A Way To Find Love Staying Home on Saturday Night.

Have you noticed something new about SNL? No, it's not the writing, or the jokes, but SNL has become one giant bastion of masturbation fodder. With a new featured cast beginning in September of last year, SNL has turned over a new leaf, and killed the sterotype that funny people can't be hot. (Ok i'm not sure if that's real or not, but think of arrested development and every time Ann Paul Veal is referenced and people say 'her?' followed by 'what is she funny or something?') Yes, I get all of my life lessons from Arrested Development. This is not to say that SNL is slumming it in the comedy arena, it's not bad, and the new talent has been able to consistently bring it every week and hold their own next to our favorite seasoned greats. These days, I'd rather stay home and drool over the cast than tipsy-flirt with three dimensional randoms at the pub. And here's a collection of those choice comedians who bring the fun, and the sex appeal. 

Andy Samberg
One third of the Lonely Island, the creative genius behind 'Dick in a Box', and one fine lookin' Jew, Samberg is not only hilarious in that charming frat kind of way, but also a great piece of man meat. (circumcised I bet)

Bill Hader
Since he joined the cast in 2005, he has completely transformed sketch comedy in SNL. From Vincent Price to Stefon the city correspondent, to Vinnie Vedecci, his comedic style is uncanny, and he's quite the intellectual hottie. 

Abby Elliot
The offspring of established comedian Chris Elliot, this newby though coming into the cast in 2008, still seems to be still finding her footing. She's the baby amongst the cast at 23, and her wholesome and sweet qualities are very pleasing to the eye.

Vanessa Bayer
This Chicago import is just amazing. She's a featured player starting her SNL  trajectory in September of last year, she's caught the eye many times, especially with her spot on Miley Cyrus impression. Hope to see much more of her fine self as the season progresses. 

Paul Brittain
Knock knock, who's there? It's the lost child of Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor, complete with a gorgeous pair of light blue eyes. Go ahead disagree with me that he doesn't look like either of them, but how much does he look like what the combination of the two of them would be? so much! Anyway, this newcomer is already on a roll with his impressions of James Franco and Johnny Depp. Smart and androgynously beautiful, it's a perfect combination. 

Nasim Pedrad
Forget Kristen Wiig, this Iranian comedienne has characters coming out of her ears. Even when she's playing a little boy opposite Bryan Cranston in that one hilarious sketch, she's still a looker. Petite,  exotic looking and funny as hell, I'm sure that Pedrad will go on to be that leader of this gang before too long. 

Taran Killam
Forget the weird name, this 20-something hottie is making his mark on SNL. In the French  dance-off sketch with Emma Stone, he wore a striped shirt with torn off sleeves, and we got a good look at his guns of steel. He's got a boyish charm, and his Brad Pitt impression is just the icing on the cake. 

Seth Meyers
Lets cap things off with the man who's been on SNL the longest, and now serves as their head writer/weekend update anchor. Blonde, blue-eyed, and sarcastic, his take on the news has been the best since Norm McDonald stepped down, and he's definitely been the sexiest suit and tie man covering Weekend Update since Chevy Chase, now that's saying something. 

Seductress Pick: Vivien Leigh

This is a character study on Vivien Leigh, one of the most profound actresses to ever grace the silver screen and my personal favorite.  Vivien Leigh is a very interesting character to consider. There have been many conflicting views on what she was personally as well as professionally. What I have found through research including documentary and biography sources have concluded to be contradictory. Though I feel I have come upon certain aspects of her personality from which I can write a cohesive developed character. 

Vivien was a young girl raised in an atmosphere based on mannerisms and everything that we can attribute to the superficiality of the upper-clas of England at the time (the time being the beginning of the 20th century). Both of her parents were not only well-off, but exheuted all aspect of the English upper class. 

What is most fascinating about this woman is her raw determination. When she first laid eyes on her first husband, a barrister named Leigh Holman, she bowed that she would marry him, even though knowing that he was at the time engaged to someone else. This is the same attitude with which she pursued her great love, Lawrence Olivier. When she first met him, a friend had to remind her that she was already married after she had exclaimed that she would make him her husband. The fact that he was already married to actress Jill Esmond was of no consequence to her. This could be viewed as profound selfishness and disregard for others, and at the sam time can be attributed to a woman's determination to get what she wants. 

