Subtext in Bond: Goldfinger

This subtext, from John Cox's article in James Bond in the 21st Century, was the one I found the most complex and intriguing.

It places Goldfinger in a father figure role, sets up Oddjob as a representation of Goldfinger's sexuality, and explains why Bond seems the most helpless and impotent in this film.

It likens Jill Masterson as the "mother" as she is Goldfinger's woman. It also says the scene is the most domesticated, as if Bond is playing husband. It says that The Beatles comment is unlike Bond, and makes him seem older as he tries to "play daddy". You have Moneypenny tossing Bond's hat for him, and it's clear that women have the power in this film.

The most odd thing about Goldfinger has always been the fact that they each want to kill each other, but they engage in this bizzarre dance of not doing so. It seems like it's simply for the sake of the film, but Cox compares it to the teenage son's innate desire to kill the father, and the father's knowledge that he doesn't have the power to do so. They enact this battle in sports, as Bond and Goldfinger do. It's no mistake that Goldfinger's laser is essentially being used as a castration device.

Bond's triumph comes when he beds the woman that Goldfinger can't have. Then, when he kills Oddjob, the representation of Goldfinger's sexual power, you see Goldfinger now appearing helpess and silly in a military uniform. Again, Pussy has the power (there is little subtext in THAT name), as she is piloting the plane in the end.

So that's just a basic overview of the article. He writes more about this film than the others, so it's hard to summarize it.

So do you buy into into this idea? I think that most films have some kind of subtext, and that's why we enjoy the films we do. If it was just about plot and characters...So much of that has already been done. I like the idea of delving into what's beneath the surface of films, but I had never really done so in Bond, before. I found the article very enlightening, and I hope more of you have read it or get a chance to.

lalala2004 wrote:

This subtext, from John Cox's article in James Bond in the 21st Century, was the one I found the most complex and intriguing...

So do you buy into into this idea? I think that most films have some kind of subtext, and that's why we enjoy the films we do. If it was just about plot and characters...So much of that has already been done. I like the idea of delving into what's beneath the surface of films, but I had never really done so in Bond, before. I found the article very enlightening, and I hope more of you have read it or get a chance to.

No

I think there are often incidental connections between films and songs and our own lives that make them resonate in a special way for us personally, but they are not planned

for an author, events in their own lives will often apear in their writing, albeit in a modified form
and I find it interesting to read articles about the author where theories are put forward about what inspired the author to create particular characters or events
but I don't buy into this psychobabble of tieing everything back to father and mother and sex

a close friend of mine had a from of mental breakdown while I was visiting over a weekend a few years back, it was just me and her for while and she was coming out with all sorts of stuff relating to stressful events in her past life and I was to some extent playing amatuer psychiatrist, trying to interpret these events as being the cause of her problem, like they do on television, particularly after we visited a hospital on the Sunday and they seemed to approach it that way

however fortunately we visited a better hospital on the Monday and now, looking back on it, with the benifit of hindsight, I seems to me that the mental problem was the byproduct of a physical ailment and the recalling of stressful events was only a symptom, not the root cause

To say that is is subtext is not to say that it was not intentional on the part of the film makers. Psychology is often used to make a film resonate with the audience on a deeper level, even if the audience doesn't realize it.

That said, while I found it the most intriguing, I'm not sure I found this particular subtext the most believable out of the 3 in the article.

lalala2004 wrote:

To say that is is subtext is not to say that it was not intentional on the part of the film makers. Psychology is often used to make a film resonate with the audience on a deeper level, even if the audience doesn't realize it.

That said, while I found it the most intriguing, I'm not sure I found this particular subtext the most believable out of the 3 in the article.

from what I've read of the Bond film makers, I think subtexts, intentional or otherwise, are the furthest thing from their miinds when they are making a movie


IMO so far the type of Directors who might invest a Bond film with a deliberate subtext have not been given the job

A good deal is in the writing, though. It's hard to believe there's really supposed to be subtext in Goldfinger, of all things. Makes you look at the film a little differently, though.

lalala2004 wrote:

A good deal is in the writing, though. It's hard to believe there's really supposed to be subtext in Goldfinger, of all things. Makes you look at the film a little differently, though.

true, but apart from Roald Dahl I don't think they've let many great authors loose on their screenplays either

by that I mean someone who has produced significant work in print, outside of working on screenplays

but I could be wrong in that assumption..?

