Previous Debate: Are the current team paving the way for a gay Bond?

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you say, Faester. Literary critics (and film critics, too, I suspect) are comically guilty of reading their own fears and desires into the texts. These people can find racism, sexism, and homophobia in a coin minted in Iceland in 1479.

This is true although many film auteurs do purposefully work much subtext into their films. Artistic license. Makes their films "deeper" and gets people talking. But often its just ham-fisted film making.

tiffanywint wrote:

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you say, Faester. Literary critics (and film critics, too, I suspect) are comically guilty of reading their own fears and desires into the texts. These people can find racism, sexism, and homophobia in a coin minted in Iceland in 1479.

This is true although many film auteurs do purposefully work much subtext into their films. Artistic license. Makes their films "deeper" and gets people talking. But often its just ham-fisted film making.

Great points...and there was I thinking a metrosexual was someone whose turned on by using the Underground.

tiffanywint wrote:

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you say, Faester. Literary critics (and film critics, too, I suspect) are comically guilty of reading their own fears and desires into the texts. These people can find racism, sexism, and homophobia in a coin minted in Iceland in 1479.

This is true although many film auteurs do purposefully work much subtext into their films. Artistic license. Makes their films "deeper" and gets people talking. But often its just ham-fisted film making.

All of this talk about subtext and subliminal messages made me want to get a sub sandwich...and to start republishing a lot of the work I put into 007Forever.com. Check out these articles we wrote several years ago and agree to agree with me that there is, at times, some subliminal or subtextual meaning in the Bond films where it's intentional or not:

https://bondandbeyond.forumotion.com/t685-subtext-and-subliminal-messages-in-the-bond-films

https://bondandbeyond.forumotion.com/t684-subtext-in-the-bond-films-the-man-in-the-boat

Thanks for putting up those links GS. You've got both Cox's YOLT: James Bond Goes to Hell and his FRWL:Sex and the Secret Agent which are both found in his , The Sexual Subtext of 007 Or Why We (Really) Like These Movies essay which was published in the excellent Bond essay collection, James Bond in the 21st Century: Why We Still Need 007.
Missing though from your links is Cox's Goldfinger: James Bond and the Oedipus Complex, which is an interesting read as well and also included, in his broader Sexual Subtext essay.
I think our own Lazenby's analysis of the sexual subtext in QoS is worth including in the thread, if we can find it, or maybe Lazenby can dig it out.
Good idea to put all the subtext stuff in one thread for those of us, that find this stuff interesting.

Looking forward the stuff I haven't read yet.

Moneypenny, Brozzer and the cigar. That's a classic from TWINE, in the continuing emasculation-of-Bond theme, in the Babs era.

tiffanywint wrote:

I think our own Lazenby's analysis of the sexual subtext in QoS is worth including in the thread, if we can find it, or maybe Lazenby can dig it out.

Unfortunately mate, I posted it at MI6, so it's gone forever. Worked hard on that post as well, finding all those "examples".

Lazenby. wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

I think our own Lazenby's analysis of the sexual subtext in QoS is worth including in the thread, if we can find it, or maybe Lazenby can dig it out.

Unfortunately mate, I posted it at MI6, so it's gone forever. Worked hard on that post as well, finding all those "examples".

Damn, I should have saved it. That was real funny. I do remember though Bond's dumping off the unconscious Camille at the docks as one of the many items, supportingthe general theme.

tiffanywint wrote:

Thanks for putting up those links GS. You've got both Cox's YOLT: James Bond Goes to Hell and his FRWL:Sex and the Secret Agent which are both found in his , The Sexual Subtext of 007 Or Why We (Really) Like These Movies essay which was published in the excellent Bond essay collection, James Bond in the 21st Century: Why We Still Need 007.
Missing though from your links is Cox's Goldfinger: James Bond and the Oedipus Complex, which is an interesting read as well and also included, in his broader Sexual Subtext essay.
I think our own Lazenby's analysis of the sexual subtext in QoS is worth including in the thread, if we can find it, or maybe Lazenby can dig it out.
Good idea to put all the subtext stuff in one thread for those of us, that find this stuff interesting.

Looking forward the stuff I haven't read yet.

Moneypenny, Brozzer and the cigar. That's a classic from TWINE, in the continuing emasculation-of-Bond theme, in the Babs era.

And notice that Moneypenny throws the cigar case in the trashcan, suggesting she no longer needs Bond's sexual virility and can satisfy her own urges if she so chooses. In other words, she's in charge of her own orgasm and having a guy like Bond around is not a necessity.

