Anal anxiety in Diamonds Are Forever.

13

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    That is a very disturbing pic!

    What is it from? Is it Bond working out his bereavement issues?
  • Posts: 5,767
    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.
    I don´t think Fleming expressed much view at all, but he was very good in using clichees to build up contrasting characters.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    From this.........

    sean-connery-drag.jpg

    ........To this.............

    zardoz.gif
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Not sure really what to add to this and surprised to an extent that Admin haven't shut this down by now,

    Why?

    No one is saying Wint and Kint are sick or should be locked up (although Mrs Whistler and Shady Tree might care to argue).

    Typical and predictable knee jerk overreaction of the PC brigade. The moment you mention gay, black or Jew the reaction is 'quick shut it down and pretend it doesnt exist'.
    The perfect way to ensure prejudices will continue is by a blanket ban on all discussion of such issues for fear someone might 'take offence'.

    Cant believe what century we live in when people are having a civilised discussion about quite an important topic and the first reaction of some people is to try and shut people up from even mentioning certain subjects.
  • Posts: 4,813
    Getafix wrote:
    That is a very disturbing pic!

    What is it from? Is it Bond working out his bereavement issues?

    Whenever you see a wacky picture of Sean on the net, it's Zardoz 99.9% of the time, lol

  • Getafix wrote:
    That is a very disturbing pic!

    What is it from? Is it Bond working out his bereavement issues?

    A scene from the film between OHMSS and DAF??
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    Getafix wrote:
    That is a very disturbing pic!

    What is it from? Is it Bond working out his bereavement issues?

    A scene from the film between OHMSS and DAF??

    Now that's funny!

  • Posts: 297
    Kennon wrote:
    An obscurity, like that picture of Connery in drag.

    sean-connery-drag.jpg

    I love how he's flexing his muscles too, lol

    An epic image. On par with the famous bathing trunks.

  • edited April 2012 Posts: 4,622
    RC7 wrote:
    timmer wrote:
    The pc phase will play itself out eventually and producers will feel free to make films like they did in the 70's again.

    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.
    Your statement makes it sound like you are prone to wild fits of hyperbole.
    Bizarre, Mr. Kidd.
    Very odd, Mr. Wint.

    DAF is a very smart Bond film. Wint and Kidd dominate the screen whenever they are present. They are that rare blend of outrageous camp, sharp wit and deadly menace. Deftly done characters and Putter Smith barely qualified as an actor. He was more properly a musician.
    And @TheWizardOfIce feel free to rip DAF a new one ;) I shall take it in the spirit of free expression you no doubt intend. Your bold defence of free thought, 5 posts above, was inspired. No pc cops are going to muzzle you.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    timmer wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    And @TheWizardOfIce feel free to rip DAF a new one ;) I shall take it in the spirit of free expression you no doubt intend. Your bold defence of free thought, 5 posts above, was inspired. No pc cops are going to muzzle you.

    Thank you very much Sir. Good to see some of us understand that people actually died fighting the Nazis to give people the right to voice the opinion 'I think the Nazis are alright' without being arrested or shot.

    For the record I only rip into DAF when people try and claim its one of the all time great Bond films. It is great fun and is entertaining but as a Bond film please dont come on here and state its the best Bond film because even if its just your opinon or not its just plain wrong.

    I may not defend what you say but I wll defend your right to say it. The basis of our society is that someone can say they think DAD is the best film ever made and if you ask me thats about as offensive as anything you could say about gays or the holocaust.

    I actually love Wint and Kidd (not like that ;) )and they are probably the best thing in it.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    timmer wrote:
    Your statement makes it sound like you are prone to wild fits of hyperbole.

    I was asking if you're keen to regress to a non-PC world, whatever that is in your mind? I would argue your comments on the subject are far more hyperbolic than mine. If yours are to be taken literally you come across as an arse.

  • edited April 2012 Posts: 297
    RC7 wrote:
    timmer wrote:
    Your statement makes it sound like you are prone to wild fits of hyperbole.

