119 replies to this topic

[Stephenson]

I'm sure there are a lot of gay men who identify with the character. We may be operating under the assumption that just because a man has sex with another man, he doesn't enjoy watching car chases, things exploding, or people getting shot. I'm not sure who we can thank for perpetuating the stereotype that gay men are not really "men", that they are somehow to effete, sensitive, or intellectual for action movies, but I'm sure the media has a hand in it somewhere!

Sleeping with women is simply one aspect of the 007 character (albeit an important one!). The importance of changing the character's skin color, ethnicity or sexual orientation has been argued endlessly, and I don't want to go down that road again. Simply saying that I enjoy Bond just the way he is, although not all of his characteristics appeal to me (I really don't feel the need to shoot someone in cold blood for example). I'm sure a gay male could easily overlook Bond's sleeping with women and identify with other aspects of the character.

In complete agreement with the rest that you posted Jericho: sadly, in today's market, it is acceptable (even praiseworthy) for an openly straight actor to play gay, but still considered a "no-no" for an openly gay actor to play a straight action hero, ridiculous and illogical though it may be.

Batman and Robin, anyone?

[Mr Malcolm]

A gay man could definitely play Bond, but being realistic, I don't think he'd be given a easy time by the media at all. Given the choice, I would much rather have a great gay actor as Bond than a mediocre straight one (although I'm not suggesting any names; I just meant hypothetically, before people start getting ideas!).

That said, I think how well a gay actor would go down as Bond would really depend on which gay actor was playing him. I certainly know plenty gay men who are less camp than, say, Pierce or even Rog, for instance (I do like them both as Bond, but they do have their swishy moments! ), as well as plenty straight men who are camper than a pink sparkly scout expedition!

Stephenson, just noticed yer post: yes, I believe Bond has a great many gay fans. This one in particular would love to travel around the world, climb about on the outsides of moving vehicles, and generally battle the forces of evil. So there's your answer!

Edited by Mr Malcolm, 24 July 2006 - 07:57 PM.

[kneelbeforezod]

No- if you're discriminating against homosexuals because of their homosexuality it is homophobia. Doesn't matter where the discrimination 'comes from' because it is discrimination.

NO- if someone's sexuality is relevant then it isn't discrimination and it isn't homophobia. If I said I would prefer not to have a gay person driving my bus, then obviously that would be discrimination. But this situation is different:

If a gay fan said to you "Since Bond is defined by his womanising, I would find the knowledge that the actor playing him was gay a slight distraction, and thus would prefer a straight actor in the role" would you label that fan a homophobe?

As someone with gay friends and colleagues, I really resent being labelled homophobic by someone who refuses to apply any discretion based on the specifics of the situation.

There are many fans that say they would prefer an English actor play the part rather than an American... does that automatically make them xenophobic?

[Jericho_One]

No- if you're discriminating against homosexuals because of their homosexuality it is homophobia. Doesn't matter where the discrimination 'comes from' because it is discrimination.

NO- if someone's sexuality is relevant then it isn't discrimination and it isn't homophobia. If I said I would prefer not to have a gay person driving my bus, then obviously that would be discrimination. But this situation is different:

If a gay fan said to you "Since Bond is defined by his womanising, I would find the knowledge that the actor playing him was gay a slight distraction, and thus would prefer a straight actor in the role" would you label that fan a homophobe?

As someone with gay friends and colleagues, I really resent being labelled homophobic by someone who refuses to apply any discretion based on the specifics of the situation.

There are many fans that say they would prefer an English actor play the part rather than an American... does that automatically make them xenophobic?

Yep, something like that...
In what comes to women, I think they are as important to define Bond as his apparent ability to shoot someone in cold blood.
Again, I stress, I'm not talking about what is acceptable or not... I really don't care about it if a gay plays a straight or the other way around.
But our friend here has a point: Society is more open nowadays, apart from the fact that there still is unfortunately lots of preconceptions towards gay people. That to say if a gay playing Bond can't be successful because he's gay, I don't see it on a moral standard. I see it as being believable or not.
You understood me wrong back there. Of course anyone, gay or not, can really dig the action, the explosions, gadgets, and so on... But the womanizing factor defines Bond very highly as an icon. So, would it really be believable watching a gay actor portraying Bond? that's what I mean...

