Anal anxiety in Diamonds Are Forever.

Rossi

I don't want to disturb you with such a Discussion Title ;) But, in the first place, that's the title of a chapter in "Ian Fleming & James Bond: The Cultural Politics Of 007". I'm reading it right now by Google Books. So, what do you think of the gay connotations in Diamonds Are Forever? The film is Plenty of it.

AgentJamesBond007

Ummm....

Agent007391

Only Wint and Kidd are gay, who else is? As far as the discussion title... well... I never thought the word "anal" would be in a discussion title, but here it is.

Just as a quick note: I feel this'll be closed in a very short time.

AlexanderWaverly

Did this, by chance, originate with an academic paper? In 2003, at Indiana University in Bloomington, there was a conference about Bond (it was held there because Ian Fleming's papers are housed at the school's Lilly Library). One of the papers presented got into this somewhat. The author presented his paper at the conference, cited Wint and Kidd and the imagery of the pipeline.

JBFan626

I always felt the inclusion of two gay assassins in DAF was pretty progressive for a film made in 1971. I don't see any deeper subtext there that would suggest the film-makers were trying to put down the gay community by having them be the villains. If anything, Kidd and Wint being in the film was 'edgy', and after all their characters were humorously likeable.

Tom Mankiewicz who wrote both DAF and LALD, commented that having black characters as the villains was 'edgy' back in 1973. Like Kidd and Wint, the black villains are also highly entertaining and memorable (Baron Samedi, Tee Hee, and Kananga). So as I said, I don't think Bond films and their film-makers should be over-analyzed for subtext, but should be recognized for making bold choices. Ursula Andress coming out the water in a two-piece was risque for the time, so were two gay assassins, albeit in a different way, but still nonetheless, it shows that EON was willing to take risks.

4EverBonded

JBFan626 wrote:

I always felt the inclusion of two gay assassins in DAF was pretty progressive for a film made in 1971. I don't see any deeper subtext there that would suggest the film-makers were trying to put down the gay community by having them be the villains. If anything, Kidd and Wint being in the film was 'edgy', and after all their characters were humorously likeable.

Tom Mankiewicz who wrote both DAF and LALD, commented that having black characters as the villains was 'edgy' back in 1973. Like Kidd and Wint, the black villains are also highly entertaining and memorable (Baron Samedi, Tee Hee, and Kananga). So as I said, I don't think Bond films and their film-makers should be over-analyzed for subtext, but should be recognized for making bold choices. Ursula Andress coming out the water in a two-piece was risque for the time, so were two gay assassins, albeit in a different way, but still nonetheless, it shows that EON was willing to take risks.

That is a thoughtful and interesting comment. Especially after reading the thread title, I clicked on this not knowing what to expect. I saw DAF in the theatre as a very young teenager and found Wint and Kidd to be quite funny. I also think the films should not be overanalyzed, only because I do not think there are any major hidden agendas in them. But people like to do that of course. Look at Narnia and Harry Potter; they've been analyzed like crazy.

Getafix

I think it's difficult to see the Kidd and Wint characters as anything other than deeply homophobic, but then I suspect Fleming's views were hardly progressive on this issue. It's certainly a 'reflection of the times' and dates the films badly.

To be honest though, the homoerotic subtext of Bond and his entire world extends way beyond these two characters. Bond's own misogyny, combined with his love of fine tailoring, dining and seemingly obsessive concern for his appearance could arguably make him an archetype of a certain metropolitan gay stereotype. I suspect the DC depiction has, if anything, taken him even further along this route.

And the fact he has so many adoring male fans, who'd like to 'be' him, adds to the frankly homosexual aura that surrounds the character. For evidence, witness the countless highly amusing exchanges in these forums about chest hair, hairstyles and how great so and so looks in his new suit...

4EverBonded

Couldn't the same be said of other actors in the past, too? Notably Cary Grant and also perhaps David Niven.

Getafix

4EverBonded wrote:

Couldn't the same be said of other actors in the past, too? Notably Cary Grant and also perhaps David Niven.

Definitely. A surprising number of the old screen legends were actually gay as well.

MartinBond

The above comment about Bond having a gay aura because people would like to be (like) him is absolute nonsense. I love both my dog and my classic car is also loved by me and almost every bystander, but I wouldn't want to be either of them, nor does it make them human...

4EverBonded

Getafix wrote:

4EverBonded wrote:

Couldn't the same be said of other actors in the past, too? Notably Cary Grant and also perhaps David Niven.

Definitely. A surprising number of the old screen legends were actually gay as well.