Very interesting as I felt that was the movie I was watching from the beginning too. Every scene with Pussy is equally fascinating as is Bond's reaction to her. It goes beyond the usual suave and sex appeal and in every single scene he seems to genuinely like her. Even when she captures him spying on Goldfingers speech and yanks him down there is again that happy, almost gentle look on his face. The same with the tone he takes when they speak to each other. It's almost like they were the oldest of friends and of course much more but he doesn't react that way with most women. There is so much sexual subtext going on I find it hard to grasp it all. Are they in love the second they meet even if it's unacknowledged to us or themselves? Does he know she is fundamentally good at heart but damaged? I remember reading somewhere that Honor Blackman understood and played the character as a girl who had been sexually abused in her past. Then of course this all leading up to the barn scene and it's many interpretations. The first time I watched it I was a little bit confused by it but perhaps it was something Bond saw in her right away. He spotted the Stockholm Syndrome fairly quick in Elekra so it's not outside the realm of possibility that he saw the same emotional troubles with Pussy. It could just be me projecting but I don't see this as he boinked a lesbian straight scene at all. It could be the opposite and a very respectful,subdued way of addressing these issues and making us think about them and not just some crude joke. I guess the question then would be is she truly a lesbian or bisexual and unable to trust men due to her past until she meets Bond? Hard to say as sexuality can be so complex but it does give one a lot to think about when watching. Then of course his whole interaction with Goldfinger himself seems like a very unhealthy father/son relationship that one could ponder forever. it's just such a brilliantly written movie overall

Why do you always wear that thing?

I have a slight inferiority complex.

Oddjob crushing the balls
the almost castrated scene and his personality is not the same here with women as in other Bond films
the examples seem endless and while it could all be in my mind I don't see it in other films in the series nor was it something I was looking for at all

Mmm ... I'm not convinced any subtext was at all intentional, I believe they were merely setting out to make the most entertaining film possible.

Guy Hamilton said his attitude to directing Goldfinger was that Bond 'is a kind of joke Superman'.

I wouldn't have even called it subtext as I thought it was that obvious and right on the surface. I thought that was what the movie was about and everyone saw the same thing. But if that's not the case, it's not there and was never intended...well then I have serious issues and might just need a great deal of therapy. lol

Nick Kincaid wrote a lengthy article for 007forever.com many yonks ago, called 'The Man in the Boat: Sexual Subtext in AVTAK', wherin he begins by saying "I don`t think the writers intended these hidden meanings, nor do I think that the film was trying to say anything. The points are just a measure of how cohesive and deeply woven A View To A Kill is. It`s an unusually rich Bond film, much deeper and intellectual than commonly thought. At the very least, you`ll never the see the film in the same light again..."

He then goes on to catalogue 'subliminal' examples of sexuality, sexual ambiguity, fertility, emasculation (one broken ski), menstruation ("Rags to riches" and the mooring lines hanging from the blimp) and homosexuality (not just Bond and Tibbett "bickering like two old queens..."Well done my good man"...implying that he isn't a man", but even in the way the SFPD cars' fenders get locked together).

And that's just a few examples. The only question this article raises in me is: does Nick Kincaid maintain that all these references are deliberate - or even subconscious on the part of Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson? There is a world of difference between what an author IMPLIES and what meaning a reader/viewer INFERS for him/herself, based on their own experience (or lack thereof).

For instance. on the balcony, Bond says to Sir Godfrey Tibbett, "well done, my good man" in reference to My Man Godfrey, a play that was filmed twice, with William Powell (1936) and later David Niven (1957) playing a vagrant who becomes a butler.

During the Ascot scene, upon being told that Zorin was born in Dresden, defected to the west and became a billionaire, Bond quips, "the old reds to riches story," which I suppose could still be a reference of some kind to May day's costume, but I'd always thought it referred to Zorin's defection and subsequent success.

I could go on, but these are the two entries that caught my eye. The rest, as Kincaid allows as he paraphrases Freud, may only be "a ski chase."

