Subtext in Bond: From Russia With Love

Again, citing the John Cox article in James Bond in the 21st Century:

Cox presents nothing new when he talks about different representation of sexual fetishes in FRWL, but to see them all together...such a definitive list, is a little jarring.

You suggestions or examples of: sadism (the fish fighting), oil massage, S&M, pimp prostitution (Bond and Tania are more or less on a job to sleep with each other), erotomania (Tania falling in love with a photo), lesbianism, polygamy (suggested by Bey's many children), exotic dancing, exotic wrestling, menage a trois, bondage, oral sex, voyuerism, public exhibitionism, sadomasochism, homosexuality, foot fetish....The list goes on, according to Cox. He sees a lot of homosexual subtext between Bond and Grant. He also think the helicopter scene detracts from the intended climax of the film in Grant's death. He also cites a deleted line where Grant suggests that he watched the film of Bond and Tania.

So if you ever felt feeling of discomfort while watching FRWL, now you know why. And if you love it, as I do....You're probably questioning why. Or simply embracing reality.

Anyone surprised by Cox's thoughts on the sexual subtext in FRWL?

lalala2004 wrote:

Again, citing the John Cox article in James Bond in the 21st Century:

Cox presents nothing new when he talks about different representation of sexual fetishes in FRWL, but to see them all together...such a definitive list, is a little jarring.

So if you ever felt feeling of discomfort while watching FRWL, now you know why. And if you love it, as I do....You're probably questioning why. Or simply embracing reality.

Anyone surprised by Cox's thoughts on the sexual subtext in FRWL?

I think it's not secret that Fleming had certain inclinations along these lines, which came through in his writing and was part of the "special sauce" which made Bond distinctive and popular

"normal" people are often both repelled and at the same time intrigued by aspects of human behaviour that are on balance frowned upon

reading about or watching a movie about things we would hesitate to do ourselves is vicarious or voyeristic depending on your personal point of view

however these days whenever there are two strong male characters, whether friends or enemies, there will be someone out there prepared to interpret their behavour as "homoerotic" in order to create some controvercy and make a buck, in this case I say Bah Humbug!

I think most of the perceived subtext in FRWL is mostly a sign of the times, just as Bond's condescending treatment of Quarrel in Dr. No. There is a subtext of male domination and chauvinism: towering and physical Bond slapping a physically meek Tatiana, the Gypsy girls fighting for the amusement of the men, snipering through Anita Ekberg's mouth, Red Grant slipping Tatiana a rufie and even Rosa Klebb (who is more of a masculine character) as an authority figure. This seems to me more to do with attitudes of the time than an intentional subtext the writers were trying to convey.

FG Wells wrote:

I think most of the perceived subtext in FRWL is mostly a sign of the times, just as Bond's condescending treatment of Quarrel in Dr. No. There is a subtext of male domination and chauvinism: towering and physical Bond slapping a physically meek Tatiana, the Gypsy girls fighting for the amusement of the men, snipering through Anita Ekberg's mouth, Red Grant slipping Tatiana a rufie and even Rosa Klebb (who is more of a masculine character) as an authority figure. This seems to me more to do with attitudes of the time than an intentional subtext the writers were trying to convey.

I don't feel like that really explains every aspect Cox points out, though. The voyeurism in the video taping of Tania and Bond in their hotel, as well as the nature of their encounter as a part of "work".

I do agree with a lot of this being part of Fleming's style to keep the novels enticing. It just seems like FRWL has more of this than the other films, no?

lalala2004 wrote:

FG Wells wrote:

I think most of the perceived subtext in FRWL is mostly a sign of the times, just as Bond's condescending treatment of Quarrel in Dr. No. There is a subtext of male domination and chauvinism: towering and physical Bond slapping a physically meek Tatiana, the Gypsy girls fighting for the amusement of the men, snipering through Anita Ekberg's mouth, Red Grant slipping Tatiana a rufie and even Rosa Klebb (who is more of a masculine character) as an authority figure. This seems to me more to do with attitudes of the time than an intentional subtext the writers were trying to convey.

I don't feel like that really explains every aspect Cox points out, though. The voyeurism in the video taping of Tania and Bond in their hotel, as well as the nature of their encounter as a part of "work".

I do agree with a lot of this being part of Fleming's style to keep the novels enticing. It just seems like FRWL has more of this than the other films, no?

perhaps that's why many consider it his best?

the quintesential Bond

lalala2004 wrote:

He also cites a deleted line where Grant suggests that he watched the film of Bond and Tania.

"What a performance!" That was on the train, right before the fight. I wish they had kept it, if only for the fact that snipping Bond's repetition of the line in the film's final scene created a reliably distracting jump cut.

FG Wells wrote:

I think most of the perceived subtext in FRWL is mostly a sign of the times, just as Bond's condescending treatment of Quarrel in Dr. No.  There is a subtext of male domination and chauvinism: towering and physical Bond slapping a physically meek Tatiana, the Gypsy girls fighting for the amusement of the men, snipering through Anita Ekberg's mouth, Red Grant slipping Tatiana a rufie and even Rosa Klebb (who is more of a masculine character) as an authority figure.  This seems to me more to do with attitudes of the time than an intentional subtext the writers were trying to convey.  

Fucking hell. That's got to be one of the most unintentionally smug responses ever seen in this place.

Anyone who thinks our time is some wonderful age of reason must be very young and stupid.

Quote :

...mostly a sign of the times, just as Bond's condescending treatment of Quarrel in Dr. No.

I think that's bullshit.

Bond is a team player in DR. NO, more so than in any of the other films. The mission's success (and even the film's success, considering EON was banking on an unknown to play the lead character) relies on three people and not just Bond alone. I think Bond, Leiter and Quarrel are of equal importance in that film. One instance of Bond telling Quarrel to "fetch his shoes" doesn't mean Bond's a condescending racist. Following his unpleasant death, I think it was evident that Bond had a deep respect for Quarrel. Plus, that's later mentioned in LIVE AND LET DIE.

The comment about the gypsies fighting to "the amusement of the men" is really wrong, since none of them men look all that amused when the fight occurs and even Bond asks the leader to put an end to the fight.

Girls getting slipped a Mickey Finn is more common today than it was in FRWL's time if anything.