tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52761062798252645422024-02-20T08:21:13.736-07:00RemarkageJim Zittlawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09631477670703821690noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276106279825264542.post-51024771879051877612017-02-04T12:00:00.001-07:002023-12-11T09:17:44.183-07:00Crazy Ex-Girlfriend: Top 10 SongsThere’s little in this world that gets me higher than singing and dancing. Sometimes I do these things, badly, when I’m alone. Otherwise, I get my fix of singing and dancing from watching <i>Crazy Ex-Girlfriend</i>, the fantastic musical comedy that currently airs on the CW and stars Rachel Bloom (who is also co-creator, executive producer and writer of episodes and songs).<br />
<br />
The show’s a lot more nuanced than the title suggests – indeed, one of its <i>raisons d'être</i> is to deconstruct the "crazy ex-girlfriend" stereotype – and the original songs pack a wide range of emotion and comedy into every genre imaginable, as well as pastiches of pop music and musical numbers. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw8jao3J727QjLdGwOqeEqLL7_XJrCWx2heQJ67cBnJeIl3MBZr-3VOtmxcvIt805YwaEh8XV9Jhvy7ZjiXZalVSXCleRMoM3WzsOtWqidQXykOOFvpjnUQ41Yx97f5ecun95DGGu77gbi/s1600/cactus.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw8jao3J727QjLdGwOqeEqLL7_XJrCWx2heQJ67cBnJeIl3MBZr-3VOtmxcvIt805YwaEh8XV9Jhvy7ZjiXZalVSXCleRMoM3WzsOtWqidQXykOOFvpjnUQ41Yx97f5ecun95DGGu77gbi/s400/cactus.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Rachel Bloom as Rebecca Bunch in </i>Crazy Ex-Girlfriend</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
In the interest of showing <i>Crazy Ex-Girlfriend</i> some love, I’ve assembled a list of my favourite songs – some hilarious, some heart wrenching, some both. In the interest of brevity, I’ve limited my list to a top 10, even though I could have easily done 10 more. Here it is (click each song title to watch the video):<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>10. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TQmo5TvZQY" target="_blank">JAP Battle</a></b></span></span><br />
<br />
In "JAP Battle," two archenemy Jewish lawyers go toe to toe in a rap battle that’s stuffed with Yiddish words and legal jargon. Rachel Grate and Rachel Bloom excel at showing contempt for each other’s characters, and all the hyper-specific terminology is hilarious (even if I did have to look some of it up). One line in particular involving the phrase “sheket bevakashah” – Hebrew for “quiet, please” – is devilishly clever. In the end, Grate gets the last word in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TQmo5TvZQY" target="_blank">"JAP Battle"</a> in the song’s best lines: “You want to get salty like the Dead Sea? Word / But call off the suit or you’re dead, c-word.”<br />
<br />
<b>9. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2lmojePnA0" target="_blank">Put Yourself First</a></b><br />
<br />
A send-up of pop culture that tries to offer female empowerment while still appealing to men, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2lmojePnA0" target="_blank">“Put Yourself First”</a> tells women to put themselves first… but in a sexy way. The song makes the simple yet crucial point that the beauty industry is rooted in the male gaze and objectifies women. It’s great to see this valuable idea expressed so clearly and in such an amusing fashion in the lyrics and video. The song also happens to be catchier than the song it takes inspiration from (Fifth Harmony's "Worth It").<br />
<br />
<b>8. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmbLB4OIuao" target="_blank">Settle for Me</a> / <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxaZ7HThc00" target="_blank">Don’t Settle for Me</a></b><br />
<br />
If Cole Porter’s “You’re the Top” achieves flattery at the singer’s expense, then <i>Crazy Ex-Girlfriend</i>’s similar <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmbLB4OIuao" target="_blank">“Settle for Me”</a> skips the flattery and jumps right to self-deprecation in a sad attempt at seduction. Settling in love is such a relatable concept, and the song works from the point of view of both the settler (Rebecca, who loves another man) and the settled-upon (Greg, who knows he’s choice number two). Add Santino Fontana’s tap dancing, which ably matches the nimble tread of the feet of Fred Astaire, and you’ve got a classic.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5nYmAxMSgYvp1k7zCsX9iYsO7YocdBlAZux-YMHLUTa20VHCEbBE2uUJh8WIJw9pgLX06AIglwVaP8nVskQX-IKuZK5lFb99P_9nH9QvENZpw8qeau-pue6UDiGONs00yO0bWqw5hVFCq/s1600/settleforme.jpg"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5nYmAxMSgYvp1k7zCsX9iYsO7YocdBlAZux-YMHLUTa20VHCEbBE2uUJh8WIJw9pgLX06AIglwVaP8nVskQX-IKuZK5lFb99P_9nH9QvENZpw8qeau-pue6UDiGONs00yO0bWqw5hVFCq/s400/settleforme.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The song’s status is further cemented by its reprise <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxaZ7HThc00" target="_blank">“Don’t Settle for Me,”</a> a cool counter to the original that says simply, “I’m way too badass to be someone you settle for.” Vella Lowell injects so much personality into the 40-second vocal, and her voice deserves way more airtime than it’s received so far on the show.<br />
<br />
<b>7. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e7844P77Is" target="_blank">Gettin’ Bi</a></b><br />
<br />
When Darryl Whitefeather comes out as bisexual, it’s a big deal. To him, anyway, and he calls a staff meeting so his employees can hear all about it.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUZMSnOoh7OQorfDY2UActwk8S85xKI7l-oB7xvHg2vDyaqIFihUvWorjsqW9pLQKfja-VIiIjOK8dyN-cKmvnoDtuXZk5beIZ-Dz0aROxG2_gSYSqLmOyo9tV0H7csANpnsdwWlEawME9/s1600/gettinbi.jpg"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUZMSnOoh7OQorfDY2UActwk8S85xKI7l-oB7xvHg2vDyaqIFihUvWorjsqW9pLQKfja-VIiIjOK8dyN-cKmvnoDtuXZk5beIZ-Dz0aROxG2_gSYSqLmOyo9tV0H7csANpnsdwWlEawME9/s400/gettinbi.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
His song is kind of a big deal, too. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e7844P77Is" target="_blank">“Gettin’ Bi”</a> is an exuberant ode to owning and accepting who you are – and it’s made all the more special by its specificity. Bisexuality is rarely depicted this accurately on TV (as Darryl explains: “It’s not a phase, I’m not confused”) or with so little angst.<br />
<br />
<b>6. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HayIkHCXTBM" target="_blank">What’ll it Be?</a></b><br />
<br />
This was the show's first song in which protagonist Rebecca is nowhere to be seen, as Greg sits down at a piano that has spontaneously manifested and belts out a song about his feelings. Aside from a brief nod to the situation’s unrealism (“I’ve never played piano before,” which is both funny and matches the idea that he has untapped potential), <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HayIkHCXTBM" target="_blank">"What'll it Be?"</a> is a straightforward expression of Greg's inner state: bitter and cynical, but also earnestly yearning for a life that’s more than serving drinks in West Covina. It's a perfect character song.<br />
<br />
<b>5. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJg1zRgkbno" target="_blank">Where’s the Bathroom</a></b><br />
<br />
After we’ve seen a few glimpses of Rebecca’s mother living in New York and in flashbacks to Rebecca’s childhood, she finally storms onto the show in full force as Tovah Feldshuh delivers a breathless string of nags that builds and builds and builds. Just when you think it’s over, it’s hilariously not – and when the nagging does run out of steam, don’t worry, Rebecca’s mom has a lot to say about the Jewish temple’s boycott of cheddar cheese, too. I’m a big fan of characters and jokes that insist upon themselves, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJg1zRgkbno" target="_blank">“Where’s the Bathroom”</a> gets the intro of Rebecca's insistent mother just right.<br />
<br />
<b>4. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBz8wobOaoc" target="_blank">We Tapped That Ass</a></b><br />
<br />
In this number, Rebecca is haunted by “ghosts” of her ex-boyfriends (played by Santino Fontana and Vincent Rodriguez III), who gleefully bro out over their mutual pastime of banging, nailing and screwing Rebecca on every surface in her apartment.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxf7tIHoeJYnVsKOxc_tWaSevGDjQFoj0wF3DsfLFqR4Y_BGLNLg7HDwoCWHJC43L9otRzNVmMaCbxOx8qqdJjXjqo0UP5Uj-PfPoMl5Uw-nsdT9skDy9BSp7SJkJhQUdaqlO6i6iF5UbW/s1600/tapped.jpg"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxf7tIHoeJYnVsKOxc_tWaSevGDjQFoj0wF3DsfLFqR4Y_BGLNLg7HDwoCWHJC43L9otRzNVmMaCbxOx8qqdJjXjqo0UP5Uj-PfPoMl5Uw-nsdT9skDy9BSp7SJkJhQUdaqlO6i6iF5UbW/s400/tapped.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The song’s core feeling rings true – you can’t escape memories of your past partners – and it’s packaged in wordplay, visual wit, narrowly avoided vulgarity and a cheeky touch of the absurd. In short, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBz8wobOaoc" target="_blank">"We Tapped That Ass"</a> is peak <i>Crazy Ex-Girlfriend</i>. If you’ve never seen the show and you watch only one song on this list, make it this one.<br />
<br />
<b>3. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkAjUBtn_TM" target="_blank">Love Kernels</a></b><br />
<br />
Too many of us have been there: you love someone more than they love you, so you end up clinging to any scrap, crumb or kernel of validation they will toss you. I’ve never seen this idea expressed better in song than in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkAjUBtn_TM" target="_blank">“Love Kernels,”</a> which sees Rebecca trying to convince herself that a metaphorical bowl of popcorn (or even just a handful – she’ll take what she can get) is all the love she needs.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSl7aEIDX8w8ocSXixa2vfssz9F_UGahBUh1DYzsCDLZPjrZdYTdGDD8t31hf6q52BYNC9eZm84J78VVAD1fT0DXBQRmcGEIe9bFata-V7roEMLKU5xOGQSO-yrV9N9Ob4KAEMYlVGXTtd/s1600/kernels+copy.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSl7aEIDX8w8ocSXixa2vfssz9F_UGahBUh1DYzsCDLZPjrZdYTdGDD8t31hf6q52BYNC9eZm84J78VVAD1fT0DXBQRmcGEIe9bFata-V7roEMLKU5xOGQSO-yrV9N9Ob4KAEMYlVGXTtd/s400/kernels+copy.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Rachel Bloom’s line deliveries and facial expressions are perfect at selling this idea as the height of epic romance. If you’ve been there before but no longer settle for crumbs of love, the song is a dark delight; if you’re there right now, maybe it’s a wake up call. Either way, you’re not the only one who's been there, and “Love Kernels” proves it.<br />
<br />
<b>2. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8jU2oQTy5Y" target="_blank">I Love My Daughter (But Not in a Creepy Way)</a></b><br />
<br />
No song on <i>Crazy Ex-Girlfriend</i> makes me laugh more than the country music parody <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8jU2oQTy5Y" target="_blank">"I Love My Daughter."</a> Pete Gardner portrays a sweet, affectionate father who’s trying really hard to express how much he loves his daughter. But all the creepy clichés of patriarchal father-daughter love keep biting him in the ass, and he becomes increasingly defensive as the video piles on sugary stock footage of girls riding horses, playing in fields and dancing with their dads at weddings. Finally, he just drops the whole thing, conceding that having a daughter is weird. (However, it is NOT weird when she helps daddy trim his beard. Let’s just get that straight.)<br />
<br />
<b>1. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92538NJ0lbE" target="_blank">West Covina</a> / <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8XuQbzoFss" target="_blank">West Covina (Second Reprise)</a></b><br />
<br />
When non-ingénue Rebecca arrives in unglamorous West Covina, California, the first season’s central premise is established: she moved to be with her old summer camp boyfriend, Josh, in an attempt to find happiness… but she won’t admit it to anyone. When I first started watching this show, I wasn’t sure what to expect. But when <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92538NJ0lbE" target="_blank">“West Covina”</a> finished with a crowd of dancers backing Rachel Bloom while she’s hoisted into the air on a giant pretzel, I was completely sold.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0qGRVlNeL98A62mpilnKqnIhetvVTafJVLDgAcqr2PEiyqWcjJQEP0QrtoDNq5UFjk0LnA8GwVSkOYL-ZXysuZwGNQbr2Pi3943vQgBLkLKHxQJ_7xRBkIBlOdAbo-CoZDB13lMpSTMWj/s1600/pretzel.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0qGRVlNeL98A62mpilnKqnIhetvVTafJVLDgAcqr2PEiyqWcjJQEP0QrtoDNq5UFjk0LnA8GwVSkOYL-ZXysuZwGNQbr2Pi3943vQgBLkLKHxQJ_7xRBkIBlOdAbo-CoZDB13lMpSTMWj/s400/pretzel.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
However, what really makes “West Covina” my number one <i>Crazy Ex-Girlfriend</i> song is its <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8XuQbzoFss" target="_blank">second reprise</a>, which occurs after Rebecca halfway tells the truth and admits she moved to West Covina to find happiness. Of course, she doesn’t admit that she equates happiness with dating Josh – but in a way, her admission cuts closer to the truth of things. She’s just another complicated, messed up person looking for happiness in her own way.<br />
<br />
There is so much happy-sad packed into the amazing second reprise of “West Covina.” Happy because Josh is warm and accepting of the truth; sad because Rebecca hasn’t told the whole truth. Happy because Rebecca has started on the road to happiness; sad because Josh is more likely a roadblock than the destination. Happy because Josh and Rebecca could be good for each other in a healthy friendship; sad because they use each other for selfish romantic validation instead.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwLqUJbQHJyKPX3Af39KaeE050MQZMXs8N7phQiFH1kt_axXc8Lve1ctPOMV8Mwp6rWTzzBk5TI_wyNn4a6dSJNV2ruMdsUbE2tbIk7i-0Wwdq5JnK0fCd6QjxBfMVepM1yIVItrQe-1qx/s1600/westcovina+copy.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwLqUJbQHJyKPX3Af39KaeE050MQZMXs8N7phQiFH1kt_axXc8Lve1ctPOMV8Mwp6rWTzzBk5TI_wyNn4a6dSJNV2ruMdsUbE2tbIk7i-0Wwdq5JnK0fCd6QjxBfMVepM1yIVItrQe-1qx/s400/westcovina+copy.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Rachel Bloom has said the reprise demonstrates that Rebecca and Josh are both “children who just want to live in the past together.” It's got a sort of Disney sweetness, with sunlight magically flooding into the scene when they sing. But I think the reprise is made far more complex by all the things Josh and Rebecca won’t admit to each other or to themselves. And when you add the contrast between Josh’s bright, clean vocal tone and Rebecca’s beautifully deep vocal tone, and the fact the characters are singing the same words in harmony (“It's not just a coincidence, it isn't just by chance / It's logical, it's obvious, it all makes perfect sense”) while meaning different things with their words… It kills me. Like the show, the reprise is crazy nuanced.Jim Zittlawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09631477670703821690noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276106279825264542.post-24204668989610966372015-11-09T20:54:00.000-07:002017-01-02T23:30:49.652-07:00The Perfect Pop SongIf I had to choose one word to describe my personal brand, it would be "timeliness." For example, you thrilled when I wrote about <i>Skyfall</i>'s controversial bisexual Bond <a href="http://remarkage.blogspot.ca/2014/07/homophobia-in-skyfall.html" target="_blank">two years after the film came out.</a> You delighted when I shared a crazy fan theory about <i>The World's End</i> <a href="http://remarkage.blogspot.ca/2014/09/the-worlds-end.html" target="_blank">a full year after its release.</a> And you reacted positively when I speculated on the nature of Dan Harmon and Mitch Hurwitz's collaborative project <a href="http://remarkage.blogspot.ca/2015/01/community-development.html" target="_blank">ten months after it was first reported.</a><br />
<br />
So what compels me to write a new post for <i>Remarkage</i> after abandoning the blog for so long? Simple. Today, I return to blogging with perhaps my most timely post ever. Today, I'm going to explain why Elton John's 1972 single "Tiny Dancer" is a perfect pop song. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKcTJlpizFUe5meNpfpVgAcXUT9O1He1ioWEgZfGC6UouNmNVlSun-VN1Afepeku0BFgSAthhARQCI3Ib-2y7ir4cI3MiY_10W_vM3HZDkDYd1EVkHFgoA593vNhcDLC4MSM6dmkF6Tu9j/s1600/eltontinyd.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKcTJlpizFUe5meNpfpVgAcXUT9O1He1ioWEgZfGC6UouNmNVlSun-VN1Afepeku0BFgSAthhARQCI3Ib-2y7ir4cI3MiY_10W_vM3HZDkDYd1EVkHFgoA593vNhcDLC4MSM6dmkF6Tu9j/s320/eltontinyd.jpg" width="314" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>"Tiny Dancer" was released exactly 43 years, 9 months, and 3 days ago today!</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Let's get to it. For me, two questions determine whether a pop song is satisfying. First: does it offer enough musical repetition to create a comforting predictability? As Elizabeth Hellmuth Margulis notes in a <a href="http://aeon.co/magazine/culture/why-we-love-repetition-in-music/" target="_blank">fascinating article</a> (the first result when you Google "why do we like repetition in music"):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Repetitiveness actually gives rise to the kind of listening that we think of as musical. It carves out a familiar, rewarding path in our minds, allowing us at once to anticipate and participate in each phrase as we listen."</i></blockquote>
