It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Eon I'm sure took much the same approach with LALD. Fleming wrote some bad-ass black villains, so Eon and Hamilton had some campy fun with them too. Big even called Bond a honkey.
Producers didn't have to worry about pc ninnies wetting themselves over who might be looking for offence back then.
Don't worry, everything is cyclical. The pc phase will play itself out eventually and producers will feel free to make films like they did in the 70's again.
That term is so 2010's anyway You are funny.
A slightly confusing statement. I think you're a little off in your understanding of what Political Correctness is. Unfortunately the media, particular the Daily Mail in the UK, use it as a right-wing tool in a clumsy attempt to cloak their inherent racism and prejudice by implying 'That it [PC] has gone mad!'
If it weren't for Political Correctness (which in itself is a somewhat awkward ambiguous term) in it's clearest sense, gay people would not be allowed to go about their business for fear of reprisals, simply because of their sexual orientation.
Your statement makes it sound like you're keen to regress to a point where it's perfectly fine to perpetuate racial/social/sexual stereotypes.
Is Diamonds a gay or indeed homophobic release, not for me, trying to carefully pick the right words here, OK, there was a couple of characters or incidents you could classify as such but I never really looked at it in that light, it all seemed a bit silly sometimes, I was laughing more than anything else, but no too much you understand
It's a release slightly different from the norm you could say, but I never found any harm in it, the main issue I take above all else is that Connery should not have returned and it's an overall poor release, anything else as presented here could well go by the wayside as far as I'm concerned. If I watch it, I have a tendency to get bored or doesn't live up to expectations, as with a fair number of other James Bond releases, I don't look beyond that more often than not
Don't know if it's me but I find certain threads like these, and Bond 'color' etc sometimes a little awkward to reply to, it's so easy to upset anyone and that's not our intentions etc, so wordings have to be careful sometimes etc
No not really a problem there, it just seems like an awkward subject to discuss, same as with the 'what color should Bond be' thing we had a while back, i.e. it's so easy to say the wrong thing and upset anyone, have to tread carefully etc, may be alone in this, but it's merely how I feel about it sometimes, keep this going by all means, no need for a closure or anything such
There are things about Wint and Kidd that are very stereotypical and arguably offensive because they are stereotypes--the mincing, the cologne. But Wint and Kidd are also effectively menacing, at least in the early scenes in South Africa and Amsterdam.
I really hate the way that Wint goes out--his "Ooh!" Whether it's the script, the direction, or the acting of Bruce Glover, I cannot say. But for me it crosses a line where it feels like gay people are being ridiculed.
Yes, Bambi and Thumper both seem very butch. And Blofeld in drag just doesn't track with his previous two film appearances. He too is mincing, from his very first appearance in the PTS. That must be a deliberate directing or acting choice, because Charles Gray is not mincing in YOLT.
Still, there weren't a lot of gay portrayals in film back then, and I'll take a bad depiction over no depiction, or pretending that gay people don't exist, any day.
Wint and Kidd were in the book, should the producers have left them out?
Why are Americans so sex(orientated)-obsessed anyway? Met two American girls, well, women only a couple of weeks ago. They thought it was gay to wear a scarf. Well, I happen to have a very good, fairly expensive scarf and it was cold. They claimed American guys would never wear such a scarf. Well, I say, they're idiots. Scarfs are good against the cold, and while you're at it, you might as well buy a good one. If you're so uncertain about yourself you actually think a scarf makes you more gay you really, really need to get out of the closet.
I think film analysis is a fair topic for discussion on a James Bond board.
Hopefully the cissy whining about alleged PC by the homophobic fringes of society will cease as well.
That said is it really coincidence that the two homosexual killers (who in the book were only rumoured to be homosexual, no actual evidence is given either way; read for yourself if you don't believe it) appear in the very Bond film centring around the town of Las Vegas and at a time when pianist Liberace arguably was among the highest paid entertainers in the world? For the younger amongst us, Liberace used to be a popular figure from the 50s to the mid-80s, who for the best part of his career had to fight allegations of homosexuality.
The theme was definitely in the air around that time, see also the performance of Travolta in SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER or Pacino's CRUISING. What society had a problem with was to acknowledge it. Some still do and have become ever more fanatic about the issue. Strangely in many cases those who claim to be neither homophobic nor homosexual.
Now I wonder, what exactly are the more bigoted times, the 70s with it's 'hide in plain sight' attitude or today, where the better part of society has accepted the facts and nobody beyond a bunch of frothing homophobes or repressed homosexuals would even care about the matter either way? My money's on the days of DAF.
Yes, but over-analazying the Bond films is just dumb. Most of the symbolics we might pick up after watching FYEO for the 50th time are completly unintentional, and no-one who worked in the film even noticed these symbolics.
Well said. But making Wint and Kidd a couple of cliché homos was an intentional decision. And one that simply reflected the state of affairs in the US regarding homosexuality.
No doubt, but there's where it ends. EON have always been carefull about what they showed in Bond-films. There are no more layers, no more clues, there's just a fairly bad Bond-film.
You are right that Eon is not prone to divert from society consensus and never has been. But that includes necessarily that the films reflect the fashions and trends of their time. And the phobias with them. Homosexuality was already a fact, but society chose to ignore it for the better part. It could not be depicted in a way going beyond cliché. And it could not be an issue connected to a positive character. DAF's homosexuals could not have been anything but kinky killers.
Interestingly, it's not the homosexuality that sets Bond's alarms. It's the lack of style and connoisseurship. Bond had less problems with homosexuality in 1971 than some apparently do today.
Ah, yes. Fine you mention that, I've completely forgotten about it.
What a boring view you have of the world of Bond! From your perspective he really must be nothing more than a 2 dimensional cardboard cut out, surrounded by utterly random music, design, scripts and actors. Becuase the excellent writers, composers and production designers' work is so paper thin that there is nothing more that can be read into Bond than that he's a guy in a tux who likes fast cars. Fascinating. No wonder some people like Goldeneye so much - paper thin Bond for the popcorn chomping masses.
A little research into the history of the early films would allow you to realise that a lot of thought went into even small details in those films.
And as Echo points out, what is the point of a Bond forum, if not, in part at least, to analyse Bond films...?
With us fans. The rest of the world doesn't care. No big deal. If we ask a hundred people at random I doubt we'll get five who can remember it. An obscurity, like that picture of Connery in drag.
Bond films *are* entertainement for the masses !! These films are made solely for them !
If you want to find tons of layers, symbolisms and deep meaning, go read a Shakespeare or a Victor Hugo book ! And IMO I even find these books over-analyzed by litterature teachers in school !
Well it is sad that EON thought cross-dressing was a thing James Bond should do.....
I'm a tad concerned that I found Ms Rabett to be far more attractive as Cissy, than as 'Liz' the Bond Girl......
Yes, but even 'pop' culture can be analysed. Just because something is made for a mass audience doesn't mean it does not have content or multiple layers of meaning. Of course, if you want to deny that they exist then that's your perogative, but I would argue that you're closing your mind to an entire extra dimension to the Bond films and making them much less interesting than they actually are.
IMO.
That's probably true to an extent. But you can say that of many films. However, not everything 'unintentional' is without meaning either. What we now read into a film made in the 70s can be a valid interpretation of underlying attitudes at that time. IMO it's one of the things that makes the Bond series - in its history-spanning entirety - so interesting.
I disagree. I don't see how all these symbolics can be COMPLETLY unintentional. Bond is symbolic in itself. But some films are more symbolical than others. The Spy Who Loved Me, for example.
I love how he's flexing his muscles too, lol