Bury Your Bond Girls?

Jill, Tilly, Aki, Plenty, Andrea, Corinne, Solange… None of these girls make it to the end credits alive and some of their deaths serve purposes which are dubious at best. Sam Rogers explores how the Bury The Gays trope can be applied to the girls that Bond fails to protect.

Bury The Gays

As a gay man, I was quick to note that depictions of gay men on television or films were never 100% relatable and only slightly resembled something realistic. As a teenager trying to find out more about homosexuality from different sources, I ended up watching a lot of gay storylines from UK television shows, European soap operas and independent films with a majority of storylines ending in the death of one half of a gay couple: Lucas & Edwin from Goede tijden, slechte tijden; Fer & David from Física o Química, John Paul & Kieron from Hollyoaks, Tommy & Alan from The Trip are just a few of the gay couple storylines that end in tragedy. In more recent years I’ve also heard from female friends that they have had similar experiences with lesbian couples: Tara from Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Denise from The Walking Dead being two coupled-up characters who stick out to me immediately.

I’m in my twenties now and of course I had it a lot better than most gay men growing up in the 20th Century. But looking back, it’s surprising to see just how much has changed since I first realised that I could be gay in 2007.

With the internet becoming more easily accessible, it was important for media, especially television, to portray more gay characters in a positive light and throughout the day. This is why I started watching the British soap opera Hollyoaks. Although I stopped watching the programme years ago, it was an important part of me realising that I was gay due to a gay romance storyline developing between two characters in college, which for an 11/12 year old at the time was probably one of the better ways to understand homosexuality and gay romance. Of course, this being a soap opera, it wasn’t without the melodramatics, so bear with me as I squash several months of storylines into a couple of paragraphs:

John Paul came out while his closeted friend Craig kept his seething jealousy of John Paul’s first boyfriend hidden until he gave into his feelings and they started to see each other in secret all while their friend (Craig’s girlfriend Sarah) was none the wiser. In classic soap opera fashion, this all came out at Craig and Sarah’s engagement party and although Craig chose John Paul, the latter realised they couldn’t stay together as Craig wasn’t comfortable showing affection in public (partially understandable and still relatable today).

John Paul later dated Kieron, a priest who gave up his job in order to be with John Paul, changing his outlook on life and making it seem that they could be in it for the long haul. However, as John Paul’s actor was leaving, they wanted to ensure that he got his sunset ending with a returning Craig which meant that Kieron had to go: sweet, innocent Kieron! Unfortunately, Kieron was flatmates with Niall who was secretly plotting to take down John Paul’s family as he was the long-lost son that was abandoned as a baby (of course). John Paul’s mother, Myra had entrusted Kieron in finding out where her son was which lead him back to Niall who despite being friends with him, wouldn’t let him leave alive leading to Niall drugging Kieron and letting John Paul find his body (with the consensus being that Kieron had committed suicide). Not to drag this out and more than the Hollyoaks writers did already (!) but John Paul grieved and left with Craig, getting their happy ending, although he came back and found out that Niall had in fact killed Kieron, sister Tina was killed and eventually Niall too but then John Paul would go off to live a happy life with Craig…or at least that’s how I like to leave it!

This took place throughout 2007 and 2008, two of the most defining years of my life and so these characters and storylines were my comfort. So as much as I loved seeing two of these characters get their happy ending, to see Kieron go in such an awful way was really upsetting. His character was always going to have this ending, which makes it tougher to rewatch as the character was only part of the cast for around nine months, long enough to care, especially when he’s attached to the main gay character at the time. There was lots of development during his time on the show and he genuinely seemed like a nice guy who wouldn’t hurt a fly, making his death a bitter pill to swallow as he was completely unaware of Niall’s intentions, meaning he put his trust in the one person he shouldn’t have.

Commonly, queer characters are killed off as they are seen to be “less than” their heterosexual counterparts. It’s so common it’s become known as the Bury Your Gays/Dead Lesbian Syndrome trope. This trope was quite prominent in LGBT films, usually as a tragic end to a love story. In recent years we’ve had more films that have happier endings that don’t need to kill off a character to wrap up a story.

But for me, it was sometimes difficult to really think that things could get better because in so many cases it didn’t; gay men would either end up alone or would die themselves and would so rarely get a truly happy ending. Anyone can die at anytime obviously but when there’s so little representation of a certain type of person, it’s difficult to see that person go through loss or end up becoming lost themselves. It’s so important that there is more representation so that more stories can be told, whether they are happy or sad so that people can see LGBT+ characters from all walks of life in a variety of scenarios in order help progress in our real lives.

