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
Actually, friend, I'm academic by profession and I know there's absolutely no problem in looking in Wikipedia for references, as long as you cite your SOURCES (which I did). Besides, this is not an academic journal and I found the Wikipedia’s definition quite precise according to most serious definitions of misogyny. I’m afraid your disclaim attempt only stroke to me as laziness of thinking.
"Sorry old chap, better luck next time".
So we are not allowed to criticize characters who supposedly “good”, only the “bad” ones. Aren’t you oversimplifying human condition and the complexity of artistic work? It seems to me you’re the one who likes Teletubbies and is overly-sensitive with critics. Maybe… Maybe you’re PC and I’m PI (sorry, silly joke). You know that nobody is either “good” or “bad”, right? People have contradictions and usually see themselves as “good”, despite being “bad” from your point of view. Nothing is black and white, even fictional universes and characters which pretend to be so, because they’re always expressing subjective judgements of what is to be good or bad, righteous, villainous, as well as what is justice, freedom, equality, etc. You can’t escape your social and historical background; you can’t escape the complexity of your own time and social relations. And that’s okay, that’s the fun of being human and living among people who disagrees with you, even when it comes to truths you take as universal and absolute. Again, you are not the judge of who’s right or wrong. I can perfectly support a football team and criticize it as hell, for several reasons (in fact, that’s the most common thing ever). That doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy watching them play.
As much sensitive it can be, if we only talked about what’s comfortable people wouldn’t talk to each other at all; we would simply reside in our bubbles of comfort and alienation, important issues wouldn’t be addressed, collectively debated and transformed into action. Nobody has the right to deny or hide its own dirt, because each and every dirt concerns humanity, not isolated nations. As stated above, no one escape its historical and social background, as much “good” or “innocent” it pretends to be. James Bond is not exception and I’ll not be reprehended by you for simbly stating the obvious: he is imperialist and nationalist. The world of Bond is not a escapist “Never Land” of fairy tales.
Still works for the British government though.
For this quote consider my first answer. Furthermore, I’m well aware that I’m a bit of a contradiction in the way I enjoy and analyse my favorite franchise and character. But that’s who I am. That’s the way I enjoy Bond-related content and that's what makes my experience so especial for me. Pierce Brosnan will always be my personal super hero, and yet simply an actor, portraying a character which, like every artistic creation, tells us something about our world and who we are – things which are not necessarily good.
Once again, I'm truly grateful for your compliments. That was exactly the idea of this post, aiming a general and interesting discussion concerning those aspects, regardless of political stance.
I wonder how would be a Bond film made primarily for fans and not so much the general audience...
To that I'll give you the same answer as I did to @bondjames. Again, hope you don't mind:
And yes, death is not a privilege of sex, striking both male and female characters. However, it seems to me that the context and way in which death comes to female characters follows a distinctive pattern in comparison to male deaths. As I said, in cases in which they are indeed disposable, there isn’t any character development – from their part or Bond’s – and we don’t feel her loss in the story (I mean, in the emotional level we don’t connect with their loss). Besides, frequently they are innocent or merely civilians, not directly related to the villain or the plot. Examples might be: Solange in Casino Royale, Strawberry Fields in QoS, Corrine Dufour in Moonraker, Plenty O’Toole in Diamonds Are Forever, Jill Masterson in Goldfinger, Aki in YOLT, etc.). The male deaths, on the other hand, are mainly of clear allies, who actively help Bond and whose loss we feel (I still didn’t got over Sanders death or Kerim’s).
The loss of Paris Carver, unlike these mentioned, is actually felt by Bond and – in some level – the audience. She had very little screen time, but her loss was felt nevertheless (although the action sequence that followed it completely ruined the tone established by the death scene, once again compromising the character development of Bond, who was having a great ball with his cool car). The thing is, although Bond felt her loss, he didn’t think twice without exposing and putting her in danger in the first place. It doesn’t matter that he took a few minutes of grief before having fun or that he avenged her in the end. She nevertheless died by his indirect actions, and he new this would probably happen (as he new with Solange and every other I mentioned). Bond simply doesn’t care as much as he appears or even tries to. When he chooses not to be emotionally involved with his women, manipulate and use them to his own gain, that’s the most logical outcome, regardless of what he feels after the death.
