Everything wrong with Live and Let Die.
2 Likes
Stromberg points out perfectly what racism is, no matter in which genre.
The important question is: how do we deal with racism?
It is basically applying prejudices to people from another country or with a different skin color. Often due to a lack of knowledge and/or simply to demean and pour hate on in order to feel superior and suppress others.
I don’t believe LALD - the movie - wants to demean and hate the black community. And I also don’t believe that Mr.Big and his organisation stands for every Afro-American. Neither does Goldfinger stand for every white man from German speaking countries.
And herein lies the problem, IMO, any discussion of stereotypes and prejudices in movies or novels gets sidetracked these days: a Pawlowian reflex to immediately assume that the creatives‘ intention was to demean a whole group. Using someone as an opposing force to the protagonist does not signify you hate the chosen race, religion, sexuality (unless you really are a bigot who wants to attack).
Also, I believe that it is not only naive but racist to assume that „minorities“ (I don’t like that term but I use it because it seems widely accepted) are always to be depicted as not having any difficult character traits. We are all human beings, and everybody should therefore be subjected to the same view. And depiction in a work of fiction.
It is, however, important to evolve one‘s assessment of fiction. Again, today I roll my eyes at the „conversion of Pussy“ (her name already makes me shake my head). And if a film, any film, today would use those tropes in order to get laughs or approving nods they would not get the „at the time it was considered fun“-response from me.
But it does not ruin my enjoyment in the particular case of Bond films because the movie Bond never was a racist a-hole but the guy fighting for everybody. He actually does distinguish between the black villains and the black good guys.
And by the way, as a German I would not only suspect but know for a fact that there are Bavarians who have schnapps and cereal for breakfast. Just not every Bavarian. But why would anybody assume that?
5 Likes
I agree. I do not think the filmmakers set out to make a picture that included racist depictions, but the result is that they did.
While I think this does occur, I have not found that it is the usual assumption in such discussions.
Agreed, and why I have no problem with Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd being shown as amoral killers. Both have difficult character traits, but those traits are not shown to be intrinsic to being queer, nor is queerness deployed as a signifier of those traits.
Bond does not need to be depicted as a racist for a film he is the protagonist of to contain racist elements (LALD being a case in point). A viewer can choose to focus on Bond, and not take into consideration side characters/action, but Bond not expressing a particular bias, does not preclude the movie he is in from expressing it.
4 Likes
I am not so sure about this. The usual way to balance this out would have been to have a character on Bond‘s side to be gay. Back then, however, I believe it was still unthinkable to show a gay character as a good guy.
I wonder whether DAF leaned into the prejudices (ugly men, reeking of cologne, enjoying weird and cruel kinks) in order to poke fun and get applause from the cheap seats and somehow (definitely with the help of John Barry‘s theme for them) ended up with audience favorites. On the one hand the film jumps to life whenever they appear. On the other hand they make the expected henchman in a Bond film funny and give them a real personality. Neither Grant, Oddjob or anybody before DAF were that interesting.
5 Likes
As you note, this would be unlikely to occur in 1971. DAF creates balance by doing something more daring, and you make the case for it very well.
Who knows? Impossible to determine, and, more importantly, it doesn’t matter. We have the text; intentions are secondary.
What henchpeople get a theme?
In fact, the filmmakers reduced the scene of the killing of Shady Tree because they were afraid that Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd had too much screen time.
And extend sequences with them, once their narrative function is done: the shot of them holding hands as they walk away from their first two murders is superfluous, and why not cut right to Bond in the coffin, rather than give Wint and Kidd some quips, and follow them out the door? They could have just exited the frame, which was all that was required narratively and filmically.
Oddjob was even deprived of his voice. Wint and Kidd banter and make wisecracks, terrain usually reserved for Bond alone.
So with all of the screen time and attention afforded to Mr Wint and Mr. Kidd–the stature they have in the film (especially when compared with other henchpeople)–how can their portrayals be considered homophobic? They are not the protagonists, but they certainly have a presence on par with many of the series villains, and above most of the henchpeople.
They are Mingo and Fante out of the closet–holding hands; getting jealous; concerned about the other’s welfare. Yes, they are killers–nobody’s perfect–and do not resemble Tom of Finland hunks, but they occupy filmic space in a commanding way.
3 Likes
But wouldn‘t you agree that all the attributes of Wint and Kidd aim to make the audience comfortable in their at that time deeply rooted prejudices against homosexuals?
In other words: they could have easily been depicted as just colleagues. Adding the homosexuality (that‘s what the handholding scene is for) was a big wink at the audience: „see, these two… just as you thought…“
2 Likes
I have a different reading, their sexuality is secondary to their true grit’.in a film where everyone else pretends to something they are not. Masked, duality, subterfuge, wigs, drag multiple identies; Wint and Kidd are exactly who they say they are… A committed couple who are very very good at their jobs.
6 Likes
I think they just took the idea from the book, which openly referenced their sexuality, and used it as another example of a ‘quirk’ that helps make the villain different and unique, in a similar but infinitely more successful way than they did with Vargas’ celibacy in Thunderball. They remain hands down my favourite henchpeople, as they light up every scene they are in with their unique bend of efficiency and relish of their job:
“Joe couldn’t make it tonight: I am Mr Wint. This is Mr Kidd” (holds box expectantly)
“Oh, I see.”
What a brilliantly understated and sinister introduction!
5 Likes
Agree. Wint and Kidd are fantastic, and make DAF so entertaining and rewatchable. IMO seeing them holding hands is more about them finding satisfaction in their work, which happens to be death. Making them lovers amplifies that idea. They’re happy and playful when they’re about to kill or have killed.
5 Likes
The filmic equivalent of saying the quiet part out aloud, which changes the dynamic. Suddenly, gay killers have the same status as straight killers, and queerness is destigmatized.
This is great. Wint and Kidd are authentic amidst a world of falseness and subterfuge.
Which made me think of:
Thanks to all for the great insights.
4 Likes
Totally agree. Ian Fleming wrote Wint and Kidd as a couple of tough, sadistic, gay killers who are very competent and frightening. (Shoot, he even shows that they are prepared for any situation that might arise–see Bond getting the jump on them in their ocean liner room and Wint calls out a coded scenario to Kidd to try to overcome the situation like a football quarterback.) Their toughness and sadism might have been toned down slightly for the film and the humor increased (which could be said for all elements of Diamonds Are Forever), but their skill and competence remain–and that is the most important thing to be a quality Bond henchman/henchmen.
8 Likes