[Bond Bombshell]

There is no reason why a gay actor couldn't play James Bond superbly well, however, I would still have a difficult time accepting him. Bond is the only role where I feel this way, because I see the part as being unique. Some posters have made good points about straight actors playing gay roles, and actors playing different nationalities, but none of these roles are comparable to James Bond and none of them come with the baggage of the Bond circus.

I think that Jericho One hits the nail on the head when he says that Bond is not just an acting challenge. Bond actors probably spend as much time publicising the films as they do acting in them. I can't think of another role where there is so much pressure on the actor to live up to the image off screen, or another role where the distinction between actor and character becomes so blurred in the minds of the public. Even after all these years, I bet whenever some people see Connery, they see James Bond first and forget about Connery the person. (Although I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of whomever addresses him as Bond directly).

The problem is that a gay life style is so starkly incongruous with the Bond character, that a gay actor can't do half the job, i.e. sell the Bond image off screen. I argued against the casting of Goran for similar reasons based on nationality. All of this is harsh on gay actors and on Goran, and rather selfish on my part, but I don't think that its homophobic or racist. What I'm doing is expressing a preference for an off screen image that helps to maximise the Bond illusion on screen. If I'm guilty of anything its a fragile grip on movie magic, and a tendency to let my suspension of disbelief be too easily punctured.

[Shrublands]

Bond actors probably spend as much time publicising the films as they do acting in them.

Unless you happen to be Sean Connery, who did virtually no publicity for the films, during their release strategies, after FRWL. He very rarely even bothered to attend the premiers.

[Stephenson]

The problem is that a gay life style is so starkly incongruous with the Bond character, that a gay actor can't do half the job, i.e. sell the Bond image off screen. [i]
All of this is harsh on gay actors and on Goran, and rather selfish on my part, but I don't think that its homophobic or racist. What I'm doing is expressing a preference for an off screen image that helps to maximise the Bond illusion on screen. If I'm guilty of anything its a fragile grip on movie magic, and a tendency to let my suspension of disbelief be too easily punctured.

Actually, I think if you buy into the stereotypes about gay men, they would probably be perceived as being better than a straight actor at promoting the Bond lifestyle off screen:

1. Well dressed?
2. Good looking and well built?
3. Like to travel to exotic locations?
4. Well read and educated in the finer things in life, such as good wine, food, art, culture, languages?
5. Slight homicidal tendencies? Well, a good number of the "gay" characters in film and television have been portrayed as murderous psychopaths, so I'll hesitantly give this point a half thumbs up, but would argue: How important is this charcteristic to the film portrayal of Bond today when compared to his "prettier" characteristics?
6. Given to promiscuity/can't have a long term relationship? Well, again, if you believe the stereotype, then gay men are sluts and will likely sleep with anyone they can, so .

The difference of course is that a gay man sleeps with men! And this simply won't do when, according to some definitions, a Bond actor should also be living the lifestyle to the hilt off-screen in order to fully beguile the general public. Which I would assume to mean he needs to be sleeping with as many women as possible and then coldly leaving them. But then again, how have previous Bond actors scored in this category? Connery, Brosnan, Moore, Dalton? All in serious, committed, long term relationships, so to them (although I guess it could be argued that was not always the case when each of them was actually playing Bond).

Anyway, it seems to me what we are doing here is determine if a gay male can successfully play the character of Bond on-screen and successfully market him off-screen. My answer is yes ... but no one would let him because they think the fact he sleeps with men matters. But when it comes to straight actors ... well, there ain't nothing they can't do!