Yes, but that doesn't make Bond less sadist. Again, remember Bond's monologue in the book Casino Royale. "Good" and "bad" are idealized concepts to makes us feel good. In reality, these concepts don’t apply and are much more relative and complex than they appear to be when we were children or teenagers. Mathis accuses Bond of being a nihilist (some here might say postmodern), but he’s right. In the end, the difference between Le Chiffre and him is that he’s working for a government which thinks itself as “protector of the ‘free World’”. Roger Moore Bond may be lighter and funnier in tone, but that doesn’t make his actions and consequences less problematic (Miss Anders still dies by his indirect actions). No matter how “good guy” you think you are; your actions tell who you’re supposed to be, not your line of thinking or excuses. Get it?
Have you ever read or heard any testimony of people who suffered sexual abuse? If you did, you would no that it’s not that simple. People end up with physical and psychological traumas that make any sexual receptiveness or initiative extremely difficult, most cases for life. They are often frightened and irreversibly insecure. Any assumption of “making a move” as if it’s just another girl or boy is a serious mistake, endangering the person and possibly provoking more scars. Not mentioning the fact that most people find very difficult to talk or report this kind of behavior, for fear of social judgement or self-judgement. Bond had no reason at all to assume this girl would be the same as the others. Sure, the screenplay makes it appear that she was indeed interested (as if a bottle of champagne was enough to convince anybody), but, no matter how consensual may appear, in the end the whole situation was highly unlikely to happen in every possible scenario – and this should be clear to the audience.
Do I really need to explain the colossal difference in social significance between a man slapping a woman and the other way around? As you putted yourself, back in the day men used to do this very often (in fact, they still do today, for domestic violence regrettably persists being a huge problem in our societies), as if they were “slapping a kid for bad behavior”. Sean Connery himself stated more than one time in interviews that he saw no problem in hitting women and actually recommended it, under the pretext of “putting them in their place”. This twisted educational purpose, based on the patriarchal logic of the man who “assumes control” over the woman’s hysteric/ angry/ irrational behavior, does not find any similitude in the case of a woman slapping a man (regrettable as it is). Different social meanings, different consequences in the way the two sexes relate to each other.
I don't see them as jokes. To me they are sarcastic remarks which aim to publicly acknowledge Bond’s regrettable behavior and mentality in the eyes of contemporary audience, as well as put his character in a slightly vulnerable position. I enjoyed those remarks thoroughly.
In the case of Swann, they were primarily after Bond, not her. They had no clue of her location until Bond came along. In the case of Pam you’re right. But that only proves that are exceptions to the rule. Besides, usually we have two types of Bond girl: the one to be sacrificed, for which he doesn’t care at all; and the one he stays with at the end, which he’s more able treat as actual human beings. I’ll ignore the feminist comment and pretend you didn’t blame women’s right movement for their deaths in films.
Sorry, since the book was written almost 60 years after Goldfinger, way after the fact, it's irrelevant wether she keeps being a lesbian. Fleming never intended to be that way at his time, since this was the way he envisioned his character and stories, and that's what I'm saying. As for Helga Brandt, Elektra King, Miranda Frost, Domino and Camile, you're right, they are pretty consistent characters, some of which with motivations of their own. On the other hand, you have Honey, Pussy, Solitaire, Anya, Goodhead, Octopussy, Way Lin, Madeleine Swann and Lucia Sciarra, all of them fairly independent and self-centered at the beginning and yet, later in the story, turn themselves in “damsels in distress”, naïve girls in love or completely shallow figures – a shadow of what their character used to be a few minutes prior.
Did you read what I wrote? One more time: "Bond, although not personally or ostensibly homophobic, represents an idea of masculinity which defines itself by the unacceptance and/ or exclusion of homosexuality – considered a form a social deviance from “normality” (that is, as it “should be”)". All you've just said are perfectly legitimate reasons why people didn't see homossexuality in a positive or natural light. Precisely what I mean about homophobia. Yes, Fleming, Broccoly, Lazemby, etc. were all men of their time; that doesn't make them less "guilty" of thinking homossexuality as deviance. I'm not saying they are baaaad people. I'm saying that's how they thought.