What is an interesting question to consider is what was more important in her life. Did she persue Lawrence Olivier because he was a successful actor and she believed that they would mesh well together, or was she in love with him. 

One story is that she was completely dissatisfied with married life. Not only that, she was also dissatisfied in a home life, being a wife and mother. When she gave birth to her daughter Suzanne, she wrote in her diary; "had a baby" and that is all. Her biggest concern was her career. 

This determination led to her obtaining the most coveted role in American film history up to the point; Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone With the Wind". Even when she was an unknown English stage actress, she had related to friends that it will be her part, no matter what. 

This is what I would like to explore in my interpretation of her character. Nothing mattered but for rising to the top, achieving what she felt she was worthy of. Her first husband was in the way, whom she subsequently divorced, and eventually, her great love, Lawrence Olivier became "in her way" as well. 

The only thing that stifled her was her mental illness, even that she would not allow to stand in her way. I do not believe that it was her intension to be famous, to be a star. But I do believe that her indelible determination was attributed to the fact that she was so incredibly independent and saw greater things for herself than just a barrister's wife, a mother, or the wife of a famous actor. She wanted to be an original, and her achieving that lead to her demise in means of her personal life. 

Even in her worst state of manic depression, she remained a seasoned professional. She had undergone everything form psycho-analysis to electric shock-treatment, sometimes at the same time that she would be working on a film. Her drive to succeed eclipsed any pain that she might have gone through personally, and herein lies the paradox. 

Though Vivien was driven, she was stiffeled. The greatest thing in her life that was stifling to her drive was her mental illness. People who know her well recount how terrible her condition was. She would explode on people and be incredibly rude to others. Once she gained composer of herself she would take time to write to them and apologize. But regarding this, her focus was her career. In the depths of the worst parts of her mental illness she still appeared in many plays, working herself to pieces as it were, disregarding her need to get well and focusing on what she felt she needed to accomplish. 

There is a very interesting dichotomy between Vivien and one of her most significant roles in both theater and film. Lawrence Olivier called "A Streetcar Named Desire" "that awful play", even though he had directed her in it in England. He thought that the character of Blanche was so close in frailty and misunderstanding that Vivien was at that point and believed that it was her total immersion in this role that had completely had pushed her over the edge. 

Mad Women

Let's face it a show about high powered advertising executives in Manhattan set in the 1960's is bound to be a little sexist if not fully riding the chauvanist horse to its burning stable, and yet the women of 'Mad Men' (2007-) are the ones getting most of the notice (arguably, considering Jon Hamm has now hosted SNL thrice, and people suddenly recognize the name Vincent Karthreiser). But it's pretty much the trifecta, big city big boobed hussy Joan Holloway (Christina Hendricks), awkward and somewhat cunty Peggy Olson (Elizabeth Moss), and the incredibly delectable poop of angels porcelain goddess Betty Draper (January Jones). 

Don Draper was voted the #2 most influential man behind Barack Obama on Askmen.com, conversely it was reported in The Telegraph that the climb in breast implants demand is due pretty much entirely to Christina Hendricks.

Telegraph Article Here.

I think its safe to assume that women who watch the show are already by the second episode picking out which character they first are most like, and second want to be like. The answer to the first part is probably going to be Pegs, and the answer to that second part as almost always  Joany. No one can be Betty Draper, the dead ringer for Grace Kelly, it's just not feasible, on top of that she's pretty boring and stuck up. 