As for Bond being unique in terms of the "baggage" the role carries: you don't think the character of Ghandi holds some meaning for the people of India? How about Zorro for Latin Americans? When the circus is in your neighborhood, of course it matters, but I would be careful about assuming it is so unique.

[marktmurphy]

No- if you're discriminating against homosexuals because of their homosexuality it is homophobia. Doesn't matter where the discrimination 'comes from' because it is discrimination.

NO- if someone's sexuality is relevant then it isn't discrimination and it isn't homophobia. If I said I would prefer not to have a gay person driving my bus, then obviously that would be discrimination. But this situation is different

I thought you were saying earlier that its where it comes from that matters. Now it's its relevance? You don't seem to be too sure of your own meaning.

As someone with gay friends and colleagues, I really resent being labelled homophobic by someone who refuses to apply any discretion based on the specifics of the situation.

Its relevance is highly debatable. Whether or not you personally get hung about an actor's sexuality could be easily argued as your problem; not Eon's. What an actor does offscreen is pretty irrelevant, I'd say; but that depends on your views.
I think you're getting hung up on the labels attached to the word 'homophobic'; ignore the 'phobic' part- that meaning has been lost. A better word would be 'homosexist' or something like that- but discrimination against a person because of their homosexuality is, under the strict definition of the word, homophobic.

If a gay fan said to you "Since Bond is defined by his womanising, I would find the knowledge that the actor playing him was gay a slight distraction, and thus would prefer a straight actor in the role" would you label that fan a homophobe?

His act would be homophobic, yes. Read the definition. You're attaching too much emotion to this; it's a bad word because it has so much baggage and a new one is probably needed; but that is the current meaning.

There are many fans that say they would prefer an English actor play the part rather than an American... does that automatically make them xenophobic?

Different word, different definition.

[Bond Bombshell]

Actually, I think if you buy into the stereotypes about gay men, they would probably be perceived as being better than a straight actor at promoting the Bond lifestyle off screen:

1. Well dressed?
2. Good looking and well built?
3. Like to travel to exotic locations?
4. Well read and educated in the finer things in life, such as good wine, food, art, culture, languages?
5. Slight homicidal tendencies? Well, a good number of the "gay" characters in film and television have been portrayed as murderous psychopaths, so I'll hesitantly give this point a half thumbs up, but would argue: How important is this charcteristic to the film portrayal of Bond today when compared to his "prettier" characteristics?
6. Given to promiscuity/can't have a long term relationship? Well, again, if you believe the stereotype, then gay men are sluts and will likely sleep with anyone they can, so .

The difference of course is that a gay man sleeps with men! And this simply won't do when, according to some definitions, a Bond actor should also be living the lifestyle to the hilt off-screen in order to fully beguile the general public. Which I would assume to mean he needs to be sleeping with as many women as possible and then coldly leaving them. But then again, how have previous Bond actors scored in this category? Connery, Brosnan, Moore, Dalton? All in serious, committed, long term relationships, so to them (although I guess it could be argued that was not always the case when each of them was actually playing Bond).

Anyway, it seems to me what we are doing here is determine if a gay male can successfully play the character of Bond on-screen and successfully market him off-screen. My answer is yes ... but no one would let him because they think the fact he sleeps with men matters. But when it comes to straight actors ... well, there ain't nothing they can't do!

As for Bond being unique in terms of the "baggage" the role carries: you don't think the character of Ghandi holds some meaning for the people of India? How about Zorro for Latin Americans? When the circus is in your neighborhood, of course it matters, but I would be careful about assuming it is so unique.

I think that you're taking living up to the Bond image a little too literally, or more likely having some fun with the idea. I don't think anyone expects their Bond actor to ape the extremes of Bond's behaviour. It helps though if the actor's a highly visible flash monkey, and I think Dalton suffered from leading a life that was a little bit more private and down to earth than the others. What's more pertinent to me is that I would prefer the actor not to do something or lead a life that is so obviously at odds with his Bond image. I struggle to take Hugh Grant's lovable fops seriously because he did something in real life that was contrary to the image of these characters.

