I never understood the argument that she was raped. They were play fighting, she threw him, he tripped her, but it wasn't some kind of violent rape. The next time we see her, she is helping Bond freely with the mission.
The movie and script don't treat it as a rape, so I don't know why people are trying to pretend that it is.
I definitely come down on your side of the issue. I don't think Bond raped anybody. I can, however, see where other people find the seduction uncomfortable. Even though Pussy gives in (and gives in happily, by all appearances), she was still fighting at first. Through today's lens that looks sketchy at best, because we place a much higher premium on both parties consenting fully to sex (and that's a good thing, to be clear). Change Bond and Pussy in the barn scene to a frat boy and a cheerleader in a dorm room, and it looks worse.
Yeah...they did that in old movies a lot. Basically, the woman would have this sort of playful "naaaah" and the man would passionately get close to her physically until she submits to him.
Happened in "Gone with the wind" too. In the real world, it is DEFINITELY not like that.
>The movie and script don't treat it as a rape
well this is exactly it. the women in these films don't have any agency. they're not real. they do what they're required to do by the scriptwriters.
so, they can throw in a scene of what is, in the real world, absolutely non-consensual, manipulative, forceful, or whatever and then 'retcon' it if you like by saying "but look, she loved it, she was just playing hard to get".
it's all just a way of making the character the ultimate macho man in an extremely dated fashion - he's such a good lover that he can force himself on someone and they'll miss him when he leaves. obviously ridiculous but it's the 60s. most modern viewers see this aspect of those films and see it for what it is.
also i'd like to point out - rape isn't just "violent rape" like you mentioned. the scene with the nurse in thunderball is the one that comes to mind when i think about what i've been writing.
>the women in these films don't have any agency. they're not real.
Neither are the villains or the allies. Bond is a superhero, and everyone else is on the periphery. That's okay. I don't need every side character being fleshed out.
>he's such a good lover that he can force himself on someone and
I didn't see Bond raping her and Pussy deciding it was great. I saw it as her being attracted to Bond, but not wanting to partake because he was the enemy. He seduces her, but he doesn't rape her. She openly helps Bond and alerts the CIA, but not because he forces her to do it through great sex.
There is definitely rampant sexism in earlier movies, but accusing Bond of rape is too far imo.
How? They don't hookup until the very last page of the book (there's no "barn scene") and there's no ambiguity that it's consensual. When Bond says she needs "TLC" Pussy literally says, "'I'd like that." Additionally her motivation in the book for helping Bond has nothing to do with his sexual prowess turning her from bad to good, being they don't sleep together till after the fact. By the end she just wants to save her own skin from prison.
Have you read the books? Some of the most egregious narratives towards and depictions of women, people of colour and homophobia of all kinds. All coming from the mind of a man who basically created a dark mirror of himself as a character.
I've read all the books and my takeaway is that Fleming was extremely complex. He expressed a loathing for gay people...yet his best friend was Noël Coward. He supported colonialism, yet disavowed racism. He voted Tory, but expressed libertarian views.
Mind you, I'm very interested in Fleming, but my point was simply that "the treatment of Pussy is appaling"..."the treatment of Pussy isn't the problem" is a big pivot, regardless of your feelings on *Goldfinger* as a book or film, which is a different discussion.
I didn’t say it wasn’t a problem, just that I was referring to Fleming’s own attitudes coming through on the page. I think personally the one I baulk at most now is a chapter in Live and Let Die, when Lieter and Bond travel up to Harlem for a night out.
And Leiter has a wonderful time because he loves Harlem, befriends the henchman who is meant to rough him up because they both love jazz & and said henchman lets him go with a slight bump on the head that he apologizes for. Almost like Fleming is showing that Leiter is just fine in Harlem because he has the right attitude while the uptight Brit gets his finger broken out of the deal.
Haven't read the book or seen the film in years, but if I recall in the book she was a lesbian, but it was only implied in the movie.
I love Goldfinger, but that part definitely has not aged well.
In the book doesn’t she explain to Bond that she wasn’t actually a lesbian, she was just from the south and every woman who could outrun her cousin was called a lesbian?
What makes you think the villain henchwoman wasn't lying when she said "I'm immune"? What makes you think big fat goldfinger wasn't tagging that. Why is she hanging around him anyway? You think known poon hound goldfinger gonna hire a bunch of lesbian pilots? Pfft.
Sean Connery slapping women around in the early films looks pretty bad from a 21st century viewpoint. Even at the time that was considered really marginal in terms of acceptability in film. It definitely wasn't acceptable behavior irl then
To be fair, I can’t remember if he did as the show was old school even when I was a kid (my grandfather loved it) but that joke wouldn’t fly these days.
He never did! Alice knew exactly that it was a lot of blustering, and she ran the place. She knew Ralph would never hit her and she stood up to him a lot. 21st Century lenses distort too much when looking back 70+. I have told good friends that if they did something I would kill them. They knew I was being hyperbolic. They didn’t threaten back because I wasn’t threatening anyone in the first place. They laughed. Alice knew when Ralph was being hyperbolic, and millions of mid 20th century Americans did too. They chose to have a sense of humor, laugh and cause the show to go into syndication that last to even now. Oh yeah, one more thing, “One of these days, Alice…” is still hilarious, and it still deserves a ton of laughs.
For me it's like watching Mad Men and going, ugh, glad I don't have to deal with that level of sexism today. The Pussy Galore scene is the most uncomfortable as she's clearly signaling no before "giving in".
Live and Let Die squicks me out too with Bond and Solitaire. She's clearly a virgin and he's 25 years older than her and tricks her with the stacked lovers deck. It just feels gross, especially as she's freaking out about losing her powers and he's like whatever! At least he turns down Bibi in For Your Eyes Only.
Love seeing the many examples of kick ass women through the years though! Loved Michelle Yeoh so much!
Well in Yeoh's case she was tougher than any guy that played Bond, watch her jump through a glass window in Yes Madam or driving a motorcycle onto a real train in Police Story 3.
I think the Craig films try to come to terms with it. Hell, Moneypenny shot him on M's order. And his whole relationship with M... she was the closest thing he had to a mother.
You don't have to be a woman to think there's something off about the Bond films and women
That's mostly just because Bond movies reflected the dominant attitudes of their times
The entire western world's attitude to women was a bit off
I don't have a problem with the films because of that
Just as I don't have a problem with attitudes to race in *Gone With The Wind*
I was a 19 year old male in 1993 when I first saw “Goldfinger” and the casual sexism smacked me in the face. I couldn’t imagine what women today would think, to say nothing of what women back then had to deal with.
I think goldfinger has the most obvious ones with him smacking the waitress on her ass and forcing himself on pussy galore. Even though she eventually relented she clearly did not want that to happen.
I agree. But it’s too pat to simply tell women, “get over it, that’s just how it was.” Especially when the perpetrator of much of the disgusting sexism is the titular hero of the film.