So repetition is pleasurable. It makes you feel clever for knowing what's next and then tapping & humming along when it comes (I have a distinct memory of being thrilled I could predict music when I was a young child). But pure repetition is boring. Which leads me to my second question: does said pop song also introduce enough variation to "hook" your attention right till the end?<br />
<br />
Elton John, sitting at a piano and staring down an empty music sheet, responds to these two questions with "Tiny Dancer" — a virtuoso pop production that perfectly balances ear-pleasing repetition and ear-pricking variation.<br />
<br />
First up, repetition. Of course, there's a constant return to the same basic musical ideas, like any pop song. But there's more. The best pop songs are so rewarding they beg to be repeated right when they finish. With "Tiny Dancer," Elton rather cheekily assumes you'll want to hear the entirety of the song's ideas (verse, pre-chorus, and chorus) again, then gives you no choice in the matter. A complete, whole, 3-minute song is essentially played twice, so the entire recording clocks over 6 minutes. No need to reset the record, or put the MP3 on repeat. It's the ultimate in comforting repetition.<br />
<br />
Elton lays down the song's two-for-one structure, playing <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL90Tkof-9s" target="_blank">solo on piano.</a> It's then up to producer Gus Dudgeon (who oversaw Elton's prolific 1970-'76 output of an album or two every year, as well as almost twenty top 40 singles) to transform a great song into a great pop recording. Dudgeon describes <a href="http://www.eltonjohnitaly.com/dudgeon.html" target="_blank">his contribution to Elton's music:</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Once Elton had done what he had to do, which was play piano and sing, he left. [...] Whatever you hear on the records that's over and above the essential construction of the song is down to myself and whoever else was working in the studio."</i></blockquote>
So what exactly did Dudgeon add to the recordings? You guessed it: variation. Recording engineer David Hentschel describes <a href="http://www.eltonjohn.com/engineer-david-hentschel-talks-about-goodbye-yellow-brick-road-part-3/" target="_blank">the producer's approach:</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Gus wanted a mix to be so that when someone is listening to it for the first time there is always something new to catch the ear. Probably you’d leave the first verse alone, because people are getting used to it — and getting in the mood. And then the chorus. Then when you get to the second verse, you don’t want the same thing again as the first verse, so you start introducing other sounds in between lines. [...] And by the end you have everything going together and everything’s grown in intensity and volume (and in some cases complexity of playing as well) and that’s what gives you the dynamic build of the song. Keeping the listener’s interest, basically, is what it’s all about."</i></blockquote>
"Tiny Dancer" typifies this approach:<br />
<ol>
<li>The first verse features vocals and piano, then steel guitar is added.</li>
<li>Drums and bass walk in after the verse.</li>
<li>Verse two sees guitar licks between the vocal lines, then a backing choir joins.</li>
<li>A dramatic, breathless pre-chorus melts into a sugary chorus, where a transcendent string arrangement is finally introduced.</li>
</ol>
When Elton plays the song's core a second time, all these elements sing together. Drama builds as the strings play call-and-response with the vocal line, until the final pre-chorus becomes an accelerating heartbeat of dark string pulses and drum fills. (I've edited the first and second pre-choruses together so they can be <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3r0fCrhAPE" target="_blank">compared here</a>.) The track ends with the first verse and chorus repeated again, sounding both familiar and new. (The first verse's appearances are <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMOopfyk-gY" target="_blank">compared here</a>.)<br />
<br />
I was spoiled by hearing Elton's 1970s pop recordings when I was young. Since then, nothing but the Beach Boys have been so pleasing and interesting to my ear.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmwbHk4Kau4zAuENWFKnHwksFigBR-S8WjgwygCo7kcfSf1VU57k_EkMw9yRnAQQlCAkSAF4YST0DJKGlprrVQ2KBZIW9XTYiM_GdMxSdh5V_rTymtZzIndBpMrS_j-BByAQ2S5IWoGvUG/s1600/EltonGus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmwbHk4Kau4zAuENWFKnHwksFigBR-S8WjgwygCo7kcfSf1VU57k_EkMw9yRnAQQlCAkSAF4YST0DJKGlprrVQ2KBZIW9XTYiM_GdMxSdh5V_rTymtZzIndBpMrS_j-BByAQ2S5IWoGvUG/s320/EltonGus.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: small;">Elton and his producer have ruined pop music for me</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
So congrats to Elton John and Gus Dudgeon on showing us how it's done. I'm not sure how to conclude this post. If you've ever wondered if my proclivity for overanalysis extended to music, well, you've got your answer. Till next time!Jim Zittlawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09631477670703821690noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276106279825264542.post-14859906830552273782015-01-25T00:00:00.001-07:002015-01-25T11:52:52.940-07:00Community DevelopmentWhen I heard back in March 2014 that Dan Harmon (<i>Community</i>) and Mitch Hurwitz (<i>Arrested Development</i>) were <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/q-a-communitys-dan-harmon-takes-no-prisoners-20140310" target="_blank">planning a project together</a>, I immediately knew what I wanted it to be. Read the title of this post. It should be obvious what I’m getting at.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFHI6aNlvRzmRjZRVjoFryB0D8jg6AKT8yZzCDRcB3u4KygF3BQPZlViEVeNdg2_MVMLiPRMo2qRIgVeyOc2yi1Lp-K07Jo3Fm1yvVUqeWii33vbG66ASakNY80OzDdB1Dq5B_eo9_8pUE/s1600/CommunityDevelopment6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFHI6aNlvRzmRjZRVjoFryB0D8jg6AKT8yZzCDRcB3u4KygF3BQPZlViEVeNdg2_MVMLiPRMo2qRIgVeyOc2yi1Lp-K07Jo3Fm1yvVUqeWii33vbG66ASakNY80OzDdB1Dq5B_eo9_8pUE/s1600/CommunityDevelopment6.jpg" height="222" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<i>Community</i> will soon be entering its sixth season, with a movie likely to happen, and Hurwitz has stated his plans for an <i>Arrested Development </i>movie. Why shouldn’t these two movies be one movie? And why shouldn't that movie be <i>Community Development</i>?<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Synopsis:</b> When the Greendale campus is demolished, Dean Pelton packs up and starts a new community college in the failed California housing development Sudden Valley, owned by the Bluth family. Greendale’s study group, displaced and disillusioned, relocates to join the Dean in his efforts. It’s a brave new world for the study group... and also a Bluth new world.</blockquote>
<br />
Okay, so I struggled to incorporate the Bluth family into that synopsis. I don’t really remember what the hell happened in the last season of <i>Arrested Development</i>, except that it ended with the cliffhanger of Lucille Austero’s murder. I suppose that would be incorporated into the movie’s plot somehow.<br />
<br />
As for <i>Community</i>’s characters, the last season ended with Greendale being bought out by Subway after the study group spent the whole year trying to save the school. My guess is that season six will see the study group reclaim the campus, but that would be awfully boring and redundant. I’d rather see the characters finally move on – preferably to Sudden Valley.<br />
<br />
Both shows have become a bit worn-out in later seasons. What better shot in the arm for Harmon and Hurwitz than to unashamedly jump the shark with a feature film crossover?<i> </i><br />
<br />
Of course, there is the small matter of <i>Arrested Development</i> stars Tony Hale and David Cross having already played characters on <i>Community</i>.
But that can easily be explained away by, um... hmm... the fact I put less
effort into thinking this concept through than I did into making that
fake logo.<i> </i><br />
<br />
<i>Community Development</i>. Directed by Joe and Anthony Russo. Fall 2016. You heard it here first. Probably heard it here last, too.Jim Zittlawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09631477670703821690noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276106279825264542.post-5961393953986479922014-10-11T16:59:00.000-06:002014-11-14T00:53:00.629-07:00Robin Williams in Los CopaAfter Robin Williams died, I read an article that
tried to combat the idea that suicide is selfish. Check out the headline and
accompanying photo:<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuuHjkufhOqXYzgwOm1JXy9k6tk46JgfIJy6f_ArElQHd3IIyT64tEO4xzCi_WXLCjn_gZgGUkJHKzSiY1OkFbcSPymSbDbos_H_DUtysQ73f9R4dqYBky14F-SWzpFzpTCu1gNcvFRZxW/s1600/Selfish.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuuHjkufhOqXYzgwOm1JXy9k6tk46JgfIJy6f_ArElQHd3IIyT64tEO4xzCi_WXLCjn_gZgGUkJHKzSiY1OkFbcSPymSbDbos_H_DUtysQ73f9R4dqYBky14F-SWzpFzpTCu1gNcvFRZxW/s1600/Selfish.png" height="270" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
Williams looks seriously weary in this well-chosen
photo. He looks like he might be arguing, postmortem, with angry loved ones who would accuse him of selfishness. But outside this calculated repurposing of a head shot, Williams has given voice to the other side of the argument.<br />
<br />
When I think on the actor's death, I recall a
monologue he did in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Birdcage</i>. In the film, Armand (Williams) has gravely offended his long-term partner Albert (Nathan
Lane), to the point where Albert leaves for Los Copa<span style="font-size: small;"> – </span>which has nothing but a
cemetery. Although Albert isn't suicidal, he is threatening to permanently exit Armand's life. Armand catches up with his despondent partner and speaks his mind,
equal parts anger and affection.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2cVDPcQIWNY4atnwXJhPUoVhaUIX0Cz1FKfJG7DwboHj1SVdfig-dx3QFSEVBc7ltHcv7ksbSy6XyKZ38kvhRXJbtJq221yDLn6mFG4OhjJ1QzH9aW1EnkzudnUMes4rJ9YuXNKGqyzUC/s1600/the_birdcage_1995_portrait_w858.jpg" height="270" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Albert (Lane) and Armand (Williams)</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-size: small;">Armand: <i>“My cemetery’s in Key Biscayne. It’s one of the
prettiest in the world. Lovely trees, sky is blue, the birds... The one in Los
Copa’s really shit. What a pain in the ass you are. It’s true – you’re not
young, and you’re not new, and you do make people laugh. And me? I’m still with
you because you make me laugh. So you know what I gotta do? I gotta sell my
plot in Key Biscayne so I can get one next to you in that shithole Los Copa, so
I never miss a laugh."</i></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
You can watch the scene <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a7eGUDTCa4" target="_blank">here.</a><br />
<br />
For me, all this talk of cemeteries suggests death<span style="font-size: small;"> – </span>either from an early end (the ugly Los Copa, Albert’s purported
destination) or natural
causes (the beautiful Key Biscayne, Armand’s chosen resting place). For me, the
monologue articulates the bitterness that can arise when a
loved one lands in
the shallow ditch of suicide rather than the deep grave of a life fully lived.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
Robin Williams was a really funny man and an
impassioned actor. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mrs. Doubtfire</i> helped
me understand my parents’ separation when I was little (the ending is
practically a PSA on the topic), I delighted at being introduced to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mork & Mindy</i>, and I still count <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Birdcage</i> among my favourite films. I’ve got nothing for him but
thanks.</div>
Jim Zittlawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09631477670703821690noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276106279825264542.post-92206096113479864372014-10-05T03:59:00.000-06:002014-11-14T00:53:19.042-07:00Soda Fountain<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Times;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
I’ve found it: The embodiment of choice. The embodiment of democracy. The
embodiment of freedom.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIOCenwH4LgyPepdrN5aAT1ksCo9sTwNObSjcV49-FPa0jy8fESzkyMw2RHmzamqWbXfC8mLtUIFObB8XyXKEKKWchjQF0zqmGNgXjj3Z5-sZwMKjJXP7jINAR3bTz8ghnvB4RI6Rwyge9/s1600/Freedom+Fountain+copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIOCenwH4LgyPepdrN5aAT1ksCo9sTwNObSjcV49-FPa0jy8fESzkyMw2RHmzamqWbXfC8mLtUIFObB8XyXKEKKWchjQF0zqmGNgXjj3Z5-sZwMKjJXP7jINAR3bTz8ghnvB4RI6Rwyge9/s1600/Freedom+Fountain+copy.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Look at all these choices.<br />
<br />
You’d be forgiven for thinking this soda fountain has all the varieties of
pop you’d ever need. From left to right, this machine runs the gamut: Coke,
Diet Coke, Sprite, orange Fruitopia, Nestea, strawberry Fruitopia, Barqs,
Barqs, Coke Zero, Sprite, Diet Coke, and back to Coke again.<br />
<br />
And all generously provided by the Coca-Cola Company.<br />
<br />
I mean, I guess there is some repetition in the choices. But who could
complain? These pops are enough to keep anyone satisfied. You can settle on one
and feel content with it. Sure, sometimes you want a different pop. In that
case, you just need to find a Pepsi product fountain. You thought you had lots
of options before? Well, now they’ve doubled!<br />
<br />
When I look at this soda fountain, my choices feel infinite. I know they’re
not, but they might as well be. And that’s great. That’s good enough for me.<br />
<br />
Thank you, Coke. And for that matter, thank you, Pepsi. All these choices –
that’s freedom. I certainly couldn’t ask for more.Jim Zittlawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09631477670703821690noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276106279825264542.post-91038859909780199692014-09-24T12:48:00.000-06:002017-06-29T21:28:15.576-06:00This “World’s End” Fan Theory Will Blow Your MindThe other day, I Googled things like <i>gary king killed</i> and <i>gary king murdered</i> to see if anyone else had ever considered the notion that Gary King, the hero of Edgar Wright’s excellent film <i>The World’s End</i>, might be a murderer. Nothing relevant to the film came up. But consider this.<br />
<br />
(Spoiler alert.)<br />
<br />
If the teenager – the one Gary picks a fight with and then beheads in the bathroom – hadn’t been a smashy-smashy-eggman, wouldn’t that mean Gary had murdered an actual teenager? For the uninitiated, the scene can be viewed below.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/nNJPPLg6aJE?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
You might ask the question, “What makes you think it was MURDER?” I’ll answer that with another question. Why are all the events before the beheading plausible and mundane, and all the events after the beheading implausible and fantastic?<br />
<br />
There’s only one explanation. After Gary kills the teenager, the reality of his situation becomes unacceptable. So he invents a new reality wherein his violence is justified: the teenager was a robot, and robots are taking over the world.<br />
<br />
Mind. Blown. (Yours, I mean.)<br />
<br />
I also Googled <i>gary king psychotic break</i> to see if anyone else ever thought Gary had experienced the latter half of the aforementioned Google search. Turns out, some other people have also suggested that parts of the film represent a psychotic break – <a href="http://halfafilmstudent.blogspot.ca/2013/09/the-worlds-end-review-pegg-frost-wright.html" target="_blank">the ending,</a> or <a href="http://horrornews.net/76402/the-worlds-end-mid-life-crisis-of-faith-spoilers-included/" target="_blank">the whole film,</a> for example.<br />
<br />
Tune in again next month, when I post another stupid idea that probably would have fit into a tweet.Jim Zittlawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09631477670703821690noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276106279825264542.post-28833458158553297352014-07-05T21:07:00.000-06:002015-03-16T21:01:27.963-06:00The Spectacular Spider-Man: What Season 3 Could Have Looked Like<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="The Spectacular Spider-Man: What Season 3 Could Have Looked Like
The Spectacular Spider-Man lasted only two seasons, and fans of the cancelled-before-its-time series have often speculated about the contents of a potential season 3. Supervising producer Greg Weisman has generally been mum when asked to reveal his plans for the show (often citing the notion that ideas absent execution aren’t worth sharing), but he has given some info over the years.
