18 replies to this topic

[Karloff]

I was thinking about how the Bond franchise evolves with the times and how it has always stayed relevant and modern even though Bond is essentially a very conservative character. I mean - my impression of Fleming is that he hardly was a liberal person and with his books he invented a world where the decline of the British empire really never took place. With Bond continuing to fight at the frontlines during the 70s and 80s the illusion that world peace was thanks to Britain was retained. In YOLT Bond even influenced the space race even though the UK didn't have a space programme. Why is Bond on that mission anyway? There aren't any British interests at stake! Anyway, I digress...

IMO Bond is at his core a representation of conservative values, which are manifested most clearly in the way Great Britain is portrayed and of course in the sexism and racism that to some degree plagued the earlier films. Beginning in the 90s however we began to see some progress. Instead of Bond answering to a bunch of old men (M, Tanner, Gray, et al) in a dusty office adorned with old imperial relics, Bond got a female boss. His women became more independent characters (or at least the goal of the filmmakers was to portray them as such). People of colour got more important roles (Robinson, Jinx, Eve Moneypenny) and even his enemies changed. Even though the bad guys of GE, TWINE and DAD can be seen as left overs from the Cold War, the War on Terror began to influence the films; Renard and Zao are frequently called terrorists even though they don't fight for any ideology or religion (they are non more terrorists than any other Bond bad guys) and Le Chiffre is referred to as "banker to the world's terrorists". 

 

Point being that the filmmakers have tried to continually keep Bond modern and up to date.

What we have lacked though is a good (and not evil) gay character. We have had gay characters in the franchise previously; Mr Wint and Mr Kidd are the most notable example. But their characters were hardly progressive and mainly played for laughs. Silva showed some homosexual tendencies, but (in a very Fleming way) these were played as something to threaten Bond and his heterosexuality. Bond's response to these threats was brilliant (and very un-Fleming).

 
But I for one would like to see how Bond (a very heterosexual character) would handle a gay ally. In Anthony Horowitz' Trigger Mortis Bond has a gay ally, but I felt this was handled rather poorly considering the book was set in the 50s and in Fleming's original timeline. It became something of a anachronism. This would however not be an issue in a Craig-era film, since these are set in the modern day.

Now, we have had glijmpses into the private life if both Craig's M (Dench) and Moneypenny and in both cases we see them share a bed with a person if the opposite sex. If the new M has a partner I would imagine that person being a women, since Fiennes' M to me is as heterosexual a character as Bond himself. Mallory to me is a callback to the male M of old. A conservative character. A man's man.

 
The one character I could imagine being gay though is Q. This is not because of the fact that the actor playing him is. But to me it would fit with his character. He is younger than Bond and sees 007 as somewhat of a relic of the past. Him being gay would add to the dynamic between the two of representing the old and the new. 

Looking back at the films I could even imagine Desmond Llewelyn's character being gay. He mentions "the kids" in DAF, but they don't have to be his kids. He could be their uncle (being 1971 I have a hard time seeing a gay couple having adopted children). Of course the dynamic between Bond and Q is different in the old films. Q isn't the young progressive nerd here. So there isn't really any reason for him being gay (other than that he reminds me very much of one if my friends who happens to be gay). 

But with Ben Whishaw's Q there is a possibility of having a great, modern and positive gay character in the series. I think it would modernise the films even more and would add to Q as a character and to his and Bond's relationship. 

So what do you guys think? Does the series need a gay character? And is Q the right one? 

[plankattack]

 

So what do you guys think? Does the series need a gay character? And is Q the right one? 

 

In this day and age, no, there shouldn't be an issue with the series having an openly gay character (what's that famous Seinfeld episode "Not that there's anything wrong with it" etc    ) and with Whishaw in a same-sex relationship it's an easy extension of presumption that his character could be.

 

But the more interesting conversation, and challenge for the filmmakers, is how does a character's sexuality affect plot and story-line. Pussy Galore was hinted at - almost a blink-and-you'll-miss-it reference; I think you only read into Bond's actions if you're aware of Galore's literary characteristics. Wint and Kidd most certainly are but it's almost played for laughs, and Silva is complexly modern. With the latter three, they also happen to be villains (heck, Galore is a semi-villain to start off with), along with a cross-dressing Blofeld from DAF. That they are villains heightens/excuses/explains/emphasizes/trumps, (pick your verb depending on the point you're trying to make), their sexuality.