Again, did you read what I wrote? I’m describing racism as representation. Just as having a black or gay friend doesn’t make one person less racist or homophobic, the Bond franchise is no less racist by including other cultures and ethnic groups. It's the the way in which they represent that makes the difference. A perfect example is Live and Let Die and the whole VooDoo background, as a macabre religious cult of savage people, who capture the white girl and ultimately are defeated by the Western hero; YOLT, when Bond becomes a Japanese by adding fake skin and hair; in Moonraker, when Bond comes to Brazil, navigates the Amazon river, falling in the Iguaçu Falls and ending up in a Aztec temple (really? What was that?). The franchise is full of these racist forms of representation, stereotypically reducing other people’s culture and landmarks.
Once again, you know that is perfectly plausible to choose a profession, field of study, fandom or anything you like to do and yet be self-critical towards it, don't you? Nobody has to blindly love everything as a religious sect (and if you do so, you should really see a doctor).
And yes, death is not a privilege of sex, striking both male and female characters. However, it seems to me that the context and way in which death comes to female characters follows a distinctive pattern in comparison to male deaths. As I said, in cases in which they are indeed disposable, there isn’t any character development – from their part or Bond’s – and we don’t feel her loss in the story (I mean, in the emotional level we don’t connect with their loss). Besides, frequently they are innocent or merely civilians, not directly related to the villain or the plot. Examples might be: Solange in Casino Royale, Strawberry Fields in QoS, Corrine Dufour in Moonraker, Plenty O’Toole in Diamonds Are Forever, Jill Masterson in Goldfinger, Aki in YOLT, etc.). The male deaths, on the other hand, are mainly of clear allies, who actively help Bond and whose loss we feel (I still didn’t got over Sanders death or Kerim’s)."
So you'll reply with the same nonsense.
"The loss of Paris Carver, unlike these mentioned, is actually felt by Bond and – in some level – the audience. She had very little screen time, but her loss was felt nevertheless (although the action sequence that followed it completely ruined the tone established by the death scene, once again compromising the character development of Bond, who was having a great ball with his cool car). The thing is, although Bond felt her loss, he didn’t think twice without exposing and putting her in danger in the first place. It doesn’t matter that he took a few minutes of grief before having fun or that he avenged her in the end. She nevertheless died by his indirect actions, and he new this would probably happen (as he new with Solange and every other I mentioned). Bond simply doesn’t care as much as he appears or even tries to. When he chooses not to be emotionally involved with his women, manipulate and use them to his own gain, that’s the most logical outcome, regardless of what he feels after the death."
She was the only link to get close to the villain and find out about his scheme. The same could be applied to any detective, policeman, anyone following someone's trail. He did, in fact, to get her out of the country far from Carver. What would you have suggested? Bond kills Kaufman and then - cut to Bond leaving flowers to Paris in a grave? He had more urgent matters then: escaping the police (who would frame him as a murder), getting to the car surronunded by the villains and escaping those villains. The "having a great ball with the cool car" thing is also taking some revenge against Carver's men, the revenge initiated with Kaufman's death. More than that, it narrows down to escaping a threat: more men waiting for him on his car, and neutralize him so he could get that bloody encoder which was his objective in the first place.
"Yes, but that doesn't make Bond less sadist. Again, remember Bond's monologue in the book Casino Royale. "Good" and "bad" are idealized concepts to makes us feel good. In reality, these concepts don’t apply and are much more relative and complex than they appear to be when we were children or teenagers. Mathis accuses Bond of being a nihilist (some here might say postmodern), but he’s right. In the end, the difference between Le Chiffre and him is that he’s working for a government which thinks itself as “protector of the ‘free World’”. Roger Moore Bond may be lighter and funnier in tone, but that doesn’t make his actions and consequences less problematic (Miss Anders still dies by his indirect actions). No matter how “good guy” you think you are; your actions tell who you’re supposed to be, not your line of thinking or excuses. Get it?"