Could a gay actor play and market a Bond film successfully if he was allowed to? Presumably you mean if the public and especially the media were prepared to ignore his sexuality. Then the answer would obviously be yes. However, we both know this isn't very realistic. A high profile role like Bond will always invite intrusion into the star's private life, and what we hear about him has the potential to add or take away from the Bond illusion. Some fans won't care as they see no blurring between actor and role, but for others like myself, the actor is James Bond.

I admit I haven't got a problem with a straight actor playing any role, but then there isn't a gay role that has anything like the history and profile of James Bond. Would I object to a straight actor playing a gay James Bond, aimed at a gay audience, if the role had always been played by a gay actor whose off screen gay lifestyle had helped sell the film to the gay community? The answer is no because I wouldn't be watching in the first place, but the gay audience might object, and I think that's fair enough. It doesn't make them straightophobic.

As for Bond's uniqueness, I said that I see him as unique. I don't expect everybody else to see him the same way. I have already admitted that everything I've said is about my own selfish preferences! My point is that they are not inspired by homophobia. Anyway, is Sir Ben really expected to live up to his Ghandi image in India? That's a lot of pressure for one man. As for Zorro, perhaps our Latin American members can let us know how revered he is, and if it is pc to still refer to him as the gay blade.

[kneelbeforezod]

No- if you're discriminating against homosexuals because of their homosexuality it is homophobia. Doesn't matter where the discrimination 'comes from' because it is discrimination.

NO- if someone's sexuality is relevant then it isn't discrimination and it isn't homophobia. If I said I would prefer not to have a gay person driving my bus, then obviously that would be discrimination. But this situation is different

I thought you were saying earlier that its where it comes from that matters. Now it's its relevance? You don't seem to be too sure of your own meaning.

As someone with gay friends and colleagues, I really resent being labelled homophobic by someone who refuses to apply any discretion based on the specifics of the situation.

Its relevance is highly debatable. Whether or not you personally get hung about an actor's sexuality could be easily argued as your problem; not Eon's. What an actor does offscreen is pretty irrelevant, I'd say; but that depends on your views.
I think you're getting hung up on the labels attached to the word 'homophobic'; ignore the 'phobic' part- that meaning has been lost. A better word would be 'homosexist' or something like that- but discrimination against a person because of their homosexuality is, under the strict definition of the word, homophobic.

If a gay fan said to you "Since Bond is defined by his womanising, I would find the knowledge that the actor playing him was gay a slight distraction, and thus would prefer a straight actor in the role" would you label that fan a homophobe?

His act would be homophobic, yes. Read the definition. You're attaching too much emotion to this; it's a bad word because it has so much baggage and a new one is probably needed; but that is the current meaning.

There are many fans that say they would prefer an English actor play the part rather than an American... does that automatically make them xenophobic?

Different word, different definition.

You dodged that, badly. If I say I would prefer that someone foreign didn't play Bond, why don't you call me xenophobic? The answer is probably that you are aware that thousands of fans would prefer an English actor, but you realise that isn't based on xenophobia.

xen

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 26 July 2006 - 12:07 PM.

[marktmurphy]

Above you say that I'm not sure of my own meaning, but if you read my posts my meaning is crystal clear, you'd have to be pretty pedantic to claim otherwise:

My point from the very beginning is that if someones personal preference isn't based on fear or contempt, then it isn't homophobic. It's as simple as that.

The fact that you are labelling the hypothetical gay fan above as homophobic just shows that you are using the word too freely, in my opinion.

That's your own definition of 'homophobia'- not the real one or the whole one. It has a different meaning from xenophobia; one not based on the 'phobia' part. You're just picking what you want from the dictionary.com definition whilst ignoring the whole definition. You can't just pick and choose which bits of a definition you'll follow and which you'll ignore, and which you'll make up.

'The word homophobia means fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred of and disparagement of homosexual people, their lifestyles, their sexual behaviors, or cultures, and is generally used to assert bigotry.