Or bisexual. I think it is natural to want to look like someone you admire, though; there doesn't have to be a gay connotation to that.

JBFan626

Getafix wrote:

To be honest though, the homoerotic subtext of Bond and his entire world extends way beyond these two characters. Bond's own misogyny, combined with his love of fine tailoring, dining and seemingly obsessive concern for his appearance could arguably make him an archetype of a certain metropolitan gay stereotype. I suspect the DC depiction has, if anything, taken him even further along this route.

My point above however, is reading into the films this way is too overanalytical, when the films never present themselves to be anything more than escapist entertainment. Even saying Kidd and Wint's presence in DAF is 'deeply homophobic' is a projection; not what is presented in the film, or even what the film-makers intended. I doubt many in 1971 saw it as an offense. Likewise, interpreting Bond in some sort of Freudian metro-gay persona, is also a projection; one that is never presented in any of the films, and one opinion I doubt few hold then or today.

Rossi

Thank you all for the discussion. It's been very interesting to read your opinions. I just want to say that Diamonds Are Forever has other gay connotations than Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd's profile. There is a new Blofeld interpretation by Charles Gray, that makes him a kind of effeminate in my humble opinion. The way he strokes the cat, his voice and manners, the scene in which he's in drag... Bambi and Thumper always looked like lesbians to me. And that Opening Titles song. "Touch it, stroke it and undressed it". I don't see how all of this can be a coincidence. There are 20+ other films in the franchise and all this "queer" stuff is converged into a single film. It's just weird. Or am I just over-analyzing?

JBFan626

Rossi wrote:

Thank you all for the discussion. It's been very interesting to read your opinions. I just want to say that Diamonds Are Forever has other gay connotations than Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd's profile. There is a new Blofeld interpretation by Charles Gray, that makes him a kind of effeminate in my humble opinion. The way he strokes the cat, his voice and manners, the scene in which he's in drag... Bambi and Thumper always looked like lesbians to me. And that Opening Titles song. "Touch it, stroke it and undressed it". I don't see how all of this can be a coincidence. There are 20+ other films in the franchise and all this "queer" stuff is converged into a single film. It's just weird. Or am I just over-analyzing?

I think you can read it that way if that's how you see it. I am of the opinion however, that there isn't any intentional overly "queer" material in that film. As far as Blofeld in DAF goes, I see that in his mannerisms for sure, and it's explicitly shown in drag, but I think the point of the flamboyant Blofeld is more to reflect the psychotic dictator persona--kind of like the Joker in Batman: a character that wears many faces. The lyrics in the Opening Title song are meant merely to be sexual innuendos, and not necessarily anything homosexual. Although, now that you mention it, it 'could' be a call to lesbianism--a lady doesn't need a man, just a diamond, which is a symbol for a *you know what*...anyhow, perhaps there is a subconscious message there, but I don't think it is intentional.

Bambi and Thumper lesbians? Why, because they can beat up Bond?

Master_Dahark

Getafix wrote:

4EverBonded wrote:

Couldn't the same be said of other actors in the past, too? Notably Cary Grant and also perhaps David Niven.

Definitely. A surprising number of the old screen legends were actually gay as well.

'And I can't believe Liberace was gay! I mean women loved him! I didn't see that one coming, no....'

Getafix

I think Mike Myers got the camp 'gay' thing about Bond.

jackdagger

Rossi wrote:

There is a new Blofeld interpretation by Charles Gray, that makes him a kind of effeminate in my humble opinion. The way he strokes the cat, his voice and manners, the scene in which he's in drag...

He would then go on a few years later to be the narrator in Rocky Horror Picture Show. I still can't get over Blofeld doing the Time Warp...

Signed_By_RogerMoore

I love Diamonds Are Forever. Camp, homosexual, straight or whatever

Getafix

Signed_By_RogerMoore wrote:

I love Diamonds Are Forever. Camp, homosexual, straight or whatever

I'm not 'criticising' the camp element - I'm just amused at the lengths that people will go to deny it's there. Or to pretend there isn't something a teensy weensy bit gay about grown men gathering together on a forum to discuss their fictional male hero...

Master_Dahark

Getafix wrote:

Or to pretend there isn't something a teensy weensy bit gay about grown men gathering together on a forum to discuss their fictional male hero...

Signed_By_RogerMoore

Haha made me laugh that did! All Bond films are camp in a way...comes with the territory of being a pop culture icon. but yea, DAF does go a tad overboard on it!