Right. Perhaps the Nazis weren't that bad despite slaughtering thousands of innocents. Perhaps, since the West was so evil, they should have let Germany conquer all Europe and the whole world. Mathis rightfully puts Bond on his place as he was divagating product of the inflicted torture and reminds him Le Chiffre made some hits before their game (microphones on his room, the Bulgarian bombmen).
If Andrea dies for his actions, I don't know why would she come to Bond and wish for Scaramanga to be dead. Moreover, I don't know why she sent that 007 bullet to put Bond in the trail of Scaramanga when the man didn't really want to kill him in the first place. I think you're underestimating Andrea as a poor innocent bimbo when basically SHE gave the mission to Bond (indirectly). She used him, and he used her, if you want to see it that way. But for sure he wouldn't want her to die. It's not Bond who put her in the line of fire, she risked her own life for her freedom: in this case, she went for the only man she knew Scaramanga considered his match and could get him killed. The truth is... she was already death when she was living next to Scaramanga. She could get killed or be free. Or keep that luxury slave life, which she tried to avoid at all cost even if that meant her death.
"Have you ever read or heard any testimony of people who suffered sexual abuse? If you did, you would no that it’s not that simple. People end up with physical and psychological traumas that make any sexual receptiveness or initiative extremely difficult, most cases for life. They are often frightened and irreversibly insecure. Any assumption of “making a move” as if it’s just another girl or boy is a serious mistake, endangering the person and possibly provoking more scars. Not mentioning the fact that most people find very difficult to talk or report this kind of behavior, for fear of social judgement or self-judgement. Bond had no reason at all to assume this girl would be the same as the others. Sure, the screenplay makes it appear that she was indeed interested (as if a bottle of champagne was enough to convince anybody), but, no matter how consensual may appear, in the end the whole situation was highly unlikely to happen in every possible scenario – and this should be clear to the audience."
I have heard and read testimonies of some people who framed men of sexual abuse and then were proved wrong. And they didn't go to jail, they solved everything with an "I'm sorry". People using that as a way to get more fame or money or simply to destroy someone's name. Look how many kids of today (at least in my country) use the word "rape". "Watch out of that man, he's gonna rape you", or "wow, you almost raped me!". There's even a song titled "Molester" around. The screenplay makes it appear that she was indeed interested because she WAS indeed interested. It appeared consensual because it was consensual and you can tell how much they felt attracted to each other.
"Do I really need to explain the colossal difference in social significance between a man slapping a woman and the other way around? As you putted yourself, back in the day men used to do this very often (in fact, they still do today, for domestic violence regrettably persists being a huge problem in our societies), as if they were “slapping a kid for bad behavior”. Sean Connery himself stated more than one time in interviews that he saw no problem in hitting women and actually recommended it, under the pretext of “putting them in their place”. This twisted educational purpose, based on the patriarchal logic of the man who “assumes control” over the woman’s hysteric/ angry/ irrational behavior, does not find any similitude in the case of a woman slapping a man (regrettable as it is). Different social meanings, different consequences in the way the two sexes relate to each other."
There should be no difference in a world of "equalty". A woman takes advantage of slapping a man because he can't answer back in the same place or it'd be "violence". There's a big difference between "equalty" and "superiority" and you advocate the latter. In an equal world, anyone hitting anyone in any way (unless it's a martial arts exposition or an accident) would be locked up or sanctioned in a way. Men to women, women to men, dad to kids or even viceversa. Connery was right with what he said? No. But are feminazis right when they say every man should be killed and destroyed ("Kill The Male")? For some people, it seems they are.
"I don't see them as jokes. To me they are sarcastic remarks which aim to publicly acknowledge Bond’s regrettable behavior and mentality in the eyes of contemporary audience, as well as put his character in a slightly vulnerable position. I enjoyed those remarks thoroughly."
Then you clearly don't understand the in-joking nature of the Bond franchise, their way to laugh at themselves: "Does this still work?" The jet pack from Thunderball. "Exploding pen? We don't do this anymore". Same goes to the "sexist, misogynist, dinosaur" line. I spoke with one of the GoldenEye screenwriters who confirmed me that for an article I wrote on MI6 Confidential magazine (familiar name) two years ago. This was a laugh at what people like you were thinking of Bond. I know you enjoyed those remarks and tought it was a case of social justice inside a Bond script, but it clearly wasn't. It was as banal as the "exploding pen" from Skyfall. Just to show how the world was changing and how Bond could still be true to himself even if he had to adequate some anthics.