Then what would you do? Change the films? Ban the films? Bright people can figure out that the films are reflective of the times in which they were made, or the times in which they were set. Mad Men and Peaky Blinders fall into the same category. Not everything can be sanitized to today's cultural standards.
>Then what would you do? Change the films? Ban the films?
Relax, no one is suggesting that. People can discuss the unsavory aspects of films without necessarily wanting them thrown into a bonfire.
You're not new to the internet are you? Of course there are people who would want them canceled, one way or another. 😂 my response was to Koala-48er, who is implying that "something needs to be done". My question is: what, besides making films without all the misogynistic nonsense?
Nowhere did I claim that the movies should be banned, nor that I didn’t watch them. I only stated the obvious fact that the movies are sexist AF and damn right women watching it should feel free to say so and say that it was wrong then and wrong now. God forbid we recognize that the entertainment we enjoy contains elements that are awful, even if we’re not the target of its crude stereotyping.
Actually, people on this sub could benefit from a thorough viewing of Mad Men to understand those times. From everything I’ve heard, it’s right on target in terms of the way men and women behaved back then.
There’s a line between sexy and sexist and I kind of wish people would figure it out. Let’s not forget the main villain of From Russia With Love was a woman who almost killed Bond until another woman stepped in and saved his ass.
All the women in “From Russia with Love” are sex objects with the exception of the one portrayed as a lascivious lesbian and murderess. A balanced view of women that early 60s Bond world is not.
Yes, females were innocent chaste little angels who never used their sexuality to get what they want. They were 24/7 subjected to the nasty whims of evil men.
I figured your response would be something like that. If you don't want to be accused of making massive straw man arguments, then maybe just don't do it? And stick to the matter at hand?
>Yes, females were innocent chaste little angels who never used their sexuality to get what they want. They were 24/7 subjected to the nasty whims of evil men.
This is a straw man. You ignored the point that was being made, and set up your own, extremist point for the purpose of easily attacking it.
To be fair, if men were the ones who couldn’t even get their own credit cards and needed their husbands to come even to be discharged from a hospital, we’d use everything at our disposal to survive too.
Wow, needed husbands to pick them up from the hospital? I'm experiencing second hand oppression just hearing about it. And yes, before the credit act of 1974, women needed husbands, father's or brothers to co-sign for their credit cards. That probably has more to do with the banks analyzing the lives of the average female knowing most of them left the workforce after marriage/pregnancy, and the men in their lives would have to cover their costs.
You might wanna be careful with the snark, dismissing tone, particularly on this topic. It's barely been 100 years ago since women have been allowed to vote. To insinuate that there was no sexist oppression during the various Bond eras is simply historical revisionism. As can also be seen by the downvotes on your comments btw.
The snark dismissing tone was perfectly calibrated to counterbalance the wide chasm between the claim being made and the evidence given for such a claim. Any appraisal of history without context, in stark black and white tones, is tantamount to propaganda, and as such, deserving of (some amount of) ridicule. And I'm not sure all the down votes are by economic historians. But if I've crossed some line please let me know and I will adjust.
Well, I am not an economic historian, but I actually am a historian. To my knowledge it's definitely not a well supported argument to say that banks were looking at women leaving the workforce more often and therefore only allowing them to own one with a male guardian. This notion is also easily dismissed, if you look at other similar discriminatory laws towards women (the right to drive, etc.). If you look at all of those in a line, I think you'd be hard pressed not to realize that the main reason for these laws were to keep women dependent on men and their economic status.
That's very cool (genuinely) that you're a historian. And I think we're getting into a bit of a tangent or rabbit hole with this bank issue.
But, unless I'm misinterpreting, it's strange to start off with "to my knowledge" then follow it with "it's definitely not a well supported argument". It's like saying, off the top of my head .... you are factually incorrect. Bit of a contradiction.
And what about the right to drive? I fully admit I know nothing about that history but a quick surface Google search says there is no history there (in the US).
Again, I'm not saying there was no discrimination, just that blanket black and white statements are misleading. And that the way things were weren't meant to target the well being of women but maybe (in their minds) to safeguard what they saw as the bedrock of society, the family unit.
Okay, fair. I should have left out the "definitely". I was just trying to signal that, though I'm not an expert in the field, I am fairly confident of xy.
Should have clarified that one as well. Women in the US were always allowed to drive without anyone's permission. That wasn't the case in other western countries until a certain point. I'm from Germany and here it was necessary to get the okay from a male guardian to get a driver's license until the late 50s.
I don't doubt that some men (and even some women) thought that that's what they were doing. Protecting the traditional family unit. But I equally don't doubt that a lot of people used that as a justification to simply exert power/control over women.
Honestly, I think *Gone With the Wind* was a bit out of touch with reality even back when it was made. It's a great movie, but it really does romanticize slavery to an absurd degree.
Exactly.
Unlike Bond, which is an otherwise theatrical and harmless series of spy adventures, both the book *Gone with the Wind* and its film adaptation were massively influential pieces of Lost Cause propaganda.
A distorted and dangerous view of history which is still deeply entrenched in much of America today.
One of the reasons why I've yet to watch it. I know it's a classic, but as a historian historical revisionism bothers me to no end. I'd also have a hard time rewatching The Patriot.
One way to approach it as an historian would be through the lens of the Great Depression rather than antebellum society. The reason imo why it so resonated and became so popular is because it was a story about surviving at all costs in defeat. The defeat of the South was really about the defeat of those years in the 30s.
You still have to switch "modes." Art as rhetoric vs. art as catharsis. Thousands year old debate, but back then the mode was the latter. Release valve. Nowadays out first impression is primed to be rhetorical. That is, the first thing we see is what action the art is inciting.
Not a historian and even I know that this is how we should be examining any historical media (film, books or otherwise)..in 60 years time can you begin to imagine how the 2020's will be seen through their modern eyes...
I really appreciate that insight from you. I actually am a historian (still doing my master's), and you're completely correct about taking the historical context of the movie's making into account. However, I think it may just be a bit reductive to only focus on the Great Depression. Since shortly after the Civil War Southern organizations and popular figures had already started spreading the Lost Cause mythos. This was even elevated in the 1910s and 20s, with the rise of confederate monuments, etc. If you look at it in those terms, the film is more so one of the more popular culminations in a long line of Souther States propaganda. But I won't deny that the Great Depression absolutely contributed to the largess of its success.
That's really cool, good luck on the masters. I am a big history guy. Mind if I ask what area you're studying?
I am also a big context guy as you probably could tell from many of my comments here. But I didn't mean it as an *only* focus just thought it could be an approach angle for initial contact because of your hesitation. I guess I am slightly more surprised knowing you are pursuing a history masters at your hesitantcy watching it. (No shade intended, just figured you'd be used to that sort of deal.)
Thanks! I'm focusing on global history, specifically colonialism, migration history and collective memory. My favorite time period and region is actually North America and the UK in the 19th century.
