23 replies to this topic

[Blue Eyes]

From the main page;

[quote]Good films have subtext. In the last part of this series on the subtext of various James Bond films, we took a look at the subtext 1967's You Only Live Twice. Then we mentioned this would be a three part series on sub-text; well it seems it will be a four part series instead.

In the second part of this series we'll take a look at the subtext of 1963's From Russia With Love.

Sex and the Secret Agent
The Subtext Of From Russia With Love
By John Cox

In From Russia with Love, James Bond is sent to Istanbul to sleep with a Russian cipher clerk in order to get a decoder machine.  "Just make sure you measure up," warns M.  The villain's plot?  Capture 007's sexual performance on film and use it to discredit the Secret Service when his "suicide" is discovered.  Kinky stuff?  You bet.  And there's more.  Much more.

From Russia with Love is really a catalog of "secret" sexual fetishes thinly veiled by the world of the '60s Secret Agent.  Think about it.  FRWL depicts sadism (making two fish fight to the death); oil massage (Grant on SPECTER island); S&M (Klebb's handy riding crop and brass knuckles); pimp prostitution (Bond and Tatiana are both ordered to have sex); sexual fixation (Tatiana falls in love with a photo of Bond "like young girls fall in love with movie stars"); lesbianism (Tatiana's

[zencat]

Mourning Becomes Electra (02 May, 2002 06:43 a.m.):
OK, maybe it's a gender thing, maybe it's just me, but that gypsy girl fight scene to me is pretty darn hokey.  I always expect them to start rolling around in the mud or a vat of green jello.  Maybe it's the idea of two beautiful women trying to kill each other over a man (who's evidently unfaithful and fickle) with the added incentive that some clothes might come off in the process that men find so erotic.  But it does nothing for me but slow down the film with a ludicrous catfight interlude, and it's the one part of FRWL that's I'd gladly have left on the cutting room floor.

This just proves my point. Why is this "ludicrous catfight interlude" in this movie? It does nothing to advance the primary plot. Why wasn't it cut? I say it's there because it serves the thematic "plot" (or subtext) of FRWL. "Catfighting" is a fetish, as bizarre to some as a foot fetish, but nevertheless, a fetish. That's why it was in the book (in an even more sexualized form -- the women are nude) and that's why it's in the movie and even on the poster. Because FRWL is ABOUT "secret" sexual fetish.

[Blue Eyes]

First I have to congradulate Zencat on another terrific article.

I'd also like to raise some points and thoughts (just try and stop me )

To begin with. I noticed very little of the subtext before reading the article. I had noticed slight innuendo's such as oral sex ala Tatiana's mouth.

Do I agree with John on what's he's mentioned? Absolutely.

He has the gypsy camp scene down to a T. I've always watched the scene with a sense of urgency as to what will happen. There's no doubt in my mind that as these people are Gypsy's that the two girls were fighting to the death. And do we want that? Of course not. These are two sexually alluring women. These are women who appear in every boys fantasies. May I drag in Cruel Intentions? What makes Sebastian so alluring to women is not merely the fact that he's good in bed but the fact that they think they can be the women who can tame him. And who here would like the chance to tame a wild girl? And yes, that is tame sexually!

We don't want them to die because we want the world to be filled with beautiful women, and the death of one beautiful woman is such a shame isn't it?

No doubt by now I'm sounding completely sexist.

I'd never looked at Grant with a sexuality, until I read this article and re-read Fleming's novel. Grant was no doubt a sadist, someone who takes pleasure in pain, in much the same way as Stamper (a pure re-creation of Grant) was in Tomorrow Never Dies. Moreover, in the novel Fleming has Grant as a man who is not interested in women whatsoever. The massues is naked (or just topless?), and a beautiful girl, yet Grant has never even shown a glimmer. And with the deleted scenes from the script, who could really doubt that Grant is a sadist? In creating Stamper in his novelisation of Tomorrow Never Dies I have no doubt that Raymond Benson looked to Flemings FRWL for inspiration.

FRWL is a sexually charged novel. Take a look at Kerim Bay's first girl (is it his first?) The gypsy who he kidnaps, ties up, and eventually tames (to the point that when she is released, she refuses to leave Kerim).

The only thing I have to ask John, did you have anymore. Your article has an almost 'abrupt' finish to it.

To John, and to everyone alike, forget the family values in this thread of the forums. Use the 'right' words (ie. don't be course) and say what you really think of From Russia With Love.

[Mister Asterix]

Wonderful article once again, John.

I do think that some of your list of perversities are a bit of a stretch, but then again I think you probably missed a few. The scene that comes to mind right away is Bond and Kerim deciding who gets to fire the rifle into Anita Ekberg's mouth, finally deciding that Kerim will fire the rifle with Bond's help.

And, as Eyes said, the character of Grant has always been a fascinating one. The sadistic homosexuality is the way Grant comes off in the film, but I've always taken the book's Grant as just pure deadly sadism. Fleming's Grant has had his sexuality replaced by the animal lust for the kill, even sporting an animal feature (the tail).

