Free Pdf L.a. Plays Itself / Boys In The Sand (Queer Film Classics)Author Cindy Patton – Andy-palmer.co.uk

L.a. Plays Itself / Boys In The Sand (Queer Film Classics) A Queer Film Classic on two groundbreaking gay arthouse porn films from 1972, both examples of the growing liberalization of social attitudes toward sex and homosexuality in post Stonewall America Where Fred Halsted s Boys in the Sand is a frothy romp at a gay beach resort community, Wakefield Poole s L.A Plays Itself is a dark treatise on violence and urban squalor Both films represent particular, polarizing moments in the early history of the gay movement.Cindy Patton is a longtime activist and scholar She is currently professor of sociology at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia.


2 thoughts on “L.a. Plays Itself / Boys In The Sand (Queer Film Classics)

  1. says:

    Usually it s a good thing when an important sexually explicit film that is generally overlooked by the mainstream is given a serious academic treatment Right Wrong Arsenal Pulp Press s slim book on two gay porn film classics, LA Plays Itself Boys in the Sand, written by Cindy Patton, is basically a hatchet job setting out to prove that Wakefield Poole s film and his work in general is inauthentic and not valid, while Halsted s film and work was authentic and valid She goes about this by repeating falsehoods, innuendos, taking quotes out of context, and even saying what Poole s intentions were without offering any evidence or by insinuating that even though Poole says his intention is X, it s clearly Y It s shocking that a series of books supposedly aimed at Queer Film Classics feels the need to publish a book like this It s one step above a Buzzfeed list of Why Name the Popular Film or TV show Sucks And Patton in a disturbing trend among lazy film writers looking to diminish Poole s legacy , she never mention s Poole s next film,his masterpiece Bijou, though she brings up Halsted s other works Patton only wants to talk about Poole s two financially disastrous later films as evidence that Poole is not a good filmmaker because to Patton, financial success and artistic success are the same thing, except when it comes to Boys in the Sand Then the fact that it made money is a bad thing Or at least the fact that Poole insisted on charging 5 a ticket rather than 3 a ticket Seriously, she makes this an argument as to why LA Plays Itself is a film that cares about gay liberation and Boys in the Sand is just a way to make as much money as possible and exploit gay people Poole s works and his intentions are bad and no facts will get in Ms Patton s way in proving this So little serious work gets published in book form concerning important adult films and when something this one sided and obviously written with an agenda comes out, it s particularly irritating Poole is alive and can be interviewed about his intentions and to check facts Yet Patton didn t bother She relies on word of mouth for folks with an axe to grind if you know the history , one sided arguments, and in some cases, downright falsehoods to make her point If you have any interest in gay history, the history of gay porn or porno chic, or the history of sexuality in American culture, take this book with a huge grain of salt Certainly don t use this book for academic research without double checking the facts Patton gives.


  2. says:

    Usually it s a good thing when an important sexually explicit film that is generally overlooked by the mainstream is given a serious academic treatment Right Wrong Arsenal Pulp Press s slim book on two gay porn film classics, LA Plays Itself Boys in the Sand, written by Cindy Patton, is basically a hatchet job setting out to prove that Wakefield Poole s film and his work in general is inauthentic and not valid, while Halsted s film and work was authentic and valid She goes about this by repeating falsehoods, innuendos, taking quotes out of context, and even saying what Poole s intentions were without offering any evidence or by insinuating that even though Poole says his intention is X, it s clearly Y It s shocking that a series of books supposedly aimed at Queer Film Classics feels the need to publish a book like this It s one step above a Buzzfeed list of Why Name the Popular Film or TV show Sucks And Patton in a disturbing trend among lazy film writers looking to diminish Poole s legacy , she never mention s Poole s next film,his masterpiece Bijou, though she brings up Halsted s other works Patton only wants to talk about Poole s two financially disastrous later films as evidence that Poole is not a good filmmaker because to Patton, financial success and artistic success are the same thing, except when it comes to Boys in the Sand Then the fact that it made money is a bad thing Or at least the fact that Poole insisted on charging 5 a ticket rather than 3 a ticket Seriously, she makes this an argument as to why LA Plays Itself is a film that cares about gay liberation and Boys in the Sand is just a way to make as much money as possible and exploit gay people Poole s works and his intentions are bad and no facts will get in Ms Patton s way in proving this So little serious work gets published in book form concerning important adult films and when something this one sided and obviously written with an agenda comes out, it s particularly irritating Poole is alive and can be interviewed about his intentions and to check facts Yet Patton didn t bother She relies on word of mouth for folks with an axe to grind if you know the history , one sided arguments, and in some cases, downright falsehoods to make her point If you have any interest in gay history, the history of gay porn or porno chic, or the history of sexuality in American culture, take this book with a huge grain of salt Certainly don t use this book for academic research without double checking the facts Patton gives.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *