Skyfall's narrative leap

BondWillReturn

[quote="M_Balje" i don't understand why we get first Sykfall - Done and then later he go there. [/quote]

When the interviewer says 'Skyfall', it brings back all kinds of memories to Bond's childhood, something Bond was prepared for. Therefor, he's had enough of the interview, and says 'Done!' as in 'We're done'

thelordflasheart

hisqos wrote:

Wasn’t she in a gown and laying out the champagn, can’t see what was so creepy about the shower scene. I think some just nitpick for the sake of it, the more recent films seem to be held to another degree of microscopic dissection. Bond the suave and sophisticated in other films is rather overstated in my opinion, even Moore Bond wasn’t much of a gentleman when he tricked Solitaire.

Totally agree. The Bond films have changed tremendously over the years, and thinking that SF is somehow equated to Bond tricking a women into giving him her virginity (LALD) or forcing himself on a woman who has said no until she says yes (GF, TB) is absurd.

I know that some people have said what Getafix has said, that SF is "retrograde" in its treatment of women. Yet what they say is at odds with what is on the screen. The two points I hear most often is Bond "forcing" himself on Severine (but as you say, she laid out the welcome mat for him by inviting him onto the boat, and waiting for him in a nightgown with champagne) and that Eve is "incompetent" (despite her being one of the most competent characters in the film; her only sin was following - against her own advice and protests!- M's orders to take a risky shot).

However, as someone said in another thread yesterday some people go looking for things to dislike about certain films and will find them whether they're there or not.

Getafix

thelordflasheart wrote:

hisqos wrote:

Wasn’t she in a gown and laying out the champagn, can’t see what was so creepy about the shower scene. I think some just nitpick for the sake of it, the more recent films seem to be held to another degree of microscopic dissection. Bond the suave and sophisticated in other films is rather overstated in my opinion, even Moore Bond wasn’t much of a gentleman when he tricked Solitaire.

Totally agree. The Bond films have changed tremendously over the years, and thinking that SF is somehow equated to Bond tricking a women into giving him her virginity (LALD) or forcing himself on a woman who has said no until she says yes (GF, TB) is absurd.

I know that some people have said what Getafix has said, that SF is "retrograde" in its treatment of women. Yet what they say is at odds with what is on the screen. The two points I hear most often is Bond "forcing" himself on Severine (but as you say, she laid out the welcome mat for him by inviting him onto the boat, and waiting for him in a nightgown with champagne) and that Eve is "incompetent" (despite her being one of the most competent characters in the film; her only sin was following - against her own advice and protests!- M's orders to take a risky shot).

However, as someone said in another thread yesterday some people go looking for things to dislike about certain films and will find them whether they're there or not.

I'm only repeating what my better half observed as we left the cinema - that aside from being a tremendously dull piece of filmmaking, the women are either victims (Severine), incompetent (Eve) or b*****s (M). I read MR the other day and was surprised by what a strong female character Gala Brand is. The SF women almost feel like a throwback to the pre Fleming era.

I think the SF shower scene is a bit creepy but I suspect there's stuff that was shot and has been left out about Bond arriving on the boat and a bit of seduction. As it stands it is a bit distasteful.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

Ludovico wrote:

Tuulia wrote:

thelordflasheart wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

I find Goldfinger not as good as it's preceding and succeeding movies, still it is a solid Bond movie. Maybe it is because the chemistry between Connery and Blackman was so natural, but the way he seduced her didn't bother me in the least. Pussy Galore appears to be selfish and unwilling to think things through, but in the end what he says about Goldfinger influences her choice as much as her attraction towards Bond.

I found it a little too rape-y for my tastes.

Or, I should say that I do now. I was raised in a misogynistic household so when I was a kid and saw a man force himself on a woman who eventually relented to him it seemed...natural. Sadly, this type of scene was quite common in films and TV shows when I was a kid. I wonder if they were copying GF or if it was a trope that existed long before that.

But at any rate, I'm secure enough and mature enough now to realize that no means no.

And I found it a lot too rape-y for my tastes. That's why I said earlier that I thought it was disgusting. I just can't root for a "hero" who does that, and while I'm not that fond of Goldfinger anyway, that totally destroys it for me. Saying that times were different or something doesn't make it ok - I can't just ignore that Bond basically rapes a woman who then magically becomes an ally. If Bond was still behaving like that nowadays I'd have stopped going to see the movies long ago.

Except (he) does not rape her. She does accept his advances in the end and not out of fear. Yes, it is a chauvinistic scene, it is not PC, but it does not advocate violence towards women. In the movie, Oddjob is the one violent towards women, following the orders of his master. He treats Pussy Galore well and Jill even said he never tried to sleep with her. He still has no problem covering Jill of gold paint.