Why does the trope exist? I had never really looked into it analytically before writing this article but I always believed it was just a way of media easily removing a queer character who probably wouldn’t be missed by the majority of the audience.

Zoë Well’s article features a line that I think perfectly sums it up:

“Historically, there was only one way you could feature an out and proud gay character (forget about bi or trans characters completely, there’s no way they’d be featured) – they had to have an unhappy ending.”

This is such a true statement, especially regarding bisexual and trans characters who were so very rarely portrayed in media and were usually side-lined when it came to LGBT+ representation. Thankfully this seems to be changing.

I discussed this with David Lowbridge-Ellis, the creator of Licence to Queer, who had the following thoughts:

“For me it’s because having the gay character alive means you have to take a gay character seriously. And if they’re in a relationship, we have to imagine gays can live happily ever after. Killing them means you can reassert heteronormativity and the audience can relax – the world is back to ‘normal’. It’s also ok to make gay characters disposable because we’re not ‘as good’ as straight characters. Our mass media tells us, repeatedly, that gay men and women will never be ‘as good’ as straight men!”

Although, I don’t think there is one specific reason why this trope exists, I think the majority of the LGBT+ community would prefer to live in a world where this isn’t a trope! Do I think there needs to be representation in absolutely everything? No. Should characters that are represented be given the time and respect to be seen as a character and not “the gay one”? Absolutely.

Bond girls and gays

Similar to gay characters in media, Bond girls do not (traditionally) make up a majority of the film’s cast with an average of two or three (of varying importance to the actual storyline) making appearances in each outing.

Compared to the largely male cast with exceptions of Moneypenny, Dench’s M and minor female characters, Bond girls are the main form of female representation so it’s important to people (especially women and gay men) that they are given the time and respect that they deserve.

Again, I can only speak as a gay man but Bond girls to me are fabulous and, similarly to Doctor Who companions, are kind of a window into Bond’s world. Sure, we follow him and he is our main character, but those who he meets (and most of the time beds) are usually those that we also root for and we want to see them get to the end of the movie, in the same way I wanted those gay couples outlive the TV show or film they were part of.

Many gay men look at females (stereotypically it’s Madonna, Cher, Judy Garland etc.) and look up to them and, at least for me, Bond girls are extremely iconic as are many female characters across television and film. And at the end of the day it would be lovely to imagine that Honey Ryder goes off to have amazing adventures picking up rare items after the events of Dr No and that Kara Milovy becomes a household name following her performance at the end of The Living Daylights!

However in many of the films, at least one of the Bond girls doesn’t make it to the end. Sometimes this is done effectively and adds to to the story and sometimes it does. But why? These films have killed off countless characters for almost 60 years, the vast majority being no named extras, so when one of our leading ladies gets the chop, we want it to mean something (or not happen all together).

Goldfinger’s Jill Masterson is our first main Bond girl who gets killed off during the EON films and, despite her few minutes on-screen, her death is iconic and meaningful. The image of the golden woman lying on the bed is such a creepy and beautiful piece of cinema and, although it’s a shame to lose her so early on, it’s a catalyst that sets up the rest of the film for two reasons: 1. It shows that Goldfinger is more than just a person of interest, and ultimately speeds up the investigation against him and 2. Bond is the one who finds her, so he feels at least partially responsible for the death of an innocent person who had absolutely no reason to die. This adds a personal layer that we see affects him during his briefing with M and it’s partly why he wants to continue working on the mission.

It’s Bond at the end of the day so Jill isn’t dwelt on too much by Bond himself but it’s something that makes her death justifiable to the plot.

Interestingly, Jill’s sister Tilly is brought into the film and is actively wanting to avenge her sister’s death which Bond understands and he does his best to protect her in Switzerland. The Masterson family can’t be very lucky as Tilly is also killed off, in a less iconic way, but it still has a reason, dramatically-speaking: Oddjob’s bowler hat. Sure, we saw him decapitate a statue but to actually see someone die via this method is shocking and sad, especially as this it is used on someone who wanted to right a wrong and get justice for the death of her sister. Both sisters aren’t mentioned after this point but their deaths added something to the plot, whether it was progressing the story or bringing other characters to the forefront.

From Goldfinger onwards, the death of a Bond girl started to become a common trope. However, unlike in Goldfinger it seems that it’s increasingly done to just get them out of the way without any real plot ramifications (there’s definitely a case to be made that this was what happened with Tilly as well).

