WARNING: This article deals with adult subject matter and may not be suitable for all visitors. Discretion is advised.

In May, 007Forever writer Nick Kincaid stunned the Bond community with his litany of sexual subtext and metaphors found in A VIEW TO A KILL. The result of the article wasa heightened awareness and increased interest in the subtext of all the James Bond films. If ALIEN 3 was really about Ellen Ripley as Jesus Christ, or the X-MEN about the way gay teenagers are treated in society, then you can bet a movie that seems as straightforward and simple as a Bond flick is bound to have some subtext, whether intentional or not.

Some films are more obvious than others. Some make more profound statements than others. But all of them have some common thread or underlying message that if you look closely enough you are bound to find.

**

BELOW THE SURFACE
By: John Cox

Good films have subtext. What do I mean by subtext? On the surface Raiders of the Lost Ark is about an archeologist seeking to find the lost Ark of the Covenant before the Nazis do. That`s its TEXT. But is that all it`s about? Is this basic “plot” enough to tap into the worldwide public consciousness and produce a phenomenon? No way. What makes Raiders resonate, the reason we find ourselves saying, “That was a really good movie,” is we are having an unconscious reaction to the SUBTEXT. What Raiders is REALLY about is an atheist`s search for God. Now, you`re not necessarily supposed to know this is what Raiders is about, but you ARE supposed to feel it. It`s one of the ways movies manipulate you emotionally. And despite what some people will argue, good filmmakers use subtext the way they use lighting. It`s all very specific and intentional but designed to be invisible.

As a rule, subtext is communicated with metaphors. To continue with the Raiders example: In the beginning, when confronted with any mention of spirituality, Indy flatly says he doesn`t believe in “all that hocus-pocus” and calls the lightning coming from the Ark “the power of God OR SOMETHING.” He communicates skepticism without ever using the word atheist. But the Ark can prove the existence of God; therefore, metaphorically, the Ark IS God. By the end of the film, Indy has been “converted” by his experiences and commits the ultimate act of faith by closing his eyeswhen the Ark is opened. “Don`t look at it!” he screams to Marion. Indy demonstrates that he does not seek proof. HE BELIEVES, and therefore, God spares his life. Now, if this movie were about its text, the ending would be a letdown. After all, Indy loses the Ark. But that`s not the feeling we have at the end of Raiders because the REAL story has been resolved. Indy got what he needed and a girlfriend to boot! Raiders uses subtext masterfully as do most good films.

So for my Bond brethren here at Forever, I`ve jotted down what I see as the subtext in three James Bond films: You Only Live Twice, From Russia with Love, and GoldenEye. What follows may forever change the way you look at these three films. Like Indy, you don`t have to believe in all this “hocus-pocus,” but I`m going to open the Ark of the filmmaker anyway. It`s up to you whether to look or close your eyes.

YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (1967) — James Bond goes to Hell

You Only Live Twice is a perfect title for this Bond adventure. Having been “killed” in the beginning of the movie, it`s as if Bond is having an out-of-body experience. This is exactly what this movie is about. After the megapic Thunderball, where else could Bond go but to the afterworld? Never has a world seemed so out of Bond`s control; yet never has Bond seemed so utterly resigned to his fate. “I just might retire to here,” he tells Tiger. If one thinks I`m reading too much into YOLT, one only has to be reminded that the author of the screenplay is Roald Dahl, who wrote such psychedelic journeys as “Charlie & the Chocolate Factory” and “James & the Giant Peach.”

Bond starts the movie in familiar 007 surroundings — in bed with a woman — except this conquest is Asian, a fact unusual enough for Bond to comment on it: “Why do Chinese girls taste different from all other girls?” His instincts prove correct when this woman turns out to be the Angel of Death. Bond is “killed” before our eyes, and we drift into the title sequence. But are we seeing puffy clouds and harps? No. We`re in a world of volcanoes and lava. James Bond has gone to Hell. Or, at least, Purgatory. The movie opens with Bond being buried at sea. The movie, as a metaphor, really begins here as Bond`s corpse is retrieved by two divers (flying angels) who bring it not back to the surface but aboard a submarine (the first of many phallic symbols in this film). “Permission to come aboard?” asks Bond.

