Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Historical critique of Bond and his fandom status
FilipeJota
Brazil
Hi folks!
Well, since I'm new here, allow myself to introduce... Myself (sorry, couldn't resist the Austin Powers joke). My name is Filipe, I'm 26 years old, I've been a Bond fan since I can remember and I'm truly happy and honored to be here, among equals.
I'm starting this discussion to address an interesting issue that came to me during a "polite turmoil" with a fellow Bond fan on facebook, concerning his views of the so called "PC fans", which he dismissed as "no true fans" at all (yes, I know where you think this is going, but don't worry).
He was annoyed by people who thought themselves as Bond fans and yet criticized the character's supposedly misogynistic and homophobic ways. But, as far as I'm concern (and speaking as an historian myself), Bond is in fact a misogynistic, homophobic, imperialist and even a racist character at times; a reflection of his creator's ideology, as well as a time when those issues were not taken seriously or addressed in pop culture. As it looks to me, to deny this is to neglect the whole social and historical landscape in which Bond and his creator were conceived. In fact, that's the main reason why I think the character shouldn't be played by a woman or a black actor.
(Besides, that’s why I personally think the franchise should either end or at least be readapted as a series of “period movies”, taking us to the late 1950’s and early 60’s, since there’s a limit you can adapt the character of James Bond without killing him).
In my view, Bond can be seen as some sort of modern Dom Quixote (a schizophrenic and somewhat pathetic figure, struggling against time as if the "glory days" of the Empire and "traditional values" hadn't faded). He's anachronistic by nature and realizes that, questioning the dull and infant logic between "old" and "new" or "good" and "evil" in Casino Royale. And I know I'm not alone in this, since one of the major themes in the entire franchise, specially the recent entries since Goldeneye, has been the conflict between "old" and "new". As we can see very well in Skyfall, this conflict's resolution tends to be conciliatory, stating that both old and new are required to protect the "free world". Hell, even the dynamic duo of James Bond (England) and Felix Leiter (US) can be regarded as a statement in favor of balance between old and new in western civilization (referring to the "old" and "new" empire; respectively, before and after WWII). To me, Bond represents the conservative naiveté of thinking that "sometimes, the old ways are the best", knowing that eventually he will be replaced, he will fade over time and be killed off (if not physically, symbolically, by the changing values of our time), precisely as a "blunt instrument" was meant to go. His way of coping with that imminent and yet late reality (postponed over 50 years) might very well be his sadistic and self-destructing behavior through excessive consumption of alcohol, cigarette smoking and womanizing (objectified womanizing in this case). By the time when the book of "You Only Live Twice" came out, it reflected it's author (and character) state of spirit, after a long journey of hedonistic and sadistic fantasies.
The thing is, this is a personal reading of mine, and, although may be a little to stretched for some, I think it fits perfectly in several interesting aspects I find fascinating in the franchise is built and its character. Besides, it resonates in other critical reviews of movie critics and historians, as well as the production team (Timothy Dalton, considering his interview in "Everything or Nothing").
However, having said that to my fellow Bond fan, he thought I wasn't a "true fan" as well, since I agreed with the "PC" agenda (although not their conclusions, specifically in respect to James Bond).
Hence, I have two questions for you folks:
1- Do you think one can enjoy something by its artistic and historical value without necessarily agree with its ideology?
2- What you think about this personal reading of mine? Is it a possible and legitimate critique or is it just a bunch of nonsense?
Please, share your personal views and critical readings of the books and movie franchise as well! Surely this would be very productive as a discussion topic, developing new and interesting ways to comprehend this iconic pop culture landmark and its meanings!
Well, since I'm new here, allow myself to introduce... Myself (sorry, couldn't resist the Austin Powers joke). My name is Filipe, I'm 26 years old, I've been a Bond fan since I can remember and I'm truly happy and honored to be here, among equals.
I'm starting this discussion to address an interesting issue that came to me during a "polite turmoil" with a fellow Bond fan on facebook, concerning his views of the so called "PC fans", which he dismissed as "no true fans" at all (yes, I know where you think this is going, but don't worry).
He was annoyed by people who thought themselves as Bond fans and yet criticized the character's supposedly misogynistic and homophobic ways. But, as far as I'm concern (and speaking as an historian myself), Bond is in fact a misogynistic, homophobic, imperialist and even a racist character at times; a reflection of his creator's ideology, as well as a time when those issues were not taken seriously or addressed in pop culture. As it looks to me, to deny this is to neglect the whole social and historical landscape in which Bond and his creator were conceived. In fact, that's the main reason why I think the character shouldn't be played by a woman or a black actor.
(Besides, that’s why I personally think the franchise should either end or at least be readapted as a series of “period movies”, taking us to the late 1950’s and early 60’s, since there’s a limit you can adapt the character of James Bond without killing him).
In my view, Bond can be seen as some sort of modern Dom Quixote (a schizophrenic and somewhat pathetic figure, struggling against time as if the "glory days" of the Empire and "traditional values" hadn't faded). He's anachronistic by nature and realizes that, questioning the dull and infant logic between "old" and "new" or "good" and "evil" in Casino Royale. And I know I'm not alone in this, since one of the major themes in the entire franchise, specially the recent entries since Goldeneye, has been the conflict between "old" and "new". As we can see very well in Skyfall, this conflict's resolution tends to be conciliatory, stating that both old and new are required to protect the "free world". Hell, even the dynamic duo of James Bond (England) and Felix Leiter (US) can be regarded as a statement in favor of balance between old and new in western civilization (referring to the "old" and "new" empire; respectively, before and after WWII). To me, Bond represents the conservative naiveté of thinking that "sometimes, the old ways are the best", knowing that eventually he will be replaced, he will fade over time and be killed off (if not physically, symbolically, by the changing values of our time), precisely as a "blunt instrument" was meant to go. His way of coping with that imminent and yet late reality (postponed over 50 years) might very well be his sadistic and self-destructing behavior through excessive consumption of alcohol, cigarette smoking and womanizing (objectified womanizing in this case). By the time when the book of "You Only Live Twice" came out, it reflected it's author (and character) state of spirit, after a long journey of hedonistic and sadistic fantasies.
The thing is, this is a personal reading of mine, and, although may be a little to stretched for some, I think it fits perfectly in several interesting aspects I find fascinating in the franchise is built and its character. Besides, it resonates in other critical reviews of movie critics and historians, as well as the production team (Timothy Dalton, considering his interview in "Everything or Nothing").
However, having said that to my fellow Bond fan, he thought I wasn't a "true fan" as well, since I agreed with the "PC" agenda (although not their conclusions, specifically in respect to James Bond).
Hence, I have two questions for you folks:
1- Do you think one can enjoy something by its artistic and historical value without necessarily agree with its ideology?
2- What you think about this personal reading of mine? Is it a possible and legitimate critique or is it just a bunch of nonsense?
Please, share your personal views and critical readings of the books and movie franchise as well! Surely this would be very productive as a discussion topic, developing new and interesting ways to comprehend this iconic pop culture landmark and its meanings!
This discussion has been closed.
^ 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 can't say I've given this much thought really, but just in passing, I would answer your questions as follows:
1. Yes. I think it's possible to appreciate something without agreeing with its ideology. I do that all the time and try not to confuse my personal feelings on something with its artistic merit which I try to objectively assess.
2. I like what you've written. It's one way of looking at it, and it's nicely supported. I'm certain there are other views too.
Regarding the series and its future: In my humble view, there are two ways to go about this.