And it is utterly off topic.

Not only off topic, but in this case I must disagree with my lady friends. I can't remotely compare Bond here to General Medrano, who is a rapist. I see the scene exactly as you do, except I suspect Bond knows she likes him. Anyone remember her smiling at him as he awakes on the plane? I don't think he would have been so forward if he wasn't running out of time to try and seduce her, but at this point it was either go for it, or knock her out and make a break for it.

BAIN123

Getafix wrote:

thelordflasheart wrote:

hisqos wrote:

Wasn’t she in a gown and laying out the champagn, can’t see what was so creepy about the shower scene. I think some just nitpick for the sake of it, the more recent films seem to be held to another degree of microscopic dissection. Bond the suave and sophisticated in other films is rather overstated in my opinion, even Moore Bond wasn’t much of a gentleman when he tricked Solitaire.

Totally agree. The Bond films have changed tremendously over the years, and thinking that SF is somehow equated to Bond tricking a women into giving him her virginity (LALD) or forcing himself on a woman who has said no until she says yes (GF, TB) is absurd.

I know that some people have said what Getafix has said, that SF is "retrograde" in its treatment of women. Yet what they say is at odds with what is on the screen. The two points I hear most often is Bond "forcing" himself on Severine (but as you say, she laid out the welcome mat for him by inviting him onto the boat, and waiting for him in a nightgown with champagne) and that Eve is "incompetent" (despite her being one of the most competent characters in the film; her only sin was following - against her own advice and protests!- M's orders to take a risky shot).

However, as someone said in another thread yesterday some people go looking for things to dislike about certain films and will find them whether they're there or not.

I'm only repeating what my better half observed as we left the cinema - that aside from being a tremendously dull piece of filmmaking, the women are either victims (Severine), incompetent (Eve) or b*****s (M). I read MR the other day and was surprised by what a strong female character Gala Brand is. The SF women almost feel like a throwback to the pre Fleming era.

I think the SF shower scene is a bit creepy but I suspect there's stuff that was shot and has been left out about Bond arriving on the boat and a bit of seduction. As it stands it is a bit distasteful.

Why? She says "If you want me, come get me!" and Bond abliges We've seen "bird with a wing down" women do that before - and Bond take full advantage of it. Did you want Bond to wine and dine her first? It might have worked with someone a bit more "innocent" but Servine wasn't that kind of character.

Getafix

I don't think I'm expressing an utterly unreasonable view in saying that perhaps a few words or at the very least a raised eyebrow in her direction prior to stripping off and joining her in the shower might have not just removed the creapy aspect but also been more entertaining. Yes, we know women jump into bed with Bond with little encouragement required, but those 'seduction' scenes have usually been entertaining or a reminder of Bond's irresistible charm in some way. I am convinced that there was some very heavy editing around the shower scene that means it all happens a bit suddenly. Mendes has said somewhere that he had a 4 hour + long movie and so obviously a lot of stuff has not made it to the screen. My view is that he's left a lot in that adds nothing, while cutting stuff that would have explained what's happening and why a lot better. A lot of the cut stuff also seems to be to do with Severine - I think there's a bit where the whole art fraud/assasination wheeze is explained that was cut as well. A lot of people complain that the editing in QoS is confusing, which it is, but I'd argue that although much longer, SF is sometimes equally baffling and given the screen time, there's not really an excuse for that.

BAIN123

I do agree that more explanation was needed regarding that assassination through the window (I wouldm't be surprised if some cutting was done there) but one could consider Bond's meeting with Servine in the bar a "seduction scene". Was a further one really needed? She offered herself to Bond if he survived the fight with the guards, Bond did and hence got what he wanted. The film already has a shot of her prepping herself and looking disappointed when she thinks he won't turn up - its not like it was a chore or her.

I suppose we could have had a shot of Bond going to her boat feeling guilty but would it have added all THAT much to the film overall? He expresses sadness at her death (the one liner was meant to be a cocky front to distract the guards) so we know he's not completely emotionless.

Tuulia

Ludovico wrote:

Tuulia wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Tuulia wrote:

thelordflasheart wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

I find Goldfinger not as good as it's preceding and succeeding movies, still it is a solid Bond movie. Maybe it is because the chemistry between Connery and Blackman was so natural, but the way he seduced her didn't bother me in the least. Pussy Galore appears to be selfish and unwilling to think things through, but in the end what he says about Goldfinger influences her choice as much as her attraction towards Bond.

I found it a little too rape-y for my tastes.