Xenophobia is only applied to dislike or distrust of foreigners; its 'phobia' root is much more important than in the word 'homophobia' as it is only applied to a phobic attitude towards foreigners or the unknown. Nothing to do with just discrimination.

Two different words, two different meanings. You're just seeing the same 'phobia' part in them both and assuming that makes them mean the same thing.

The fact that you are labelling the hypothetical gay fan above as homophobic just shows that you are using the word too freely, in my opinion.

With respect, your opinion has nothing to do with how words are defined. This is the definition; whether you like it or not.

[kneelbeforezod]

If a gay fan said to you "Since Bond is defined by his womanising, I would find the knowledge that the actor playing him was gay a slight distraction, and thus would prefer a straight actor in the role" would you label that fan a homophobe?

His act would be homophobic, yes. Read the definition.

lol I'm reading the definition, I'm staring at it! It couldn't be any clearer!

"Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling."

The hypothetical gay fan above is categorically NOT homophobic.

Above you say that I'm not sure of my own meaning, but if you read my posts my meaning is crystal clear, you'd have to be pretty pedantic to claim otherwise:

My point from the very beginning is that if someones personal preference isn't based on fear or contempt, then it isn't homophobic. It's as simple as that.

The fact that you are labelling the hypothetical gay fan above as homophobic just shows that you are using the word too freely, in my opinion.

That's your own definition of 'homophobia'- not the real one or the whole one. It has a different meaning from xenophobia; one not based on the 'phobia' part. You're just picking what you want from the dictionary.com definition whilst ignoring the whole definition. You can't just pick and choose which bits of a definition you'll follow and which you'll ignore, and which you'll make up.

'The word homophobia means fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred of and disparagement of homosexual people, their lifestyles, their sexual behaviors, or cultures, and is generally used to assert bigotry.

Xenophobia is only applied to dislike or distrust of foreigners; its 'phobia' root is much more important than in the word 'homophobia' as it is only applied to a phobic attitude towards foreigners or the unknown. Nothing to do with just discrimination.

Two different words, two different meanings. You're just seeing the same 'phobia' part in them both and assuming that makes them mean the same thing.

The fact that you are labelling the hypothetical gay fan above as homophobic just shows that you are using the word too freely, in my opinion.

With respect, your opinion has nothing to do with how words are defined. This is the definition; whether you like it or not.

With even more respect, its not just my opinion, its a fact. You are cherry picking because you are wilfully ignoring the "fear and contempt" part.

The discrimination it refers to clearly must be based on it. Otherwise, by your interpretation, a straight male who chooses not to sleep with gay men is "discriminating" and is thus homophobic.

[marktmurphy]

Presumably you're going by dictionary.com ; but you seem to have missed the whole entry out. I'll help you:

Main Entry: ho

[kneelbeforezod]

Well, my brain hurts, but I would just say this:

Every single definition of homophobia refers to fear and contempt. Most people would relate homophobia to some kind of fear or dislike of homosexuals. To me, the two are inseparable.

If you can acknowledge that the preference of thousands of fans, gay and straight, is not based on fear or contempt, and yet still, via a surgical dissection of the definition, label those fans technically homophobic... then I can handle being a "technical homophobe".

I'll just have to take solace in the fact that most people would not consider me homophobic.

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 26 July 2006 - 01:41 PM.

[marktmurphy]

Every single definition of homophobia refers to fear and contempt. And surely most people would relate homophobia to some kind of fear or dislike of homosexuals. To me, the two are inseparable.

I don't disagree- it's a poor word for the meaning as it carries obvious connotations.

If you can acknowledge that the preference of thousands of fans, gay and straight, is not based on fear or contempt, and yet still, via a surgical dissection of the definition, label those fans technically homophobic... then I can handle being a "technical homophobe".

That's all my original point is. Discrimination against homosexuals is, under the current (unsatisfactory) definition of the word and in the absence of any better term for the discrimination against homosexuals, homophobia.

