It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
People don't think that, do they? What's wrong with folk now.
Emasculate? No, not at all, but both show a shift in tone for the series, particularly the Madeleine scene.
Yes, it's more vicious than creepy.
Jaysus.
Watch GoldenEye. OHMSS too, off the top of my head.
Do you have an opinion why this may be the direction the series goes? I ask not to be combative, but to attempt to understand why such expectations are placed on a fictional character.
It’s difficult to hit the nail directly on the head with this. But it certainly seems to me we’ve come to a point now where men being promiscuous is frowned upon, which for so long it seemed to be the opposite. I’ve long argued regarding both Bond’s character and real life, no one should be judged for however much or little consensual sex they have, be it praise or ridicule. Some people, like Bond, just prefer the polygamous lifestyle, and there really is nothing inherently wrong with that.
As for where the conflict comes in, I believe that there is this feeling that automatically associates this behavior with belittling women, and in Bond’s case certainly he views many as “disposable pleasures” as put in CR. The thing is though, the films themselves are not belittling women. Plenty of three-dimensional female characters have come along in this series, and even if there is a problematic element in Bond’s mind regarding how he personally views them, he seems to treat a good many of them with respect. I’m all for moving on past particularly problematic moments like the barn in GF or shower in TB, but to me it’d be a step too far to remove polygamy altogether from Bond’s behavior.
It also seems to me that for whatever reason, people nowadays are having a harder time separating the behaviors of characters within fiction from the film itself, as in, assuming when a lead character does “bad” things (which can be subjective even sometimes too), the film is glamorizing it or advocating for it. We end up with some pretty boring main characters this way to avoid including this. But yes, trying to sum up my response as best as I can, I think there is a fear of Bond being polygamous that automatically insults women, and obviously we’ve come to a time where things like sexism are rightfully put under the microscope. But from my humble opinion, art needs to be left alone and not serve as a moral guide every time for audiences to follow.
Polygamy doesn't mean what you think it means.
I think it's fine for Bond to be promiscuous, or a female character in the films, or anyone really.
Agree. Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Smoking, sleeping with multiple women whenever they want to to, being the alpha character/male in any situation, fine tailoring on and off the job, expensive cars, a license to kill, etc, etc. I grew up in the '50 and '60s and most of these still sit well with me, as a fantasy, but I always get the feeling that my younger friends don't find these things as important or acceptable anymore. Will Bond continue to reflect Fleming's era fantasies or..............will the new version of 007 continue to change with the times until he is no longer anything like the original James Bond?
Casino Royale set that up well, calling out Bond in a flip way pursuing married women as uncomplicated for himself. True to the character, funny as presented, but not exactly worthy of real world emulation by the audience.
Really the filmmakers are already on that path, the Bond character isn't so much on board with woke sensibilities (I can't think of a better description) as just doing things his way. Being respectful to obstinate coworkers like Nomi isn't in conflict with that, it's just good business at times. And recognizing concepts like duty sets the stage for the best of Fleming regardless of the latest political churn.
My grown kids do react to some content not so aligned with modern sensibilities. Still some things like Bond are timeless and irresistible. So Bond can remain and be Bond.
I truly hope so.
I didn’t use the word technically correctly no, but obviously you get what I meant.
@CrabKey sure thing! Here’s hoping they don’t stray too far from the path.
However, I don't think the films ever really got one point about literary Bond: He does fall in love or at least serious infatuation very easily. When I read the novels, I see some serious affection he has for many of the leading ladies, not just Vesper and Tracy. There is something there that I have also seen in some men in my life. A certain distrust or maybe just distance to women in general, but when he falls, he falls hard and then kind of just as quickly it fizzles again. One of the greatest denouments in this regard is Moonraker, where he has constructed this entire fantasy of the romantic/sexy holiday he will take with Gala only for her to tell him she's engaged and there will be nothing more between the two.
It’s a point that folks say that Bond shouldn’t be treated as a role model, but will happily accept Chandler and Fleming’s famous statement of “Men want to be like him, women want to be with him”. What is that other than acceptance that he is a model that people fantasise of imitating and influences behaviour? And it doesn’t mean that they want to be murdering people or horribly tortured or have their wife killed, no: ‘men want to be like him’ rather obviously pertains to the good bits which are glamorous and/or more applicable to an everyday life, not a ‘moral guide’.
And you do make a very good point: as that is and always has been seen as the core basis of his appeal, if he no longer does the things people dream of doing, what is the point of him? Or does he keep doing that but shift slightly, as he always has done, more into the appealing aspects of the day?
Yes, there's Tiffany Case, Tatiana Romanova, and even Honey Ryder or heck even Tilly Masterton and of course Kissy Suzuki.
But with these women, there's something about them that's worth falling for Bond, something that I don't really see in Madeleine.
I think the Lucia Sciarra character from SPECTRE for me would have been the better option for this:
1. Like Bond, her life was always in danger.
2. She's a wife of a SPECTRE agent/assassin, so she at least had a bit understanding regarding those inside works, espionage, underground works and all.
3. She knows how to handle Bond as it's no different than her husband (Marco Sciarra) who's again a SPECTRE agent and assassin.
4. Given her connections, she could help Bond at his mission against SPECTRE, and in No Time To Die, if Bond suspected her of working for SPECTRE or betraying, it would have make sense given her connections. With Madeleine, it's impossible as it's obvious that she had no connections to SPECTRE, she's innocent of what's happening, she even had no idea about her father's whereabouts.
5. Both Lucia Sciarra and Bond knows the world of these underground works.
This did have tremendous potential; unfortunately the chemistry between the two very talented actors was limited. It was handled better in NTTD, but the relationship felt very forced.
White was a much more important character than Sciarra ever was though; Madeline has more resonance in the plot. I do think Spectre is full of good ideas: I like the idea of Bond telling his old enemy that he'll protect his daughter in return for information, that's a good direction. It's such a shame it never quite all fits together.