Or, I should say that I do now. I was raised in a misogynistic household so when I was a kid and saw a man force himself on a woman who eventually relented to him it seemed...natural. Sadly, this type of scene was quite common in films and TV shows when I was a kid. I wonder if they were copying GF or if it was a trope that existed long before that.

But at any rate, I'm secure enough and mature enough now to realize that no means no.

And I found it a lot too rape-y for my tastes. That's why I said earlier that I thought it was disgusting. I just can't root for a "hero" who does that, and while I'm not that fond of Goldfinger anyway, that totally destroys it for me. Saying that times were different or something doesn't make it ok - I can't just ignore that Bond basically rapes a woman who then magically becomes an ally. If Bond was still behaving like that nowadays I'd have stopped going to see the movies long ago.

Except does not rape her. She does accept his advances in the end and not out of fear. Yes, it is a chauvinistic scene, it is not PC, but it does not advocate violence towards women. In the movie, Oddjob is the one violent towards women, following the orders of his master. He treats Pussy Galore well and Jill even said he never tried to sleep with her. He still has no problem covering Jill of gold paint.

And it is utterly off topic.

Not quite rape, but close. It certainly advocates the idea that when a woman repeatedly says no, she doesn't actually mean it, and when she fights back as much and as long as her physical strength allows her to, she's not that serious about it, either, and it's ok for a man to use superior physical strength to get what he wants and indeed, the woman actually wants it that way. When after losing the battle she's finally on her back with the man on top of her, forcefully kissing her, she'll suddenly happily consent despite previous verbal and physical resistance. So I would say that scene advocates violence and rape.

hisqos wrote:

Wasn’t she in a gown and laying out the champagn, can’t see what was so creepy about the shower scene. I think some just nitpick for the sake of it, the more recent films seem to be held to another degree of microscopic dissection. Bond the suave and sophisticated in other films is rather overstated in my opinion, even Moore Bond wasn’t much of a gentleman when he tricked Solitaire.

I totally agree with this.

Severine was not Bond's victim, and why some people insist she was I don't understand. Tragic childhood and life in many ways? Yes. So? Is she not allowed to be anything BUT victim all the bloody time? That is just so patronizing. She apparently wanted Bond, invited him, waited for him, had the champagne for two ready, and all that. And Bond started his approach slowly and gently to make sure not to frighten her and that his presence in the shower was fine with her. Nothing creepy about that.

I still don't see why it should be close to rape. It is morally ambiguous, it is certainly macho, it is not rape. The moment she consents, it cannot be, by definition. Had she kept saying no AND he had carried on, then of course it would have been. But this was not the case. And beside, Bond's advances are mixed with his plea about Goldfinger's madness. When he grabs her, it is about this as much.

I didn't say it's rape, but I said it's close, and unpleasant to watch, and I already explained why. He forces her into that position where she can no longer fight back, and very much forces himself to her, and ignores what she says and does. There is no seduction and he shows zero respect for her. That she then "consents" is just as offensive as his behavior before it - as if that's what would happen. Women love to be forced? Oh yeah... The message is that a woman's (verbal or physical) "no" doesn't mean no, she actually wants the guy whatever she says or does. Guess what happens with that thinking? The scene is far worse than merely "morally ambiguous".

Superintendent

Tuulia wrote:

I didn't say it's rape, but I said it's close, and unpleasant to watch, and I already explained why. He forces her into that position where she can no longer fight back, and very much forces himself to her, and ignores what she says and does. There is no seduction and he shows zero respect for her. That she then "consents" is just as offensive as his behavior before it - as if that's what would happen. Women love to be forced? Oh yeah... The message is that a woman's (verbal or physical) "no" doesn't mean no, she actually wants the guy whatever she says or does. Guess what happens with that thinking? The scene is far worse than merely "morally ambiguous".

So, he's supposed to show respect for a woman who is about to commit a large massacre, just because she is a woman? I think PC has definitely gone too far.

Plus, Bond is hardly the most moral person. He's a killer, a paid hitman. He even uses women as human shields (TB, TSWLM).

He is fun to watch, but he is not a hero. At least not in my book.

Tuulia

^^ Respect sexually - you know what I meant, sheesh. That has nothing to do with her being a woman and nobody said she should get special respect because she's a woman.
No, that was not fun to watch at all. And he is presented as a hero, obviously.

thelordflasheart

Superintendent wrote:

So, he's supposed to show respect for a woman who is about to commit a large massacre, just because she is a woman? I think PC has definitely gone too far.

Plus, Bond is hardly the most moral person. He's a killer, a paid hitman. He even uses women as human shields (TB, TSWLM).