    I was asking if you're keen to regress to a non-PC world, whatever that is in your mind? I would argue your comments on the subject are far more hyperbolic than mine. If yours are to be taken literally you come across as an arse.

    You don't get it, RC7. All that guy wants is a comeback of the good old days when homophobes and racists could shine their personal views and didn't have to feel like the radical outcasts of society. 't was so much more fun being a bigot when there was no PC around to disturb ones fanatism. Today it's really not like the good olden times any more. Nobody can come right out and admit "I bloody hate those faggots!" Well, not without coming across as a homophobe, and not even racists and homophobes want to be called that any more. Today these guys feel alone and misunderstood and badly need our help and tolerance. ;)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    :))
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,244
    Getafix wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Kennon wrote:
    echo wrote:
    I think anyone analysing a film like that ought to get layed fast, gay or straight.

    I think film analysis is a fair topic for discussion on a James Bond board.

    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.

    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...?

    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 !

    Kennon wrote:
    That Bond cross-dressing video will rear it's ugly head for years to come....... :((

    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.


    Well it is sad that EON thought cross-dressing was a thing James Bond should do.....

    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.
    Funny, I don't find my views boring at all! I thoroughly enjoy Bondfilms, allthough i like Fleming's books better. The fact that you can try to analyse just about anything, from why the cat had to shit in your garden (it just happened to have to shit and happened to be in your garden, or was it becouse the cat really thinks you're a bit of a poo and poo attracts poo? Or is it becouse deep inside the cat wants to return to its mother?)to Bond films doesn't mean your fantasy of meaning is actually there. Yes, I'm denying the ' layers' in Bondfilms. It's not what they're made for and EON would always shy away from political statements (remember DAD and North Korea, even that went wrong) becouse they WANT the films to be entertainment for the masses.

    And no, that doesn't mean Bond is a cartboard figure, just like i bet your own father isn't a cardboard figure. Bond's a person with his ideas, doubts, emotions, and all that. That's what makes Bond interesting. Not the ' those oilpipe-parts actually have a gay hidden meaning', but the hazards, difficulties and price you have to pay for living a live like his make the film interesting.
  • edited April 2012 Posts: 4,622
    RC7 wrote:
    :))
    Yes such comments are rather bizarre, amusing even in an odd sort of way, but in the interests of board civility and tolerance, I think they are best not responded to. But I will say I don't think such ranting helps the cause of promoting political correctness any.
    Meanwhile both DAF and LALD rank as very enjoyable Bond films. The fact that they might be poison to pant-wetting pc types is just bonus.
    RC7 wrote:
    I was asking if you're keen to regress to a non-PC world, whatever that is in your mind? I would argue your comments on the subject are far more hyperbolic than mine. If yours are to be taken literally you come across as an arse.
    Such eloquence Mr. Kidd. Such brilliant discourse, Mr. Wint.
    And "regress to a non-politically correct world" That's a very odd turn of phrase. But if your down with the pc, good luck with that. Although I don't know how you keep track of what all the correct thought must be. Sounds like a Sisyphean burden.
    Anyway go ahead sue me. Like billions of other Bond fans around the world, I'm happy to sit back, relax and enjoy both DAF and LALD for the entertaining Bond films that they are, and quibble with @TheWizardOfIce and others about the relative merits of the film. Feel free to join in.

  • edited April 2012 Posts: 297
    @RC7

    See?






  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Kennon wrote:
    @RC7

    See?







    Yes. Sad isn't it.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited April 2012 Posts: 9,117
    timmer wrote:
    If yours are to be taken literally you come across as an arse.

    Have to say that initially I read that as 'come across an arse'. Given the topic of the thread is something Freudian going on deep down in my subconcious that I'm trying to supress?

    Just for the record I'd like to state that I have seen Eva in the Dreamers as much as the next man!
  • edited April 2012 Posts: 297
    If yours are to be taken literally you come across as an arse.
    Have to say that initially I read that as 'come across an arse'. Given the topic of the thread is something Freudian going on deep down in my subconcious that I'm trying to supress?

    LOL! Yep, must be an issue from the heart of the bottom.

