#idk there's definitely an essay to be written here but im not good at articulating my thoughts | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bunnyloaves · 1 year

Text

4k words of mean streets meta-analysis

so remember that analysis post i made about mean streets thru the lens of noir film, buddy film, and framing perspectives yEAH

idk how well written out my thoughts are, but some dots were connected and imma let the thing speak for itself lmaoo, its written in APA style cuz ive got nothing better to do w my life, so im not really going deranged and just saying oh yes, they were totally in love,, like i had to work around and stick to a sorta academic language,, and yanno i tried using film think piece ideas to gently nudge the idea that these dudes are in fact so immensely dependent w each other lmaoo,, anyways as far as im concerned all the quoted info is cited and some of these essays really are cool :>>

here it goes lmao, its for the long haul, liKE its really really stupidly long

The Streets Sure Were Mean: A Homosocial Reading of Martin Scorsese’s Mean Streets (1973)

“You don’t make up for your sins in church. You do it in the streets. You do it at home. All the rest is BS and you know it.” The ascribed phrase succinctly summarises the ethos and crux of the film. Mean Streets (1973), directed by Martin Scorsese, on the surface, is all about punk gangsters living in their own sin (Ebert, 2003). In the context of meta-analysis, drawing away from the characters, conditions, and plot points of the film. Mean Streets is described by Raymond (2006) as a movie operating within the genres of crime, buddy, noir, and musical (p. 3). The streets sure were mean. Definitely. Homosociality in my 70s buddy film? Surely. The following essay aims to explore a homosocial reading of Mean Streets (1973) specifically through the archetypes and tropes of the noir film genre, buddy film genre, and in-film framing.

1. Noir Film

Analysing Mean Streets through the lens of the noir film genre allows for several interpretations and narrative implications. The femme fatale is a staple trope within the noir film pathos. According to Nesbitt (2009), the femme fatale is the character through which masculine fears are articulated. Her power lies in bringing out uncontrolled drives, losing subjectivity and agency within the male character. Because of this, the femme fatale is evil, and must subsequently be punished by the narrative. The punishment or penance of the femme fatale is a reassertion of power by the threatened male subject (p. 15).

Scorsese films tend to operate within the genre and limitations of the noir film. About this, Stern (1995) considers that there is no femme fatale figure in his films. The bad-object for whom the male subject is drawn and tempted is absent externally. Stern suggests that the male subject may be fascinated by his own repressed femininity or homosexuality. Identification with the bad-object allows for narrative resolution and a character’s resolution, either the femme fatale is turned good or is punished by the narrative (p. 26). Raymond (2006) suggests that the femme fatale is internalized by the character of Charlie through his obsessive guilt, yet the figure of bad-object choice may also have been projected onto Johnny Boy, whom he has to save (p. 10).

The internalized femme fatale falls in line with other Scorsese films, wherein the threat to masculinity is drawn from within the characters. The male subjects are those whom the narrative has to either punish or turn into good objects to achieve narrative resolution. These male characters have to be transformed into good characters or punished– in order to affirm and assuage the male fears. For Charlie in Mean Streets, his punishment as an internalized femme fatale is failing to save the individuals he took under his wing, be it Teresa or Johnny Boy. That is the tragedy Scorsese paints of Charlie, his greatest punishment isn’t that of death, but of the spiritual anguish of inadequacy and failure, not only to protect but also to achieve penance. An extension of this, is Charlie failing to attain penance for the surmounting guilt he feels. His failure to protect Johnny Boy is failing to achieve that penance for his sins. The punishment of the internalized femme fatale as that failure to protect, serves to revoke the sense of control of the male subject instead of reasserting that control, which makes the ending even more tragic. But the femme fatale is all about becoming good or being punished, so either way, the film reaches its conclusion in accordance with these archetypes.

In analyzing Johnny Boy as a femme fatale figure, Charlie’s religious fixation must be considered first. Traditional Christian imagery prevails throughout the film. Described by Ferrante (1994) as containing imagery of the sacrificial crucifixion, scenes of confession, religious statues, and iconography (p. 12). Charlie is the penitent figure seeking forgiveness. Although the film is rife with Christian imagery, penance never occurs in the Church but instead upon the mean streets of Little Italy.