Dear God ... if Mr Kincaid 'saw' all that in AVTAK, then good luck to him . But for most of us, isn't it just a daft bit of fluff that was at least one film too far for Rog?

AMC Hornet wrote:

Nick Kincaid wrote a lengthy article for 007forever.com many yonks ago, called 'The Man in the Boat: Sexual Subtext in AVTAK', wherin he begins by saying "I don`t think the writers intended these hidden meanings, nor do I think that the film was trying to say anything. The points are just a measure of how cohesive and deeply woven A View To A Kill is. It`s an unusually rich Bond film, much deeper and intellectual than commonly thought. At the very least, you`ll never the see the film in the same light again...

He then goes on to catalogue 'subliminal' examples of sexuality, sexual ambiguity, fertility, emasculation (one broken ski), menstruation ("Rags to riches" and the mooring lines hanging from the blimp) and homosexuality (not just Bond and Tibbett "bickering like two old queens..."Well done my good man"...implying that he isn't a man", but even in the way the SFPD cars' fenders get locked together).

And that's just a few examples. The only question this article raises in me is: does Nick Kincaid maintain that all these references are deliberate - or even subconscious on the part of Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson? There is a world of difference between what an author IMPLIES and what meaning a reader/viewer INFERS for him/herself, based on their own experience (or lack thereof).

For instance. on the balcony, Bond says to Sir Godfrey Tibbett, "well done, my good man" in reference to My Man Godfrey, a play that was filmed twice, with William Powell (1936) and later David Niven (1957) playing a vagrant who becomes a butler.

During the Ascot scene, upon being told that Zorin was born in Dresden, defected to the west and became a billionaire, Bond quips, "the old reds to riches story," which I suppose could still be a reference of some kind to May day's costume, but I'd always thought it referred to Zorin's defection and subsequent success.

I could go on, but these are the two entries that caught my eye. The rest, as Kincaid allows as he paraphrases Freud, may only be "a ski chase."

Very interesting, thank you.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Dear God ... if Mr Kincaid 'saw' all that in AVTAK, then good luck to him . But for most of us, isn't it just a daft bit of fluff that was at least one film too far for Rog?  

Wouldn't it be possible for a writer to put that into the text without even being all that aware of it himself? I mean we are so often not fully sure of our words, motives or intent ...or I could have just been way too high when I watched GF. that works too

AMC Hornet wrote:

Nick Kincaid wrote a lengthy article for 007forever.com many yonks ago, called 'The Man in the Boat: Sexual Subtext in AVTAK', wherin he begins by saying "I don`t think the writers intended these hidden meanings, nor do I think that the film was trying to say anything. The points are just a measure of how cohesive and deeply woven A View To A Kill is. It`s an unusually rich Bond film, much deeper and intellectual than commonly thought. At the very least, you`ll never the see the film in the same light again..."

He then goes on to catalogue 'subliminal' examples of sexuality, sexual ambiguity, fertility, emasculation (one broken ski), menstruation ("Rags to riches" and the mooring lines hanging from the blimp) and homosexuality (not just Bond and Tibbett "bickering like two old queens..."Well done my good man"...implying that he isn't a man", but even in the way the SFPD cars' fenders get locked together).

And that's just a few examples. The only question this article raises in me is: does Nick Kincaid maintain that all these references are deliberate - or even subconscious on the part of Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson? There is a world of difference between what an author IMPLIES and what meaning a reader/viewer INFERS for him/herself, based on their own experience (or lack thereof).

For instance. on the balcony, Bond says to Sir Godfrey Tibbett, "well done, my good man" in reference to My Man Godfrey, a play that was filmed twice, with William Powell (1936) and later David Niven (1957) playing a vagrant who becomes a butler.

During the Ascot scene, upon being told that Zorin was born in Dresden, defected to the west and became a billionaire, Bond quips, "the old reds to riches story," which I suppose could still be a reference of some kind to May day's costume, but I'd always thought it referred to Zorin's defection and subsequent success.

I could go on, but these are the two entries that caught my eye. The rest, as Kincaid allows as he paraphrases Freud, may only be "a ski chase."

I'll have to dig the article up. I enjoy AVTAK appreciation.