Shadows by Ray Carney

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Shadows by Ray Carney Shadows By Ray Carney The film we refer to as “Shadows” exists in two significantly different ver- sions. John Cassavetes filmed the first version, which thus counts as his actual “first film,” between March and May 1957 and, after eighteen months of editing that involved ex- tensive dubbing to correct problems with the sound recording, screened the Rupert Crosse, Hugh Hurd and Lelia Goldoni. Courtesy The Criterion Collection. finished 78-minute print at a series of late-night screenings in New York’s Paris Theater in early information about the rediscovery is available at: December 1958. The screenings were well- http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/discoveries/ attended, though the film was extremely poorly shadowsquest.shtml.) received. New York’s hippest and coolest were not delighted with Cassavetes’ depiction of them One of the most innovative aspects of both ver- and their lives. Rather than flattering them with a sions is the “distributed” nature of the narratives. vision of their iconoclasm and creativity the way The various characters live different lives and “Pull My Daisy” would a year or two later, act out independent destinies, presented in sep- Cassavetes called attention to his characters’ arate scenes and sets of relationships. This was emotional and imaginative problems. Every sin- even more obvious in the first version, where gle character was flawed, foolish, or both. And Hugh’s, Ben’s, and Lelia’s stories were kept so even as the semi-comedy of the presentation separate for the first 45 minutes that most view- took the sting out of the critique, it denied the ers were unaware they were siblings. Not only characters the degree of self-importance with did Cassavetes jump from one storyline to an- which the audience viewed themselves. Viewers other, he created a universe that allowed for laughed inappropriately, walked out before the genuinely different points of view and different screening was over, or made jokes about the emotional and moral relationships to experience. “artsy-fartsy” photography. One of the most radical aspects of Cassavetes’ method is the way he kept changing the tone Cassavetes decided to reshoot and re-edit large and mood to allow the viewer to have more than chunks of the film. With the help of screenwriter- one emotional relationship to experiences even friend Robert Alan Aurthur, he created a series within a single scene. of new scenes, and in early 1959 reassembled key members of the cast and crew to film 19 Another innovative aspect of the presentation is hours of new footage. The new scenes radically that characters’ identities are relational. The pro- cut back on the interactions between Ben, Tom, cess of collaborating with others to create your and Dennis, greatly enlarged Lelia’s role, clari- own identity is, in fact, what it is to be a character fied the narrative by adding transitional material, for Cassavetes. Personal identity is not inherent, and replaced some (but not all) of the unlicensed essential, or predetermined, but brought into ex- music. The “second version” of “Shadows” was istence in performance. Characters don’t have created. It became the only “Shadows” people “characters;” they are works-in-progress; they knew after the only copy of the “first version” shape and re-shape their identities in their inter- was lost and presumed destroyed until the pre- actions with others. Rather than being a fixity, sent author located it in an attic in 2003. (More identity is a capacity—something that is gradual- ly, provisionally, revisionarily composed and de- want to be. Hugh and Rupert realize that their composed. That is the deep meaning of friendship is more important than their jobs and “Shadows”’ racial conceit, which professional identities; Ben realizes that his Cassavetes told me that no one who wrote coolness and cruising are not emotionally satis- about the film seemed to understand. He said fying; Tony realizes that the wall between him- critics got hung up on the idea of a character self and Lelia is of his own creation; and Lelia being black or white, when the very point of the realizes that her attempt to appear sophisticated film was the fluidity of identity. “Shadows” is and knowing betrays her real feelings. “Shadows” about the irresolution of its characters’ identities, defines the territory all of Cassavetes’ subse- an ontological sketchiness that can never be quent work will explore and forces its characters gotten beyond—not about replacing it with the to ask the same questions Cassavetes asked false clarity of a racial typology. It is about identi- himself throughout his life: In a world where our ty as a temporal, provisional, forever-unfinished identities are defined by our relations with others process—not as a completable product. As its and relentlessly pressured by cultural forces out- title suggests, the characters in “Shadows” are side ourselves: Who are we really? How do we only “shadows” of themselves until they bring find it out? And at what emotional and psychic themselves into existence in more substantial cost? and meaningful ways. The views expressed in these essays are those of the author and The masterplot of “Shadows” is that in the do not necessarily represent the views of the Library of course of the film the main characters have to Congress. recognize and leave behind the false, fictional roles in which they have cast themselves in or- der to discover their true needs and desires. It is one thing to fool others, but Lelia, Ben, Hugh, Rupert, and Tony, in different ways, are doing something much worse—fooling themselves Ray Carney teaches at Boston University. He is the about who they are, about what they need and author of fifteen books translated into a dozen lan- want. They are trapped in states of confusion so guages. He conducted a series of “Rosebud” con- deep they don’t even know they are confused versations with Cassavetes before his death, in until the damage has been done to others—and which the filmmaker revealed unknown information to themselves. In the final fifteen minutes, and gave him tens of thousands of pages of un- published fiction, drama, and film material. He is Cassavetes forces each of them into a state of currently completing two books: Masterworks of breakdown to reveal the fallacy of their imagina- Independent Film and a radical re-evaluation of the tive stances, in order to experience a possible work of Robert Bresson. More information is availa- breakthrough about who they really are as op- ble at: http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/aboutrc/ posed to who they think they are or who they bio.shtml. .