The penance which he seeks is ascribed to the character of Johnny Boy. The way in which Charlie interacts with him and whether through his actions Johnny Boy is redeemed dictates the potentness of his penance. Maxfield (1995) likens Johnny Boy to an anti-Christ figure, in that these two figures are consistently associated with rooftops. Christ is a white statue on the rooftop in the Feast of San Gennaro sequences and Johnny Boy is shown twice on the rooftops of Manhattan. In this framing, Christ and Johnny Boy are juxtaposed against each other, and Charlie defined himself as a Christian in his interactions with Johnny (para. 25). Charlie’s saintly fantasies take shape and gain expression in his relationship with Johnny and oftentimes his Franciscan moral imperatives trump his own self-interest (Quart and Rabinow, 1975).

Bliss as cited in Maxfield (1995) puts it that Johnny Boy is the cross that Charlie must bear as a prelude to his own redemption (para. 7). Yet tension arises when Johnny plunges himself into deeper and deeper trouble with his debtor because he is testing the limits of Charlie’s devotion to his penance and by proxy, his devotion to Johnny Boy as well. As the object of his penance, Johnny Boy is an object of fascination. Yet many of the problems later on faced by him, stem from his interactions and proximity to Johnny Boy. There is a loss of agency within the male subject, as a result of his interactions with the femme fatale. Though Charlie himself never does anything to genuinely put himself at risk and at odds with the favor of his uncle, which may say something about his role as a penitent— in that he is half-hearted and reluctant to sacrifice anything of value, to attain penance through Johnny Boy. Nonetheless, his ‘vouching for’ Johnny Boy undoubtedly puts him at odds with several of ‘the boys’ of Mean Streets.

At the tipping point of the film, when Michael hires a gunman to chase after the trio. As described by Librach (1992), Charlie chooses discipleship when he chooses to act. Acting out by defying his uncle and helping Johnny Boy escape, both Michael and the ‘neighborhood’ law which these characters represent (para. 3). The neighborhood law is that of masculinity. Giovanni as the immovable godfather is an object of masculine strength and the law of the patriarch. On the other hand, the law of the neighborhood is machismo, both of which the three attempt to escape from.

Whether or not he is saved due to Charlie’s interference or further damned by merely postponing the inevitable, Johnny can be read as a femme fatale figure whose ultimate fate in the film— punished with a gunshot wound to the neck— serves to affirm Charlie as the male subject. In the externalized femme fatale, the character of Johnny Boy is the bad-object choice who has to be saved or otherwise punished. His punishment at the hands of the narrative, affirms this reading. Johnny Boy’s role is to dictate whether or not Charlie’s penance has come to fruition. As cited in Librach (1992) the idea of spurting blood is like a purification within the Scorsese canon. The blood which spurts forth from Johnny Boy’s neck serves a similar symbolic function as that of the Christ-like young criminal of some of Scorsese’s earlier films. The blood of the sacrificial object only purifies if there is a subject worthy of purification (para. 5). By the end of the movie, Charlie fails to attain penance through his interactions with Johnny Boy.

Johnny is a sacrificial object of purification, with Christ metaphors made using rooftops, and is the gauge by which Charlie measures his penance and fails. While Charlie is the subject of purification, only if he happens to be worthy of it. Woodsworth (2014) describes that the suffering of male characters as they sacrifice and devote themselves to each other pose as arguments of each character’s inner goodness, thereby allowing for masculine redemption (p. 24). Charlie never sacrifices anything meaningful or valuable to himself in order to help Johnny. Never risks his favor with his uncle, and never sacrifices his position to help Johnny. This reveals him to be an inadequate penitent, unable to follow through with virtuous suffering in order to acquire redemption for himself. Yet a change occurs in the last arcs of the film, Charlie choosing to act by aiding Johnny despite posing a risk to himself. This action thus earns him the blood of the sacrificial object that purifies. The fact that both he and Johnny Boy are shot and bathed in their own blood, legitimizes the reading of both the internalised and external femme fatale. Internalized, Charlie acts in earnest goodheartedness, thereby resolving the insecurities posed by the femme fatale. Penultimately, the film’s ending reveals him to be an inadequate penitent, and despite his efforts, he only manages to damn them both— and living through the crash and despite it— is the tragedy which Scorsese paints.