So in the interest of providing hard info, not speculation, I’ve read all of Weisman’s Spidey-related “Ask Greg” posts to date on the Station Eight Gargoyles website and all of his IGN interviews regarding the show.
I’ve assembled all the info I could find regarding his plans for Spec Spidey’s season 3 and beyond. The info is listed and divided into three sections: characters, new villains, and series plans.
I’ve tried to avoid speculation, but wherever I might be straying into speculation, I hope I’ve made it clear. Follow the links provided to read Weisman’s own words.
Hit the jump to see the list.
CHARACTERS
SPIDER-MAN
- Spider-tracers would be introduced (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11758) and the invention of Spidey’s webshooters would be revealed in a “major storyline.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11463)
- Weisman would have liked to introduce the Spider-Mobile in season 3 or 4 (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/06/27/the-spectacular-spider-mans-past-and-future?page=5)
MARY JANE
- Mary Jane and Peter would eventually get married. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10930)
FLASH
- Flash would have been developed further. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12359)
- Midtown Manhattan Magnet High School’s football championship would be under review in season 3 due to Harry’s doping. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/21/inside-spideys-web-probable-cause?page=2)
- Peter and Flash’s boxing match from The Amazing Spider-Man #8 is something Weisman would have liked to adapt. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/31/inside-spideys-web-identity-crisis)
BETTY BRANT AND NED LEEDS
- Betty Brant and Ned Lee’s relationship would “have been important in season three.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13522)
CURT CONNORS
- Connors is in Florida and is still working on a cure for Electro. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11749)
BLACK CAT
- Black Cat and Spider-Man’s relationship is now very fraught considering the reveal that Walter Hardy killed Uncle Ben. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/11/25/inside-spideys-web-opening-night-final-curtain)
EDDIE BROCK
- Season 3 would have seen a plotline involving Eddie’s placement in Ravencroft. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11076)
- The gene cleanser Peter uses on Venom didn’t actually affect Venom. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11129)
NORMAN OSBORN
- The Globulin drug’s inconclusive effects could possibly create a “more sympathetic public image” for Norman in the wake of his outing as the Green Goblin. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=16471)
- Norman mentoring Peter would have “long-term implications.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12372)
- Norman wouldn’t acquire government status or power in the short-term – he might in the long-term (this is speculation). (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11619)
EMILY OSBORN
- “Very specific” plans involving Emily Osborn would have been executed in season 3 in the wake of Norman’s absence. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/11/25/inside-spideys-web-opening-night-final-curtain?page=3)
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12444
RODERICK KINGSLEY
- Kingsley possibly has a twin brother (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11043)
- Kingsley’s first appearance in Spectacular Spider-Man #43 influenced the decision to make him a perfume company owner rather than a fashion designer, and this decision was tied into long-term plans (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/13/inside-spideys-web-accomplices)
TOMBSTONE
- Tombstone and Robbie Robertson’s relationship would have been developed.
(http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12909)
SILVER SABLE
- Silver Sable would become more like “Sable from the comics” through long-term plans. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13423)
HAMMERHEAD’S CHAUFFEUR
- Like all other supporting characters, Hammerhead’s chauffeur is a specific character from the comics.
(http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=14552,
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12514)
KRAVEN
- There were plans for Kraven that were connected to John Jameson. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12364)
- Kraven’s transformation would have been important in the long-term (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11361)
CALYPSO
- Calypso’s character would have been explored more – to the possible inclusion of mysticism (this is speculation). (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=15316)
NEW VILLAINS
Season 3
SCORPION
Scorpion and Hobgoblin appearances were confirmed for season 3.
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11017
HOBGOBLIN
Scorpion and Hobgoblin appearances were confirmed for season 3.
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11017
More long-term
MORBIUS
Morbius was confirmed to “eventually” appear. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10775)
Possible villains
CRIME MASTER
The Crime Master could have possibly appeared in future episodes. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/06/27/the-spectacular-spider-mans-past-and-future?page=4)
MR NEGATIVE
Mr Negative appealed to Weisman (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/03/inside-spideys-web-reinforcement?page=2).
By the end of season 2, the following characters had been introduced:
Morris Bench
Hobie Brown
Stan Carter
Mac Gargan
Cletus Kasady
Roderick Kingsley
Miles Warren
In the comic book source material, these characters take on the alter egos of Hydro Man, the Prowler, Sin-Eater, Scorpion, Carnage, Hobgoblin, and the Jackal, respectively.
Given the series’ interest in introducing villains in their civilian identities, in extrapolating the villains backwards, and in faithfulness to the comics, it’s not a stretch to imagine that most of the listed characters would have become the aforementioned villains. Weisman implies as much when speaking about specific characters in some quotes seen below (however, I am of course speculating here).
Weisman, regarding Miles Warren:
“Someone asked me about clones and stuff at Comic-Con at our panel, and I'll just say what I think is pretty obvious, which is that we brought Miles in… If we brought Miles in… I don't do anything by accident. And without going into any details or specifics, if we brought Miles in, then we have plans for Miles – long term plans. What those plans are is obviously influenced by what Miles has done in the comics.”
(http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/31/inside-spideys-web-identity-crisis?page=2)
Weisman, regarding Miles Warren and Cletus Kasady:
“A fan asked if they had plans to explore the "Ben Riley" storyline. "Well, we've got Miles Warren," Weisman smirked. "We didn't put him in there for nothing." Weisman gave a similar answer to a fan who asked about an appearance of Carnage. "Well we put Cletus Kasady in so…"”
(http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/28/sdcc-09-hulk-and-capt-america-planned-for-spidey)
Weisman, regarding Stan Carter:
“IGN: Stan Carter and Jean DeWolff have been peripheral characters, but you had an interesting little moment here where Stan talks about wishing Spider-Man went further with his treatment of criminals. Was it fun to get that little hint at Stan's Sin-Eater future in there?
Weisman: Yeah. We're trying to play the characters consistent. As with many of our characters – we talked about this before – we extrapolate backwards. We know who they wind up being, from the comics. Where did they start? So we know who Jean DeWolff is going to be down the road, and we know who Stan Carter is going to be.”
http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/21/inside-spideys-web-probable-cause
SERIES PLANS
- Weisman would have liked to do a musical episode
(http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13331)
- The show would “go through a different variation on the [Sinister] Six each season.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11453)
Weisman hoped to do “65 episodes that take Pete through his high school graduation” and then “continue to do DVDs telling stories of his college years.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10446)
Some direct-to-DVD movies Weisman wanted to do included a “Spring Break movie between Season Two and Season Three, set in Florida,” as well as a movie between seasons 3 and 4 and a movie between seasons 4 and 5. If the movies weren’t approved, their stories would have either been incorporated into the high school seasons or additional seasons. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=19596)"><i>The
Spectacular Spider-Man</i> lasted only two seasons, and fans of the
cancelled-before-its-time TV series have often speculated about the potential content of season 3 and beyond. Supervising producer Greg Weisman has
generally been mum when asked to reveal his plans for the show (he often cites the notion that ideas absent execution aren't worth sharing), but
he has given some info over the years.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="The Spectacular Spider-Man: What Season 3 Could Have Looked Like
The Spectacular Spider-Man lasted only two seasons, and fans of the cancelled-before-its-time series have often speculated about the contents of a potential season 3. Supervising producer Greg Weisman has generally been mum when asked to reveal his plans for the show (often citing the notion that ideas absent execution aren’t worth sharing), but he has given some info over the years.
So in the interest of providing hard info, not speculation, I’ve read all of Weisman’s Spidey-related “Ask Greg” posts to date on the Station Eight Gargoyles website and all of his IGN interviews regarding the show.
I’ve assembled all the info I could find regarding his plans for Spec Spidey’s season 3 and beyond. The info is listed and divided into three sections: characters, new villains, and series plans.
I’ve tried to avoid speculation, but wherever I might be straying into speculation, I hope I’ve made it clear. Follow the links provided to read Weisman’s own words.
Hit the jump to see the list.
CHARACTERS
SPIDER-MAN
- Spider-tracers would be introduced (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11758) and the invention of Spidey’s webshooters would be revealed in a “major storyline.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11463)
- Weisman would have liked to introduce the Spider-Mobile in season 3 or 4 (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/06/27/the-spectacular-spider-mans-past-and-future?page=5)
MARY JANE
- Mary Jane and Peter would eventually get married. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10930)
FLASH
- Flash would have been developed further. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12359)
- Midtown Manhattan Magnet High School’s football championship would be under review in season 3 due to Harry’s doping. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/21/inside-spideys-web-probable-cause?page=2)
- Peter and Flash’s boxing match from The Amazing Spider-Man #8 is something Weisman would have liked to adapt. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/31/inside-spideys-web-identity-crisis)
BETTY BRANT AND NED LEEDS
- Betty Brant and Ned Lee’s relationship would “have been important in season three.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13522)
CURT CONNORS
- Connors is in Florida and is still working on a cure for Electro. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11749)
BLACK CAT
- Black Cat and Spider-Man’s relationship is now very fraught considering the reveal that Walter Hardy killed Uncle Ben. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/11/25/inside-spideys-web-opening-night-final-curtain)
EDDIE BROCK
- Season 3 would have seen a plotline involving Eddie’s placement in Ravencroft. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11076)
- The gene cleanser Peter uses on Venom didn’t actually affect Venom. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11129)
NORMAN OSBORN
- The Globulin drug’s inconclusive effects could possibly create a “more sympathetic public image” for Norman in the wake of his outing as the Green Goblin. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=16471)
- Norman mentoring Peter would have “long-term implications.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12372)
- Norman wouldn’t acquire government status or power in the short-term – he might in the long-term (this is speculation). (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11619)
EMILY OSBORN
- “Very specific” plans involving Emily Osborn would have been executed in season 3 in the wake of Norman’s absence. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/11/25/inside-spideys-web-opening-night-final-curtain?page=3)
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12444
RODERICK KINGSLEY
- Kingsley possibly has a twin brother (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11043)
- Kingsley’s first appearance in Spectacular Spider-Man #43 influenced the decision to make him a perfume company owner rather than a fashion designer, and this decision was tied into long-term plans (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/13/inside-spideys-web-accomplices)
TOMBSTONE
- Tombstone and Robbie Robertson’s relationship would have been developed.
(http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12909)
SILVER SABLE
- Silver Sable would become more like “Sable from the comics” through long-term plans. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13423)
HAMMERHEAD’S CHAUFFEUR
- Like all other supporting characters, Hammerhead’s chauffeur is a specific character from the comics.
(http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=14552,
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12514)
KRAVEN
- There were plans for Kraven that were connected to John Jameson. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12364)
- Kraven’s transformation would have been important in the long-term (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11361)
CALYPSO
- Calypso’s character would have been explored more – to the possible inclusion of mysticism (this is speculation). (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=15316)
NEW VILLAINS
Season 3
SCORPION
Scorpion and Hobgoblin appearances were confirmed for season 3.
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11017
HOBGOBLIN
Scorpion and Hobgoblin appearances were confirmed for season 3.
