Anal anxiety in Diamonds Are Forever.

Kennon

6of1 wrote:

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.

Very good point.

JBFan626 wrote:

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.

I don't think DAF is that different really. Only there were some who debunked the entire discussion on BS grounds of political correctness. That's where I felt I had to draw the line, because this is indeed a legit discussion. What makes DAF special is the use of homosexuals as major characters at a time when the emphasis on the depiction of these characters was still firmly in the 'kinky' field but the first signs of changes could already be seen.

JBFan626 wrote:

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.

The crucial thing is, in the book is no scene that depicts them as anything but a team of ordinary gangsters. There is only a rumour Leiter tells Bond about these two are supposed to be homos. There is not a single line or scene that supports this rumour in the book. So the entire theme in the movie DAF is put there on purpose by the writers, at a time between 1970 and 1971. It's actually their idea of transporting the homosexual theme to a pair of Bond henchmen (and they pack a female couple of bullies in there for balance even, if we take them as such, up to us). That goes actually beyond merely taking the two characters from the book. The homosexuality is an important theme in the film.

JBFan626 wrote:

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.

Naw, that's not the point. You can like or dislike the two all you want, will make nada difference. The point is by using them in 71 EON had only really one way of using them. The simple fact you would have a different version of Wint and Kidd if you made a remake today tells it all. The 1971 version is a caricature that would only fit into an Austin Powers today.

Kennon

double, sorry

6of1

JBFan626 wrote:

Good point. But are K & W offensive to the point where they diminish your enjoyment of the film?

Not at all! Wint and Kidd are amongst the best parts of DAF in my view.

Getafix wrote:

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.

Good example that bigotry is really a universal thing. That's globalisation for you.

timmer

Kennon wrote:

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.

Man do you ever come up for air. How do you keep track of all that you must be offended by.
Most of your post is self-indulgent incoherent babble, but a couple of items can at least be addressed without undue pain.

"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. " Please, in a Bond context these villains are perfectly likeable. The Bond universe is populated by hordes of eccentric, even charming and "likeable" villains. The best roles in Bond films are the villains, aside from the vavoom lead Bond-girls ( is that sexist to call them Bond Girls?) Is vavoom sexist? I don't know. "Very puzzling Mr. Kidd. Perplexing Mr.Wint"


"Yes, indeed. The simple fact Wint and Kidd are homosexual would not have to mean their characters share a homophobic meaning and subtext" What does this even mean? You are tripping all over your own verbosity.The homosexuality of Wint and Kidd is hardly subtext. Rather is it full blown maintext for crying out loud, and yes as you readily admit, Fleming hinted in his book that they were gay, so sue Eon for rolling with it. Eon put their homosexuality up front. Big whoop. I guess in your dreary pc world, such flamboyance and expression must be repressed. The good folk at La Cage dinner theatres around the world, female impersonator revues everywhere, and those who cavort annually in the high-camp Gay Pride parades in major urban centres everywhere, I'm sure laught at you. I know this. Back in the day, I made serious cash working as a doorman at La Cage. (I was the only straight guy working there. Blind box ad. They offered me the door. I took it) I knew those guys. Not a pc bone in the place. They didn't take crap from anyone. If they ran into your ilk, the impresario might have gathered the strongest of his charges and attempted to pull the pickle from your but.
"A Herculean task Mr. Kidd" "Daunting indeed, Mr. Wint"
DAF would have gone over to a standing ovation in that place, it was so outrageous.
You might benefit by slapping on some mascara, putting on a boa, your wildest heels and dress, and live a bit.
" Inspired advice Mr. Kidd" "Invigorating Mr. Wint"
"To bad he can't just enjoy the film Mr. Kidd" "So sad Mr. Wint" :-L

6of1 wrote:

Not at all! Wint and Kidd are amongst the best parts of DAF in my view.

6of1 old bean! Long time. Cheers to you! Such open-mindedness.The deadly duo I'm sure appreciate your support, then again they might be just as happy to drop a spider down your back. Up to debating later, the merits of finger-sucking in the latter day Bond context? :P

TheWizardOfIce

timmer wrote:

Kennon wrote:

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.

Man do you ever come up for air. How do you keep track of all that you must be offended by.
Most of your post is self-indulgent incoherent babble, but a couple of items can at least be addressed without undue pain.

