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
Sure, but it's okay to mention when he's creepy, isn't it?
I'm happy for him to do things we question sometimes, but taking advantage of rape victims is personally a bit too icky for me.
We can't just excuse anything under 'well he's not a white knight'. If he kills some kids in the next one: well he's not a white knight etc.
Perhaps, but if we're even having to question it and can't be sure then there's something worrying going on.
They didn't have to put the sex trade stuff in: the writers and director have total control of the characters. They have chosen to go down this path. Perhaps inadvertently, but it looks like Bond is exploiting a victim of sexual abuse -of child sexual abuse-, and that's uncomfortable ground.
And even without all that, sneaking into someone's shower when they don't know you're there is creepy anyway.
Yup, something like that. Or just not doing the sex trade thing at all, maybe.
Would the whole interaction between Bond and Severine be as unproblematic as Bond and Solange and Bond and Lucia if not for Severine's backstory as a victim of the Macau sex trade? If so, does that imply a belief that someone who has sex with a person who was abused as a child is just another abuser? I don't think that's the case in real life and it's not what I see in SF, tbh.
I don't think that Bond took advantage of Severine per se - I think they used each other for their own ends. Mutual advantage.
There's no suggestion in the actual script that Bond was anything less than welcome when he joined her in the shower:
SEVERINE - (She turns). I feel naked without it.
They kiss as the water cascades over them.
No alarm, no resistance, not the slightest hesitancy. She immediately turns and kisses him. That's what's actually there - anything else is interpretation. And that'll obviously vary from viewer to viewer, hence the discussions in this thread.
True, though - it's perfectly valid to argue that elements of the entire interaction between Bond and Severine could have been written differently. Because, yes, there wasn't any actual need to give her that child sex-slave backstory. I suppose they did it to explain why she was initially devoted to Silva after he took her out of it - with the implication that he proved to be just as bad being there to explain why she now wanted him dead. If they'd taken out that one line about what her tattoo signified would it alter the perception that what happened on the yacht was creepy?
I didn't say they're the same thing; I was pointing out that we all have lines where we don't like to see an occasional amoral character like Bond step over. 'He's not a white knight' does not cover everything.
And this is not the usual version of him using sex to further a mission, for all of the reasons which have been laid out.
Obviously not, because that's an oversimplification of what's happening here.
But what you do do when you have sex with someone who's been a victim of sexual abuse since they were a child, and still is; is be way more careful with them. And you don't just use them for your own ends even more. Can you genuinely not see the issues here? I feel like I'm repeating myself.
He didn't need to shag her- he's already decided to kill Silva; he just chose to shag her for his own amusement. As Peter explained, she has been brainwashed through her life to think that she needs to sleep with powerful men to get what she needs, or even just to stay alive. That's not adding backstory- it's pretty explicit in what sex slaves do. We don't know if she actually wants to (sure, maybe she actually does), but we do know that she's been brought up to give her body to men as part of a transaction.
And crucially: Bond doesn't know if she really wants to or not. But he does know she's a prisoner from the sex slave and so will give herself willingly because she feels she has to. That's why, from Bond's point of view, he's taking advantage of a damaged person. Unlike most women he sleeps with, he can't know for certain with her- and she has been trained not to say 'no'. That's why it's creepy.
'She might want to' and 'she acts like she wants to' isn't really enough. She's just met the guy. If they had fallen in love slowly over the course of the film and he became certain that she was acting out of genuine love for him, then it's fine to make love to her. But instantly into bed after five minutes' conversation- that feels more like taking advantage of someone.
The script isn't the film.
And no, she doesn't act as if she doesn't want to: but that's not the point. In life, you do not hop into a shower with a woman you've just met without asking. Surely folks here know that? Until you've been asked, keep it in your pants.
And that aspect is entirely separate from the sex slave stuff, but her past does add to the creepiness.
And that's the one thing you reply to? If you're ignoring the point about what Bond knows and acts upon and that she is trained not to say no, then we've pretty much got to the end of the conversation I guess.
