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

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Not what I had in mind. When I suggested that audiences may have been softened up or conditioned to accept such a change, I wasn't necessarily meaning that EON would have laid the groundwork specifically, but that cinema in general would have changed over the course of several generations and that inevitably in another generation or two the young demographic (18-35; remember, Michael Wilson said in the Summer '89 issue of BONDAGE that people over 35 aren't counted as statistically significant by the studio) will not care whether the character is gay or straight.

I liken it to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It absolutely got the country to the point where a majority of Americans didn't see any problem with having an "openly" gay or lesbian serve in the military, and now Don't Ask, Don't Tell is officially over next month, I believe. It took 18 years to get to this point where gays and lesbians won't be thrown out of military service; it didn't happen overnight. You could not have gotten from where the country was on this issue back in 1993 to the place where the country is now in 2011 without having gone through and employed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The same thing *could* happen with Bond.

It's not so much about audiences not caring whether Bond is gay or straight, but about audience identification with Bond. Bond appeals to males largely because he's an aspirational fantasy figure - we want to do the things he does (well, apart from the killing). We'd like to have his way with women, his travel opportunities, his fancy cars, his food and wine, his clothes, his ability at swimming or skiing or whatever, and his general savoir faire.

At the end of the day, Eon makes money by pandering to these wish fulfilment fantasies of ours through wrapping them up in the package of James Bond 007. You talk about statistical significance - well, unless the number of gay/bisexual males in the world shoots up to the point where they make up a large part of the male audience demographic, there's no reason to give our man James his first Bond boy.

And don't forget that great swathes of the planet consist of very homophobic cultures and societies, and that the Bond films do much (most?) of their business "overseas", i.e. outside the United States. Not everywhere is as tolerant as your country or mine. So while no one in New York City or London or Amsterdam might raise an eyebrow if BOND 27 featured 007 (played by Cavill) planting his first kiss on the lips of a geezer, I'm not so sure that it would go down terribly well in Jamaica, India, China, Japan or most parts of Africa or the Middle East.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Not at all. I don't feel like we've seen enough of Craig to make a judgement yet. I think CR was overrated but good, and QOS was a bit artsy-fartsy in places, but a decent film. His third film will be his defining film, as it was for Connery, Moore and Brosnan.

Interesting view. Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I suspect we've already seen the best of Craig. I don't think he'll ever top CASINO ROYALE, but I hope to be proven wrong. As for THE DEATH COLLECTOR being his defining film, to my mind it feels like he's been away from Bond for so long that it's more like a NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN-style comeback/belated reunion tour. Slight exaggeration, of course, but on the assumption that this next film will be his last (an assumption that feels less safe than it used to, admittedly), I reckon we're in for something more akin to an encore than anything new or "defining". But time will tell.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Craig's baby blue plum-smugglers scene in CR was a bone...a reward thrown to female and gay male audience members. So while Bond himself hasn't been changed too much just yet, his universe is certainly changing. What gets put up on the screen and filtered down to the audience is certainly changing.

This scene in CR was very much by design. I'd say its aimed more at the gay crowd than the female crowd. The female audience has always been sufficiently titillated by Bond's general manliness and savoir faire. No, this scene was aimed sqarely at the gay male and only to a lesser extent at women. Men are much more prone to visual stimulation. Gay porn is big business. Lesbian porn is also big business - but with straight men. What does that tell you about the male - gay or straight. Why do female strip-clubs outnumber male strip-clubs about 10,000 to one in any major city. Men are simply wired differently.
In CR we see Babs attempt at sexually objectifying Bond. "Bond instead of now watching the object of desire, is now watched. Bond has become that object." (borrowed from Blueblood from another discussion on another thread in another board, far far away.)
Craig can really be quite the weasal. Considering all the attention that scene caused, Craig has since tried to pretend it was just an accident. He happened to pop out of the surf that way and the camera caught him. Gee shucks. OK so maybe he's just a big dumb dupe that Babs can bamboozle into doing anything she wants.
But he conveniently overlooks the fact, that even if what he says is true, a firm decision was made to use the scene, and display it exactly the way it was used. The blue briefed Adonis emerging from the surf is to be the defining iconic moment of the brave new-world re-boot, whther Craig wanted it that way or not.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

My problem with making Bond black or gay is that it assumes the current audience members, millions of whom already are black and/or gay, *WANT* James Bond to be portrayed as black or gay or female somewhere down the line, and that they'll bolt if this is not made to happen. Most of the minority audience members are there because they love James Bond just the way he is (or used to be).

Exactly but that doesn't mean anything to the progressive. They have an agenda. Its not about what the people want, which is what the business people will try to address. The progressive is more concerned with advancing their agenda, whether the people want it or not. The progressive defines what they think the "general will" should be and then they serve it up as best they can. Its called correct thinking, and Babs is one its high priestesses. Craig, you could say is her "useful idiot" to borrow from Lenin.
I honestly think we can expect more of the same from Babs in the next film. Especially with a progressive such as Mendes directing. But she will be careful. The films have to make big box office. She will have to take a gradualist approach.
I would like it, if David Mamet might do a critique of the next Bond. He's certaintly qualified to comment on the shenanigans of the Hollywood progressive set.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

danslittlefinger wrote:

re: " Well that doesn't give us much time then does it?"
There I was thinking it simply meant that they hadn't much time to talk..