After a briefing (where M and all are dressed in white uniforms and Bond is in black) 007 is ejected from the sub`s torpedo tube. 007 as sperm? You bet. Appropriately, Bond surfaces in a world that`s entirely unfamiliar to him, a world in which he is constantly trapped and fooled usually by women. In this strange new upside-down world, Bond is called “Zero Zero” instead of 007, and even his martini order is mysteriously reversed, “stirred, not shaken,” which Bond confirms as “perfect.” Bond admits to Tiger that he`s never been to Japan, which is odd for a man as worldly as James Bond, and didn`t he mention an affair with “Ann in Tokyo” in From Russia with Love? Also revealing is the fact that YOLT is the only single location Bond film. Even Dr. No has scenes set in London. There`s no globetrotting here. He`s stuck.

Things get even more surreal when Bond must “become Japanese.” Die a little deeper? He`s operated on in a womblike room, married, and given a home in a pearl diving village where, strangely enough, he seems perfectly content! But a violent reminder of his own death (again in a bed) snaps Bond out of his passivity, and it`s off to the volcanic lair of the villain. Here, for reasons not fully explained, Bond thinks the answer to the crisis at hand is to go into outer space (ascend into the heavens). But just as Bond is about to finally leave this world, the master of the volcano recognizes him and shouts, “Stop that astronaut!”

It`s appropriate that Blofeld is seen for the first time in YOLT. Up to this point in the series, Blofeld has only been an unseen, omniscient presence, who motivates other men to commit his evil deeds. The clearest metaphor of the film is that Blofeld is the Devil. Who else would live in a volcano? The obviousness of this prompts Bond to pretty much admit to the subtext of the film when he tells Blofeld, “This is my second life.”

Of course, it all ends in a fiery destructive explosion caused not by Bond but by Blofeld, and Bond finds himself back where he was at the end of Thunderball: in a raft with a bikini-clad woman. Back to the familiar world of 007. Back to the surface. Resurrection.

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (1963) — Sex and the Secret Agent

In From Russia with Love, James Bond is sent to Istanbul to sleep with a Russian cipher clerk in order to get a decoder machine. “Just make sure you measure up,” warns M. The villain`s plot? Capture 007`s sexual performance on film and use it to discredit the Secret Service when his “suicide” is discovered. Kinky stuff? You bet. And there`s more. Much more.

From Russia with Love is really a catalog of “secret” sexual fetishes thinly veiled by the world of the `60s Secret Agent. Think about it. FRWL depicts sadism (making two fish fight to the death); oil massage (Grant on SPECTER island); S&M (Klebb`s handy riding crop and brass knuckles); pimp prostitution (Bond and Tatiana are both ordered to have sex); sexual fixation (Tatiana falls in love with a photo of Bond “like young girls fall in love with movie stars”); lesbianism (Tatiana`s “interview” with Klebb); polygamy (Kerim`s multiple children suggest multiple wives); stripping (or in this case belly dancing); catfighting (more on this later); menage a trois (Bond is delivered both gypsy girls to his tent); bondage (the dead Prussian in the back of the Renault is very well tied); oral sex (Tatiana`s mouth is just the “right size” for Bond); voyeurism (the men watch Bond and Tatiana as they secretly film them, among MANY other examples); public exhibitionism (Tatiana wants to wear her nightgown “in Piccadilly”); sadomasochistic homosexuality (the Grant-Bond confrontation); and yes, even foot worship (how else can you account for the appeal of that spike-tipped shoe or Grant`s insistence that Bond, “Crawl over here and kiss my foot!”). Much of this comes from the novel, and it`s no secret that Fleming enjoyed a taste of the whip from time to time.