The Goldfinger review: https://bondandbeyond.forumotion.com/t688-subtext-in-the-bond-films-goldfinger#19564

Personally, I think the AVTAK review is astonishing (written by Nick Kincaid for our website from 1997 - 2001). 12 years later and I still can't tell whether Nick's article is a work of pure genius and psychological insight, or the manifestation of a warped and crack-addicted mind :) But that's good writing for you. It doesn't necessarily make choices easy for you, but makes you just think instead.

Nah. Pierce Brosnan was close enough.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Personally, I think the AVTAK review is astonishing (written by Nick Kincaid for our website from 1997 - 2001). 12 years later and I still can't tell whether Nick's article is a work of pure genius and psychological insight, or the manifestation of a warped and crack-addicted mind :) But that's good writing for you. It doesn't necessarily make choices easy for you, but makes you just think instead.

I think its a bit of both. He really goes to town on the female reproductive motif. I found myself saying - enough already. I can only handle so much talk of menstruation and uteruses :oops: Makes for a fun read anyway, once one steels one-self to all the gynecology ramblings.

Drax wrote:

Nah. Pierce Brosnan was close enough.

Indeed.


Still, I'll try to recount the points I raised in my "QOS Sexual Subtext" post from MI6:


The PTS:
Bond desperately hangs onto his precious cargo of a tied-up man in his car boot, a man who, at the end of the previous film, was on his knees beneath Bond, the man's head at Bond's crotch level before the camera panned up to above Bond's waist to hide what was really happening. Also note that Bond's usual small weapon of choice (the Walther PPK/P99, whatever) has now "erected" into a massive machine gun. Bond drives the man into a dark alley/tunnel (Bond's "engine" going into a black hole?) and, with a look of satisfaction on his face, says "Time to get out". The credits prevent us from seeing what happens next between Bond and his tied-up prey in this dark alley.

The interrogation of White:
Mr White (or Mr Sperm in the obvious sexual subtext sense) is tied to a chair. Note how Bond, despite White's involvement in the death of Vesper, has no intention of beating information out of the guy. Is Bond perhaps waiting for the others to leave the room before "pumping" White for information? Note how White seems utterly gleeful when he says "We have people everywhere". Note also that Bond sneaks a photo of another man into his pocket when his boss isn't looking, and how M clearly intimates that Bond hasn't slept much recently whilst in the company of the tied-up Mr White.

The boat chase:
Bond rescues the damsel in distress Camille. Yet, a beautiful woman in his arms, a woman he could take back to his place or basically do whatever he wants with, he decides to just dump her off on some fisherman and get back to the business of looking for men.

Tosca:
Bond follows a man into the toilets and removes the man's clothes. We don't see what actually happens in the toilets, whatever happens takes place off-camera and is left to the imagination. Bond then takes a load of photos of men.

The arrival of Fields:
Note how, when Mathis suggests that Fields may have handcuffs, Bond's reply is "You wish" (or "You hope"?). It's not Bond who wants her to have handcuffs.

The "seduction" of Fields:
Note how we see no actual seduction take place. Also note how we see no sex taking place. Instead we just see Bond doing something pointless on her back, as if he doesn't know what to do with a woman or maybe all he's done is give her a massage. If this were Rog, Sean, Lazers or even Dalton or the "metrosexual" Brozzers, we'd have likely seen something sexual happen, but here we don't.

Bond at Mathis' villa:
Note how Mathis has a hot woman lounging around, but Bond couldn't give a shit, the woman may as well not even be there. Bond again wants to look at photos of men.

Bond pissed on the plane with Mathis:
Note how both men seem to be having trouble sleeping, and Bond is clearly vulnerable after a few drinks. He begins an intimate conversation with Mathis, but we don't see how the night ends.

Bond at Greene's party:
Note how Bond doesn't give a shit about the fact that he's left Fields behind when he leaves.

Fields' death: Note how Fields' body is sprawled across a bed covered in a wet substance. The villains mocking Bond's inability to do the same?

Bond and Felix in the bar:
The look on Bond's face when he says "Then we haven't got much time" says it all, in a scene with other dialogue which could be deemed as sexual innuendo.

Bond and Camille in the cave: Another blatant opportunity for Bond to have his way with a woman. Again he chooses not to, and just gets all touchy-feely about "mental prisons" and somesuch as if he's drafting a letter to an agony aunt in a woman's mag.

The action finale:
Note how, despite Camille being stuck in one of the rooms with an abusive man, Bond's too busy chasing a man again, leaving Camille to fight her own way out of her predicament as Bond stands in front of Greene, the villain waving his phallic axe at Bond.

The "death" of Greene:
Note how Bond doesn't kill the guy. Dalton would have given him two in the head. Even Moore would point-blank shoot the villain (Stromberg, Scaramanga). Instead, this current Bond's fantasy for Greene involves Greene having to swallow the "juice" from a cylindrical object. Off-the-charts phallic.