 

Are EON ready for an expressly gay character to be an ally? And more importantly, are they ready for that facet of the character to be intricate to the plot? For the first, I don't see it as an issue. For the second, I'm not sure the filmmakers would really feel the need to make some societal statement in what is a PG-13 adventure/fantasy film. And unfortunately knowing EON, the first openly gay character to help Bond with their sexuality would probably end up in the sacrificial lamb role, just so the filmmakers could beat about the head with guilt anyone in the audience who might not be so modern in their world-view!

 

Other than Bond himself, the films have always avoided sexuality as a key plot point. You have Fiona Volpe claiming that she's no different to Bond in her indifference to their encounter and then Klebb's vague pass at Tatiana. If memory serves me right, that's it for two dozen films.

[Double Naught spy]

Karloff,

 

As someone who subscribes to Bret Easton Ellis' way of thinking, I have to ask:  Why this is an issue?  And, more importantly - other than giving bigots the opportunity to say, "See, they've 'minced-up' another minor character in order to appease the Political Correctness gods,"  what would this accomplish?  Yeah, I said 'minced-up,' because when a character is portrayed as "just happening to be gay" (i.e. devoid of all "gay' stereotypes), the hue and cry from the LBGT community is tragically comical.  So, I can only conclude that Q would have to be portrayed in some stereotypically "gay" fashion to satisfy their small-mindedness and avoid their criticism of his portrayal as being "gay-lite."  And before you balk at this, ask yourself:  Why are you so convinced that Desmond Llewelyn's Q was 'straight?'   Other than your pre-conceived (i.e. prejudiced) notions, based upon stereotypes on what constitutes how 'straight' males & 'gay' males should act and behave, you really have nothing to go on to prove Desmond's Q was straight.  

 

Back in the day, there wasn't a push to "make sure" the audience knew that Q was straight.  And for good reason - as much as I enjoy both incarnations of Q, he's just 007's gadget guy.  Honestly, after SPECTRE, I'm ready to relegate all of the MI6ers back into the office where they belong.  And the less we know about them, the better. 

 

Instead of half-measures like defining an otherwise asexual character such as Q as being homosexual (which again, will just give ammo to the equally small-minded bigots), why doesn't Hollywood do something bold, like creating a brand-new hero/super spy, who just happens to be gay?   In this day and age, do we honestly not think that the CIA, Mossad, MI6, etc. employ homo/bisexual agents to get chummy with the evil-doers across the world?  I mean, the bad guys can't ALL be heterosexual, right?  Therefore, the premise of a gay super-spy is legitimate; so let's not be afraid to roll the dice and see if the viewing public is ready for such a hero. 

 

Please know that I'm not attempting to berate you personally.  I think your overall goal is worthwhile; I just strongly disagree with your plan on how to accomplish it.

Edited by Double Naught spy, 11 December 2015 - 12:43 AM.

[Hockey Mask]

We don't know he's not.

[Single-O-Seven]

Unless it's essential to the character of Q - and the story - it's not really necessary to say either way. And I personally don't want to start tapping into the personal lives of the side characters any more than we may already have. Better it's not made an issue or item in the films simply because it's not needed - unless, of course, a brilliant story point calls for it to be needed then a decision can be made.

[Karloff]

As someone who subscribes to Bret Easton Ellis' way of thinking, I have to ask:  Why this is an issue?  And, more importantly - other than giving bigots the opportunity to say, "See, they've 'minced-up' another minor character in order to appease the Political Correctness gods,"  what would this accomplish?  Yeah, I said 'minced-up,' because when a character is portrayed as "just happening to be gay" (i.e. devoid of all "gay' stereotypes), the hue and cry from the LBGT community is tragically comical.  So, I can only conclude that Q would have to be portrayed in some stereotypically "gay" fashion to satisfy their small-mindedness and avoid their criticism of his portrayal as being "gay-lite."  

