94 replies to this topic

[dodge]

CR contained one of the most overt gay subtexts--with Le Chifre ogling the naked Bond's bod. And gay characters have been in Bond films almost from the start: from Rosa Klebb to Mssrs. Kidd and Wint...Now there are rumors of a gay subtext in QoS.

I'd like to know:
1) Which directors, if any, besides Tamahori were gay or bi?
2) Is there any chance on earth that CraigBond could/would do a Jackal-style gay seduction?
3) Has the series' tone on the subject been growing more realistic?

[Righty007]

Do we know the sexuality of Marc Forster? Just wondering.

[DamnCoffee]

I think Forster is straight, but I could be wrong, as far as I know... he hasn't been married.

Though he is part of the HIV prevention campaign..

[box]Marc Forster was, together with Ren

[bond 16.05.72]

Wasn't Peter Hunt Gay?

[MkB]

1) I don't care and have no idea about the sexuality of the bond directors
2) I can't see Bond turning gay, being straight is deeply part of the character. But I can imagine Craig in a scene like the one between Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier in Ben Hur
3) Let's hope so... Gay characters in previous Bond movies were a real shame, just foils of Bond's straightness... Wint & Kidd anyoine? Come ooooooon!

[jaguar007]

I doubt we will ever see Bond doing a gay scene. As mentioned earlier, part of the character is Bond's womanizing ways. Fleming did have several gay characters in the books (some of which were subtely portrayed on screen) but Bond was never in a gay situation. The sexuality of the director does not matter (although Tamahori did make a prety gay Bond film, but in a different meaning).

[dodge]

1) I don't care and have no idea about the sexuality of the bond directors2) I can't see Bond turning gay, being straight is deeply part of the character. But I can imagine Craig in a scene like the one between Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier in Ben Hur
3) Let's hope so... Gay characters in previous Bond movies were a real shame, just foils of Bond's straightness... Wint & Kidd anyoine? Come ooooooon!

Hey, all due respect to your perfect right to remain ignorant on the matter. But some may be curious and not give a hoot of it's p.c. If it's okay to ask if a female could direct A Bond picture, then surely it's okay to wonder which, if any, gay directors have directed Bonds.

[coco1997]

1) I don't care and have no idea about the sexuality of the bond directors2) I can't see Bond turning gay, being straight is deeply part of the character. But I can imagine Craig in a scene like the one between Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier in Ben Hur
3) Let's hope so... Gay characters in previous Bond movies were a real shame, just foils of Bond's straightness... Wint & Kidd anyoine? Come ooooooon!

Hey, all due respect to your perfect right to remain ignorant on the matter. But some may be curious and not give a hoot of it's p.c. If it's okay to ask if a female could direct A Bond picture, then surely it's okay to wonder which, if any, gay directors have directed Bonds.

MkB it not being ignorant. I could care less if a gay man/woman ever directed a Bond film, personally. In the end it's irrelevant. If he/she turns out a quality film, then go right ahead. Just as long as he/she doesn't allow their personal tastes to leak in and ruin the film by turning it into something like "Brokebond Mountain", I'd be fine with it. Joel Schumacher pretty much killed and buried the 90's "Batman" series, and it didn't help that he added nipples and buttocks to the Batsuit and huge statues of naked men to Gotham City's cityscape.

Edited by coco1997, 14 April 2008 - 07:33 PM.

[MkB]

Hey, Dodge, I was not blaming you, I was answering your questions
That said, as coco1997 said, to me it's not a question of remaining ignorant or not, it's simply that IMO the question is irrelevant to the amount of "gay-friendlyness" in the movie (hence my lack of interest). It's a franchise, and such an important decision in terms of media/public impact belongs to Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, not to the director.

[dodge]

1) I don't care and have no idea about the sexuality of the bond directors2) I can't see Bond turning gay, being straight is deeply part of the character. But I can imagine Craig in a scene like the one between Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier in Ben Hur
3) Let's hope so... Gay characters in previous Bond movies were a real shame, just foils of Bond's straightness... Wint & Kidd anyoine? Come ooooooon!