2. Buddy Film

Mean Streets may also be analyzed through the lens of a buddy film. The narrative structure, tropes, and common characteristics of the buddy film lend a homosocial reading of the film. It is valuable to highlight the particular structures of the buddy film genre as recounted by Wood, cited in Raymond (2006). Wood describes the buddy film as such, where female characters are marginalized. He expounds this by pointing out that the central characters are typically male, and female characters are presented only after the male ones are developed. Within the narrative of Mean Streets, female characters are objects to present the culture’s racism and sexism (p. 6).

Farber as cited in Woodsworth (2014) describes the nature of male relationships as portrayed in buddy films, as films where the male protagonists share the purest kinds of love and women are merely detractors and derisions of a beautiful friendship. Women are depicted as civilizing forces from whom the male subjects must escape (p. 20). Raymond (2006) claims that normality, ie. heterosexual romance, and monogamy, are linked to the figure of Teresa (p. 7). These characteristics are evident in Mean Streets in that the most developed and focal relationship within the movie is that of Charlie and Johnny Boy. Most of the plot revolves around the interactions between male characters while the females are reduced to objects through whom issues such as sexism and racism are portrayed. Particularly, Teresa is used to depict racism, in how she treated the black housekeeper and ableism, in how she is treated and regarded by most characters aside from Charlie. Diane is also an object through which racism is portrayed, in that she is a viable and available sexual figure but Charlie, despite his interest, never pursues her because of her race. The same could be said of the Jewish women whom Johnny enters the bar with, they are objects of desire, surely. But they are never given much thought nor development beyond the figures which they stand for in the eyes of the male characters.

Schuckmann (1998) states that buddy films feature a marginal female character who serves as a token object of exchange (p. 6). Similarly, Raymond (2006) states that the presence of women in these films only serves to affirm men’s heterosexuality (p. 9). In the buddy film, the male relationship is never validated, it is off-set and diverted by the film's ending. Any depiction of tenderness or intimacy between men is often offset and rectified by affirming the male characters’ heterosexuality. This is where the female character finds herself, as an object by which that masculinity is affirmed. Charlie’s relationship with Teresa may be read as such, as described by Maxfield (1995), the audience has no idea when the affair between Charlie and Teresa began, nonetheless, it is brought into the audience’s minds well after the closeness between Charlie and Johnny has already been well-established (para. 19). From the intimate apartment scene, the film cuts directly into an almost dream-like sequence of the affair, where until a few minutes into the scene the audience is left doubting the reality of the affair— whether or not it is the mere fantasy of a voyeur looking into the window. Maxfield (1995) describes that Teresa may be read as a proxy towards whom Charlie resorted when consummating the male relationship is prohibited (para. 20). After the apartment scene depicting an easy intimacy between men, there comes the need to affirm the male character’s heterosexuality and Teresa serves as a vessel to portray that, and this role is one typically relegated to women in buddy film genres.

Wood, as cited in Raymond (2006), describes the absence of home, as another characteristic of the buddy film genre. The idea of home does not exist, the journey always leads to nowhere. Home is not a place but an ideological position. Wood likens the concept of home to normality as in, heterosexual romance, monogamy, family, status quo, and the law of the father. Normality in Mean Streets is found in the figure of Giovanni and Teresa, as the law of the father and heterosexual romance, respectively (p. 6). Each of these characters also offers a physical and concrete home to Charlie. A restaurant from Giovanni, which further encroaches Charlie into the world of Little Italy; and an uptown apartment with Teresa, which pulls him out, literally and figuratively, of the so-called mean streets. Yet at the end of the film, Charlie rejects both notions of home, be it by will or by proxy. According to Maxfield (1995), in the original script, due to his prolonged interactions with Johnny and Teresa, Charlie is disavowed by Giovanni, and is given money so that he may leave the streets of Little Italy for good (para. 3). So in his only genuine act of personal sacrifice, Charlie rejects the notions of masculinity and normalcy provided by the figure of Giovanni. In his desire to stay among the streets and act upon his penance, Charlie time and time again rejects Teresa’s offers of moving in with her, thereby rejecting the promise of home.

Woodworth (2014) states that women no longer serve as a mirror through whom masculinity is confirmed, instead, other men provide and affirm masculinity for the male subject. (p. 16) It is not Teresa who affirms masculinity for Charlie—masculinity in the sense of providing, vouching for, and a general figure of guidance— it is his proximity and treatment towards Johnny which validates this.

