39 replies to this topic

[Gothamite]

"...it's my first time?"

What did people think of this line?

It got a really good laugh in the cinema when I went to see the film both times and I was really surprised and pleased they put it in there. How did you react to the line? Do you simply see it as Bond trying to call Silva's bluff or did you read it as an actual admission that Bond has had dalliances with homosexuality?

The first time I saw the film, in all honesty, I just viewed it as Bond trying to call Silva's bluff (especially considering how homophobic Fleming's Bond is), but upon further consideration, I think I prefer the idea that Bond has actually experimented with...driving on the other side of the road.

In this day and age with far less of the narrow-mindedness that existed in Fleming's time, it's more than reasonable to assume that a man with such rampant sexual appetites as James Bond would have explored other avenues of his sexuality. Just my own interpretation of it.

What do others think?

[Dustin]

For one thing I'm not sure Fleming's Bond is indeed homophobic. There is a passage in GF that reads something like 'homosexuals are at times/often/mainly sexually confused people with difficulties to define their sexual identity; Bond pities their fate but ultimately has no time for them'. Or something along those lines. To me that does not necessarily speak of homophobia, quite the contrary, given the time Fleming wrote such for his hero, a man the reader identifies with. We can probably read much more homophobic stuff today in all kinds of publications - and any minute on the internet - than we can find in the entire Fleming canon.

That is not to say Fleming championed homosexuality or gender equality. He merely was far less homophobic in his personal life and his work than many of his contemporaries. He'd still be amazed about our current society nonetheless.

That line in SKYFALL: I suppose it was deliberately kept vague to give the audience some element for speculation, a new approach at a hero whom we thought we already knew everything about. Did he? Was he joking? Was it a bluff? Did he and bluffed anyway? Did Silva bluff? Did Bond detect Silva was bluffing and turned the tables?


The possibilities with that line are endless, with every reading as good as the next one, brilliant writing and fantastic acting!

[Gothamite]

That line in SKYFALL: I suppose it was deliberately kept vague to give the audience some element for speculation, a new approach at a hero whom we thought we already knew everything about. Did he? Was he joking? Was it a bluff? Did he and bluffed anyway? Did Silva bluff? Did Bond detect Silva was bluffing and turned the tables?

There's no question that it was kept vague on purpose to allow the viewer to come up with their own decisions as to what Bond actually meant.

What I'm getting at is what does everyone on the boards think he meant by it, in their own personal canon?

[Dustin]

In my canon? Bravado, most likely. A man having a hearty laugh while his private parts are gradually pulped has been through worse than a guy fingering his chest. Just being strapped to the chair and 'threatened' with some groping isn't going to throw Bond off balance.

[coco1997]

I'm pretty sure John Logan was asked about that line in a recent interview and confirmed that Bond was merely goading Silva.

[seawolfnyy]

I think he was goading Silva too. But at the same time, 6 years had passed between QoS and SF and as Q says "field operatives must often use every means at their disposal to achieve their objectives." So it's possible that Bond has had some form of homosexual encounter previously, if the mission necessitated it.

[S K Y F A L L]

Skyfall star Daniel Craig: James Bond is not gay

The star is confronted by Bond villain Raoul Silva, played by Javier Bardem, in the new 007 film in a particularly raunchy scene.
Quizzed if he thought there could ever be a 'gay James Bond', Craig told E! Online: 'No... because he's not gay. And I don't think Javier [Bardem's] character is either - I think he'd f*** anything.'
Silva is seen caressing Bond's face and thighs with the spy hitting back: 'What makes you think this is my first time?'
Bardem, 43, said he enjoyed making his co-star squirm during the encounter.
He said at a press conference: ‘It was about putting the other person in a very uncomfortable situation where even James Bond doesn’t know how to get out of it.'
[1]

[Clements]