1. One is to put Bond into his 'period' box as you suggest, thereby allowing a strict interpretation of the character as per the novels and early films. As you note, this will allow the character's traits to be more fully explored without raising the ire of sensitive types. We have recently been discussing this on the B25 Production thread.
2. The other way is to move him forward with the times, as the film makers have done over the years, but still keep him as a bit of an anachronism. So essentially as values and norms progress, Bond progresses too, but he remains slightly behind the times. Slightly regressive. As an example, he smoked in the novels and in the early films. Smoking is considered filthy these days. So he doesn't smoke any more. He arguably forced himself on Pussy in GF. Can he get away with such a move now? Not likely. However, he can still get away with stepping into Severine's shower, given that she told him where she would be (and invited him to her yacht). The Brosnan Bond in GE is a far less aggressive character than the Connery Bond in DN, but he's still pretty old school for the 90s (witness how he continues to be surprised by Natalya's prowess).
So it's possible to allow the character to move with the times while still retaining his conservatism. Perhaps it's in fact essential, given we appear to be moving towards a more matriachal (or at least equal society). Perhaps Bond has a place as a bastion of old fashioned patriachal values. Furthermore, in a time of uncertainty for Britain, itself a nation in relative economic decline facing new challenges, Bond represents a flicker of the old greatness. So as a character he is as important and as needed as ever, I'd say.
(Firstly, I’d like to thank you for your kind welcome and reply, as well as apologize in advance for the length of my following commentary!)
Indeed, Bond has survived for over 50 years adapting to his audience, but I don’t think this adaptation is limitless, as if he could go on forever. Especially in this case, in which we’re not talking about cigarettes and alcohol, but values and mentality. How much can you keep a hero “slightly regressive” in this context of psychological and behavioral change? Sure, some things are the same (nationalism, capitalism and the “free World” vs. “bad guys” image are not likely going to fade any time soon), but gender and sexual critique not only aims one of the most fundamental traits of the character’s identity, but also the franchise’s itself and its inner meaning in social imagery (precisely regarding the stereotypical concept of masculinity, which finds no large incentive nowadays).
Consider the narrative structure of the movies, which often portray or treat women in a very violent fashion (despite an apparent “progress” according to some). Severine, in the same way as Andrea Anders and Paris Carver, was killed once her purpose of introducing the villain was fulfilled – not mentioning the long line of leading ladies who were brutally murdered and/ or tortured for the sake of the plot or Bond’s unsensitiveness/ recklessness, causing little to no reaction in terms of character development and plot twists. Also, Severine – as many women in Bond movies and novels – is one more of those classic examples of tragic history of sexual and psychological abuse at the hands of a sadistic villain, who either “emancipate” themselves through sexual activity with a “real man” (protagonist) or ends up killed by the indirect actions of an equally sadistic hero who uses them for his gain (once more, the image of Bond and the villains tend to equal each other, although in different manners). The sexual abuse comment should have served as a warning to Bond in the sense of not expecting sex at all, considering also the fact that sex wasn’t even implicitly mentioned in the dialogue with Severine. She invited him to her boat, not her shower; and yet he suddenly appears from behind her, when she was already naked and, thus, utterly vulnerable (when she thought he wasn’t coming anymore).
The problem is not quite a character who despises and objectifies women – or even a plot which continuously subjects its female and/ or male characters to violence and sexual abuse (like Game of Thrones, for instance). The problem is that, from the ethical and ideological standpoint of today’s standards, having a “hero” – in the classic “good guy” vs. “band guy” context – behaving like that, in a narrative structure that favors and glorifies these actions as “badass” or even “necessary” to “counterbalance” the cultural changes, eventually will become unsustainable. In short, is not about what you show to the audience, but “how” and to what narrative purpose you do so.
Bottom line, Bond’s misogyny, far from an innocent and nostalgic recall to a not distant past (treasured by many who seek to escape or deny today’s political trends) or – most importantly – a “necessary” tool for keeping balance between “old” and “new” values in the present, is a expressive reminiscence of an infamous period when certain groups of people had no voice to offer their share of counterbalance to these hegemonic ideas, which still hold up and affect people’s lives. Furthermore, in this context and as I see it, balance is not a possibility at all, since those two sets of ideas and beliefs are diametrically opposed, demanding a resolution which necessarily favors one over the other. And that’s ok, that’s how social change happens, that’s how History evolves – not necessarily for the “better” (although I think it is in this case), but certainly according to new and urging demands which accumulate over time.
The same can be said at some level about the nationalism in Bond. I myself am against all forms of nationalism (or its euphemism, “patriotism”), either from left or right. It was one of the most nefarious and dangerous ideological concepts of late 19th and 20th centuries, directly or indirectly responsible for things which range from political, ethnical and cultural discrimination to two World Wars. As I see it, it only serves as a pretext to justify the most atrocious policies. In the case of James Bond, not many people seem to remember that the British Empire was one of the bloodiest and despotic empires in History, engaging in the most diverse and perverse forms of atrocities, physical as well as symbolic (by dominating and alienating foreign cultures from their languages and traditions of their own). So, I don’t think this nostalgic feeling towards the “great Empire” is as healthy as the Bond movies and novels lead us to think. We’ve got to put the Bond character and his stories in historical perspective and consider the fact that Fleming was a conservative and imperialist Englishman, who resented the lost of prestige and power of Britain – prestige and power which favored, essentially, he and his society, but not others which were under their direct rule or influence. It’s no wonder the stupendous success of Skyfall in a time when conservative leaders urge the population to “keep calm and carry on” (as if they said “when the sky falls we’ll stand tall and face it all”), conjuring the unconscious memory of their “finest hour” at WWII – the English Empire at its peak! (That’s why I think Skyfall is the most interesting Bond film of all; it was able to recreate this historical flemingian nostalgia and resentfulness like none other, urging for the balance between “old” and “new” in this conservative perspective, as I said before).
Anyways, that’s why I think Bond’s anachronistic saga should end, possibly readapting the character in his historical context – which would give him more freedom to expose his traits, as you putted it, although still limited to some ethical boundaries. As stated above, it's not about “what” is represented, but rather “how”. Well, the problem is that the “how” can either define or destroy the identity of James Bond and his franchise.
(You can realize that this was some sort of personal confession from someone who’s equally liberal and irrevocably enchanted by the Bond universe and every discussion related to it. I am a very unusual Bond fan, I suppose! Thank you very much for reading, I know it wasn’t easy! Hahaha Cheers!)
I agree that we live in an especially sensitive time - one where the relationship and social norms between sexes are undergoing change. Could it be a sea change moment? Perhaps, but it wouldn't be the first time. Bond was launched at the height of the sexual revolution after all, and has always been a controversial character. As long as there are differences between the sexes (and hopefully there always will be despite medical advances and social pressures which may one day be able to erase or downplay that), then I think there will be a place for Bond. To a degree he is there to fulfill a fantasy as much as to fit within and conform to reality and norms. He is as much an outdated male fantasy as he is a female one. Given the sensitivity at this moment, the producers will just have to tread more lightly for the time being, that's all.
So I think Bond can survive as a stylized form of masculinity, as defined by the parameters of the specific timeframe. Such parameters will of course shift progressively with time. Will the character be 'watered down' as a result? Definitely, and regrettably.
I believe Broccoli has recently said that it is his heroism and loyalty which define him now, along with superficial elements such as the cars, watches, glamour etc. It's clear to me that she has emphasized these elements since she took over from Cubby in the 90's (so much so that they now build bespoke watches and cars for the film). More recently, both she and Craig have also tried to downplay his other less savoury attributes in interviews. Do I agree with them? Not really, and sincerely hope that they both just say what they say in order to keep the media hounds at bay.
