GF & TB -- a couple thoughts from a Bond book I'm reading
dgates
It looks like this group is desperate for on-topic posts, so I'll try
one.
I'm reading a book called "The Ultimate James Bond Fan Book" on my
Kindle. A *lot* of what the author writes is stuff that we've talked
about here. (How could it not be? I've been checking out this
newsgroup for years!)
But I can think of a couple interesting points in the book that I
haven't seen mentioned here:
Goldfinger: The idea that Auric Goldfinger makes a clumsy pass at
Pussy Galore and she rejects him.
The author mentions this casually, without even elaborating on when he
does it. After wracking my brain, the only thing I can think of is
the little bit of dialogue where Goldfinger asks her what she's going
to do after the caper / with her share of the money. But I had never
thought of that as a rejected pass.
Thunderball: She makes an interesting point that the Spectre meeting
is a parallel for the MI6 meeting -- with a variety of agents, all
identified by number, called in to report to the boss.
I hadn't even thought about how each side had a meeting, let alone
noticed that both groups refer to their agents by numbers.
Interesting.
Maybe there's something worth talking about somewhere in all that.
Better than spam postings anyway :-)
Fuoco Insensato
No, the Goldfinger incident doesn't ring any bells here, especially
daft as Pussy was supposed to be a lesbian (though not overtly,
admittedly, in the movie). Ever get the feeling that some of the
writers of these books haven't seen the same movies, or read the same
books, as you? I got that feeling with Simon Winder.
Adam H. Kerman
>On Oct 22, 2:42 am, dgates <dga...@somedomain.com> wrote:
>> It looks like this group is desperate for on-topic posts, so I'll try
>> one.
>>
>> I'm reading a book called "The Ultimate James Bond Fan Book" on my
>> about here. (How could it not be? I've been checking out this
>> newsgroup for years!)
>>
>> But I can think of a couple interesting points in the book that I
>> haven't seen mentioned here:
>>
>> Goldfinger: The idea that Auric Goldfinger makes a clumsy pass at
>> Pussy Galore and she rejects him.
>>
>> The author mentions this casually, without even elaborating on when he
>> does it. After wracking my brain, the only thing I can think of is
>> the little bit of dialogue where Goldfinger asks her what she's going
>> to do after the caper / with her share of the money. But I had never
>> thought of that as a rejected pass.
>>
>> Thunderball: She makes an interesting point that the Spectre meeting
>> is a parallel for the MI6 meeting -- with a variety of agents, all
>> identified by number, called in to report to the boss.
>>
>> I hadn't even thought about how each side had a meeting, let alone
>> noticed that both groups refer to their agents by numbers.
>> Interesting.
>>
>> Maybe there's something worth talking about somewhere in all that.
>> Better than spam postings anyway :-)
>
>No, the Goldfinger incident doesn't ring any bells here, especially
>daft as Pussy was supposed to be a lesbian (though not overtly,
>admittedly, in the movie). Ever get the feeling that some of the
>writers of these books haven't seen the same movies, or read the same
>books, as you? I got that feeling with Simon Winder.
Would Fleming have had a clue what an overt lesbian would have been?
Trying to picture him hanging around London's seedier bars doing research
for the book.
Maybe he got a few letters to the Agony column that gave him ideas.
Paul Clarke
> Goldfinger: The idea that Auric Goldfinger makes a clumsy pass at
> Pussy Galore and she rejects him.
>
> The author mentions this casually, without even elaborating on when he
> does it. After wracking my brain, the only thing I can think of is
> the little bit of dialogue where Goldfinger asks her what she's going
> to do after the caper / with her share of the money. But I had never
> thought of that as a rejected pass.
I'd have to pull out the dvd again, but I recall in the scene where
Goldfinger and Pussy are sitting on the patio drinking mint julips, he
does make a clumsy attempt at a pass, even touching her hand, and she
physically winces and rejects him.
--
For another such kiss, I would invent an entire continent.
Matt Sherman, Bondologist - Billiards.About.com
Good thoughts all.
Author Deb Lipp of UJBF maintains an UJBF blog with tidbits and much
more at:
Eric Grayson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
That's not really the point. There's a fairly obvious connection in
the books and in the early movies that sexual immorality equals evil.
Don't blame me, blame Fleming. Pussy Galore is only rehabilitated
after becoming straight after being with Bond. Rosa Klebb is gay and
evil. Goldfinger has some kinky stuff about S&M that is hinted at
fairly broadly, but we get the point with the gold paint. He's evil.