Recommended publications
  • Ross Lipman Urban Ruins, Found Moments
    Ross Lipman Urban Ruins, Found Moments Los Angeles premieres Tues Mar 30 | 8:30 pm $9 [students $7, CalArts $5] Jack H. Skirball Series Known as one of the world’s leading restorationists of experimental and independent cinema, Ross Lipman is also an accomplished filmmaker, writer and performer whose oeuvre has taken on urban decay as a marker of modern consciousness. He visits REDCAT with a program of his own lyrical and speculative works, including the films 10-17-88 (1989, 11 min.) and Rhythm 06 (1994/2008, 9 min.), selections from the video cycle The Perfect Heart of Flux, and the performance essay The Cropping of the Spectacle. “Everything that’s built crumbles in time: buildings, cultures, fortunes, and lives,” says Lipman. “The detritus of civilization tells us no less about our current epoch than an archeological dig speaks to history. The urban ruin is particularly compelling because it speaks of the recent past, and reminds us that our own lives and creations will also soon pass into dust. These film, video, and performance works explore decay in a myriad of forms—architectural, cultural, and personal.” In person: Ross Lipman “Lipman’s films are wonderful…. strong and delicate at the same time… unique. The rhythm and colors are so subtle, deep and soft.” – Nicole Brenez, Cinémathèque Française Program Self-Portrait in Mausoleum DigiBeta, 1 min., 2009 (Los Angeles) Refractions and reflections shot in the Hollywood Forever Cemetery: the half-life of death’s advance. Stained glass invokes the sublime in its filtering of light energy, a pre-cinematic cipher announcing a crack between worlds.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Indirect Affect in Cassavetes' Opening Night and Faces Homay King Bryn Mawr College, [email protected]
    Bryn Mawr College Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College History of Art Faculty Research and Scholarship History of Art 2004 Free Indirect Affect in Cassavetes' Opening Night and Faces Homay King Bryn Mawr College, [email protected] Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.brynmawr.edu/hart_pubs Part of the Film and Media Studies Commons Custom Citation King, Homay. "Free Indirect Affect in Cassavetes' Opening Night and Faces." Camera Obscura 19, no. 2/56 (2004): 105-139, doi: 10.1215/02705346-19-2_56-105. This paper is posted at Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College. http://repository.brynmawr.edu/hart_pubs/40 For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 Homay King, “Free Indirect Affect in Cassavetes’ Opening Night and Faces,” Camera Obscura 56, v. 19, n. 2 (Summer 2004): 104-135. Free Indirect Affect in Cassavetes’ Opening Night and Faces Homay King How to make the affect echo? — Roland Barthes, Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes1 1. In the Middle of Things: Opening Night John Cassavetes’ Opening Night (1977) begins not with the curtain going up, but backstage. In the first image we see, Myrtle Gordon (Gena Rowlands) has just exited stage left into the wings during a performance of the play The Second Woman. In this play, Myrtle acts the starring role of Virginia, a woman in her early sixties who is trapped in a stagnant second marriage to a photographer. Both Myrtle and Virginia are grappling with age and attempting to come to terms with the choices they have made throughout their lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Film Essay for "Mccabe & Mrs. Miller"