There are winey and catty housewives, sex starved cougars, and uptight stenographers enough to make their own satiric show that highlights how different those times used to be. Most of the other women from the Mad Men steno-pool are pretty much always treated with contempt and sarcasm and look almost identical, thereby are all rather forgettable. But if you're making a show set in the 1960's in New York, about high powered executives, there is a certain level of sexism that is unavoidable. But it doesn't seem to venture into objectification, or at least that which is unwanted. Joan's got ridiculously large breasts, they're there, the end, and her demeanor suggests that she could teach all of us a thing or 12 and can stand toe to toe with any of the smug office men and cut them down to size pretty fast. She's definitely the Mulveyian personification of the castration complex and she gets my vote. Now I have to learn to walk so boldly that people feel the impact tremor on the other side of the room, stuff pudding balloons into my bra, and speak so assertively and yet softly that men feel simultaneously threatened and turned on. Being Joan Holloway is an art, and a delicate one. Good luck all you Peggy's out there (including me)

Now that that's over, lets all vote for our favorite Mad Man, mine's a definite check in the box next to Ken Cosgroves name. I know that sounds generic, but I have to go with who appeared in my erotic dream first, and it was him, sorry John Slattery. 

A Little Hot for Heaven: Lessons from Hollywood Babylon

How to describe the book 'Hollywood Babylon'? (1965) written by child actor turned avant-garde filmmaker, Kenneth Anger. Well I suppose i can start by saying it paved the way for every single contemporary trashy gossip magazine. And I mean this as complementing an astounding accomplishment. It also makes you realize that no matter how many times Lindsay Lohan goes into rehab, or amounts of cocaine and prostitute Charlie Sheen manages to go through every week, what transpired in Hollywood's 'Golden Age' (1930's to the end of the 1950's) was so much more 'juicy'. It elevated gossip into an art form and exposed all the dirty little secrets that Hollywood money men took great lengths to cover up on the media.
 The book's cover is adorned with an infamous picture of Jayne Mansfield with her nipples showing, while inside there is thorough coverage of her grizzly car accident with even a more infamous photograph of her body post-crash. You may ask, why is this necessary and why do we need this? I personally am not interested in those tragic and mysterious deaths, but more in Rudolph Valentino's sex life, or Marilyn Monroe's pill habit. I yearn to learn about all of those details that remained hidden from the public for so long. When a movie star was photographed at a premiere or a Hollywood party back in the day, they couldn't be holding a glass of anything, even if it was orange juice. So it's not only shocking but titillating to read about how much boozing, fucking, and general hedonism went on a lot of the time. 

As you may expect, the book was of course banned and re-released a long 10 years later, with all of the scandals, suicides, and sex completely intact.

A lot of people are completely unaware of just how dirty Hollywood used to be. Sheen would come off as a priest if compared to the excessive wild orgies that regularly transpired at Errol Flynn's estate, or the weird kinky sex capades between Joan Crawford and second husband Franchot Tone.

Kenneth Anger's cinematic career when coupled with both volumes of Hollywood Babylon can arguably be seen as perhaps not the 'birth' of camp, but the establishment of it as a powerful sub-culture force. It is all very deliciously naughty, and wholly fulfills our craving to satisfy our guilty pleasures, with an emphasis on the pleasure part. It is pretty much the equivalent of a dirty film, except these are people we all know and idolize, worship, and obsess over. Anger opens the cupboard to all of their dirty little secrets, and that's what makes this book interesting even now that all of those people are long dead. 

Below is a 1970's television retrospective of Anger's experience and inspiration in writing 'Hollywood Babylon'. the full film can be found on youtube. The book sells for 2 pounds or so on Amazon.com

I highly recommend you spending your starbucks money on this.

Hollywood Babylon, Amazon.com

Glee: New Directions, Same Old Shit.

Oh Glee, where to begin really? I could start off by saying its a redundant show with now real plot lines, arcs, or character development, and is little more than glorified karaoke, but this is a blog about dirty and perverted things. Is Glee this? Actually, I would argue that it is. It is quite filthy in the best way (the campy way) hidden behind a seemingly innocent high school context filled with teenage humor and harmless sex jokes. The context of Glee allows it to get away with a TV14 rating. Nothing is really explicit, and compared to shows like 'Hung', 'Breaking Bad', and 'Skins', it is more or less harmless. 

Controversy has planted its flag firmly in the show after the Britney/Brittany episode wherein the main characters perform an a capella version of Britney Spears' 'Toxic' and one of the biggest nerds at the assembly goes crazy from sexual frustration and inadvertently well, shoots a load in a pants. 

