Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Anal anxiety in Diamonds Are Forever.
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.
^ 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
Just as a quick note: I feel this'll be closed in a very short time.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
'And I can't believe Liberace was gay! I mean women loved him! I didn't see that one coming, no....'
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...
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...
:-< I miss Austin Powers. They need to make a fourth.
God help me I never thought of that!!!
:-O
This is one of the most insightful posts I've read on this board.
Tiffany did have some good one liners: "go blow up your pants"--we all have wanted to say this to some snotnosed brat.
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!
"Putting gays in a film in 1971 is 'edgy'. How amusing! What sheltered lives you colonials must lead!"
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.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2006/11/22/how-gay-is-james-bond/