Skyfall star Daniel Craig: James Bond is not gay

The star is confronted by Bond villain Raoul Silva, played by Javier Bardem, in the new 007 film in a particularly raunchy scene.
Quizzed if he thought there could ever be a 'gay James Bond', Craig told E! Online: 'No... because he's not gay. And I don't think Javier [Bardem's] character is either - I think he'd f*** anything.'
Silva is seen caressing Bond's face and thighs with the spy hitting back: 'What makes you think this is my first time?'
Bardem, 43, said he enjoyed making his co-star squirm during the encounter.
He said at a press conference: ‘It was about putting the other person in a very uncomfortable situation where even James Bond doesn’t know how to get out of it.'
[1]

I don't think "particularly raunchy" means what the interviewer thinks it means, even by PG standards.

Great quote from Craig in any case.

[dogmanstar]

I think two things were going on--1. Goading Silva, as already stated above. And 2. It can also refer to the banter back and forth between Bond and the villan. This is not Bond's first time being vulnerable and in the hands of someone who wants to exploit his weakness a la Le Chiffre.

[MarcAngeDraco]

As I already commented in another thread on this topic:

"I simply saw it as Bond's countermove to Silva's approach. Silva was trying to make Bond uncomfortable and Bond took the steam out of it."

[Judo chop]

Craig’s performance during the fondling scene makes me think that Bond is, not just bluffing, though that may be part of it, but is actually somewhat taken-aback/amused by what he's witnessing. He’s not amused that a gay man finds him attractive and wants to touch him. This is something weirder than that. Bond sees the hyperbole in Silva’s actions. Bond is face-to-face with a guy who, forgive the pun, can’t even think straight.

Bond is first surprised and then collects himself with a great line at the end to shake Silva off his tactics and to reset the scene.

Craig’s quote above would support this and what better support could I have than that?

[Harmsway]

I took it more as a reference to Bond's torture at the hands of Le Chiffre in CASINO ROYALE. After all, Silva's lead-in was a comment about it's M's loss that she's never had Bond tied to a chair.

[Judo chop]

I took it more as a reference to Bond's torture at the hands of Le Chiffre in CASINO ROYALE. After all, Silva's lead-in was a comment about it's M's loss that she's never had Bond tied to a chair.

Hmmm. So you think Bond's comment comes down to: "What makes you think it's my first time [being tied to a chair]?".

As opposed to: "What makes you think it's my first time [experiencing physical intimacy with a man]?".

Maybe Silva's lead-in comment would suggest that, but I think his response "OH, MR. BOND!!! HA! HA!" would suggest the second option is more correct. I mean, that'd be some wild reaction to Bond merely suggesting he'd been captured and tied up before. Probably pretty basic stuff for a double-oh, and Silva would know that.

[Harmsway]

CR's torture scene is loaded with sexual undertones, so Bond would be referencing more than just being tied to a chair.

[Dustin]

Bond would have to be entirely asexual to not also acknowledge the imminent harassment. Whether he's talking about the strapped-to-chair situation, the CR torture or even the word association game at HQ is a different question...

[Pussfeller]

I was pleased by the reaction in the cinema: a big, titillated laugh. For some reason I thought a lot of (male) moviegoers would react badly to the line, but it was one of the biggest laugh lines in the film (second only to "M... bitch"). To me, this suggests that the general public is (1) not as invested in Bond's sexual orientation as certain hardcore Bond fans, or (2) understands that Bond was just taking the mickey out of Silva, defusing his menace by declining to freak out. No further interpretation is necessary.

But by the same token, for Bond to be bisexual or to have had such experiences in the past would not, I think, change the essence of the character. On the contrary, I think it would hearken back to Fleming's kinky approach to sex in general, and the equal-opportunity voyeurism of his books. (Craig is already the most sexually objectified piece of Bond-meat in the franchise's history.) Bottom line, I don't really care. As long as Bond is masculine, cool, and self-assured, his precise sexual biochemistry is not all that relevant.

[Iceskater101]

I never thought of James Bond being homosexual. I think he was just going along with Silva.