JBFan626

I love the camp element of DAF, but I can see why others don't care for it. But @Signed_By_RogerMoore is right, there is camp in all Bond films, even the beloved FRWL.

GoldenShadow

There are many camp/gay moment in DAF. Bond wearing a pink tie. The whole way Connery plays Bond, the self-embrace in Amsterdam, the way he raises his hands (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FJzEj93pm0M/TafTDRbklcI/AAAAAAAAAjo/jXpMAPaW50A/s1600/DAF%2BHerringbone%2B3.png) The diamonds hidden in the alimentary canal of a male corpse. (how did they get there?) And all the rest of it...

thelivingroyale

Master_Dahark wrote:

Getafix wrote:

4EverBonded wrote:

Couldn't the same be said of other actors in the past, too? Notably Cary Grant and also perhaps David Niven.

Definitely. A surprising number of the old screen legends were actually gay as well.

'And I can't believe Liberace was gay! I mean women loved him! I didn't see that one coming, no....'

:-< I miss Austin Powers. They need to make a fourth.

Master_Dahark

GoldenShadow wrote:

The diamonds hidden in the alimentary canal of a male corpse. (how did they get there?)

God help me I never thought of that!!!

:-O

echo

Getafix wrote:

I think it's difficult to see the Kidd and Wint characters as anything other than deeply homophobic, but then I suspect Fleming's views were hardly progressive on this issue. It's certainly a 'reflection of the times' and dates the films badly.

To be honest though, the homoerotic subtext of Bond and his entire world extends way beyond these two characters. Bond's own misogyny, combined with his love of fine tailoring, dining and seemingly obsessive concern for his appearance could arguably make him an archetype of a certain metropolitan gay stereotype. I suspect the DC depiction has, if anything, taken him even further along this route.

And the fact he has so many adoring male fans, who'd like to 'be' him, adds to the frankly homosexual aura that surrounds the character. For evidence, witness the countless highly amusing exchanges in these forums about chest hair, hairstyles and how great so and so looks in his new suit...

This is one of the most insightful posts I've read on this board.

OHMSS69

I never cared for DAF. Hated the film. Hated the camp and all the juvenile silliness.
Tiffany did have some good one liners: "go blow up your pants"--we all have wanted to say this to some snotnosed brat.

RogueThunderball

OHMSS69 wrote:

I never cared for DAF. Hated the film. Hated the camp and all the juvenile silliness.

My thoughts exactly.

00Beast

RogueThunderball wrote:

OHMSS69 wrote:

I never cared for DAF. Hated the film. Hated the camp and all the juvenile silliness.

My thoughts exactly.

While there is a heavy degree of campy nonsense, I like DAF, it's one of my favorites actually. It's just so smooth-paced and feels like a real Bond adventure, I love it!

Cipher

JBFan626 wrote:

I always felt the inclusion of two gay assassins in DAF was pretty progressive for a film made in 1971. I don't see any deeper subtext there that would suggest the film-makers were trying to put down the gay community by having them be the villains. If anything, Kidd and Wint being in the film was 'edgy', and after all their characters were humorously likeable.

So as I said, I don't think Bond films and their film-makers should be over-analyzed for subtext, but should be recognized for making bold choices. Ursula Andress coming out the water in a two-piece was risque for the time, so were two gay assassins, albeit in a different way, but still nonetheless, it shows that EON was willing to take risks.

"Putting gays in a film in 1971 is 'edgy'. How amusing! What sheltered lives you colonials must lead!"

JBFan626 wrote:

My point above however, is reading into the films this way is too overanalytical, when the films never present themselves to be anything more than escapist entertainment. Even saying Kidd and Wint's presence in DAF is 'deeply homophobic' is a projection; not what is presented in the film, or even what the film-makers intended. I doubt many in 1971 saw it as an offense.

While it's possible to over-analyse Bond movies, I don't think you can deny that Wint & Kidd are the product of an era of anti-gay prejudice, if not outright homophobia. They were very much stereotypes who wouldn't have been out of place in a Carry On movie and, like Getafix says, a reflection of the times.

To be clear, I'm not saying Mankiewicz or Cubby and Harry or anyone were homophobic or anything. At the same time I don't think you can hail them as bold, progressive trail-blazers by including Wint & Kidd. They were making a movie at a time when pretty much the only way you could portray gays was as deviant psychos or stereotypical comic relief - and they went with the latter. That they did is no indictment on them - they were making a spy movie, not trying to change the world.

Getafix

Amusing comments on the DAF theme:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2006/11/22/how-gay-is-james-bond/