I am aware of that. Ok, look, one of my ex-girlfriends had been through that when she was young. But she was very definite that her past didn't define her or make her a permanent victim in the present. She wasn't brittle or broken and she could sometimes get exasperated with me for being overly cautious with her. One size really doesn't fit all.
Yes, I can see the perception that Bond took advantage of a sex-trade survivor and the objections to that. If that's what I thought was going on, I'd be dubious too. But I don't share that perception. I think that Bond and Severine used each other to their mutual advantage.
But the script reveals that she does want to - so Bond gauged it correctly. There's nothing in the script about Severine's motives for having sex with him - it could well be of a transactional nature, it could be desire, it could be both. That's open to interpretation. But in showing her immediately turning and kissing Bond, the script does make it clear that Severine actively wants to do it. Her choice. After all, none of us thinks for a moment that if Severine had responded negatively, Bond would have just carried on and forced her, right?
But Severine's not in love with Bond any more than Solange was. And it's not all one way, there's two of them involved and they each have things they want - hence them using each other for their mutual advantage.
But our interpretations aren't the film either - they're individual readings of what's there, informed by our own experiences, perceptions, etc. No, in life, chances are you wouldn't slip into a shower with a woman unless you knew explicitly that she wanted you to. But then, chances are you wouldn't be a licenced killer with an exotic beauty on a supervillain's yacht in the South China Sea either. Given the fantastical milieu of the whole movie and knowing what we know of Bond's life, experiences, character and circumstances, is it really unlikely that Bond might gauge how receptive Severine would be and take the chance?
I agree. The scene I always find jarring is the one where Goodnight rejects Bond’s advances at dinner only to be willing to jump into bed with him afterwards, then shoved into a closet once Andrea enters the room. Any sense of agency is completely washed away after that.
Well you're the one who said he's not a white knight, not me. I am just explaining why it's a line I prefer not to see crossed.
I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm guessing you didn't creep into her shower on the first night you met?
And again, just reducing it to 'victim of sexual abuse' is to ignore everything else about the situation.
Well that's fine. I disagree, for the reasons I've mentioned, but this whole thing started when Richard the Bruce laid out 'what the film presented', and for a number of us it presents exactly what we're talking about.
Bond's advantage is just to get his end away though, that's right?
You've just contradicted yourself, no? If there's nothing in the script about her motives, then how can we know if she really wants to? Also, I read the script excerpt that Crab posted- it's what we see onscreen. It doesn't reveal if she really wants to or not from a position of desire.
I think you're getting confused now. No-one is talking about her not giving herself willingly: it's about whether she's doing it from desire or because she feels she has to get what she wants i.e. Bond to protect her from Silva. In the latter version, that's Bond taking advantage of how she thinks the world works.
Aargh. But as I'm explaining: in this 'mutual advantage' scenario, Bond knows that she doesn't have to sleep with him to get what she wants (Silva dead), but she thinks she does. That is the advantage for her you're talking about? Thus Bond is the one taking the advantage.
Yeah, that is fair. But it's still creepy. If someone did it in real life it would be full-on rapey; for Bond to do it here is only on the level of the creepy.
Yeah that is just awful stuff. 'Your turn will come' is a low point. If you look at Dr No where it all started, Honey is a much stronger lead character.
It's true that Bond is a very damaged individual in a number of ways. Many of those ways are what makes him extremely good at his job. I think Skyfall, for all of its strengths (and it really is an incredible film) probably didn't need to include the sex trafficking element as part of Severine's character. She would still ultimately have ended up a tragic character without it.
What we could have had is a person who was trapped by Silva with no hope of getting away from him. We lose the horrific back story and make her more like a classic femme. She's still a slave, but not in the literal way the film tells us through Bond's dialogue. Bond then shows up, and she's enthralled by his courage and his charisma - that is where her attraction to him stems from. Bond still fails her, of course; but at least the intentions are honorable (arguably making it even more touching). And considering the film doesn't have a typical Bond girl, instead substituting M into that role spiritually, it would still be hugely impactful.