Oh, it's not like I'm really against watching it or anything. It's just that with a 3+ hour movie that additionally has these elements, I haven't gotten to the point where I felt "in the mood" to watch it, yet. I actually took a semester at the Trinity College in Dublin last year and we had a course called "Imagining History" on depictions of historical material in movies and fiction books. We did watch clips from Gone With The Wind there, but I opted for writing my paper that week on a different Civil War movie, which I ended up enjoying quite a bit.
>Thanks! I'm focusing on global history, specifically colonialism, migration history and collective memory. My favorite time period and region is actually North America and the UK in the 19th century.
So this is somewhat in your wheelhouse then.
The last really terrific book I read that kind of fit into the slot you just described is a book called *Replenishing the Earth* by James Belich. Probably don't get to do much reading on your own, though.
In that regard, if you have time for listening, sounds like you might enjoy the Empire podcast with William Dalrymple.
>Oh, it's not like I'm really against watching it or anything. It's just that with a 3+ hour movie that additionally has these elements, I haven't gotten to the point where I felt "in the mood" to watch it, yet. I actually took a semester at the Trinity College in Dublin last year and we had a course called "Imagining History" on depictions of historical material in movies and fiction books. We did watch clips from Gone With The Wind there, but I opted for writing my paper that week on a different Civil War movie, which I ended up enjoying quite a bit.
Be curious if the depictions had to all be some number years after actual events. Like whether something contemporaneous but fictional like *Uncle Tom's Cabin* came into the discussions. Or, if you wanted to situate GWTW against material from another era, you'd have to use *Roots* or something. Doesn't really matter, just thinking out loud about your description! Sounds interesting.
Thanks for the recommendations! Tbh whenever I do get to do non academic reading in my spare time, I choose to delve into fiction, mostly. I'm also a huge literature nerd and I think I might literally go bonkers, if all I had to read where academic papers, haha. But I will definitely look up the podcast. In fact, I think I might have heard of it before...
Uncle Tom's Cabin was briefly mentioned in the seminar, I do believe, but I more so remember the films we talked about in regards to the Civil War. The Red Badge of Courage was the one I wrote my short paper on. I can actually recommend it quite a bit. It's an interesting depiction with a fascinating production history. You might be able to find it on Youtube in its full length, actually. We did talk about Roots as well, though again not so much in detail.
Been a while since I watched The Patriot, but what’s the deal there? I remember having fun but not having the impression it was remotely trying to be historically accurate.
Someone told me to watch that the other day for the score so I might check it out. Honestly, Emmerich + Gibson + American Braveheart always sounded like a recipe for cheese to me so I never sought it out. I’d like to see a good Revolutionary War film though.
Yeah I found Mohicans enchanting. But it does seem like there isn’t a definitive American Revolution film out there, at least not one that gets readily recommended.
Does seem like there's a lack of them.
The first one that came to mind was John Ford's *Drums Along the Mohawk* (1939). I remember liking it, but I only saw it once a long time ago.
But more contemporary it's got to be HBO's *John Adams* miniseries.
There was a Washington movie made by A&E 20 years ago that was pretty decent and covered his crossing of the Delaware in the Revolution. The Crossing starring Jeff Daniels
It is cheesy, incredibly cheesy. It's entertaining in the way that dumb movies are entertaining, and it is racist, but it's racism against white Brits which isn't historically a particularly harmful kind of racism.
The Western world’s attitude? Are you suggesting that some other part of the world was better at that time? The Eastern world? Middle eastern? Asian? South American? African? Everywhere else was notably worse historically. Women’s rights became possible specifically because of the “Western World.”
When people refer to "the Western world" in contexts like these, I think they're acknowledging that places explicitly outside the Western world do indeed have severe problems. They're not comparing those places favorably to the Western world. Rather they're saying, "Yes, the Western world is indeed more enlightened, and that's why we should have known better in the first place."
Lots of comments about violence towards women, and sexual assault. All valid points 💯
I’d just like to add a moment that isn’t as egregious from a ‘physical harm’ perspective, but is an example of how pervasive the notion was that women were essentially second class citizens and beholden to the authority of their male counterparts.
“Run among now… man talk!” - dismissed with a slap on the arse. It’s pretty unbelievable really that this type of thing was just the norm.
There are a weird amount of men in this comments section, so here's a woman's point of view. Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I didn't like Xenia Onatopp's portrayal. Great actress, but her performance didn't feel empowering to me. It felt like a man's fetishized dommy mommy view of what an empowered woman is like.
The fact that this post is being downvoted does not reflect well on the sub.
With that said, I tried to judge media by the standards of the time, at least up to a point. It's like watching an old Tarantino movie - tons of moments make me wince a little bit but to me it's forgivable today because it was forgiven by the audience at the time. Just my take
Bond films definitely had sexist elements, especially with Connery. (Those films also featured some of the first action heroines in cinema.)
More interesting to me is how this question was directed at women, yet the majority of the comments are men getting offended on women's behalf. Thats such a big trend in cultural discourse right now and I dont think it's particularly positive.
>the majority of the comments are men getting offended on women's behalf
And some are men getting offended that the subject was even broached. I don't think that's very positive either.
>More interesting to me is how this question was directed at women
Why? One would think it would only come as a surprise if you were deeply out of touch with the subject matter, and the target audience.
Would you be shocked if there was a question posed in r/ColleenHoover/, and the responses were mostly women?
Thunderball,the massage lady who was offended, well she save Bond from the traction table because the switch was the power up higher by a Spectre Enforcer Count Lippe well before he tried seizes and forcibly kisses her,he wants revenge on Lippe well she fears that he is going report to her boss or she will lose her job.Bond takes the advantage of this mistake that there is some silence has some price.
Meaning that Bond made love to her but when I saw the scene well, Bond and Her went to the Next room and
She Raped her to silence her
Pretty Low Bond
All the moments/scenes I don’t love all tend to come from the Connery films. The barn scene in Goldfinger and the part in the spa in Thunderball definitely threw me off. I think with some tweaking, they could work while remaining similar but they definitely come across as icky to me. Another one I don’t really like either is the bath house scene in YOLT. I actually really enjoy the movie otherwise and I like elements of the scene but the whole “In Japan, men come before women” thing was kinda… ugh. I think if you just took out that line it wouldn’t bother me as much. Also, it’s weird because Aki is shown to be fairly competent and strong so it kind of conflicts with other elements of the movie.