    No, seriously. The teababble agenda about pc-ness/non-pc-ness aside the matter definitely deserves closer examination. Nobody here denies the presence of homosexual elements DAF uses to great effect (or is that by now also already considered overly pc-reading by the whining armchair brigade?).

    The thesis comes into play with Getafix stating
    Getafix wrote:
    I think it's difficult to see the Kidd and Wint characters as anything other than deeply homophobic,

    Now what argument(s) could be made to support this thesis? And which would rebut it?

    One thing that certainly plays a role is that DAF's two major homosexual characters Wint and Kidd are killers, aides of the anti-Bond Blofeld. That alone restricts any reading of their obvious and hinted traits to a negative one. Anti-Bonds can't be likeable, neither can anthing they do or say. It must per se be bad and despicable.

    At first sight this would support Getafix's thesis. But could not the homosexuality of Wint and Kidd be in effect a neutral trait they just happen to share, like being blonde, or dim or a bigot? Could other blondes or bigots or dimwits not be quite likeable characters, aside from their more or less obvious flaws?

    Yes, indeed. The simple fact Wint and Kidd are homosexual would not have to mean their characters share a homophobic meaning and subtext. But the point here is, the two aren't just homosexual, their sexual orientation is on display and is made a target for the audience's need to identify the evil nature of these two. They are not 'just' killers, they kill in a horrific manner while cultured witty banter and ludicrous fashion depict them as nightmarish and repulsive. In the same manner they are not 'just' homosexuals, they are over the top vile caricatures right out of the clichéed hysterics of homophobes (or repressed homosexuals themselves). We are seldom informed about the sexual orientation of previous adversaries of Bond (although Klebb's lesbianism is at least hinted at and there is little doubt about Fiona Volpe's desires).

    In DAF we are not just given hints, here the homosexuality is another dimension of the baddies and their evil schemes. It's not just background, it's practically the whole thing. We are already used to hideous killers in Bond's world. The next step obviously was to make them hideously homosexual killers. And to come back to Blofeld here, the way he treats Tiffany's behind indicates he might even swing both ways. How devillishly corrupted!




    What would speak against this reading? And I don't mean knee-jerk frothing about how '2010 homophobia' supposedly is. Bit of a clunker given who writes this in 2012...


    Well, there is of course the fact that EON isn't prone to lightheartedly bash minorities, regardless how far out there they may be. EON doesn't strive to be anything else than entertainers whose works everybody can enjoy. The flicks are not at the forefront of progress, they are just where the most profit is to be made. And as businessmen the EON guys know how to get the largest number of people to see their movies. Would they really on purpose risk to alienate potential customers? I doubt it.

    What is the explanation then for this evident contradiction between EON's aspirations and the way they use the homosexual theme in DAF? There must be one.

    I suppose the characters of Wint and Kidd in DAF are nothing but the archetypes of homosexuals such as they were depicted at that point in the 70s in mainstream media in the US and throughout civilised countries of the Western world. Beginning with the late 50s the number of homosexual characters depicted in works of popular culture gradually increased. At first they were just hints, indications of the fact but with the years the indications became more obvious. David Lean's LAWRENCE OF ARABIA of 62 had to deal with a homosexual protagonist, yet had to hide the theme deep inside the layers of Lawrence's own legend, to touch it only towards the end of the film in a scene. With their growing number the homosexual characters became more clichéed and exaggerated. By the 70s homosexuality had become an undeniable fact of society that nonetheless still had to be coded in a way as not to scare heterosexuals.

    But time's moving forward; thank G'd it is. If we take a look at another work of popular action and adventure, THE WILD GEESE of 78, there is an interesting character for the purpose of this discussion. It's Medic Sgt. Arthur Witty, played by Kenneth Griffith. Witty in effect is Wint and Kidd, rolled into one parcel, minus the hideousness. He's still an over the top caricature of a homosexual. But he's one of the good guys now. The need to code the sexual orientation for the sake of the heterosexuals was still there. What was gradually fading was the homophobia. Which today is mostly found with full blown bigots and radicals any more.