I agree that certain women are treated as disposable pleasures - eye candy inserted to move the narrative forward and then discarded once the purpose has been achieved. However, I think the franchise and audience recognize this. It's been the case since the start of the series, and is not something only symptomatic of Bond. Despite this, and to a degree, I'd argue that the disposability of characters isn't confined only to women. There are many interesting men in this franchise who are discarded once their narrative purpose is complete. Saunders, Kerim, Mathis etc. etc. The only difference is that Bond, as a heterosexual, doesn't sleep with them first. So I believe death is just an acceptable and even expected element in a stylized spy fantasy franchise. It's par for the course. I'd say the franchise was ahead of its time in some respects. For example, Miss Taro in the original film wasn't killed, but rather was arrested. She was a smart but devious woman - a character we can relate to even today. Furthermore, I'd say that Bond films were also early showcasers of liberated and intelligent leading women. Characters like Pussy, Anya, Holly etc. were all ahead of their time, both sexually and in terms of their abilities. Were they sexy and glamorous too? Yes, of course, but then so was Bond, at least prior to Craig's more workmanlike, working class, tight suit blue collar iteration. If there is a concern, it's that with Craig, the producers have tried to root the series more in reality rather than high fantasy. That poses a risk, because then viewers are more likely to expect the films to conform to social norms. The more he tries to conform, the more they expect him to.
I don't think Bond has ever been an epitome of good behaviour though. He has always been a reflection of outdated, stylized and exaggerated male fantasy, set in the context of the spy realm. Such an environment allows for mystery and intrigue, and certain liberties. I'm not condoning such behaviour or even suggesting that it should continue. Rather, I'm saying that I believe it's still possible for Bond to straddle that fine line between unacceptable and acceptable when it comes to the opposite sex. Will it be more difficult going forward? Perhaps, but that's part of the challenge. As long as there remains sexual tension and the potential for misunderstanding between the sexes (and I propose that there always will be), then there is a place of this in a Bond film. It may just have to be approached more playfully and 'PG' (or is that 'PC'), that's all. I think they did an excellent job of winking at it all in GE (M scene) and also in CR (train scene). Campbell's films seem to acknowledge Bond's outdated values best, while still having strong women characters (Natalya and Vesper).
There will always be an element of British identity, history and nostalgia wrapped up in the character of Bond. He is arguably their most famous and long lasting cultural export, apart from the English language. As you rightly said, his 'old fashioned' behaviour stems from the creator's own personal experiences and sensibilities, which he has imparted to the character. Again, I believe it will always remain in the characterization. It's just a question of how often it is acknowledged and in what way. As you noted, SF did a great job of weaving it in, as did QoS (Bond and Felix conversation about 'Brits' cutting up the world) and TLD briefly (when Kamran's men dismissively laugh at Bond's comment that he works for the British Government). Again, it's all a question of how this is approached. If it's done tongue in cheek, then it can still work. I don't believe it needs to be ignored - it just mustn't be taken too seriously.
I'm open to a 'period' adaptation, but as I said on another thread I think it will create more problems by boxing the film makers in. One film may work, but I'm not sure keeping him in the past will be popular. I still believe Bond can remain current, as he always has. I agree though that 'how' the character is presented will be very important going forward, and perhaps more important than 'what' is presented. The actor selected post-Craig is crucial to that. He must be someone very likeable and I think needs a defter and lighter touch than Craig, so he can still push the boundaries of acceptable behaviour while not raising the anger of the sensitive.
I've enjoyed reading your thoughts. It's a bit deep for me, but has certainly given me things to think about. Whatever happens, I'm sure you and I both want Bond to survive and thrive, no matter what era he ends up in.
Bond may play fast and loose with the ladies, and have the most negligible morals, but he is changing with the times. Slowly but surely.
21st century Bond isn't misogynistic ( M?) or homophobic. And if he is a racist then no one has told Moneypenny or Leiter.
Craig/ Bond is a different creature to Connery/Bond (who could be accused of being misogynistic, homophobic, imperialist and racist ) or Moore/Bond who was an out of control womaniser. Yes he climbed into Severine's shower, and seduced an emotionally wrecked Lucia in Spectre, but these moments are more and more isolated and can be constantly tweaked to appease modern audience sensibilities.
But the answer is not to send Bond back in time to a bygone era, and have a Bond in the late 50s acting as Bond would have done back then. Mainly because characters like Quarrel would still not be acceptable, and Bond tumbling Pussy in the barn would still look awkward, regardless of the era it's set in. 'He was a man of his times and should be respected as such' wouldn't be an argument for his behaviour.
As we speak TV shows with historical settings are already re-writing history in order to encompass black actors but ignore racial stereotypes and racist behaviour. Something like The Frankenstein Chronicles with its early 19th century setting has a black actor in a main role of a police officer (likely?) and his colour is not used as a plot device, so there is no racism in the show. As such, the show doesn't reflect what black people went through in those days, it's effectively rewriting history.
Put Bond into the 50s/60s and you won't be given freedom to return Bond to his racist/misogynist roots. All we will have is a 20th century Bond with 21st century values.
Film Bond is not Book Bond. They separated long ago. Film Bond is an action hero, a pulpy cartoon character who beats up baddies, and wins the girl. Why do we want to over think where (or indeed if) he belongs in modern society.
If he belongs on our screens in 2018/19 will be decided by the cinema going public. Bond will carry on if Joe Public says he will.
It's a bunch of postmodern nonsense.
Let's start from the top.
From Webster:
Definition of misogyny
: a hatred of women
Anyone who claims Bond hates women is, frankly, insane. If he hates women, he does a bad job of showing it, considering how often he goes out of his way to save them even at risk of the mission or his own life. Even book Bond isn't that extreme for the time - he'll just as readily call someone a stupid bastard as he does a silly bitch.
And how exactly is Bond homophobic? He treats Wint and Kidd as any other villains, and coyly plays along with Silva in Skyfall.
"Imperialist" is a loaded term which I'll ignore, as your definition will be as hard to nail down as smoke.
As for racism, in the books he's pretty contemporary (now outdated, of course), in the films he doesn't show any contempt for other races, so...why bring it up? He's readily a friend of Quarrel (very much so in the books), and he's just as eager to sleep with Rosie Carver in LALD as he is with Solitaire, so...
I think the audience has been beaten over the head enough with that storyline, honestly. It was weak in Skyfall and annoying and lazy in Spectre. It's an attitude that sprung up shortly after the end of the Cold War (making its inclusion in GoldenEye relevant) but which ended after 9/11 (making its continued existence tiresome).
Bond does those things because he enjoys them, and because he has a tough job. ("Objectified womanizing" sounds like the latest made up Woke™ terminology).
If I'm a longtime member of a club, and someone new comes in and begins to critique the decor, policies, and even the other members, it is quite understandable that I would be annoyed. This is no different from the "fans" of Star Wars who watched the most recent film and rushed to declare that the rest of the franchise was "always quite mediocre" and how the new film was The Best™. They may consider themselves fans, but I don't.
GOT is garbage. It's squalor from the dark, dim mind of an author who knows nothing of heroism due to being a coward.
In ten years the Marvel Cinematic Universe has grossed $17.45 billion dollars telling classic good guy vs bad guy, Truth, Justice, and The American Way™ stories. Even adjusting for 2018 inflation rates, twenty four Bond films across fifty-three years only managed $16.3 billion. That's quite a lot of recent money for something "unsustainable". I think you meant to say "Something postmodernism doesn't like because it doesn't fit the narrative".