You are right of course. But that's the difference between maintext and subtext. Subtext suggests another underlying message. In this case its aimed at gay viewers. You're not likely to catch it though, at least not consciously,unless you are receptive to such messaging or take notice of such things.

:cheers: Gotta admit, TiffanyWint has NAILED this argument.

Perfectly put TW.

I am aware of sub-text, I'm also aware of over thinking something...again, I believe neither is right or wrong here...subtext is in the vivid imagination of the beholder.

I don't think anyone is naliling anything.

Respect your view Tiff.

tiffanywint wrote:

danslittlefinger wrote:

re: " Well that doesn't give us much time then does it?"
There I was thinking it simply meant that they hadn't much time to talk..

You are right of course. But that's the difference between maintext and subtext. Subtext suggests another underlying message. In this case its aimed at gay viewers. You're not likely to catch it though, at least not consciously,unless you are receptive to such messaging or take notice of such things.

I wonder whether even if gay viewers picked it up. :roll:

tiffanywint wrote:

This scene in CR was very much by design. I'd say its aimed more at the gay crowd than the female crowd. The female audience has always been sufficiently titillated by Bond's general manliness and savoir faire. No, this scene was aimed sqarely at the gay male and only to a lesser extent at women

...right...

tiffanywint wrote:

Craig can really be quite the weasal. Considering all the attention that scene caused, Craig has since tried to pretend it was just an accident. He happened to pop out of the surf that way and the camera caught him. Gee shucks. OK so maybe he's just a big dumb dupe that Babs can bamboozle into doing anything she wants.

It's in some interview on the CR DVD in which some member of the crew (probably Craig) says that yes, he did just walk out of the ocean while they were shooting. It's not a story he just recently came up with. The females working that day all let out a collective sigh (as the story went), so they decided to film it. Hardly an agenda there.

I'm surprised you aren't enjoying the return of Bond being adored by women like he was in the Connery days.

ps. "Babs" is the devil and the cause of every single woe the franchise has seen since she became producer.

Harmsway wrote:

I wonder whether even if gay viewers picked it up. :roll:

:roll: Smug?
If you know any gay guys though, you could ask them.
Otherwise, you do realize volumes have been written on the notion of subtext in film.
The phenomena does exist. In fact there are two very good articles, discussing the very matter, published in the "James Bond in the 21st Century: Why we still need 007", Edited by Glenn Yeffeth with Leah Wilson, 2006. I'd draw your attention to John Cox's, piece The Sexual Subtext of 007

Louis Armstrong wrote:

The females working that day all let out a collective sigh (as the story went), so they decided to film it. Hardly an agenda there.

But you are ignoring the fact the producers (Babs) ran with it. "Hey Arnold, we need some dramatic music for this scene," which he obligingly provided.
The fact that Craig downplayed the scene afterwards makes no difference. Just as likely means he's self conscience about sexually objectifying Bond like that.

danslittlefinger wrote:

Respect your view Tiff.

Likewise Dan. You are gentleman as always. The rest of us are better for it.

tiffanywint wrote:

If you know any gay guys though, you could ask them.

Santa's already visited the thread and expressed his bewilderment, hasn't he?

tiffanywint wrote:

Otherwise, you do realize volumes have been written on the notion of subtext in film.

Yeah, and a good deal of it is nonsense. (I say this as a devotee of art criticism.)

Louis Armstrong wrote:

B&B - Bond & Beyond, or Beavis & Butthead? Hard to say.

Starting to think it's Beavis & Butthead...

Harmsway wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

danslittlefinger wrote:

re: " Well that doesn't give us much time then does it?"
There I was thinking it simply meant that they hadn't much time to talk..

You are right of course. But that's the difference between maintext and subtext. Subtext suggests another underlying message. In this case its aimed at gay viewers. You're not likely to catch it though, at least not consciously,unless you are receptive to such messaging or take notice of such things.

I wonder whether even if gay viewers picked it up. :roll:

Well, TiffanyWint said it was *aimed* at gay viewers. Doesn't mean every gay viewer was going to pick up on the fact that they were being directly marketed to. But quite a few "got it" based upon the "chatter" or "the talk" on websites and message boards when the first picture of Craig rising from the ocean in his manties was released to the press. Maybe it's just a cultural difference, but in America very few straight men would bother wearing a swimsuit like that; back in the 50's they might have, but not in 2011.

News to me, I always thought it was solely directed at the female audience and I recall it working very well. Not denying gay men enjoy it as much as they probably enjoyed watching Sean Connery walk in his blue trunks in TB, but I don't agree that they were the primary audience the filmmakers were aiming for.