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11017
More long-term
MORBIUS
Morbius was confirmed to “eventually” appear. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10775)
Possible villains
CRIME MASTER
The Crime Master could have possibly appeared in future episodes. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/06/27/the-spectacular-spider-mans-past-and-future?page=4)
MR NEGATIVE
Mr Negative appealed to Weisman (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/03/inside-spideys-web-reinforcement?page=2).
By the end of season 2, the following characters had been introduced:
Morris Bench
Hobie Brown
Stan Carter
Mac Gargan
Cletus Kasady
Roderick Kingsley
Miles Warren
In the comic book source material, these characters take on the alter egos of Hydro Man, the Prowler, Sin-Eater, Scorpion, Carnage, Hobgoblin, and the Jackal, respectively.
Given the series’ interest in introducing villains in their civilian identities, in extrapolating the villains backwards, and in faithfulness to the comics, it’s not a stretch to imagine that most of the listed characters would have become the aforementioned villains. Weisman implies as much when speaking about specific characters in some quotes seen below (however, I am of course speculating here).
Weisman, regarding Miles Warren:
“Someone asked me about clones and stuff at Comic-Con at our panel, and I'll just say what I think is pretty obvious, which is that we brought Miles in… If we brought Miles in… I don't do anything by accident. And without going into any details or specifics, if we brought Miles in, then we have plans for Miles – long term plans. What those plans are is obviously influenced by what Miles has done in the comics.”
(http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/31/inside-spideys-web-identity-crisis?page=2)
Weisman, regarding Miles Warren and Cletus Kasady:
“A fan asked if they had plans to explore the "Ben Riley" storyline. "Well, we've got Miles Warren," Weisman smirked. "We didn't put him in there for nothing." Weisman gave a similar answer to a fan who asked about an appearance of Carnage. "Well we put Cletus Kasady in so…"”
(http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/28/sdcc-09-hulk-and-capt-america-planned-for-spidey)
Weisman, regarding Stan Carter:
“IGN: Stan Carter and Jean DeWolff have been peripheral characters, but you had an interesting little moment here where Stan talks about wishing Spider-Man went further with his treatment of criminals. Was it fun to get that little hint at Stan's Sin-Eater future in there?
Weisman: Yeah. We're trying to play the characters consistent. As with many of our characters – we talked about this before – we extrapolate backwards. We know who they wind up being, from the comics. Where did they start? So we know who Jean DeWolff is going to be down the road, and we know who Stan Carter is going to be.”
http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/21/inside-spideys-web-probable-cause
SERIES PLANS
- Weisman would have liked to do a musical episode
(http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13331)
- The show would “go through a different variation on the [Sinister] Six each season.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11453)
Weisman hoped to do “65 episodes that take Pete through his high school graduation” and then “continue to do DVDs telling stories of his college years.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10446)
Some direct-to-DVD movies Weisman wanted to do included a “Spring Break movie between Season Two and Season Three, set in Florida,” as well as a movie between seasons 3 and 4 and a movie between seasons 4 and 5. If the movies weren’t approved, their stories would have either been incorporated into the high school seasons or additional seasons. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=19596)">So with the intent of
providing hard info, not speculation, I’ve read all of Weisman’s
Spidey-related <a href="http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/" target="_blank">“Ask Greg”</a> posts to date on the <a href="http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/index.php" target="_blank">Station Eight Gargoyles website</a> and all of his <a href="http://ca.ign.com/" target="_blank">IGN</a> interviews regarding the show.</span></span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAxoDSKUvZJZ0A1B2aLRSeq7Znn9JxnYX-Z370l_EmWD0AXpvm5sQ63NqTBiV9K09RRN0NOy1JckOnPqa_pZJPavMEgII-DhnIqo_PumfSzrKbxh6ngUThOsK_9v4K_HyLeERuJuM2A3Xz/s1600/02+copy.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAxoDSKUvZJZ0A1B2aLRSeq7Znn9JxnYX-Z370l_EmWD0AXpvm5sQ63NqTBiV9K09RRN0NOy1JckOnPqa_pZJPavMEgII-DhnIqo_PumfSzrKbxh6ngUThOsK_9v4K_HyLeERuJuM2A3Xz/s1600/02+copy.png" height="300" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="The Spectacular Spider-Man: What Season 3 Could Have Looked Like
The Spectacular Spider-Man lasted only two seasons, and fans of the cancelled-before-its-time series have often speculated about the contents of a potential season 3. Supervising producer Greg Weisman has generally been mum when asked to reveal his plans for the show (often citing the notion that ideas absent execution aren’t worth sharing), but he has given some info over the years.
So in the interest of providing hard info, not speculation, I’ve read all of Weisman’s Spidey-related “Ask Greg” posts to date on the Station Eight Gargoyles website and all of his IGN interviews regarding the show.
I’ve assembled all the info I could find regarding his plans for Spec Spidey’s season 3 and beyond. The info is listed and divided into three sections: characters, new villains, and series plans.
I’ve tried to avoid speculation, but wherever I might be straying into speculation, I hope I’ve made it clear. Follow the links provided to read Weisman’s own words.
Hit the jump to see the list.
CHARACTERS
SPIDER-MAN
- Spider-tracers would be introduced (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11758) and the invention of Spidey’s webshooters would be revealed in a “major storyline.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11463)
- Weisman would have liked to introduce the Spider-Mobile in season 3 or 4 (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/06/27/the-spectacular-spider-mans-past-and-future?page=5)
MARY JANE
- Mary Jane and Peter would eventually get married. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10930)
FLASH
- Flash would have been developed further. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12359)
- Midtown Manhattan Magnet High School’s football championship would be under review in season 3 due to Harry’s doping. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/21/inside-spideys-web-probable-cause?page=2)
- Peter and Flash’s boxing match from The Amazing Spider-Man #8 is something Weisman would have liked to adapt. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/31/inside-spideys-web-identity-crisis)
BETTY BRANT AND NED LEEDS
- Betty Brant and Ned Lee’s relationship would “have been important in season three.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13522)
CURT CONNORS
- Connors is in Florida and is still working on a cure for Electro. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11749)
BLACK CAT
- Black Cat and Spider-Man’s relationship is now very fraught considering the reveal that Walter Hardy killed Uncle Ben. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/11/25/inside-spideys-web-opening-night-final-curtain)
EDDIE BROCK
- Season 3 would have seen a plotline involving Eddie’s placement in Ravencroft. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11076)
- The gene cleanser Peter uses on Venom didn’t actually affect Venom. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11129)
NORMAN OSBORN
- The Globulin drug’s inconclusive effects could possibly create a “more sympathetic public image” for Norman in the wake of his outing as the Green Goblin. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=16471)
- Norman mentoring Peter would have “long-term implications.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12372)
- Norman wouldn’t acquire government status or power in the short-term – he might in the long-term (this is speculation). (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11619)
EMILY OSBORN
- “Very specific” plans involving Emily Osborn would have been executed in season 3 in the wake of Norman’s absence. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/11/25/inside-spideys-web-opening-night-final-curtain?page=3)
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12444
RODERICK KINGSLEY
- Kingsley possibly has a twin brother (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11043)
- Kingsley’s first appearance in Spectacular Spider-Man #43 influenced the decision to make him a perfume company owner rather than a fashion designer, and this decision was tied into long-term plans (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/13/inside-spideys-web-accomplices)
TOMBSTONE
- Tombstone and Robbie Robertson’s relationship would have been developed.
(http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12909)
SILVER SABLE
- Silver Sable would become more like “Sable from the comics” through long-term plans. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13423)
HAMMERHEAD’S CHAUFFEUR
- Like all other supporting characters, Hammerhead’s chauffeur is a specific character from the comics.
(http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=14552,
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12514)
KRAVEN
- There were plans for Kraven that were connected to John Jameson. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12364)
- Kraven’s transformation would have been important in the long-term (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11361)
CALYPSO
- Calypso’s character would have been explored more – to the possible inclusion of mysticism (this is speculation). (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=15316)
NEW VILLAINS
Season 3
SCORPION
Scorpion and Hobgoblin appearances were confirmed for season 3.
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11017
HOBGOBLIN
Scorpion and Hobgoblin appearances were confirmed for season 3.
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11017
More long-term
MORBIUS
Morbius was confirmed to “eventually” appear. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10775)
Possible villains
CRIME MASTER
The Crime Master could have possibly appeared in future episodes. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/06/27/the-spectacular-spider-mans-past-and-future?page=4)
MR NEGATIVE
Mr Negative appealed to Weisman (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/03/inside-spideys-web-reinforcement?page=2).
By the end of season 2, the following characters had been introduced:
Morris Bench
Hobie Brown
Stan Carter
Mac Gargan
Cletus Kasady
Roderick Kingsley
Miles Warren
In the comic book source material, these characters take on the alter egos of Hydro Man, the Prowler, Sin-Eater, Scorpion, Carnage, Hobgoblin, and the Jackal, respectively.
Given the series’ interest in introducing villains in their civilian identities, in extrapolating the villains backwards, and in faithfulness to the comics, it’s not a stretch to imagine that most of the listed characters would have become the aforementioned villains. Weisman implies as much when speaking about specific characters in some quotes seen below (however, I am of course speculating here).
Weisman, regarding Miles Warren:
“Someone asked me about clones and stuff at Comic-Con at our panel, and I'll just say what I think is pretty obvious, which is that we brought Miles in… If we brought Miles in… I don't do anything by accident. And without going into any details or specifics, if we brought Miles in, then we have plans for Miles – long term plans. What those plans are is obviously influenced by what Miles has done in the comics.”
(http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/31/inside-spideys-web-identity-crisis?page=2)
Weisman, regarding Miles Warren and Cletus Kasady:
“A fan asked if they had plans to explore the "Ben Riley" storyline. "Well, we've got Miles Warren," Weisman smirked. "We didn't put him in there for nothing." Weisman gave a similar answer to a fan who asked about an appearance of Carnage. "Well we put Cletus Kasady in so…"”
(http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/28/sdcc-09-hulk-and-capt-america-planned-for-spidey)
Weisman, regarding Stan Carter:
“IGN: Stan Carter and Jean DeWolff have been peripheral characters, but you had an interesting little moment here where Stan talks about wishing Spider-Man went further with his treatment of criminals. Was it fun to get that little hint at Stan's Sin-Eater future in there?
Weisman: Yeah. We're trying to play the characters consistent. As with many of our characters – we talked about this before – we extrapolate backwards. We know who they wind up being, from the comics. Where did they start? So we know who Jean DeWolff is going to be down the road, and we know who Stan Carter is going to be.”
http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/21/inside-spideys-web-probable-cause
SERIES PLANS
- Weisman would have liked to do a musical episode
(http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13331)
- The show would “go through a different variation on the [Sinister] Six each season.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11453)
Weisman hoped to do “65 episodes that take Pete through his high school graduation” and then “continue to do DVDs telling stories of his college years.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10446)
Some direct-to-DVD movies Weisman wanted to do included a “Spring Break movie between Season Two and Season Three, set in Florida,” as well as a movie between seasons 3 and 4 and a movie between seasons 4 and 5. If the movies weren’t approved, their stories would have either been incorporated into the high school seasons or additional seasons. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=19596)">I’ve
assembled all the info I could find regarding his plans for <i>The Spectacular Spider-Man</i>. The info is listed and divided into three
sections: characters, new villains, and series plans. You can follow the links provided to read it in Weisman’s
own words. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="The Spectacular Spider-Man: What Season 3 Could Have Looked Like
The Spectacular Spider-Man lasted only two seasons, and fans of the cancelled-before-its-time series have often speculated about the contents of a potential season 3. Supervising producer Greg Weisman has generally been mum when asked to reveal his plans for the show (often citing the notion that ideas absent execution aren’t worth sharing), but he has given some info over the years.
So in the interest of providing hard info, not speculation, I’ve read all of Weisman’s Spidey-related “Ask Greg” posts to date on the Station Eight Gargoyles website and all of his IGN interviews regarding the show.
I’ve assembled all the info I could find regarding his plans for Spec Spidey’s season 3 and beyond. The info is listed and divided into three sections: characters, new villains, and series plans.
I’ve tried to avoid speculation, but wherever I might be straying into speculation, I hope I’ve made it clear. Follow the links provided to read Weisman’s own words.
Hit the jump to see the list.
CHARACTERS
SPIDER-MAN
- Spider-tracers would be introduced (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11758) and the invention of Spidey’s webshooters would be revealed in a “major storyline.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11463)
- Weisman would have liked to introduce the Spider-Mobile in season 3 or 4 (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/06/27/the-spectacular-spider-mans-past-and-future?page=5)
MARY JANE
- Mary Jane and Peter would eventually get married. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10930)
FLASH
- Flash would have been developed further. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12359)
- Midtown Manhattan Magnet High School’s football championship would be under review in season 3 due to Harry’s doping. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/21/inside-spideys-web-probable-cause?page=2)
- Peter and Flash’s boxing match from The Amazing Spider-Man #8 is something Weisman would have liked to adapt. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/31/inside-spideys-web-identity-crisis)
BETTY BRANT AND NED LEEDS
- Betty Brant and Ned Lee’s relationship would “have been important in season three.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13522)
CURT CONNORS
- Connors is in Florida and is still working on a cure for Electro. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11749)
BLACK CAT
- Black Cat and Spider-Man’s relationship is now very fraught considering the reveal that Walter Hardy killed Uncle Ben. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/11/25/inside-spideys-web-opening-night-final-curtain)
EDDIE BROCK
- Season 3 would have seen a plotline involving Eddie’s placement in Ravencroft. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11076)
- The gene cleanser Peter uses on Venom didn’t actually affect Venom. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11129)
NORMAN OSBORN
- The Globulin drug’s inconclusive effects could possibly create a “more sympathetic public image” for Norman in the wake of his outing as the Green Goblin. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=16471)
- Norman mentoring Peter would have “long-term implications.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12372)
- Norman wouldn’t acquire government status or power in the short-term – he might in the long-term (this is speculation). (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11619)
EMILY OSBORN
- “Very specific” plans involving Emily Osborn would have been executed in season 3 in the wake of Norman’s absence. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/11/25/inside-spideys-web-opening-night-final-curtain?page=3)
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12444
RODERICK KINGSLEY
- Kingsley possibly has a twin brother (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11043)
- Kingsley’s first appearance in Spectacular Spider-Man #43 influenced the decision to make him a perfume company owner rather than a fashion designer, and this decision was tied into long-term plans (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/13/inside-spideys-web-accomplices)
TOMBSTONE
- Tombstone and Robbie Robertson’s relationship would have been developed.
(http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12909)
SILVER SABLE
- Silver Sable would become more like “Sable from the comics” through long-term plans. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13423)
HAMMERHEAD’S CHAUFFEUR
- Like all other supporting characters, Hammerhead’s chauffeur is a specific character from the comics.