More controversy followed after Lea Michelle, Corey Monteith, and Diana Argon appeared on the cover of GQ dressed like contemporary versions of high school lolitas with Monteith's hands grabbing their bums, with a douche bag grin on his face. They very appropriately resembled that ever so infamous cover of Rolling Stone from 1999 where Britney was photographed in her underwear and shiny purple bra, holding a teletubbie. I know what you're thinking, Roman Polanski was the first to buy a copy...too soon?
Is this little more than glorified kiddie porn? Is that true of the show as well? Even though most of the cast are in their mid-twenties playing 16-year-olds, is it appropriate? Probably not, but that's the best part about it, and that's the only thing that makes Glee tolerable for me.  

The infamous GQ cover from last year. 

Britney's historic Rolling Stone cover after the release of her first album, 1999. 

The backstage antics of the leads have also made headlines from gossip mongers desperate to cash in the sex dough that has been stagnant since Lindsay Lohan went to rehab. Seemingly nice-guy Matthew Morrison (Will Sheuster), apparently has an assistant who's only job is to trip his chest hair. While Mark Salling (Puck) and Corey Monteith (Finn) have a contest as to who can bang the most extras. Honestly, the hottest person on the show is the incomparable Jane Lynch. She has definitely become a sexual icon in her own right. After the Madonna episode, where she did a shot by shot remake of the video for 'Vogue', she became the sexual tour-de-force of the show that is overflowing with hot 20 somethings. 

If I could put my two cents in, Glee should stop focusing on recreating (somewhat badly) musical theater versions of classic rock songs, and milk that sex angle for all its worth. It doesn't have to be superficially; addressing the burgeoning need for teenagers to mate, and loss of virginity, or dedicating 'the very special episode' to it, but to implement clever innuendo, musical if must be, in order to transform this somewhat too fluffy show into something really provocative. 

The pregnancy arc was the most sugar-coated 'very special episode' that I've seen in a long time. C'mon Glee, it's been years since Beverly Hills 90210 and Brenda's little problem. Not to mention it was the most awkward birthing scene in the history of birthing scene (this includes those horrid videos we had to watch in health class). The character of Britney always articulates that she's a mega-slut and has slept with nearly everyone at the school discounting the faculty, but why not play that up a bit? There seems to be constant sex-talk among the members of glee, or singing about it for that matter, but seldom any actual doing. Why not show more and tell less? I think it would work wonders. Dirty up Glee. It's about time you did. 

A Tribute to Pretty Scots (Inspired by Braveheart)

Mel Gibson does nothing for me, and yes, he's not even a Scot, but even when prancing around in a skirt with the NFL make-up on his face, with his hair quaffed like a lion's main, I still didn't buy it. But there were some others in there that I took notice of and are going in a new fantasy file that i'm labeling: 'Scots', never thought i'd go there, but apparently I have, so here's a list I've compiled of other famous scots that are a good peice of man meat eye-candy, or reputable serious actors whatever...

Just to be clear, I am not objectifying men, ok so I am...thought i'd make a small tribute to the country I now live in. Cheers. 

Henry Ian Cusick 

Desmond from Lost, and a fine mix of Scottish and Peruvian heritage, and a gorgeous head of wavy hair. Hopefully I'll see YOU in another life brother. Oh god that was so corny.

Tommy Flanagan

My current obsession, first seen by me in 'Gladiator' as Russell Crow's faithful servant Cicero. Flanagan currently resides on Sons of Anarchy street, and after the initial burning loins for Charlie Hunnam I have now turned my undivided tv attention to his fine self.

Ewan McGregor

Well, you had to see this one coming, aside from Sean Connery, there is only one other person most people think of when people use the phrase 'hot scottish actor'...what people you ask? well, aside from me, i'm not sure. If for no other reason he's up here because he's done full frontal in more than 3 films. look it up, it's a fact.

Gerard Butler

Well, yeah. unlike most of you freaks that are all about '300', I fell in love with him after watching 'Law Abiding Citizen' yeah! how about them apples! I'm so much cooler. And yes, there was a time that I netflixed everything that came up in his filmography. And yes, most of them were gawd-awful. And yes, that's a word.

