Thoughts on expressions of fannishness
A couple of fannish observations regarding Topkapi, which are general enough that I share them here even though pretty much none of you share my obsession:
1. Upon the nature of obsession itself: As it turns out, I am completely capable not only to dl a movie (The Madwoman of Chaillot) entirely because a particular actor (Gilles Ségal) is in it for approximately five minutes, but also to then search out and repeatedly watch those five minutes, rather than watch the actual entire movie, even though the main star of the film (Katharine Hepburn) is a long-time favourite of mine.
I’ll watch it eventually, of course. (I’ll probably love it, too, judging by that line about cabbages.) And in a way, it makes sense to do it this way, because then I won’t spend my actual viewing of the film waiting for those five minutes. But still.
(I searched out this particular film because I could find it - I can’t find his other stuff. The fact that it’s a Hepburn movie is coincidental. And believe it or not, the fact that Ségal’s once again talking with his hands is coincidental too. Or maybe not entirely - after all, there’s got to be a reason I favoured him over Schell and Mercouri in the first place, and it can’t only have been the swimming scenes.)
2. Whenever people talk about how homoerotic something is and I just don’t see it, I feel really old. Where did my slash goggles go? I used to slash anyone and anything, regardless of chemistry, regardless of whether or not they’d met, and now I go, “No, well, admittedly they’re very touchy-feely, and there’s a clear indication of a long and close-knit history, but there doesn’t seem to be a sexual component, that I can see.” What on earth happened?
OTOH, since I just slashed Leslie Winkle and Amy Farrah Fowler, and they never met in canon, maybe this failure is temporary. Or maybe femslash is a different creature altogether. (I’m certainly less satiated in that respect!)
This entry was originally posted at http://katta.dreamwidth.org/584901.html and has
comments there.
1. Upon the nature of obsession itself: As it turns out, I am completely capable not only to dl a movie (The Madwoman of Chaillot) entirely because a particular actor (Gilles Ségal) is in it for approximately five minutes, but also to then search out and repeatedly watch those five minutes, rather than watch the actual entire movie, even though the main star of the film (Katharine Hepburn) is a long-time favourite of mine.
I’ll watch it eventually, of course. (I’ll probably love it, too, judging by that line about cabbages.) And in a way, it makes sense to do it this way, because then I won’t spend my actual viewing of the film waiting for those five minutes. But still.
(I searched out this particular film because I could find it - I can’t find his other stuff. The fact that it’s a Hepburn movie is coincidental. And believe it or not, the fact that Ségal’s once again talking with his hands is coincidental too. Or maybe not entirely - after all, there’s got to be a reason I favoured him over Schell and Mercouri in the first place, and it can’t only have been the swimming scenes.)
2. Whenever people talk about how homoerotic something is and I just don’t see it, I feel really old. Where did my slash goggles go? I used to slash anyone and anything, regardless of chemistry, regardless of whether or not they’d met, and now I go, “No, well, admittedly they’re very touchy-feely, and there’s a clear indication of a long and close-knit history, but there doesn’t seem to be a sexual component, that I can see.” What on earth happened?
OTOH, since I just slashed Leslie Winkle and Amy Farrah Fowler, and they never met in canon, maybe this failure is temporary. Or maybe femslash is a different creature altogether. (I’m certainly less satiated in that respect!)
This entry was originally posted at http://katta.dreamwidth.org/584901.html and has
comments there.