In the next film, Thunderball, Paula Caplan (a minor character who works as one of Bond’s team in Nassau) is unceremoniously killed off-screen as she takes a cyanide pill to ensure that she doesn’t release any information to Largo’s men. Although she didn’t play a big part in the film, it’s rather unnerving seeing her last scene before she gets killed as she is thrown to the bed with a pillow shoved over her face (we presume based on Fiona’s line that she was chloroformed before being taken to Largo’s estate). We can only further presume that she was tortured and used the hidden cyanide pill just before Bond found her. She wasn’t a completely innocent character as she was actively working with Bond. However, the idea that she was just taken and killed off for no good reason is a questionable choice, the only reason being that SPECTRE could retrieve the photographs that Bond took of the Disco Volante.

I’m going to leave the femme fatale ladies as a lot of their deaths are mostly down to the fact that they are villains and won’t just switch sides (although there are a couple who do). From here until Moonraker we get some more questionable main Bond girl deaths including (the silly decision to kill off) Aki, Plenty O’Toole and Andrea Anders. Two are killed off-screen and seem to have been done purely for shock value (Plenty had no reason to be part of the film after her exit although deleted scenes help bridge this gap). The recurring reason for a death (when there’s no other reason) is to show the how evil a villain is and that even those you think will survive can be eliminated.

Now one of my main motivations for writing this article is the incredibly brutal death of Corinne Dufour in Moonraker. A pilot for Hugo Drax, Corinne spends a few minutes on-screen with us before succumbing to Bond and aiding him in retrieving information about Drax. Her assistance allows Bond to get to his next port of call in Venice and he thanks her before they leave separately from Drax’s study, unaware that henchman Chang has been watching them leave from the shadows. This is enough for Drax to have Corinne killed. Prior to this, Bond is almost killed himself but ends up doing the killing as he shoots his assassin, a tense but comedic moment as Bond spars with Drax. As soon as he leaves, Corinne appears in a golf buggy and is told that she has been terminated from her job and to leave the estate. As she walks away, she seems to sense something is wrong and runs away into the trees before Drax gives the command for his dogs to chase after her.

This sequence of Corinne running through the trees is strikingly beautiful, the white dress symbolising her innocence, the sun beaming through the leaves of this dark forest, the music growing in tension and sounding inescapable. It’s unnerving and completely terrified me upon my first viewing at 11 (so much so that I never saw the full scene until years later). Unfortunately the dogs reach her and the camera pans up as Corinne falls to the ground, the Venice bells signifying that her death has come.

This is one of the most questionable death scenes for a Bond girl in my opinion, with the main issues being the brutality and lack of follow up (of which there is none).

Let’s start with the brutality: this is a horrific death, which is a shock to see, especially in a film like Moonraker which has such an uneven tone. 10 minutes after Corinne’s death we have the Bondola and a double-taking pigeon.

Unlike other minor Bond girls, Corinne is actually given some background as she mentions her mother. Family is something that is so rare for characters to mention in these films (it’s one of the reasons why the deaths of Jill and Tilly stick out for me) so it’s actually nice to have someone talking about their life outside of the film no matter how fleeting it is. I may just be overdramatic here but I always end up thinking when she dies “oh her poor mother”.

What’s annoying is that Corinne’s death in the novelisation (by Christopher Wood) is shared with Bond. Holly tells him what happened. Whereas in the movie she is never referred to again after we see her final scene.

The scene does nothing for the plot, it makes Drax look petty (when he could’ve killed Bond in the same way) and is tragic for tragic’s sake which I just don’t think is enough at all. It pits up a stop sign in front of Corinne’s character which is undeserved. If anything, I believe if Bond had been told by Holly about Corinne, then he could’ve at least had a similar reaction to when Jill died and could’ve mentioned it to Drax in one of their following confrontations. The dogs are also never used again which raises the question: why kill her in that way?

My alternative, if she still had to die, would’ve been to actually have Bond find out and for her death to actually add something to the plot. Instead of the scientists dying because of the toxin in Venice, perhaps Corinne could have died from it which would at least allow us as the audience to be one step ahead of Bond, knowing that Drax is planning to use it but somehow on a larger scale.

This Bury Your Bond Girls trope has still occurred in recent Bond films but is less apparent.

Personally, I love that films like Licence to Kill and Octopussy have both Bond girls survive the film and moreso with the latter. Secondary Bond girl Magda still has a part to play in the film even after Octopussy herself is introduced. Not only that but they work together and are both competent fighters who take part in the final battle at the end of the film.