Lastly, Wood, as cited in Raymond (2006), describes the buddy film as having a male love story. The emotional charge and center of the film lie in the male/male relationship. It is the relationship between Johnny Boy and Charlie that lies at the crux of the film’s narrative and structure (p. 7). Teresa may be read as an off-set of the central male relationship because it is only after Johnny Boy and Charlie spend the night together at the apartment that she is introduced in the film.

Kimmel, as cited in Woodworth (2014), describes that masculinity is a homosocial enactment—men greatly need the approval of other men. Bech as cited in Woodworth (2014) amends that being a man entails an interested relation from man to man. This male interest includes the act of comparing and mirroring, and that of companionship and mentorship. Though he does not necessarily equate homosocial desire with homosexual desire, Bech suggests that a distinct line between the two may not exist, and that distinction is not unbreakable. To quote Woodworth (2014), “The connections between wish, longing, body, male images, togetherness, sharing, security, excitement, equality and difference in relation to other men which are intrinsic to identification make it impossible to keep it apart from eroticism.”(p. 51) There is this sense that only men are privy to each other’s camaraderie and regardless of their intimacy with women— be it their girlfriends, wives, or beaus— togetherness and intimacy are things only truly afforded to other men. Maxfield (1995) describes Charlie’s desire to conceal his affair, and Johnny’s visible jealousy may point to a latent layer of homosexuality in their relationship (para. 18).

Masculinity is male-loving. It is gauged by the evaluation and response of other men towards it, and this aspect is clearly portrayed within the film. In the many moments of intimacy between the characters. There is a blurred line between seeking external approval from other men—asserting themselves towards others— and homosexual inclinations. The feminine role of affirming the male subject’s masculinity is one that Johnny takes in. By being vouched for, and helped by Johnny is this passive figure and he is the gauge by which Charlie measures not only himself but his penance as well.

3. In-Film Framing

Lastly, Mean Streets may be analyzed through the lens of its own filmmaking and in terms of the film’s own language instead of through the implications of its genre.

Within its own cinematic language, Raymond (2006) describes ‘otherness’ in Mean Streets as a means of attraction. Particularly induced by the transgression involved in acting upon it. Sobchack, as cited in Raymond (2006), describes that the ‘others’ who are displaced and distant from the culture’s signifiers of place and function are attractive for the very idea that they are socially problematic, ambiguous, and dangerous. The manner in which Scorsese frames the world of Little Italy, effectively presents the undesirability of home and its sense of security (p. 11). Ultimately, by the end of the film, Charlie rejects the notion of home and stability, offered by Teresa and Giovanni. Though throughout the film he is reluctant to act out contrary to the norms and rules of the streets. In his inability to bring up Johnny’s debt to Giovanni, out of fear of falling out of favor with the patriarchal figure of the uncle— the godfather; and in repeatedly rejecting Teresa’s invitation to move into an uptown, upscale apartment away from the petty violence of the streets.

Quart and Rabinow (1975) describe the relationship of the male characters to those of the ‘outsiders’. Homosexuals are regarded with contempt, black people are sexual and erotic figures, and Jewish persons are similarly erotic figures. Though these individuals are considered othered —- marginalized people in that community — despite their ‘otherness’ they can be desired, joked, and drunk with (p. 5). Charlie desires Diana, and that much is evident, yet he does not commit nor choose her, instead he leaves her hanging and waiting under some stoop. The same could be said of the Jewish women Johnny enters with at the bar, though he considers them attractive or a viable lay, he does not care to remember their names at all. Charlie’s relationship with Teresa, as an epileptic, and Johnny, as a delinquent to the internal rules of the streets, both put him at odds with his uncle. They are similarly transgressive options for Charlie, ones that may leave him out of favor, that are dangerous, and contrary to the norms of the streets. Both are relationships that he desires to pursue, though with varying degrees of success.

Schuckmann (1998), describes that in the buddy movie genre, though homoeroticism is evoked by the literal coupling of the male partners as buddies, this homoeroticism is offset and dispelled by homophobic jokes and remarks. As part of this dispelling, an outright depiction— caricatures even — of gay characters are present to safely dispel and offset homoerotic tensions (p. 6). Johnny and Charlie are a buddy duo, though they aren’t necessarily on good terms or buddies in a conventional sense, the bond cannot be understated and despite their bickering, they fall under the category of buddy film couples. In the apartment scene, there is an intimacy and vulnerability presented, and just as the window scene serves to affirm the characters’ heterosexuality, the many homophobic remarks spoken throughout the script serve to offset and dispel the homosociality between the two main characters— just as overly performing masculinity and machismo may serve to quell any internal insecurity.