Agnus MacFadyen

Numero dos from the Braveheart clan that makes it to this list, to be fair, most of those actors were actually not Scottish, i think tommy and agnus are the only two. He also makes a pretty good Orson Welles. 'Cradle Will Rock', see it, actually don't, it's horrible.

Kevin McKidd

God I love him, and I don't even watch 'Grey's Anatomy', but if you think really hard, you'll find a vague memory of him as Tommy from 'Trainspotting', and if you're awesome, you'll also remember him from 'Topsy-Turvy'. In this picture he kind of resembles Gordon Ramsay, but younger and less annoying.

Spotlight On: Brief Encounter (1945)

I know what you're thinking. Stuffy middle-aged British people having an affair? Sing. Me. Up. While Trevor Howard (the male lead) is attractive to people like me, he definitely wouldn't find his way to the cover of People Magazine had it existed in the 40's. The female lead, Celia Johnson is even less appealing. She's a very mousy type, and has little if any sex appeal, in the classical sense. Although her presence is ideal for the plot at hand. It's not supposed to be an easy love affair. This film is about those difficult people that usually don't give their own love lives more thought than they're errands for the day. He's a doctor, and she's a bored miserable housewife who is just begging for a good bang.
Here's the thing. It's probably the quintessential delay-fuck movie of all time.
They meet, he wipes grit from her eye, they have tea, they fall in love. Do they get it on? Nope.
Billy Wilder was said to come up with the idea for his film 'The Apartment' (1960) from this film, particularly when Trevor Howard's character invites (or rather begs) Celia Johnson to spend the night with him at his friend's flat. She instinctively says no, but then changes her mind and runs back to the flat. They have a bit less than 1 minute to embrace and appear as they are about to gnaw each other's clothes off violently before they are of course interrupted!
Now, I don't usually watch my David Lean for arousal, but c'mon!!
I own and regularly watch 'Gone with the Wind', which has got to be the greatest example of delayed fuck of all time, but at least they redeemed themselves when Rhett hoists Scarlett over his burly shoulders and carries her upstairs to do things with her, that at first she might have been against, but the next shot is a close up of her face waking up and smiling ear to ear. At least the delay-fuck was dealt with there.
Can I say the same for 'Brief Encounter'? I wish.
But hey, it's not about that. It's about these two stuffy people who are not attractive at all out of this context, (except for me but i'm a weirdo) finding each other serendipitously and falling madly in love, thereby feeling extreme guilt over their already existent respective families.
It truly boggles the mind why I find myself attracted to both parties of the film. Neither of them have character, stamina, or any sort of endearing qualities. Laura (Celia Johnson) is a boring smarmy whiny little bitch, while Alec is a stuffy mundane general practitioner with the world's most awkward tendencies. I guess they are perfect for each other.
But we are all just waiting for that point in the film that (due to the strict censorship code of Hollywood) the two of them at least implied that they bumped uglies. But there is no such thing. There is not even any kind of kissing. No handholding, no smelling of the back of Laura's neck. Nada!
I know that certain love stories are supposed to be subtle and whimsical, but this film is so visceral that it is difficult to stomach the fact that sex was not even implied.
There is that scene that reaches above and beyond the tired montages of them sharing lunch, laughing over a bad movie, and almost falling over in a boat, which is when the anonymous friend of Alec's comes home early and connects the dots after he finds Laura's scarf on his couch even though she ran off very innocently down the back stairs.
I'm sure what everyone is thinking is; it's 1945, Hollywood, influenced by the self censorship Haze code, as well as the Catholic Legion of Decency. Do I really have an argument here?

Alec beckons Laura to stay with him at his friend's flat. Though he really does look like all he wants to do with her is play a long game of Scategories and drink a glass of warm milk, we know better. And we all wish that it had worked out the way he planned that night. 