It also put men on the moon, liberated millions from tyranny, resulted in historically low levels of poverty, illiteracy, and historically high levels of life expectancy, but you do you, I guess?
It also led to the creation of the world's most benevolent 'empire' and the longest period of sustained relative peace in history. Can't have been all bad.
It actually is a bit of a wonder, given the pants-on-head retarded nature of the plot, which required idiocy from nearly all involved. If I were teaching a screenwriting course, it would be an example of what not to do. Eon did a good job marketing the 50th Anniversary.
To wrap up, welcome, you're entitled to your opinion, but boy is it an uninspired and tired one.
I actually think that's less to do with Natalya being a woman, and more to do with the fact that A: when they first meet she's reacting hysterically to everything and B: She's a computer wizard numbers type, the kind Bond has been against throughout the film, not due to gender, but due to the fact that he perceives they don't understand his job. (a misunderstanding Natalya engages in herself) Natalya's character development in the film isn't the best - we go from nerdy programmer to Action Hero that hijacks helicopters in no time at all.
Bond is in fact a misogynistic, homophobic, imperialist and even a racist character at times; a reflection of his creator's ideology, as well as a time when those issues were not taken seriously or addressed in pop culture.
James Bond treats women with utmost care and sympathy, that's why they want to sleep with him. Tell me an example of Bond sexually molesting a girl or forcing her to abortion (You can have Michael Caine's Alfie if you want an example for the latter, or for a misogynistic man). On the other hand, Ian Fleming's heroines are truly self-reliant and a valuable help for Bond in the story. Take Gala Brand, for example. In the films, look at Elektra King: she used both Bond and Renard for fools. The Bond films and novels did a LOT to empower women despite Fleming's alpha male antics proper of the time. Probably a relative of yours living in the 1950s also tought like him.
I have never seen Bond downgrading someone for being gay. On the contrary, in Anthony Horowitz's Trigger Mortis Bond has an homosexual ally.
Imperialist? Well, I can't argue on that one. He does everything for Queen and Country and in many situations for the whole world.
Racist? How many black actors have worked in the franchise? We had a black Leiter and a black Moneypenny. Bond was more than kind with his black friend Quarrel in the novels - the rest may be Fleming's way to see the world in the 1950s, but you can tell he never patronized Quarrel in Live and Let Die or Dr. No and he's a valuable help troughout both missions.
My advice, Filipe, is that if you think SO BAD of James Bond, you can find a thousand cinematic or literary heroes around. Why wasting your time in a Bond forum?
You want to be a 21st century moralist? Try to tackle today's videogames first. You can find a lot of "racist, homophobic, misogynist" examples in those games who are the trend in today's perfect world and that the perfect PC kids play all day long.
Well, look at todays world. You have men cheating their wives for decades and making a speech on how he totally loves her and the strenght of their bond (and viceversa). To that extent, it's not a surprise that "Bond fans" hate James Bond and that "SW fans" hate Star Wars. I would love them going to a bar crowded of Yankees fans (wearing a Yankees t-shirt and cap) and shout a sh*tload of insults to the team, claiming the Meats are far better (among other things). They'll probably last less (much less) than the fake Bond fans over here.
If you are horrified for Bond's antics, stay away of any kind of Bond fandom. Anyone's entitled to hate James Bond, but from there to piss Bond off in Bond forums, that's a really negative attitude.
I've been a Bond fan since January 31st, 1998 (20 years, 7 months). From that day on, Bond has been related to wonderful friends, and experiences. Too late to worry about the Austin Powers joke. The whole thread IS an Austin Powers joke as is your badmouthing of this character honoured in this site. I'm afraid you're a sheep who has gone to the wrong flock. Go change the world by letting Lula out of prison instead of degrading a fictional action hero, shamefully you can't do it on my FB wall anymore. And please, do change your avatar to a Jason Bourne image, I know you love him far more than Bond and represents your 21st century values. You told me that two years ago when Mr. Damon was throwing bricks to our franchise and you went on to agree with him (again, on my FB wall).
Thanks for pointing this out, Birdleson. Swapped "homaged" for "honoured", which sounds better. You know, it's hard when someone touches a character that has been a companion to you in many ways and changed your mood when you had a rough day ;)
I’m actually happy for your response and I sincerely apologize for my approach that day. Maybe it was too direct, but I didn’t mean nothing personal by it. The thing is, we’re not talking about something that has only one way to be appreciated – being that your way or the “highway”. Isn’t possible to enjoy something in different ways and for different reasons? Isn’t it worth to discuss those differences and perspectives so we can learn more and develop our own views towards something we enjoy? Isn’t that precisely what discussions are for, exchanging ideas, concepts and critiques – good or bad – about things we like, as much unusual or subversive it may appear? Bond doesn’t belong to you, me or anybody else; it belongs to pop culture, movie, literature and the whole historical and social landscape of the 1950s onwards. Nobody has the monopoly of meaning and people can enjoy things without ideologically agreeing with it, either for its artistic, cultural, historical and personal importance (which is also my case; I'm a Bond fan since I saw Tomorrow Never Dies and played Goldeneye in the 1990s, Pierce Brosnan is still a personal hero of mine).
Having said that, James Bond and his fandom are not a religious sect. He’s a character like any other, with historical, social, political and cultural issues related to it, as well as contradictions and deepness which develop through the books and movies, either you agreeing with it or not. Pretending that James Bond is a flawless hero archetype is to reduce his complexity to a childish cartoon; that is, to my view, the true harm inflicted to this character.
I’ll answer the other interesting points you mentioned as soon as I can, but for now I just wanted to defend myself against your personal attacks (which I couldn’t do, comprehensibly, on your facebook page), as well as objectively criticize your fanatic stance towards the franchise and its character (which, to my view, blinds you of many interesting insights that are abundantly productive for any good journalist such as yourself).
(By the way, I was really amused by your comment about Lula. I don’t particularly support him, but if I be forced to, depending on the next couple of Months, I’ll gladly do so. Cheers!)
That said I do concur with most of what you and @MooreFun say. Bond isn't Mysogenist. He loves women. If you read the novels carefully you'll find he's still looking for his one true love. He finds her in Gala Brand, only to find her beeing engaged to another man. He's trying to restrain his feelings for the 20y/o Honey whom seduces him, not the other way around. He finds true love with Vesper only to be betrayed, doubly so as she not only breaks his heart but also betrays what he stands for.
I can go no and on and on. In the end you'll see that all the women play one major role: they represent the peaceful (chicken farmer's) life Bond will never have because he can't live a normal life. The thing he aspires the most, a wife, is kept from him because of himself.
In this he is the tragic hero.
One could've done with a homosexual hero, but as it was that was probably a bridge too far in the fifties and as Bond is an enlargement of Fleming's personal fantasies it wasn't going to happen.
Racism idem ditto. He's not only friends with Quarrel but he's very much impressed by Mr. Big and he's not the only one. M has the same sentiment. The only reason people now see it as racism is because they fail to understand it's written from the perspective of those who had little dealings with people of (any) colour. The Japanese are described in exactly the same manner.
When it comes down to Nationalism, you can see it as a 'bad'force but you'd be ignoring human nature, where we all search for (relatively) small groups of people we have things in common with. Language and culture are very strong aspects in this. It isn't bad, it's an ancient survival technique. Like religion (which has similar qualities) it has been abused, but so have many other basic instincts.