Hey, all due respect to your perfect right to remain ignorant on the matter. But some may be curious and not give a hoot of it's p.c. If it's okay to ask if a female could direct A Bond picture, then surely it's okay to wonder which, if any, gay directors have directed Bonds.

MkB it not being ignorant. I could care less if a gay man/woman ever directed a Bond film, personally. In the end it's irrelevant. If he/she turns out a quality film, then go right ahead. Just as long as he/she doesn't allow their personal tastes to leak in and ruin the film by turning it into something like "Brokebond Mountain", I'd be fine with it. Joel Schumacher pretty much killed and buried the 90's "Batman" series, and it didn't help that he added nipples and buttocks to the Batsuit and huge statues of naked men to Gotham City's cityscape.

Coco, you're confusing ignorance and irrelevance. MkB admitted proudly ignorance on the matter: don't know and don't give a damn. If you share those sentiments, my blessings on you too. I have a curious mind, like some others here, and asked a question that is not irrelevant though you're indifferent to it. I champion the rights of gay directors to direct Bond films. The question was, and is: Has any gay director, besides Tamahori, directed a Bond film so far--and, while we're on the subject, was/were the film/films any good? If Peter Hunt was gay, then the matter is settled forever: sexual persuasion doesn't matter a jot.

[dodge]

Hey, Dodge, I was not blaming you, I was answering your questions That said, as coco1997 said, to me it's not a question of remaining ignorant or not, it's simply that IMO the question is irrelevant to the amount of "gay-friendlyness" in the movie (hence my lack of interest). It's a franchise, and such an important decision in terms of media/public impact belongs to Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, not to the director.

No offence taken, my friend--and I hope you took none at my response to Coco. Apparently, I was typing it as you were typing this. A lively discussion, not a fight here. I didn't mean 'ignorant' in a perjorative sense. I think indifference does sum up your positions better. I think still the question is valid and of interest, especially since CR aggressively pursed--imo--the gay audience as well as the straight. Dan--and Mike and Babs--knew what they were doing with the notorious blue swim suit. In any case, cheers to you and coco.

[Jim]

[quote name='Mharkin007' post='860382' date='14 April 2008 - 18:00']I think Forster is straight, but I could be wrong, as far as I know... he hasn't been married.

Though he is part of the HIV prevention campaign..

[box]Marc Forster was, together with Ren

[Trident]

[quote name='Jim' post='860563' date='15 April 2008 - 08:52'][quote name='Mharkin007' post='860382' date='14 April 2008 - 18:00']I think Forster is straight, but I could be wrong, as far as I know... he hasn't been married.

Though he is part of the HIV prevention campaign..

[box]Marc Forster was, together with Ren

Edited by Trident, 15 April 2008 - 08:29 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

I think Forster is straight, but I could be wrong, as far as I know... he hasn't been married.

Though he is part of the HIV prevention campaign..

Which doesn't make him gay in the slightest, just charitable.

1) I don't care and have no idea about the sexuality of the bond directors2) I can't see Bond turning gay, being straight is deeply part of the character. But I can imagine Craig in a scene like the one between Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier in Ben Hur
3) Let's hope so... Gay characters in previous Bond movies were a real shame, just foils of Bond's straightness... Wint & Kidd anyoine? Come ooooooon!

Hey, all due respect to your perfect right to remain ignorant on the matter. But some may be curious and not give a hoot of it's p.c. If it's okay to ask if a female could direct A Bond picture, then surely it's okay to wonder which, if any, gay directors have directed Bonds.

But with all respect Dodge (and I mean it - I don't always mind...just joking), being gay is not solely about polar opposites of being straight or married.

Off the record and completely in the camp marked 'personal speculation' I would suggest that we probably have ALREADY had a gay director do Bond.

Though Tamahori was neither gay or bi, but dabbling in a bit of cross-dressing. You don't need to be either to troll down to the nearest parking lot to try that one out...