Makeshift Python wrote:

News to me, I always thought it was solely directed at the female audience and I recall it working very well. Not denying gay men enjoy it as much as they probably enjoyed watching Sean Connery walk in his blue trunks in TB, but I don't agree that they were the primary audience the filmmakers were aiming for.

TW was making a generalization, but it's a true one. Men and women process information differently, and while some women may have been excited to see Bond emerge from the sea wearing a bathing suit that left little to the imagination, most of them responded to the romantic angle of the movie. I had one woman at work tell me she'd rarely seen a Bond film before because they were just guys fantasy films, but she really liked CR because it had a romance in it, and she thought it was one of the best films she'd seen that year and was telling all her friends about it. I just think they happened to respond to the romance of the movie more than seeing him in his man panties; seeing him in those plum smugglers wasn't enough to get them to go see the movie, because they'd already seen the pix on the Internet hundreds of times by the release of CR.

They came for the man panties and stayed for the romance.

Harmsway wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

If you know any gay guys though, you could ask them.

Santa's already visited the thread and expressed his bewilderment, hasn't he?

:D Ouch! Sorry, Harms, but I'm a she...

He must have meant the real Santa.

tiffanywint wrote:

If you don't see it. Don't worry about it. Just means your pc radar isn't quite in focus yet.

Good! I hope it stays that way - but while my PC radar may be off, I have a pretty finely tuned gaydar and that scene did not set it off. I'd go along with DLF and say you're looking for things that aren't there, and I can't say I blame you - QoS was so deeply unsatisfying that my mind also wandered far while watching.

tiffanywint wrote:

The female audience has always been sufficiently titillated by Bond's general manliness

Not in the 10 years previous to this scene, though. I reckon the blue nuthuggers scene works as much to underline the new as to please the women/gays. Let's face it, no matter how much some people love him, Brosnan could NEVER have pulled that off due to a lack of 'general manliness', but this scene was like waving a flag telling us the Brosnan days are over, in more ways than one.

Santa wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

The female audience has always been sufficiently titillated by Bond's general manliness

Not in the 10 years previous to this scene, though. I reckon the blue nuthuggers scene works as much to underline the new as to please the women/gays. Let's face it, no matter how much some people love him, Brosnan could NEVER have pulled that off due to a lack of 'general manliness', but this scene was like waving a flag telling us the Brosnan days are over, in more ways than one.

Had a similar feeling, truly like old times. Loved it a lot.

Santa wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

If you know any gay guys though, you could ask them.

Santa's already visited the thread and expressed his bewilderment, hasn't he?

:D Ouch! Sorry, Harms, but I'm a she...

How did I muck that up after all this time? My gravest apologies.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Well, TiffanyWint said it was *aimed* at gay viewers. Doesn't mean every gay viewer was going to pick up on the fact that they were being directly marketed to. But quite a few "got it" based upon the "chatter" or "the talk" on websites and message boards when the first picture of Craig rising from the ocean in his manties was released to the press. Maybe it's just a cultural difference, but in America very few straight men would bother wearing a swimsuit like that; back in the 50's they might have, but not in 2011.

Are we talking 'bout the swimsuit or the scene with Felix Leiter? I've been talking about the latter, not the former. And no, the two shouldn't be conflated.

Harmsway wrote:

Santa wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

If you know any gay guys though, you could ask them.

Santa's already visited the thread and expressed his bewilderment, hasn't he?

:D Ouch! Sorry, Harms, but I'm a she...

How did I muck that up after all this time? My gravest apologies.

No worries. Although if we'd met in person and you made that mistake you wouldn't get off so lightly :) .

Harmsway wrote:

Are we talking 'bout the swimsuit or the scene with Felix Leiter? I've been talking about the latter, not the former. And no, the two shouldn't be conflated.

I was talking about the swimsuit scene. I personally don't believe there's any sexual subtext between Leiter and Bond going on in the bar scene, because if Craig's Bond was going to be a little "bi-curious" (a new word I've heard lately) I think he could do better than Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter.

Hasn't there been an actor cast for B23 who's publicly admitted to having a hard-on for DC or kissed DC in a previous flick? Or maybe I'm just getting rumors mixed up with reality.

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

Hasn't there been an actor cast for B23 who's publicly admitted to having a hard-on for DC or kissed DC in a previous flick? Or maybe I'm just getting rumors mixed up with reality.

Rachel Weisz?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

Hasn't there been an actor cast for B23 who's publicly admitted to having a hard-on for DC or kissed DC in a previous flick? Or maybe I'm just getting rumors mixed up with reality.

Rachel Weisz?

Rachel Weisz has got a hardon? I guess that explains the marriage.

Sharky wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

Hasn't there been an actor cast for B23 who's publicly admitted to having a hard-on for DC or kissed DC in a previous flick? Or maybe I'm just getting rumors mixed up with reality.

Rachel Weisz?

Rachel Weisz has got a hardon? I guess that explains the marriage.

I assumed the use of the phrase "hard-on" was for illustrative, symbolic purposes only and not meant to be literal. A woman can get a......nah, forget it.