Often when I tell people that some of my research has focused on Playboy magazine and James Bond, the idea has a tendency to be treated with disbelief as an eyebrow-raising suggestion reminiscent of Roger Moore’s Bond. This is actually quite fitting in a way though because in the 1970s and 1980s Moore brought with him to the part an established screen persona of a rather too smooth playboy (having played stylish adventurer Simon Templar in the successful TV series The Saint from 1962 to 1969, and British gentleman and aristocrat Lord Brett Sinclair alongside Tony Curtis in the rather less successful series The Persuaders! in 1971), compared to the somewhat rougher edges of Sean Connery’s 1960s Bond. However, dressed up in a suit Connery’s Bond was no less appreciated as a stylish, sophisticated and sexually confident icon of masculinity. In fact I discuss in my forthcoming book that it’s actually Connery’s Bond who has been most idolised by Playboy. Not only was Connery interviewed for Playboy in November 1965, but his Bond is still held up for admiration by the magazine as the quintessential screen interpretation of the character. I draw parallels between Playboy’s admiration for Bond in the Connery era and the recent approach to Daniel Craig as Bond. Craig was also interviewed for the magazine in December 2008 and his performance as Bond is favoured by Playboy in part because it recalls Connery. The connections between Bond and Playboy had begun in March 1960 when the magazine published its first Bond story and reported that Fleming had pledged ‘“I’m sure James Bond, if he were an actual person, would be a registered reader of Playboy.”’
But I have digressed. For now let’s get back to the reason for that ironically raised eyebrow and my research project, which focused on the public relationship between Playboy magazine and James Bond in the wider context of the playboy lifestyle in popular culture. This obviously meant studying Playboy magazine for research purposes.
“I read it for the articles” is an old joke about Playboy magazine. But it’s certainly true in my case and for other researchers. Though there are nude pictorials to look at in relation to Bond, there are also essays, interviews, fiction, readers’ letters, and other sections in the magazine’s contents.
The joke about ‘reading’ Playboy magazine is something that the Bond films had also referenced. When I began researching Playboy in relationship to James Bond I already had at the forefront of my mind the magazine’s brief cameo appearance in the Gumbold office safecracking scene in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (dir. Peter Hunt, 1969). George Lazenby’s Bond finds the February 1969 Playboy issue hidden between the pages of a newspaper. Opening up the magazine to the centerfold, he ignores the articles and looks admiringly at the Playmate of the Month. When Bond leaves the office after successfully breaking into the safe with a gadget, he has kept the centerfold but discarded the rest of the magazine without reading it. (Incidentally, the other direct reference to Playboy that occurs in the Bond films is in Diamonds are Forever (dir. Guy Hamilton, 1971), when Connery’s Bond is revealed to be a card carrying member of the Playboy Club and Casino.)
Unlike the screen Bond I wanted to do more than glance at Playboy, but in practice gaining access to the magazine turned out to be less than straightforward for me. As a UK-based researcher in the early 2000s one of the challenges when studying Playboy magazine was searching out old copies. Fortunately, the British Library was one of the select few libraries in Britain that held Playboy. However, it didn’t hold the complete run of the magazine from 1953 onwards. Some early issues of the magazine in particular were missing, though the library staff were always helpful trying to look for what I’d requested from the catalogue. To this day, the location information remains inscribed on my memory.
Anyone who has ever read Playboy will also recognise that like other magazines it can approached from a socio-historical perspective as a cultural artefact to be deconstructed. Over the years Playboy obviously has important connections to changing taking place in consumption, gender and sexual relations, and lifestyle. Of course I was especially interested in the magazine’s intertextual engagements with Bond as another cultural icon closely associated with the 1960s.
In recent years academic interest in Playboy has grown and access to the magazine has become much simpler. In 2011 Playboy launched the web-based subscription service iplayboy.com, giving complete and unlimited access to the publication. For the researcher this type of digital archive offers quick and easy access to resources that were once difficult to locate and time consuming to navigate. iplayboy.com boasts that users can “unlock access to the most comprehensive and exclusive collection. Every issue, article, story, and pictorial Playboy has ever published”. Users can search the digital archive and refine searches according to author or section – just in case you wondered a search for “James Bond” currently produces 1,068 results, with varying degrees of relevance. (In comparison searches for “Ian Fleming” and “Sean Connery” produce 222 results. Surprisingly a search for editor-publisher “Hefner” returns just 1,268 hits; there should be more, surely?). As far as my research goes the digital archive has provided detail that has enriched my earlier study of the magazine in hard copy – bringing to my attention some mentions that I hadn’t otherwise uncovered, such as Playboy’s April 1964 “On the Scene” introductory feature on Connery as an actor of note thanks to his breakthrough role, or the food article “From Russia with Love” in Playboy April 1965, which is about Russian cuisine but beyond the title strangely makes no direct reference to Bond. But a difficulty that comes with the ability to search the text is the possibility that each result might require scrutiny or that these elements may take over the bigger picture of the magazine in context. For this you still really need to spend time browsing through many issues, years, and decades. This may sound obvious, but in the digital age in particular there’s more than one kind of approach to reading Playboy.