(http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=14552,
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12514)
KRAVEN
- There were plans for Kraven that were connected to John Jameson. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12364)
- Kraven’s transformation would have been important in the long-term (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11361)
CALYPSO
- Calypso’s character would have been explored more – to the possible inclusion of mysticism (this is speculation). (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=15316)
NEW VILLAINS
Season 3
SCORPION
Scorpion and Hobgoblin appearances were confirmed for season 3.
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11017
HOBGOBLIN
Scorpion and Hobgoblin appearances were confirmed for season 3.
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11017
More long-term
MORBIUS
Morbius was confirmed to “eventually” appear. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10775)
Possible villains
CRIME MASTER
The Crime Master could have possibly appeared in future episodes. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/06/27/the-spectacular-spider-mans-past-and-future?page=4)
MR NEGATIVE
Mr Negative appealed to Weisman (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/03/inside-spideys-web-reinforcement?page=2).
By the end of season 2, the following characters had been introduced:
Morris Bench
Hobie Brown
Stan Carter
Mac Gargan
Cletus Kasady
Roderick Kingsley
Miles Warren
In the comic book source material, these characters take on the alter egos of Hydro Man, the Prowler, Sin-Eater, Scorpion, Carnage, Hobgoblin, and the Jackal, respectively.
Given the series’ interest in introducing villains in their civilian identities, in extrapolating the villains backwards, and in faithfulness to the comics, it’s not a stretch to imagine that most of the listed characters would have become the aforementioned villains. Weisman implies as much when speaking about specific characters in some quotes seen below (however, I am of course speculating here).
Weisman, regarding Miles Warren:
“Someone asked me about clones and stuff at Comic-Con at our panel, and I'll just say what I think is pretty obvious, which is that we brought Miles in… If we brought Miles in… I don't do anything by accident. And without going into any details or specifics, if we brought Miles in, then we have plans for Miles – long term plans. What those plans are is obviously influenced by what Miles has done in the comics.”
(http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/31/inside-spideys-web-identity-crisis?page=2)
Weisman, regarding Miles Warren and Cletus Kasady:
“A fan asked if they had plans to explore the "Ben Riley" storyline. "Well, we've got Miles Warren," Weisman smirked. "We didn't put him in there for nothing." Weisman gave a similar answer to a fan who asked about an appearance of Carnage. "Well we put Cletus Kasady in so…"”
(http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/28/sdcc-09-hulk-and-capt-america-planned-for-spidey)
Weisman, regarding Stan Carter:
“IGN: Stan Carter and Jean DeWolff have been peripheral characters, but you had an interesting little moment here where Stan talks about wishing Spider-Man went further with his treatment of criminals. Was it fun to get that little hint at Stan's Sin-Eater future in there?
Weisman: Yeah. We're trying to play the characters consistent. As with many of our characters – we talked about this before – we extrapolate backwards. We know who they wind up being, from the comics. Where did they start? So we know who Jean DeWolff is going to be down the road, and we know who Stan Carter is going to be.”
http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/21/inside-spideys-web-probable-cause
SERIES PLANS
- Weisman would have liked to do a musical episode
(http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13331)
- The show would “go through a different variation on the [Sinister] Six each season.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11453)
Weisman hoped to do “65 episodes that take Pete through his high school graduation” and then “continue to do DVDs telling stories of his college years.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10446)
Some direct-to-DVD movies Weisman wanted to do included a “Spring Break movie between Season Two and Season Three, set in Florida,” as well as a movie between seasons 3 and 4 and a movie between seasons 4 and 5. If the movies weren’t approved, their stories would have either been incorporated into the high school seasons or additional seasons. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=19596)">Hit the jump to see the list of potential content for season 3 and beyond.</span></span><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>CHARACTERS</b></span></div>
<br />
<b>Peter Parker</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Spider-tracers would have eventually <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11758" target="_blank">been introduced</a> </li>
<li>How Spider-Man's web-shooters were invented would have eventually been revealed in a <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11463" target="_blank">“major storyline"</a> </li>
<li>Weisman
would have liked to introduce the Spider-Mobile in <a href="http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/06/27/the-spectacular-spider-mans-past-and-future?page=5" target="_blank">season 3 or 4</a></li>
<li>Weisman had plans for Peter's <a href="http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12068" target="_blank">parents</a> </li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Mary Jane Watson</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Mary Jane and Peter would have eventually <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10930" target="_blank">been married</a> </li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Flash Thompson</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Flash would have been <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12359" target="_blank">developed further</a> </li>
<li>Peter and Flash’s boxing match from <i>The Amazing Spider-Man</i> #8 is
something Weisman <a href="http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/31/inside-spideys-web-identity-crisis" target="_blank">would have liked to adapt </a></li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Betty Brant and Ned Lee</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Betty Brant's and Ned Lee’s relationship would <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13522" target="_blank">“have been important in season three"</a> </li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Curt Connors</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Curt would have been in Florida and working on a cure for Electro in <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11749" target="_blank">season 3</a></li>
<li>A planned <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=19596" target="_blank">direct-to-DVD Spring Break movie</a> would have been set in Florida</li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Felicia Hardy</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Black Cat (Felicia Hardy) and Spider-Man’s relationship would have been <a href="http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/11/25/inside-spideys-web-opening-night-final-curtain" target="_blank">very fraught</a> after
the reveal that her father, the Cat Burglar (Walter Hardy), killed Uncle Ben </li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Eddie Brock</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Eddie's placement in Ravencroft would have featured in a <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11076" target="_blank">season 3 storyline</a> </li>
<li>The gene cleanser Peter used on Venom <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11129" target="_blank">didn’t actually affect Venom</a> </li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Norman Osborn</b><br />
<ul>
<li>The Globulin drug’s inconclusive effects could have possibly created a <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=16471" target="_blank">“more sympathetic public image”</a> for Norman in the wake of his outing as the
Green Goblin</li>
<li>Norman mentoring Peter would have had <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12372" target="_blank">“long-term implications"</a></li>
<li>Norman <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11619" target="_blank">wouldn't</a> have acquired government status or power in the short-term</li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Emily Osborn</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Plans involving Emily would have been executed
in season 3 <a href="http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/11/25/inside-spideys-web-opening-night-final-curtain?page=3" target="_blank">in the wake of Norman’s absence</a> </li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Harry Osborn </b><br />
<ul>
<li>Due to Harry’s doping, the high school's football championship would have been
under review in <a href="http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/21/inside-spideys-web-probable-cause?page=2" target="_blank">season 3</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Roderick Kingsley</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Roderick likely has a <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11043" target="_blank">twin brother</a> </li>
<li>Roderick's first appearance in <i>Spectacular Spider-Man</i> #43 influenced
the decision to make him a perfume company owner rather than a fashion designer, <a href="http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/13/inside-spideys-web-accomplices" target="_blank">and this decision was tied into long-term plans</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Tombstone</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Tombstone and Robbie Robertson’s relationship would have <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12909" target="_blank">been developed</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Silver Sable</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Silver Sable would have eventually become more like <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13423" target="_blank">“Sable from the comics"</a> </li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Hammerhead's Chauffeur </b><br />
<ul>
<li>Like all the other supporting characters, Hammerhead’s chauffeur was a <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12514" target="_blank">specific character from the comics</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Kraven the Hunter</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Plans for Kraven were <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12364" target="_blank">connected to John Jameson</a> </li>
<li>Kraven’s transformation would have been <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11361" target="_blank">important in the long-term</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Calypso</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Calypso’s character would have been <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=15316" target="_blank">explored further</a> </li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>NEW VILLAINS</b></span></div>
<span style="background-color: black;"></span><b> </b><b> </b><br />
<b>Scorpion</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Confirmed for <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11017" target="_blank">season 3</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Hobgoblin</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Confirmed for <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11017" target="_blank">season 3</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Morbius</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Confirmed to <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10775" target="_blank">eventually appear</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>By the end of season 2, the following civilian characters had been introduced:</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Morris Bench</li>
<li>Hobie Brown</li>
<li>Stan Carter</li>
<li>Mac Gargan</li>
<li>Cletus Kasady</li>
<li>Roderick Kingsley </li>
<li>Miles Warren</li>
</ul>
<br />
In
the comic book source material, these characters respectively take on the alter egos
of <b>Hydro-Man, the Prowler, Sin-Eater, Scorpion, Carnage, Hobgoblin, </b>and<b>
the Jackal</b>, respectively.<br />
<br />
When asked what villains would eventually appear, Weisman has said that
some <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12497" target="_blank">"are obvious, given the fact that we had already introduced them in their civilian identities."</a> And given the series' propensity for faithfulness to the comics, it’s not a
stretch to imagine that most of the characters listed above would have eventually become
their respective villains. Weisman implies as much when speaking about
specific characters in some quotes seen below (which is somewhat speculative of me to say).<br />
<br />
Weisman, regarding <a href="http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/31/inside-spideys-web-identity-crisis?page=2" target="_blank">Miles Warren:</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“Someone
asked me about clones and stuff at Comic-Con at our panel, and I'll
just say what I think is pretty obvious, which is that we brought Miles
in… If we brought Miles in… I don't do anything by accident. And without
going into any details or specifics, if we brought Miles in, then we
have plans for Miles – long term plans. What those plans are is
obviously influenced by what Miles has done in the comics.”</i> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(IGN, <i>Inside Spidey's Web: "Identity Crisis,"</i> 31 July 2009)</span></blockquote>
<br />
Regarding <a href="http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/28/sdcc-09-hulk-and-capt-america-planned-for-spidey" target="_blank">Miles Warren and Cletus Kasady:</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>A
fan asked if they had plans to explore the "Ben Riley" storyline.
"Well, we've got Miles Warren," Weisman smirked. "We didn't put him in
there for nothing." Weisman gave a similar answer to a fan who asked
about an appearance of Carnage. "Well we put Cletus Kasady in so…" </i><span style="font-size: x-small;">(IGN, <i>SDCC 09: Hulk and Capt. America Planned for Spidey,</i> 28 July 2009)</span></blockquote>
<br />
Regarding <a href="http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/21/inside-spideys-web-probable-cause" target="_blank">Stan Carter:</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
IGN:
<i>Stan Carter and Jean DeWolff have been peripheral characters, but you
had an interesting little moment here where Stan talks about wishing
Spider-Man went further with his treatment of criminals. Was it fun to
get that little hint at Stan's Sin-Eater future in there? </i><br />
<br />
Weisman:
<i>Yeah. We're trying to play the characters consistent. As with many of
our characters – we talked about this before – we extrapolate backwards.
We know who they wind up being, from the comics. Where did they start?
So we know who Jean DeWolff is going to be down the road, and we know
who Stan Carter is going to be.</i><span style="font-size: x-small;"> (IGN, <i>Inside Spidey's Web: "Probable Cause,"</i> 20 October 2009)</span></blockquote>
<br />
<b>Crime Master</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Could have possibly appeared in <a href="http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/06/27/the-spectacular-spider-mans-past-and-future?page=4" target="_blank">episodes following the gang war</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Mr. Negative</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Weisman <a href="http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/03/inside-spideys-web-reinforcement?page=2" target="_blank">found the character appealing</a> </li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>SERIES PLANS</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<ul>
<li>Weisman would have liked to do a <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13331" target="_blank">musical episode</a></li>
<li>The show would have featured <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11453" target="_blank">"a different variation on the [Sinister] Six each season"</a> </li>
<li>Weisman
hoped to do <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10446" target="_blank">“65 episodes that take Pete through his high school graduation” and then “continue to do DVDs telling stories of his college years”</a> </li>
<li>Some
direct-to-DVD movies Weisman wanted to do included a <a href="http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=19596" target="_blank">“Spring Break movie between Season Two and Season Three, set in Florida,”</a> as well as movies between season 3 and 4 and between season 4 and 5 - if
the movies weren’t approved, their stories would have either been
incorporated into the high school seasons or additional seasons </li>
</ul>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="The Spectacular Spider-Man: What Season 3 Could Have Looked Like
The Spectacular Spider-Man lasted only two seasons, and fans of the cancelled-before-its-time series have often speculated about the contents of a potential season 3. Supervising producer Greg Weisman has generally been mum when asked to reveal his plans for the show (often citing the notion that ideas absent execution aren’t worth sharing), but he has given some info over the years.
So in the interest of providing hard info, not speculation, I’ve read all of Weisman’s Spidey-related “Ask Greg” posts to date on the Station Eight Gargoyles website and all of his IGN interviews regarding the show.
I’ve assembled all the info I could find regarding his plans for Spec Spidey’s season 3 and beyond. The info is listed and divided into three sections: characters, new villains, and series plans.
I’ve tried to avoid speculation, but wherever I might be straying into speculation, I hope I’ve made it clear. Follow the links provided to read Weisman’s own words.
Hit the jump to see the list.
CHARACTERS
SPIDER-MAN
- Spider-tracers would be introduced (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11758) and the invention of Spidey’s webshooters would be revealed in a “major storyline.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11463)
- Weisman would have liked to introduce the Spider-Mobile in season 3 or 4 (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/06/27/the-spectacular-spider-mans-past-and-future?page=5)
MARY JANE
- Mary Jane and Peter would eventually get married. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10930)
FLASH
- Flash would have been developed further. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12359)
- Midtown Manhattan Magnet High School’s football championship would be under review in season 3 due to Harry’s doping. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/21/inside-spideys-web-probable-cause?page=2)
- Peter and Flash’s boxing match from The Amazing Spider-Man #8 is something Weisman would have liked to adapt. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/31/inside-spideys-web-identity-crisis)
BETTY BRANT AND NED LEEDS
- Betty Brant and Ned Lee’s relationship would “have been important in season three.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13522)
CURT CONNORS
- Connors is in Florida and is still working on a cure for Electro. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11749)
BLACK CAT
- Black Cat and Spider-Man’s relationship is now very fraught considering the reveal that Walter Hardy killed Uncle Ben. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/11/25/inside-spideys-web-opening-night-final-curtain)
EDDIE BROCK
- Season 3 would have seen a plotline involving Eddie’s placement in Ravencroft. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11076)
- The gene cleanser Peter uses on Venom didn’t actually affect Venom. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11129)
NORMAN OSBORN
- The Globulin drug’s inconclusive effects could possibly create a “more sympathetic public image” for Norman in the wake of his outing as the Green Goblin. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=16471)
- Norman mentoring Peter would have “long-term implications.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12372)
- Norman wouldn’t acquire government status or power in the short-term – he might in the long-term (this is speculation). (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11619)
EMILY OSBORN
- “Very specific” plans involving Emily Osborn would have been executed in season 3 in the wake of Norman’s absence. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/11/25/inside-spideys-web-opening-night-final-curtain?page=3)
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12444
RODERICK KINGSLEY
- Kingsley possibly has a twin brother (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11043)
- Kingsley’s first appearance in Spectacular Spider-Man #43 influenced the decision to make him a perfume company owner rather than a fashion designer, and this decision was tied into long-term plans (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/13/inside-spideys-web-accomplices)
TOMBSTONE
- Tombstone and Robbie Robertson’s relationship would have been developed.