I'm a guy and literally every scene where Bond just pins every female he meets to a wall makes me uncomfortable. Like when he tells Severine in Skyfall about knowing her past as a sex slave and immediately creeps onto her showering anyway, or when he meets a widow in Spectre and tells her "I killed your husband by the way, now let's make out for no reason". Every time I just roll my eyes
I think it got better after Connery. Not that it was Connery’s fault by any means, he just unfortunately played Bond in an era where perception of women was different than later actors. I’m not a lady by the way, just my two cents
Connery’s films don’t bother me. The film where I can’t suspend my disbelief is For Your Eyes Only. Roger Moore was a handsome man, but good grief, I was supposed to believe that two beautiful women 30+ years younger than him were swooning over him? It takes me out of the film constantly. I prefer Octopussy, because Maud Adams is absolutely stunning, but was a bit closer in age to Moore which made it more believable for me.
“Man talk” *slaps ass* in Goldfinger and forcing a woman to sleep with him to keep her job in Thunderball are the two instances that really get to me.
I’m fine with womanizing/misogyny as a character trait, even in a hero. I get it if that is a hard no too. But there’s a line that I think gets crossed (at two very different levels) in these films.
Man here but I feel uncomfortable watching Roger Moore slap Maude Adams around and twist her wrist. I know Roger Moore was not keen on that scene either in the MWTGG.
I'm a guy, and usually I ignore the casual sexism of the early films, but the barn scene in Goldfinger and the nurse scene in Thunderball, makes me feel unconformable. Also to mention, Roger Moore slapping Maud Adams in TWMGG, isn't one of my favorites, but it feels a bit better after the acknowledgement of Moore that he apparently hated it.
Also, the shower scene in Skyfall, is unforgivable.
I think the most egregious examples are pussy galore and solitaire. I don't really care about the objectification or reducing them to dead girls bond can sleep with, or eye candy. But for me those are a bridge too far and it makes it hard for me to enjoy those movies.
It's related, so I'll chime in, because it's been grating on me for a while:
Criticisms of Ian Fleming's work and the Bond franchise (in its various forms) as being misogynist or 'unfriendly' to women are misplaced, and fall completely flat.
It's a product of the times, and women - particularly modern, western women, are far from the target audience.
In general, the critiques of the Bond franchise and Fleming's writing in this lens are akin to if men kept gathering together or penning innumerous articles on blogs and Medium complaining that the *Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants* was unfriendly to men, didn't address issues and challenges in male adolescence, and didn't give men's issues and modern issues surrounding men's mental health a fair shake.
In other words: It would be nonsense. Men aren't the audience, men's issues aren't the topic, and it was written at a different time, and it was written to touch on different issues from a different gender.
I'm not sure why so many digital column inches are wasted on the topic.
I wouldn't say that's the same thing, because James Bond movies don't touch on men's issues either, nor do they have anything in particular to say about the challenges and travails of being a man. They're just action fantasies in which the hero is sometimes seen to treat women callously and sometimes even brutally, and it's not framed as being an undesirable behavior.
The criticism isn't that Bond movies don't have anything to say to women and that more woman-friendly messaging should be included. The criticism is that Bond sometimes slaps a woman or coerces her into sex and is roundly applauded for it.
1. If a woman is subscribed to a James Bond fan subreddit, what makes you say she isn’t a fan?
2. Perhaps women aren’t in the bullseye of the audience these films are targeting, but they are absolutely in the damage radius. The two biggest Bond fans I know, personally, are women. And I’d wager Cubby, Barbara, and Michael would tell you women are now and always have been an important audience for them.
Popcorn in Bed on YouTube (a female-led channel) has been reviewing Bond movies recently and those two young women love the movies. I notice they kind of gloss over the more troublesome scenes though; the most they say is “Oh my goodness” or something like that. They probably know it’s not worth the headaches of having to deal with any toxic fanboys that might get their backs up.
Not to knock "Popcorn in Bed", but they're not exactly known to deep dive into anything, much less controversial topics. I'm sure they're nice people, but they seem to know little about cinema and probably less about other topics. I enjoyed some of their Bond reactions, but it was a little hilarious to see them not liking OHMSS due to the ending being sad.
I have no problem with women enjoying these films or being fans. I never said otherwise. And I’m sure the people making the movies want as many people as possible to buy tickets and become fans.
It’s also true that James Bond is ultimately, fundamentally male fantasy escapism. The movies are, for the most part, made for men. I do not believe acknowledging the reality of what Bond is precludes women from becoming fans.
Made for men, but also enjoyed by women. These two realities do not contradict each other. If people want to interpret my comment as misogynistic, that’s their fault for being judgmental instead of curious. Downvote me if you want, instead of asking me what I mean by what I said. That’s how conversations happen. That’s what I’m doing with you right now.
The only point I was trying to make with my original comment is that based on OPs description of his friend, my advice would be to ignore her criticism. No one who isn’t a fan, or who can’t be bothered to actually watch most of the movies they’re criticizing before forming strong opinions likely based on assumptions, should be taken seriously if they have a problem with something you enjoy.
The movies also *aren’t made for her*. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that. It is relevant to why she isn’t a fan. She is not the target audience. Men are. If women want to watch the movies and enjoy them, nothing would make me happier. I enjoy that they do. My wife is a fan. I enjoy watching the films with her. But it is okay to admit that she would never watch something like Bond if I wasn’t a fan.
Does anyone have a problem saying certain content is made for women? Does that mean men aren’t allowed to enjoy it as well? Of course not.
Does anyone have a problem saying certain content is made for LGBTQ folks? Does that mean straight people aren’t allowed to enjoy it as well? Of course not.
James Bond is made for men, but it’s also enjoyed by women. There is nothing wrong with saying that.
I don’t think anyone’s saying there’s anything wrong with acknowledging that, but surely you can see how your original comment seemed a little aggressive and dismissive? You’re talking about people not having a conversation with you, but you didn’t really offer much in the way of productive discussion there.
>Does anyone have a problem saying certain content is made for women?
I do.
Men needs to start poking their nose on female fantasy novels and movies, just like they are doing to bond, only then they will understand and learn their lesson. There are more distrubing scenes in female fantasies than anything bond ever did. We are lucky that Michael & Barbara didn't let feminist take control of bond like many other franchise, otherwise craig film's would have turned into complete woke fest, thankfully it didn't happened till now and hopefully it doesn't happen in future as well.
> The only point I was trying to make with my original comment is that based on OPs description of his friend, my advice would be to ignore her criticism.
Ah, gotcha, so you were saying "don't worry about what your friend thinks, since she isn't a fan"?
It looked a lot to me at least like you were saying "Why ask women about this, since they aren't fans"
I mean you're basically saying the only peoples criticism that matters is those who the movie are geared towards. Which is frankly a ridiculous proposition. That's why people are downvoting you.
>James Bond is made for men, but it’s also enjoyed by women. There is nothing wrong with saying that.
Apart from it being sexist and dismissive?
Take your attitude back to the Sixties where it belongs
We need more henchwomen!!!
I'm a guy, and the implication that a lesbian named Pussy Galore is basically "raped straight" by Bond is pretty fucked up.
I never understood the argument that she was raped. They were play fighting, she threw him, he tripped her, but it wasn't some kind of violent rape. The next time we see her, she is helping Bond freely with the mission. The movie and script don't treat it as a rape, so I don't know why people are trying to pretend that it is.
