Is James Bond a secret gay Catholic?

Answer: Probably not, but here goes...

Back in 2012 there were the usual snorts and guffaws by the bigot English press about L'Osservatore Romano's glowing review(s) of Skyfall. (And, to be fair, for a supposedly Catholic journal to be apparently promoting such a morally questionable character as James Bond is de facto scandalous.) But then that was only to be expected, given quite how utterly bigoted thick intellectually idle English journalists always are when reporting anything to do with the Catholic Church. In reality, of course, the Catholic Church has no opinion on James Bond, or Harry Potter, or who should win this year's Yankee lying competition US Presidential Election. And you'd have to be barmy to imagine that a billion Catholics around the world even could have just one opinion about any of these things. But don't try explaining that to your average hack on The Hate Daily Mail. Life's too short, and he or she wouldn't be interested anyway.

(And besides, L'Osservatore Romano is little more than the neo-Marxist in-house wank-rag of the Vatican's spiritually etiolated secularist Establishment. It is not and never has been an organ of the Magisterium. But don't try telling them that either.)

The strangest thing about L'Osservatore Romano's apparently new-found Bond mania though is that they seem to have missed that Bond is himself a Catholic. Or at any rate he comes from an old recusant Catholic family. The Bond family in real life were Catholic recusants, and Ian Fleming almost certainly imagined Bond as being one of them. Fleming would have known of the family (as the blogger Tribunus argues in an unusually sober post - by his standards - here) and he even gave his fictional Bond their real-life coat of arms (as seen in On Her Majesty's Secret Service) and motto ('Orbis non sufficit The world is not enough').

As for all the gay stuff in Skyfall, it's worth bearing in mind that Daniel Craig's stock has until now been at least as high amongst gays (thanks to the trunks bit in Casino Royale and his playing Derek Jacobi's sadistic lover, complete with a todger shot, in Love is the Devil) as it has been (or should have been) amongst Catholics (see his remarkably straight-bat approach to Catholicism in Moll Flanders and Sword of Honour). So the smutty and silly (but still funny) bit with Javier Bardem teasing him (and vice versa) in Skyfall was certainly aimed at an already extant section of the audience (who have, presumably, ignore that Bardem's character is just as much of a homophobic stereotype as Mr Wint and Mr Kidd were in Diamonds are Forever, but never mind).

In much the same way, we learn at the end of the film (without giving too much away) that the Bond ancestral home has (or had) a priest hole in it. OK, this particular crumbling pile is (or was) in Scotland, the filmmakers thus keeping a firm grip on Bond's (fictional) Scots roots rather than on the Bonds' (real-life) roots in Dorset. But there can't have been many non-Catholic, non-Jacobite Scots whose Reformation-era castles harboured massing priests, even in the Bond universe.

So on the one hand Skyfall was infested with silly solecisms. My favourite has to be 'This was your father's hunting rifle', when it wasn't a rifle it was a shotgun and anyway in the UK we use guns for shooting (or possibly stalking, but certainly not hunting, which is done with hounds).* And also there's no real plot (which, after all the delightfully convoluted plots in Bond films of yesteryear, was rather disappointing). And the script was fairly lacking in either polish or sparkle. And the baddy was almost totally one-dimensional. At the same time, however, there were all sorts of little things (the return of Q, complete with a fairly tokenistic gadget, and the return of the Walther PPK) and big things (the return of the Aston Martin, the return of Moneypenny, the return of the old office, etc.) that did end up making Bond's anniversary outing (and I use the word 'outing' advisedly) both enjoyable and satisfying.

*And whilst we're nitpicking, despite being a staunch monarchist Bond for some reason declined to bow to the Queen when he escorted her to the Olympics (even though even HM's own children do that), which rather suggests that Craig doesn't have quite the grip on his character that you'd have thought such a great "ac-tor" would have.

Another Country

I saw this film on an old DVD that had been given away free with some Sunday 'paper. I just managed to save it from the recycling bag.

I must say, I hadn't expected much, but it was still bitterly disappointing. It's beautifully set and, up to a point, quite attractively cast. Colin Firth, it turns out, was marvellous even when he was cute. Rupert Everett, similarly, turns out always to have been awful. But there's Guy of Gisburne from Robin of Sherwood as well, smouldering away in the background looking blond and posh and, well, just smouldering. And there's even a young Cary Elwes - not even bothering to act, but just being posh and cute and lovely and sweet and smiling oh-so-nicely and... Aaah!

