by Vera Ryžik
The concept of the homosexual male gaze could arguably be attributed to three filmmakers of the post-modern... more
The concept of the homosexual male gaze could arguably be attributed to three filmmakers of the post-modern underground film apparatus, in particular Andy Warhol, Kenneth Anger, and Jack Smith. Each through his own particular gaze was able to create a sub-genre of film content, which included either pornographic content or the implication of a sexual act, as well as a general eroticization of the male form.
It is interesting to consider the dichotomous purpose of female nudity to male nudity, particularly through the homosexual male gaze of the Avant-Garde. Usually, in narrative film the former is meant to arouse, the latter is meant to provoke. This brings us to the difference between feature film and pornography. Though full frontal of either gender could be attributable to pornographic content, the thin line between them lies within the exposure of male nudity particularly concerning the penis status. If the penis is phallic, it is acceptable under MPAA restriction to be admissible into the content of a film, while an erect penis immediately suggests pornographic content, and is still prohibited in the mainstream narrative.
Thereby, this particular sub-genre within the Avant-Garde movement of American filmmakers can be considered an early precursor to the New Queer Cinema movement in its ability to toy with the functions of sexual images within their mise-en-scene and providing the viewer with not only a voyeuristic pleasure as Mulvey would describe it, but a disconnect with filmic sexual status quo.
I believe an interesting way to approach this dichotomy, and the very nature of this sexual contrast is to analyze the trajectory of the admission of nudity and sexual suggestion into films. In my opinion, the era of post-modern Avant-Garde is an interesting starting off point as it illustrates the bridging of the gaps between the artistic and the pornographic, as well as transgressing what is taboo to what is experimental.
The most obvious and perhaps first example of this is Jack Smith’s Flaming Creatures (1963), which graphically examined and subsequently deconstructed sexuality in all of its forms. The film permeates with gratuitous nudity, both male and female. The strange thing seems to be that though the subjects of the film find themselves proprietors of a vast orgy, there is never a point in which any of them engage in any sexual acts. They lie amidst the mise-en-scene, fondling each other and becoming seemingly aroused. It is the implementation of nudity rather than the act of sex itself for arousal. The way in which the characters use each other’s genitals suggest a childlike curiosity with the human form as an infant approaches the presence of his mother’s breast, or a child begins to discover his own genitalia. It is completely de-sexualizing to where their acts are more comic than sensual. In this we see, that genitalia, particularly male genitalia has a use in film different from any form of sexual suggestion. It is an apparatus of play and curiosity rather than the act of sex, which is how it is usually perceived.
Conversely, there is the work of Kenneth Anger, who’s Scorpio Rising (1964) was released only a year after Flaming Creatures. At no point in the film, is there any male nudity, though the film’s focus is a hyper-eroticism of the male form. There are various scenes of young men, dressing themselves, working out, and being generally macho. Every shot has a profound element of sensuality, and yet avoids any blatant depiction of genitalia. Thus, it can be deduced that while the male form can be eroticized by showing it artistically and with a kind of filmic finesse that eroticizes certain parts like arms, legs, and chests, the presence of male genitalia would immediately de-sexualize this mise-en-scene and devoid the subject of desirability.
And though both of these filmmakers can be classified strictly into the same categoruy regarding Avant-Garde film of a certain movement, with the addition of Andy Warhol, we can begin to see the birth of what would eventually become New Queer Cinema. I am of the opinion that it is particularly their utilization of the male form and disregard for narrative filmic ideology that challenged the notion of “proper” and “improper” content by making the gratuitous symbolic, and the innuendo sexual.
In regards to Warhol, he was able to bring humor to the whole question of showing or not showing. The perfect illustration of this is the content of the film Blow Job (1964). The title of the film suggests the presence of a sexual act, but the audience is robbed, as the entirety of the film is a close up of a man’s face in mid-act. We see his face contort and exude internal pleasure, but there is always the question if he is actually being fellated, or if we as the audience are in on a continuous joke as he could be simply acting. Warhol never lets his audience find out. But the suggestion of the act through the title is enough for the audience to put their trust in the questionable integrity of the film. He is able label his film blatantly enough so that it suggests outright pornographic content, and subsequently denies the film the very same content that would make it so. The film Blow Job thus becomes its own contradiction, it is eroticizing an act which is not present in the mise-en-scene; eroticization without sexuality.
Considering this group of filmmakers and their implementation of sexual philosophy into a visual apparatus, we can begin to see a theoretical trend regarding the use of nudity, in particular the male genitalia as statements in themselves, considering their purpose within the content of the films.
Download (.pdf) 