(http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12909)
SILVER SABLE
- Silver Sable would become more like “Sable from the comics” through long-term plans. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13423)
HAMMERHEAD’S CHAUFFEUR
- Like all other supporting characters, Hammerhead’s chauffeur is a specific character from the comics.
(http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=14552,
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12514)
KRAVEN
- There were plans for Kraven that were connected to John Jameson. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=12364)
- Kraven’s transformation would have been important in the long-term (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11361)
CALYPSO
- Calypso’s character would have been explored more – to the possible inclusion of mysticism (this is speculation). (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=15316)
NEW VILLAINS
Season 3
SCORPION
Scorpion and Hobgoblin appearances were confirmed for season 3.
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11017
HOBGOBLIN
Scorpion and Hobgoblin appearances were confirmed for season 3.
http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11017
More long-term
MORBIUS
Morbius was confirmed to “eventually” appear. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10775)
Possible villains
CRIME MASTER
The Crime Master could have possibly appeared in future episodes. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/06/27/the-spectacular-spider-mans-past-and-future?page=4)
MR NEGATIVE
Mr Negative appealed to Weisman (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/03/inside-spideys-web-reinforcement?page=2).
By the end of season 2, the following characters had been introduced:
Morris Bench
Hobie Brown
Stan Carter
Mac Gargan
Cletus Kasady
Roderick Kingsley
Miles Warren
In the comic book source material, these characters take on the alter egos of Hydro Man, the Prowler, Sin-Eater, Scorpion, Carnage, Hobgoblin, and the Jackal, respectively.
Given the series’ interest in introducing villains in their civilian identities, in extrapolating the villains backwards, and in faithfulness to the comics, it’s not a stretch to imagine that most of the listed characters would have become the aforementioned villains. Weisman implies as much when speaking about specific characters in some quotes seen below (however, I am of course speculating here).
Weisman, regarding Miles Warren:
“Someone asked me about clones and stuff at Comic-Con at our panel, and I'll just say what I think is pretty obvious, which is that we brought Miles in… If we brought Miles in… I don't do anything by accident. And without going into any details or specifics, if we brought Miles in, then we have plans for Miles – long term plans. What those plans are is obviously influenced by what Miles has done in the comics.”
(http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/31/inside-spideys-web-identity-crisis?page=2)
Weisman, regarding Miles Warren and Cletus Kasady:
“A fan asked if they had plans to explore the "Ben Riley" storyline. "Well, we've got Miles Warren," Weisman smirked. "We didn't put him in there for nothing." Weisman gave a similar answer to a fan who asked about an appearance of Carnage. "Well we put Cletus Kasady in so…"”
(http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/07/28/sdcc-09-hulk-and-capt-america-planned-for-spidey)
Weisman, regarding Stan Carter:
“IGN: Stan Carter and Jean DeWolff have been peripheral characters, but you had an interesting little moment here where Stan talks about wishing Spider-Man went further with his treatment of criminals. Was it fun to get that little hint at Stan's Sin-Eater future in there?
Weisman: Yeah. We're trying to play the characters consistent. As with many of our characters – we talked about this before – we extrapolate backwards. We know who they wind up being, from the comics. Where did they start? So we know who Jean DeWolff is going to be down the road, and we know who Stan Carter is going to be.”
http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/10/21/inside-spideys-web-probable-cause
SERIES PLANS
- Weisman would have liked to do a musical episode
(http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=13331)
- The show would “go through a different variation on the [Sinister] Six each season.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=11453)
Weisman hoped to do “65 episodes that take Pete through his high school graduation” and then “continue to do DVDs telling stories of his college years.” (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=10446)
Some direct-to-DVD movies Weisman wanted to do included a “Spring Break movie between Season Two and Season Three, set in Florida,” as well as a movie between seasons 3 and 4 and a movie between seasons 4 and 5. If the movies weren’t approved, their stories would have either been incorporated into the high school seasons or additional seasons. (http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=19596)">If you have any additions or corrections, please let me know!</span></span></b></div>
Jim Zittlawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09631477670703821690noreply@blogger.com60tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276106279825264542.post-79965848789383502782014-07-01T23:44:00.000-06:002017-02-05T02:48:21.972-07:00Homophobia in Skyfall<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">I’m
not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied
values of masculine, heterosexual, and imperialist superiority. The character's preferred subject (</span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">i.e. </span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">the audience such a character would chiefly draw</span></span>)</span></span> agrees with these values. Ian
Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the
character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes
and beds.”</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">No doubt the long-running James Bond film series could still be said</span></span></span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="No doubt James Bond films could still be said to uphold many, if not all, of the aforementioned hegemonic viewpoints. Consumers actively and knowingly participate in the propagation of these viewpoints when they purchase a ticket to a James Bond film."> to uphold most, if not all,
of the aforementioned values. Consumers know what they're buying when they purchase a ticket to a Bond film. </span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."></span></span></span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">But the
guarantee that the series will uphold those values is only implicit. The film producers, through the material
substance of their product, can at any moment offer differing viewpoints to the audience.<br /><br />A watershed moment for the support of female and gay
viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s <i>Casino Royale</i>, wherein an iconic 1962 <i>Dr. No</i> scene (originally featuring Ursula Andress
emerging from the ocean) was recreated. This time, James Bond himself (Daniel
Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.</span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs_Lx5j6JqOCAb_Wc3BuOUK64Q0fhlTJiP2SOYwi_BqpiqrMr2JK8Y0SlHldGtOFtMa99H2VQ1YDhOdt8GsD91hedD_QntZWBB55h1Adv5JBKbfdsWwricMed1TZ3Kv78k-WeSMvgjGS61/s1600/CRAIG+ANDRESS+copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs_Lx5j6JqOCAb_Wc3BuOUK64Q0fhlTJiP2SOYwi_BqpiqrMr2JK8Y0SlHldGtOFtMa99H2VQ1YDhOdt8GsD91hedD_QntZWBB55h1Adv5JBKbfdsWwricMed1TZ3Kv78k-WeSMvgjGS61/s1600/CRAIG+ANDRESS+copy.jpg" width="400" /><span style="font-size: small;"><i></i></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Get it? Watershed?</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><br />James
Bond shot in such a manner shocked some fans,
especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going all the way back to
the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! (While
one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to
women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body like it did upon Craig.)</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."></span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">Then, in a scene from
2012’s <i>Skyfall</i>, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots
of ink was spilled across the internet as viewers rushed to say their
piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give
my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one
else is talking about the scene anymore, or my thoughts will be ignored
because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the
latter. No one reads this blog anyway. Except you, dear reader.</span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."></span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><br /></span></span>
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><i>Skyfall</i>
grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an
apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to
<i>Skyfall</i> could have reasonably expected a positive view of gay sex in a James
Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character's
preferred subject</span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">. However, if a viewer did not appreciate the
thought of a bisexual Bond </span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">(for whatever reason</span></span></span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">, </span></span> homophobia or otherwise)</span></span>, that viewer was forced to confront his thoughts on gay sex.</span></span><br />
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."></span></span><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeJqXPi95BVoJeLseD11QWqhsPsiJ9aLPdMFSKFlNVrjhjzjsnmK5cwuHDsSsk17fdF2r2lhvxMZPt5-qP_NZtQibz7hyBW6cpMRQavql3nVanhUK0zCDUGpiwiA-7C_-XHnFXKAPbg7wO/s1600/ARTICLE+IMAGE.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeJqXPi95BVoJeLseD11QWqhsPsiJ9aLPdMFSKFlNVrjhjzjsnmK5cwuHDsSsk17fdF2r2lhvxMZPt5-qP_NZtQibz7hyBW6cpMRQavql3nVanhUK0zCDUGpiwiA-7C_-XHnFXKAPbg7wO/s1600/ARTICLE+IMAGE.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">Skyfall </span></span></span><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">(2012)</span></span></span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a
chair (pictured above). Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and legs.
The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how
Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a
man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene
in 1999’s <i>The World is Not Enough</i>, wherein a female villain threatens
Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.</span></span><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0pfR2vmZZdaW9BT9P1XvZhUJZUTuuZrYWWc-OFoUmlWPX3GtLR87l0uaXFA9uYpmccVa9OfJbzLqMNX-eVG6lNwnqMLKFf-d5VbLJvyTfVtF5PNJSz4rFk9otpV6w65LI5-JDKYhHFIJw/s1600/TWINE+1999.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="277" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0pfR2vmZZdaW9BT9P1XvZhUJZUTuuZrYWWc-OFoUmlWPX3GtLR87l0uaXFA9uYpmccVa9OfJbzLqMNX-eVG6lNwnqMLKFf-d5VbLJvyTfVtF5PNJSz4rFk9otpV6w65LI5-JDKYhHFIJw/s1600/TWINE+1999.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">The World is Not Enough <i>(1999) ... is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it</i></span></span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><br />Despite
containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as
the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way
that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let's be real</span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."> – </span></span>for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume the masculine Bond will come out on top,
because part of masculinity's essence is the ability to reign over femininity.<br /><br />But in
2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who
possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual
orientation (male-oriented). Bond's very core is being threatened. For the character’s preferred subject,
Bond’s sexual defeat at the hands of Silva would be worse than Bond's death. The preferred subject, who
identifies with Bond, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a
first person point-of-view shot. </span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">Even
Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic
knee between Bond’s legs. </span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."> </span></span><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5qxzTAyNF_4Dp6dY9DbaqWt4hcwKpDgy-a9JNdNtnsA7U2yp5dRsqXcouDI9V3cUVz1ytW7aXFbZ7ll3hHyCn_G2MMqTnmF0BYQflCTnD8KVC0vCfg6RcG38gnhUmUmff1GFZGgM01TjJ/s1600/LEGS.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="166" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5qxzTAyNF_4Dp6dY9DbaqWt4hcwKpDgy-a9JNdNtnsA7U2yp5dRsqXcouDI9V3cUVz1ytW7aXFbZ7ll3hHyCn_G2MMqTnmF0BYQflCTnD8KVC0vCfg6RcG38gnhUmUmff1GFZGgM01TjJ/s1600/LEGS.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes</span></span></span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</span></span><br />
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">Despite Silva having the upper hand, the
preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until
Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” and
Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”<br /><br />Many
viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it
has been celebrated in Bond/Silva fan fiction and art. But what of the
preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can:
accept the thought of James Bond engaging in gay sex; let his
view of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can
flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond
removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing
to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex. <br /><br />However,
the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is
immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after
the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, tears Bond
away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The viewer is left to feel uncomfortable all by his lonesome. (Of course, one
might feel uncomfortable more at the thought of Bond being raped. But that feeling is likely still informed by homophobia. A man
raping Bond feels distinctly more violative than a woman raping Bond, and it’s worth asking why.)<br /><br />The scene’s message, finally, is this:
James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for
whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in
this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and
panic – the losing side.<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWpal_-dc03zm-L7pDXWIG6VcTFi9fQmWCJAtJZHsClzcLUhGh5vvKrBjzbBdM9ONB-z2x5q4Hc-DV2Ic-YQ6PfobegvZnKfYkJwLLMP9C0U8f6FH4V1ikONnpYkx5FR5HVsAGGV_y6Q7c/s1600/POSTER.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWpal_-dc03zm-L7pDXWIG6VcTFi9fQmWCJAtJZHsClzcLUhGh5vvKrBjzbBdM9ONB-z2x5q4Hc-DV2Ic-YQ6PfobegvZnKfYkJwLLMP9C0U8f6FH4V1ikONnpYkx5FR5HVsAGGV_y6Q7c/s1600/POSTER.jpg" width="326" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">I'm pretty sure this is fan art, but who knows these days, am I right?</span></span></span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</span></span><br />
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">Some
may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond
(fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. To Ian Fleming, homosexuality itself was
villainous, but to <i>Skyfall</i>’s producers, homosexuality simply levels the playing field between Bond and Silva. Homosexuality itself is a threat only if
one supports hegemonic masculinity. But in this
rare case, Bond does not.<br /><br />All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some
kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? <i>Skyfall</i> is an
artifact (and only one artifact) in a legacy of hegemonic masculinity, and it
shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the
acceptance of homosexuality.</span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."> </span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">The implication that Bond is
bisexual goes against the character’s foundational values, </span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">plain and simple</span></span>. Whether or not
it’s “wrong” for Bond as a character to have gay sex is a debate for another day. Maybe it is wrong. Maybe that’s the point.</span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable."> </span></span><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span title="I’m not saying anything controversial here: James Bond has long embodied values of masculine, heterosexual, and Imperialist superiority. Ian Fleming might have said it best in 1962 when he claimed he created the character for “warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, aeroplanes and beds” – the kind of men with enough income and social status to enjoy food, drink, sex, and travel. In 1962, at least.
Today, the guarantee that the Bond film series will uphold the aforementioned values is only implicit. The film series producers, through the material substance of their product, can choose at any moment to offer differing thoughts to the public.
A watershed moment for female and gay viewpoints in the series came in 2006’s Casino Royale, wherein a memorable 1962 Dr. No scene – originally featuring Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean – was recreated. This time, James Bond (Daniel Craig) was the object of the camera’s gaze.
ANDRESS / CRAIG
Andress (1962) and Craig (2006). Get it? Watershed?
James Bond shot in such a manner shocked the sensibilities of some viewers, especially those accustomed to a parade of “Bond girls” going back to the ‘60s. How dare the series toss a bone to women and gay men! While one could argue that Sean Connery’s occasional shirtlessness appealed to women in the ‘60s, the camera never gazed upon his body for that specific purpose like it did upon Craig.
Then, in a scene from 2012’s Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig again) implied he’d had gay sex. Lots of ink was spilt across the internet as viewers rushed to say their piece on the scene. Personally, I have waited almost two years to give my thoughts on it. So either my thoughts will stand out because no one else is talking about the scene anymore – or my thoughts will be ignored because no one else is talking about the scene anymore. Probably the latter. No one reads this blog. Except you, of course.
CHAIR
Articles discussing the scene usually featured this still from the scene
Skyfall grossed over $1 billion in box office worldwide – and this with an apparently bisexual Bond. Of course, no one who bought a ticket to Skyfall could have reasonably expected support of gay sex in a James Bond film. Such a viewpoint is not found within the character’s preferred subject. However, any viewer who did not appreciate the thought of bisexual Bond was forced by the film to have his viewpoint challenged.