[Stephenson]

Bond Bombshell: Definitely just having some fun with what you wrote. Hope no offense was taken, as it wasn't intended.

Of course, I agree completely with your assessment of predictable reaction of the press and/or general audience (although I sometimes wonder how fast they would "get over it" if it should ever happen). I just find being gay to be an arbitrary reason to dismiss an actor for a particular role. My point about the stereotype of gay promiscuity was meant to point this out: a single gay actor could be having loads more sex than Brosnan, Moore, Connery or Dalton (I really don't know much about Lazenby), which would make him more Bond-like, except he's putting his pee-pee in the wrong places (there really is no suitable smilicon for that statement). But the fact that the straight actor has never shot someone, never had sex with numerous beautiful foreign women, never played baccarat in an exotic casino, never leapt from a great height without a parachute, etc. is somehow easier to overlook.

[medrecess]

To me he is an ultra smooth guy like Mr PB.He is Bond completly.The only
problem is the homosexuality

[kneelbeforezod]

If you can acknowledge that the preference of thousands of fans, gay and straight, is not based on fear or contempt, and yet still, via a surgical dissection of the definition, label those fans technically homophobic... then I can handle being a "technical homophobe".

That's all my original point is. Discrimination against homosexuals is, under the current (unsatisfactory) definition of the word and in the absence of any better term for the discrimination against homosexuals, homophobia.

I'm really sorry for harping on about this (why can't I let it go?!) but... I'm going to have to take back my comment above about thousands of fans being "technical homophobes".

The dictionary.com definition of homophobia is actually 3 separate definitions from 3 sources. All 3 refer to hatred and fear of homosexuals, only one additionally refers to discrimination. There are many definitions out there, they are all pretty similar though:

The American Heritage

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 26 July 2006 - 09:51 PM.

[Stephenson]

"Given all of the above, I think its reasonable to say that if a fan's preference for a straight actor in the role of Bond isn't based on dislike of, or aversion to, homosexuality, then it categorically is not homophobia."

I've been following this thread, but I just want to make sure I'm clear on this train of logic:

1. Homophobia is, by the definitions you cited, a (irrational according to three definitions)dislike or aversion to homosexuals and/or homosexuality.

2. Being gay is an invisible characteristic (for lack of a better word), unlike skin color for example.

3. Some fans would be unable to accept a gay actor in the role, regardless of his capabilities as an actor or the fact that his being gay would not be visible on the screen, because they feel thge knowledge of his being gay in real life cause a distraction or would hinder his ability to market the product. In other words, this particular aspect of the actor's life would be at odds with one aspect of the Bond character (is love of women).

4. However, the fact that a straight Bond actor does not possess a variety of other fundamental "Bondian" characteristics in real life (various skills, style of dress, promiscuity, ability to speak various languages, service in the military, cultural knowledge) can be overlooked or given only passing importance.

I remember that many on this site were quick to forgive Craig his dislike and fear of guns. Isn't Bond supposed to love guns? How can a Bond actor hate guns? "Because he is just playing a role," came the reply. Why exactly can we not apply the same logic to sexuality?

I get the marketing aspect being a problem and the general public's hesitation to accept him. As much as mainstream culture has embraced "gay" (protests over Brokeback not winning the Oscar, awards galor to "Will and Grace", etc), the general population is still homophobic. But on the level of the individual, if you have decided that you cannot enjoy the performance of a gay actor in the role simply because you know he is gay, even though you would never know it from simply watching the screen, and you are willing to forgive a straight actor all of his "non-Bondian" characteristics (which many consider to be as important as his womanizing) , then you are expressing an irrational dislike of homosexuality. Which is by your definition(s) homophobia.

[Bond Bombshell]

Bond Bombshell: Definitely just having some fun with what you wrote. Hope no offense was taken, as it wasn't intended.

