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
I’m genuinely curious as to what world some people think we live in. I’m not sure if it has to do with some people being older/having nostalgia for times they grew up in (including the ‘attitudes’ of said times) but I really don’t recognise a lot of these criticisms in my own experience of the world.
“Bro, why are you so thirsty, lol”
It’s dominantly this comment or something similar I see all the time anywhere whenever people show sexual interest in someone. Judgmental, questioning types of responses. It seems to me like male heterosexuality often equals “bad,” or is at least under a much larger microscope now than others. Coming from someone very liberal myself, I don’t feel comfortable sharing anything in the way of this out of fear of judgment of other progressives. Like, yes, I understand and agree that disproportionately women have been over-sexualized for a very long time, but you’d think the answer has become to vilify too much and desexualize too much. It’s hard for me to articulate everything exactly, but does no one else here get these types of vibes at all? The people I went to college with just a few years ago were extremely disinterested in sex and skeptical as well.
Whoa, checking out of this conversation...
Yes it happened daily pretty much; The Sun newspaper had its Page Three girls and they were often that young. I don't regard moving on from that as 'prudish' either.
Shoot, I’d hope we can all agree on this much at least.
Maybe I’m just unlucky with the people I’ve met and seen, but I still feel like something’s changed. My younger brother suggested people are more afraid to be accused of objectification now, and sometimes the response automatically becomes making fun of sexual interest in general. Who knows - I just hope it’s a phase and we can all become more mature and nuanced about it (nuanced about sex - fat chance, I know).
Ok… I’m sorry if that’s something you’ve personally experienced. Maybe I just don’t have the same types of friends/classmates you do (although I’ve personally met some very left leaning uni educated people who, while they have specific views, don’t seem to have a disgust towards heterosexual sex in general. Just the opposite in fact).
I don’t really get those vibes, no. I don’t think I’ve ever been questioned judgementally for finding someone attractive. But that’s just me.
I’m envious, and I seem to be alone, so I guess my situation must be an anomaly or something where I live xP In a way it would make sense because of the bizarre political landscape of my area, but I don’t want to divulge my exact location for privacy sake. Let’s just say it’s a purple/blueish pocket in an overall very red state. Could be conservative prudishness that just lingers still from older generations passed down, despite more liberal views adopted, creating an unfortunate effect x)
There are people (often younger) who are more brazenly political about certain things. I mean, I’m not American/don’t live and work in an area quite like that. I dunno. Sounds like some of the people you were speaking to were just a*seholes.
There always were lines. You wouldn't have seen Connery actively, aggressively raping a woman in the sense the word meant in the 60s. But definitions have also shifted.
You asked a lot of questions, and for fear of being accused of being 'forensic' in attempting to address them, I might try and look at some of them as I assume that's what someone who asks questions wants:
He changed to suit the times in the 70s, and then after that in the 80s, 90s etc. He's always changing.
I think it's worth considering the role characters like Bond play in society. Why do you think so many advertisers want their product to be held, worn, endorsed etc. by Bond?
Strange question. You equated the rape scene in Girl With The Dragon Tattoo with Bond's 'seduction' of Pussy in GF, but you didn't seem to realise that they were very different scenes with very different aims. Unless we misunderstood what you were trying to say..? It's a question you ask every couple of pages but I'm not sure why.
What is the answer you're looking for here? Are you trying to say that the films, or society perhaps, is hypocritical? You pose these statements as questions but I'm not sure they are, and I suspect you won't answer my questions here even though you seem to be trying to start debate.
Obviously not. I don't really understand why you're asking that? In the very same film you have Madeline, the main Bond woman, who isn't a martial artist, superspy etc. Where is the basis for that hypothesis? I would on the other hand want to see intelligent, witty romantic partners for Bond because.. who wouldn't? (Incidentally, Paloma is shown to very much not be the witty, clever repartee type, so your hypothesis again seems a bit odd). Did you have the same reaction after seeing TSWLM for the first time?
I hope you're not checking out...but still: On March 27, 1977, the German public network ARD, on a Sunday night at prime time (20:15, right after the Tagesschau newscast which everybody watched - and there were only three public TV stations and no private ones until the early 80s!), showed the 73rd episode "Reifezeugnis" of its hugely successful police/detective/suspense series Tatort ("Scene of the Crime"), which is still around and just aired its episode No. 1268. No age restriction, no parental guidance warning. And 25 million people watched that film that night! It was directed, by the way, by Wolfgang Petersen, who went on to do "Das Boot" and the likes of "Troy", "Air Force One", "In the Line of Fire" and "Outbreak".
The story was about the killing of a student in a small town, as a result of which the inspector found out about the relationship between a classmate of the victim's and one of her teachers. The girl was supposed to be 17 in the movie, but was played by a certain Nastassja Kinski, who was not yet 16 when it was filmed. She had one or more scenes where she was topless - I don't really remember how many. And at the time, nobody really thought much about it, and the episode is among those which have been re-run the most over those 47 years without much protest.
The critics raved without anybody really mentioning, let alone objecting to, Nastassja baring her top half. It was just the times when mainstream magazines graced their covers with topless women and nudity had become acceptable on TV. The actor's age didn't seem to make any difference at the time.