Wynt and Kidd are gay, and evil. Largo is seriously into S&M, and
evil.
Bond is a sort of Victorian hero who may be immoral (promiscuous) by
most standards, but he's a pillar of purity compared to most of the
villains.
So the idea of making Pussy a lesbian has nothing to do really with
real lesbians, but rather Fleming is telling you that in his world,
she's evil. He's not after realism, or overtness, but he's echoing the
Victorian (and later) idea that there is something wrong with
homosexuals.
This kind of thing was getting pretty thin by the 60s and was just
plain politically incorrect by the 70s. So it's jettisoned in most of
the later Bond films. The last time it appeared was with Xenia
Onatopp, who is pretty sick overall.
That's one of the reasons that Goldeneye feels so much like a
traditional Bond film, in the respect that once again sexual
"weirdness" = evil. Without this, a lot of the guts of newer Bond
films are eviscerated, because the villains don't have the contrast
with Bond.
Mind you, I'm not defending Fleming, but I'm saying that it's an
essential part of what Bond was about, and without it the films sort of
miss something. It should be possible to put those elements back in
(with some care) and without making villains homosexuals. They've
never had a villain who went after children, for example, and that's
very much something we still all hate. You could easily have a
pedophile character who was very hatable against Bond.
Eric
Adam H. Kerman
No kidding.
>Don't blame me, blame Fleming. Pussy Galore is only rehabilitated
>after becoming straight after being with Bond.
The sex was THAT GOOD.
>Wynt and Kidd are gay, and evil.
Wynt and Kidd are evil, and gay.
>Bond is a sort of Victorian hero who may be immoral (promiscuous) by
>most standards, but he's a pillar of purity compared to most of the
>villains.
Heh.
>So the idea of making Pussy a lesbian has nothing to do really with
>real lesbians, but rather Fleming is telling you that in his world,
>she's evil.
I know. Still, I was having fun picturing Fleming in a dyke bar.
>That's one of the reasons that Goldeneye feels so much like a
>traditional Bond film, in the respect that once again sexual
>"weirdness" = evil.
I'll buy that, and that the script is a remake of several films...
>Mind you, I'm not defending Fleming, but I'm saying that it's an
>essential part of what Bond was about, and without it the films sort of
>miss something.
Eric, I'm not going to disagree with you.
Oh, fine, I'll disagree with you. Things are too dull around here.
Fleming's villains are typically physically flawed in some way; he doesn't
like cripples either. Something in their life triggers complete and
utter rejection of conventional morality and they become totally evil. If
Fleming links straight sex according to Victorian middle class morality's
convention, then the villain, having thrown off the conventions of society,
is now free to indulge his prurient urges.
In other words, the only thing preventing man from coveting thy neighbor's
husband are the norms of Victorian society.
Sexual perversity is a symptom, not an underlying cause, of great villainy.
Eric Grayson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
Hard to say. It's a chicken-and-egg thing, and you're right about the
physical deformity and/or disability is a tag for villany too.
The Lon Chaney films in the 1920s are rather similar (and Fleming
probably saw them too). In a few of them, Chaney is cured of his
deformity and hence his character improves as well, but the more
deformed he is, the worse his character becomes. It's a common theme.
So basically I'm agreeing with your disagreement with me, and as usual
of late, I have no time to launch a huge counterattack even if I did
disagree.
Eric (off for a 35mm show of Citizen Kane with original trailer)
Adam H. Kerman
>Eric (off for a 35mm show of Citizen Kane with original trailer)
What's the fun in that if you're not outrunning Hearst's people?
Eric Grayson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
Oh, I was out running but not for that...
I had really bad gastric distress during the show and had to leave
every few minutes. Given that we were running it on 20 minute
changeovers, it was a challenge.
Eric
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Eric Grayson <filmspam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>Eric (off for a 35mm show of Citizen Kane with original trailer)
>>What's the fun in that if you're not outrunning Hearst's people?
>Oh, I was out running but not for that...
>I had really bad gastric distress during the show and had to leave
>every few minutes. Given that we were running it on 20 minute
>changeovers, it was a challenge.
That's not quite the heroic image I had in mind, Eric.
Eric Grayson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
Trust me, it's heroic.
I got through a show for 50 kids without a hitch when I felt really
awful.