"In the case of Swann, they were primarily after Bond, not her. They had no clue of her location until Bond came along. In the case of Pam you’re right. But that only proves that are exceptions to the rule. Besides, usually we have two types of Bond girl: the one to be sacrificed, for which he doesn’t care at all; and the one he stays with at the end, which he’s more able treat as actual human beings. I’ll ignore the feminist comment and pretend you didn’t blame women’s right movement for their deaths in films."
Hinx was assigned with killing "The Pale King", Mr. White. He went to Austria to finish the job after he "fired" Sr. Guerra and offered for the task. The objective was killing him and his family (Mr White talks about how he left Blofeld for his way of dealing with women and children that had nothing to do with a target). If they had a clue of Mr. White's location, they surely had a clue of who his daughter was and where she might have worked - they watch everyone, remember. Without Bond, Hinx would have killed White and then Madeleine.
With the exception of (maybe) Severine, I don't think there's a single girl Bond doesn't care at all.
The feminist comment was spot on: what should Bond have done to be the "respectful man"?
If he left Madeleine in L'American, out of the line of fire, he was underestimating her, leaving her aside of a "men's world", considering she wasn't capable of handling guns or have a role in action. If he allowed her to go to the field, as he finally did, he was risking her life and "using her" and not considering she's a "defenseless" woman. So, following your SJW logic, Bond and any man in that place were f*cked from the beginning.
"Sorry, since the book was written almost 60 years after Goldfinger, way after the fact, it's irrelevant wether she keeps being a lesbian. Fleming never intended to be that way at his time, since this was the way he envisioned his character and stories, and that's what I'm saying. As for Helga Brandt, Elektra King, Miranda Frost, Domino and Camile, you're right, they are pretty consistent characters, some of which with motivations of their own. On the other hand, you have Honey, Pussy, Solitaire, Anya, Goodhead, Octopussy, Way Lin, Madeleine Swann and Lucia Sciarra, all of them fairly independent and self-centered at the beginning and yet, later in the story, turn themselves in “damsels in distress”, naïve girls in love or completely shallow figures – a shadow of what their character used to be a few minutes prior."
There are the same chances of a straight turning gay than viceversa. Pussy Galore, in the novel, became a lesbian for her hatred to men (being abused as a teen) - until she found a man like Bond who wasn't a molester. That was the way back then, I'm sorry you can't time travel and tell Fleming all this so that he changes his mind thinking that the future would be so "great" and "open minded".
Honey got into the lion's den. Another one Bond wanted to escape to safety, yet she insisted in staying (well, her boat was broken anyway). She underestimated the tough guys behind the island! Men that were even a challenge for a professional like Bond.
Pussy succumbed to Bond's charms and that saved the life of a whole town (nerve gas + atomic bomb). But I guess Bond shouldn't have been played the only card he had left in order to save much more than the US economy: innocent lives.
Solitaire is much like Andrea Anders, she was objectified by THE VILLAIN: the man used her to tell the future and didn't even let her decide her future, only the villain was the man who could "take her power out". Yes, Bond may have used her as a bait. But the lovers card popped up some time before. And who else could have warned Bond about Rosie with that inverted Queen of Cups TAROT card? She knew it was happening. Despite the Lovers card fake deck, their relationship was announced since much before they get into bed. On the other hand, Bond could have let Solitaire die at the end and just go for Kananga in some other way, but he risked himself enough to make a dynamic entrance (bombs + shooting someone in plain sight) to rescue Solitaire.
Anya knew the rules of the game, that Bond didn't want to kill her boyfriend and that was self defense. That it was stupid to kill him for a personal trouble when, ultimately, he saved her life. "He has Anya in there". A man not caring for a woman would have let the Atlantis to get torpedoed with Anya and Stromberg in there and go for a round of beers with Commander Carter.