I also feel - as I have done before on this site - that Daniel Craig's James Bond 007 is the first who would seduce / toy with a male counterpart in order to find information. Why wouldn't he? Craig would not bat an eyelid to bat onscreen for the other side. He's done it before and very well (LOVE IS THE DEVIL and INFAMOUS). The question might remain would ALL global territories accept that - and the answer is maybe not. But if DOCTOR WHO now gets near to getting jiggy with a man, then why can't Bond?

My only fear with this discussion Dodge (and not that you have conveyed this), but a lot of straight men (and probably women) who are Bond fans assume that 'being gay' is the polar opposite of Bond and Bond on screen when in fact the series has been gay friendly from the start. I don't mean via the likes of WINT and KIDD and maybe even DARIO and SANCHEZ, but the whole package (as it were) that a Bond film is made up of. Think about it....abundant torch song title tunes, a design ethic lead by the work of Ken Adam that most gay men would kill for, a character that appreciates the cut of suit as much as he does a fag-hag older woman and now - with Craig - a leading man who features heavily in many gay top tens and has already bucked a trend by being the totty himself - which NO Bond film has done before. Roger Moore, Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan are all presented as icons for women. But Daniel Craig is presented to both women and men in a way the Bond films haven't done before. Craig emerging from the sea in ROYALE speaks volumes about how progressed this new era of Bondage is right now. He was not in those trunks just for the women. Eon are not stupid. The pink pound is a tangible audience and a spectatorship that have been with Bond since day one. It's only now the lead actor has been allowed to acknowledge that.

[Zorin Industries]

CR contained one of the most overt gay subtexts--with Le Chifre ogling the naked Bond's bod. And gay characters have been in Bond films almost from the start: from Rosa Klebb to Mssrs. Kidd and Wint...Now there are rumors of a gay subtext in QoS.

Are there rumours of a gay subtext in QUANTUM OF SOLACE....? Cool!

LE CHIFFRE was a screaming nelly long before the torture scene. He clearly had an eye for the boys, hated physical violence and had no concern for the real welfare of his trophy arm candy, VALLENKA (who SO knew he was gay anyway, but was along for the ride regardless).

Whilst this is an interesting discussion (i.e. should a gay director direct a Bond film) I think the very question suggests that Bond film personnel have never had a gay or lesbian on board, when the reality is of course they have. And to diminish the discussion to polemics of either / or is always going to raise as many limitations as it helps remove.

[Zorin Industries]

MkB it not being ignorant. I could care less if a gay man/woman ever directed a Bond film, personally. In the end it's irrelevant. If he/she turns out a quality film, then go right ahead. Just as long as he/she doesn't allow their personal tastes to leak in and ruin the film by turning it into something like "Brokebond Mountain", I'd be fine with it. Joel Schumacher pretty much killed and buried the 90's "Batman" series, and it didn't help that he added nipples and buttocks to the Batsuit and huge statues of naked men to Gotham City's cityscape.


Why ON EARTH does anyone think that a gay director would turn a Bond film into BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?!!! I hope that comment had room for some humour amidst all that latent homophobia! And Joel Schumacher did not kill the BATMAN franchise. Warner Bros and greed over creative clout ruined that series. And I don't think nipples or buttocks are strictly confined to the gayers.... Did Bryan Singer homosexualise SUPERMAN RETURNS and X MEN 1 and 2...? And he's a gay director....Well, no he isn't. He's a director who happens to be openly gay.

If Joel Schumacher cannot get camp with BATMAN then who can?! Onscreen, its very heritage is based on one of the campest 1960's series ever. And when Tim Burton had exhausted the brilliantly gothic take on the comic book, returning to the more colourful world of that heritage was only natural. The only problem was that, by the time Clooney's enthusiasm had clearly waned in the role, so too had the audiences...

[stamper]

Last time I tried to start such thread, it got closed. It doesn't detract from the fact that Craig is all for "surprises" in his Bond movies, and have claimed we might have this sooner or later. Extracting information from a gay man by sleeping with him might make an earthquake in Bond fandom and lore, but could insure that the new movie goes beyond the 900 millions box office mark. Now, don't close this thread, all this PC crap is not what Bond flicks were made off initially, and the Bond books neither.
Schumacher is a bad director, that's all there is.