Dr Claire Hines is Senior Lecturer in Film and Television at Southampton Solent University. Her research and publications focus on sexuality, gender, fantasy, and James Bond in the contexts of American and British cultures. She is the editor of Fan Phenomena: James Bond (Intellect, 2015) and her book The playboy and James Bond is due to be published by Manchester University Press in 2018.
The following submission guidelines are to assist authors wishing to submit a piece for publication in the IAMHIST Blog. If you wish to submit a blog piece, then please email the IAMHIST Blog Editor, Llewella Chapman (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Approximately 1000 words (this is not a strict word limit, but advisory).
You are free to write about a topic of your choice, but please keep your chosen topic relevant to film, television, radio or media history.
Please include hyperlinks and/or pictures and videos in the body of your text.
Attach all images as jpg. attachments and indicate where you would like them to go in the text.
If you wish to include images from archive sources please check with the relevant archive to ensure this is okay before including them.
Please include up to six key words/terms which highlight your research project/topic.
Please include a short bibliography of no more than 100 words and your email address/website hyperlink. You may also include a website to your personal or project blog here if you wish.
How many times have you read a review – or just as likely a comment piece or a filmmaker interview – of a historical film or period television series that has not got it right? Consider the following scenarios:
Valkyrie (2008). US-American filmmakers are criticised for depicting other national histories in revisionist or reductive terms. Actors depicting Germans speak English dialogue with a put-on German accent.
Robin Hood (2010). An Australian-New Zealand film star is taken to task for playing a legendary bandit (who is said to have come from Nottingham) with an accent that sounds to English natives like Irish. A media furore ensues and said actor, Russell Crowe, storms out of press interviews muttering about ‘hours of intensive voice training’. The affair comes after similar theatrics regarding Kevin Costner’s barely veiled American accent in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) and Errol Flynn’s too-posh turn in The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938).
Downfall (2004). In interviews and at festival Q&As producer Bernd Eichinger and director Oliver Hirschbiegel explain their motivation to depict Hitler’s last days as their desire (and their belief in Germans’ need) to take back control of their ‘own’ history. Eichinger states that:
We resolved to shoot this film in the German language, with German actors and a German director. Why? If one shines a spotlight on the most enormous physical and psychological collapse of a whole civilisation, namely our German nation, then it must also be possible for us to tell this story ourselves. In other words: Many other projects on Hitler have been made by the Americans, English and so on. . . . I think it is high time that we tell our own story with the means that we have ourselves, and have the courage to finally put the main protagonists up on the screen.
Such statements – and the ways of evaluating audiovisual historical narratives they imply – are ubiquitous. They take various forms, but they proliferate in every culture where film and television are produced and consumed.
In general, such views on media have to do with the pursuit of authenticity, the engine of mainstream historical film and television production. This mode has three key manifestations: an aesthetic strategy, a reception discourse and a production discourse. A presumption of rectitude based on a perception of knowledge, authenticity is the widespread answer to the fundamental question of historical film production (and historiography in general): How should the past be represented and how can history be transmitted in a credible form, as a vehicle of emotional investment?
To be sure, the audiovisual terms of authenticity, a descriptor deployed by filmmakers, critics, historians, philosophers, teachers and film audiences alike, may vary according to the speaker. Its meanings slip and seem to evade precise definition: for many authenticity is above all a feeling, an emotional state of harmony. Indeed, the only factor that seems to overlap among these commentators is its positive connotation and its salient function as means and end.
Smoothing over those rough edges, however, we are left with a general consensus: for most makers and audiences of period narrative media, authenticity signifies a realistic historical experience, an effective suspension of temporal-spatial disbelief. The aesthetic success of authenticity, and thus mainstream historical film and television, is assessed via the following question: Is the past conveyed in such a way that the spectator can reconcile it with her or his perception of that historical reality? Authenticity is, for it many proponents, ultimately a felt, sensual, even embodied historicity. Its detractors belittle authenticity as historicism, an arduous yet naïve representational form and artistic habitus that attempts to approach the past in an uncritical and affirmative manner.