In February this year, it became known that now-63 year old Nastassja is requesting ARD through her lawyers to refrain from showing those scenes any further.
Just saying, not judging.
Yeah, very very outspoken and extremist. I have a good friend here who doesn’t like judge me, but I don’t know if they would or not depending on what I talked about. They’re married to the opposite sex theirselves, but he is still very very uncomfortable about anything to do with nudity or sex and has a repulsion. But he’s also literally maybe the most liberal person I know. But like, the classic American stereotype of being able to deal with almost any level of gruesome violence in movies but nothing along the lines of sexuality. It very may well just have to do with all the very conservative upbringings that happen here even when people grow up to be more liberal later. Because I know his parents are Christian conservatives, by the book. It’s a strange, unfortunate thing anyhow. My own upbringing was regrettably conservative in another state, but I’m proud to have broken free!
Religious types.
Women--it's always women, never men (men are forgiven for their transgressions, you know?)--should not have premarital sex, and not use birth control or have abortions, and keep pumping out babies while cooking in the kitchen.
Basically, it's the same old prurient pushback to the swinging sixties--everything Bond stood for back then.
God forbid that people should actually enjoy sex.
And @j_w_pepper , I get why you’re bringing up this film, and although I haven’t seen it, it doesn’t sound like this has anything to do with titillation (although, obviously, these scenes are very problematic today). But we are discussing sexual liberalism of the 80s and 90: one night stands (which we still have today), pick ups and hook ups at night clubs (which we still have today), affairs in the office (still around) , and so on, it was dropped that there were also topless 16 year old girls (to be ogled)…
I think that’s where one checks out of this conversation.
The same questions keep getting asked, and even though they’ve been answered, it’s pressed again and again (and, as @mtm observed, it’s starting to feel like questions that don’t want to be answered), and when topless 16 year olds are brought up in the same breath as the sexual liberalism of a certain era, the discussion has driven over the cliff (unless the statement was to include a footnote that this was a seedy part of our recent history where 16 year olds were exploited by their parents, pimped out and abused for a couple of quid (one of our members updated me on Samantha Fox, her dad and her history with The Sun). It’s revolting. And that type of conversation has nothing to do with sex in Bond films.
So, my conclusion is: Bond will always have sexual relations with women. The series has always adapted to the times , and it will continue to do so. It’s a part of Bond’s DNA , all the way back to the creator of the character and it will continue to be so, moving forward.
Is there anything really more to mine from this? 🤷♂️
Compare with a not dissimilar character like Goodnight in TMWTGG (both spies, pretty and young and rather green, perhaps not towering intellectuals!) whose treatment from the film is rather mean and dismissive, and it's a world away. It's probably Bond's attitude to them which steers this the most, and he's just a plain nicer guy in NTTD. To me that's not a backwards step.
My favorite part of the character is how she downplays her expertise (something familiar to a lot of professional women), how long she's been in the field. There's a knowingness and fun to the character.
My only critique to this sequence is that I wish Leiter had been involved more. I'm guessing Jeffrey Wright was pretty busy with projects.
I love a good erotic thriller, but no. There’s way more to Bond than just the sex, as pivotal as it is.
It always takes me aback just how dismissive, rude, and uptight Bond is towards Goodnight whenever I rewatch TMWTGG. To the point where it’s quite uncharacteristic for him (the closest I suppose is the CR novel where he claims women should be in the kitchen, but even it’s not exactly written as Bond being endearing, and it’s at least contrasted with him falling for Vesper as the book goes on. I’m not sure if I can recall Bond behaving quite that way in any other Fleming novel or indeed film).
There's quite a gulf between the attitudes of the Hamilton films and TSWLM. I'm not going to say that Spy is suddenly the most enlightened film, but it doesn't feel like it's actually contemptuous of women.
I just looked Guy Hamilton up: his first wife was named Naomi Chance, which is a good Bond girl name, isn't it? :D His second is still alive and 99 years old.
He took a chance marrying that first lady, eh ?
I think it's the German number six.
Actually it is the Latin number six (and yes, I know that you're just joking because it sounds almost the same).
It's fair to say attitudes regarding how women are portrayed on screen have changed over the years. But a Bond film contemptuous of women? I can't agree with that. And a Bond leading lady in a bikini for a second time in a film is not my idea of a nasty flavour to the film. Gratuitous perhaps.
Do the other instances I listed add up to your idea of a nasty flavour then?
They do to me; maybe ‘nasty’ is too strong, but there is an unpleasant air to TMWTGG in terms of its view on women I think.
The sex/women criticisms in Bond films are typically about Bond's behavior. And yes, Bond has cleaned up his act over the years. If there is an attitude about women, does it begin with casting? The essence of a Bond woman is beauty and sex appeal. Photograph them seductively and put them in bikinis or underwear when possible. To be clear, I am not objecting. As much as I enjoy the Paloma scene and find her very sexy, would that scene have worked with a plain looking actress wearing a jumpsuit? Does Madeleine standing on the balcony in a T-shirt setting fire to a note work as well if she's wearing a robe? No nasty flavor to either scene, but definitely an emphasis on sex appeal. Do such scenes objectify women? In the balcony scene, do we view Madeleine as a whole person rather an object of male desire? Certainly, the film as a whole does not present her that way.