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
Chortle.
Though I think it's also important to note all the times Bond is injured by a woman, whether that's by being slapped, punched, kicked or being shot at for a more lethal example. There's a double-standard where women can't abuse men, but Bond often takes it and doesn't give it back and that is never talked about as much as the small number of times Bond gets physical.
It's also interesting to watch some of the Carry on Movies as many of them include multiple sexual assualts and, as with Bond, they were seen as hilarious at the time and are still repeated on mainstream TV with many viewers in the present era finding this behavior equally hilarious. Babs Windsor is regarded as a national treasure but I would have preferred it if she had punched Sid James's lights out but I'm from a different era.
Don't get me wrong, I would never ban such movies. They are fantastic windows on previous versions of our culture . It makes you wonder how future generations will view our current output? what will they wince at? Agism perhaps
On a wider note, I hate the term "politically correct" and it tends to be used by those who resist change. I tend to think of it as a move for greater mutual respect and understanding. Not much wrong in that?
SP's third act a strong contender.
We obviously all want more respect and equality in the world (if you don't you shouldn't be here) and the apologists never seem to get that. What they still don't seem to perceive is how, in a rush to reach equality, many in the outrage happy PC cult (basically, the radical versions of true egalitarian warriors) are quick to jump down everyone's throat for every word or action they make and essentially suggest censorship of thought in their misguided responses to what are usually jokes or thoughts posed in jest instead of deeply held feelings of hate or resentment.
For those of us in the art world, be that writing, film, exhibition, performance or music and more, one of the fundamental enemies to us is a lack of expression or a threat to that expression. We now live in a time when people want to ban movies or books because they don't like their content or how the villain is portrayed, completely missing the point of art. If you can't make a villain a villain, for example, or make them unlikable to facilitate their villainy, what exactly is the point? In the same token, any expression in art should be allowed because it's art that reveals to us things we don't at first see below the surface. Art can house anyone and anything, any kind of person good or bad and any narrative or circumstance. The minute you try to reign in art and tell artists what they can and can't do, you're playing with fire. And those that do so have a serious misunderstanding of what art should be and couldn't get it if they tried. Like a bean counter being given the reigns of a gigantic creative enterprise, their view of the world and their qualities are ill suited to the job.
Arguing against this, you have producers and the media who are over sensitive and decide on behalf of the mainstream what is acceptable. They also over represent the sensitivities of certain minorities. Dave Allen is a perfect example. I dont think his material would be made and broadcast today re the way he took the micky out of the Catholic church and yet, if you look at the way religion is declining etc, there is a strong argument to be made that his work was actrually ahead of its time.
There is a an ellement of "hypersensitiveilty" within the media and they wont touch certain topics.
I've seen challenging pieces of filmmaking, writing or even stand-up that could not have been created in any other time but today's, so for me that's a big showing of just how capable art can be of fighting this stupid censorship issue. We've got content that focuses on LGBT life, suicide and other mental illness, the conspiracy behind religion and faith, political pieces and more that challenge what stories we can be told and what their content is. Some of these are backed by studios or big investors, but some could also be the result of private funding like indie films where the consumer supports a narrative they want delivered.
The great thing about art is that, in this day and age when censorship could be an issue, the mediums that make it up are far better suited than most to stand up to the outrage. Art has always been challenging and its always confronted people with issues or ideas that are uncomfortable. Its mission statement and overall purpose should never change, nor should it ever have to.
I just hope people understand what they're doing when they get on these crusades for banning books or films. Harry Potter of all things, is a famously banned series, and for what reason? Not because the books depict rape, or because they are sympathetic to racist values or anything. And that's part of my issue with these concerns of censorship: those wanting to ban things pick the most innocuous content to raise a censorship campaign against, and select books or shows or films that are actually helping the cultures of the world instead of hurting them. It's nonsensical, but that is who these people are.
If these PC brigadiers actually wanted to change the world for the better they'd quit trying to ban Harry Potter and The Sleeping Beauty and instead help out actual people in the real world from all over the globe who are facing real oppression, slavery of the body or spirit, hunger, poverty and war. But they aren't, of course, because it's apparently a better use of their time to rally against fictional characters and whine about murals or illustrations on the backs of cereal boxes instead.
Now if you want a genuine example of pure bonkers, a friend emailed this over 2 mins ago: (my italix)
Reference: 63564
Date Added: 21 November 2017
Closing Date: 4 December 2017
Job Title: Trainee Broadcast Journalist
Working For: BBC
Location: London
Salary: London living wage - £10.20 per hour
Job Details
12 month opportunity for budding news junkies to gain hands on experience at a national and international level with the iconic BBC World Service.
This internship is only open to candidates from a black, Asian or non-white ethnic minority background.
http://www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=63564
Wow,how openly racist and discriminate is this ?!
You're surprised at this?
It happens at TfL all the time.
I'm surprised its so blatant and actually written rather than word of mouth.