[Jim]

If he/she turns out a quality film, then go right ahead. Just as long as he/she doesn't allow their personal tastes to leak in and ruin the film by turning it into something like "Brokebond Mountain", I'd be fine with it.

Why ON EARTH does anyone think that a gay director would turn a Bond film into BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?!!! I hope that comment had room for some humour amidst all that latent homophobia!

Quite. "Their personal tastes". I mean, what? Not very latent, really.

Now, don't close this thread, all this PC crap is not what Bond flicks were made off initially, and the Bond books neither.

True enough, but swap the point to "Wheelchair" or "Black director" or "Director with Down's Syndrome" and people wouldn't dare try to get away with half the rubbish they espouse about this. I wonder why that is? NB I accept that I have likened this to perceived disability with two of these examples and have probably offended folk in doing so. Sorry. It's not a disability, it's not an inability, it's utterly nothing. The reason threads on this subject tend to get closed is because a ) the subject matter is as relevant as "What about a ginger-haired director then, eh? eh? eh? fnarr" and b ) for some unknown reason, it tends to bring out the worst in people.

Given the moderation power, I might change the word "gay" throughout the thread to "blond" and then we can see if it all looks ridiculous. I was going to change it to "ginger" but that's cockney rhyming slang and probably exacerbates the issue.

[Trident]

I also feel - as I have done before on this site - that Daniel Craig's James Bond 007 is the first who would seduce / toy with a male counterpart in order to find information. Why wouldn't he? Craig would not bat an eyelid to bat onscreen for the other side. He's done it before and very well (LOVE IS THE DEVIL and INFAMOUS). The question might remain would ALL global territories accept that - and the answer is maybe not. But if DOCTOR WHO now gets near to getting jiggy with a man, then why can't Bond?

Last time I tried to start such thread, it got closed. It doesn't detract from the fact that Craig is all for "surprises" in his Bond movies, and have claimed we might have this sooner or later. Extracting information from a gay man by sleeping with him might make an earthquake in Bond fandom and lore, but could insure that the new movie goes beyond the 900 millions box office mark. Now, don't close this thread, all this PC crap is not what Bond flicks were made off initially, and the Bond books neither.
Schumacher is a bad director, that's all there is.

Sorry, but I can't see that happen. Not because I would put it beyond a character that is as ruthless as Bond when it comes to gain information or achieve his goals. But because the initial effort in Bond's world would crash the credibility of such effort. Bond, being physical attractive may be adored by both sexes. But I doubt if this attraction stretches so far that he could believably seduce a homosexual man. There are some things that even Bond isn't able to do.

Of course all with regard to Bond's own universe. I have no doubt that Craig would be able to play a ruthless and dedicated agent that does whatever it takes to get his mission done. It just wouldn't be Bond.

But of course I may be proved wrong and we'll see that very thing one day, who knows?

Edited by Trident, 15 April 2008 - 10:05 AM.

[Loomis]

I think Forster is straight, but I could be wrong, as far as I know... he hasn't been married.

Though he is part of the HIV prevention campaign..

Which doesn't make him gay in the slightest, just charitable.

1) I don't care and have no idea about the sexuality of the bond directors2) I can't see Bond turning gay, being straight is deeply part of the character. But I can imagine Craig in a scene like the one between Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier in Ben Hur
3) Let's hope so... Gay characters in previous Bond movies were a real shame, just foils of Bond's straightness... Wint & Kidd anyoine? Come ooooooon!

Hey, all due respect to your perfect right to remain ignorant on the matter. But some may be curious and not give a hoot of it's p.c. If it's okay to ask if a female could direct A Bond picture, then surely it's okay to wonder which, if any, gay directors have directed Bonds.

But with all respect Dodge (and I mean it - I don't always mind...just joking), being gay is not solely about polar opposites of being straight or married.