With the added backstory, it does seem like they really wanted to hammer home the idea that "this is a tragic character", and the additional background still works but has the drawback of complicating the dynamics of the situation. To me it becomes, as others have pointed out, less romantic in the moment. When looked at through this lens, it certainly feels like they wanted a sex scene because "this is a Bond movie and there needs to be a sex scene". I'm not sure it's transactional, as others have put it, the characters have already made their choices - Severine wants Bond there to free her from Silva, and Bond wants Severine to lead him to Silva. It's just kind of there for us to see some skin.
I'd argue that it's an interesting case of trying to add layers to your female characters (which is admirable) but inadvertently ending up making how they're treated worse than the characters who had less depth.
Think of it this way - imagine if Bond had used Corinne the way he did in MR if she had a similar background to Severine. How would we feel then?
All of that being said, I don't hate it or anything. I don't mind not liking the person that Bond is from time to time. And it is a stark reminder of the cruel world he inhabits in ways that the films don't often seek to explore. I appreciate the attempt at such depth that the Craig era clearly tried, even if it didn't always work.
But I do think it's valid that Severine's death leaves a bitter taste in one's mouth rather than simply a sad one.
Bond doesn't have all the power. He's using Severine to get to Silva. He won't get to Silva without her. Severine's using Bond to get away from Silva. She won't get away from Silva without him. That means they're together for their mutual advantage. True, the other element's more ambiguous, but my perception is that they're also using each other for sex. In that case, that'd make that aspect mutual too. Other interpretations, clearly, are available.
Because while her motive/reasons aren't made explicit, her actual actions reveal that she wants to: 'She turns...they kiss.' Not 'She pauses, shocked. Considers. She turns...'
Yes, but that's open to interpretation. And, equally, it could be both.
Yeah I'd have no issue with that.
Yes, although it's not certain, I think the problem is that making her a sex slave leaves the possibility very much open that it is transactional, and that doubt is planted in our minds. And considering that filmmakers don't have to plant that doubt, and usually do it intentionally, it's very easy to read it that way because it seems like it serves no purpose being in the film otherwise.
Yes that's a good way of putting it. Her whole role in the film goes a bit beyond just being sad.
Absolutely. The very nature of the upbringing invites those kind of questions from the viewer because that is the life of those who are unlucky enough to be dragged into it.
What makes it even more interesting is that duty and honour are very much themes of the film - symbolised by M's arc. It's quite a stark contrast, intentional or not.
And we love seeing beautiful people in all their glory, 100%. Context is definitely key though, and it's fair to say the film probably forgets about its context for the most brief of moments.
I think @mtm has been clear, so I’m not exactly sure why this specific sub-topic is on a hamster wheel? Is there anything more to discuss, or has it been exhausted?
As far as future Bond films, I’m sure EoN knows that sex is an important part of James Bond. They will move into these waters with a sense of class and maturity. We saw it with Bond and Lucia… it really was close to being very sexy: two attractive people, in danger, senses heightened; she wants him, he wants her….
I hope we get more scenes like this, where the heat is built between the two, and then?…… Let nature take its course….
I don't feel like I'm pulling that from nowhere though. Sex slaves pretty much don't get a choice in it, and they don't get to say no.
Films don't really present us with archetypes in order to have one that doesn't conform though. Certainly not without actually telling us that this particular character doesn't.
Archetypes are useful in storytelling, because we can join dots up quickly and intuitively.
If they have introduced this vulnerable, terrified woman who was trapped as a sex slave and is now ruled over by an oppressive super villain, but actually despite the fact that she's terrified she's also sexually liberated and free and strong... well that's some mixed messages you're throwing at the audience. She's only onscreen for a few minutes, sometimes the simpler communication is the more effective.
You're making a lot of personal, slightly aggressive statements. I'm not 'hung up', 'going off' etc. any more than you are. I also specifically said he wasn't rapey.
If she has simply got over being trafficked, as you suggest, then why have it in the film at all?
Right, I've lost interest in your post now: stopped reading I'm afraid. If you can't be civil we're done.
Caught this bit at the end:
I apologised, if you don't want to accept that apology then fine.