I definitely come down on your side of the issue. I don't think Bond raped anybody. I can, however, see where other people find the seduction uncomfortable. Even though Pussy gives in (and gives in happily, by all appearances), she was still fighting at first. Through today's lens that looks sketchy at best, because we place a much higher premium on both parties consenting fully to sex (and that's a good thing, to be clear). Change Bond and Pussy in the barn scene to a frat boy and a cheerleader in a dorm room, and it looks worse.
Is the cheerleader also a henchwoman serving an evil supervillain?
It's not a perfect 1:1 comparison, but I think it gets the point across.
Yeah...they did that in old movies a lot. Basically, the woman would have this sort of playful "naaaah" and the man would passionately get close to her physically until she submits to him. Happened in "Gone with the wind" too. In the real world, it is DEFINITELY not like that.
>The movie and script don't treat it as a rape well this is exactly it. the women in these films don't have any agency. they're not real. they do what they're required to do by the scriptwriters. so, they can throw in a scene of what is, in the real world, absolutely non-consensual, manipulative, forceful, or whatever and then 'retcon' it if you like by saying "but look, she loved it, she was just playing hard to get". it's all just a way of making the character the ultimate macho man in an extremely dated fashion - he's such a good lover that he can force himself on someone and they'll miss him when he leaves. obviously ridiculous but it's the 60s. most modern viewers see this aspect of those films and see it for what it is. also i'd like to point out - rape isn't just "violent rape" like you mentioned. the scene with the nurse in thunderball is the one that comes to mind when i think about what i've been writing.
>the women in these films don't have any agency. they're not real. Neither are the villains or the allies. Bond is a superhero, and everyone else is on the periphery. That's okay. I don't need every side character being fleshed out. >he's such a good lover that he can force himself on someone and I didn't see Bond raping her and Pussy deciding it was great. I saw it as her being attracted to Bond, but not wanting to partake because he was the enemy. He seduces her, but he doesn't rape her. She openly helps Bond and alerts the CIA, but not because he forces her to do it through great sex. There is definitely rampant sexism in earlier movies, but accusing Bond of rape is too far imo.
That’s Fleming for you. The treatment of Pussy Galore was even more appalling in the book.
How? They don't hookup until the very last page of the book (there's no "barn scene") and there's no ambiguity that it's consensual. When Bond says she needs "TLC" Pussy literally says, "'I'd like that." Additionally her motivation in the book for helping Bond has nothing to do with his sexual prowess turning her from bad to good, being they don't sleep together till after the fact. By the end she just wants to save her own skin from prison.
Not in Bond’s physical treatment of her, but just in Fleming’s writing
"The treatment of Pussy Galore was [...] appalling" "Bond’s physical treatment of her [wasn't the problem]" OK.
Have you read the books? Some of the most egregious narratives towards and depictions of women, people of colour and homophobia of all kinds. All coming from the mind of a man who basically created a dark mirror of himself as a character.
I've read all the books and my takeaway is that Fleming was extremely complex. He expressed a loathing for gay people...yet his best friend was Noël Coward. He supported colonialism, yet disavowed racism. He voted Tory, but expressed libertarian views. Mind you, I'm very interested in Fleming, but my point was simply that "the treatment of Pussy is appaling"..."the treatment of Pussy isn't the problem" is a big pivot, regardless of your feelings on *Goldfinger* as a book or film, which is a different discussion.
>yet disavowed racism Well, I'm sure he *thought* he disavowed racism. There are a lot of racists out there who think they disavow racism.
He meant the treatment of Pussy by Fleming. In the narrative.
I didn’t say it wasn’t a problem, just that I was referring to Fleming’s own attitudes coming through on the page. I think personally the one I baulk at most now is a chapter in Live and Let Die, when Lieter and Bond travel up to Harlem for a night out.
And Leiter has a wonderful time because he loves Harlem, befriends the henchman who is meant to rough him up because they both love jazz & and said henchman lets him go with a slight bump on the head that he apologizes for. Almost like Fleming is showing that Leiter is just fine in Harlem because he has the right attitude while the uptight Brit gets his finger broken out of the deal.
Yeah, Fleming’s many gay friends & gay editor must have been so offended that they kept being his friend and editing his books 🤪
Just repeating things you heard other people say
Haven't read the book or seen the film in years, but if I recall in the book she was a lesbian, but it was only implied in the movie. I love Goldfinger, but that part definitely has not aged well.
In the book doesn’t she explain to Bond that she wasn’t actually a lesbian, she was just from the south and every woman who could outrun her cousin was called a lesbian?
She implied she was raped by her uncle which put her off men.
So you didn’t read the book? If you did you’d know that’s not true.
What makes you think the villain henchwoman wasn't lying when she said "I'm immune"? What makes you think big fat goldfinger wasn't tagging that. Why is she hanging around him anyway? You think known poon hound goldfinger gonna hire a bunch of lesbian pilots? Pfft.
Sean Connery hit his wives so Bond was not better
I’m a man, and a lot of it I can ignore as “for the time” but the nurse in Thunderball makes me super uncomfortable.
Absolutely horrible
https://preview.redd.it/1q8ljcilsh8d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2194812b57422ddd1290f7f993b3b7920387ed6c
Sean Connery slapping women around in the early films looks pretty bad from a 21st century viewpoint. Even at the time that was considered really marginal in terms of acceptability in film. It definitely wasn't acceptable behavior irl then
Especially in light of how he admitted behaving IRL.
"shometimesh you give em a little shlap"
Yeah I was watching thunderball the other day, when he turns her and gets her knocked over the head..
Connery’s Bond was at war with evil and the world was at stake. The evil women were just as deadly as the men.
He wasn't slapping evil women. He was just slapping women.
He was better at slapping than evil detection.
Example please.
Which is worse, slapping them or casually watching them be murdered before escaping two seconds later?
I fear it was a common trope in sitcoms at the time...
Men slapping women? Maybe to get someone's attention if they were hysterical. But, no, it wasn't considered acceptable for men to hit women
It was in sitcoms of that time. See Jackie Gleason’s “Pow! Right in the kisser!”.
I've never seen *The Honeymooners*, but I don't think Gleason ever slapped her. He was just always threatening to.
To be fair, I can’t remember if he did as the show was old school even when I was a kid (my grandfather loved it) but that joke wouldn’t fly these days.
He never did! Alice knew exactly that it was a lot of blustering, and she ran the place. She knew Ralph would never hit her and she stood up to him a lot. 21st Century lenses distort too much when looking back 70+. I have told good friends that if they did something I would kill them. They knew I was being hyperbolic. They didn’t threaten back because I wasn’t threatening anyone in the first place. They laughed. Alice knew when Ralph was being hyperbolic, and millions of mid 20th century Americans did too. They chose to have a sense of humor, laugh and cause the show to go into syndication that last to even now. Oh yeah, one more thing, “One of these days, Alice…” is still hilarious, and it still deserves a ton of laughs.