Off the record and completely in the camp marked 'personal speculation' I would suggest that we probably have ALREADY had a gay director do Bond.

Though Tamahori was neither gay or bi, but dabbling in a bit of cross-dressing. You don't need to be either to troll down to the nearest parking lot to try that one out...

I also feel - as I have done before on this site - that Daniel Craig's James Bond 007 is the first who would seduce / toy with a male counterpart in order to find information. Why wouldn't he? Craig would not bat an eyelid to bat onscreen for the other side. He's done it before and very well (LOVE IS THE DEVIL and INFAMOUS). The question might remain would ALL global territories accept that - and the answer is maybe not. But if DOCTOR WHO now gets near to getting jiggy with a man, then why can't Bond?

My only fear with this discussion Dodge (and not that you have conveyed this), but a lot of straight men (and probably women) who are Bond fans assume that 'being gay' is the polar opposite of Bond and Bond on screen when in fact the series has been gay friendly from the start. I don't mean via the likes of WINT and KIDD and maybe even DARIO and SANCHEZ, but the whole package (as it were) that a Bond film is made up of. Think about it....abundant torch song title tunes, a design ethic lead by the work of Ken Adam that most gay men would kill for, a character that appreciates the cut of suit as much as he does a fag-hag older woman and now - with Craig - a leading man who features heavily in many gay top tens and has already bucked a trend by being the totty himself - which NO Bond film has done before. Roger Moore, Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan are all presented as icons for women. But Daniel Craig is presented to both women and men in a way the Bond films haven't done before. Craig emerging from the sea in ROYALE speaks volumes about how progressed this new era of Bondage is right now. He was not in those trunks just for the women. Eon are not stupid. The pink pound is a tangible audience and a spectatorship that have been with Bond since day one. It's only now the lead actor has been allowed to acknowledge that.

Excellent post, Zorin.

As for the (already much-discussed on this site and elsewhere) point about Craig "being the totty himself - which NO Bond film has done before", I'd slightly disagree with the idea that this is something unprecedented. Sure, the extent to which Craig is promoted as the totty seems history-making (with straight men, incidentally, appreciating his physique just as much as gay/bi men or straight women, although, of course, many straight guys may not be especially willing to acknowledge that Craig's bod has any visual appeal for them), but let's not forget how the makers of DR. NO and THUNDERBALL made plentiful use of a shirtless Connery. Isn't there a poster for THUNDERBALL (can't seem to find it online) which features a very "beefcake" drawing of Connery lying down and being given a massage while clad only in a skimpy towel - he's flexing his massive bicep while holding an enormous handgun. Nah, it's certainly not true that Craig was the first.

To respond to dodge's questions:

1) Which directors, if any, besides Tamahori were gay or bi?

Peter Hunt.

2) Is there any chance on earth that CraigBond could/would do a Jackal-style gay seduction?

No. Or, if it happened, it would have to be very brief and pretty much played entirely for laughs, for heaven forbid that anyone might think that Bond - even Craig's Bond - could ever genuinely harbour any such inclinations, even in a small way.

3) Has the series' tone on the subject been growing more realistic?

No idea. It's all very subjective, though - for example, I never thought Le Chiffre might be gay (or even Moon and Zao, who in my book are merely traditional Koreans with a strong Confucian streak). OTOH, I see an awful lot of gay subtext in GOLDENEYE.

[Loomis]

Why ON EARTH does anyone think that a gay director would turn a Bond film into BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?!!!

A film that was made by a straight director who's married with two children, fact fans.

[Simon]

Isn't there a poster for THUNDERBALL (can't seem to find it online) which features a very "beefcake" drawing of Connery lying down and being given a massage while clad only in a skimpy towel - he's flexing his massive bicep while holding an enormous handgun.

Yes there was, although this Italian poster was intially drawn with Connery naked and was only given a pair of shorts for released versions.

This shot shows the concept version.

Anyone interested in a good source of Bond poster images, although not as clearly and professionally rendered as in Art of Bond, go here.

[Loomis]

Cheers, Simon.