Goodhead was the only one who could place Bond in outer space - vital to complete the mission, something not even the Americans, British or Russians could do from Earth. Falling for someone doesn't make you week, unless you see as "not independent" to fall for someone.
Octopussy, like Honey and Tiffany Case, underestimated the men they were dealing with. She tought Kamal was a simple smuggler that could have easily defeated. I think that feminist army should made every feminist proud because they could equal a whole army with few weapons. She's the typical not dangerous criminal that gets involved with dangerous criminal attempting to murder innocents to provoke a war.
Wai Lin was virtually an equal of Bond. The way she was captured could have happened the other way around. In fact, she had the fuses for the bomb. What makes you think she ended not being independent? Again, silly reasoning of "woman who falls for a man is weak".
I explained about Madeleine avobe. But Blofeld knew how much Bond would care for her, so she used her to make a final blow to Bond. Once again, a man who gives a damn about women would have quietly escaped from the bomb rigged MI6 just to go after Blofeld, but he let his enemy get a lot of adventage just for rescuing a girl. Hardly what a misogynist would do.
Lucia. Does it look like she loved her husband? Her husband gived a damn about her and she was never independent. Her life was threatened by SPECTRE's policy of "no leads", Bond was there to save her. The widow of a criminal who is independent yet she calmly accepts she'll be killed. Yes, Bond might have signed her death warrant by killing Sciarra but still, he saved her life and ensured her protection. Maybe she should have been a real feminist and infiltrate the Palazzo Cardezza meeting next to Bond: "Hi there, Bond saved me so I'm alive. Can we go to the meeting to find out something?"
"Did you read what I wrote? One more time: "Bond, although not personally or ostensibly homophobic, represents an idea of masculinity which defines itself by the unacceptance and/ or exclusion of homosexuality – considered a form a social deviance from “normality” (that is, as it “should be”)". All you've just said are perfectly legitimate reasons why people didn't see homossexuality in a positive or natural light. Precisely what I mean about homophobia. Yes, Fleming, Broccoly, Lazemby, etc. were all men of their time; that doesn't make them less "guilty" of thinking homossexuality as deviance. I'm not saying they are baaaad people. I'm saying that's how they thought."
Yes, it narrows down to "Bond is not homophobic but he represents a era were people were homophobic so yes, he's homophobic".
"Again, did you read what I wrote? I’m describing racism as representation. Just as having a black or gay friend doesn’t make one person less racist or homophobic, the Bond franchise is no less racist by including other cultures and ethnic groups. It's the the way in which they represent that makes the difference. A perfect example is Live and Let Die and the whole VooDoo background, as a macabre religious cult of savage people, who capture the white girl and ultimately are defeated by the Western hero; YOLT, when Bond becomes a Japanese by adding fake skin and hair; in Moonraker, when Bond comes to Brazil, navigates the Amazon river, falling in the Iguaçu Falls and ending up in a Aztec temple (really? What was that?). The franchise is full of these racist forms of representation, stereotypically reducing other people’s culture and landmarks."
Yes, it narrows down to "Bond is not racist but he represents an era where all heroes were white and all villains were black or Asian so yes, he's racist".
The voodoo was a crucial part of the story, and the thing there was not about people being black. Bond has, in fact, black allies and a villain who is a black guy smarter than the voodoo believers. So, there's not a generalization of black people.
Bond had to become a Japanese to infiltrate an island of Japanese fisherman. In the same way he posed as a Latin American colonel to infiltrate a Latin American base.
An Aztec temple next to the Iguazú falls and a French castle in the Californian desert. It's bollocks to see this as "racist". There may be some of this representation or stereotypes, but making this racist on purpose? Like, Christopher Wood said... "ok, let's make something fully degrading for the Latin American culture and place an Aztec temple in Brazil". Bond writers don't think that way, unlike "social justice warriors" trying to find every way to frame every white, straight and male human being as the "authors of all their pain",
"Once again, you know that is perfectly plausible to choose a profession, field of study, fandom or anything you like to do and yet be self-critical towards it, don't you? Nobody has to blindly love everything as a religious sect (and if you do so, you should really see a doctor)."