For what is worth, I have a couple of friends who are completely socialist and leftist who are Bond fans and would never go trashing the character they love the way you did. Besides your "homophobic, racist, and misogynist" are completely losing the point. Plus schizophrenic, bigoted, pathetic and other calumny.
I never said he's a flawless hero. I'm not analyzing him morally, because that way every cinematic and literary hero would have the same flaws. I mean, action heroes are wrong since they pull out a gun and shoot someone if you want to put it that way. Just that this is the wrong place to throw bricks against Bond, go to write something in The Guardian if you want. Like I said, you are saying nothing of the videogames released during the 2010s where you can kill innocents, rape women, and degrade anyone of every race to score points.
I could objectively criticize your "fanatic stance" to the 21st century "perfect" morals filled of double standards and how you ridiculously apply them to a fictional character representing "old values". All the things you accused Bond of are proper of any of today's heroes, but you -as the people from Guardian and other places- keep attacking a character just because he's been created with 1950s values.
Of course. In my FB discussions there aren't Bond haters. Sorry, carry on with this thread. Whatever.
Before committing to that I checked some sources.
As happens in English over time, "homaged" has taken on a life of its own.
To the topic. Yes. Witness a non-smoking, married, faithful/monogamous soul like me who's never killed another human being GREATLY enjoying James Bond. Of course you can see him as you choose, but I don't see Bond as misogynistic, homophobic, imperialist, racist as you proposed. That would really turn me off to the character.
Do I agree with all I see in The Simpsons? Do I want to be like Homer? or like Bart? or like Mr. Burns? No, but I wouldn't go to a fan forum of the show and observe each of the qualities that make Homer a bad father and how the show is perverting everyone (or did back in the day, according to some parents).
I like The Beatles and I'm against the drug abuse (any kind of drugs), but I'd never go to a Beatles forum, open a thread like "A Critic of The Beatles' Ideals and Antics" and then label them with offensive comments and pretend to adore them and crying over anyone telling me "you're not a Beatles fan".
The point is this: leave fiction where fiction is. You have equalty ideals, fight for them outside fiction. Go to every human rights marches, feminist marches and all that, but what do you win questioning a character we all adore?
Is not like that at all, I assure you! I'm not judging the character from his moral and political standpoint in the 1950s (as an historian I’m obliged to comprehend the past, first and foremost, and not simply judge from my subjective moral grounds), I’m questioning the survival of those values in today’s expectations of what a “hero” should look like and/ or act. I respect so much the character that I don’t think he should change his behavior at all; that’s who he is, that’s how his creator envisioned him to be and nobody, no PC or “postmodern” agenda can change that. It seems to me that, either we embrace him as an anti-hero, denying him his fundamental status as a “good guy” and exploring these characteristics as “bad” (once more, according to today’s standards), or we keep pretending that those values and ideas are “okay” today or will be forever so.
Besides, adjectives such as “pathetic, schizophrenic and racist Dom Quixote” must be seen in the context of a critical analysis, not personal or moral judgement. It’s not critical in the moral or political sense of the word (although I can also judge him in those grounds, since I oppose these values, and still respect him and his ideology for what they are), but rather the analytical sense, of a literary, cinematic and historical analysis.
I'm so sorry for that, I'll see to that as soon as I can!
The character is not separated from his social and historical background. Never is and never will be. And I think we can very well discuss those issues as how and in what measure they relate to this character and franchise (so as would be with Batman, Star Wars or whatever) simply because is interesting. Why wouldn't be important and interesting to have these discussions? You speak as if I was some kind of foreign invader, personally committed to destroy everything you love. The truth is much more simple, objective and personal than that. I simply like to discuss those things, specially when related to a character and a franchise I love since I was practically a baby.
I am a Bond fan and exercise my right to have discussions in this forum, where people will not likely block me for disagreeing with them.
And those values will last for generations to come. Of course Bond will follow the whims of time, but men will Always love women, and as long as that's the case our hero has his criptonite, and their demise is his failure and his paying the price for doing what he does.
It's unfortunate how people have taken that quip and run with it.
We know that Judi Dench's M is not what Bond thinks she is - by implied extension, Bond is not what Dench says he is either. One nice trait of the Brosnan era is that she goes from making that statement in GoldenEye, to the following in TWINE:
I have to wonder, knowing how it'd be abused, if the folks at Eon would keep that quip in GoldenEye.
It is a human characteristic to project simplistic stereotypes onto individuals, particularly if there is an element of a person which touches a negative nerve. Bond, due to his profession and predilections, is an easy target. Ultimately he is a complex character who can be interpreted any number of ways depending on one's point of view and perspective. EON's challenge is to continue to shape the public's perception of the character in a way that he remains popular with the masses (this is a money making enterprise of the highest order after all) while satisfying the die hard connoisseurs of the books and films. It's an unenviable task made all the more difficult by the generations who have grown up with this character in his various iterations. We all have our favourites and the next generation will too. One thing I'm certain of: Bond will always survive, even if he may not be the same in the future as he is now.
If you think a character you "love as a baby" is racist, homophobe, pathetic, a schizophrenic Don Quijote, I don't want to even imagine what would you think of a girlfriend! Maybe one night you could tell her "I love you" and hang out with your friends and badmouth her over a couple of beers while at the same time feeling upset whenever someone points out you don't love her.
You called James Bond all that and said that the British were "bloody and despotic". Do I have to remind you that this is a James Bond forum and a British page? I'd feel offended if someone talked like that of my country in my country.
As a matter of fact, Bond has been somewhat separated from his social/historical background. While being representative of England and associated to the British Empire, lately he's become somewhat of a worldwide hero. Most of the times, Bond is saving the ENTIRE world and his enemies are solitary madmens (anarchists, terrorists) with some ties to a political power, or even betraying their government (Zorin to the KGB).
Seeing you are rather anti-imperialist, I remind you that in Quantum Of Solace Bond lines up with a Bolivian agent in order to protect her country from a terrorist/businessman allied to the corrupt CIA. Even back then, Bolivians protested because they tought they'd be seen as terrorists or drug dealers, when they had the "imperialist" Bond on their side!
If they don't block you here, well, this is their place. I personally don't think that's the place to do here. I mean, if I had a friend who invited me to a party where all his relatives are and I start saying terrible things of him, I'd be kicked out even if I tried to "discuss" how... let's say... bad tempered, selfish, greedy, scruffy or dirty my friend is. My friend and his relatives would be very angry.
Seriously, when I wrote that "snowflake Bond fan" thing I wasn't speaking of you. I was talking of people who slightly showed some contempt to Fleming - who is as "guilty" as every other author of the time for their "bigoted" attitudes. But I'm afraid you broke every mould with your speech. Nobody with a little common sense would think you are a Bond fan. It's not even a matter of me saying you're not a Bond fan. It's basically a thing of common sense. I'd even think you changed your name and wrote this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/22/james-bond-danny-boyle-007-spy
Since you are very found of definitions, what exactly is postmodernism to you?
By employing this term as an offense, I assume you would think I’m one of those angry and spoiled PC people who seek to deconstruct fundamental and universal truths long established in Western Society, based solely in subjective and vague criteria, due to my inability – or childish resistance – to conform with objective reality of how things “actually are”.