I don't share your view of the LGBT community. Maybe it's different in different countries. My impression is that it is characters that are portrayed as just normal people and not stereotypically gay that are the ones that are the best received. Look at films like like Brokeback Mountain, A Single Man, Dallas Byers Club, Gods and Monsters and even Dog Day Afternoon. All have main characters who just "happens to be gay" (even if their sexuality is a essential part of the story) and were critically successful and have been praised by the LGBT community. 

 

What it would accomplish is to round out the character of Q in the same way that knowing some of Moneypenny's or M's private lives did for their characters. I loved it in SPECTRE seeing Moneypenny at home. And I loved it that M mentioned her husband (who we saw i CR) in Skyfall. And I really liked Q talking about his cats in SPECTRE. So I like it when we get some insight into the characters. It makes them more believable and relatable.

It would also accomplish some diversity. I for one like it when the world in which Bond operates is believable. It makes the fantastical elements grounded in some way. Having a gay character would make Bond's world seem more real. 

 

 

 And before you balk at this, ask yourself:  Why are you so convinced that Desmond Llewelyn's Q was 'straight?'   Other than your pre-conceived (i.e. prejudiced) notions, based upon stereotypes on what constitutes how 'straight' males & 'gay' males should act and behave, you really have nothing to go on to prove Desmond's Q was straight.  

 

 

I just argued in the post above that I could imagine that he was gay! But your logic could be applied to all male characters in the series who's sexual life we know nothing about. Why do I think Bernard Lee's M was straight? Or Fredrick Gray? Or Quarrel? This has only to do with the times in which the films were made and who made them. The films were based on the stories of Fleming, who can't be called an advocate for gay rights ("He was sorry for them, but he had no time for them" to quote Goldfinger) and produced by white, wealthy, heterosexual males as something of a heterosexual male fantasy. This during a time when homosexuality was not an accepted thing and even illegal in England. The chances of something like that containing a progressive gay character is IMO slim. But I could of course be wrong.

 

And I am also a champion of the audiences' right to interpret a piece of fiction any way they like (despite the intention of the filmmakers) and therefore I could imagine Desmond's Q having a boyfriend. Maybe called Fred. 

 

 

 

Back in the day, there wasn't a push to "make sure" the audience knew that Q was straight.  And for good reason - as much as I enjoy both incarnations of Q, he's just 007's gadget guy.  Honestly, after SPECTRE, I'm ready to relegate all of the MI6ers back into the office where they belong.  And the less we know about them, the better. 

 

Instead of half-measures like defining an otherwise asexual character such as Q as being homosexual (which again, will just give ammo to the equally small-minded bigots), why doesn't Hollywood do something bold, like creating a brand-new hero/super spy, who just happens to be gay?   In this day and age, do we honestly not think that the CIA, Mossad, MI6, etc. employ homo/bisexual agents to get chummy with the evil-doers across the world?  I mean, the bad guys can't ALL be heterosexual, right?  Therefore, the premise of a gay super-spy is legitimate; so let's not be afraid to roll the dice and see if the viewing public is ready for such a hero. 

 

Please know that I'm not attempting to berate you personally.  I think your overall goal is worthwhile; I just strongly disagree with your plan on how to accomplish it.

 

OK, so we want different things. I can understand the opinion that M and his staff belongs behind a desk at MI6. I however don't mind seeing more of them out and about. I like to get glimpses into their private lives.

 

I agree that it is about time Hollywood gave us cool hero who happens to be gay. But I don't think that is a relevant point here. The hero in our franchise is Bond. And IMO he can't be gay. And I don't see it as a half-measure making Q gay. M was also an asexual character up until we saw her share a bed with a guy in CR. I was quite shocked seeing that scene for the first time, but I loved that it made M so human and believable. The same thing happened with Moneypenny in SPECTRE. That scene also added to her and Bond's dynamic (Bond being jealous etc).

 

Why not have a similar thing with Q? We don't even have to seem him in bed with a guy. He could just mention his boyfriend or have Bond calling him when he is on a date. And the reason for him being with a guy is diversity. I can find it quite boring that films are filled with the same kind of people. It isn't believable IMO.

I think it would add a lot to the character and films. And I don't really buy your argument about a potential outcry from the LGBT community.