These are just movies, and movies are allowed to throw imperfect characters at us that we look up to in some ways, without treating them as role models. Bond wouldn't serve well as a role model, I think, one reason being that there is no "one" James Bond so he'd be a pretty confusing role model too. But also, James Bond is, in some ways, a celebration of vices we're not allowed to have in real life because most of us wouldn't get away with such a lifestyle. That, however, doesn't mean we cannot at least live the fantasy through film. So this guy some of us look up to kills with a smile and some dry wit; he destroys his lungs and liver like it's nobody's business; and he is bound to no law. He also has no qualms about "taking" sex without giving anything (say love, or even friendship, let alone commitment) in return. Sex is a pleasure, sometimes business, but often just a convenient opportunity to relish in what many consider the ultimate physical delight. Bond can bed women at will and leave no trail of broken hearts and violated innocence behind. Because those are the rules of the Bond films: there are no rules, or only a few at most, when it comes to sex in the world of James Bond. Unlike us in real life, 007 doesn't have to answer for his pelvic activities, not to us, the girls, or his chiefs. And I understood that early on in my life. James Bond can meet Manuela in a hotel room, exchange two lines of dialogue about the case, and then undress her just to kill a few hours. But that is never going to happen in my life, nor should I aspire to that. And since I can easily make the distinction between the fiction of film and the reality in which I live, that isn't an issue either.
The argument that such images can nevertheless poison the minds of many opens up a wormhole towards misery. Almost everything that happens in cinema could, if misconstrued or mimicked in real life, lead to embarrassment, a slap in the face, a restraining order, a prison sentence, or death. Even cartoons aimed at children are full of violent acts (Bugs Bunny), dangerous physical nonsense (Roadrunner), or other false ideas if taken literally (talking animals in Disney). We are taught early on that films rarely offer a playbook for how to live our lives; rather, they are often entertaining because they provide a pleasantly unrealistic antithesis to how we are supposed, or able, to live our lives. The Bonds are no different, especially when it comes to sex. That's why Bond is most often not monogamous, why he doesn't seem to worry about STDs, why he doesn't care about getting to know the girl well before he takes her sex, and why he can bed a girl first and kill her next with the same smile. The films use shortcuts and liberties and we like it. Even if the Craigs were a tad more careful with certain sexual liberties, there's still enough of the old "free sex" for Bond to enjoy in them.
Are these films morally corrupt then, and an insult to women? Why, I don't know. That sounds like a setup for a debate that will never be settled. What I do know, however, is that many women enjoy these Bond films just as much as men do, apparently unaffected by what some call hints of misogyny. I can only imagine that they too make a distinction between something that happens in a fantasy and something that happens to them in real life. What Bond sometimes gets away with, with our blessing I might add, could be called rape by cynical voices. But -- and this is actually a perfectly legitimate argument -- the films don't want us to crawl into the minds, hearts and souls of the Bond girls. We're not supposed to worry about their feelings or virtues, not even superficially. Like the villains and their goons, they don't exist with the moral status every human being has in real life. (Bond doesn't either.) Another woman seduced by Bond is just another domino falling in a long sequence of entertaining moments that lead up to the film's satisfying conclusion, nothing more. Is that problematic? Is that immoral? Is that a crime? Not when it's just this thing that happens in a film that never signals a red flag nor asks us to take any of it seriously. So when Christmas comes more than once a year, we're not tempted to yell "yuck!" or "you animal!" or "hashtag so-and-so!"; we laugh because Bond chews out a funny line we weren't expecting, and the object of his fancy is taking it in very well anyway (what a relief!). We understand that some serious and consensual doing-it will ensue while we leave the room. A "happy end", indeed -- double entendre and all that. Whoever worries about the fact that Bond bedded Elektra too, and then killed her, and is now, only a few hours later, eyeing up this nuclear physicist, is missing the point, not just of the film, but of films in general.
With the end credits rolling and the film over, we return to that calm reality in which we respect everyone's boundaries, refrain from killing other people, and never force ourselves onto someone. But until then, we roll with it, reconfigure our moral priorities, and silently enjoy the crazy, folly and free-spirited fantasy of a James Bond film.
Wow, the eloquent & balanced voice of never ending reason. As far as I'm concerned, this is the best last word on this subject!
*bows to the Master*
Thanks. Just my two cents.