No one going to risk their pension by challenging it and being called racist are they?
@patb, believe me, we agree wholeheartedly on this bonkers idea of the more radical PC folks. Part of my whole rally against them is based off their very disingenuous or simply outright laughable outrage at particular things.
My new favorite are the faux feminists of Hollywood who knew about Weinstein's dirty dealings and mistreatment of women in accordance with the model of patriarchy they all say they are working restlessly to stop, but of course they kept their traps shut to keep their jobs instead of having actual principles.
As for that e-mail, yikes. I've seen concerns waived about those kinds of things before, where programs like affirmative action have outlived their time such that those who are white are more disadvantaged for a fair shake than those who those kinds of opportunities were created for at the very beginning. We need to reset now to a state where, since the racist and sexist official and silent rulings and blockades of the past are being decimated in the work force, people are simply hired for a job because they're the best choice for it and not because they hit the lottery and came out of their mother with a tan.
Nope,and there lies part of the problem.
I know...perish the thought.
I think it's fair enough mate.
I need to atone for the crimes perpetuated by my forefathers.
True, @TheWizardOfIce, very true. It's only logical that if your great, great, great, great, great grandfather once shot a man in the street you should by all accounts serve a sentence in prison for the crime for sharing his blood. It's only fair.
I want to make clear that I am in no way a racist. I have several friends from inferior races.
It's not racist if you hate everyone equally!
That's certainly my motto. One thing you can't fault misanthropes for: everyone gets equal disgust.
Right there with you. Can't play favorites when it comes to disgust!
Fair point. I hate 98% of white people.
That's me...I hate the human race basically...horrible,depraved,nasty,sneaky,untrustworthy breed.
It's the BBC, why would anyone be surprised? The beeb does love diversity. I wonder if Auntie ever forced Jimmy Saville to be more diverse when picking his victims.
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/meghan-markles-creepy-interview-male-talk-show-host-resurfaces-100102029.html
Here's the full interview from start to finish, in full context:
The band-aid brigade may find it creepy, but the lovely Ms. Markle doesn't seem to be offended, belittled or harassed by Craig's style, and as is the case with all the female guests I've seen, she gets in on the innuendos herself and playfully creates a rapport with him. Craig can be cheeky, whip out double-entendres and flirt, of course, but I've never seen a female guest who looked uncomfortable in his presence and I was and still am a devout lover of his late night show. Some of the best interviews were those where the women were actually flirting with him and gave him permission to go into double-entendres with their own innuendos to kick off the discussion. It was always a two-sided thing, with Craig and the woman having some fun as opposed to the view that Craig made these women objects of his desire for an 8 minute interview where he used them or bombarded them with sexist remarks. Ms. Markle then fits the general rule of the show and how Craig interview, basically where she not only had a sense of humor and played the game with him, but also got into it herself. In short, two consenting adults, if we to look at this metaphorically.
I also don't appreciate the view that Craig's show was only there as a vessel for his "sexist" antics. Some of my favorite moments in late night history are from Craig's program, where he'd stop the show to talk about a tragedy in the world in a long monologue, or the lovely tributes he held for his mother and father when they each passed away where he shared childhood memories to eulogize them. Perhaps most powerful was when he'd stop and talk about his addiction and urge other people to fix what was wrong in their lives, detailing his suicide attempt and how he got off the bottle to sobriety and a better life.
Craig is one of the funniest people I know, but as with a lot of funny people his life has dark spots in it that show he is just as capable of discussing the hard issues as he is playing around and entertaining. I've watched every late night host ever and I've never seen a host do all the things Craig did. One night he could be doing comedy bits with puppets, a robot and dancing horse, but another night he could be discussing Calvinism and whether humans have free will with Alice Eve (this actually happened) or on another night he'd stop and give his earnest impressions about the world and an important event that'd impacted it that week. Most late night show hosts keep their shows very simple with the only goal being a very formulaic and structured pattern of entertainment with little spontaneity that also made it impossible for the host to be more than the "face" of that brand, but Craig's show was always off the cuff, always riding chaos to be something it wasn't the night before and his ability to brush off what was expected of him and his show as a late night program was perhaps his greatest strength. And while other hosts were their avatars and played to their personas, Craig tore down the entertainer front he had constantly to let his real thoughts and viewpoints or experiences in. The audience flocked to him not only because he was hilarious, but because he was the real deal. After all, this is the man who would openly insult or poke fun at a company that he didn't even know was his show's sponsor. That was just how he was, and it was glorious. He always felt like one of us and still does.
I can only assume that the PC brigade are having a slow week of being outraged over everything, considering they had to dig up a 4 year old interview and feed the lie that Markle was actively uncomfortable with being there to suit their current agenda.
Oh and now 'Apple' have a 'mixed race' couple in their xmas ad. And yet again its a black male and white female. The fourth xmas ad this year to do so...coincidence I'm sure :)