"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. " Please, in a Bond context these villains are perfectly likeable. The Bond universe is populated by hordes of eccentric, even charming and "likeable" villains. The best roles in Bond films are the villains, aside from the vavoom lead Bond-girls ( is that sexist to call them Bond Girls?) Is vavoom sexist? I don't know. "Very puzzling Mr. Kidd. Perplexing Mr.Wint"


"Yes, indeed. The simple fact Wint and Kidd are homosexual would not have to mean their characters share a homophobic meaning and subtext" What does this even mean? You are tripping all over your own verbosity.The homosexuality of Wint and Kidd is hardly subtext. Rather is it full blown maintext for crying out loud, and yes as you readily admit, Fleming hinted in his book that they were gay, so sue Eon for rolling with it. Eon put their homosexuality up front. Big whoop. I guess in your dreary pc world, such flamboyance and expression must be repressed. The good folk at La Cage dinner theatres around the world, female impersonator revues everywhere, and those who cavort annually in the high-camp Gay Pride parades in major urban centres everywhere, I'm sure laught at you. I know this. Back in the day, I made serious cash working as a doorman at La Cage. (I was the only straight guy working there. Blind box ad. They offered me the door. I took it) I knew those guys. Not a pc bone in the place. They didn't take crap from anyone. If they ran into your ilk, the impresario might have gathered the strongest of his charges and attempted to pull the pickle from your but.
"A Herculean task Mr. Kidd" "Daunting indeed, Mr. Wint"
DAF would have gone over to a standing ovation in that place, it was so outrageous.
You might benefit by slapping on some mascara, putting on a boa, your wildest heels and dress, and live a bit.
" Inspired advice Mr. Kidd" "Invigorating Mr. Wint"
"To bad he can't just enjoy the film Mr. Kidd" "So sad Mr. Wint" :-L

6of1 wrote:

Not at all! Wint and Kidd are amongst the best parts of DAF in my view.

6of1 old bean! Long time. Cheers to you! Such open-mindedness.The deadly duo I'm sure appreciate your support, then again they might be just as happy to drop a spider down your back. Up to debating later, the merits of finger-sucking in the latter day Bond context? :P

Well said Timmer.

W&Ks homosexuality is 'not just background, it's practically the whole thing' and 'they are over the top vile caricatures'? I must either be very sexually jaded or be watching an entirely different film to everyone else.

From what I recall isnt there just a 2 second shot of them holding hands and Mr Kidds comment that Tiffany is 'attractive. For a lady'. I must have missed the scene where they dress up in leather and chains and attack Bond with a 3 foot dildo.

If I was gay I would find W&K far less offensive as stereotypes than the likes of John Inman in Are You Being Served.

Rather than being grossly offensive to homosexuals I would say that W&K are one of the first portrayals of gays just being ordinary people doing their job and the fact that they are gay is fairly incidental to their characters. They just wear suits and get on with their job - its not like they are mincing flamboyantly around like something out of Priscilla.

In the same way that Fiona and Xenia are killers who happen to be sexy as f**k, W&K are killers who happen to be gay but its hardly the most important part of their character. Are Fiona and Xenia 'vile caricatures right out of the clichéed hysterics of heterophobes'?
And what about Bond himself? A killer whose heterosexuality is 'not just background, it's practically the whole thing'?

If they werent cold blooded killers I would even go as far to say W&K are an early example of positive gay role models in popular entertainment. I think most audience members would come out of the cinema saying they enjoyed the characters and the key point that Kennon seems to be missing is that if they are perceived to be bad it is because of what they do in the film and not because they are gay.

RC7

This conversation is now as bizarre as Putter Smith's hair.

6of1

timmer wrote:

6of1 old bean! Long time. Cheers to you! Such open-mindedness.The deadly duo I'm sure appreciate your support, then again they might be just as happy to drop a spider down your back. Up to debating later, the merits of finger-sucking in the latter day Bond context? :P

Timmerman! What are you doing here? Do they give you guys now day releases from your protected support group for obsessive-delusional Fleming incomprehension? Or is your treatment over there already supposed to be a success? And who pray tell is standing in for your *faggot duties during your absence?

Well, however that may be, I'm not sure if you really bring anything new to the discussion. Your argument - as far as I can see, I'm not immune to misunderstanding a line of reasoning myself - is basically that you've spent the odd drunken night in front of an etablissement of doubtable repute, claiming to be their doorman and thus became somehow an authority on the field of homosexual discrimination?

Are you serious?