I just don't think that we should ever overthink Bond. Ian Fleming said something about James Bond not being meant for boys. He wrote without much constraint, and we like his style. The filmmakers also flirted with the lines of decency, morality and ethics, because that's how you sold a film in an era when not enough people had yet freed themselves from the shackles of ultraconservative and often religious doctrine. We sometimes forget that in 1962, a lot of youths were still taught that sex is filthy, that nudity is decadent, that you don't sleep with someone until you're married, and so on. DN symbolized a sort of liberation from that repressive mentality.
In 2023 we tend to overlook the significance of that. We wouldn't be here discussing mutual respect in the sack if we hadn't gone through this phase of sexual liberation first. Nowadays, we are too quick sometimes to judge and condemn film sex unless its practitioners sat down first, talked it through, exchanged feelings and emotions, carefully planned every single step, agreed on codewords to stop as soon as it no longer feels right, and all but signed a contract that guarantees equal pleasure for both. Teenagers in TV series turn sex into something that requires more preparation work than an Everest expedition. If one partner takes the lead during sex, it's called a violation afterwards. Sex is being sent back into the closet. When James Bond is called a maniac, a symbol of toxic masculinity, a predator and almost a rapist in some media, I'm worried that we're moving backwards, back to when sex was, indeed, considered filthy.
I don't want the James Bond films to turn pornographic either. Then again, there's absolutely no risk of that. In over six decades, we've seen some bikini action and a few square inches of sideboob at most. We've also seen Bond go horizontal fairly easily but we've never seen anything even remotely hardcore in the Bonds, and we never will. Apart from Jane Seymour and maybe one or two other actresses (whose opinion in the matter I do, of course, respect) I've rarely heard any of the gazillion Bond girls in the past 61 years complain about being used for eye candy in a Bond film.
Sex in Bond films is playful and meant to be taken as such. It's not showing us how we're supposed to treat our wives, girlfriends, or attractive strangers on a train in real life. No one ever wrote a script for a Bond film with a misogynist agenda, deliberately trying to drag women down and reduce them to mere pleasure toys for the penile regions of us, raw and barbaric men. Bond is called a sexist, misogynist dinosaur by M in GE, but half an hour later, he is all but choked to death by a nymphomaniac with a pair of strongly opinionated thighs. Another half an hour into the film, Bond has an emotional interaction with a girl who then sleeps with him in the loveliest and most romantic conditions Cuba has to offer. The misogynist dinosaur comment is essentially rendered moot by the film itself. It does, however, draw a clear line between the present and past, and that is the point. Bond changes too. If society no longer accepts certain ways, then the Bonds will eventually yield.
And yet, his monogamy in '87 didn't last, and he did still use sex to get things done even after GE. Because no excuses are needed for sex in Bond films. We can put every sex scene under a microscope and then we're bound to find things that warrant their own lengthy dissertations, just like when you put your food under a microscope and you see the worms and other filthy buggers crawling in it. Or we can choose not to go that far, and simply enjoy the occasional harmless sex scene in a Bond film without overthinking it, just like we don't spoil every meal discussing the microbiological inferno that we swallow down with every bite from a medium-rare steak.
Sex is normal, it's fun, and it's not filthy. Only a small fraction of mankind cannot behave well in the bedroom, and those dirtbags should be exposed and punished. But one thing they don't deserve is to spoil the fun for the rest of us, who do treat our bed partners with dignity and respect. So to jump from Bond to Harvey Weinstein is unfair, a sign of modern society's proneness to cheap hysteria, and an act of gross exaggeration. I've seen YT videos in which nondescript people rant about Bond as a sexist, racist, ageist monster. Their arguments are weak, their knowledge of Bond almost non-existent, their examples blatantly taken out of context, and their conclusions utterly laughable. Some people out there want to grab Bond by the balls and nail him to the wall. However inviting this may seem to those who couldn't give a damn about Bond and only want more likes and stir up more controversy, I think we are smarter than that. In fact, I think it's safe to assume that most of us grew up watching Bond even when we were still in our single digits, exposing our wee selves to the teachings of Bond's "powerful weapon", years before we were even capable of enjoying a bit of old-school fun under the sheets -- well then, how many of us have struggled with respecting our bedmates? How many of us have ever kissed a girl who wanted none of it and then drove that hungry tongue between her lips again, just to show her who's boss? How many of us ever started undressing in front of a pair of startled eyes because, hey, how else does one kill some afternoon hours in Rio? Where are those sexual predators among us, Bond fans, those sexually insatiable stallions who constantly re-enact the Pat Fearing scene thinking that's how you score another innocent dame? My point is that for every disturbed sex offender there are countless normal people who can joyfully witness Bond do his thing, then contemplate how desirable or undesirable such conduct would be in the real world, and finally mature on our own terms with our own healthy views on sex. The popular notion that seeing such things on film makes me want to mindlessly copycat them, is frankly insulting. We're all better than that.