 

Now, if one doesn't want or need anymore insight into the characters of the MI6 staff I fully understand your point of view. Making a character straight or gay, single or married, interested in ornithology or vintage cars etc, is totally misguided if you as an audience don't want to know these things. I, however, do. 

[hoagy]

WGAF

[DaveBond21]

And I am also a champion of the audiences' right to interpret a piece of fiction any way they like (despite the intention of the filmmakers) and therefore I could imagine Desmond's Q having a boyfriend. Maybe called Fred. 

 

 

 

 

I don't think it really matters. Any number of characters could have been gay in the past movies.

 

Desmond's Q seemed pretty happy to be in the company of Octopussy's girls even suggesting they catch up later on - "Later perhaps".

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

[seawolfnyy]

Who cares if he's gay or not? It doesn't matter for the story or his character. If he's gay, great. If not, great. It doesn't matter.

[Surrie]

Who cares if he's gay or not? It doesn't matter for the story or his character. If he's gay, great. If not, great. It doesn't matter.

 

Well said. 

[marktmurphy]

He's more into his cats.

 

 

But seriously: don't forget Bond's gay moment in Skyfall. Probably affected for Silva's benefit, but this Bond seems pretty relaxed with sexuality. I don't see why he wouldn't, it's not as if he doesn't get around a bit.

[Surrie]

He's more into his cats.

 

 

But seriously: don't forget Bond's gay moment in Skyfall. Probably affected for Silva's benefit, but this Bond seems pretty relaxed with sexuality. I don't see why he wouldn't, it's not as if he doesn't get around a bit.

 

I think this is a conscious effort of MGW and Babs to demonstrate how Bond is 'not a relic of the Cold War'... anymore...

[Dustin]

It was also an elegant way to address that Bond - in sharp contrast to some characters in the real world - is not a homophobe and doesn't go mental at the mere suggestion of homosexual intercourse. At the same time it served the purpose of showing Bond's confidence and control even under less than fortunate circumstances. As such it had real and lasting influence on the story of SKYFALL and Bond's character in general. Just the opposite of the infamous and pointless gaying of Peter Guilam in TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY, which was indeed only a gimmick. In general it's best to use such glimpses sparsely and only when necessary. There is no reason why most given characters in any story could not be gay - only why would we need to know about it? When there is no proper reason to make it an item - best leave it alone.

[sharpshooter]

Yep. We just know this Q has pet cats, a fear of flying and a liking for technology. Anything else is left unsaid. And I have to say, as a fan of John Cleese, Whishaw leaves that incarnation in the dust. He's charismatic and likeable. Hopefully he stays with the franchise for a while yet.

[dtuba]

I thought it was a given that he was.

 

Either way, fine by me.

Edited by dtuba, 11 March 2016 - 03:45 AM.

[tdalton]

I thought it was a given that he was.

 

Why?

 

There doesn't seem to be anything in either Skyfall or Spectre to make a judgment one way or the other.

[Dustin]

Well, at first Bond mistakes Q making contact at the museum as a pass on him, at least that's my reading of it. Still, hardly what one could call proof either way. To me Q is just played geeky-nerdy in a restrained way. He could be anything and that's really all we need to know about him. 

[hilly]

I never got the impression that Desmond's Q was gay ( the reference to his kids in Diamonds Are Forever for starters. Nowadays it is entirely possible that a gay man would have children and audiences wouldn't bat an eyelid. I doubt that would have been the case in 1971....).

Not sure about Whishaw's Q. (And I had never really picked up on the thought that Bond may have felt hit on at the National Gallery in Skyfall).

I guess the notion of him sipping Earl Gray surrounded by his cats, his nervousness, his fear of flying etc may convey a certain image to some, but it's not exactly conclusive.

Maybe we are being led by the fact that the actor is gay. But then again, so was Alec McCowan and I have never seen a similar debate about Q  in NSNA..

 

As others have said, it's ultimately of no consequence

[tdalton]

Very much agreed with the above post.  

 

I don't care one way or the other, as it truly isn't an issue whether he is or isn't, I just don't remember seeing anything in the films that would cause the viewer to reach any kind of informed conclusion on the matter in either direction.