He is fun to watch, but he is not a hero. At least not in my book.

You're right, in fact I believe that the law states that you're allowed to sexually assault a woman as long as she's a bad person.

Yeesh...

Tuulia

^^ Or a man. ;)

Getafix

BAIN123 wrote:

I do agree that more explanation was needed regarding that assassination through the window (I wouldm't be surprised if some cutting was done there) but one could consider Bond's meeting with Servine in the bar a "seduction scene". Was a further one really needed? She offered herself to Bond if he survived the fight with the guards, Bond did and hence got what he wanted. The film already has a shot of her prepping herself and looking disappointed when she thinks he won't turn up - its not like it was a chore or her.

I suppose we could have had a shot of Bond going to her boat feeling guilty but would it have added all THAT much to the film overall? He expresses sadness at her death (the one liner was meant to be a cocky front to distract the guards) so we know he's not completely emotionless.

Bond's obviously doing some prep in the casino scene, but I (and I think quite a few others) find that in terms of watching the film, the jump to the shower scene is quite abrupt. It just doesn't flow very nicely - a problem not isolated to this sequence IMO. Considering how long the film is I don't understand why there are so many awkward little jumps like this. It suggests that the script and plot were ropey (which is true), but also that the film wasn't properly story boarded or thought through by Mendes, which I find more unforgiveable. I expect P+W to produce cr*p, but not Mendes. Having said that, I do think he's possibly one of the more overrated 'big' directors.

Bring back John Glen!

Superintendent

thelordflasheart wrote:

Superintendent wrote:

So, he's supposed to show respect for a woman who is about to commit a large massacre, just because she is a woman? I think PC has definitely gone too far.

Plus, Bond is hardly the most moral person. He's a killer, a paid hitman. He even uses women as human shields (TB, TSWLM).

He is fun to watch, but he is not a hero. At least not in my book.

You're right, in fact I believe that the law states that you're allowed to sexually assault a woman as long as she's a bad person.

Yeesh...

No, you're right. Bond is a rapist. Otherwise he's a saint, a perfectly moral human being. My bad, sorry.

hisqos

I think this is the proverbial men are from mars and women are from venus. When you pin someone down as in wrestling the point is domination and the aim and end result is submission. When a woman capitulates, in most cases it noes not mean she’s asking for it. Perhaps if after knocking her into the hay he hadn’t trapped her legs, body, arms and mouth but had had made some concessions by rolling over for her to be on top , appearing less vulnerable and willing, there wouldn’t be much of a case to interpret rape.

Oh and forgive me if I’m wrong, but I thought the Galore character is supposed to be a lesbian? If this is the case it renders this scene even more farcical and bilious as Fleming’s and the male ego/fantasy are being pandered to here if the act of being penetrated and impaled by a real man’s shaft is all that is needed to fix these women.

I don’t think Bond romances many of the women in the films before he has his way with them and from my pov the character hasn’t acted much differently in Skyfall. Creepy would be if their first encounter was in the shower. I and many others just can't buy into the moans about the narrative leap.

BAIN123

If you want to qRX

Getafix wrote:

BAIN123 wrote:

Bring back John Glen!

Glenn got the job done but I sometimes find his photography and style bland - at least compared to Hunt, Young, Campbell and Gilbert. Plus Glenn wasn't immune to slightly dodgy writing either as you know (parts of LTK)

Maybe its just me not wanting to over-analyse the film but I never had an issue with Bond popping into the shower without a word. He can be sexually cold towards women after all. This was a case of two willing people lusting after one another.

Tuulia

Well put, @hisqos. :-bd

Getafix

Yeah may be. I guess I j

BAIN123 wrote:

If you want to qRX

Getafix wrote:

BAIN123 wrote:

Bring back John Glen!

Glenn got the job done but I sometimes find his photography and style bland - at least compared to Hunt, Young, Campbell and Gilbert. Plus Glenn wasn't immune to slightly dodgy writing either as you know (parts of LTK)

Maybe its just me not wanting to over-analyse the film but I never had an issue with Bond popping into the shower without a word. He can be sexually cold towards women after all. This was a case of two willing people lusting after one another.

Yeah may be. I guess I just found it all a bit perfunctory and boring. Like a lot of the film there is just an assumption that this is what Bond does and it doesn't need any explanation. Not only is this a bit lazy, it also takes a lot of the fun out of the film. There are great scenes in DN and FRWL where the girl is eagerly waiting for Bond when he gets back to his room. There's a bit of banter and then of course the we know what happens next. I just thought they could have had a lot more fun with it.