Because frankly - and between the two of us - that's more than just a bit thin. Especially so since you chose to throw female impersonators into the mix, just for good measure, thus casting serious doubt on your expertise there. Reminds me of the guy who very recently and in record time acquired a profound expertise on professional journalism by spending his life in newsrooms. Warm regards, just in case you see the guy. ;)

And who did bring in that incomprehensible manure about political corrightness? Neither the initial argument nor the later posts called for that angle, did they? Perhaps better left alone. I can see of course that you must be somewhat miffed for being in effect called a homophobe. But if I may be so bold as to be frank here, that's not exactly a surprise to me. I remember discussions between the two of us that revealed as much as long as a year or two ago. And I speak here with the authority of "it takes one to know one". As a certified homophobe myself I recognised your own inclinations early on. Kenny has that down pat.

As yet I fail to see if Kenny really is offended by W&K. Are you, Kennon?







*Faggot duties in this case isn't meant as a pejorative term. Whoever has had the pleasure to play our game knows what I mean. Apart from that it's downright impossible to insult the trimmerman with this. To the contrary, his nature is such that he'd regard the designation as an outright decoration. Horses...





@TheWizard

Astonishing how far sensitivity for homosexual issues goes nowadays, every straight guy claims to be an expert on it.

Kennon

6of1 wrote:

As yet I fail to see if Kenny really is offended by W&K. Are you, Kennon?

No. And I think I already said so.

Nothing new?

timmer

6of1 wrote:

timmer wrote:

6of1 old bean! Long time. Cheers to you! Such open-mindedness.The deadly duo I'm sure appreciate your support, then again they might be just as happy to drop a spider down your back. Up to debating later, the merits of finger-sucking in the latter day Bond context? :P

Timmerman! What are you doing here? Do they give you guys now day releases from your protected support group for obsessive-delusional Fleming incomprehension? Or is your treatment over there already supposed to be a success? And who pray tell is standing in for your *faggot duties during your absence?

Well, however that may be, I'm not sure if you really bring anything new to the discussion. Your argument - as far as I can see, I'm not immune to misunderstanding a line of reasoning myself - is basically that you've spent the odd drunken night in front of an etablissement of doubtable repute, claiming to be their doorman and thus became somehow an authority on the field of homosexual discrimination?

Are you serious?

Because frankly - and between the two of us - that's more than just a bit thin. Especially so since you chose to throw female impersonators into the mix, just for good measure, thus casting serious doubt on your expertise there. Reminds me of the guy who very recently and in record time acquired a profound expertise on professional journalism by spending his life in newsrooms. Warm regards, just in case you see the guy. ;)

And who did bring in that incomprehensible manure about political corrightness? Neither the initial argument nor the later posts called for that angle, did they? Perhaps better left alone. I can see of course that you must be somewhat miffed for being in effect called a homophobe. But if I may be so bold as to be frank here, that's not exactly a surprise to me. I remember discussions between the two of us that revealed as much as long as a year or two ago. And I speak here with the authority of "it takes one to know one". As a certified homophobe myself I recognised your own inclinations early on. Kenny has that down pat.

As yet I fail to see if Kenny really is offended by W&K. Are you, Kennon?







*Faggot duties in this case isn't meant as a pejorative term. Whoever has had the pleasure to play our game knows what I mean. Apart from that it's downright impossible to insult the trimmerman with this. To the contrary, his nature is such that he'd regard the designation as an outright decoration. Horses...





@TheWizard

Astonishing how far sensitivity for homosexual issues goes nowadays, every straight guy claims to be an expert on it.

Ah, good 6 of 1, thought I could poke a reaction out of you. Like a wildebeast in a cage. As verbose as ever, but not in a pejorative sense of course. "Such eloquence Mr. Kidd." "Always good fun, Mr. Wint." "Always good something, at least, Mr. Kidd." "Yes indeed, though not sure what, Mr. Wint." "We endure, Mr. Kidd."
I will say hello to our newsroom friend. Something to be said for the old door jobs of yore though. The tip money sure was good.
Carry on old bean! Till next time! Hip Hip!