I'm sure there's another version of that poster, though - it's the same as the concept version, but Connery is wearing a towel (or, as you say, it may be shorts), and he and the woman are against a white background.

I remember this, because one of my best friends and I shared a room for a year in a hall of residence at university, and it was one of the posters we had on our wall. We were both straight and we both had girlfriends (let me make this 100% crystal clear: WE. WERE. BOTH. STRAIGHT. AND. WE. BOTH. HAD. GIRLFRIENDS!!!!!!!! AM I MAKING MYSELF CLEAR? And, yes, I am asking for a Fine, Upstanding Heterosexual medal!), yet we were not above putting this highly questionable image of a beautiful man on our wall. Makes yer think, dunnit?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Frankly, I found Sir Sean much nicer to look at than Tony Adams, which was one of my roommate's posters.

[dee-bee-five]

Bond, being physical attractive may be adored by both sexes. But I doubt if this attraction stretches so far that he could believably seduce a homosexual man. There are some things that even Bond isn't able to do.

On the contrary, Craig-Bond could have me any time he wanted...

Of course, as the old British joke goes, a straight man can always be persuaded to go gay after six pints of lager. I wonder how many martinis that equates to...?

[Zorin Industries]

I think Forster is straight, but I could be wrong, as far as I know... he hasn't been married.

Though he is part of the HIV prevention campaign..

Which doesn't make him gay in the slightest, just charitable.

1) I don't care and have no idea about the sexuality of the bond directors2) I can't see Bond turning gay, being straight is deeply part of the character. But I can imagine Craig in a scene like the one between Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier in Ben Hur
3) Let's hope so... Gay characters in previous Bond movies were a real shame, just foils of Bond's straightness... Wint & Kidd anyoine? Come ooooooon!

Hey, all due respect to your perfect right to remain ignorant on the matter. But some may be curious and not give a hoot of it's p.c. If it's okay to ask if a female could direct A Bond picture, then surely it's okay to wonder which, if any, gay directors have directed Bonds.

But with all respect Dodge (and I mean it - I don't always mind...just joking), being gay is not solely about polar opposites of being straight or married.

Off the record and completely in the camp marked 'personal speculation' I would suggest that we probably have ALREADY had a gay director do Bond.

Though Tamahori was neither gay or bi, but dabbling in a bit of cross-dressing. You don't need to be either to troll down to the nearest parking lot to try that one out...

I also feel - as I have done before on this site - that Daniel Craig's James Bond 007 is the first who would seduce / toy with a male counterpart in order to find information. Why wouldn't he? Craig would not bat an eyelid to bat onscreen for the other side. He's done it before and very well (LOVE IS THE DEVIL and INFAMOUS). The question might remain would ALL global territories accept that - and the answer is maybe not. But if DOCTOR WHO now gets near to getting jiggy with a man, then why can't Bond?

My only fear with this discussion Dodge (and not that you have conveyed this), but a lot of straight men (and probably women) who are Bond fans assume that 'being gay' is the polar opposite of Bond and Bond on screen when in fact the series has been gay friendly from the start. I don't mean via the likes of WINT and KIDD and maybe even DARIO and SANCHEZ, but the whole package (as it were) that a Bond film is made up of. Think about it....abundant torch song title tunes, a design ethic lead by the work of Ken Adam that most gay men would kill for, a character that appreciates the cut of suit as much as he does a fag-hag older woman and now - with Craig - a leading man who features heavily in many gay top tens and has already bucked a trend by being the totty himself - which NO Bond film has done before. Roger Moore, Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan are all presented as icons for women. But Daniel Craig is presented to both women and men in a way the Bond films haven't done before. Craig emerging from the sea in ROYALE speaks volumes about how progressed this new era of Bondage is right now. He was not in those trunks just for the women. Eon are not stupid. The pink pound is a tangible audience and a spectatorship that have been with Bond since day one. It's only now the lead actor has been allowed to acknowledge that.

Excellent post, Zorin.