The gypsy girlfight is FRWL`s most infamous and sadistic scene. Never has a Bond movie felt so much like a snuff film. Where most movies poke fun at “catfights,” this film puts it on a level of gladiatorial match. They don`t say the girls are fighting to death, but they don`t say they aren`t! In fact, the fight between the two women “in love with the same man” is so savage (or so arousing?) that Bond asks for it to be stopped. Strange that the only way we`re “saved” from this scene is by an explosion of good old-fashioned gunplay. Stranger yet is the relief we feel at the arrival of this “safer” movie violence. How sexually charged is this scene? When FRWL aired on ABC throughout the `70s and `80s, the ENTIRE gypsy camp sequence was cut from the film. I doubt it was because of the belly dancer. Related to the girlfight in its depiction of sexual violence not usually found in a Bond film is when Bond hits Tatiana in REAL anger aboard the Orient Express. It`s interesting to note that Bond is posing as her husband at the time. Her crime? She lied to him. Dark.

But the confrontation with Grant is the ultimate ordeal for James Bond in this sexually lethal world. Of all sexual terrors, being on the end of a homosexual rape certainly ranks high. The lead-up to the fight is highly charged with innuendoes. Grant has clearly been aroused by the footage of Bond and Tatiana`s lovemaking. A line which exists in the continuity script but is missing from existing prints is when Grant says, “What a performance!” Grant makes Bond get on his knees (waist level) and tells him it`ll be “painful and slow.” Let`s not forget that this whole confrontation is taking place in a train compartment (real bunk, real bed). And what`s the first thing that goes when they start their “struggle”? The light. There`s an orgasmic quality to Grant`s silent death, but maybe I should stop here before I lose the family audience, which, by the way, is what the movie does. In the book, the Grant-Bond fight is the climax of the story and rightfully so. But the filmmakers felt compelled to give us a helicopter and boat chase, which dilute the sexual subtext of the film. But maybe that`s the intent. After all, sometimes a boat chase is just a boat chance.

GOLDENEYE (1995) — James Bond Finds Himself

If GoldenEye had not been a huge success when it was released in the fall of 1995, the James Bond series would have ended then and there. After the disappointment of License to Kill and a six-year hiatus, the question facing MGM and the Bond empire was “Is James Bond still relevant?” Cleverly enough, the filmmakers decided to make a James Bond film that was specifically ABOUT James Bond`s struggle to find his place in the modern world. Not since YOLT was a Bond film so blatantly symbolic and so psychologically interesting.
The famous and widely used drug for treating the acute problem of erectile dysfunction is of course, sildenafil citrate 100 mg or popularly known as . A walk through the neighborhood could be a refreshing way to spend the day. Whatever which kind of kidney disease are suffering with, they can cause decline of kidney function and increased level of creatinine. There is more to Male Dysfunction than buying sildenafil purchased that meets your eyes.
As if to erase the Dalton years, GoldenEye starts in 1986 (a year before The Living Daylights) and then jumps “Nine Years Later,” presumably to 1995, as a Bond film always takes place “today.” This time passage device (the only time it has been used in a Bond film) tells us right off the bat that this is a movie which puts character ahead of plot. In other words, it`s ABOUT James Bond and not the global repercussions of some event that we see in the pre-titles sequence or opening scene. When we first see Bond in this film, he`s hanging UPSIDE-DOWN. And what`s 007 doing when we meet him nine years later? He`s TURNING A CORNER. But the old Bond is still very much in evidence. He seduces a girl, wears a tux, drives the Aston Martin DB5, gambles in a casino, orders a martini “shaken not stirred,” and smokes out a crime syndicate — all this in the opening two scenes! He`s also back in the personage of Pierce Brosnan, whom the public has associated with James Bond from the time he lost the role in 1986. (Hey, there`s that year again.)