And I suppose the rest of the film could so easily have been like that - a sort of Sound of Music with cricket. And one can feel that it's what the filmmakers really wanted to do. But the convention by the 1980s was that beautiful blond young men were always evil, beautiful old schools were evil, the military and the British Empire were always evil - and buggery was a beautiful, liberating thing.

Oh, fuck it! It's moral drivel from beginning to end. It's a film about communists in England at a time when England already knew about the horrors of Lenin and Trotsky. What makes it worse is that it was made at a time just when the whole gruesome Soviet experiment was already starting to fall apart. (Having said that, the BBC made The Curse of Fenric virtually as the Berlin Wall was tumbling. For failing to gauge the mood of the times, no one has ever beaten the British media-Establishment - and that, in some ways, is a comforting thought.)

The film's moral inadequacy has an inevitable knock-on effect on its characters. The "good", left-wing characters are almost all drawn hideously badly. Everett is supposed to be a sympathetic gay character but he's not: he's the most annoying, snivelling excuse for a gay stereotype ever seen. And Firth is a splendidly enjoyable prick, but he never grows or develops. Just to expand on that unfortunate metaphor, his character remains limp throughout: he starts out as a prick and carries on as a prick all the way until the end - when he's still a prick; and there's never any clue as to why he's a prick. He's just a prick. And a Marxist prick at that!

The goodies are of course gays in denial and sadists and militarists and (worst of all!) praying Christians. Again, the inadequacy of the writing is such that we don't even find out whether they're supposed to be hypocrites or fanatics. All we're supposed to take away (or rather, because this is a film that was really only ever playing to the gallery, it's a prejudice that we're supposed to take to it) is that Christianity and the military are yucky and nasty. And that's all there is to it.

The most interesting characters in the film are Fowler - who is played by far and away the most handsome young hunk on display - and his favourite fag. The fag himself is a standard-issue, handsome little prepubescent love-muffin. But he is the only character towards whom anyone in the film shows any genuine affection or tenderness, and Fowler is the one character who shows it. (It's just one line: 'All right, Tomkins! You've done a decent job on my boots.' or some such.) But then a film that really explored the human condition, and tackled the emotional relationships - hero worship vs. emerging paternal fondness - between young men and younger boys, in school or out, would have been unthinkable in pro-Marxist 1980s Britain.

It would be even more unthinkable now.

Jimmy Sime, 'Toffs and Toughs' (1937)

There's nothing new about fake news, or indeed political disinformation in the mainstream media.

Leaving aside that nowadays the boys on the right would be just as likely to be beaten up for being "posh" (not to mention English and white) as the boys on the left would have been back then, the photograph is hopelessly posed and the title itself is both misleading and probably no older than 2004.

In fact the boys on the right are not "toughs" but pupils at a local Church of England school. They'd taken the day off school for a trip to the dentist and then decided to earn some easy money by helping out at the Eton-Harrow cricket match that was taking place at Lord's that afternoon. Sime has clearly, er, solicited their aid for his photograph (presumably for a small fee). And given that nice young Anglican boys would generally have been discouraged from walking around with their hands in their pockets, he's presumably also instructed them to adopt the poses their holding - apparently to make them look as if they're quietly masturbating. The two Harrovian boys though just happened to be standing at the gate at the time waiting to be collected by one of their parents, and by all accounts they were persuaded to pose for the camera with neither their parents' consent nor any financial emolument.

The picture is of course well known in England, and a good example of indigenous English leftist propaganda - that is to say the lies we like to tell ourselves. It was first published in the 10th July 1937 edition of the News Chronicle, a leftist newspaper that later merged with The Daily Mail (which of course by modern standards isn't even considered leftist). The screechy agitprop caption read 'Every picture tells a story'.

The real "story" of the photograph - of the tragic fates of the two "toff" boys and of the long, happy, normal lives of the "toughs" - is now freely available on line thanks to dear old Wikipedia.

While everyone is focused on Joe Biden's comment about black voters, @JesseKellyDC SLAMS him for saying this in the same interview:

"From the pandemic, you can remake the world as it should be."

Jesse asks, "Does that not creep you out?" pic.twitter.com/mXtibbY6xA

— The First (@TheFirstonTV) May 23, 2020