As for the (already much-discussed on this site and elsewhere) point about Craig "being the totty himself - which NO Bond film has done before", I'd slightly disagree with the idea that this is something unprecedented. Sure, the extent to which Craig is promoted as the totty seems history-making (with straight men, incidentally, appreciating his physique just as much as gay/bi men or straight women, although, of course, many straight guys may not be especially willing to acknowledge that Craig's bod has any visual appeal for them), but let's not forget how the makers of DR. NO and THUNDERBALL made plentiful use of a shirtless Connery. Isn't there a poster for THUNDERBALL (can't seem to find it online) which features a very "beefcake" drawing of Connery lying down and being given a massage while clad only in a skimpy towel - he's flexing his massive bicep while holding an enormous handgun. Nah, it's certainly not true that Craig was the first.

I think what I was saying is that Daniel Craig is the first Bond actor who doesn't solely inhabit that heterosexual world of sexual representation. Granted, he is a classic ladies pin-up at the moment - but one with a polysexual appeal. Sean Connery was very much part of that straight 1950's view of heterosexuality. His Bond did not really adapt to the 1960's until DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER which was 1971. His Bond and the sexuality of that character was always very heterosexual. Connery's masculinity is not automatically endorsed by gay audiences. It is always hard to separate the actor from the role in this discussion, but Connery is uber 1950's male personified. That is not strictly what a gay audience latches on to. Connery as Bond was someone your Mum would fancy. Craig as Bond takes it out of that beefy and indeed very safe take on masculinity. He makes Bond both sexy AND sexual. There is a difference.

I think it is also about the shift in world attitudes to homosexuality - a marked and vital change that enables an actor like Daniel Craig to appear butt naked not only in arthouse fare such as LOVE IS THE DEVIL, but also in a Bond film. It is not just the censors who did not want to see Sean Connery naked in, say, DR NO. It would have been the male audience and no doubt Connery himself. And this is why I think Daniel Craig is vastly different in the role of 007. His BOND lives in a world of fit men and fit women. Why else would Mags Mikkelsen be an international model AND a Bond villain at the same time? I don't remember Donald Pleasance modelling pants in H&M.

I'm going off track here a bit, but a scaling down of the action and upping the emotion is not the only marked change we have seen in Bond since ROYALE. We now have a lead actor who is playing James Bond 007 in a completely new and different world - a world that puts him on a sexual pedestal as much as Eva Greene or Olga Kurylenko.

[dee-bee-five]

Straying off topic slightly, Ben Macintyre makes an interesting observation on page 160 of his new book For Your Eyes Only: Ian Fleming + James Bond: "Bond is pure heterosexual, from his brogues to his haircut, which cannot quite be said of Ian Fleming who had many gay friends and could be fantastically camp."

[Loomis]

I think what I was saying is that Daniel Craig is the first Bond actor who doesn't solely inhabit that heterosexual world of sexual representation. Granted, he is a classic ladies pin-up at the moment - but one with a polysexual appeal. Sean Connery was very much part of that straight 1950's view of heterosexuality. His Bond did not really adapt to the 1960's until DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER which was 1971. His Bond and the sexuality of that character was always very heterosexual. Connery's masculinity is not automatically endorsed by gay audiences.

Good points. Without wishing to court legal action, I'm led to understand that Connery may have something of a homophobic image in some quarters (Brosnan has also been accused of homophobia, BTW).... although this may, of course, be simply the sort of tabloid/fandom muckraking that attaches itself to any celebrity.

However, it's certainly no stretch to imagine Craig's Bond having a gay friend. If Wright's Leiter were gay, would Craig's 007 give a stuff? Of course he wouldn't, and he'd have some pretty withering putdowns for anyone who did. Now imagine Connery's Bond having a homosexual pal. Sad to say, but he'd probably rather die.

(Although I still say that the photographers and poster people who created those images of Connery.... well, as I'm sure you'd agree, some of them would have obviously known that there was more going on their work than might have met the eye of the "average" cinemagoer, and I'll wager that the producers knew it too. And unless Connery is a moron, he would also have been aware that his physique did not just appeal to heterosexual women, and it would seem that he allowed this fact to be exploited. Although whether he'd welcome anyone bringing this up is another matter.)