Even more symbolic in the book was the fact that when the final climax came Bond's gun misfired. (Though since he was trying to use it on Rosa Klebb, I can't say I blame him.)

[zencat]

Blue Eyes (26 Apr, 2002 12:02 p.m.):
The only thing I have to ask John, did you have anymore. Your article has an almost 'abrupt' finish to it.

I pretty much covered everything I saw, but I encourage people to look for more. Mr. * might be onto something with the "shooting" Anita in the mouth.

I'll be sending you Part IV, The Subtext of Goldfinger in the next few days Blue Eyes. This movie turned out to be very rich in subtext indeed.

[PaulZ108]

Incredible! FRWL is my favorite movie and I've always found it the "sexiest" Bond movie as well, but now I'll never look at it the same way again. It's amazing the symbolism that goes on in these films that most people don't even notice.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

Excellent article, zencat. I never thought of Grant being a sadist, but now think back to all of the scenes with him (especially the one where he's trailing Bond in the car with the driver in the back), and realise you have that down pat, along with the gypsy camp scene. I also hinted the lesbianism in Klebb, but who didn't? I can't wait for the Goldfinger article.

[Victor Zokas]

It's a good job the censors in the 1960s didn't et this subtext, or FRWL would never have seen the light of day.

[General Koskov]

The first three chapters of From Russia With Love are certainly Fleming's pinnacle of homicidal mania for a henchman. The way Grant's urges to kill are described as 'the feeling' is extremely sexual.

However there is no (correct me if I'm wrong) homosexuality between Bond and Grant as in the film. Grant merely shoots Bond and proceeds to kill Tatiana. In fact it seems--although this goes against all other references to Grant's 'sexual neutrality'--that Grant takes an extrordinarily long amount of time to shoot Tatiana, which gives Bond the time to prepare to strike with his Wilkinson's throwing-knife.

[General Koskov]

By the way, Zencat, aren't your articles on http://www.007forever.com ?

[Xenobia]

I am at a great loss here, having never read any of the Bond novels from cover to cover.

What I can say is how amazed I am that ABC allowed the Gypsy Girl fight scene to air when it last aired FRWL earlier this year. Between them painting clothing on Plenty O'Toole, and what they were planning for other similarly not clothed Bond girls, I am shocked that the fight scene made into their final cut that night. Perhaps the censors missed what Zencat so marvelously found.

The one thing I wish to talk about is Tatiana being smacked by Bond in real anger. I think as much as the male public needed "safe" violence, Bond needed to reassert his control, his physical control, over a woman who had just previously started to get some sort of emotional control over him.

In fact...I have found that whenever Bond gets violent with a woman its because he needs to assert physical control over someone who has gotten under his skin in another way.

I think perhaps the greatest argument against Bond's mysogyny lies in the very nature of his violence: it's his need to protect himself from a woman giving him pain that leads him to strike a woman. And let's remember...it's never more than a smack across the face, and it's never more than once. Once he knows he can control the situation, he moves on...and usually winds up with that girl anyway!

Once again Zencat you have written a marvelous article finding the hidden meanings that I just had not seen before in a Bond movie.

-- Xenobia

[RossMan]

I read it earlier today, truly fasinating article, zencat. Very interesting about the bit with Red Grant.

[General Koskov]

Another strange homosexual reference: that damned 'wave' at the end! I shudder every time I see it. Who waves to reels of film? No one! Not even a fruity Sean Connery!

[zencat]

General Koskov (27 Apr, 2002 12:01 a.m.):
By the way, Zencat, aren't your articles on http://www.007forever.com ?

An earlier version of "Below the Surface" first posted on 007Forever when it was part of Cinescape/Fandom, but I don't think it ever made it onto the new 007Forever site. Part IV (the Goldfinger chapter) is all new.

[The Girl With The Golden Gun]

"Of all sexual terrors, being on the end of a homosexual rape certainly ranks high. "
i'm sorry but while i agree there is a certain degree of homosexual attraction to 007, i don't totally go with the idea that Grant intends to rape him.

also, you state that the boat and chopper scenes diminish the sexuality - this may be true for the helicopters, but try this idea on for size. what about the shape of the boats? like cars, aren't they some kind of phallic symbol?

[zencat]

The Girl With The Golden Gun (27 Apr, 2002 01:05 p.m.):
"Of all sexual terrors, being on the end of a homosexual rape certainly ranks high. "
i'm sorry but while i agree there is a certain degree of homosexual attraction to 007, i don't totally go with the idea that Grant intends to rape him.

I don't mean that Grant is literally going to rape him...but there is an element of sexual tension in this scene that calls this to mind. I mean, if this were a real situation, and I found myself on my knees in front of sadist with a gun who starts talking about sex, I would certainly wonder if that was were this was going. I think anyone would. I would be flashing on every prison movie ever made. Hence the "fear of rape" is a very much a part of this scene.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I always felt that the scene in which Grant follows the MI6 contact into the train station public toilet highly suggestive.