The answer is yes. And here's why. 'Double Indemnity' (1944) has a scene almost identical to that 'come to my friend's flat' thing of 'Brief Encounter'. By which I mean that it involves two people on the verge of complete and total sexual overtake of their morals, responsibilities, and ideals. In Wilder's film, what happens is Barbara Stanwyck and Fred MacMurray swap a few clever phrases and then embrace each other in a loss of inhibition. It fades out. When the camera fades back, Stanwyck is adjusting her top as if putting it back on after having it torn off her body in the heat of passion. MacMurray lights a cigarette. It might as well have been spelled out for the viewer that the two had just finished doing it.
And yet, here lies my problem; the sexual tension between Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson is almost ridiculous. It's difficult to watch the two together without realizing that your toes and fingers are slowly curling for no reason. Separately, they couldn't be more opposing to 'sensual passion' ( i use this term because 'Brief Encounter' flirts with the lines between melodrama and cheesy romance). Together, they are almost electric. Usually, the process of voyeuristic pleasure derives from physical attraction to one or both of the characters, and in this case, neither are particularly attractive...or interesting for that matter. But all of those moments in the film when they almost kiss but don't, makes you wish they would all the more. It's torture, but delicious torture. It's the quintessential delayed-fuck film. If they actually fucked, or if it was implied, it would have ruined the whole story. 

Hung: More Than Just Penis Jokes.

A handsome single father of two, frustrated by financial problems decides to become a man whore to give his kids the life they deserve. You have to admit-it has a built in audience. Aside from that it sounds like something Miramax was shoving down the Academy's throat in the mid-90's as a sappy tear-fest. Alas, the HBO show 'Hung' (2009 - ) is none of those things. Its a sharp sex-comedy starring Tom Jane and the illusive but brilliant Jane Adams as Ray the prostitute and Tanya his pimp respectively. 

First of all let me say this is perhaps the best comedy on television since 'Arrested Development'. It is not your typical black comedy, as it doesn't have the cringe factor stapled to it. It's almost Shakespearian if we think of his comedy of manners and how he writes relationships between men and women and their respective views on sex in such plays as 'Twelfth Night' and 'Midsummer Nights Dream'. One could also compare the sexual humor in this show to that of a reincarnation of the 'Lubtisch Touch', updated for contemporary audiences. 

HBO is known as being a network that doesn't censor itself on the subject, and in fact tends to push the standards for 'acceptable television' as seen with shows like 'True Blood'. Cable networks have continuously shock us with the content that they allow past their executive boards into syndicated air time. Programming has come a long way since open mouth kissing being the biggest thing to hit the cast of 'Beverly Hills - 90210'. And we couldn't be more thankful. It shows how television is moving further ahead from cinema in matters of provocative content and shock value. 

This is not in any way to state that 'Hung' is a show that shocks for the sake of shocking. The comedy is crass, snarky, but beautifully subtle. You can't have a show called 'Hung', about a male prostitute and not include scenes of gratuitous sex (unless you're Warhol, but that's another story). In a comedy context, the filming of intercourse can be rather difficult. Especially when you have to strategically place the actors' full frontals away from the frame. Ray (Tom Jane) is a man who is very attractive, but insanely lonely. The only thing he really has in his arsenal as a lover is his ridiculously large penis. Jane Adams begins to enlighten him on the universal truth that is 'it's not the size of the boat but the motion of the ocean'. Which is not true in all cases, but is the centerpiece moral lesson of the show, and as Ray strives to become a better lover, he unwittingly becomes a better man. In the competitive world of man-whoring, a big penis can only take one so far. He becomes in tune with what women need, want, and fantasize about. His growth in technique helps him to grow emotionally. Like that ever happens in real life. But we all wish it would. 

Ray's second 'assignment' as a man whore is with his pimp's friend who is frustrated in her mundane marriage. In this scene she breaks down crying because she feels her husband has never been aware of her needs in bed. Ray says that they don't have to sleep with each other if she doesn't feel like its right, so she responds; 'well, can i see your penis anyway?' He obliges, and I applauded. 