In the film, the villain, Silva, ties Bond to a chair. Silva then undoes Bond’s shirt and caresses his chest and thighs. The villain makes verbal sexual passes at Bond and comments on how Bond, despite all his training, is unprepared for a sexual advance by a man. The scene contrasts with a similar but differently gendered scene in 1999’s The World is Not Enough, wherein a female villain threatens Bond sexually and mortally at the same time.
ELEKTRA
The World is Not Enough (1999) is an awful movie and I don’t recommend it
Despite containing mortal danger, the 1999 scene is never as uncomfortable as the 2012 scene. The 1999 scene feels dangerous, sure, but in a kinky way that’s accessible to men. For better or for worse (let’s be honest – for worse), it’s easy for viewers to assume Bond will come out on top, because masculinity is assumed to reign over femininity.
But in 2012, Bond’s hegemonic masculinity is squarely matched by a villain who possesses a man’s traditional power within a woman’s traditional sexual orientation (male-oriented). For the character’s preferred subject, Bond’s defeat here would be worse than death. The preferred subject, who identifies with the character, is invited to squirm along with Bond in a first person point-of-view shot:
LEGS
The viewer experiences discomfort through Bond’s eyes
Even Bond’s material self appears to be invaded, as Silva inserts a phallic knee between Bond’s legs. Despite Silva having the upper hand, the preferred subject is still resolutely on Bond’s side. That is until Silva offers the line, “There’s a first time for everything,” – to which Bond responds, “What makes you think this is my first time?”
Many viewers, particularly in the gay community, accepted this scene, and it has been celebrated in Silva/Bond fan fiction and art. But what of the preferred subject, who is decidedly heterosexual? At this point, he can: accept the idea of James Bond engaging in homosexual sex; let his viewpoint of homosexuality be challenged and changed (or not); or he can flee the theatre in disgust. Many Bond fans, who did not want Bond removed from hegemonic masculinity, proposed that Bond was only bluffing to appear unfazed by Silva’s advances and never actually had gay sex.
However, the struggle over whether or not Bond actually had gay sex is immaterial. The fact that Bond is suddenly supportive of the idea, after the preferred subject’s discomfort has grown and grown, rips Bond away from the preferred subject’s viewpoint. The preferred subject is left feeling uncomfortable about gay sex all by his lonesome. (Of course, one might feel uncomfortable chiefly at the thought of Bond being raped in this scene. But that feeling is still informed by homophobia. A man raping Bond feels distinctly more uncomfortable than a woman raping Bond – it’s worth asking why.)
The scene’s message, finally, is this: James Bond has no qualms about aligning himself with homosexuality, for whatever reason. The preferred subject can either join Bond’s side in this matter, or he can remain on the side of heterosexual anxiety and panic – the losing side.
GAY POSTER
This is definitely fan art
Some may argue that pitting Silva (fighting as homosexuality) against Bond (fighting as heterosexuality) demonizes homosexuality. Ian Fleming often included homosexual villains in his Bond novels, but Silva is the first homosexual villain in a Bond film. To Fleming, homosexuality was villainous, but to Skyfall’s producers, homosexuality simply gets Silva on Bond’s level when Silva threatens Bond sexually. Homosexuality in itself is dangerous only to the preferred subject. Silva is a threat if one supports (and is supported by) hegemonic masculinity. But in this rare case, Bond is not.
All of this doesn’t mean Bond is some kind of revolutionary gay icon. How could he be? Skyfall is only one artifact in a legacy of masculinity and heterosexuality, and it shouldn’t be overpraised for its admittedly small contribution to the acceptance of homosexuality.
The implication that Bond is bisexual goes against the character’s fundamental values. Whether or not it’s “wrong” for Bond to have gay sex is a debate for another day. I mean, maybe it is wrong. And maybe that’s the point.
Whether or not one agrees with Bond having gay sex, Skyfall can certainly be praised for its efficiency in making homophobes uncomfortable.">The material substance of <i>Skyfall</i> is
certainly efficient in challenging homophobia.</span></span>Jim Zittlawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09631477670703821690noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276106279825264542.post-13565214600686158842014-06-26T12:15:00.000-06:002014-11-14T00:55:01.433-07:00Penny DreadfulI watched the first episode-and-a-half of <i>Penny Dreadful </i>and it sucked.Jim Zittlawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09631477670703821690noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276106279825264542.post-86530647844538739912014-06-25T00:40:00.001-06:002014-11-14T00:56:04.954-07:00Röyksopp and Robyn: A Mini-Album Done Right<span style="font-family: Verdana;">I first heard the seemingly simple title track </span><span style="font-family: Verdana;">from Röyksopp’s and Robyn’s new mini-album, <i>Do It Again</i>,</span><span style="font-family: Verdana;"> in a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIG7PVa8SS8" target="_blank">YouTube lyric video</a>. </span><span style="font-family: Verdana;">First impression: Robyn had
accomplished this sound with more panache on her various 2010 <i>Body Talk</i> releases. Bored, I decided to read
the lyrics: “</span>One more time / Let's
do it again / Blow my mind / Do it again.”<span style="font-family: Verdana;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Now I’m all for minimalism, but this was reminding me of the
slight (and slightly embarrassing) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Body Talk
Pt. 3</i> closer, “Stars 4-Ever.” I skipped onto a related video: a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nek-IvGpe0w" target="_blank">snippet from another track</a>, “Monument.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">Sure, the chillout
sound was new coming from Robyn (it’s more Röyksopp’s domain), but this was just
a minute-and-a-half of ponderous repetition. These videos were meant to sell me on the album?</span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">So I gave up on </span><i style="font-family: Verdana;">Do It Again</i><span style="font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. It was only when I
recently overheard my brother listening to “Monument” – which was apparently 10 minutes
long in full – that I was surprised by the gentlest sax solo I've ever heard. I was smitten.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">You can hear a
7:48 edit of “Monument” below.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/pJ-7T9uHilk?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I listened to the album again – a real listen this time.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Unlike Robyn's
previous scattershot <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">mini-albums</span>, the </span><span style="font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">35-minute Röyksopp team-up</span></span></span> turns out to be a complete work. The title track's electropop is bookended by the midtempo "Sayit" (</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">a more carnal relationship-with-a-robot track than Robyn’s previous bubblegum “Fembot”) and "Every Little Thing" (which, save for some dark synths, goes down a bit too easy). These midtempo tracks are in turn bookended by extended sax-infused chillouts (the closer, "Inside the Idle Hour Club," is penned by </span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">Röyksopp alone</span>).</span> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">But it’s not just the
album's tempo that rises, peaks, and then descends. It’s the mood. The first
half builds to the ecstatic "Do It Again," and then things go sour in that song's bridge. The blink-and-you’ll-miss-it bridge (“We
should not be friends / We'll just do it again / If you stay around / We'll
just do it again”) adds considerable subtext to otherwise generic raunchy lyrics.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">In the end, that bridge
becomes the point on which the album's mood pivots, creating a complex bittersweetness - or is that sweetbitterness? - to rival Robyn's best. I’m all for
minimalism, and</span><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> the truly collaborative </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Do It Again </i>does so much with so little.</span><br />
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana;"></span>
Jim Zittlawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09631477670703821690noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276106279825264542.post-1784612064929833892014-06-19T00:24:00.001-06:002017-06-29T21:46:48.737-06:00What Goes Around Comes Around: The Moral Implications of Spider-Man's Origin Stories<span style="font-family: inherit;"> The so-called origin stories of superheroes like
Spider-Man and Batman have been burnt into the public consciousness. Some might
call them our modern-day myths. Ask someone on the street what Spider-Man’s
origin story is and he or she might reply, “Spider-Man lets a burglar escape and
then the burglar kills his Uncle Ben.” The story is <span style="font-family: inherit;">that</span> simple.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span>
But it's also far more complicated.<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_jZ3kBQEOwR0QRr2yRBvuS4GcvLQUUa_ZDJuuzgAb2GtuWrlCck0YRY6NeZjmJ_pTJx2_MgqNLWnpQcPSmQvsvzZRHBu0mFz-pcmwKPnB3Y81DUV88x9K14T2I3zl_Il0PFcA73sLHFpW/s1600/zu4030138_alt_1_tm1382133833.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_jZ3kBQEOwR0QRr2yRBvuS4GcvLQUUa_ZDJuuzgAb2GtuWrlCck0YRY6NeZjmJ_pTJx2_MgqNLWnpQcPSmQvsvzZRHBu0mFz-pcmwKPnB3Y81DUV88x9K14T2I3zl_Il0PFcA73sLHFpW/s1600/zu4030138_alt_1_tm1382133833.jpg" width="224" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Amazing Fantasy<i> #15</i></span> </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The first Spider-Man story appeared in 1962 in the pages of <i>Amazing
Fantasy</i> #15 and, unlike Batman’s first appearance, served as the origin story
for its respective superhero. Stan Lee and Steve Ditko told a tale of a
teenager who gains power, uses it for himself only, and then suffers for his
selfishness.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Revolving around the figures of Peter Parker, Uncle Ben, and the
Burglar, the narrative would inform every subsequent appearance of the character. Indeed, one could say the 1962 yarn wasn’t only the first Spider-Man
story, but also <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the</i> Spider-Man
story. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Despite the definitive stature of Lee's and Ditko’s original comic-cum-moral-tale,
Spider-Man’s lore has undergone several permutations. The narrative has mutated
each time it’s been passed down in comic books, TV shows, and movies. Even Lee
got little details wrong when he wrote flashbacks to the story – a story where
the devil is definitely in the details.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">A question arises: do the most well-known retellings of
Spider-Man’s origin story – the blockbuster films <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Spider-Man</i> (Sam Raimi, 2002) and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Amazing Spider-Man </i>(Marc Webb, 2012) – communicate the same
moral message as the 1962 narrative?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">For this fan, the answer is no. I will compare and contrast
four important story beats within the original narrative and within each of the
films. Then, I will paint a picture of each telling’s wider moral message and give my thoughts on the value of that message.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">WHY PETER DOESN'T STOP THE BURGLAR</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwnHqGzRdSoXaHAbDIv1psmdlyQeI6KhQO0qrnF9oJUjx30z3VBhwsB-oBwBHSg-P8ek2f7vF6POym5qcsgdeRdhD9WTVIQJZ72t8RoB7FJUIhXYEsDO3RPwq2ziaTQkStmLxMwT6QmN-q/s1600/amazing-fantasy-15-08+copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="311" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwnHqGzRdSoXaHAbDIv1psmdlyQeI6KhQO0qrnF9oJUjx30z3VBhwsB-oBwBHSg-P8ek2f7vF6POym5qcsgdeRdhD9WTVIQJZ72t8RoB7FJUIhXYEsDO3RPwq2ziaTQkStmLxMwT6QmN-q/s1600/amazing-fantasy-15-08+copy.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Peter's motivation in 1962</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the 1962 version, Peter Parker is a bookworm who is tired
of being bullied. When he gains the abilities of a spider, he brands himself
Spider-Man and uses his powers to gain fame and fortune. After performing on
television, Spider-Man has a chance to stop the Burglar. He chooses not to.