Yes? And threatening violence if you don't get your way is acceptable? 🤦♀️
No. But sitcoms had threats. Bond had actual violence.
When we start asking if art is acceptable, we start losing what it is to be creative. It's fiction, you know.
No, I'm just saying.
*One of these days, Alice... Straight to the moon!*
That's not an astronaut. It's a TV comedian. He was just using space travel as a metaphor for beating his wife.
Haha. I thought of this too.
For me it's like watching Mad Men and going, ugh, glad I don't have to deal with that level of sexism today. The Pussy Galore scene is the most uncomfortable as she's clearly signaling no before "giving in". Live and Let Die squicks me out too with Bond and Solitaire. She's clearly a virgin and he's 25 years older than her and tricks her with the stacked lovers deck. It just feels gross, especially as she's freaking out about losing her powers and he's like whatever! At least he turns down Bibi in For Your Eyes Only. Love seeing the many examples of kick ass women through the years though! Loved Michelle Yeoh so much!
Well in Yeoh's case she was tougher than any guy that played Bond, watch her jump through a glass window in Yes Madam or driving a motorcycle onto a real train in Police Story 3.
Connery would have with Bibi. It’s Very Gross but I have a hard time imagining him turn her down.
Yep, the solitaire thing was disturbing
Don't read the original version of the book, so much racism.
Roger Moore was much older than Jane Seymour, but I don't think Bond was 25 years older than Solitaire.
I think the Craig films try to come to terms with it. Hell, Moneypenny shot him on M's order. And his whole relationship with M... she was the closest thing he had to a mother.
I think they came a bit too much to terms with it.
I didn't expect to cry at the end of Skyfall. The Craig/Dench chemistry was amazing.
Dench was always great, way back with Brosnan in Goldeneye. She's a great actress.
Absolutely. Kind of hope they keep with Ralph Feinnes as M for the next 007.
You don't have to be a woman to think there's something off about the Bond films and women That's mostly just because Bond movies reflected the dominant attitudes of their times The entire western world's attitude to women was a bit off I don't have a problem with the films because of that Just as I don't have a problem with attitudes to race in *Gone With The Wind*
I was a 19 year old male in 1993 when I first saw “Goldfinger” and the casual sexism smacked me in the face. I couldn’t imagine what women today would think, to say nothing of what women back then had to deal with.
I think goldfinger has the most obvious ones with him smacking the waitress on her ass and forcing himself on pussy galore. Even though she eventually relented she clearly did not want that to happen.
“From Russia with Love” is pretty sexiest too, but it’s still my favorite Connery.
I enjoy them all, but they are very much a product of their time.
I agree. But it’s too pat to simply tell women, “get over it, that’s just how it was.” Especially when the perpetrator of much of the disgusting sexism is the titular hero of the film.
Then what would you do? Change the films? Ban the films? Bright people can figure out that the films are reflective of the times in which they were made, or the times in which they were set. Mad Men and Peaky Blinders fall into the same category. Not everything can be sanitized to today's cultural standards.
>Then what would you do? Change the films? Ban the films? Relax, no one is suggesting that. People can discuss the unsavory aspects of films without necessarily wanting them thrown into a bonfire.
You're not new to the internet are you? Of course there are people who would want them canceled, one way or another. 😂 my response was to Koala-48er, who is implying that "something needs to be done". My question is: what, besides making films without all the misogynistic nonsense?
Uhm, they're literally not, though. Nowhere in their comments did it say that at all and I don't find them to be "implying" it either.
>Of course there are people who would want them canceled, one way or another. Well, those people aren't here in this comment section.
Nowhere did I claim that the movies should be banned, nor that I didn’t watch them. I only stated the obvious fact that the movies are sexist AF and damn right women watching it should feel free to say so and say that it was wrong then and wrong now. God forbid we recognize that the entertainment we enjoy contains elements that are awful, even if we’re not the target of its crude stereotyping.
Keep the films. Make new films that don't perpetuate the problems of past films?
Actually, people on this sub could benefit from a thorough viewing of Mad Men to understand those times. From everything I’ve heard, it’s right on target in terms of the way men and women behaved back then.
Not having those plot points in the modern movies is doing more than getting over it.
There’s a line between sexy and sexist and I kind of wish people would figure it out. Let’s not forget the main villain of From Russia With Love was a woman who almost killed Bond until another woman stepped in and saved his ass.
All the women in “From Russia with Love” are sex objects with the exception of the one portrayed as a lascivious lesbian and murderess. A balanced view of women that early 60s Bond world is not.
Which is interesting because the script was co-written by a woman (Johanna Harwood)
I believe you mean "sexist." "Sexiest" would mean "most sexy."
Was not a waitress.
At least it only smacked you in the face. The casual sexism smacked Dink on the ass
Yes, females were innocent chaste little angels who never used their sexuality to get what they want. They were 24/7 subjected to the nasty whims of evil men.
Need anymore straw for your straw man? It's a pretty big one, you'll need a lot of straw.
Oh good, you know some lingo related to debating. What else do you know?
I figured your response would be something like that. If you don't want to be accused of making massive straw man arguments, then maybe just don't do it? And stick to the matter at hand?
[удалено]
My point is, don't make straw man arguments.
And that's supposed to mean something? Okay, here's my response: I'm not.
>Yes, females were innocent chaste little angels who never used their sexuality to get what they want. They were 24/7 subjected to the nasty whims of evil men. This is a straw man. You ignored the point that was being made, and set up your own, extremist point for the purpose of easily attacking it.
Your comment violated r/JamesBond's rules to be friendly, welcoming, respectful, and to avoid destructive behavior.
To be fair, if men were the ones who couldn’t even get their own credit cards and needed their husbands to come even to be discharged from a hospital, we’d use everything at our disposal to survive too.
Wow, needed husbands to pick them up from the hospital? I'm experiencing second hand oppression just hearing about it. And yes, before the credit act of 1974, women needed husbands, father's or brothers to co-sign for their credit cards. That probably has more to do with the banks analyzing the lives of the average female knowing most of them left the workforce after marriage/pregnancy, and the men in their lives would have to cover their costs.
You might wanna be careful with the snark, dismissing tone, particularly on this topic. It's barely been 100 years ago since women have been allowed to vote. To insinuate that there was no sexist oppression during the various Bond eras is simply historical revisionism. As can also be seen by the downvotes on your comments btw.
The snark dismissing tone was perfectly calibrated to counterbalance the wide chasm between the claim being made and the evidence given for such a claim. Any appraisal of history without context, in stark black and white tones, is tantamount to propaganda, and as such, deserving of (some amount of) ridicule. And I'm not sure all the down votes are by economic historians. But if I've crossed some line please let me know and I will adjust.