The "confrontation" with Yusef:
Again, an attractive woman is brushed aside without fanfare, forced to leave the room. Again, we have Bond alone in a room with a man yet the camera decides not to show us what happens between the two. Bond doesn't kill the man, so something else went down, but we're not told what exactly.

Final scene with M:
Note the unsubtle sexual subtext once more as the ground outside is filled with a white substance as Bond comes out from having spent time alone with a man in an apartment, events of this meeting left curiously unseen. Bond then rejects female love forever as he tosses away Vesper's necklace, the necklace left there to be submerged in the "white substance" our man now undoubtedly craves.

The closing gunbarrel:
There's a stiff, hunched quality to this gunbarrel walk and pose, as if Bond has been involved in some form of activity which may have strained his lower back. Draw your own conclusions.

Lazenby. wrote:

we just see Bond doing something pointless on her back, as if he doesn't know what to do with a woman

I think you're getting things a bit arse about tit here - maybe, because he knows what to do with a woman, he knows that there's a little bit more to the whole process than just in-out. Never heard of foreplay or afterglow, sweet pea? ;)

I think some people here are definitely not getting enough.

No, they're not. Both in answer to the principal question, and the post above.

:*h*:

Lazenby. wrote:

I'm sold. QoS is just a gay old time. Case closed.:king:

When R. Dud pronounces, what need could there possibly be for argumentation and elucidation!

Hilarious, Laz.

Over the top but fantastic homosexual reading there. A good laugh.

This gay Bond discussion is rather hysterical, hasn’t Bond already been there, was this under the radar or too subtle for some. Grace Jones is bi-sexual and revels in being androgynous, wasn’t Roger Bond his/her bitch, and more of a man than him, why do we think her name is Mayday? What say you about that subtext? Are we going to blame Barbara for that too?

This discussion is so farcical, it makes some of us a tad pathetic.

tilly wrote:

This gay Bond discussion is rather hysterical, hasn’t Bond already been there, was this under the radar or too subtle for some. Grace Jones is bi-sexual and revels in being androgynous, wasn’t Roger Bond his/her bitch, and more of a man than him, why do we think her name is Mayday? What say you about that subtext?

Funny you should ask, Gravity's Silhouette provided a long and learned dissertation by one Nick Kincaid, dealing with just that very topic - sexual ambiguity and other sexual motifs in AVTAK.
Not for the faint of heart though - much detailed discussion of menstruation, uteruses, and other female reproductive data, better left to gynecologists. Might cause trauma for men who get squeamish or faint, at the mention of such stuff.



https://bondandbeyond.forumotion.com/t684-subtext-in-the-bond-films-the-man-in-the-boat

tiffanywint wrote:

tilly wrote:

This gay Bond discussion is rather hysterical, hasn’t Bond already been there, was this under the radar or too subtle for some. Grace Jones is bi-sexual and revels in being androgynous, wasn’t Roger Bond his/her bitch, and more of a man than him, why do we think her name is Mayday? What say you about that subtext?

Funny you should ask, Gravity's Silhouette provided a long and learned dissertation by one Nick Kincaid, dealing with just that very topic - sexual ambiguity and other sexual motifs in AVTAK.
Not for the faint of heart though - much detailed discussion of menstruation, uteruses, and other female reproductive data, better left to gynecologists. Might cause trauma for men who get squeamish or faint, at the mention of such stuff.



https://bondandbeyond.forumotion.com/t684-subtext-in-the-bond-films-the-man-in-the-boat

And I would point out that there are different forms of subtext. I believe some "hidden meanings" or subtext is deliberate, and some of it is simply unconscious. "The Man In The Boat" article, I think, offers more evidence of the later than the former. There's no getting around the fact that a lot of films use a situation or a character as a metaphor for something greater. Clearly Kal-El in SUPERMAN is a parallel to Jesus Christ (only son sent to earth as an infant by his father; raised by adoptive parents in Bethlehem/Smallville; discovers supernatural powers as he grows up, etc....).... The 'Apes' films were always representative of ethnic and racial minorities...The X-Men films were thinly veiled, not very subtle attempts as changing the perception of gays and lesbians....SPIDER-MAN was about a young man discovering all sorts of new things about his body....ALIENS used the backdrop of Vietnam to move its story along, and ALIEN was about, in part, males as the victims of rape....

I won't go out on a limb and suggest that the Bond writers were even half as clever as some of these other franchise writers, but there may be subliminal messaging in 007 films that weren't necessarily intended...like a man in a boat in a region of California that looks like a flooding vagina at the peak of spring tide.

Just sayin'... :joker:

tilly wrote:

This gay Bond discussion is rather hysterical, hasn’t Bond already been there, was this under the radar or too subtle for some. Grace Jones is bi-sexual and revels in being androgynous, wasn’t Roger Bond his/her bitch, and more of a man than him, why do we think her name is Mayday? What say you about that subtext? Are we going to blame Barbara for that too?