Of course, I agree completely with your assessment of predictable reaction of the press and/or general audience (although I sometimes wonder how fast they would "get over it" if it should ever happen). I just find being gay to be an arbitrary reason to dismiss an actor for a particular role. My point about the stereotype of gay promiscuity was meant to point this out: a single gay actor could be having loads more sex than Brosnan, Moore, Connery or Dalton (I really don't know much about Lazenby), which would make him more Bond-like, except he's putting his pee-pee in the wrong places (there really is no suitable smilicon for that statement). But the fact that the straight actor has never shot someone, never had sex with numerous beautiful foreign women, never played baccarat in an exotic casino, never leapt from a great height without a parachute, etc. is somehow easier to overlook.

No worries. I guessed you were having a bit of fun, and even had you been entirely serious, there was nothing at which I would have taken offence.

I agree that if a gay actor was particularly good in the role, his sexuality might eventually be overlooked, although if he was less than perfect, this would be used to crucify him. I also agree that being gay is an arbitrary reason to dismiss him, and there is nothing particularly logical about insisting the actor demonstrates no unBond-like attributes in his private life. However, some Bond fans are pretty irrational in their fanaticism and desire to devour all things Bond, and selfishly want nothing to detract from the image both on screen and off. I'm afraid I fall into this category.

Yes, it could be argued that a gay actor having lots of sex is aping Bond traits, but I can't think of anything less Bond-like than putting his pee-pee in a different place, especially when you consider the amount of practice Bond has had putting it in the usual place. It helps if the Bond actor is a bit flash, but there are limits to living up to the image. It is easy to overlook those Bond qualities, that if he attempted them in real life, could leave the actor broke, in prison, dead, or with a nasty dose of the clap.

Anyway, we've seen M,Q, and R in the films, perhaps an appearance by a pee-pee is overdue!

[Stephenson]

"Anyway, we've seen M,Q, and R in the films, perhaps an appearance by a pee-pee is overdue!"

Thank god you were able to make a joke out of that! I had nothing and it was killing me! I mean, really, when you're talking about gay genitalia, which smilie would you choose:



All of them have certain "issues"

[kneelbeforezod]

But on the level of the individual, if you have decided that you cannot enjoy the performance of a gay actor in the role simply because you know he is gay, even though you would never know it from simply watching the screen, and you are willing to forgive a straight actor all of his "non-Bondian" characteristics (which many consider to be as important as his womanizing) , then you are expressing an irrational dislike of homosexuality. Which is by your definition(s) homophobia.

I more or less agree with everything you say apart from the above. I think its possible to be conscious of someone's homosexuality onscreen in such a heterosexual role, to the point that you would prefer a straight actor... without that consciousness being an irrational fear, or dislike. It's just... you're aware of it. Very hard to find the right words actually.

But at the risk of repeating myself, I think it would be very possible for a gay fan to feel this way also. Rightly or wrongly, that fan would not be guilty of homophobia.

If a fan said that he would rather an English actor play the part over an American, despite the fact that, with the perfect accent, you would never know from watching the screen that the actor was American... is that that fan guilty of an irrational dislike of Americans? I don't think so.

I'm not suggesting putting up signs outside the Bond audition offices saying "No Gays", its just that... if there were two identical twins, both perfect for the part, one straight, one gay, then I would prefer they chose the straight guy.

I generally agree, as I have said in previous posts, that it shouldnt be this way, yet it is. Maybe its the knowledge that there would indeed be media uproar... maybe its because it would feel gimmicky to cast cast a gay actor in the role of the world's most famous onscreen womaniser, like they were making a point. I don't know...

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 27 July 2006 - 03:40 AM.

[kneelbeforezod]

As a side note, throughout this thread I keep emphasising the word "prefer", because thats all it is, a preference. If they hire a gay actor, you won't find me boycotting the film, or starting a petition, or protesting outside the offices of EON...

I'll be working with my boss, who is gay, tomorrow and I'll ask him about this subject. To be honest, I can imagine us having a right laugh about it. I know he won't be offended by my view and in response he'll probably DEMAND a gay actor play the part

But this whole thread got so serious when the "H" word was brought up. I just don't think gay people need oversensitive straight males riding to their defence.