The aforementioned cases of Downfall, Valkyrie and Robin Hood are surely cries for the warm, righteous certainties of authenticity. A more specific principle choreographs the examples, however: they are above all rejections of cultural appropriation.
Scholars have investigated cultural appropriation from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, anthropological, legal and aesthetic, written from the perspective of archaeologists, museum curators or artists. Cultural appropriation can refer to a white man choosing to wear dreadlocks and baggy clothes or a Chinese woman who drinks an espresso. Left-leaning Anglophone newspapers like the Guardian or the New York Times seems especially preoccupied with the phenomenon (and not coincidentally also attentive to discovering ‘authentic’ dim sum or Vietnamese baguettes). The Rachel Dolezal case – a US-American white woman who for years claimed to be black and ran a local chapter of the NAACP – is only one of the latest iterations of this perennial concern. Any number of moral questions – and determinations of relative economic and social power between the cultural groups borrowing and being borrowed from – fuel the discourse.
Cultural appropriation, of the sort that critics and audiences often reject in their reception of Robin Hood, Valkyrie and so many other historical films, concerns a perceived cultural borrowing, misrepresentation and commodification, a (mis)use of one’s ‘own’ history for another’s purposes. James O. Young provides perhaps the most lucid account of cultural appropriation and the arts, one that helps clarify what issues may be at stake in debates around the historical film. In Young’s succinct formulation (5), it occurs when members of one culture, ‘outsiders’, take ‘for their own, or for their own use, items produced by a member or members of another culture (call them insiders)’.
Historical film discourse bears the scars of these representations – and visceral reactions. Take Little Big Man (1970) or Dances with Wolves (1990), where white US-American filmmakers borrow from, and even perform as, Native Americans. In the reception of Good Bye, Lenin!, many East German commentators objected to the West German director, screenwriters and actors who ‘didn’t understand’ the GDR experience, reading the film as a distantly observed fairy tale. Or Edgar Reitz’s stated intentions to take back control of German history in Heimat (1984), in the wake of US-American TV miniseries like Holocaust (1978). Or just about every Disney animated film, from Peter Pan (1953) and Lady and the Tramp (1955) – remember those Siamese cats? – to Pocahontas (1995). The outrage has abounded for the whole history of cinema and television. Jonathan Stubbs (164) details a 1923 episode in which the spokesman for the French Ministry of Education publicly berated Hollywood producers for their misappropriation of French history. He lectured them that it is ‘almost impossible for a foreigner to get the true significance of historical facts of a nation’.
There are several moral objections made against historical films’ and period television series’ use of the past. Cultural appropriation degrades its members’ identity or diminishes their economic or social opportunities. Their culture is diluted, reduced in order to cater to others’ expectations, tastes and abilities (in language and other cultural skills of perception), distorted into exaggeration and stereotypes that beget a further vicious circle of misrepresentations. Some commentators claim that the appropriation amounts to theft of a cultural commodity. They argue that the subject and content belong to a culture and should not be used by others. The source community not only knows its own culture better; it owns that history. These epistemological tyrannies then determine aesthetic evaluation: works informed by a perceived cultural appropriation are deemed inauthentic, misrepresentations per forza. But, one wonders, are these claims always justifiable? Would legal or de facto prohibitions of cultural borrowing and exchange bring about an overall salutary effect?
There is much more to say about the thoughts broached here, a discussion that scrutinises how beliefs surrounding feelings of authenticity and cultural appropriation inform marketing and other media paratexts and how they affect audiences beyond newspaper critics. For further, see my chapter, ‘The Authenticity Feeling’, in my forthcoming book (co-written with Winfried Pauleit and Rasmus Greiner), Audio History des Films/Audio History of Film. I gratefully acknowledge the support of the Leverhulme Trust, whose Philip Leverhulme Prize (PLP-2015-008) is funding this research project.
Dr Mattias Frey is Reader in Film Studies at the University of Kent, UK. His ongoing research concentrates on the historical film and popular period television, media industries analysis, arts criticism and digital media distribution. He is an editor of the journal Film Studies (Manchester UP) and his books include: Postwall German Cinema: History, Film History, and Cinephilia (Berghahn, 2013); Cine-Ethics: Ethical Dimensions of Film Theory, Practice, and Spectatorship (Routledge, 2014; co-edited with Jinhee Choi); The Permanent Crisis of Film Criticism: The Anxiety of Authority (Amsterdam UP, 2015); Film Criticism in the Digital Age (Rutgers UP, 2015; co-edited with Cecilia Sayad); Extreme Cinema: The Transgressive Rhetoric of Today’s Art Film Culture (Rutgers UP, 2016).