Silva’s Great Guess-My-Kink Discussion

Films
134

Isn´t interpretation always based on personal ideas and socialization?

Sure, an analysis definitely needs facts to be more than just an arbitrary opinion. But the way one links these facts with an observation will always depend on a personal idea, I believe.

By the way, I love this thread because it actually makes me rethink my own positions and memories of the Bond films. So thanks to everybody taking part in it.

One more question for you MrKiddWint. I did enjoy your assessment of DAF very much. But the more I think about it the more confused I get about your statements on your namegivers Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. Also about your love for Hamilton´s work.

My conclusion is: Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd definitely are characterized as evil through their cruelty and the delight they take in it. But to me it seems as if it is their homosexuality that fuels that delight. From the moment one sees them walk away after killing the dentist and they take each other´s hand, it is clearly stated: yep, these guys are evil because they are deranged, and they are deranged because they also are gay.

Hamilton stresses this throughout the film. And when Bond disposes of them, they are also characterized as wearing cheap, all too sweet perfume. And the face Wint (or is it Kidd? I confuse the two often) makes when Bond (too easily) puts “his tail between his legs” signifies not only pain but also delight - another pointer for “these gays are really sick puppies”.

So, yes - I think Hamilton (and Mankiewicz) score worst here. My argument for the Bond films being they only reflect mainstream thinking without a malicious intent is still part of my opinion. But I would also admit that DAF reflected that hateful mainstream thinking in an unnecessary way. If they had made both heterosexuals who just love to be sadists the film would still have worked.

As for Silva (again) - I went back and watched the interrogation scene. Silva actually opens Bond´s shirt after telling him how wrong he was about M never lying to him, listing all the tests he failed when M declared him fit for duty. And when he opens the shirt he first inspects the scar tissue from the bullet M ordered to be fired during the train sequence. This is not a signifier or pointer for Silva´s sexuality. It is simply another reason for him to believe that Bond is a mirror image of himself. As we will see later, he has his own scar tissue, much worse, of course, but Silva wants to outperform Bond in every way: he was M´s favorite, he was a much better agent than Bond. And I’m sure he thinks he will be the last rat standing.

Only after fingering the scar tissue - feeling his own vulnerability at that point - his fingers wander over Bond´s throat and chest and legs. Maybe one could assume here that he feels attracted to Bond, therefore showing his homosexuality. But if so, that IMO is only one part of this. The much bigger part is Silva´s extreme narcissism. He does not touch Bond so much as touching himself because Bond to him is only an extension of the same wreckage caused by M. And as much as he hates M for it, he also enjoys being the victim there so he can turn it into becoming the victimizer.

Also, Silva is clearly playing mind games and not really planning on seducing Bond. He even makes fun of the expected reaction when he tells Bond that nothing prepared him for “this” (the stroking). But when Bond retorts “What makes you think this is my first time?” Silva immediately draws back, putting on a mock tone of feeling offended “Mr. Bond!” He tries to regain the upper hand when Bond actually has managed to put a dent into Silva´s manipulating effort.

And Silva´s whole demeanor plays into that attempt at making Bond feel afraid (which he clearly does at the beginning when he is awaiting Silva coming down in that elevator; he nervously looks around the room, being tied to the chair). Silva really puts on a scene here, timing his entry, coming closer step for step while telling the story about his grandmother’s island and the killing of the rats, perfectly putting a smile here and there, employing a nonchalant tone that always mocks Bond and everything he stands for. With his computers he has everything at his disposal, with one click he can manipulate elections and destabilize governments. Agents like Bond are no longer used (a nice mirroring of Bond´s dialogue with Q about him being needed to pull the trigger).

Again - is Silva really gay? Wearing a white jacket and having a blond dye job - well, at least to me, that is not a signifier of homosexuality. In fact, Silva´s outfit is rather tasteless and unspectacular. He rather comes across to me as nouveau riche, someone who thinks this is the way the movers and shakers of this world will dress. Expensive, probably, but with no sense of style. I’m not saying that every homosexual has impeccable taste - that would be a hateful stereotype as well - but to signify Silva as gay one would probably have put him into a much better looking costume. Therefore I conclude: Silva is all play, but the real man behind that facade is hidden. He also very quickly abandons the effort to make Bond uncomfortable with flirting, unties him and orders him to follow him to the Severine sequence. He even turns his back on Bond, showing no fear and demonstrating again that he is in charge and will now try even harder to make Bond feel powerless. Since Severine already is waiting, Silva also must have known that he will not make Bond squirm by touching him.