    McCabe & Mrs. Miller By Chelsea Wessels In a 1971 interview, Robert Altman describes the story of “McCabe & Mrs. Miller” as “the most ordinary common western that’s ever been told. It’s eve- ry event, every character, every west- ern you’ve ever seen.”1 And yet, the resulting film is no ordinary western: from its Pacific Northwest setting to characters like “Pudgy” McCabe (played by Warren Beatty), the gun- fighter and gambler turned business- man who isn’t particularly skilled at any of his occupations. In “McCabe & Mrs. Miller,” Altman’s impressionistic style revises western events and char- acters in such a way that the film re- flects on history, industry, and genre from an entirely new perspective. Mrs. Miller (Julie Christie) and saloon owner McCabe (Warren Beatty) swap ideas for striking it rich. Courtesy Library of Congress Collection. The opening of the film sets the tone for this revision: Leonard Cohen sings mournfully as the when a mining company offers to buy him out and camera tracks across a wooded landscape to a lone Mrs. Miller is ultimately a captive to his choices, una- rider, hunched against the misty rain. As the unidenti- ble (and perhaps unwilling) to save McCabe from his fied rider arrives at the settlement of Presbyterian own insecurities and herself from her opium addic- Church (not much more than a few shacks and an tion. The nuances of these characters, and the per- unfinished church), the trees practically suffocate the formances by Beatty and Julie Christie, build greater frame and close off the landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • Length in Mina. Length in Nins. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER. (R
    Length Length In Mina. In Nins. HOTEL 124 HOW TO MAKE A MONSTER 75 WARNER BROS. (R) March, 1967. Rod Taylor, Catherine AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL. (R) July, 1968. Robert Spaak. Color. Harris, Paul Brinegar. HOTEL PARADISO (P) 100 HOW TO MURDER A RICH UNCLE 80 METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER. (R) November, 1966. Alec Guin- COLUMBIA. (R) January, 1958. Charles Coburn, Migel Patrick ness, Gina Lollobrigida. Color. HOW TO MURDER YOUR WIFE 118 HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES 64 UNITED ARTISTS. (R) February, 1965. Jack Lemmon, Virna UNITED ARTISTS. (R) June, 1959. Peter Cushing. Lisi. Color. HOUND DOG MAN (Cs) 87 HOW TO SAVE A MARRIAGE -AND RUIN YOUR LIFE (P) 108 TWENTIETH CENTURY-FOX. (R) November, 1959. Fabian, COLUMBIA. (R) March, 1968. Dean Martin, Stella Stevens. Carol Lynley. Color. Color. HOUR OF DECISION (Belt.) 74 HOW TO SEDUCE A WOMAN 106 ASTOR. (R) January, 1957. Jeff Morrow, Hazel Court. CINERAMA. (R) January, 1974. Angus Duncan, Angel Tompkins. HOUR OF THE GUN (R) 100 UNITED ARTISTS. (R) October, 1967. James Garner, Jason HOW TO STEAL A MILLION (P) 127 Robards. Color. 20th CENTURY -FOX. (R) August, 1966. Audrey Hepburn, Peter O'Toole. Color. HOUR THE WOLF (Swed.) 88 OF HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING (P) . 119 LOPERT. (R) April, 1968. Liv Ullmann, Max von Sydow. UNITED ARTISTS. (R) March, 1967. Robert Morse, Michele HOURS OF LOVE, THE (Md. English Titles) 89 Lee. Color. CINEMA V. (R) September, 1965. Vgo Tognazzi, Emmanuela HOW TO STUFF A WILD BIKINI 90 Riva. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL. (R) July, 1965. Annette HOUSE IS NOT A HOME, A 90 Funicello, Dwayne Hickman.