    Getafix wrote:
    I suspect Fleming's views were hardly progressive on this issue. It's certainly a 'reflection of the times' and dates the films badly.

    Not at all, Fleming was much more progressive than some of his self-styled 'fans' are today. Many of his closest friends were homosexuals, it didn't ever disturb Fleming to the best of our knowledge. Only he was also a child of his times and these used to be less than welcoming towards this orientation. Fleming himself couldn't have cared less, the man was concerned about his own bedfellows, not about other people's.
  • Posts: 1,052
    I don't know about anyone else but I'm getting Anal Anxiety just reading this thread!
  • edited April 2012 Posts: 1,497
    Hmm...IDK. I mean, yeah, of course you argue that Kidd and Wint characters represent homophobia to some degree. But where do you draw the line, between a film being purely racist and homophobic versus a film being 'of the times' and having those elements but the film as a whole is not viewed this way? Birth of a Nation is considered to be a racist film. On the other hand, Breakfast at Tiffany's has Mickey Rooney playing a Chinese man in a pretty racist portrayal, but the film overall is not considered racist. Bond films are often let off the hook, with examples of racism such as Dr. No with "Fetch my shoes" directed to Quarrel, or constant slapping of women throughout the films. These scenes are viewed as offensive, but don't paint the entire films as offensive, and are also given a free pass because they are 'of the time.' Why should DAF be any different from these other Bond's? In my view, those scenes of Bond's treatment of minorities and women is worse, because it is showing abuse and male dominance.

    As I said above, I do find it somewhat bold, even progressive that EON would include two principal gay characters in the film, but obviously they were not waving the gay pride flags in the air either. Kidd and Wint are highly amusing, witty and really steal the show for many of the scenes--simple as that. One of my good friends is gay and he really likes those characters in the film because they are so lightheartedly entertaining. He doesn't take offense. It was bold to include these characters from the book, rather than to avoid them at all because they might have been too taboo for the times.

    I disagree that being a villain in a Bond film is automatically a negative association. Part of the charm of the Bond series is that the villains are often times just a likeable and memorable as Bond.
  • edited April 2012 Posts: 63
    Hi Kenny! Long time no see!

    Interesting discussion you guys are having here, rather unusual. Mind if I chime in?

    I mostly agree about the homophobic nature of Messrs Kidd and Wint and that argument about that being a kind of cultural indicator of how gay elements were being presented at the time. But I think you hurt your own line of reasoning by overlooking a fact you mentioned yourself. Bond is mostly indifferent towards gay characters in his presence. If the gay element is really meant as the ultimate degree of villainy, why then is the character the audience identifies with, Bond, not appalled by the fact?

    You see, your argumentation is "Wint & Kidd are homosexuals, therefore they are villains". But the film's handle on the matter is more like "Wint & Kidd are villains, therefore their homosexuality is evil".

    At least in my reading.

  • Posts: 11,425
    6of1 wrote:
    Hi Kenny! Long time no see!

    Interesting discussion you guys are having here, rather unusual. Mind if I chime in?

    I mostly agree about the homophobic nature of Messrs Kidd and Wint and that argument about that being a kind of cultural indicator of how gay elements were being presented at the time. But I think you hurt your own line of reasoning by overlooking a fact you mentioned yourself. Bond is mostly indifferent towards gay characters in his presence. If the gay element is really meant as the ultimate degree of villainy, why then is the character the audience identifies with, Bond, not appalled by the fact?

    You see, your argumentation is "Wint & Kidd are homosexuals, therefore they are villains". But the film's handle on the matter is more like "Wint & Kidd are villains, therefore their homosexuality is evil".

    At least in my reading.

    Well said.

    This is totally random, but I was watching Downton Abbey the other day and realised that the principal villain - Thomas the footman - also 'just happens' to be gay. I think there are probably enough positive depictions of gay people around these days to absolve Julian 'extremely camp' Fellowes from accusations of homophobia, but it did remind me of Wint and Kidd.

    Another interesting example of an evil gay villain is Vladimir Harkonnen in Dune. One critic called David Lynch's Dune "the most obscenely homophobic film I have ever seen".

