What I object to is when queerness is used as a signifier of villainy. I am fine with a queer villain so long as her villainy is not presented as a consequence of her sexual orientation.
Hypothetically, what if an unstable character sought cold blooded revenge for being ridiculed for being gay. By some it might appear they’re a villain because they’re gay.
However it’s not homomsexuality that has made them a villain, it was the situation they were in. My point is that it’s always complex and particular to the unique situation. It’s the filmmaker’s job to include enough of the particular detail so that we understand the character’s motivations.
The problem is valid when the story portrays them in such simple terms that it allows for no more than a black & white right/wrong binary analyses.
Personally I don’t SF guilty of that. Silva has enough back story to motivate his actions and the viewer Is not at all left to assume that he’s bad because he’s gay.
I’m with SAF that positively descriminating to avoid villains being gay would excaerbate things. To my mind let the artist say what they want so society can debate it, rather than bury it.
I’d agree too, but, just to play devils advocate, as we are the theoretical artists it’s not like the three of us are without stake on this point.
2 Likes
I think you’re misunderstanding the point, that’s not what we’re referring to with silva - neither MrWintKidd nor myself have said Silva is a villain because he’s gay, the issue we are taking is that his LGBT nature is villainous in its depiction - his same sex attraction is used as part of his villainous nature the same as his disfigured face or Le Chiffre’s bleeding eye
Noone is suggesting there can be no gay villains, its that their sexuality is presented as a nefarious trait or something for the hero to fix (in Pussy Galore’s case) and that there are no non-villainous gay characters on the other side of the equation as there is with straight characters
On the contrary, I have numerous issues with several Bond films, including SF. But Silva’s sexuality isn’t one of them 
that’s your prerogative - but it doesn’t erase the fact that other people do have issues with it?
I meant on the specific point of artists being able to say what they want in their work, rather than self censoring through fear of how someone might potentially interpret it.
Thank you so much! I’ve been wondering how to do this since I joined!
1 Like
My mistake! It’s very handy after a few pints and the careless desire to shock the navel gazers.
More of a scotch drinker myself. Almost cried when Silva spilt that 50 year old Macallan.
Thanks, I was simply attempting a reply to:
Which i believe i did - SF doesn’t do this - but if the conversation has now moved beyond SF and Silva, then i guess that’s what i get for not reading all of the posts.
Artists should not self-censor. But they are also responsible when their work follows/extends earlier traditions of homophobic/racist/sexist representation.
Ditto. But if my love malts precludes a few cold beers on a hot day before pulling out the older stuff, then i’ve been doing it all wrong.
3 Likes
skyfall does use it as a
though - i think that is what he means, it is certainly what i mean
Not easy being an artist and responsible at the same time. Great art takes risks and risks are uncomfortable.
The issue with that is, John Logan, the writer in question and a gay man himself, doesn’t think it does whilst you, as a gay man and an audience member, think it does. Changing words to appease an audience is still a form of censorship, as is ignoring any audience concerns because you don’t agree, so it comes down to whose view is more important, the writer who interprets it one way or the audience who interpreted it another?
1 Like
I actually find it easy to be both. In their portrayal of Silvia, the filmmakers took no risks at all. They simply plugged in to the existent tradition of queer villain representation and moved on. Had they made Silvia a non-grotesque queer, then they would have taken a risk.
1 Like
it is much riskier to show a gay person as a hero than a villain - there are endless films with gay villains and maybe less than 10 niche gay heroes? It is the status quo and not any kind of uncomfortable risk
Just like Electra seducing Bond, it’s sexual manipulation - seduction - that is the signifier. It’s not suggested that Silva’s orientation is ‘bad’. It’ played up as novel, which it is in the context of Bond movies, but not bad.
2 Likes
yeah that is one character in a film franchise filled with heroic women - it couldn’t be said that all straight people or even all women in Bondverse are bad because we know they aren’t, we see balance to that character in the same film infact - but every gay character is villainous in Bond movies and THAT is the problem - nitpicking one specific instance doesn’t erase the issue - not to mention homosexuality being used as the butt of a joke is just as common as it being used to display villainy