3 Likes
135

Mr Wint and Mr Kidd are much worse than Silva indeed, but they’re a product of a time - the same time that had the ape transforming into an african american woman in the circus scenes

I agree Silva is all facades and showmanship and he’s just trying to make him uncomfortable - but even if he’s not gay (he’s certainly somewhere on the LGBTQI spectrum) - the point i’ve been trying to make the whole time is that gay BEHAVIOUR is used as a villainous tactic - to make people feel uncomfortable - it doesn’t work but it doesn’t mean people don’t leave the theatres talking about the gay villain who was going to rape James Bond, or he had his gay hands on him (toned down language but you can imagine) - i heard it myself

1 Like
136

But is it used to say: all gays are villainous because this Bond villain tries to provoke the most manly man in cinema? I would say no. And I would also say that most audiences will not deduct from this scene: oh, the gays, they are so mean-spirited. (Also, what about all the female villains who try to seduce Bond - do they convey the idea that every woman is malicious?)

In other words: why must there be a zero-tolerance view on the portrayal of villains? Or any other character as well? Do we always have to fear that people’s perspective on stereotypes might be enforced?

My take: prejudiced people will always be prejudiced. No movie or any piece of art will lessen or strengthen that. In fact, there are theories about the enforcement of opinions which conclude that people will interpret anything as an underlining of their view - or that they will only seek out what compliments them anyway.

It´s the same with journalism today. People will discredit everything that will not correspond with their view.

I get the feeling that this also happened in this thread a lot. I do not think Silva is portrayed as gay. You clearly see pointers that he at least must be somewhere in the LGBTQI spectrum. Neither of us can probably persuade the other with arguments.

But for the sake of this argument: let’s assume, yes, Silva is clearly gay. And that this is part of his evil ways. So? I believe it is absolutely appropriate to have a character who is gay and whose sexuality also drives him to have a malicious intent.

Why? Because homosexuals can have malicious intents just as well as the heterosexual. In fact, so many hetero villains are Uber-machos who always want to dominate males and females, due to their testosterone-filled idiotic idea that they must constantly show they are stronger, more attractive and therefore the winner. Look at Grant in FRWL, Largo in TB, Blofeld in OHMSS, Mr. Big in LALD, Scaramanga in TMWTGG etc.

Do artists have to think about the consequences of their work? Yes. But do they have to present only positive stereotypes? Absolutely not.

And to use the arguments given for gay characters in the Craig era: If Whishaw-Q is portrayed as gay (I still believe the actor´s sexuality is mistaken for the character´s, but still - for argument´s sake) then he definitely is a positive gay character balancing the negative one (Silva).

2 Likes
137

OK, so all gays in Bond world ARE villainous - it’s not saying all gays in the world are, but it confirms peoples prejudices when gay people are ONLY used as villains. It’s not a writer’s duty to “appease minorities” but it’s also reasonable to expect criticism when they promote harmful stereotypes in the work. Women in Bond films have issues as well but there are good female characterisations in every Bond movie as well, it’s not a fair comparison.

Where have i said zero tolerance? I’ve said Silva and other LGBT villains are problematic because they are but I never said ONLY present positive stereotypes, or that you can’t have any gay villains.
I’ve said EON could improve things by showing ONE positive portrayal somewhere. Camille in QOS would have been a great LGBT character for example, she never sleeps with him anyway. Necros in TLD could have been a fine gay villain or Kriegler in FYEO IF they had shown their sexuality and not weaponised it.

The point is even if Q is LGBT or Camille is in QOS, if no-one says anything about it… that is just Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which is just telling gays to be quiet and stay in your corner (not saying you’re saying this, that’s just the net impact of it). Hypotheticals don’t count.

To society at large, they are just another character presumed to be straight and it does nothing for representing LGBT people positively - especially in action movies where the most change can be made

Noone is making this a no tolerance argument

2 Likes
138

I agree.

Absolutely!

I understand and sympathize. But I would also argue that a movie franchise is not obligated to help with the view of any cause.

1 Like
139

For me, the aesthetic appreciation always starts with the text–the work of art at hand. And the interpretation grows out of the formal elements–mise en scene; editing; framing; acting; plot; sound design; music; etc.

The next step is to situate a particular work of art with regard to the artist’s/artists’ other work; social circumstances at the time of composition; genre considerations (if appropriate); the artistic medium’'s history. A work of art exists in conversation with all of these arenas as well as with those works of art which preceded it (and subsequently enters into dialogue with those that come after it).

Once this framework has been established and the preliminary work done, then–and with great care–Brian the person and his personality enter the picture. This element–my own tastes–will influence me to explore one work of art over another and to want to spend a greater amount of time and effort with/on it, but it is not the ground of judgement–taste can never be that. The map–the guiding principles–the ground of my critique–are the formal elements in tandem with the contexts I listed above. For example, John Ford is a director whose films are not particularly to my taste, e.g., their often high quotient of nostalgia does not resonate with me. However, I always receive pleasure from the formal beauty of his work, and my writings on his work can achieve insight even though his movies are not deeply resonant for me. Conversely, Sidney Lumet’s work is more to my taste than that of John Ford, but his use of the formal elements of cinema often leaves much to be desired. When watching his films, I often say to myself in despair: “Sidney, why is the camera there?!?” In the final analysis, I get more pleasure from re-watching certain John Ford films than I do those of Sidney Lumet.