BAIN123

What about QoS when Bond beds Fields. That didn't even have a proper 'seduction scene'? Bond was in bed with Fields after only 5 mins. I think Bond shagging Servine makes more sense than him snagging Fields.

Getafix

I hated the Fields character and was glad when she died. One of the worst things about QoS.

Ludovico

Tuulia wrote:

I didn't say it's rape, but I said it's close, and unpleasant to watch, and I already explained why. He forces her into that position where she can no longer fight back, and very much forces himself to her, and ignores what she says and does. There is no seduction and he shows zero respect for her. That she then "consents" is just as offensive as his behavior before it - as if that's what would happen. Women love to be forced? Oh yeah... The message is that a woman's (verbal or physical) "no" doesn't mean no, she actually wants the guy whatever she says or does. Guess what happens with that thinking? The scene is far worse than merely "morally ambiguous".

I don't think the scene means that women mean yes when they say no or that they want to be forced into sex. At best it shows that this particular woman, Pussy Galore, who is herself up to this point a morally ambiguous character, enjoyed being seduced in such a way, through a judo fight in the hay, which she started. I think she would have reacted very differently to Goldfinger making a move at her. Of course I cannot get in her head. Maybe she had rape/nonconsent fantasies, maybe she just finds judo chops sexy. In any case, she consented, she did not make love to Bond out of fear, or even physical weakness: she accepted his kiss and embraced him. In fact, not only did she have sex with him, but she also helped him defeat Goldfinger, a man who seemingly never misbehaved towards her.

Getafix

The scene is dated and I totally understand why people dislike it but it was almost 50 years ago and things have changed a lot.

Ludovico

hisqos wrote:

I think this is the proverbial men are from mars and women are from venus. When you pin someone down as in wrestling the point is domination and the aim and end result is submission. When a woman capitulates, in most cases it noes not mean she’s asking for it. Perhaps if after knocking her into the hay he hadn’t trapped her legs, body, arms and mouth but had had made some concessions by rolling over for her to be on top , appearing less vulnerable and willing, there wouldn’t be much of a case to interpret rape.

Oh and forgive me if I’m wrong, but I thought the Galore character is supposed to be a lesbian? If this is the case it renders this scene even more farcical and bilious as Fleming’s and the male ego/fantasy are being pandered to here if the act of being penetrated and impaled by a real man’s shaft is all that is needed to fix these women.

I don’t think Bond romances many of the women in the films before he has his way with them and from my pov the character hasn’t acted much differently in Skyfall. Creepy would be if their first encounter was in the shower. I and many others just can't buy into the moans about the narrative leap.

In the novel, Pussy Galore switches side because... Well because, she discovers that Bond is the real man she can love, or at least lust for. And she became a lesbian after being raped. So it is more complex than simply a question of having sex with a man, real or not. In the novel she switches side and orientation because of Bond's heroic actions, in the movie it is partially (at least to me) because he appeals to her conscience. And while there is undoubtedly an aspect of taboo wish fulfillment fantasy in the scene (turning a lesbian straight), it is NOT a rape, it is NOT a plea to forceful sex, it is NOT a sexual assault.

Fleming was allegedly into S&M, that does not make him Sade.

Shardlake

It's a Bond film not Chinatown, the series is full of this kind, of thing, it's just the praise lavished on this film is unlike any that ever was before at least not retrospectively that is (GF).

I personally couldn't give a damn narrative leap or not I found it hugely entertaining and all this dissecting is getting a little tiresome now, we've established who likes it and who doesn't all though I can guarantee certain members who said they liked it but can't bring themselves to say it's was one of the best will start to dislike it as well due to lavish praise others are giving it.

You are reading far too much into it, it's like I didn't like at all and I'm going to tell you why and ruin it for you because you are all sheep and my opinion is so much more valid because I'm subjective about it, you aren't your opinion is as bad as those who praise it for infinitum.

If I was one of those who didn't it like some of you I'd have moved my energies onto something else by now but some of you it's a full time hobby.

Tuulia

@Ludovico - you see that as "seduction" :-O Ok, we'll never understand each other on this, that's for sure.

Ludovico

Tuulia wrote:

@Ludovico - you see that as "seduction" :-O Ok, we'll never understand each other on this, that's for sure.

Did she consent? Then it is seduction, de facto. Plain and simple. Whether or not it is what you consider seductive, or what I consider seductive is irrelevant. Had Pussy Galore been forced physically or out of fear, then yes, it would not have been seduction. And of course other women would not have been seduced this way. But this was not the case here. Yes there is a notion of fantasy and wish fulfillment in the scene. Yes there is a notion of taboo in the scene, just like there are in many Bond movies.