    [Show full text]
  • John Cassavetes: at the Limits Of
    JOHN CASSAVETES: AT THE LIMITS OF PERFORMANCE A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Cinema Studies in the University of Canterbury by Luke Towart University of Canterbury 2014 Table of Contents Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………....1 Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………..2 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………3 Chapter One: Performative Opposition: A Woman Under the Influence…………………….20 Chapter Two: A New Kind of Acting: Shadows……………………………………………..52 Chapter Three: Documentaries of Performance: Faces……………………………………...90 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..122 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………...134 Filmography………………………………………………………………………………...141 1 Acknowledgements Thank you to Alan Wright, my primary supervisor, and Mary Wiles, my secondary supervisor, for their guidance whilst writing this thesis. 2 Abstract This thesis examines the central role of performance in three of the films of John Cassavetes. I identify Cassavetes’ unique approach to performance and analyze its development in A Woman Under the Influence (1974), Shadows (1959) and Faces (1968). In order to contextualize and define Cassavetes’ methodology, I compare and contrast each of these films in relation to two other relevant film movements. Cassavetes’ approach was dedicated to creating alternative forms of performative expression in film, yet his films are not solely independent from filmic history and can be read as being a reaction against established filmic structures. His films revolve around autonomous performances that often defy and deconstruct traditional concepts of genre, narrative structure and character. Cassavetes’ films are deeply concerned with their characters’ isolation and inability to communicate with one another, yet refrain from traditional or even abstract constructions of meaning in favour of a focus on spontaneous, unstructured performance of character. Cassavetes was devoted to exploring the details of personal relationships, identity and social interaction.
    [Show full text]
  • Bullitt, Blow-Up, & Other Dynamite Movie Posters of the 20Th Century
    1632 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO 94102 415 347 8366 TEL For immediate release Bullitt, Blow-Up, & Other Dynamite Movie Posters of the 20th Century Curated by Ralph DeLuca July 21 – September 24, 2016 FraenkelLAB 1632 Market Street FraenkelLAB is pleased to present Bullitt, Blow-Up, & Other Dynamite Movie Posters of the 20th Century, curated by Ralph DeLuca, from July 21 through September 24, 2016. Beginning with the earliest public screenings of films in the 1890s and throughout the 20th century, the design of eye-grabbing posters played a key role in attracting moviegoers. Bullitt, Blow-Up, & Other Dynamite Movie Posters at FraenkelLAB focuses on seldom-exhibited posters that incorporate photography to dramatize a variety of film genres, from Hollywood thrillers and musicals to influential and experimental films of the 1960s-1990s. Among the highlights of the exhibition are striking and inventive posters from the mid-20th century, including the classic films Gilda, Niagara, The Searchers, and All About Eve; Alfred Hitchcock’s Notorious, Rear Window, and Psycho; and B movies Cover Girl Killer, Captive Wild Woman, and Girl with an Itch. On view will be many significant posters from the 1960s, such as Russ Meyer’s cult exploitation film Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!; Michelangelo Antonioni’s Blow-Up; a 1968 poster for the first theatrical release of Un Chien Andalou (Dir. Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí, 1928); and a vintage Japanese poster for Buñuel’s Belle de Jour. The exhibition also features sensational posters for popular movies set in San Francisco: the 1947 film noir Dark Passage (starring Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall); Steve McQueen as Bullitt (1968); and Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry (1971).
    [Show full text]
  • Everyday Narratives
    Everyday Narratives Reconsidering Filmic Temporality and Spectatorial Affect through the Quotidian Effie Rassos A Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Media, Film and Theatre University of New South Wales August 2005 ABSTRACT This thesis takes as its focus the relation between particular constructions of filmic time and the resulting affective and emotional experiences these temporalities produce on a spectatorial level. This connection between time and affect is thought through more specifically here in relation to an idea of the everyday not only as a thematic concern with the minutia of routine daily existence but also as distinct, and yet shifting, conceptions of filmic and viewing time. While film studies has often approached the