[Howland]

Hello everyone,

There has been a sequence in Skyfall that has raised a lot of questions in SF and I am not focusing on Silva, but during the interrogation scene, to answer Silva's flirtatious attempts, Bond replies with the now famous "what makes you think this is my first time?" I was wondering what was your interpretation of the scene?

Is it a direct reference of the torture scene in Casino Royale? Is Bond bluffing?

[thecasinoroyale]

Lots of ideas on this line.

I personally feel Bond was bluffing. Forcing Silva's hand, so to speak.

As we've learnt from 007 over the years, you never crack under pressure, never show weakness, never let the enemy have the upper hand and never let them see you bleed.

In 'Casino Royale', with Le Chiffre torturing Bond, even then in the face of so much pain and even staring death in the face in result of giving out the password, Bond clearly lets nothing show in the "Got a little itch," line, which makes Le Chiffre even more angry, knowing Bond is not going to crack, and that is what he does to Silva, be it under different circumstances and different "torture", so to speak, being tied to the chair and have Silva invade his personal space.

Silva maybe bisexual, as he clearly has a small thing for 007 and also Severine, but as he tries to make Bond feel uncomfortable and uneasy in his capture, Bond simply fires back with that line to throw Silva off balance - he wasn't expecting that reply from Bond, and shows that what Silva is doing is pretty much pointless as Bond may have been in this situation before.

He's fighting fire with fire and not letting Silva in his head, and showing he will not crack under pressure, of any sort.

And Bond is not leaning towards being bisexual too, as other people may think. He's doing his job.

[Howland]

I agree with you. But I think that Mendes/Logan wanted to play the mythology as well and make some kind of wink. For me there are 3 possible explanations:

1°) The most obvious for me. James Bond is saying "it is not the first time that a man tied me to a chair and wanted to play with my willy"

2°) The poker face, I am not showing you my... hand

3°) The face value explanation. After all he seemed pretty affected by Ronson's fate at the beginning

I am not saying that it is one of the three, but I think that Mendes/Logan wanted to play with the myth and have James Bond answer something evasive.

[thecasinoroyale]

I like the first one Howland!

But I think with Ronson it was more Mendes showing the strong unity of MI6 and the team players that Bond now values so much, and that M was throwing all that out the window for the mission, where as Bond valued his friends life, which was touching and another nice human side.

[Howland]

It was touching, but it seemed out of character. I have always thought of Bond as the kind of man who wouldn't blink an eye if he needed to sacrifice someone for the greater good (except if she is Anya Amasova and therefore we go back to the point 3 of my explanation)

Yes... the more I think of it, I think Ronson is (well was) the first James Bond Boy ;-)

[seawolfnyy]

I'm sure I've seen this in another thread already.....

[Walecs]

I have always thought of Bond as the kind of man who wouldn't blink an eye if he needed to sacrifice someone for the greater good

You never read the books, have you?

[jaguar007]

The part with Ronson was there to pave the path of M doing the same thing to Bond ("take the bloody shot"). When Bond went to Ms flat, he clearly showed a grudge with the way M handled the situation. Ronson was nothing more than a fellow agent and maybe a friend.

[Dustin]

Mod note: topics merged

[OmarB]

For one thing I'm not sure Fleming's Bond is indeed homophobic. There is a passage in GF that reads something like 'homosexuals are at times/often/mainly sexually confused people with difficulties to define their sexual identity; Bond pities their fate but ultimately has no time for them'. Or something along those lines. To me that does not necessarily speak of homophobia, quite the contrary, given the time Fleming wrote such for his hero, a man the reader identifies with. We can probably read much more homophobic stuff today in all kinds of publications - and any minute on the internet - than we can find in the entire Fleming canon.

That is not to say Fleming championed homosexuality or gender equality. He merely was far less homophobic in his personal life and his work than many of his contemporaries. He'd still be amazed about our current society nonetheless.