Well, sorry to spoil your prejudice, but it’s a bit more complicated than that. Postmodernism – a term which itself is controversial – usually derives from specific branches of philosophy concerned with the critique of structures (mainly, universal systems of thought and truth). By that, the point is not so much “deconstructing” that which conventionally we assume as being truth, but rather show that no objective and universal truth exists by itself, being entirely disconnected from human condition. On the contrary, truth, as much objective it can be, It’s always a historical and social construct, expressing subjective values, beliefs, ideas and interests which, for some reason or another, establish themselves as universal and truthful in comparison with other systems of values and thought (which are either influenced or subjected by the hegemonic one). That doesn’t mean that every truth is lie and, therefore, non-existent, but rather that it expresses, always, a subjective judgement of what is considered right or wrong – or better and worse – according to specific groups and social demands in a given place and period in time.
Having said that – and assuming we’re still talking about James Bond –, my attempt of questioning the relevance and adaptation of Bond derives from an inner and most important doubt: being Bond the fundamental expression and validation of those values – for so long considered truthful by themselves (the idea of masculinity, nation, western supremacy and so on) – how much can we expect him to survive before these get substituted by another system of values, beliefs, ideas and thought? How much can Bond adapt without giving up who he is? And, being that the case (since going back in time is impossible), isn’t it better to respect the character in his historical and ideological integrity, ending up his journey or readapting to his time, where he belongs and will always find his most comfortable home?
I’m afraid this definition of misogyny is too restricted and, therefore, incomplete, to say the least. I prefer the more precise and complete definition as stated in Wikipedia, based on “Code, Lorraine (2000). Encyclopedia of Feminist Theories (1st ed.). London: Routledge. p. 346” and “Johnson, Allan G (2000). ‘The Blackwell dictionary of sociology: A user's guide to sociological language’”:
Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny is manifest in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification. Misogyny can be found within sacred texts of religions, mythologies, and Western philosophies.
For future reference, if you are going to look for meanings of ancient and complex concepts, related to social, cultural, political and economic phenomena in human History, I strongly suggest you don’t restrict your search to a simple Dictionary.
As I said do @bondjames , word for word:
Consider the narrative structure of the movies, which often portray or treat women in a very violent fashion (despite an apparent “progress” according to some). Severine, in the same way as Andrea Anders and Paris Carver, was killed once her purpose of introducing the villain was fulfilled – not mentioning the long line of leading ladies who were brutally murdered and/ or tortured for the sake of the plot or Bond’s unsensitiveness/ recklessness, causing little to no reaction in terms of character development and plot twists. Also, Severine – as many women in Bond movies and novels – is one more of those classic examples of tragic history of sexual and psychological abuse at the hands of a sadistic villain, who either “emancipate” themselves through sexual activity with a “real man” (protagonist) or ends up killed by the indirect actions of an equally sadistic hero who uses them for his gain (once more, the image of Bond and the villains tend to equal each other, although in different manners). The sexual abuse comment should have served as a warning to Bond in the sense of not expecting sex at all, considering also the fact that sex wasn’t even implicitly mentioned in the dialogue with Severine. She invited him to her boat, not her shower; and yet he suddenly appears from behind her, when she was already naked and, thus, utterly vulnerable (when she thought he wasn’t coming anymore).
Furthermore, Bond as a character is pretty far from a good example on how to treat women, specially the old ones (like Sean Connery hitting Tatyana in FRWL and asphyxiating the girl in DAF, or George Lazemby slapping Tracy in OHMSS and Roger Moore hitting Anders for information and hiding Goodnight in the closet while he has sex with the former in TMWTGG; not mentioning using them as human shield, forcing kisses with no previous sign of consent, manipulating their feelings in exchange for information – knowing full well that they would be killed or tortured by doing so, etc.) This behavior has been often mentioned and criticized by other characters as well (Alec Trevelyan interestingly reminds Bond of his self-destructive pattern of alcohol and meaningless sex to cope with his personal traumas concerning killing and letting those close to him die; Dominic Greene and M questions the same pattern in QoS; M has her famous monologue about “sexiest misogynist dinosaur” in Goldeneye; Vesper Lynd confronts him saying that he thinks of women as “disposable pleasures, rather than meaningful pursuits”). Also, what does it serve to be saved by him if he’s the one who constantly puts them in danger to begin with? (Something that is amusingly reminded by Madeleine Swann in SPECTRE).
Anyways, to be fair – and as @bondjames reminded us – there are good examples of progressive representations indeed. But progressive is not necessarily subversive. The flemingian archetype of women in the Bond adventures are “exotic” (by that I mean foreign to England or Western Liberal Democracies), frequently traumatized or independent girls who live by themselves. That is, until Bond comes along and "takes charge" somehow, “emancipating” them from trauma, imposing his goals over theirs or even changing their sexual orientation, as in the case of Pussy Galore. After the change, they often stop being that independent as they apparently were. Of course, there’re exceptions which can be actually progressive or even subversive all the way (such as in Thunderball, where you have two of the most subversive girls in the whole series: Domino doesn’t kill Largo for Bond, but for her own reasons and who can forget that marvelous monologue of Fiona Volpe, best female villain in the franchise), but these tend to be very few.
Well, considering the fact that Bond is the quintessential symbol of the heteronormative/ patriarchal ideal of masculinity (that is, based upon what a “real man” should look and act like, as opposed to women or homosexuals), as well as the testimony of George Lazemby in his biographical documentary and “EoN” (by which it is evident that sexuality was a serious issue for getting the role of Bond) and the convertion of Pussy Galore to heterosexuality by a forced kiss of the “right man”, curing her from a “psycho-phatological malady” (as Fleming said in a letter to Dr. Gibson, who contested this so called “cure”), I would say that Bond, although not personally or ostensibly homophobic, represents an idea of masculinity which defines itself by the unacceptance and/ or exclusion of homosexuality – considered a form a social deviance from “normality” (that is, as it “should be”). Homosexuality started to be addressed in a more “positive” light – or, in any case, not too judgmental fashion – only recently.
I think the definition speaks for itself, considering the historical facts I just mentioned, as well as the fact that Bond works for a Queen and country which until this day has territories overseas. Any more doubts of what “imperialism” or “imperialist policies” might signify can be easily answered with a history book or a decent encyclopedia – there’s no easy way to relativize these concepts; overall, they’re pretty clear.
The same logic I’ve just applied for misogyny and homophobia can be applied here, gentlemen. Although people may not be ostensibly racist, cursing people, defending segregation etc., racism also refers to negative or depreciative forms of representing other social, cultural and ethnical groups, often employing stereotypes and caricatures which dehumanize those groups, labeled as “exotic”, “inferior”, “mysterious”, “irrational”, “obscure” etc. The James Bond franchise is a prime example of this approach towards the “other”, opposing these “exotic, mysterious and obscure” types to the “rational, balanced, resolved, technologically superior and civilized” Western hero. If you want to know more about how the English Empire legitimized their rule and power by means of these racist forms of representation, I suggest the Post-Colonial literature, developed mainly by authors whose countries were former English colonies. It’s fascinating. And Bond – as well as the franchise itself in its several forms of representing other cultures –, being a “Her Majesty’s loyal terrier”, couldn’t be immune to this system of thought.
I agree that it’s time to “going back to basics”.
Could be. Still doesn’t invalidate by person reading though.
I’m sorry, do I need a special permit to like 007, be a fan and accept some “ground rules”? Is it a club? If so, please tell me so I can fill in any necessary form, as well as pay any tuitions.
I’m afraid you didn’t get my point. I’m not criticizing the “good guy vs. bad guy” trope per se, but raising the question of what means to be a “good guy” for today’s standards and in what measure Bond can adapt to it.
Well, I strongly disagree and would say you need to read some decent History books urgently. I’ll not extend myself in this topic.
Same as above.