He learns to make love with equal vigor, whether it be a foxy 20 something, or a lonely, homely house frau in her late 40's. He begins to understand that in sex, it's more about the other than about you, and the more you give the more you get, in simplified terms. He grows into pretty much the perfect man and that's why we still tune in (and by we, I mean women). Not only is he insanely attractive and well built, and there is not an episode yet where we don't see his bare ass, he's a guy who is learning the ways of the world from a feminine perspective. It's kind of what we wish every man could do, and also look like. The sex scenes are erotic and hilarious. Completely avoiding awkwardness is very difficult to do when you're working with graphic material, and Tom Jane's voice over really helps. 

Aside from so many clever one liners I can't even begin to quote from them, what's brilliant about the show is that it takes the point of view of a male protagonist and couples it with a firm female perspective, so it's really a sex win-win. 

I'm not going to lie, this show makes me want to consider prostitution as a plan B. If I can find a pimp as wise and supportive as Jane Adams, then I'd definitely go for it. Highly recommended show. Check it out for your own good. 

Countdown of Warhol's Most Significant 'Blue' Films

Warhol's role in the American Avant-Garde is one of profound significance, not only because of its influence on underground and experimental film, but on mainstream film as well and continues to be relevant to contemporary filmmakers. Here is a countdown of his most unapologetic and deliciously perverted films that have shaped not only how we view sexuality on film, but sexuality as a whole. Most who knew him describe his as the ultimate voyeur, which is always used as a cinematic term. The camera becomes the peephole for our voyeuristic pleasure, and no one took that concept to more profound depths than Warhol. Think of the most arousing sex scene in a film that you have experienced, then think of the most disgusting and awkward. Warhol ran the gamete between both. I would call him the most significant influence on voyeurism and the cinema. In cinema, there is sex before Warhol, and sex after Warhol. This list outlines those films I believe to be the most influential on that particular evolution. I'll add more on later. 

1. Kiss (1963)
This film is absolutely paralyzing. It puts the voyeur in a trance like state as he/she is forced to focus on different interpretations of what is usually considered a personal and emotional human moment which Warhol transforms into an almost mechanical act. 

2. Beauty 2 (1965)
This film is so interesting because it allows us to experience from a 3rd perspective what we usually know as a hazy experience; namely being drunk while engaging in sexual acts. Warhol replays the experience as universal, making the voyeur reminisce about their own experiences in situations like that. Of course if you don't drink then this is irrelevant. 

3. Blow Job (1963)
Perhaps Warhol's most interesting practical joke. You knew walking into a Warhol film, there was going to be content you wouldn't otherwise see in the mainstream, and with a title like that, the voyeuristic part of our psyche goes into full functional mode. And what is it we end up seeing? Nothing sexual at all really, and yet, it is the most sexual piece of film. Warhol allows us to experience the mental act rather than the physical act. 

4. Tarzan and Jane Regained...Sort Of (1964)
Warhol's take on a classic Hollywood exploit, perhaps in a effort to point out the hypocrisy of old Hollywood that always stood behind the banner of being clean, while having Johnny Weismuller oiled up like a Park Fair hog and prancing around in little less than a scarf around his privates. 

5. Blue Movie (1969)
The title says it all, but not really. It is a play. It is almost like children during fun time. It is a play on the term 'blue' which at that time meant 'pornographic', it is a play on gender roles, on sex acts, and what we perceive to be erotic. He transforms the grown up conceptuality of sex into an exercise in child's play.

The Women Karamazov: An Analysis of the 1958 American Adaptation

It's going to be difficult for me to do a review on this film without getting into the source material. It remains my favorite piece of fiction, and I was pleasantly surprised when first watching this considering the extensive effort that was put into being true to the philosophical nature of Dostoevsky. Considering Americans always royally fuck up any good literature (especially Russian) when making it a Hollywood thing, The Brothers Karamazov (1958), dir. Richard Brooks, is a refreshing adaptation and yeilds a comparison of sexual prowess and Mulveyain seduction; Katya (Claire Bloom) and Grushenka (Maria Schell).

Here's a little background. Katya (Katerina Ivanovna) is a lady in all respects. She comes from money, and is madly in love with the oldest brother Dmitri.