Tracy

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/28200000/Way-of-the-Dragon-bruce-lee-28252459-1920-1080.jpg

Paul Wei stars in "The Way of the Homo"......watch out Bruce ;)

He'd prolly agree with me that this thread is a little gay (pun very much intended , lulz)

CommanderRoss

Ah, as @6of1 and @timmer show off their MI6 reputation, I'll only add this to @kennon: You're basing your whole story on false logic, namely the logic of "Wint and Kidd are gay, Wint and Kidd are villains, ergo, gay people are portrayed as bad people". In that case cats eat grass "Cats have four legs, cows have four legs and eat grass, ergo, cats eat grass", cars can fly (got tires, just like planes) and I myself am chicken. Which I am not. Or I'd be a very famous chicken, as chickens don't type English, ordinarily. Try and analyse that.
oh, and this:

Kennon

CommanderRoss wrote:

l only add this to @kennon: You're basing your whole story on false logic, namely the logic of "Wint and Kidd are gay, Wint and Kidd are villains, ergo, gay people are portrayed as bad people". In that case cats eat grass "Cats have four legs, cows have four legs and eat grass, ergo, cats eat grass", cars can fly (got tires, just like planes) and I myself am chicken. Which I am not. Or I'd be a very famous chicken, as chickens don't type English, ordinarily. Try and analyse that.

Naw, don't think so. Wint and Kidd are not just accidental homos, their sexual orientation is present enough throughout. Always going by the standards of 71 and for a work of entertainment intended for the whole family. It couldn't go beyond a stereotype, had to be restrained enough so the more prudish parents could avoid explanations if their kids asked them about it. But it's hardly so coded people didn't get it. And for the times it was indeed a bold move having two important homosexual roles in a mainstream film. If it was an accidental thing, why include it at all + risk trouble with all kinds of people?

Seems everybody hereabouts thinks I'm offended by Wint and Kidd. Nada, why should I? I just refuse to pretend Wint and Kidd have no significance for DAF. No matter what lenghts some go to debunk it, their effect was played to homophobic instincts of the times IMO. It helps if you've already been around then. But it's hardly necessary to see it.

echo

Kennon wrote:

CommanderRoss wrote:

l only add this to @kennon: You're basing your whole story on false logic, namely the logic of "Wint and Kidd are gay, Wint and Kidd are villains, ergo, gay people are portrayed as bad people". In that case cats eat grass "Cats have four legs, cows have four legs and eat grass, ergo, cats eat grass", cars can fly (got tires, just like planes) and I myself am chicken. Which I am not. Or I'd be a very famous chicken, as chickens don't type English, ordinarily. Try and analyse that.

Naw, don't think so. Wint and Kidd are not just accidental homos, their sexual orientation is present enough throughout. Always going by the standards of 71 and for a work of entertainment intended for the whole family. It couldn't go beyond a stereotype, had to be restrained enough so the more prudish parents could avoid explanations if their kids asked them about it. But it's hardly so coded people didn't get it. And for the times it was indeed a bold move having two important homosexual roles in a mainstream film. If it was an accidental thing, why include it at all + risk trouble with all kinds of people?

Seems everybody hereabouts thinks I'm offended by Wint and Kidd. Nada, why should I? I just refuse to pretend Wint and Kidd have no significance for DAF. No matter what lenghts some go to debunk it, their effect was played to homophobic instincts of the times IMO. It helps if you've already been around then. But it's hardly necessary to see it.

I agree.

I'd also like to point out that the only gay characters in the series have all been villains. Pussy Galore is a possible exception, but then again, she was "converted" to the good side, which amounts to the same message.

JBFan626

Kennon wrote:

It helps if you've already been around then. But it's hardly necessary to see it.

That's true, I can't necessarily speak for 'the times' myself as I was not there. But as I do know it, ratings werent what they are now. Wasn't DAF rated GP for general public back then? Yet there are scary scenes of near cremation, pulling a dead body out of the water, and lots of scantily clad women (that certainly weren't wholesome for the whole family) There wasn't as much PC-minded caution in films as there is now. Just take Willy Wonka with it's psychedelic river boat scene, obvious a nod to the psychedelic drugs of the time. So I'm not so sure the film-makers were taking a reserved approach in how much they were willing to going with the gay personas.

I just can't agree with this statement "their effect was played to homophobic instincts of the times IMO." This suggests that their primary purpose in the film was to poke fun at gays. As has been argued, their primary character traits more has to do with them being killers that use lots of quirky expressions. The idea of them being gay is taken from the novel and then played up for the movie, as a secondary trait. They are killers that happen to be gay, not the other way around. True it's not an accidental thing they are gay, but it's not clear that their is any intention to play off the homophobic instincts of the audience either.

Signed_By_RogerMoore

DAF is a great Bond movie.

JBFan626

Signed_By_RogerMoore wrote:

DAF is a great Bond movie.

Amen