Thank God I don't love any fictional character as a "baby", right? Otherwise I would have to be in therapy or something. You have to understand that, contrary to you, I'm pretty good at balancing my sentimental value and analytical interest towards the franchise – as any good historian, researcher, journalist or art critic should do.
Funny fact, all major imperial superpowers of World History were, most frequently, extremely violent and despotic (no wonder Rebel Alliance struggles against one!). Besides, no country in the World has a perfectly clean record (Argentinians would deny their skelletons in the closet? I myself am brazilian and would never deny that). It doesn't matter the country, if it's your own or somebody else's. Humanity is the same. We have the moral obligation to be critical towards our History, regardless of nationality, learning from our mistakes and collectively think where do we go from now.
It's true. Especially when he's acting alone, he evidently will be less associated with the nationalist motive. And it’s interesting your mentioning of QoS, because, indeed, this film is very “critical” in some aspects – for James Bond standards. They take a considerable amount of risk showing the imperial presence of US in Latin America, financing dictatorships, arm dealers, covert operations, fixed elections and any kind of dirt, as long as it benefits them. We both – latin-americans as we are – can surely relate to that. However, it’s also interesting to note that these “dirty moves” are represented not as a common practice of imperial superpowers such as US or England, regardless of political party or who’s in charge, but rather a result of “bad individuals” making morally wrong decisions in high places (Felix Leiter takes the job of Gregory Bean after all). In short, it’s not that the CIA and the US government are fundamentally hypocrite and inhumane, but rather a “few rotten apples” who unfortunately, from time to time, find themselves in positions of power. The thing is, there’s no rotten apples, the whole bag was built to be that way and that’s how it operates by nature.
It seems to me you have a pretty dysfunctional relationship with a fictional character and I personally don’t think that’s very healthy. You speak as if I attacked you personally, when I simply did a critical and objective analysis of a fictional universe and character. I never attacked you and absolutely have nothing against you. I hope you know that from the bottom of my heart.
Nope, that's my name. Filipe Dantas de O. Jota.
Jota is my last name, but I don't use it on facebook.
The narrative structure of the movie has nothing to do with what the character is doing. I agree, and even complain, about how Bond let Severine die. As for Paris Carver, Bond felt terribly sorry for her death and while he initially was using her to "pump" information, he felt really bad for her death and quickly avenged her. In thousands of movies secondary characters die. Are you gonna tell me Kerim Bey dying was a bad way of portraying men? Or killing M a bad way of portraying old ladies? Bond lives in a dangerous world, he loses the ones he loves and that's where his emotions come in.
If the woman is abused by a sadistic villain, may I remind you the VILLAIN is someone bad that James Bond goes against.
Sure, Severine wanted to have a few drinks, nothing more. So Bond, aka the man placed on a deathtrap in the casino, would have gone to the Chimera boat and say: "Hi, there's a lady here who told me that if survived, we may have some drinks. I wonder why Severine didn't kicked him out if he was that upset. She could have him killed by those two guys by shouting "INTRUDER! INTRUDER!", which would have worked better than a slap in her face. You just have to see the way she embraces him and they all get on a tide of passion. I think you're understimating a girl's feelings for a man like Bond. By calling her "vulnerable", you're even understimating a woman's power to even try to kill Bond as he's in the shower!!
"Furthermore, Bond as a character is pretty far from a good example on how to treat women, specially the old ones (like Sean Connery hitting Tatyana in FRWL and asphyxiating the girl in DAF, or George Lazemby slapping Tracy in OHMSS and Roger Moore hitting Anders for information and hiding Goodnight in the closet while he has sex with the former in TMWTGG; not mentioning using them as human shield, forcing kisses with no previous sign of consent, manipulating their feelings in exchange for information – knowing full well that they would be killed or tortured by doing so, etc.) This behavior has been often mentioned and criticized by other characters as well (Alec Trevelyan interestingly reminds Bond of his self-destructive pattern of alcohol and meaningless sex to cope with his personal traumas concerning killing and letting those close to him die; Dominic Greene and M questions the same pattern in QoS; M has her famous monologue about “sexiest misogynist dinosaur” in Goldeneye; Vesper Lynd confronts him saying that he thinks of women as “disposable pleasures, rather than meaningful pursuits”). Also, what does it serve to be saved by him if he’s the one who constantly puts them in danger to begin with? (Something that is amusingly reminded by Madeleine Swann in SPECTRE)."
Back in the day, slapping a woman was common (or at least, not that shocking). As slapping a kid for bad behaviour. Probably your grandfather slapped your grandmother at least once. I'm not saying is right, just stating that this was a different era and was not uncommon to see. As a matter of fact, Helga Brandt also slapped Bond (like Paris, like Elektra, like Lucia Sciarra). Helga also tied him and almost peels him off with a scalpel. So if you're against violence, be against EVERY KIND OF VIOLENCE. Maybe try the Teletubbies where you can find nice and fluffy things. In both cases of "human shielding", he was doing that with two villains setting a trap for him.
Meaningless sex? I doubt it. He enjoys it and the girls also enjoy it altough there are no feelings involved in the act, so there's some mean to it. You failed to notice the "disposable pleasures" and "sexist, misogynist, dinosaur" are actually an in-joke for the people who question Bond's "morale" and laugh at it. It was done on purpose by EON to laugh at what moralist outsiders were saying and to show the change of times.
Madeleine WAS in danger and without Bond's intervention she would have been killed in the act. Bond followed a lead, it happened to be a woman who was already being targeted (Mr. White didn't kill himself only protect her with the little life he had left), so he didn't put her in danger. More than that, she did want to follow Bond into the mission: "I'm coming with you". "No, I want you alive", said Bond. Same went for Pam Bouvier, he tried to protect his girls and save them from danger altough sometimes they were the only chance to get to a lead.
Many times, Bond wants a woman OUT of the crossfire and in a safe place, but the woman is so feminist that she wants to go to the battlefield (Honey, Melina, Pam, Elektra when she was the "victim").
"Anyways, to be fair – and as @bondjames reminded us – there are good examples of progressive representations indeed. But progressive is not necessarily subversive. The flemingian archetype of women in the Bond adventures are “exotic” (by that I mean foreign to England or Western Liberal Democracies), frequently traumatized or independent girls who live by themselves. That is, until Bond comes along and "takes charge" somehow, “emancipating” them from trauma, imposing his goals over theirs or even changing their sexual orientation, as in the case of Pussy Galore. After the change, they often stop being that independent as they apparently were. Of course, there’re exceptions which can be actually progressive or even subversive all the way (such as in Thunderball, where you have two of the most subversive girls in the whole series: Domino doesn’t kill Largo for Bond, but for her own reasons and who can forget that marvelous monologue of Fiona Volpe, best female villain in the franchise), but these tend to be very few."
Read Trigger Mortis. It's the follow up for Fleming's Goldfinger. You'll notice Pussy is a lesbian once again. You're forgetting Helga Brandt, who pretended to fall for Bond's charms in order to have him killed on the plane. Or Elektra King who manipulated him all the way. Or Miranda Frost who took him to bed in order to unload his gun. Anyway, I don't know why you think they didn't become "independent". Bond didn't remain with them, so after Bond left they could go back to their life and be as independent as they want.