temporal construction of the quotidian through the rubric of ‘real time,’ I explore different articulations of the everyday in a number of film practices through the writings of Henri Lefebvre. As a sociologist and philosopher preoccupied with the revolutionary quality of everyday time in both material reality and art practices including film, Lefebvre’s work enables this thesis to approach film as an especially potent and significant site for affective experiences of time and of the everyday. Beginning with John Cassavetes’ Faces (1968) and an analysis of an affective everyday temporality that film is able to produce as a temporal medium, this thesis goes on to consider the quotidian through photography and stillness in Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (Chantal Akerman, 1975), dying and witnessing via Silverlake Life: The View from Here (Tom Joslin and Peter Friedman, 1993), and finally melodrama and unrequited love in Wong Kar-wai’s In the Mood for i Love (Huayang Nianhua, 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 2 1970S Hollywood.Pdf
    FILM IN THE 1970s THE FILM SCHOOL GENERATION AND THE BIRTH OF THE NEW HOLLYWOOD ROGER CORMAN - Born in 1926 - Known as “King of the Bs” – his best-known film is The Little Shop of Horrors (1962) - Made many low-budget exploitation films, and used the profits to finance and distribute prestigious films – many of them directed by his protégés, who went on to become some of the most influential directors of the 1970s and beyond - Honorary Academy Award in 2009 “for his rich engendering of films and filmmakers” PETER BOGDANOVICH - Born in 1939 - Film programmer at MoMA, wrote about film for Esquire; worked with Orson Welles, John Ford, and other classic Hollywood directors - 1971 – directed The Last Picture Show – followed up with successes What’s Up, Doc?, Paper Moon - Later films didn’t fulfill his early promise, but he continues to be an influential voice on the subject of film history FRANCIS - Born in 1939 FORD - MFA from UCLA (1966) – first major COPPOLA director to graduate from a prominent university film program - Screenwriter – Patton – won first Oscar - 1969 – established American Zoetrope with his protégé George Lucas - 1972 – The Godfather - 1974 – The Godfather Part 2 and The Conversation MARTIN SCORSESE - Born in 1942 - B.S. (1964) and M.A. (1968) from NYU - Worked with Corman; and, as his student project, edited Woodstock (1970) - Rose to fame in 1973 – Mean Streets – not a commercial hit, but had a dynamic style, and set a template for character types and themes and settings he would return to throughout his career GEORGE LUCAS - Born in 1944 - USC graduate – won 1965 National Student Film Festival with THX-1138 - Apprenticed with Coppola, and later collaborated with him - First major success – American Graffiti (1973) - Invested those profits into Lucasfilm, Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Painfully Funny the Complete Directorial Works of Elaine May
    THE BADLANDS COLLECTIVE presents PAINFULLY FUNNY THE COMPLETE DIRECTORIAL WORKS OF ELAINE MAY INSTITUTE OF CONTEMPORARY ARTS, LONDON SEPTEMBER 21-23, 2018 PAINFULLY FUNNY THE COMPLETE DIRECTORIAL WORKS OF ELAINE MAY Elaine May is a legend in the world of comedy – acknowledged as an influence by comics such as Steve Martin, Lily Tomlin, Woody Allen and countless others – but her work as a movie director has become curiously and unjustly obscure. While other filmmakers who emerged in the New Hollywood of the 1970s have become venerated icons, Elaine May’s films have fallen out of the conversation, and in some cases have fallen out of circulation entirely. With this retrospective, we’re pleased to bring her back into the limelight and hail her as one of the most brilliant artists from that exalted generation of American directors. May directed four theatrical feature films, three of which resulted in fierce behind-the- scenes battles before they finally reached cinemas, with May fighting to protect the integrity of her vision. Her background in improvisation – developed with the Compass Players, before she and Mike Nichols revolutionised American comedy in the late 1950s – led to her taking an exacting, exploratory approach to filmmaking. She would shoot dozens of takes for a single scene, exhausting every possible variation and often filming with multiple cameras in a constant attempt to capture spontaneous moments of inspiration, humour and truth. When editing she relished pauses, dead spots and extended moments of awkwardness, adding a tension underneath the films’ comic surface. May’s filmmaking style inevitably led to her amassing mountains of footage, missing deadlines, going over budget and falling out of favour with the studios, but it also produced films with an energy, rhythm and edge that distinguishes them from their contemporaries and elevates them beyond genre conventions.