    Any way, hopefully we've now reached a point where having a gay villain is not necessarily a sign of homophobia. I just don't think that the world had reached that point in 1971. If DAF had managed to include a positive depiction of a gay couple that would have been radical.
  • edited April 2012 Posts: 1,497
    Good point. But are K & W offensive to the point where they diminish your enjoyment of the film?
  • Posts: 11,425
    JBFan626 wrote:
    Good point. But are K & W offensive to the point where they diminish your enjoyment of the film?

    No. I just don't like the film. Never have.

    K+W are just an unpleasant reminder of attidues to gay people at the time and are not even particularly funny/threatening, unless, I guess, you find gay people inherently fuunny or threatening...
  • Posts: 63
    Getafix wrote:

    Any way, hopefully we've now reached a point where having a gay villain is not necessarily a sign of homophobia. I just don't think that the world had reached that point in 1971. If DAF had managed to include a positive depiction of a gay couple that would have been radical.

    Indeed. The Bond films are not really avantgarde, they remain firmly where the producers locate the majority of the audience. Positive homosexual characters in 1971 were never to be expected from them. After all it's EON making these films, not The Sex Pistols or Dead Kennedys.

    Positive gays (whatever that's supposed to mean, some would already be happy if they were just hiding in the sewers) were probably not a realistic option for mainstream cinema until Rock Hudson's death. Only then did the theme become a reality that was seen fit also for purposes of entertainment. MERRY CHRISTMAS, MR LAWRENCE had to tread very carefully, although the issue was fairly central to the plot. And that was as late as 1983.


  • Posts: 11,425
    6of1 wrote:
    Positive gays (whatever that's supposed to mean, some would already be happy if they were just hiding in the sewers) were probably not a realistic option for mainstream cinema until Rock Hudson's death.

    I imagine a positive gay would be a really up-beat gay person.
  • Posts: 63
    Getafix wrote:
    6of1 wrote:
    Positive gays (whatever that's supposed to mean, some would already be happy if they were just hiding in the sewers) were probably not a realistic option for mainstream cinema until Rock Hudson's death.

    I imagine a positive gay would be a really up-beat gay person.
    Not threatening the vehemently straight guys in their insecure sexuality. Most gay bashers are indeed repressed homosexuals with issues of guilt and shame. Their aggressiveness results from a desire to rid themselves of their "forbidden" feelings.
  • Posts: 11,425
    6of1 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    6of1 wrote:
    Positive gays (whatever that's supposed to mean, some would already be happy if they were just hiding in the sewers) were probably not a realistic option for mainstream cinema until Rock Hudson's death.

    I imagine a positive gay would be a really up-beat gay person.
    Not threatening the vehemently straight guys in their insecure sexuality. Most gay bashers are indeed repressed homosexuals with issues of guilt and shame. Their aggressiveness results from a desire to rid themselves of their "forbidden" feelings.

    Am currently living in the Caribbean, where homosexuality is violently attacked wherever it shows itself. And yet the 'straight' men here dress as if they're on their way to a night out at G.A.Y. Very amusing.
  • Posts: 1,497
    Getafix wrote:
    6of1 wrote:
    Positive gays (whatever that's supposed to mean, some would already be happy if they were just hiding in the sewers) were probably not a realistic option for mainstream cinema until Rock Hudson's death.

    I imagine a positive gay would be a really up-beat gay person.

    Couldn't you make the case that Kidd and Wint are really up-beat? They come across as really confident. Yes, they are the villains, and the ending scene is a joke at their expense (which for the record I do find a bit offensive), but for their main role (at least as I see it), they are written as campy and entertaining over the top henchmen in a fictional movie.

    I don't want to turn this discussion into a black and white argument, of if you like Kidd and Wint, then you are somehow a homophobe, or perhaps even a repressed gay yourself, and if you don't like them then you are somehow a more open and tolerant citizen. I just find them to be entertaining characters in a film I enjoy. It's just the way I see it, but I respect it if you see it differently.
Sign In or Register to comment.