That line in SKYFALL: I suppose it was deliberately kept vague to give the audience some element for speculation, a new approach at a hero whom we thought we already knew everything about. Did he? Was he joking? Was it a bluff? Did he and bluffed anyway? Did Silva bluff? Did Bond detect Silva was bluffing and turned the tables?


The possibilities with that line are endless, with every reading as good as the next one, brilliant writing and fantastic acting!

In DAF Bond has a very dim view of gays. He refereed to Kidd and Wint in the least flattering terms. Even talking about their twisted methods saying how cruel those homos are. Just one set of examples that stood out from the books at the moment/

[Dustin]

For one thing I'm not sure Fleming's Bond is indeed homophobic. There is a passage in GF that reads something like 'homosexuals are at times/often/mainly sexually confused people with difficulties to define their sexual identity; Bond pities their fate but ultimately has no time for them'. Or something along those lines. To me that does not necessarily speak of homophobia, quite the contrary, given the time Fleming wrote such for his hero, a man the reader identifies with. We can probably read much more homophobic stuff today in all kinds of publications - and any minute on the internet - than we can find in the entire Fleming canon.

That is not to say Fleming championed homosexuality or gender equality. He merely was far less homophobic in his personal life and his work than many of his contemporaries. He'd still be amazed about our current society nonetheless.

That line in SKYFALL: I suppose it was deliberately kept vague to give the audience some element for speculation, a new approach at a hero whom we thought we already knew everything about. Did he? Was he joking? Was it a bluff? Did he and bluffed anyway? Did Silva bluff? Did Bond detect Silva was bluffing and turned the tables?


The possibilities with that line are endless, with every reading as good as the next one, brilliant writing and fantastic acting!

In DAF Bond has a very dim view of gays. He refereed to Kidd and Wint in the least flattering terms. Even talking about their twisted methods saying how cruel those homos are. Just one set of examples that stood out from the books at the moment/

Not exactly. It's Felix who gives Bond the rundown on Wint and Kidd, including their 'nicknames' - "Windy" and "Boofy". Leiter only suspects they are gay; nowhere in the whole book is there given positive proof beyond his assumption. Wint in that paragraph is also called a sadist who takes active pleasure in his work. Leiter notes that 'Some of these homos make the worst killers' but nothing indicates Wint and Kidd are really homosexuals.

Later in the same chapter Bond makes this speech:
'I've suddenly taken against the brothers Spang. I didn't like those two men in hoods. The way the man hit that fat Negro. The boiling mud. I wouldn't have minded if he'd just beaten the jockey up - ordinary cops-and-rubbers stuff. But that mud showed a nasty mind. And I took against Pissaro and Budd. I don't know what it is, but I've just taken against all of them.'

Nowhere here does Bond condemn the Spang outfit - or Wint and Kidd for that matter - because of supposed or actual homosexuality. What brings him up is the brutality and cruelty of the mob, not the rumours about two of their enforcers.

[Howland]

I have always thought of Bond as the kind of man who wouldn't blink an eye if he needed to sacrifice someone for the greater good

You never read the books, have you?

Yes actually, and more than once. Would you think that Fleming Bond would compromise a mission to save a friend? I remember in one book, Brokenclax (so OK, it's Gardner, not Fleming), that he lets a fellow agent (maybe MI6) getting killed just because they are outnumbered

The part with Ronson was there to pave the path of M doing the same thing to Bond ("take the bloody shot"). When Bond went to Ms flat, he clearly showed a grudge with the way M handled the situation. Ronson was nothing more than a fellow agent and maybe a friend.

OK, the part about Ronson, was a poor attempt of a joke, on my part

[Shaun Forever]

I think he was goading Silva too. But at the same time, 6 years had passed between QoS and SF and as Q says "field operatives must often use every means at their disposal to achieve their objectives." So it's possible that Bond has had some form of homosexual encounter previously, if the mission necessitated it.

I could not imagine that in a million years, Bond seducing a man! But each to their own, it's an amusing thought, and a
really great line/scene.