But after this nostalgic romp, Bond fails in his mission to stop the robbery of the Tiger helicopter, and we FADE OUT. Fade out? Is this the end of the movie? In a way, it is because now we begin the first postmodern James Bond film, a film in which James Bond is not the master of his universe. For the next hour, 007 is ridiculed for being a “sexist misogynist dinosaur,” out of touch and irrelevant in the post Cold War world. M is more than just a woman now. She`s a mother! (“If I wanted sarcasm, I`d talk to my children,” she tells Tanner.) Up to this point in the 33 year history of the James Bond series, the concept of motherhood has been as nonexistent as, well, children. As a rule, Bond conquers the girl, and we roll credits, fast. Any relationship beyond that short circuits the fantasy. Everyone Bond encounters in this film slams him in a similar way. Valentin asks him if he`s “decided to join the 21st Century,” Jack Wade makes fun of his “secret codes and passwords,” Trevelyan suggests his martini intake is a means of escape, and sexual harassment is even suggested in his treatment of Miss Moneypenny! How does Bond respond? He doesn`t.

Instead Bond embarks on a mission to defeat the cold warrior inside himself by going to the source: Russia, a former enemy now crippled (like Valentin Zukovsky). Here, the traditional Bond girls are split (as is everything in this film) into opposing halves. Natalya is a beauty with brains, and Xenia is pure danger with a kink for killing that`s worthy of From Russia with Love. (For the first and only time in a Bond film, we get to see a woman achieve an orgasm. You`ve come a long way, baby.)

But it`s in the graveyard of discarded Soviet statues (heavy symbolism, but, hey, it works) that Bond finally encounters the REAL enemy — his shadow. Like Bond, Alec Trevelyan, agent 006, is trapped in a time warp. Like Bond, he`s become both a myth (Janus) and a real man. But Trevelyan`s problem is he still clings to the hatred and suspicion that created the Cold War while Bond just clings to the sex appeal. Their struggle makes up the last half of the film, and the shadow nature of their relationship is so obvious that there`s hardly any need for metaphor. “James and I shared everything,” says Trevelyan. The most telling moment comes in the end of the film when Bond kills Trevelyan, not “for England” but “for me.” The cold warrior is dead. Mission accomplished. Welcome to the 21st Century, Mr. Bond.

**
Thanks, John. Now we take a look at some of the more fascinating Freudian quirks (intentional?) of the Bond screenwriters.

BRINK vs. KRISTATOS
Who wanted Bebe more? Brink or Kristatos? That’s an interesting question if you allow for the possibility that Brink may have had more than just a professional interest in Bebe. Brink has almost all the characteristics of the stereotypical lesbian: short, butch haircut; dour face; militant attitude, particularly towards men. In For Your Eyes Only, Brink uses her job as Bebe’s coach to seduce her. The job is a convenient outlet from which she is able to express her rigid, militaristic attitude while allowing herself to get close to Bebe.

Notice that every time a male comes into the picture, Brink snaps at Bebe? When Bebe asks Bond to take her to the biathlon, Brink forces more work on her. When Bond later catches up with Bebe at the ice rink, Brink interrupts their conversation to announce that it is “time for your rubdown”. What were Bebe and Bond discussing? Eric Kreigler, a man! At the monastery in Greece, Brink successfully turns Bebe against her male sponsor, Kristatos. She then rubs Bebe’s back, strokes her hair, and tells her how innocent she is; how she needs a new sponsor. This last scene has the same sexual overtones as Rosa Klebb`s interrogation of Tatiana in FROM RUSSIA, WITH LOVE.

“ENGINES”
Male genitalia have been all over the Bond films, though in much more subtle ways than one would imagine. It’s often been said that men buy expensive sports cars to compensate for a small penis. If that’s the case, Bond’s history with cars such as the Aston Martin, Lotus Turbo Esprit and BMW Z-3 must indicate…. Well, you get the picture. His psychiatrist, Caroline, in GOLDENEYE made a very telling observation: “You’re just trying to show off the size of your…” Bond: “Engine?” Caroline: “Ego!”