[kneelbeforezod]

And as yet another side note, sure to send you all to sleep, I'd just like to say that I'm well aware that the "fear of" part of the homophobia definition does not literally mean homophobes are terrified of gay people (though I don't know, maybe some are!)... but it does mean a strong aversion to homosexuals. Just thought I'd mention it...

Anyway, I've gone on about this subject for far too long... I'll get my coat.

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 27 July 2006 - 03:20 AM.

[Stephenson]

Three things:

1. Kneelbeforezod: looking back at my post, I should have used the pronoun "one" instead of "you". I wasn't trying to refer to you personally, simply a general observation based on your definition.

2. It is the emotions that create the basis for "one's" preference for a straight actor that are irrational.

3. It is possible to engage in a homophobic act, and not be homophobic oneself. Just as an example, the majority of males have a strong aversion to having sex with another male, which is a homosexual act. By the definitions you used(which, of course, are the ones available), I could be considered a homophobe simply because I don't want to have sex with another man. How ridiculous is that? So I agree with marketmurphy that a new definition is needed. Likewise, a desire to have only a British actor play Bond, excluding all other nationalities (assuming the actor could portray the role as well as a Brit) could be technically be considered xenophobic.

Please don't think of me as an oversensitive straight male rushing to the defense of gays. Frankly, I don't think they need my help. Really, I'm just enjoying the twists and turns of logic in what I consider to be a good debate with intelligent people.

[kneelbeforezod]

1. Kneelbeforezod: looking back at my post, I should have used the pronoun "one" instead of "you". I wasn't trying to refer to you personally, simply a general observation based on your definition.

Please don't think of me as an oversensitive straight male rushing to the defense of gays. Frankly, I don't think they need my help. Really, I'm just enjoying the twists and turns of logic in what I consider to be a good debate with intelligent people.

Oh I know you didn't mean me personally, and I wasn't referring to to you either as an oversensitive straight male, that was directed at marktmurphy and a couple of others in this thread, but on reflection it's a flippant comment anyway, we shall strike it from the record

And as you say, it is a good debate with intelligent people.

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 27 July 2006 - 12:26 PM.

[dee-bee-five]

Given that Eon have Eon have looked at John Barrowman as a potential James Bond (I must look up the source), it appears they, quite rightly, have no problem with considering an openly gay actor.

He's a tremendous actor, especially on stage; and sensational as Captain Jack Harkness in Doctor Who.

Incidentally, he was on the shortlist to play Will in Will & Grace.

[Thunderfinger]

I don't think sexual preference would be an issue with the general public, although it might inform the producers' decision.

But as for Barrowman himself, he's too sanguine and rosy-cheeked, and not very imposing at all. He looks kind of like Conan O'Brien or Toby Stephens. I'd prefer someone with harder, darker features. And no dimples.

His acting calibre is also questionable. Most of his credits are for musicals. The rest seem to be soap operas and other low-budget fare (Megalodon, Titans). He seems way too young and inexperienced.

I agree with you 100%,Pussfeller.
Only I would say it much harsher.

[Thunderfinger]

For "The Hardy Boys"-yes,sure,why not?
For Bond-nope!,definitely not.

[dee-bee-five]

His acting calibre is also questionable. Most of his credits are for musicals. The rest seem to be soap operas and other low-budget fare (Megalodon, Titans). He seems way too young and inexperienced.

Leaving aside the rather absurd notion that an actor who specıalıses in musical theatre is somehow inferior when, actually, the opposite is true(and didn't a certain Mr. Connery appear in the West End production of South Pacific pre-Bond?), his acting ability is most definitely not in question. I've also seen him in non-musical theatre when he has been utterly compelling; a particular stand-out was the Patrick Hamilton play "Rope" at Chichester which he did with Anthony ("Buffy") Head.

As he's not been out of work since he was 21, he's hardly "inexperienced". And if he's "way too young", then so is Daniel Craig as they are much the same age.