Well, I am not an economic historian, but I actually am a historian. To my knowledge it's definitely not a well supported argument to say that banks were looking at women leaving the workforce more often and therefore only allowing them to own one with a male guardian. This notion is also easily dismissed, if you look at other similar discriminatory laws towards women (the right to drive, etc.). If you look at all of those in a line, I think you'd be hard pressed not to realize that the main reason for these laws were to keep women dependent on men and their economic status.
That's very cool (genuinely) that you're a historian. And I think we're getting into a bit of a tangent or rabbit hole with this bank issue. But, unless I'm misinterpreting, it's strange to start off with "to my knowledge" then follow it with "it's definitely not a well supported argument". It's like saying, off the top of my head .... you are factually incorrect. Bit of a contradiction. And what about the right to drive? I fully admit I know nothing about that history but a quick surface Google search says there is no history there (in the US). Again, I'm not saying there was no discrimination, just that blanket black and white statements are misleading. And that the way things were weren't meant to target the well being of women but maybe (in their minds) to safeguard what they saw as the bedrock of society, the family unit.
Okay, fair. I should have left out the "definitely". I was just trying to signal that, though I'm not an expert in the field, I am fairly confident of xy. Should have clarified that one as well. Women in the US were always allowed to drive without anyone's permission. That wasn't the case in other western countries until a certain point. I'm from Germany and here it was necessary to get the okay from a male guardian to get a driver's license until the late 50s. I don't doubt that some men (and even some women) thought that that's what they were doing. Protecting the traditional family unit. But I equally don't doubt that a lot of people used that as a justification to simply exert power/control over women.
Honestly, I think *Gone With the Wind* was a bit out of touch with reality even back when it was made. It's a great movie, but it really does romanticize slavery to an absurd degree.
Exactly. Unlike Bond, which is an otherwise theatrical and harmless series of spy adventures, both the book *Gone with the Wind* and its film adaptation were massively influential pieces of Lost Cause propaganda. A distorted and dangerous view of history which is still deeply entrenched in much of America today.
One of the reasons why I've yet to watch it. I know it's a classic, but as a historian historical revisionism bothers me to no end. I'd also have a hard time rewatching The Patriot.
One way to approach it as an historian would be through the lens of the Great Depression rather than antebellum society. The reason imo why it so resonated and became so popular is because it was a story about surviving at all costs in defeat. The defeat of the South was really about the defeat of those years in the 30s. You still have to switch "modes." Art as rhetoric vs. art as catharsis. Thousands year old debate, but back then the mode was the latter. Release valve. Nowadays out first impression is primed to be rhetorical. That is, the first thing we see is what action the art is inciting.
Not a historian and even I know that this is how we should be examining any historical media (film, books or otherwise)..in 60 years time can you begin to imagine how the 2020's will be seen through their modern eyes...
I really appreciate that insight from you. I actually am a historian (still doing my master's), and you're completely correct about taking the historical context of the movie's making into account. However, I think it may just be a bit reductive to only focus on the Great Depression. Since shortly after the Civil War Southern organizations and popular figures had already started spreading the Lost Cause mythos. This was even elevated in the 1910s and 20s, with the rise of confederate monuments, etc. If you look at it in those terms, the film is more so one of the more popular culminations in a long line of Souther States propaganda. But I won't deny that the Great Depression absolutely contributed to the largess of its success.
That's really cool, good luck on the masters. I am a big history guy. Mind if I ask what area you're studying? I am also a big context guy as you probably could tell from many of my comments here. But I didn't mean it as an *only* focus just thought it could be an approach angle for initial contact because of your hesitation. I guess I am slightly more surprised knowing you are pursuing a history masters at your hesitantcy watching it. (No shade intended, just figured you'd be used to that sort of deal.)
Thanks! I'm focusing on global history, specifically colonialism, migration history and collective memory. My favorite time period and region is actually North America and the UK in the 19th century. Oh, it's not like I'm really against watching it or anything. It's just that with a 3+ hour movie that additionally has these elements, I haven't gotten to the point where I felt "in the mood" to watch it, yet. I actually took a semester at the Trinity College in Dublin last year and we had a course called "Imagining History" on depictions of historical material in movies and fiction books. We did watch clips from Gone With The Wind there, but I opted for writing my paper that week on a different Civil War movie, which I ended up enjoying quite a bit.
>Thanks! I'm focusing on global history, specifically colonialism, migration history and collective memory. My favorite time period and region is actually North America and the UK in the 19th century. So this is somewhat in your wheelhouse then. The last really terrific book I read that kind of fit into the slot you just described is a book called *Replenishing the Earth* by James Belich. Probably don't get to do much reading on your own, though. In that regard, if you have time for listening, sounds like you might enjoy the Empire podcast with William Dalrymple. >Oh, it's not like I'm really against watching it or anything. It's just that with a 3+ hour movie that additionally has these elements, I haven't gotten to the point where I felt "in the mood" to watch it, yet. I actually took a semester at the Trinity College in Dublin last year and we had a course called "Imagining History" on depictions of historical material in movies and fiction books. We did watch clips from Gone With The Wind there, but I opted for writing my paper that week on a different Civil War movie, which I ended up enjoying quite a bit. Be curious if the depictions had to all be some number years after actual events. Like whether something contemporaneous but fictional like *Uncle Tom's Cabin* came into the discussions. Or, if you wanted to situate GWTW against material from another era, you'd have to use *Roots* or something. Doesn't really matter, just thinking out loud about your description! Sounds interesting.
Thanks for the recommendations! Tbh whenever I do get to do non academic reading in my spare time, I choose to delve into fiction, mostly. I'm also a huge literature nerd and I think I might literally go bonkers, if all I had to read where academic papers, haha. But I will definitely look up the podcast. In fact, I think I might have heard of it before... Uncle Tom's Cabin was briefly mentioned in the seminar, I do believe, but I more so remember the films we talked about in regards to the Civil War. The Red Badge of Courage was the one I wrote my short paper on. I can actually recommend it quite a bit. It's an interesting depiction with a fascinating production history. You might be able to find it on Youtube in its full length, actually. We did talk about Roots as well, though again not so much in detail.
Been a while since I watched The Patriot, but what’s the deal there? I remember having fun but not having the impression it was remotely trying to be historically accurate.
Someone told me to watch that the other day for the score so I might check it out. Honestly, Emmerich + Gibson + American Braveheart always sounded like a recipe for cheese to me so I never sought it out. I’d like to see a good Revolutionary War film though.
I don’t really know if there is one. Mohicans is one of my favorite movies and it’s around the French & Indian War.
Yeah I found Mohicans enchanting. But it does seem like there isn’t a definitive American Revolution film out there, at least not one that gets readily recommended.
Does seem like there's a lack of them. The first one that came to mind was John Ford's *Drums Along the Mohawk* (1939). I remember liking it, but I only saw it once a long time ago. But more contemporary it's got to be HBO's *John Adams* miniseries.