This discussion is so farcical, it makes some of us a tad pathetic.

It's been well-discussed that Grace Jones "surprised" Roger Moore on the set that day for their love scene by wearing a strap-on dildo underneath her robe. Allegedly his reaction to her penis was the take that made it into the movie, but I don't expect anyone connected with the film to comment upon that (and if they have I've forgotten what was said).

And yes, I don't not blame Barbara for that

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

tilly wrote:

This gay Bond discussion is rather hysterical, hasn’t Bond already been there, was this under the radar or too subtle for some. Grace Jones is bi-sexual and revels in being androgynous, wasn’t Roger Bond his/her bitch, and more of a man than him, why do we think her name is Mayday? What say you about that subtext? Are we going to blame Barbara for that too?

This discussion is so farcical, it makes some of us a tad pathetic.

It's been well-discussed that Grace Jones "surprised" Roger Moore on the set that day for their love scene by wearing a strap-on dildo underneath her robe. Allegedly his reaction to her penis was the take that made it into the movie, but I don't expect anyone connected with the film to comment upon that (and if they have I've forgotten what was said).
And yes, I don't not blame Barbara for that

Rog did not like Grace Jones at all. He made that clear in his auto-bio. He describes the "strap-on" incident in detail, wryly stating, "I hope she was amused" or something to that effect.
He also says he lost it on her when he smashed a chair because of the "heavy metal" music, that she played so loudly in her dressing area.
Rog does give props to Babs though. He said it was her job to make sure, the notoriously unreliable Jones got picked up every day and brought to the set on time.
Hmmmm. Maybe Jones corrupted the young and impressionable Babsy.

Signing out on this, it's been an education in futility - faux understanding is rather transparent.

I'm getting confused now. I thought the whole gay subtext thing was a joke but I'm starting to wonder if some people on here are serious.

tiffanywint wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

tilly wrote:

This gay Bond discussion is rather hysterical, hasn’t Bond already been there, was this under the radar or too subtle for some. Grace Jones is bi-sexual and revels in being androgynous, wasn’t Roger Bond his/her bitch, and more of a man than him, why do we think her name is Mayday? What say you about that subtext? Are we going to blame Barbara for that too?

This discussion is so farcical, it makes some of us a tad pathetic.

It's been well-discussed that Grace Jones "surprised" Roger Moore on the set that day for their love scene by wearing a strap-on dildo underneath her robe. Allegedly his reaction to her penis was the take that made it into the movie, but I don't expect anyone connected with the film to comment upon that (and if they have I've forgotten what was said).
And yes, I don't not blame Barbara for that

Rog did not like Grace Jones at all. He made that clear in his auto-bio. He describes the "strap-on" incident in detail, wryly stating, "I hope she was amused" or something to that effect.
He also says he lost it on her when he smashed a chair because of the "heavy metal" music, that she played so loudly in her dressing area.
Rog does give props to Babs though. He said it was her job to make sure, the notoriously unreliable Jones got picked up every day and brought to the set on time.
Hmmmm. Maybe Jones corrupted the young and impressionable Babsy.

Apart from the score Grace Jones' performance/character was the most genuinely original/interesting aspect of the movie.

Santa wrote:

I'm getting confused now. I thought the whole gay subtext thing was a joke but I'm starting to wonder if some people on here are serious.

I think too many ideas are being confused with one another. I understand correctly, I think Tiffany Wint believes there was gay subtext in parts of QOS. I can't say I saw it, but it wouldn't be the first time a coded message was put into a movie, a song, or a television show.

The other argument is (and this is where I am come in) that the Craig films have been quietly but deliberately marketed to appeal to a gay and straight audience in a way that the previous films never were. To the best of my knowledge, studios and television networks didn't have Chief Diversity Officers in the 60's like they do now, and there weren't gay/lesbian groups like GLAAD in existence back then to advise film makers.

A lot of shows and many film scripts today are routinely sent to CDO's and activist groups to see if there are any objections to the material if the movie or show might be dealing with subject matter of particular interest to gays or blacks or other minorities. So it wouldn't surprise me to find out that SONY had a consultant on QOS or CR that gave everyone some advice on how to appeal to gay men without losing the straight, heterosexual male audience. That's not an opinion, but more than likely a fact.

There's a difference between a film that just happens to appeal to gays or lesbians and one that is deliberately put together with them in mind. The Bond producers are reaching out to the gay audience with Craig. That's not to say they are thinking of producing a film down the line with James Bond himself being gay, but they are certainly trying to make the series more gay-friendly without alienating the core heterosexual, white, misogynistic male demographic.

I am capable of infinite patience, but Babs and Co. are really beginning to test the limits of infinity.