I would’ve liked to have seen something similar in You Only Live Twice as Aki was a part of the story for a significant amount of time and is killed off just before Kissy enters the film. Having Aki join Kissy, Tanaka and Bond at the end of the film would’ve been great but alas, they really wanted Bond and Kissy on that flotation dinghy, so Aki had to go [heart subsequently breaks].

In Licence To Kill, Bond chooses Pam which doesn’t stop Lupe from being a character, and doesn’t make her break down or feel like a failure. She moves on!

Casino Royale is interesting in the fact that none of the named Bond girls make it out of the film alive with Solange, Vesper and villain Valenka all dying (although Bond never really had any interaction with the latter and we don’t actually see her die but it is safe to assume that she was killed by Mr White during Bond’s torture scene).

As this film reboots the Bond series, it’s interesting and in a way understandable why they would decide to go down this route. Part of who Bond is that we’ve seen throughout most of the previous entries is that he can separate his feelings from duty and if he needs to (for lack of better words) ‘use’ a woman to help him complete a mission. The death of the innocent (Solange) as well as that of his love (Vesper) helps shape Bond into the 00 agent that he becomes.

This trend also follows Bond in his video game outings, sure the death of female characters is usually saved for villains but one clear example was in the 2002 classic Nightfire which saw the first Bond girl of the game, Dominique Paradis have her cover blown. She is then murdered, being kicked off the roof of Raphael Drake’s skyscraper in Tokyo (at least she got to punch Kiko before that).

One reason why I bring this up is that even in a video game that’s close to 20 years old, the developers actually made Bond reflect on the events of the evening including Dominique’s death, “Sorry. It’s been a difficult evening, Ms McCall. I lost a friend.” In this cutscene, Bond looks visibly downhearted and saddened by her death, which is more than can be said about the deaths of some Bond girls in the main series. Dominique had been part of the game on and off since the beginning, and aside from when Agent Zoe Nightshade took over, she had been the main leading Bond girl for the majority of the game with the baton passing over to Alura McCall.

I not only question the reason for some of these deaths but also what methods are actually used.

Another Way To Die?

It’s Bond so things are supposed to be larger than life, a spectacle. But does that mean that we’ve needed to have so many women die in rather horrendous ways?

Skin suffocation, poison, eaten by piranhas, mauled by dogs, run over by a jeep, tortured and wrapped in a hammock, all quite dramatic and gruesome ways to leave a film.

As much as it would be boring to have everyone die in gun fights, it again brings up the question: did they all have to die in the first place?

Why are they killed off? A lot of the time, especially the first Bond girl who appears, has done what she needed to do (bed Bond, supply information or both) and isn’t needed as Bond goes on to the next one (as harsh as it sounds). An easy and occasionally exciting way to have any character to exit is to die. However, as I’ve explored, it’s so important for deaths to mean something or cause something to happen (Paris, Vesper, Della for example the latter not being Bond’s lover but an important person to Bond). Bond needs to feel partially responsible and not act like these characters are nothing (Plenty in the pool for example) especially when the women he interacts with aren’t fellow agents and are instead just unknowing and naive.

No Time For Dying Gays

I think it’s understandable for Bond to lose someone in each mission. It would be weird if there were no casualties.

Any Bond film that doesn’t kill off a Bond girl ends up killing off at least one of Bond’s close allies. These are Quarrel in Dr No, Kerim Bey in From Russia With Love, Vijay in Octopussy, Saunders in The Living Daylights, Sharkey in Licence to Kill.

Spectre appears to be the only film where neither a Bond girl nor a close ally of Bond’s is killed (the only person who could fall into the category is Mr White just due to his and Bond’s history).

Sometimes a death is actually necessary to the plot and would actually be better than a boring exit. It’s interesting to note that, like the girls, a majority of the male allies die in horrific circumstances (burned alive, yoyo saw, impact from a sliding door).

007 will always survive. 99% of the time he’ll leave the story with his mission completed and a woman ready to celebrate with him and that’s great for him. However, as fans, we don’t forget who was there along the way.

Growing up, I had lots of people to look up to. But all the people who were unapologetically who they were, whether they were gay or female, were up on screen in a video game, a film or on a television show. Representation is important but I don’t feel like I need to see a gay character in a Bond film or at least a character where that is their only component.

I especially don’t want a gay character in No Time To Die if they end up like so many who have come before: dead. I don’t have time for that.

As well as being a lifelong Bond fan, Sam Rogers is also a Marketing Executive with a degree in TV and radio. He lives in Manchester, England.

You can find him on Twitter @SamR_1995