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
Yeah, because we're more aware of it. I don't just mean that more people know it exists now - I'm sure someone who grew up in the 60s would say they knew well enough what rape was, for example, but would associate it more with violence and particular (more extreme) circumstances than perhaps the more subtle/insidious ones we've heard more of nowadays, if that makes sense.
But I agree, I think it's difficult to not to feel even slightly uncomfortable when watching those scenes. I feel that way anyway. I'm not sure about the other claim I sometimes hear/read with these sorts of conversations - that's to say someone will claim that nowadays we're much moire prudish about sex, subject to censorship, and that the 60s was far more open/liberal/utopian about these sorts of things... can't quite see that myself personally.
That is one interpretation.
Another interpretation is a man desperate to stop a nuclear weapon from exploding, and in seeing that one of the villain’s henchwomen was not fully evil and fancied him, he saw an opportunity to break her loyalty to her employer. Thereby saving thousands of lives and financial meltdown. This is what I meant about adult choices.
Mass media has always been used to tell people how to behave. From the Hays code in the 20th century, back to religious paintings in church. Currently, we give the message that sexual assault is not an acceptable way for men to behave, so condemn the scene and in a modern film, then I would also condemn. But as GF is now a historical film, it is what it is.
In another 20 years, social messaging may move on, and decree that throwing an electric device into a man’s bath is unacceptable in any context. But at present, that is deemed ok.
The question is whether we view GF in absolute terms - was Bond correct in doing what he did, or do we view it in terms of how we told how to behave.
The flip side of that, is my mum saw it in ‘64 and didn’t like the scene— as I’m sure many women also may’ve felt, but, who were they going to talk about it at that time?
In 1964 Hollywood was run by men doing what Weinstein was put away for.
It’s not just as simple as saying, it was the just times… unless we are honest and say it was still a man’s world, the prototype Weinsteins were running offices, and dental businesses and the film industry. Women of my mother’s age will tell you how many times their bottoms were tapped, and how they hated it. But, once again, who were they to go to? Human Resources?
So there’s just a touch of rose coloured glasses going on at the moment… that scene was, and is, a little more complicated than mutual foreplay and “fun”…
Men saw it one way, and I’m sure some women, like my mother, hated it as much as they hated unwanted taps to the bottom.
I suppose the issue is we only have our modern perspective to view this film from. We can't really excuse it as much as we simply have to admit that, as with many things, the past is a different place and they do things differently. In many instances we know much more than they did. Doesn't mean it can't be criticised, but it's part of what makes GF the film it is.
But to think that this scene was two adults having a “gay old time “ is disingenuous. I think the men of yesterday saw it one way, and I have a feeling that some very aware women saw it another way (those who hated the obvious and unwanted attention; but once again, they had no one really to turn to about complaints of this nature… That type of safety net we have today was started pre-Goldfinger era and slowly, over the decades, and with more and more independence being given to women, change started to take place…. I mean, a short decade before Goldfinger we had Lucille Ball, at first, being forced to cover-up her pregnancy on her TV show, and the word “pregnancy” wasn’t allowed to be uttered (The Biow advertising agency flatly told Desi, 'You cannot show a pregnant woman on television.”— Entertainment Weekly)).
We’ve come a long way, but taking off the rose coloured glasses for a second, think about all the Lucille Balls out there, in 1964, who saw the barn scene. Did they *really* see it as playful foreplay and fun between two adults?… Ask your mothers and grandmothers if they’re still with us…
I'd say that's a scene which, for all its flaws, understands and depicts the dilemma Bond is placed in. Brosnan's Bond comes across as conflicted about even having to point the gun at Elektra, someone who he previously fell in love with, and the only reason he kills her is because she starts to tell Renard Bond has escaped (which could in turn accelerate his terrorist attack). The tragic music even swells as M looks sad and Bond strokes her hair (it's a bit overdone if anything).
I'm not quite sure how it's similar to the barn scene in GF. It's not even presented as a triumphant moment for Bond, and is very much a tragic one. Elektra of course is a very particular villain who Bond fell in love with, so it's presented differently than the typical Bond villain death... so yeah, I'm a bit lost as to your train of thought here...
Well said @007HallY … it was by no means a “win” for Bond. She was the enemy, and there was no choice.
Comparing it to the barn scene is apples to oranges. There could have been plenty of ways and plenty of time to thwart Operation Grandslam, but the writers put the barn scene in there for “titillation”; if anything, turning a woman to the good side, by appealing to her “maternal instincts” was lazy’ish writing. Sleep with Goldfinger’s right hand lady, and, as Fiona mocks in the very next movie “she returns to the side of right and virtue”…. It seems they were even laughing at the barn scene just a few months later…
But Bond had sex with her, and didn’t kill her.
It’s not the point he had sex with her, it’s that he really did force himself on her, and as Fiona so rightly inferred, Pussy was so taken by the tryst that she returned to the side of right and virtue.
It’s a silly concept.
It’s a deus ex machina by way of penis, @Troy . It was lazy writing then. Lazy writing now. And we’ve discussed all the other stuff that came with this scene..
There are 80-year-olds who might have seen this in 1964 and understand this concept in 2024.
