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 don't understand where you're coming from here. Films, or rather the people that make them, have a view on everything; it's kind of unavoidable.
None of the female characters come out of it with any sort of respect- when you compare it to the very next film, as I was saying above, it's quite striking how different the treatment of the female characters is.
What is this for?
BTW, does the empty space really bother you enough to mention it?
The belief of the directors/writers doesn't matter in relation to the themes/takeaways from a film. Bond is rough with women: he stares at Anders in the shower, threatens to hit her, and tosses Goodnight in a closet. There's also something very transactional and out of place how Anders offers herself to Bond and he accepts: Bond contradicts the gentlemanly nature with women and instead of caring for a woman in danger he uses her to his own end.
Bond does not have reflection or punishment or progression on any of these issues. Therefore, Bond's interaction with characters undergoes no development, and the film takes the view that it's somewhat alright to act in this manner. Objectification is another thing entirely, but having us cut in onto as stripper's bottom and also having Goodnight in the climax in a bikini is quite low and cheap in the eroticness scale, while still demeaning.
TSWLM does not have the same Bond with rude treatment of women. He makes a joke about them and driving, but beyond that there isn't anything where you think that Bond genuinely has a poor opinion of women. The women of the film look good, of course, and the film shows us this, but not on the classless level of TMWTGG
Well, yes; they see all of those as a source of amusement, quite clearly: otherwise they wouldn't think they'd be suitable to try and amuse with them. The whole point of having a director is that they're paid to have an opinion on how to convey the material to the audience.
I'm not really sure what you're arguing about here as you agree with the notion that TMWTGG is the nadir for this kind of thing. I can't really agree that the filmmakers made it like this by accident, or that they were making a point contrary to their own feelings in a kind of elaborate satire because I think that's less likely than doing it intentionally. What is your suggestion for how it ended up like this, if not with the people who made it taking a view on these matters?
Not sure why you word it like that, but if I look at the films of Spielberg I think it's reasonable to assume that the man himself holds the family structure and children quite dear, and that he despises what the Nazis did. I'm not saying he's definitely like that because I don't know the guy, but I think it's a reasonable working hypothesis based on the themes which seem to fascinate him.
When I look at the Bond films and see the most egregious examples of sexism and poor treatment of women I tend to note that the same director is present in all of them; and when the same writers work on other films it's not necessarily there to the same extent. I'm not saying it's 100% proof of anything, but as a hypothesis I don't think it's terrible. Certainly I think it's reasonable to assume that someone thought the hero exclaiming "women!" at a ditzy blonde being incapable was funny, as it was included as a joke. I don't think it's intended as a damning indictment of the patriarchy :D
As Reflsin says above though, in the end it doesn't really matter what the personal feelings or intentions of the artist were when it comes to audience interpretation: that's the old question about the ownership of art. In the end it's the impression we're left with which is important, and in the case of TMWTGG it's not a great one, I think.
Bond can be a tricky character though: although he's mostly a role model ('men want to be him') obviously there are parts of his character which aren't designed to be imitated, like the murdering of course; and I think the scene where he threatens to break Anders' arm is one of those- he's strong and manly but I'm not sure you're supposed to find that charming in that instance.
When I'm curious about things then I'll ask. If you think it looks nice then fine.
Yeah agreed. Although when I think about how both DAF and TMWTGG end with the Bond girls in bikinis for no reason that adds to my suspicions a bit. I've nothing against a bit of titillation here and there in a Bond flick but there's something a bit odd about that I think. I guess Anya ends up in a not-dissimilar costume in the next one, but even so, again as @Reflsin2bourbons says in their excellent post, it doesn't feel as cheap. TMWTGG has a bit of that feel of 1970s Carry On/Confessions etc. grottiness.
Does it matter? Most of them are dead.
Oh yeah, TMWTGG I think by design was a much more ‘dirty’ and weirdly comedic Bond film. I suppose to some extent it’s what was wanted, but it’s quite strange to watch all the same.
Moore's Bond in Moonraker certainly has a view on Goodhead, but the film shows her to be very capable, contrary to his pre-determined opinion. That is a stark contrast to TMWTGG, which has Bond treat Goodnight rather appallingly but then the film also belittles her by making her a bit thick (I think she might actually be the most empty-headed character in the series, as written) while also presenting her in such an overtly sexual manner. Chuck in Scaramanga's treatment of Andrea Anders (Bond's treatment of her too, obviously, in the hotel room) and the film certainly got a nasty edge to it.
For what it's worth, I don't believe Bond should be any sort of role model (I have no issue with him shagging and manipulating his way through certain scenarios; it's not something I could or ever would do but I'm not a secret agent) but while I don't mind him being a bit of a dick, I'd rather the film not double down on things like that as well.
It's a good point, I think even at the time Bond was the butt of the "A woman" gag, more so now.
As Reflsin points out, Bond is slightly shown up for having the wrong point of view (it's extremely mild of course, but it's there) whereas in TMWTGG the film kind of celebrates him as being right.
Yeah as I said above, I think it's quite interesting to note that Goodnight and Paloma are actually quite similar characters in a few ways, and it's interesting to note how differently their films treat them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/28/opinion/art-morality-discomfort.html
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/mar/19/uk-film-board-guidance-sex-scenes-12-12a-rating
Funnily enough I just watched today's Calvin Dyson video where he talks a little about GE and TND being cut for home video release and their subsequent ratings changes. GE still stays as a 15 now it's uncut, probably because of the rather sexual nature of Xenia's violent attacks.
But the difference is we are learning something through reading great works of literature, like Lolita et al.
But Bond is pop culture and pulpy and fun.
Bond mounting a woman and saying “Now let’s both play” is crossing a line that should be left for villains— not heroes. Sanchez whipping Lupe with the tail of a stingray may be brutal and uncomfortable to watch but it’s showing the depravity of the villain’s mind. Same with Silva assassinating Severine….
Bond can be cold and ruthless, like the way he calculates Fiona’s murder and the manner in which he dispatches her, or the way Brosnan-Bond is forced to take out Elektra. But Bond should never be criminal in his actions…
The Craig films were quite knowing that Bond is a bit of a b*stard. He inadvertently gets at least three women killed due to sleeping with them/using them to further his missions, and we see Bond having to confront this/react to it. I’m sure we’ll get something else in the next era.
Agreed @007HallY … and I like a hero who has flaws. It’s what makes Craig’s Bond so successful, that despite his flaws, he overcomes them, and we root for him to win. Same with John McClane (short tempered, petty and jealous but in spite of these flaws, he’s still our “hero”).
I’m also sure we will see a variation of this moving forward.