New Bond Movie Left Me Shaken, Not Stirred.

There has been so much debate over the latest Bond film, Skyfall, starring Daniel Craig regarding whether or not the latest installment was forward-thinking or extremely regressive after the success of the last two Bond hits, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. I'm a Bond fan.  Between the gadgets, suits, mischief, action, stellar musical performances, and knockout leading actors and actresses, what's not to like? However, since the mega-series first started with Dr. No in 1962, it has racked up a notorious amount of critiques from almost every minority group out there and with good reason. In a really, really brief nutshell, the films are misogynistic in how Bond treats women as objectified, disposable sex toys. They're racist in how people-of-color-exclusive the prestigious MI6 remains as it is an almost entirely white-male organization, and they are homophobic in how multiple of the Bond bad guys have used the stereotypical "queen" and "butch" characteristics to imply how homosexuality is somehow linked to masochism, rape, and psychotic mentalities. There's really no denying that any of those things are true about Bond movies and it really makes the earlier films hard to watch. However, I feel that the Bond legacy really changed with Daniel Craig's Bond; a more ambiguous, intellectual, modern, and realistic character. 

The director of the last 3 Bond films is Sam Mendes, Academy Award winner and director of, what I consider a classic, American Beauty. In Casino Royale, Bond falls madly in love with a woman called Vespa played by the gorgeous Eva Green. Their relationship wasn't the typical "Connery" dilemma that usually starts with a random girl hitting on Bond ending with them shagging (excuse my British) in some non-romantic location. Vespa was an equal match for Craig's Bond; competent, sensual, and complex. This was not the stereotypical Bond-girl by any means. In fact, it wasn't the stereotypical Bond film. There was very little gadgetry and instead of high-tension action, there was a high-stakes card game. It was beautifully filmed and showed a much softer, more realistic side to Bond which I found compelling and daring.

This feel continued through out the C.R sequel, Quantom of Solace but I won't get too into that too much as the main reason I wanted to post something was because of Mendes' latest installment, Skyfall. There has been extremely harsh criticism of this film, some go as far to say it is the worst Bond film ever made. Others are calling it a regression into the anti-women and homophobic days of Bond in the past, but I beg to differ. There is one scene of the movie that left me particularly shaken, though, and that was when Javier Bardem's character, Silva, makes his first appearance. Bond is tied down in a chair as Silva emerges from the shadows and tells a disturbing story about rats eating each other. Silva scoots in towards Bond really close and unbuttons his shirt and begins to caress the scars on Bond's chest. Then Silva parts Bond's legs while the camera gives a high angle shot to give the audience the best view of this erotic action. What I just described to you sounds like it could be the script of a homoerotic porno, but I'm telling you, it's in the movie. Bardem is clearly playing a homosexual villain which has been done so many times before in numerous Bond films and otherwise. However, he's not the typical kind of evil-gay man; he  isn't effeminate in any way. He fights with guns and fists, is an evil genius, doesn't speak with a lisp or pet a cat while twirling his wrists around the air. In fact, had the writers not put the following dialogue in the movie there would've been no way for the audience to tell that Silva was homosexual. When Silva separates Bond's legs he says "Well there's a first time for everything, eh?" to which Bond responds, "What makes you think this is my first time?"in a very flirtatious tone. I was shocked. The writer of that scene is actually a gay man, therefore I don't think that he wrote it with intention to spur homophobic feelings. Daniel Craig was smiling and giving flirtatious eye contact to Bardem as this was all going down. I just couldn't believe it; for once in a Bond movie a character was not vilified for being homosexual. In this case, Silva is a bad guy because he's a psychopath, and in a strange way, his homosexuality is the only humane characteristic about him. 

Many bloggers wrote that when this scene happened in the movie theaters there was a palpable tension and groan from male audiences particularly who, I guess, are just really uncomfortable with the idea of one guy thinking another guy is hot. Are you kidding me? You don't think it's a little hypocritical that you are totally cool with watching Daniel Craig jumping around with his shirt off, wearing super fit and tailored suits, and watching him up close while he was working out in the gym but you're not cool seeing him outwardly poke fun at his natural sexual appeal to men? Maybe they're just jealous that they're not the ones stroking his thigh. Guys, it's totally fine if you think Daniel Craig is hot. It doesn't mean you're gay, and if you are, then that's totally fine too. This reminds me of when I was watching American Beauty (which, again, is also directed by Mendes) with a class and how almost all of the boys made a groan of disgust when Frank Fitts kissed Lester. Oh please, what if I acted disgusted every time I saw a heterosexual couple kissing or flirting in a movie? But I digress...

The end of the story is that I don't think that the new Bond film is homophobic. If anything I think it is almost progressive and that it is giving way to a more open and inclusive 007. The only thing I regret about this film is that I wonder if they did this too soon. I would like to see more gay protagonists before I see anymore evil gay villains. But hey, baby steps, right?