When a pursuing police officer questions him as to why, Peter responds, "Sorry, pal! That’s your job! I’m thru being pushed around –
by anyone! From now on I just look out for number one – that means – me!"</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Peter is motivated purely by selfishness. He resents being
“pushed around” by bullies and rejected by girls, so now that he's powerful,
he thinks of no one but himself.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the 2002 retelling, Peter is promised $3000 for
performing in a wrestling match, but the event manager pays him only $100. He
tells the manager that he needs the money, only for the manager to reply, “I
missed the part where that’s my problem.”</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXvrOys4mnkZzKNlobT6qdFrQSqDTBIKDfVO7TzHDpWZfXpBDJSCp0aCrxtWU4sP7m-7bb-k35eTNLIshj6NSZh6eZuIc-x_8LAvzM4anFOCwoOsQdZVlEUy6fmZh5ZYxWCIKsMtS7gU7S/s1600/Manager.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="215" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXvrOys4mnkZzKNlobT6qdFrQSqDTBIKDfVO7TzHDpWZfXpBDJSCp0aCrxtWU4sP7m-7bb-k35eTNLIshj6NSZh6eZuIc-x_8LAvzM4anFOCwoOsQdZVlEUy6fmZh5ZYxWCIKsMtS7gU7S/s1600/Manager.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>The manager rips off Peter in 2002</i></span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">When Peter is leaving, the Burglar robs the manager and runs
past Peter, who does nothing to stop the thief. When the manager grills Peter
over this, Peter spitefully repeats the manager’s line word-for-word: “I missed the part
where that’s my problem.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Peter’s motive here is less selfishness and more
retribution. The implication is that he would have helped the manager, if the
manager hadn't ripped him off. Instead, the manager seems to be receiving his
comeuppance.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the 2012 adaptation, a convenience store clerk refuses to
sell a bottle of milk to Peter because the teenager doesn't have nearly enough
change. The Burglar then robs the clerk and tosses the milk to Peter, who
leaves. The Burglar flees the store, and the clerk asks Peter for help in
stopping the Burglar. Peter refuses, replying, “Not my policy.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">His refusal appears to be informed by three motives: one,
selfishness – when asked for help, he states that helping is not his policy;
two, retribution – in the wake of the cashier’s penny-pinching pettiness, Peter
turns a blind eye to the robbery; and three, safety – the situation doesn't
allow him to stop the Burglar safely. In this version, Peter is both looking out
for number one and seeking an eye for an eye. However, contrasting with the
1962 and 2002 versions, Peter has no unique opportunity to prevent the
Burglar’s escape.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF UNCLE BEN'S DEATH</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In 1962’s telling, the Burglar murders Uncle Ben at home,
days after Peter let the Burglar escape. A police officer informs Peter that
Uncle Ben had “surprised” the Burglar, which suggests that the Burglar
attempted to rob the Parker house and was confronted by Uncle Ben.</span><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBIA7T1qpNO2DqBkhSSVrIQFT4j-NGRC6UUsGJv0FYx7AzmPVYUnpsdALiVXP4K9_FiHKdqa3kvz3S6Tqb5FaLLlohWfGZxMk1oAf9QeCmO-Fad-umtPmoZvFfBjQwRSxVDIIkPylmUEll/s1600/House.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBIA7T1qpNO2DqBkhSSVrIQFT4j-NGRC6UUsGJv0FYx7AzmPVYUnpsdALiVXP4K9_FiHKdqa3kvz3S6Tqb5FaLLlohWfGZxMk1oAf9QeCmO-Fad-umtPmoZvFfBjQwRSxVDIIkPylmUEll/s1600/House.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Uncle Ben's death in 1962</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">There's no reason given for the Burglar choosing the Parker
house to rob, so its robbery – and thus Uncle Ben’s death – becomes a random
event made possible by Peter’s selfishness.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Uncle Ben’s murder in the 2002 film is not random. While
Uncle Ben waits to pick up Peter from the wrestling match, the Burglar murders him and
steals his vehicle. Peter’s failure to stop the Burglar becomes less a failure
to protect the general public from criminals than a failure to consider the
safety of Uncle Ben in a specific situation.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the 2012 film, Uncle Ben’s death is neither random nor
Peter’s fault. Upon searching for Peter, who has run away from home, Uncle Ben
sees the Burglar and attempts to stop the man. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCda53LYV78uYZ8HuyGhmQOwc07PsAyWwozDNyyeft-LlsRQ-UDaRR0xqeaVGGV-bmpX-M6ukr0-e_G-Y6dYesJlXyIogJ7IWVw4YQsaB93yuSQOyQlspCcweCgpSRusGHzG-JYfwgV-YL/s1600/Death2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCda53LYV78uYZ8HuyGhmQOwc07PsAyWwozDNyyeft-LlsRQ-UDaRR0xqeaVGGV-bmpX-M6ukr0-e_G-Y6dYesJlXyIogJ7IWVw4YQsaB93yuSQOyQlspCcweCgpSRusGHzG-JYfwgV-YL/s1600/Death2.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Uncle Ben's death in 2012</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Although he's on the street
because of Peter, Uncle Ben is not in danger until he puts himself in danger –
the Burglar is willing to ignore any civilian willing to ignore in kind.</span> Uncle
Ben’s death in this version is dependent on his own actions, as he chooses to
confront the Burglar.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> </b></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">THE BURGLAR'S FATE</b></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">After Peter realizes in the 1962 version that Uncle Ben’s
murderer is the Burglar he let escape, he traps the Burglar in a web and leaves
the man for the police. Peter makes a choice not to hurt the murderer and to
leave him in the hands of the law. In 2002, Peter confronts the Burglar, who
then trips while backing towards a window. He falls through the window to his
death. Peter does not kill the Burglar, or leave him to the police – instead,
it's as if the world serves the Burglar his just desserts. The 2012 retelling
sees the Burglar escape after murdering Uncle Ben. At the end of the film, he
is still at large.</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">A QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Spider-Man’s famous mantra first appears in a narration box
in the last panel of his first appearance: “with great power there must also
come – great responsibility!”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEZM9iasSxyOtfP6H8hE-GAtSexohjbf692b52OrxWI6bsQ_60dyiT_-IQzZ8vV6e8qn5PZNIaE8cYCJi3V5wNNLxMLrzdw6CnD2iyPezIxS4ptnUT03MiW4Wq1MS698fzDF79iZDVTNKE/s1600/ending.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEZM9iasSxyOtfP6H8hE-GAtSexohjbf692b52OrxWI6bsQ_60dyiT_-IQzZ8vV6e8qn5PZNIaE8cYCJi3V5wNNLxMLrzdw6CnD2iyPezIxS4ptnUT03MiW4Wq1MS698fzDF79iZDVTNKE/s1600/ending.jpg" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>The mantra's wording in 1962</i></span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In 2002, Uncle Ben speaks the mantra to Peter in their last
conversation before Ben’s death, with some key words omitted. The mantra: “with great power
comes great responsibility.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This version offers responsibility as an automatic burden on
the powerful, whereas the 1962 version offers responsibility as a virtue that
the powerful must choose.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Instead of the mantra, 2012’s Uncle Ben says to Peter: "Your father lived by a philosophy, a principle really. He
believed that if you could do good things for other people, you had a moral
obligation to do those things. That’s what’s at stake here. Not choice –
responsibility."</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Like the 2002 adaptation, the 2012 retelling emphasizes
responsibility as an obligation, not a choice, as the 1962 original did.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">MORAL IMPLICATIONS</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the 1962 story, choice is thrust upon Peter Parker. When
he has the power to stop the Burglar and the power later to punish the Burglar,
he must decide whether to do the right thing each time. He is too selfish in
the first instance to make a decision for the greater good, but in the latter
situation, he makes the right decision by forgoing revenge and leaving the
Burglar to the police. Selflessness is the responsible choice.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Because the Burglar could have murdered anyone, Uncle Ben’s
death becomes a metonym for the potential death of the general public. The
moral message is akin to “crime can happen to anyone, so help stop
it when you can.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5ggJGB3tg_owpZrnUYjv5mUQoyYXLPvMmrKuZQJcQAOMelL3IcLa07IHrq5e2QKW-Io_DwclSJmJmKrwsDng6T1jali9g4vxJ0fa21g8YSvPeYv7gBOMrmSpH0z1asT68wwwQSmFB0fkx/s1600/Fault.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5ggJGB3tg_owpZrnUYjv5mUQoyYXLPvMmrKuZQJcQAOMelL3IcLa07IHrq5e2QKW-Io_DwclSJmJmKrwsDng6T1jali9g4vxJ0fa21g8YSvPeYv7gBOMrmSpH0z1asT68wwwQSmFB0fkx/s1600/Fault.jpg" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="font-size: small;">Peter at fault in 1962</span></i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">However, there is another layer. Although Uncle Ben’s murder
is random, Peter feels personally at fault because he let the Burglar escape in
the first place. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">If one accepts that the 1962 world is inherently just – that
Peter’s selfishness did indeed directly cause Uncle Ben’s death – then a far
harsher moral message emerges: “what goes around comes around.” This maxim
emphasizes both our free will and the importance of choosing to live
virtuously. In an inherently just world, one must choose selflessness or
suffer. (More on this idea later.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The 2002 version muddles both of these moral messages.
First, Uncle Ben’s death is not random. He is killed while waiting for Peter,
when the Burglar steals his car. While it could be argued that this chain of
events is more likely than the original’s, the unlikeliness of the Burglar
murdering Uncle Ben is the crux of the original story (crime can happen to
anyone… including you!). In 2002, Uncle Ben is not a stand-in for
the general public, which makes the story’s message less universal.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">If we assume that the 2002 film contains an inherently
just world – which is suggested by the Burglar’s he-had-it-coming death – Uncle
Ben’s murder is paradoxically unjustified. If Peter allows the Burglar to
escape as retribution against the event manager, and the manager deserves
retribution, why is Peter then punished for allowing the world to enact its
natural justice? Perhaps Uncle Ben’s death is not a punishment. The event
manager is punished with robbery for ripping off Peter, and the Burglar is
punished with death for murdering Uncle Ben.</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj03zpisKl_JvYpmHuBRrUZMRi6DcB1RaOex0GkP3dumbKliEe4I9SVGyDXid277v7_NML4jzIdl6ipP9uV8iImKb3l50svEAf5C8hQvSV4IV_9wCb5WEoMliwyQ0Ba07ptvzyw5P135QE4/s1600/Deadburg.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj03zpisKl_JvYpmHuBRrUZMRi6DcB1RaOex0GkP3dumbKliEe4I9SVGyDXid277v7_NML4jzIdl6ipP9uV8iImKb3l50svEAf5C8hQvSV4IV_9wCb5WEoMliwyQ0Ba07ptvzyw5P135QE4/s1600/Deadburg.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>The Burglar falls to his death in 2002</i></span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Uncle Ben’s death is then reduced to an unfortunate but
undeserved event. While Peter may be responsible for Uncle Ben being in the
wrong place at the wrong time, his failure to stop the Burglar is not the
cosmic cause of Uncle Ben’s death.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The 2002 world of Spider-Man is partly just and partly
chaotic. Some people receive their just desserts, while others suffer for no
reason. The message, then, is to fight chaos. As Uncle Ben explains, when one
is granted power, one is also burdened with a responsibility to selflessness. Justice is
not guaranteed, but a powerful individual has no choice but to seek it anyway.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Uncle Ben preaches a similar message in the 2012 version of
the story. This time, however, the message is never substantiated by the
narrative’s events. Peter is in no position to stop the Burglar without endangering himself, which
makes his other motives of selfishness and retribution irrelevant. Uncle Ben
causes his own death by engaging the armed Burglar in the street. In the drama between Peter,
Uncle Ben, and the Burglar, no one deserves punishment except the Burglar. He
is never brought to justice.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCVFvQDXtzqZol2DqNLTkCc2UYYCIHxO2PDv0anzZ6UFpD0YyPADQKkqQIgqmTK-NFU-SVQAHAa3omUjFO_FvZSKSOmwgvUnNa8diwBStFafQXTHpbB5WGbGKk6dQ1L_Jv4fvlsVqYz33K/s1600/Obligation.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCVFvQDXtzqZol2DqNLTkCc2UYYCIHxO2PDv0anzZ6UFpD0YyPADQKkqQIgqmTK-NFU-SVQAHAa3omUjFO_FvZSKSOmwgvUnNa8diwBStFafQXTHpbB5WGbGKk6dQ1L_Jv4fvlsVqYz33K/s1600/Obligation.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Uncle Ben preaches in 2012</i></span><b><br /></b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The 2012 Spider-Man world is completely chaotic, which
undermines Uncle Ben’s speech about the powerful’s obligation to do good. If
justice is never served to those who do wrong, why do good?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Some may argue that the 1962, 2002, and 2012 tellings are
similar enough. Peter allows the Burglar to escape and then Uncle Ben dies.
However, once we look beyond the surface – at motivations, circumstances, the
story’s conclusion, and wording – it becomes clear that neither of the
retellings capture the 1962 moral message.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Today, the cynical chaos of the 2012 adaptation might be called more
“realistic.” But then what is the purpose of the story’s telling – simply to
describe life as it is? No. All the beats of the original Spider-Man story add up to a moral tale, which
aspires to a prescription: the powerful should choose responsibility, because
otherwise everyone, including the powerful, could suffer.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">2002’s message is admirable (we are obligated to seek
justice, even if the world is not always just), but it pales in comparison to
the hard line taken by Lee and Ditko, who attempt to instill faith
in the thought that wrongdoers will get what’s coming to them.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Perhaps that is
a naïve thought. But it’s a useful thought. Maybe it’s
a thought worth internalizing, if only to help us imagine and understand the potential consequences of our own actions.<b> </b></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND: A THOUGHT</b></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">A new question arises: does the “what goes around come
around” maxim give us a real choice between selfishness and selflessness? After all, automatic punishment against
the selfish would surely coerce everyone into choosing selflessness. So does a
choice actually exist?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The maxim (put another way, “selfishness <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">will</i> harm you”) only emerges from the 1962
Spider-Man story if one assumes its chain of events represents the workings of
some cosmic system of poetic justice. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">But within the text, that maxim isn’t the lesson Peter
personally learns.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Within the text, Peter's lesson is something akin to “selfishness has
the </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">potential</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> to harm you or others.” He knows anyone could have been murdered...
but it was Uncle Ben. If Peter time and again were to endanger the public by letting Burglars escape, it might as well be Uncle Ben who dies every time. So why take the risk at
all? Why risk the suffering of anyone?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So yes, within the story, a choice does exist. A choice exists because blind
self-interest never guarantees the suffering of one’s self (or even of others). But it does create a risk.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">For the reader, the emergent maxim “what goes around comes
around” becomes less a hard truth than a cautionary thought. Yes, we do have a choice – and in making that choice, we must believe we’ll reap what we
sow.</span></div>
Jim Zittlawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09631477670703821690noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276106279825264542.post-37120669764806627012014-06-16T00:39:00.000-06:002017-01-31T01:57:58.640-07:0013 Angry MenI can't get enough of crime dramas, especially when there's a killer involved. So a few weeks ago, I sat down to watch the 1957 film <i>12 Angry Men</i> for the first time. It was pretty good, but as a whodunit, it just wasn't satisfying. I mean, the film ends after Juror #8 convinces the jury to find the accused 18-year-old boy not guilty of murdering his own father. The boy walks away scot-free. And we never find out who did the murder.<br />
<br />
It's like they forgot to include the ending.<br />
<br />
So I was pleased to learn about the obscure direct-to-video sequel <i>13 Angry Men,</i> released in 1993. One review I read said it was like <i>Silence of the Lambs </i>meets <i>Psycho</i>, and another review said it was<i> </i>"psychologically taut."<br />
<br />
I bought a VHS copy on eBay for $3.24, hooked up the old VCR, and waited for the tape to arrive in the mail. When it finally did, the box was all in Russian. I was worried the film would be dubbed, but I popped in the tape, and thank my lucky stars - the dialogue was in English.<br />
<br />
Now <i>this</i> was more like it. Watching the original, I had waited on the edge of my seat to find out who the murderer was. Now I would finally have the answers to all my questions. Who killed the father? Was it one of the jury members? Which jury member?<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG_quETXrvb5T19J6Ne-BcPiw9PrquGxXTVDdT3f5fMlhpKBBcoNizhNP4MD_H4PVwX7lDA7PAXL0aov_XE6Bal5KrsLjF_hKOsd1qPJgdi5wPvTUs9c_JHNmIevdqqW0AN82wAcbDIfK3/s1600/asesino.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="191" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG_quETXrvb5T19J6Ne-BcPiw9PrquGxXTVDdT3f5fMlhpKBBcoNizhNP4MD_H4PVwX7lDA7PAXL0aov_XE6Bal5KrsLjF_hKOsd1qPJgdi5wPvTUs9c_JHNmIevdqqW0AN82wAcbDIfK3/s1600/asesino.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>The accused boy in the original 1957 film</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<i>13 Angry Men</i> sees a mysterious man picking off the jurors one by one in different ways. When you watch the movie, you will say: who knew there were so many ways people could get murdered? Juror #8 (originally played by Henry Fonda) joins a team of FBI
profilers tracking the serial killer, who hides his face under a sinister Mexican
luchador mask.<br />
<br />
None of the original actors return, but this is a minor
complaint given the richness of the story. And unlike the boring
black-and-white original, <i>13 Angry Men</i> is in colour.<br />
<br />
Now this is where it gets good. Warning: massive spoilers ahead. <br />
<br />
The masked serial killer taunts Juror #8 by saving him for last, then corners and tortures him. Guess what we find out? Juror #8 was the one who murdered the 18-year-old boy's father in 1957! It's so crazy. I love psychology, and the twist makes perfect sense when you stop and think about it.<br />
<br />
Then the masked killer finally reveals himself. It is the accused 18-year-old boy all grown up. Let's just say he's a very angry man.<br />
<br />
And he wants revenge.<br />
<br />
This is the rare sequel that gives you that little extra to chew on. The film<i> </i>really lets you inside Juror #8's mind and makes you question the nature of right and wrong. <i>13 Angry Men</i> is definitely worth checking out if you can find a copy.Jim Zittlawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09631477670703821690noreply@blogger.com0