I heartily second these sentiments.

They are evil and take delight in their cruel work–agreed. If I am understanding your argument, Wint and Kidd holding hands as they walk away after killing two people makes it clear that they are gay (agreed), and by doing so in such close proximity to two acts of murder, gayness is posited as the seed for further derangement–and one of these further derangements is an enjoyment of cruelty and evil. In other words, the film follows the time-honored tradition of gay signifying evil.

And yet it is the hand-holding that sets my critique off on a different path. When gay signifiers were invoked in movies in the past, there was never a depiction of a gay villainous couple with two notable exceptions: THE BIG COMBO by Joseph L. Lewis and, more significantly, ROPE by Alfred Hitchcock. ROPE, one of Hitchcock’s supreme achievements, is an early representation of killers who are gay rather than gay killers (not universally embraced, but increasingly so over time).

With Mr. WInt and Mr. Kidd, we spend time with a gay couple who are assassins–in fact, they are more humanized than most henchman in Bond (or other) movies. We know that Mr. Wint is somewhat possessive of Mr. Kidd, and there is that moment I spoke of when Mr. Kidd is granted screen time to show his despair at Mr. Wint’s immolation. So Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint are humanized far beyond the needs of using gayness to signify evil/criminality. In fact, the less stereotypical gays are, the less the signifier works–the signifier depends (in part) on abstraction/sterotypes.

But you counter:

We all look alike to you, don’t we? LOL

It is only sick if a person thinks that there can be no pleasure derived from being the receptive partner in anal intercourse, or if when they think “gay,” the first and primary thing they focus on is sex between men, especially anal intercourse.

And this is something that DAF does differently–Kidd & Wint are not reduced to their sexuality–they have a relationship–and these steps away from the stereotype create the space where the connection between the signifier and the signified begins to become staticky. Hamilton creates aporias where meanings are up for grabs (as I noted before about his work in GOLDFINGER: he presents Bond as both successful and not, creating aporias that befuddle meaning and generate room for play to occur).

If a person’s tendency/desire is to regard queers as sick puppies, DAF certainly gives plenty of opportunity to do so–DAF is a film from 1971. But the movie also gives other possibilities–gestures indicating that there are other ways to think about queerness–to think of it beyond its sexual component (it is by focusing on sex and the ick fact of gay sex for many people–especially men–that allows gayness to serve as a signifier of evil). Of course, the viewer must become an active particpant in working with these possibilities. If she is a passive receptor of the fim, then the standard-issue meanings will prevail.

The films do reflect mainstream thinking–agreed. But the better ones–the ones that rise above craft into the realm of art–have something extra. In his Bond films, Hamilton uses aporias to create spaces to contest mainstream meanings if a viewer cares to do the work.

Due to work, this portion of my response took much longer than anticipated. Like James Bond, I will return to talk about Silva.

And thank you again for this wonderful conversation.

3 Likes
140

And so to Silva:

It could be. It is not a signifier of sexuality in your reading, but your reading does not exclude other readings. As you note:

Which is similar to Dustin’s analysis.

Agreed. I do not think that any of these readings are definitive or the one-perfect-interpretation. But we can judge which are more/less based in the groundings I outlined in my previous post. For me, that is the basis of discussion.

Your description of the scene makes the case for gayness better than I ever could LOL. The fabulous/dramatic entrance–the perfect smile–the nonchalant tone. It screams queer! More than anything, it was this scene that signified gay to me.

I have been thinking about Dustin’s argument and yours–that Silva is all performance. It is well-grounded and I can see how it works. I still find problematic the gay stereotype the filmmakers chose for Silva to perform (he could not have been a non-stereotype queer?), but viewing it as a performance adds a new twist. I have to think more about Dustin’s point that it was important narratively for the performance to be gay.

Other points:

Speaking as a victim of violence based on people’s perspectives of stereotypes–yes. The question is: is the promulgation of negative stereotypes harmful to society? You say:

But does the dissemination of stereotypes contribute to making people prejudiced?

Critique is unlike journalism in that it is about interpretation–hopefully, robust, well-grounded interpretation. Persuasion may not occur, but at least there can be acknowledgement of cogent and firmly based critiques.

Artists do not traffic in stereotypes. They may use them as one element in a larger, more complicated work, but not as uncritiqued aspects.