It's up there with the Patricia Fearing steamroom scene and the slapping of Tracy. As the kids nowadays say, cringe.
When it comes to a modern awareness, kids with easy access to porn, who sext, create deepfake nudes of their classmates and use the word cringe to describe scenes from Bond films, that seems--how shall we say--hypocritcally cringy.
The difference is that Bond is supposed to be the hero, and his actions are portrayed as righteous since it's ultimately what saves the day.
I'm not sure what point you're making. I resent all these things, as someone from that generation. The current era has its own problems, but does that somehow excuse those of the past?
He is a cynical bastard who works for " free countries"
Fleming's Bond is less cynical but he had a dirty work and he knew this.
The barn scene in Goldfinger was Bond's triumph.
And if you can't see that, then at least you should see that this is deus ex machina via the penis. Bond forces himself onto Pussy. She gives in. She is so swept away by the sex, she turns on Goldfinger? Fiona, in the very next film, basically pokes fun at this concept.
It was lazy writing then, as it's lazy writing today, that hasn't changed.
And @DEKE_RIVERS , what does that have to do with anything?
What? everything!
Yes, that he forces himself on her until she likes it is a pretty terrible message to be sending out to men: that no doesn't really mean no if you're manly, sexy, confident and aggressive enough, and in the end they'll thank you if you force yourself on them (and of course there's the veiled but hinted at message that lesbians don't really mean it either and deep down still fancy men). Bond has been a role model to impressionable young men in terms of style and sophistication (please no 'but he murders people so does that mean people who watch him do murders? I don't think so' replies- that's a logical fallacy) so these kind of messages just aren't great. That we're more aware of that now is not a bad thing.
Yes it was another time and it's a great film etc. but there's nothing wrong with learning from history and moving on.
Yes it is quite funny to think that the aggressive seduction of Pussy is the one single successful act Bond does in taking down Goldfinger's plan. Killing Oddjob is perhaps the other, but not as crucial.
Apart from Peter's point that perhaps one single viewpoint may not have been universal, I think it's possible to hold both viewpoints simultaneously. It's like driving an Aston Martin DB5 in 2024: I'm sure one can appreciate that it would have been a fast and comfortable luxury car in 1964 and happily enjoy it on that basis, but also feel that it doesn't compare to the equivalent modern car in terms of speed or handling etc. I'm sure if you or I drove one we'd find it pretty hard not to judge it against our own personal cars, despite the fact that they'd been built decades later.
Not sure of your point here- what seems hypocritically cringy? That scene in Tattoo is terrifying and deeply unpleasant, and it's supposed to be. The rapist is not the hero of that film.
Fleming’s Bond was way more cynical than the film versions. It also depends on how you define anti-hero, but generally they’re characters who lack traditionally ‘heroic’ qualities. Often times they’re actually quite villainous - selfish, violent, immoral to quite extreme degrees - but the stories are told from their perspective so we route for them while acknowledging they’re horrid people - Alex from A Clockwork Orange, Humphrey from Lolita, Travis Bikle from Taxi Driver etc. James Bond by contrast gravitates towards the ‘good’ as it were, always essentially doing the right thing, going against antagonists who are evil personified. The novels and some of the films acknowledge his profession is dirty and his vices can be self destructive, but he always saves the day due to a higher duty or, as in something like the TLD short story, a higher sense of morality even. Arguably he’s more a Byronic Hero in the books and the films from TSWLM onwards (especially in the Craig era).
It’s another reason why, when we watch the barn scene from GF, it’s an issue. Bond is the hero of the story. When we see him doing something we are uncomfortable with - the key detail here that it’s being depicted in a way that’s ‘good’ in the film itself - it creates a problem. Bond’s flaws can be acknowledged and he can do questionable things (as was said, no one seems to have issues with Bond being ordered to have sex with Tanya in FRWL or Paris in TND) but the film has to be aware that this is the case.
The issue is rape is a bigger taboo than, you know, killing someone.
Ok… and therefore?
Bond and Jill (I’m beginning to like you, Mr. Bond), was cool.
Despite what some posters believe, many people do not think that gratuitous violence is acceptable - particularly for impressionable young minds.
I am old enough to have seen moral panics about many different things. Currently, the GF barn scene is deemed unacceptable on today’s morality, but violence (particularly if carried out by women) is. Personally I find it ‘wrong’ that women are now seen as legitimate targets for violence, but I am old and set in my ways.
Taro was a failure.
Tatiana was playing him as much as he played her. Once the mission was over, she returned his engagement ring, and presumably returned to SMERSH.
Pussy was the one success.
Patricia was debatable on whether she was a baddy, and didn’t really help much.
Fiona was a failure
Helga was a failure
Irma Bunt - obviously Bond didn’t try…
Thinking more about Guy Hamilton and how he tackled various these scenes across his Bond movies, I do look at the Molly Peters scene in TB (directed by Terence Young of course) where Bond comes on pretty strong in a way we wouldn't approve of now, but how despite that, I would say she is giving some actual playful vibes and it's arguably not quite as one-sided as some other scenes. The direction is knocking the edges off it I'd say. I wonder if someone else like Young had directed GF, the barn scene might not have been quite so much of an assault.