I'm going off track here a bit, but a scaling down of the action and upping the emotion is not the only marked change we have seen in Bond since ROYALE. We now have a lead actor who is playing James Bond 007 in a completely new and different world - a world that puts him on a sexual pedestal as much as Eva Greene or Olga Kurylenko.

It's certainly something that seems totally acknowledged in the Craig era, which is an era of positive change in all sorts of ways.

[dee-bee-five]

I think what I was saying is that Daniel Craig is the first Bond actor who doesn't solely inhabit that heterosexual world of sexual representation. Granted, he is a classic ladies pin-up at the moment - but one with a polysexual appeal. Sean Connery was very much part of that straight 1950's view of heterosexuality. His Bond did not really adapt to the 1960's until DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER which was 1971. His Bond and the sexuality of that character was always very heterosexual. Connery's masculinity is not automatically endorsed by gay audiences.

Good points. Without wishing to court legal action, I'm led to understand that Connery may have something of a homophobic image in some quarters (Brosnan has also been accused of homophobia, BTW).... although this may, of course, be simply the sort of tabloid/fandom muckraking that attaches itself to any celebrity.

However, it's certainly no stretch to imagine Craig's Bond having a gay friend. If Wright's Leiter were gay, would Craig's 007 give a stuff? Of course he wouldn't, and he'd have some pretty withering putdowns for anyone who did. Now imagine Connery's Bond having a homosexual pal. Sad to say, but he'd probably rather die.

(Although I still say that the photographers and poster people who created those images of Connery.... well, as I'm sure you'd agree, some of them would have obviously known that there was more going on their work than might have met the eye of the "average" cinemagoer, and I'll wager that the producers knew it too. And unless Connery is a moron, he would also have been aware that his physique did not just appeal to heterosexual women, and it would seem that he allowed this fact to be exploited. Although whether he'd welcome anyone bringing this up is another matter.)

I'm going off track here a bit, but a scaling down of the action and upping the emotion is not the only marked change we have seen in Bond since ROYALE. We now have a lead actor who is playing James Bond 007 in a completely new and different world - a world that puts him on a sexual pedestal as much as Eva Greene or Olga Kurylenko.

It's certainly something that seems totally acknowledged in the Craig era, which is an era of positive change in all sorts of ways.

Whether some fans want to hear this or not, the Bond franchise has always been one of, if not the, campest of action series right from the beginning. And Connery certainly appealed to the 1960s gay man. Just days before his death in 1967, the late great gay writer (and Queer icon) Joe Orton recorded in his notorious diaries wanting to go and see You Only Live Twice and giving up because of the queues outside the cinema.

Edited by dee-bee-five, 15 April 2008 - 01:39 PM.

[Trident]

The way I see it there has been a change in the audiences' reception of the Bond character since Connery's time. A change that also mirrors the general change of view society has had towards homosexuality. What would have started a major scandal in 50's/60's/70's and even as late as 80's headlines has become nothing more but an obscure sidenote that to many people (dare I say 'the majority'?) has no real significance any more. Likewise there is no need to deny Bond's appeal to male audiences (gay or hetero) any more. In fact, this appeal is cleverly hinted at and aides the film's success.

But there is a difference between acknowledgeing the character's general physique appeal and the characters behaviour within the limits of his essential being. I can easily imagine Craig's Bond having homosexual friends (as Fleming himself had). And I can even imagine Fleming's Bond having gay friends (although the literary Bond seemed rather indifferent to the matter and I dare say he wouldn't even care). But what is beyond my imagination would be a Bond that was trying to seduce a male target. Because I think the male target wouldn't fall for it. And because Bond would himself have his doubts about acting the part convincingly. After all, he's a killer, not an actor.

Edited by Trident, 15 April 2008 - 04:19 PM.

[stamper]

Brozza's homophobic ? I heard from many general public non-bond fans, that they think the Broz is probably gay (or act gay), hence their dislike of his Bond. Funny stuff.