Assuming this is true, the rocket Bond fires at Naomi’s helicopter in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME logically symbolizes Bond`s manhood. Motorcycles and gear shifts are often compared to and thought of as extensions of the male genitalia and if you can accept that theory, it becomes easier to see why a headlight firing rocket in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is a profound statement of Bond’s manhood, and not just another way to destroy the enemy.

This brings up an interesting scene from THUNDERBALL. When Count Lippe is being tailed by a motorcycle as he himself follows Bond, the viewer automatically assumes that the person on the motorcycle is a man. Why? Because a big, strapping piece of equipment like a motorcyle is always considered to be an extention of a man`s sexuality. The fact that it ends up firing an explosive rocket only confirms to the unsuspecting viewer that a man has been on the motorcyle. Even if the viewer hadn`t conciously told him/herself that the rider was a man, they were surely shocked to see the rider take off the helmet and reveal themself to be a woman.

CIGARS
This one is too easy. Only in the Brosnan films have the cigars had as much sexual subtext, and even they they’ve been used as cheap, easy jokes. The cigar in both GOLDENEYE and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH are phallic symbols. Xenia strokes her cigar upright while telling Bond how she likes her martini. The flirtation and the message therein are obvious.

In THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, Bond brings Moneypenny a cigar from Bilbao, Spain, enclosed in a phallic looking tube. The implication is again obvious. Moneypenny replies: “I know just where to put that” and then throws it into a trashcan, thus cutting off Bond’s masculinity quicker than Lorena Bobbitt.

GUNS
No metaphor for male genitalia is more common or more pronounced than a gun. In THE NAKED GUN, Jane Spencer asks Lt. Frank Drebin about his gun: “Aren’t you afraid it might go off accidentally?”. He replies: “That’s why I think about baseball.”

Scaramanga’s golden gun is his, metaphorically speaking, penis. There can be no doubt that when he used that gun to trace the curve of Andrea Anders lips in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, he was simulating oral sex. Even the lyrics to the title song back up this claim: “Love is required, whenever he’s hired, it comes just before the kill”. After Scaramanga kills the solar energy expert outside the Bottoms Up Club, he returns to his junk and caresses Andrea’s face with his gun. I think you get the picture.

The gun that comes out of the mouth of one Bond Girl during the credits for GOLDENEYE is another sly, sexual innuendo. Daniel Kleinmann admits in an interview with 007 Magazine that it was intentionally put into the credits as a sort of sexual joke, even though the gun is coming out of the mouth rather than going in. Again, a gun is transparently a metaphor for male genitalia.

THE ELEKTRA COMPLEX
It can’t be a coincidence that the writers of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH chose the name of Elektra as their villain, for it is from Greek mythology that Neal Purvis and Robert Wade undoubtedly came up with the inspiration for this character.

The Elektra Complex is a term originated from this Greek story: there was a guy named Oedipus who, at birth, was destined by fate to kill his father (who also happened to be the King of Thebes) and marry his mother. The people in Thebes thought that this was a pretty big deal, so when Oedipus was an infant, he was sent away. As an adult, Oedipus returns to Thebes only to – you guessed it – kill his dad and marry his mom. In psychological terms, a man who wants to kill his mother so he can marry his mother is said to have an Oedipus Complex. The opposite of that, for women, would be the Elektra Complex.

In the story of Oedipus, his father was a “King”. In THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, Elektra’s last name is “King”. In both the Greek myth and in the movie, the child comes back to kill the parent. The writers of The World Is Not Enough have taken some liberties with the mythos by having Elektra kill her father rather than her mother, but the symbolism is not lost on most viewers. Coincidentally, or not, Oedipus kills his father after having been banished for so many years. Elektra kills her father after having been kidnapped, not receiving a ransom (in effect, banishment) and eventually escaping.

TOMORROW NEVER DIES nods its head to the Oedipus Complex when Bond jokes about a skyscraper with Elliot Carver`s image on the side: `I always thought he had an edifice complex.`