Raymond (2006) highlights the two homosexual characters riding along in the car after the bar shooting incident. These characters parallel Johnny Boy and Charlie. One is loud, belligerent, and out of control while the other attempts to calm him down and steer them both away from trouble (p. 8). A reasonable man attempts to restrain his irrational and unruly partner to minimal success (Maxfield, 1995). Wood, as cited in Raymond (2006) points out that these characters serve to prove that the main characters are not like that. The homosexuals serve to both prove and disprove the relationship between Johnny and Charlie (p. 9). In inadvertently presenting them as parallels, Scorsese entertains the idea that the coupling of the main characters is legitimate. The colors and framing of the scene exemplify this, Johnny wears a similar-looking outfit to the loud, unruly partner, while Charlie wears similarly muted colors to the reasonable partner. Yet the manner in which they exit the frame—leaving in opposite directions—asserts the fact that the central main buddy relationship does not in fact ‘swing that way’. Though in their ‘buddy-ness’, homoerotic implications may be derived and construed, it is ultimately disproved by the film's text. These characters mirror Johnny Boy and Charlie and displace the homoerotic tensions as described by Schuckmann (1998).

Raymond (2006), describes that Charlie and Johnny mirror that of the musical romantic couple, wherein the surface qualities of the other, correspond to the repressed personality of the other. Evident in how Charlie is all inward repression while Johnny is all outward expression (p. 17). Another reading of their ‘couple-ness’ aside from the plausibly deniable buddy trope, is that of the musical couple wherein the characters are two sides of the same coin. These two characters are integral and deeply tied to one another because they are reflections. Maxfield (1995) describes Johnny acting out aggressively in ways that Charlie may want to but is too repressed and cautious to express. Charlie likes Johnny Boy for his capacity to act as his own surrogate id (para. 16).

Maxfield (1995) likens Johnny to the tiger cub which Tony stores in the backrooms. It represents an inherent feral and fierce nature. Tony believes that he can tame that fierceness, and hones it with enough affection, but it may someday turn on him. For Charlie, Johnny plays a similar role, as an incarnation of wild instinct (para. 17). Johnny is volatile and violent, and Charlie does his best to rein him in with little success, his tiger turns on him, in the end— with Johnny’s self-destructive tendencies, damning all three of them. Johnny being a dangerous, destructive, and contrary option for Charlie may tie into the idea of transgression as an object of desire. Though Johnny is by no means marginalized, his manner of conduct puts him at odds with the rest of the streets. Thus, Charlie objectifies— because he tends to sublimate the individuals not for who they are but for what they represent; ie. Johnny as penance— those who are outsiders to the normality and standards of the streets as attractive pursuits. Though this does not necessarily mean that the subject of the desire acts upon it, for within the world of the streets, this desire is often repressed— via religious guilt, dispelled and distilled into prejudice— via homophobic or racist remarks. In the language of Mean Streets, those who are transgressive and contrary are objects of desire. Desirable, for the otherness of their race and identity; as well as characteristically, attraction to wildness and fierceness— as portrayed by the tiger cub.

Similarly, both the marginalized individual and tiger cub pose a sense of threat, potential danger, and a source of conflict for Charlie— and for this, they are all the more enticing. So whether it's for its potential as forgiveness and penance or challenge and 'contrary-ness', Charlie is drawn to ‘othered’ individuals. Perhaps in Johnny, Charlie seeks out an individual more volatile and destructive than he would ever allow himself, because of this, the intricacies of the main buddy couple cannot be understated.

TLDR;

To put it succinctly, Mean Streets employs the conventions of noir film not only to shape the mood and form of the film but to implicate Johnny as a femme fatale figure— being the bad choice path for Charlie that must be either punished or turned good by the film’s resolution. Johnny is reckless, destructive, and contrary to the conventions of the streets. Thereby Charlie’s prolonged interest and interaction with Johnny puts him at odds with the world he finds himself in. In the end, Johnny is shot in the neck bathing him profusely in blood, likened to an act of Christ-like cleansing which ties in with him being an object of penance. This penultimate tragedy and punishment in the hands of the narrative serve to legitimize Charlie as the central male subject of the film and resolve the insecurities posed by the femme fatale.