Very good article, zencat.

I wonder how Roald Dahl would have handled the script to this one?

[Blue Eyes]

Yes a very good point BC. I've also found the same. There's something taboo about it. He's not following him into a dark alley, killing him in a park where there's no where around. It's in the toilet, in a crowded station. Which suggests that he probably kills him in a cubical.

[Jacques Nexus]

I'm sorry zencat but I can't agree with your theories there are hidden subtext to FRWL or YOLT. To me believing in subtext or the "hidden message" as you are alluding to is like believing in conspiracy theories. And as far as alluding to a "homosexual confrontation" between Grant & 007 is concerned where do you get these notions from ?.
Anyway zencat, I thought "subtext" in a movie was meant to be the "dramatic subtext" between the characters and not the so called hidden message ?.
BTW...you are talking to a guy who has always believed "OCTOPUSSY" is simply a clever take on the word "octopus" and nothing else .

[Blue Eyes]

I think you're being just a tad naieve in saying that, and no offence intended. But I think most everything has subtext. It's part of the subconscious. Why we do things and say things that have indirect meaning.

[General Koskov]

Jacques Nexus (01 May, 2002 01:43 p.m.):
BTW...you are talking to a guy who has always believed "OCTOPUSSY" is simply a clever take on the word "octopus" and nothing else .

You mean 'Octopussy' could mean something else? ???

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

OK, maybe it's a gender thing, maybe it's just me, but that gypsy girl fight scene to me is pretty darn hokey. I always expect them to start rolling around in the mud or a vat of green jello. Maybe it's the idea of two beautiful women trying to kill each other over a man (who's evidently unfaithful and fickle) with the added incentive that some clothes might come off in the process that men find so erotic. But it does nothing for me but slow down the film with a ludicrous catfight interlude, and it's the one part of FRWL that's I'd gladly have left on the cutting room floor.

Xenobia (27 Apr, 2002 12:17 a.m.):
The one thing I wish to talk about is Tatiana being smacked by Bond in real anger.  I think as much as the male public needed "safe" violence, Bond needed to reassert his control, his physical control, over a woman who had just previously started to get some sort of emotional control over him.

In fact...I have found that whenever Bond gets violent with a woman its because he needs to assert physical control over someone who has gotten under his skin in another way.  

I think perhaps the greatest argument against Bond's mysogyny lies in the very nature of his violence: it's his need to protect himself from a woman giving him pain that leads him to strike a woman.  And let's remember...it's never more than a smack across the face, and it's never more than once.   Once he knows he can control the situation, he moves on...and usually winds up with that girl anyway!
-- Xenobia

A smack in the face is enough for me to find it distasteful if it's suppossed to be some prelude to intimacy after Bond asserts his physical dominance so he doesn't feel so vulnerable. IMO that would show he's weak and rather pathetic and is unable to deal with or connect to women unless it's through physical force, and yes that would smack (pardon the pun) of misogyny. And I don't think that's true of Bond.

I don't think that's what Bond is doing in FRWL. I don't think he hits Tania because he's lost emotional control. He's upset about Kerim's death and he's confused, suspicious and angry at Tania's alleged part in it. But he's exerting force for a specific reason, to get information, just as he would a man, he's a spy, that's his job.

Yes he's a violent man and he deals with situations physically & violently, as you said it's pretty much gender neutral, but I don't see his hitting women as his need to re-gain the emotional upper hand or some prelude to or part and parcel of romance.

MBE

[zencat]

Jacques Nexus (01 May, 2002 01:43 p.m.):
I'm sorry zencat but I can't agree with your theories there are hidden subtext to FRWL or YOLT. To me believing in subtext or the "hidden message" as you are alluding to is like believing in conspiracy theories. And as far as alluding to a "homosexual confrontation" between Grant & 007 is concerned where do you get these notions from ?.
Anyway zencat, I thought "subtext" in a movie was meant to be the "dramatic subtext" between the characters and not the so called hidden message ?.
BTW...you are talking to a guy who has always believed "OCTOPUSSY" is simply a clever take on the word "octopus" and nothing else .

Hang in there with me through my GOLDENEYE analysis, Nexus. I think you'll see that the subtext (or theme, or hidden message, or whatever you want to call it) is quite obvious and conscious. It's a film where they almost "speak the subtext", which is note I sometimes get from producers. "John, you're speaking the subtext here." That always surprises me because sometimes it's the first time I realize that I even have subtext of my own work.

But I admit these YOLT and FRWL examples are pretty far out. This is heroin for movie fanatics. But GE is easy and may give you a nice little high, then you'll be ready to O.D. on my Goldfinger grand finale...which even has me asking, "Where the heck do I get this stuff?"

[ggl]

I was rereading one of the great Zencat´s articles and I wonder if are all of them somewhere on the net nowadays?