And so, if we are not going to go too "loose" with our significant others behind closed doors, at least we can allow our poor chap James Bond a few brief moments of untroubled, uncomplicated and preferably uninterrupted phallic fun, no? Or must we really suck the fun out of every second of film from now on produced? And to those who still cannot handle it: don't watch these films. That last part wasn't exactly rocket science, now was it? And if you can handle some gratuitous sex, well then this one's for you:
Blofeld: Nice shot.
Bond: But the wrong pussy.
Blofeld: How do you take your pussy, Mister Bond?
Bond: Shaven. Not furred.
You remind me of my favourite lines from NSNA: "Now you're on this. I hope we're going to have some gratuitous sex and violence." :P
Dimi, you might think about writing a book. Or at least publishing an essay or two in a magazine. You has mad writing skillz, bro!
Thanks, mate.
@Venutius
Yeah, I see what you mean. I'm a child of the '80s too. ;-)
@chrisisall
Thanks for the compliment, though I'm sure I don't deserve it. No one's waiting for a book written by me. It'd have sex and murder and Cold War espionage and ... oh, wait.
@FoxRox
Exactly. Prudishness is to a Bond film what a liquor store is to an AA meeting: not a match. There are plenty of sex-free spy films out there for the easily offended; no need to send Bond to the castrator's office too. By the way, I've learned that those who are allegedly put off by cinematic sex are often among the most sex-obsessed people on the planet.
My own attitude towards screen sex has always been very liberal and it continues to be so even with a young child in my household. My son will not be denied a normal upbringing, i.e. one in which we explain the dos and don'ts of sex in real life but never shy away from an exposed nipple on TV or a film scene in which two people do some downstairs talking with the stamina of a famished beast. Sex is personal, yes, but it's also the reason we're all here, talking about it right now. Why then should we pretend it doesn't exist? Why should we pretend it's not good or enjoyable; why should we not promise that it's something to look forward to when you're old enough? I've never understood the embarrassed attitude towards sex with kids around. Obviously, there are certain graphic depictions no child has any use for, so I guess it's in their best interest that they are spared the more juicy details until they're old enough to actively explore those themselves. But the fact of sex, and the reasons for it, and the fruits of it... I mean, why pretend those aren't real?
So when 8-year old me sat down to watch TB, my parents didn't make me look away when Bond did the nasty with Pat. And with Fiona. And with Domino. (The man certainly had a fully "laid" agenda in '65, wouldn't you agree?) They always put things in their proper perspective, making sure that my ideas of sex were healthy and open-minded so that by the time I was old enough to get a taste of the fruits of Venus myself, it was neither awkward nor something wrapped up in Catholic guilt. The Bonds "schooled me" in many ways, and yet I never flat-out threw a girl around in the hay because that's what got Bond a piece of Pussy. (I love it when we can write things like that and get away with it. :-D). I grew up loving the fantasy of Bond without ever aspiring to live it myself. I don't kill, I don't drink or smoke, I never gamble, and I don't engage in double-oh-lala sex either. My life is my own, not James Bond's. And if I can reach that conclusion, then so can many others. Ergo, why should we try to "polish" the sexual content of the Bond films, what little of that there actually is? Because women are being objectified? Because Bond gives boys the wrong ideas? Because... Oh, shut up, already. It's called entertainment. Either roll with it, or don't watch.
;-)