    [Show full text]
  • Jim Jarmusch Regis Dialogue with Jonathan Rosenbaum, 1994
    Jim Jarmusch Regis Dialogue with Jonathan Rosenbaum, 1994 Bruce Jenkins: To say that tonight is actually the culmination of about four and a half years worth of conversations, letters, faxes, and the timing has finally been propitious to bring our very special guest. Why we were so interested in Jim is that his work came at, I think, a very important time in the recent history of American narrative filmmaking. I would be one among many who would credit his films with reinvigorating American narrative films, with having really the same impact on filmmaking in this country that John Cassavetes had in a way in the late '50s and early '60s. In coming up with a new cinema that was grounded in the urban experience, in concrete details of the liberality that was much closer to our lives than the films that came out of the commercial studio system. Bruce Jenkins: You'll hear more about Jim Jarmusch from our visiting critic who was here last about three years ago, in connection with the retrospective of William Klein's work. If you have our monograph on Jim Jarmusch, we'll have his writing. It's Jonathan Rosenbaum, who has been our partner in a number of projects here, but most especially our advisor in preparing both the retrospective and dialogue for this evening and the parallel program that plays out on Tuesday evenings, the guilty pleasures and missing influences program, and gives you a little bit of a sense of the context of the work that lead to a really unique sensibility in contemporary filmmaking.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Twenty-Seven Years of Nominees & Winners FILM INDEPENDENT SPIRIT AWARDS
    2012 Twenty-Seven Years of Nominees & Winners FILM INDEPENDENT SPIRIT AWARDS BEST FIRST SCREENPLAY 2012 NOMINEES (Winners in bold) *Will Reiser 50/50 BEST FEATURE (Award given to the producer(s)) Mike Cahill & Brit Marling Another Earth *The Artist Thomas Langmann J.C. Chandor Margin Call 50/50 Evan Goldberg, Ben Karlin, Seth Rogen Patrick DeWitt Terri Beginners Miranda de Pencier, Lars Knudsen, Phil Johnston Cedar Rapids Leslie Urdang, Dean Vanech, Jay Van Hoy Drive Michel Litvak, John Palermo, BEST FEMALE LEAD Marc Platt, Gigi Pritzker, Adam Siegel *Michelle Williams My Week with Marilyn Take Shelter Tyler Davidson, Sophia Lin Lauren Ambrose Think of Me The Descendants Jim Burke, Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor Rachael Harris Natural Selection Adepero Oduye Pariah BEST FIRST FEATURE (Award given to the director and producer) Elizabeth Olsen Martha Marcy May Marlene *Margin Call Director: J.C. Chandor Producers: Robert Ogden Barnum, BEST MALE LEAD Michael Benaroya, Neal Dodson, Joe Jenckes, Corey Moosa, Zachary Quinto *Jean Dujardin The Artist Another Earth Director: Mike Cahill Demián Bichir A Better Life Producers: Mike Cahill, Hunter Gray, Brit Marling, Ryan Gosling Drive Nicholas Shumaker Woody Harrelson Rampart In The Family Director: Patrick Wang Michael Shannon Take Shelter Producers: Robert Tonino, Andrew van den Houten, Patrick Wang BEST SUPPORTING FEMALE Martha Marcy May Marlene Director: Sean Durkin Producers: Antonio Campos, Patrick Cunningham, *Shailene Woodley The Descendants Chris Maybach, Josh Mond Jessica Chastain Take Shelter
    [Show full text]
  • The Dialectic of Obscenity
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Law Faculty Scholarly Articles Law Faculty Publications Winter 2012 The Dialectic of Obscenity Brian L. Frye University of Kentucky College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Legal History Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Brian L. Frye, The Dialectic of Obscenity, 35 Hamline L. Rev. 229 (2012). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Publications at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Dialectic of Obscenity Notes/Citation Information Hamline Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Winter 2012), pp. 229-278 This article is available at UKnowledge: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/264 229 THE DIALECTIC OF OBSCENITY Brian L. Frye* I. INTRODUCTION 230 II. A BRIEF HISTORY OF OBSCENITY 231 A. WHAT IS OBSCENITY? 231 B. THE RISE & FALL OF THE PANDERING TEST 232 C. THE MILLER TEST 234 D. THE AFTERMATH OF MILLER 235 III. FLAMING CREATURES 236 A. THE MAKING OF FLAMING CREATURES 237 B. THE INTRODUCTION OF FLAMING CREATURES 238 C. THE PERSECUTION OF FLAMING CREATURES 242 IV. JACOBS V. NEW YORK 245 A. FLAMING CREATURES IN NEW YORK STATE COURT 245 B. FLAMING CREATURES IN THE SUPREME COURT 250 C.
    [Show full text]