Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In light of the ongoing current allegations of sexual misconduct in the film world....
chrisisall
Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
Okay, now should we all throw out our copies of GF & TB? Should we demand new digitally rectified/edited versions where Connery's Bond does not get all 'rape-y' with Pussy or Patricia? They both said "no", didn't they? Or just accept them as products of their time? I'm being both sarcastic & serious here- but I see an actual discussion that can be had...
Personally I see these films as time capsules as well as entertainment. To change them would be wrong. But I'd like to hear both sides of this argument, if one ensues.
Yes, I am an instigator. ;)
(Mods please close this thread if it gets too out of control.)
Personally I see these films as time capsules as well as entertainment. To change them would be wrong. But I'd like to hear both sides of this argument, if one ensues.
Yes, I am an instigator. ;)
(Mods please close this thread if it gets too out of control.)
^ 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
Neither example is shown to be rape by the woman's reaction during and after the event.
They are time capsules - cinemas still show D.W Griffiths 'Birth of a Nation' so I assume GF and TB will be fine. And if that's the case they'll be behind a long list because they'd have to sift through a ton of 80s teen sex comedies that have non-consensual, drunk sex as 'cunning, smart' and consequence free behaviour (Porkys, Sixteen Candles, Revenge of the Nerds)
But you're suggesting a retro-active censorship of fifty year old films. No one at EON or any other fan I've seen is actually suggesting that should be the case. Are you saying that a fan on this forum has suggested that it should be done? On the contrary - I, as a Bond fan, would show it as it is now and then discuss it with anyone who found it troubling. Would they say 'I don't like that scene, or it made me uncomfortable?' I'm sure many would. They may even say 'I wish it wasn't written that way' but I doubt those same people would say 'yes, let's edit the film to remove those scenes'.
I wouldn't be surprised given the direction we seem to be headed in. However, I'll admit that I would be profoundly disappointed.
I wouldn't suggest that the two examples regarding the franchise are big examples of why Bond would be in danger of retrospective wiping, however. Bond and Patricia Fearing (I can only assume that's what the reference to TB was about) were engaging in a playful and self-aware battle of dominance with both ultimately surrendering to each other consensually. If we're going to call their shower lovemaking as Bond raping that woman we really have become delusional and manipulated about relations between the sexes in this age of fever-pitched outrage. A woman who moans lovingly when massaged with a mink glove wouldn't do so if her rapist was doing it to her, nor would she breathlessly request that said rapist find her again "anytime" or "anyplace" he wanted. And I think we all know that.
The Pussy Galore situation is less agreeable, but not as much for issues of rape as far as I'm concerned. As with Bond and Pat, he and Pussy definitely had a game going between them that wasn't laced with the predation you find with a man's rape of a woman. Bond and the girl wrestled, but Pussy does embrace Bond sensually which only a consensual woman would do in that situation. I find the scene more worrying for the context regarding Pussy Galore's orientation, where a possibly gay woman was "turned" to a socially acceptable side by the quintessential machismo icon.
Personally, I view Pussy as a woman that could swing both ways or a straight woman who was playing hard to get with Bond (but more likely the former) and the barn scene was less about Bond conquering someone who wanted nothing to do with him, and more he courting a woman he'd been flirting with for the second half of the film. It's uncomfortable to view Pussy Galore as not being attracted to Bond, but the film lets it up to the viewer to decide some of that. It still doesn't smack as rape to me, however, as Pussy not only remains loyally with Bond and holds no ill will toward him, but she also aids him in saving the day as only she could.
I think some of the more sensitive scenes are when Bond hits a woman, which carry their own form of baggage in the world we have now and that a far more credible case could be built for regarding censorship by the sensitive crowd. There's an inherent double-standard in play as well, as all the scenes in which Bond is slapped by another woman or where he's harmed in general don't register the same worried reactions as they do when the gender roles are swapped. And it does usually seem to be the woman who is sided with in these kinds of situations, which rather casts a shadow over some of the abuse men deal with (yes, men are victims too).
Without going into too much detail, just this week my dad was in a bar with an old male friend whose wife tortures him emotionally and beats him physically with the knowledge that, if he ever so much as shoved her away as she beat on him, she'd have a case to have him arrested for abusing her. She's also the type to beat herself to make it look like he did it, from what I've heard of this particularly vile one. So there's a lot of work that needs to be done in making it known that any violence upon any side should be avoided, and that nobody should hit anyone regardless of if it's a man slapping, a woman slapping or any mix of the two.
I still wouldn't agree to the censorship of Bond's slapping of women, however, or vice versa. It's important stuff to see, not only to see how far we've come but also to ensure that we don't go back.
Seriously, Bond movies are about moving you out of your comfort zone, aren't they?
Who here has read the novels and actually felt they wanted to be him?
No.
I think @bondjames has a more pertinent point. Although I personally found the SP seduction scene a little creepy - but maybe that's more to do with a lack of chemistry between the two. I think that was a problem for Craig with both Sedouyx and Belluci in SP.
When I studied film at college I watched many films that challenged the viewer though like anyone we develop the ability to be objective in certain instances and see things in context. Bond is a ass let's be honest though I enjoy his adventures, I have not read most of the books for over twenty years I tend to watch the films for escapism, Bond films are a part of my life though I know when things are inappropriate.