Yes, there are plenty of lawyers saying "lawyers are a bunch of thieves and liars, I wanna become one of those". Because you want to become what you hate the most in life, not what you admire. I mean, someone who hates numbers wouldn't become a mathematician, unless he suddenly develops a great interest in numbers. In the same way, someone who loves James Bond won't be a James Bond hater, unless he starts feeling horrified by all this "morale" you want to point out and starts developing an interest for a franchise/character closer to his morale.
Nobody has to blindly love everything as a religious sect, but nobody should hate and attack what they claim to love or enjoy.
Amen.
If he's a mysogenist, then so am I. I bedded women just for pleasure, have had a string of affairs, etc. The only difference is, I found my true love and she didn't get shot by Blofeld.
When it comes down to post-modernism, I can easily point out the flaws in that thinking as well (and it's destructive powers). Only the social sciences are human constructions, there is a real truth out there. We may or may not be able to perceive it, and if we do we'll never know, because we are bound by our human limitations. This was known and built into science (falsification) for a long time before some social scientists thought it necessary to promote themselves and had an ego telling us their work was as important as, say, physicists. Let me be clear, without humans the galaxy will still exist, and with it absolute facts, whatever they may be, or may be at the same time (referring to quantum theory). But when we make everything relative, as postmodernists tend to do, we lose all basic qualities of life. Basically postmodernists give every line of thinking as much creadability as the next. So rpoudly they march with their equal-rights flags unfurled, not noticing they give hatred and bigotry the same chance. It's post-modernism that brought Trump to where he is, defeating left-America on their own turf with their own weapons. And NOW they all want 'the truth' to be valuable again.
So no, your 'he's a mysogenist because he didn't show enough emotions' argument doesn't hold up at all. He isn't. The homophobic reasoning is based on the same misconsception, but I guess you understand how that works now.
And be careful with your historic research if you're as biased as you've shown yourself here to be. It may result in gibberish. This coming from a fellow historian.
I see our disagreement is pretty deep. It's a fundamental disagreement, I'm afraid, in multiple grounds interlinked. Nevertheless I respect your opinions and I'm very happy for your comments. As much interesting as it can be discussing those issues in the way they relate to Bond and other characters and franchises in pop culture; as much productive it can be in terms of critical analysis and comprehension of our current forms of representation and social practice, maybe indeed this is not the most adequate place to discuss it. Not because it's not worth it, but rather because it requires a series of other discussions, about inter-related issues which are indirectly associated with each point, until it comes a moment when we're not discussing these issues as they relate to Bond, but these in themselves.
Once again I appreciate your comments, observations and counter-arguments. I'm not here to personally offend or attack anyone, I just wanted to know what you folks thought about it and exchange some ideas.
I'll stick more to other issues related to Bond -- such as you do -- and I'm open to anyone who wishes to discuss those subjects personally. I hope we can have many discussions, agreements and disagreements ahead, and, quoting Stromberg:
Gentlemen, my most profound thanks.
As for you specifically, since you are indeed a fellow historian, obviously we have fundamental disagreements in epistemology and methodology of History as well, since I've never seen an historian literally exclude the elemental aspect of historicity from human condition, assuming that notions such as "good" and "evil" or "right" and "wrong" are universal truths by themselves, alienated from any possible subjective value given by time and space. It seems to me it would be wise for you to revise some important aspects of historiographical thinking and research, particularly addressing the subject of "objectivity" and "subjectivity" in scientific work. Myself any many others like me don't deny objectivity, but we don't go so far as saying that objectivity is all there is in any science. There's always subjective elements of judgement which come into the equation in each and every field of study (especially in the humanities), and that doesn't necessarily implies being "biased", but accepting your human condition as a subjective and political being. Objectiveness in historiographical research does not reside in the interpretation you have and the ideological stance you assume, but whether or not you employ adequate method of analysis, aiming to comprehend the past instead of simply judging it.
In my exposition I addressed only social, political and cultural phenomena (not physical or mathematical). In no moment I judged Bond and the franchise without carefully and thoroughly historcize them. That’s why is not so much a moral judgement as it is an analytical judgement – although both are inseparable from any research in humanities.
