also, unfortunately for us both, my supervisor at present.
Enthusiastic about writing a slab on feminist approaches to Hitchcock, I spent the last week trawling through everything I could find on the subject, and then on Sunday afternoon, I found some interesting comments by Professor Worm himself. Referring to feminist critic Laura Mulvey’s seminal 1975 text (containing the first coherent articulation of the fact that the camera treats male and female subjects differently in conventional cinema), Worm asserts that:
“Mulvey’s text inspired a generation of feminists who had mis-read it to obsess over the male gaze in Hitchcock’s work which simply isn’t there”
I have several problems with this:
1. Worm gives no evidence or even explanation as to how the feminists have “mis-read” Mulvey, he simply assumes he has the authority to denounce whoever he likes without coherent argument because he tows the line of official culture.
2. Worm is quite happy for himself and others to waste research money (funded by the taxpayer) on autistic obsessions linked to political, academic and cultural agendas that he sympathises with.
3. You don’t need to obsess in the slightest (I do of course, but it’s not necessary) to find countless examples of the male gaze throughout Hitchcock’s work, and representations of female subjectivity are few and far between to say the least.
So I went round to have a chat with Worm this morning. He didn’t even look up from his desk until I quoted his words on Mulvey and the feminists, at which point he said, “Well, you know, Mulvey doesn’t even really believe that stuff you know”, “Really”, I answer, surprised, “Does she say this anywhere?”. “No not exactly”, he replies, frustrated, “But I do know her you know”. Right, so I just footnote that opinion as private, undocumented confession to Jimmy Worm do I? And if she has said that to you, why does she keep referring to “that stuff” in her current writing? And then Worm continues “And she was writing that stuff in 1975” Right, yeah, the dark ages…or is it just other things happening in 1975 that you’re not to hot on, Worm?
So I realise it’s time to go in for the kill, I cite all the problems with the argument following Worm’s quote, and give him a list of contradictory examples to which the best he can come up with was:
“Well, I don’t see how you can assume it’s a male gaze, I mean men never even watch Hitchcock, they like action movies”
As I stomped home (clogs and cobbles- you can really make a lot of noise) I realised that there are two things alike about worm and my dear father, not only do they have the same arguing style Well I don’t care if you’ve actually read this person’s stuff, I met them at a party once and you see what they actually think is exactly the same as me, in fact I’ve been a great influence, but they must also be the only two men on the planet to have an autistic Hitchcock interest. The rest of the man’s career must have been built on the back of dungaree wearers.
So Worm, you missed your opportunity not to patronise me in private, that’s fine because one day I’ll shred you up in public.
In the meantime you can suck my big, fat clit.
1 comment:
JAG er mycket stolt av du!! XXXXX
Post a Comment