I don't think any member of the community would disagree with this, or support censorship. Also bond used a threat to get with patricia, so it is rape, though she embraced it by the mink glove scene. Also though new films shouldn't depict rape bond should remain a misogynist. His character has ugly aspects, is an anti hero, which makes him so fascinating.
Lucia Sciarra is in an unfortunate situation but she's also no saint. She's been with bad people and rightly expects her end is at hand. Enter Bond, who puts her on notice life goes on and there is a way forward through him and his contacts. And like Sévérine, it's unexpected but she welcomed the chance.
Back to Moore Bond, he's the same kind of forceful with Octopussy. Strong woman. I don't see these couplings as out of bounds for his character.
The way I see it is this: Bond meets a woman whose husband neglected her. He thinks she's fiery and sexy and that pisses him off, as she deserves better. He decides to give her some of the pleasure that was withheld from her, and the woman quite clearly agrees to it otherwise the mood of the scene after Bond and Lucia bed would be much, much different. Her mascara wasn't streaming down her cheeks from the fear and abuse she was feeling at Bond's hands, she was quite visibly hot and bothered (in a good way) by what the spy was doing. They certainly got off to a cold start (he did murder her husband and ruined her protection deal in effect), but they finished hot and passionate and Bond made good on the accidental mistake he'd made in sending Lucia to the wolves by calling Felix.
As for Severine and Bond in the show in SF, that's not even worth wasting time over. Subtracting all the flirting they did in the casino, Bond was invited to her boat and Severine didn't mind him coming into the shower with her judging by how she went at Bond the way Lucia would a film later even more so. I remember some people were upset about Bond bedding Severine in particular because we had a background in the leisure sector, but do they expect Severine to never have sex with anyone ever again? The time she spent with Bond was consensual and not a paid transaction like she's used to, so isn't Bond actually showing her the way sex should be in comparison to what she knew, which was sex against her interests?
I share @bondjames' concerns if people are getting worked up over scenes like the above and actually calling it 100% rape, which I have read before here and elsewhere, believe it or not. What would be preferred, Bond spending an hour of each film going out to five dinner dates with each Bond girl before delicately bedding them with all the excitement of mating sloths? In a sensitive world where people don't feel they can share an opinion on anything relating to sex, politics, religion or even how they like their sandwiches prepared for fear of losing their career or respect amongst peers, I think it's a damn miracle we've still got James Bond out there to passionately take women in a consensual act of very passionate lovemaking. In this delusional and outrage happy world, what else do we have left?
The Sciarra one is just not convincing to me - but I really don't think either of them have caused that much of a stir in the wider public. But I agree that future films may have to curb some of this behaviour - which was near non-existent in CR and QoS anyway.
Bond of the books and Bond in films is quite different (Bond is often a one-woman man in the novels but can treat women worse than he does in the films)
But I wouldn't conflate Bond subtly seducing women he has mutually flirted with - with Weinstein, Spacey, Ratner and Louis C.K's apparently long standing, habitual behaviour (that includes masturbating, exposing themselves, groping and rape). These aren't grey areas and it isn't fiction - it's real life, abuse of power with real victims and long standing effects.
I don't disagree with either scene, nor do I take issue with anything in them. I just find it weird that those who have complaints with similar moments in SF and SP don't mention them.
No matter how each of us may view any one moment between Bond and a woman in the series, it's at least comforting that we seem to be in agreement that the films shouldn't be censored under any circumstances.
So those moments are excused just because another character is there to slap Bond on the wrists to tell us what we can already observe on our own? If M was in the barn with Bond in GF and said, "Watch it, 007, "No" means no!" would we not be having this discussion now judging the scene for its content? I'd say we still would be.
Whether a character is there to comment on Bond's actions or not really has nothing to do with the context of the scene for me. If Mallory was there in the shadows shaking his head as Bond made love to Lucia I don't think it has much relevance to the scene at hand. It would still be there to be judged for what it is in isolation regardless of what other characters judged it for being from a perspective that wasn't theres.
Just as Bond is called past it and an old dog in SF without not being either, I think there's more to the scenes in CR and QoS other than what we're told Bond is being by other characters.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around this audience surrogate viewpoint. To make scenes acceptable or more palatable for audiences a character must be written in to nanny Bond for his actions, to ensure the film is taking a stance against it? I couldn't disagree more. But in this current climate, we may in fact need scenes where Bond battles with MI6's HR for his in the field actions to satiate those who view him as a rapist for kissing a lass on the cheek. ;)
You do bring up an interesting viewpoint though, @Major_Boothroyd, and with SP it really was the first time that Craig's Bond was doing his thing without Dench there to constantly check his behavior. Perhaps that's led to some viewing his behavior as untenable because his moral authority isn't there to wallop him over the head every time he acts, to tell us when we should be offended by his behavior too. I've never really viewed Dench's role that way, however, and I think the films smartly gave her her own issues and drawbacks to make her and Bond an interesting team. Neither are perfect, and they learn together.
Bond is a flawed anti-hero. A cold-blooded assassin, born from an author who continually had accusations of snobbery, sexism and sadism thrown in his direction. Of course Bond's treatment of women is going to be a shifting proposition as the series continues. Just as it went through in the last five decades.