"Well, considering the fact that Bond is the quintessential symbol of the heteronormative/ patriarchal ideal of masculinity (that is, based upon what a “real man” should look and act like, as opposed to women or homosexuals), as well as the testimony of George Lazemby in his biographical documentary and “EoN” (by which it is evident that sexuality was a serious issue for getting the role of Bond) and the convertion of Pussy Galore to heterosexuality by a forced kiss of the “right man”, curing her from a “psycho-phatological malady” (as Fleming said in a letter to Dr. Gibson, who contested this so called “cure”), I would say that Bond, although not personally or ostensibly homophobic, represents an idea of masculinity which defines itself by the unacceptance and/ or exclusion of homosexuality – considered a form a social deviance from “normality” (that is, as it “should be”). Homosexuality started to be addressed in a more “positive” light – or, in any case, not too judgmental fashion – only recently."
So there's homophobe in the Bond films because the hero is strongly heterosexual? That's truly laughable. To me an homophobic person is someone who despises gays or applies some kind of discrimination for their sexual orientation, and I haven't seen that in Bond's persona or in the film's production. As for Fleming, again, homosexuality was forbidden by law in the 1950s, given that he was a man living in that era I'm not surprised or horrified on how he thinks. Besides, I've also heard stories of gays explaining how they turned straight people to their side or straight women to lesbian, but I doubt you see that as "not normal". Regarding the Lazenby case, remember Bond is an heterosexual character and maybe they wanted to see how he reacted and would react onscreen. For a reason, every actor is screentested in fight and romance scenes.
"The same logic I’ve just applied for misogyny and homophobia can be applied here, gentlemen. Although people may not be ostensibly racist, cursing people, defending segregation etc., racism also refers to negative or depreciative forms of representing other social, cultural and ethnical groups, often employing stereotypes and caricatures which dehumanize those groups, labeled as “exotic”, “inferior”, “mysterious”, “irrational”, “obscure” etc. The James Bond franchise is a prime example of this approach towards the “other”, opposing these “exotic, mysterious and obscure” types to the “rational, balanced, resolved, technologically superior and civilized” Western hero. If you want to know more about how the English Empire legitimized their rule and power by means of these racist forms of representation, I suggest the Post-Colonial literature, developed mainly by authors whose countries were former English colonies. It’s fascinating. And Bond – as well as the franchise itself in its several forms of representing other cultures –, being a “Her Majesty’s loyal terrier”, couldn’t be immune to this system of thought."
The same logic? It means you're making up a serious accusation of thin air. Splitting a big sandwich in two halves to make two sandwiches. Just because you consider the British Empire "racist" you are assuming Bond itself is a racist character. Quarrel, Pinder, Strutter, Quarrel Jr., Vijay, Robinson, Jinx, Leiter (Wright), Moneypenny (Harris) are the black allies of Bond troughout the whole saga. I hardly see them as mysterious and irrational. Most of them are valuable to Bond's adventures. Perhaps Quarrel, Pinder and Vijay are more representative of the point you're going to since they're natives, but I can't really see how Bond mistreated them because of their race.
Besides, that’s why I personally think the franchise should either end or at least be readapted as a series of “period movies”, taking us to the late 1950’s and early 60’s, since there’s a limit you can adapt the character of James Bond without killing him
Would make a great headline: "Man Who Loves James Bond Wants The Franchise To End". I'm sorry, but you remind me to people at Law School who hate lawyers but keep on the same career.
The only "limit" I see is for this PC running amok where there'll be a point where no movie, series, videogames, books or any kind of fiction in fear for what any moralist would say. But I see everyday there are more films (and videogames) about drug dealers, hitmen, and really homophobic/misogynistic protagonists. Plus the Central American music that degrades objetifies women all the time. And all of them have great success. So I can't see how Bond can "get killed" for not being apt for this century's "morale" when we have all those morally questionable products!
I agree with you in the sense that Bond's premise as a hero is the idea of self-sacrifice for his job, abstaining himself of living a normal life (with long-standing relationships) to protect Queen and country (and the “free World”). He tries to cope with that through alcohol, cigarette smoking and meaningless sex, forming a self-destructing cycle which precipitates him to a early and lonely death, as a “blunt instrument” he always was meant to die. But that doesn’t invalidate the way he acts or thinks towards women. It can help us to comprehend why he’s like this towards them, giving a whole inner meaning to this issue which is very interesting, but at the end of the day is still sexism and misogyny. I’m not saying he’s a bad person or that he’s got no redeeming qualities or objectives, but he still is who he is. For my comments on misogyny I suggest you read my other answers, since I already expressed myself a lot on this issue.
You criticize EVERYTHING under your standards of political correctness? God, that's really tough. The point is you said you love a character since you were a baby (ok, I admit my mistake) and you use words that are proper of someone who hates the character. Like I said, there are 21st century creations that are much more questionable than James Bond. And that influence our kids much more than him (a game where you can pick up an AK47 and slaughter people on streets).
Funny fact, all major imperial superpowers of World History were, most frequently, extremely violent and despotic (no wonder Rebel Alliance struggles against one!). Besides, no country in the World has a perfectly clean record (Argentinians would deny their skelletons in the closet? I myself am brazilian and would never deny that). It doesn't matter the country, if it's your own or somebody else's. Humanity is the same. We have the moral obligation to be critical towards our History, regardless of nationality, learning from our mistakes and collectively think where do we go from now. [/quote]
Nobody would deny anything, but I wouldn't go and openly tell an American friend about their wars or -to an extent- get here to talk about the Falklands. These are uncomfortable subjects to touch. If I had a Middle Eastern friend I wouldn't question how they treat women, and things like that. It's a matter of respect. Going to a Bond forum to trash Bond, or to a British forum to trash the British, is called trolling to me.
It's true. Especially when he's acting alone, he evidently will be less associated with the nationalist motive. And it’s interesting your mentioning of QoS, because, indeed, this film is very “critical” in some aspects – for James Bond standards. They take a considerable amount of risk showing the imperial presence of US in Latin America, financing dictatorships, arm dealers, covert operations, fixed elections and any kind of dirt, as long as it benefits them. We both – latin-americans as we are – can surely relate to that. However, it’s also interesting to note that these “dirty moves” are represented not as a common practice of imperial superpowers such as US or England, regardless of political party or who’s in charge, but rather a result of “bad individuals” making morally wrong decisions in high places (Felix Leiter takes the job of Gregory Bean after all). In short, it’s not that the CIA and the US government are fundamentally hypocrite and inhumane, but rather a “few rotten apples” who unfortunately, from time to time, find themselves in positions of power. The thing is, there’s no rotten apples, the whole bag was built to be that way and that’s how it operates by nature. [/quote]
Anyway, there you have an example on how Bond's actions are not British representative but world representative.
It seems to me you have a pretty dysfunctional relationship with a fictional character and I personally don’t think that’s very healthy. You speak as if I attacked you personally, when I simply did a critical and objective analysis of a fictional universe and character. I never attacked you and absolutely have nothing against you. I hope you know that from the bottom of my heart.[/quote]
There's nothing disfunctional with adoring a character as people adore a football team and would defend it if attacked. I happen to defend the things I like: a relative, a friend, a girl, a place, a country or a fictional franchise. But I'm afraid there IS something dysfunctional with trashing a character you say you are a fan of. I'm not troubled for you or anyone attacking Bond, I'd simply ignore him. But I lose my mind when someone pretends to like something and attacks it under that facade.
Nope, that's my name. Filipe Dantas de O. Jota.
Jota is my last name, but I don't use it on facebook.
[/quote]
Well, I get there are many Bond fans in The Guardian, like the one who wrote this thing.
I introduced myself just now at the topic discussion you suggested. Once more, sorry for this inconvenience.
And this is where I discard any and all arguments you might make. Citing Wikipedia may be popular among your friends, but it just means no one of letters is going to take you seriously.
Good evening.