Mean Streets is categorically a buddy film, with a central male relationship at the heart of its plot. As per the conventions of the genre— women are marginal, home as a concept is absent, and male relationships surmount all else. This lends itself easily to a homoromantic reading, since women are marginal they typically serve to displace and dispel homoromantic tensions and prove the heterosexuality of the central male characters, beyond that, they are marginal to the plot. These female relationships serve as a proxy for the unconsummated male relationship. Conceptually, home is absent—Charlie rejects Teresa’s offers of moving together, thereby refuting home and heteronormativity, and refutes home in the streets by making himself unfavorable to Giovanni by constantly vouching for Johnny. The immense importance placed upon the central male relationship may cross the line of homosociality into homosexuality. Masculinity is inherently male-loving, thereby, there is a blurred line between seeking external approval from other men—asserting themselves towards other men— and homosexual inclinations.

Lastly, within the language of its own film-making, Mean Streets uses transgression to punctuate and define objects of desire. Teresa, Diane, and Johnny are all similarly transgressive options for Charlie, ones that may leave him out of favor, that are dangerous, and contrary to the norms of the streets. The women are desirable for the otherness of their race and identity. On the other hand, Johnny represents a volatility and brashness, much likened to Tony’s tiger cub. One that could perhaps be tamed with enough affection yet holds within it wildness and fierceness that could very well turn on its keeper. Though Johnny is by no means marginalized, his manner and self-destructive habits have put him at odds with the rest of the streets. Similarly, both the marginalized individual and tiger cub pose a sense of threat, danger, and a source of conflict for Charlie— and perhaps for this, they are all the more enticing. It is also of note that the pair of homosexual caricatures mirror Johnny Boy and Charlie, both in their clothing and the roles that they play to one another— one unruly and the other restrained. By inadvertently presenting them as parallels, Scorsese entertains the idea that the coupling of the main characters is legitimate. In their ‘buddy-ness’, homoerotic implications may be construed. Yet as the characters part ways in opposite directions, and as the script dictates more homophobic remarks, any homoromantic tension is immediately dispelled.

References

Ebert, R. (2003, December 31). Mean Streets. RogerEbert.com. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-mean-streets-1973

Ferrante, L. A. (1994). Redemption in the narrative films of Martin Scorsese: Related critical essays, with emphasis on" Mean Streets"," Raging Bull", and" Goodfellas". The Union Institute. https://www.proquest.com/openview/59a2087263ebf282115193b09a2cc876/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Librach, R. S. (1992). The Last Temptation in Mean Streets and Raging Bull. Literature/Film Quarterly, 20(1), 14. https://www.proquest.com/openview/91587245032050f8dbb7a447b3dd91c6/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=5938

Maxfield, J. F. (1995). " The Worst Part": Martin Scorsese's Mean Streets. Literature/Film Quarterly, 23(4), 279. https://www.proquest.com/openview/51f346d0182670237ef161cf32fa7291/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=5938

Nesbitt, R. C. (2009). The femme fatale and male anxiety in 20th century American literature,“hard-boiled” crime fiction, and film noir. State University of New York at Albany. https://www.proquest.com/openview/f5b767ce0cecb085b64c8e99993ab04c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750

Quart, L., & Rabinow, P. (1975). The Ethos of Mean Streets. Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies, 5(2), 33-34. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/39/article/487229/summary

Raymond, M. (2006). The Multiplicity of Generic Discourses and the Meaning and Pleasure of Mean Streets. Canadian Journal of Film Studies, 15(2), 62-80. https://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/cjfs.15.2.62

Schuckmann, P. (1998). Masculinity, the male spectator and the homoerotic gaze. Amerikastudien/American Studies, 671-680. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41157425

Stern, L. (1995). The Scorsese Connection. Indiana University Press. https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8HGq0WCJ8gEC&oi=fnd&pg=PP10&dq=The+Scorsese+Connection&ots=QwtOXWM_c4&sig=I_7F9WZd7OseVsdohi3W8pen6DQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The%20Scorsese%20Connection&f=false

Woodworth, A. J. (2014). From buddy film to bromance: masculinity and male melodrama since 1969. Temple University. https://www.proquest.com/openview/14b2bdc7ed5646e64de79408809c266d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750

#mean streets #if i spEAK #i think i spoke too much lmaOO #anyways #mean streets meta #this IS for the gays ahcktually #mean streets gang #uHM yea h

27 notes · View notes