Claire Bloom is more or less perfect for this part. She's whimsical, demure, lovely, but not gorgeous. Also, she's a bit of an ice princess. She's nice to look at but you wouldn't actually want to tap that. Her hair is cropped tightly behind her head, her dresses are very proper and somewhat smarmy. She definitely has that gentle touch, but it seems foreboding as if any minute she would turn into a venus fly trap and eat a man whole.

Contrasted to her is the free spirited, tenacious, Grushenka (Argafena Alexandrovna). She's a vagabond of a woman, a lady, but wild and rebellious. She is the owner of a tavern, and is having an affair with the elder Karamazov, the father (played by Lee J. Cobb). She soon seduces Dmitri (Yul Brynner) after she buys up his debts accumulated from his father, and he tracks her down to discuss it with her. An excellent exchange between the two goes:

Dmitri: Stop! Wait!

Grushenka: Yes Lieutenant, is that an order? Oh you have come to pay me the money you owe me? Or you have come to beat me? I might like that.

She takes him to a tavern on the outskirts of town and he blows 500 rubles to have a gipsy party with her. She seals the deal when she does a seductive dance in her corset with a gipsy scarf.

The role was originally intended for Marilyn Monroe, who at the time was sick of the menial projects 20th Century Fox was sending her direction and was taking classes under Lee Strasberg at the Actor's Studio, wanting to become a serious actress. And let's face it, how perfect would that have been. As her husband at the time, Arthur Miller had stated; 'everything about her was controversial'. Ergo, Grushenka was the ideal role for her at the time. But for some reason or another, she backed out and the role went to Maxamilian Schell's older sister, Maria. She was pretty enough, great bosom, and a lyrical voice, but she was no Monroe. Nevertheless, she proved to be a good opposite to Claire Bloom's well-mannered Katya.

In this analysis, we can argue that both women as opposite as they are of each other can both be considered Mulveyian, or Haskellian for that matter.

Both exemplify the castration concept that Mulvey theorized about but by different means.

Grushenka is the obvious Mulvey/Haskell incarnation as she is threatening to the male spectator considering how little regard she has for the status quo and 'a woman's place', She is rogue, rebellious, and unapologetic. She seduces not only Dmitri, but also his father, and inadvertently causes a significant rift between the two which ends with Father Karamazov's murder, and Dmitri being wrongfully accused of it. In this, she becomes the catalyst for the great moral conflict of the story of the Brothers Karamazov. She not only causes men to question their choices and beliefs, but is actually capable of transforming them into her idea of a good human being, and a good partner.

Katya on the other hand is threatening because of her stoicism. She is neither affected nor hurt when Dmitri is put on trial for the murder of her father, and also indifferent to his younger brother Ivan's advances towards her. She seems completely impenetrable, and is the only one who does not bat an eye to change herself regarding the new circumstances that engulf the characters in the story. Even Ivan (Richard Basehart), a stubborn atheist ends up recanting his beliefs when he realizes what is what in the whole conflict and Dmitri's demise. But she keeps her cool, and even ends up taking revenge on Dmitri for cheating on her by acting as a witness for the prosecution at his trial.

It can be seen as Grushenka is the catalyst for Dmitri's demise, while Katya is the villain who attempts to completely destroy him afterwards.

Maria Schell as Grushenka on the left, Claire Bloom as Katya on the right. If you watch the film, you will notice there is much more to this distinction than just their physical attributes. 

And while both parts are those that young ingenues dream of playing one day, the more significant is obviously Grushenka. At the time this film was made, it was an opportunity to play a character so opposing of the standards of the times (America in the 1950's). She symbolizes sexual power; one that is incorruptible but is capable of corruption of men's souls. This kind of power is exactly what we as spectators simultaneously admire and fear. All this said, it is actually still played down from what her character is like in the novel. It is a bit of a glossed over Grushenka who is a flirt and tease, while the book portrays her as an indelible feminine force.

I would recommend this film, not only for Maria Schell, but because of how the entire cast is able to accurately translate the characters they play into performance. Dostoevsky is notorious for being poorly translated into English, but even more notorious for being just about the most difficult material to be adapted for the screen. His books are volumes long, very dense, and very philosophical. But the task is still to this day intriguing to filmmakers. And none has before or since done better in my opinion than this film.