For further reading on epistemology and methodology, I suggest: Foucault, Michel de Certeau, Jacques LeGoff, Antoine Prost, Paul Ricoeur, Hayden White, Marc Bloch, Fernand Braudel, Reinhart Koselleck.
This guy is resented because I cut his bullsh*t straight away on my FB wall, so he resorts here - a place where James Bond "fans" won't do the proper believing in the so called "freedom of speech": a freedom of speech in which allowing someone in a James Bond site write the same garbage as anoyone in The Guardian would do is right but exposing that he hates James Bond from the first page of Casino Royale to the last second of SPECTRE is wrong, because we can't say such a thing like "he's not a real Bond fan" when that pops up without me saying it. I'm not even saying he's not a Bond fan, I'm just reminding you he's not a Bond fan.
If there's another dolt thinking about my "religious cult" here, I personally want to state I never treated someone different for their skin colour, nationality, gender or sex orientation. My only limit is the offence towards me or someone/something I love. In this case, is James Bond. It could have been a relative, a love interest, a friend, a city or a country (well, in this case this guy also throws some bricks to England, a country and culture I love beyond Bond). Sorry, some people may have water in their veins, but if someone is peeing my garden I kick him out - in a way or another - instead of letting some sort of political correctness make me allow him anything.
I think Mr. Jota here belongs to a different cult where every "minority" can do anything they want just because they rightfully deserve to achieve their revenge on every white western straight men. Talk me about a religious cult. Typical antic where you can't appreciate anything because it's too "homophobic", "racist", "bigoted", "misogynistic" and whatever for enjoyment.
Perhaps I was mistaken in saying this thread should be closed and this is certainly not my place to give orders, and it's been for a while a site I loved very much and where I contributed (site and magazine), but I personally think this kind of declarations should be out of a James Bond fan site - any part of it.
My advice (and it's just an advice) to the mods and managers of this site, is that threads like this discredits a character we all came to love. And discredits the site as a whole. The #1 unofficial source of James Bond news has a forum where the character is trashed. It would be different if this was a movie site/forum, or even a spy genre site/forum where you can show some preference to a character over another regarding morals or image or anything.
I'm quite sure more people feel exactly what I feel, but don't dare to defend what they love or like or enjoy. I did. I know the price I may pay, from being blocked here to being blacklisted by the whole team and my upcoming article taken away from MI6 Confidential. But if that's the price I have to pay for responding to the attacks to a character I love, so be it.
While Mr. Jota sees a "religious cult", I see a fictional character being some sort of companion to cheer me up in troubled years. I can tell of many hard years where the release of a Bond film changed my bad mood completely. Did that change my life? No, but made me way happier.
Funnily, all of this started when I pointed out there were "Bond fans" who hated Ian Fleming. Everyone told me that didn't exist, that was impossible. By trying to contradict me, we found not only someone who hates Ian Fleming but someone who feels a great contempt for Bond's image (and claims to be a Bond fan since he can remember).
As Dalton's Bond says in LTK... "Let's go fishing!"
Homophobic
Racist
Schizophrenic
Pathetic
Anachronistic
Naive
Sadistic
Self-destructing
Great words to describe something you love! Try writing a romantic letter with those words, or a friend, or your work buddies, or to anyone you love or appreciate. What a true sign of appretiation!
"That's the main reason why I think the character shouldn't be played by a woman or a black actor."
Because every woman and every black person is good, while Bond is evil. Maybe someone with the dignity and great heart of O.J. Simpson should never play a fictional character like Bond.
You are the one "with a childish mentality, with no capability at all of making the distinction between analytical and moral judgement" where you put morale in every thing James Bond did while praising today's popular culture with songs about molesting women and videogames where you can kill everyone and score points. In the GTA games, you get a gun and slaughter people without making any distinction of race, creed, sexual orientation, political views or gender. If you follow the storylines, as far as I know, you could find thousands of things that could elevate the "questionable" to the place of saints.
"Ciao, bello!"
You may feel attracted to me and I won't blame you for that. I know I'm handsome. But... I'm not on your team, if you catch my drift.
Anyway, I respect your feelings and I won't question that.