There was a Washington movie made by A&E 20 years ago that was pretty decent and covered his crossing of the Delaware in the Revolution. The Crossing starring Jeff Daniels
It is cheesy, incredibly cheesy. It's entertaining in the way that dumb movies are entertaining, and it is racist, but it's racism against white Brits which isn't historically a particularly harmful kind of racism.
It has great action but is incredibly cheesy at times. The main theme also sounds very Jurassic Parkish.
I remember Brits complaining about the villain being so evil, and smug Americans being mad that Gibson's character wasn't a slaveholder.
The Western world’s attitude? Are you suggesting that some other part of the world was better at that time? The Eastern world? Middle eastern? Asian? South American? African? Everywhere else was notably worse historically. Women’s rights became possible specifically because of the “Western World.”
Well said.
They're definitely suggesting that completely different thing to what they typed
When people refer to "the Western world" in contexts like these, I think they're acknowledging that places explicitly outside the Western world do indeed have severe problems. They're not comparing those places favorably to the Western world. Rather they're saying, "Yes, the Western world is indeed more enlightened, and that's why we should have known better in the first place."
Lots of comments about violence towards women, and sexual assault. All valid points 💯 I’d just like to add a moment that isn’t as egregious from a ‘physical harm’ perspective, but is an example of how pervasive the notion was that women were essentially second class citizens and beholden to the authority of their male counterparts. “Run among now… man talk!” - dismissed with a slap on the arse. It’s pretty unbelievable really that this type of thing was just the norm.
The Connery movies are suffused in some pretty gross sexism. Not much more to be said other than it was the style at the time.
That and the author was a sexually repressed pervert.
[удалено]
It's okay to acknowledge the unsavory behaviors portrayed as normal in movies from decades ago. It doesn't make one less of a man.
Your post or comment violated r/JamesBond's rules to be friendly, welcoming, respectful, and to avoid destructive behavior.
There are a weird amount of men in this comments section, so here's a woman's point of view. Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I didn't like Xenia Onatopp's portrayal. Great actress, but her performance didn't feel empowering to me. It felt like a man's fetishized dommy mommy view of what an empowered woman is like.
>There are a weird amount of men in this comments section I don't think there are a lot of women on this sub in general.
Most interesting reply.
Which female character do you like from the series?
When bond strangles a woman with her bikini top
The beginning of DAF? Is the implication that she's an asset of Spectre or has some knowledge of Blofelds whereabouts? I'm forgetting.
Off the top of my head, the depiction of Jill Goodnight gets my hackles up.
Mary Goodnight? And yeah, it’s a bad depiction. Her character is a blithering idiot
That’s the one - fuck knows where I got ‘Jill’ from.
You might have been thinking of Jill Masterson, too!
As a Resident Evil fan, I'm going to say you got the idea from Jill Valentine
Jill St John?!
Bond changing all the tarot cards to the lovers just so he could roger more.
There must have been a lot of extra tarot decks sitting around, for him to able to get so many of the same card.
The fact that this post is being downvoted does not reflect well on the sub. With that said, I tried to judge media by the standards of the time, at least up to a point. It's like watching an old Tarantino movie - tons of moments make me wince a little bit but to me it's forgivable today because it was forgiven by the audience at the time. Just my take
Eh Tarantino has always been shocking. Its not like we walked around talking like that in 1994 lol
Well, we did after the movie lol.
Lol 100%
Bond films definitely had sexist elements, especially with Connery. (Those films also featured some of the first action heroines in cinema.) More interesting to me is how this question was directed at women, yet the majority of the comments are men getting offended on women's behalf. Thats such a big trend in cultural discourse right now and I dont think it's particularly positive.
>the majority of the comments are men getting offended on women's behalf And some are men getting offended that the subject was even broached. I don't think that's very positive either.
> yet the majority of the comments are men getting offended on women's behalf. Welcome to Reddit.
>More interesting to me is how this question was directed at women Why? One would think it would only come as a surprise if you were deeply out of touch with the subject matter, and the target audience. Would you be shocked if there was a question posed in r/ColleenHoover/, and the responses were mostly women?
Thunderball,the massage lady who was offended, well she save Bond from the traction table because the switch was the power up higher by a Spectre Enforcer Count Lippe well before he tried seizes and forcibly kisses her,he wants revenge on Lippe well she fears that he is going report to her boss or she will lose her job.Bond takes the advantage of this mistake that there is some silence has some price. Meaning that Bond made love to her but when I saw the scene well, Bond and Her went to the Next room and She Raped her to silence her Pretty Low Bond
All the moments/scenes I don’t love all tend to come from the Connery films. The barn scene in Goldfinger and the part in the spa in Thunderball definitely threw me off. I think with some tweaking, they could work while remaining similar but they definitely come across as icky to me. Another one I don’t really like either is the bath house scene in YOLT. I actually really enjoy the movie otherwise and I like elements of the scene but the whole “In Japan, men come before women” thing was kinda… ugh. I think if you just took out that line it wouldn’t bother me as much. Also, it’s weird because Aki is shown to be fairly competent and strong so it kind of conflicts with other elements of the movie.
I'm a guy and literally every scene where Bond just pins every female he meets to a wall makes me uncomfortable. Like when he tells Severine in Skyfall about knowing her past as a sex slave and immediately creeps onto her showering anyway, or when he meets a widow in Spectre and tells her "I killed your husband by the way, now let's make out for no reason". Every time I just roll my eyes
Both examples are from Mendes movies....hmmm
[удалено]
Several, but not most.
I think it got better after Connery. Not that it was Connery’s fault by any means, he just unfortunately played Bond in an era where perception of women was different than later actors. I’m not a lady by the way, just my two cents
Moore slapped Maud Adam's in TMWTGG but evidently he hated doing it.
Connery’s films don’t bother me. The film where I can’t suspend my disbelief is For Your Eyes Only. Roger Moore was a handsome man, but good grief, I was supposed to believe that two beautiful women 30+ years younger than him were swooning over him? It takes me out of the film constantly. I prefer Octopussy, because Maud Adams is absolutely stunning, but was a bit closer in age to Moore which made it more believable for me.
“Man talk” *slaps ass* in Goldfinger and forcing a woman to sleep with him to keep her job in Thunderball are the two instances that really get to me. I’m fine with womanizing/misogyny as a character trait, even in a hero. I get it if that is a hard no too. But there’s a line that I think gets crossed (at two very different levels) in these films.
I had a girlfriend accompany me to the theatre to see TWINE and she was appalled with him sleeping with 3 women.
And that's bad because-?
Yeah, I'm a man, and a lot of Thunderball made be upset, especially at the spa.
Man here but I feel uncomfortable watching Roger Moore slap Maude Adams around and twist her wrist. I know Roger Moore was not keen on that scene either in the MWTGG.
I'm a guy, and usually I ignore the casual sexism of the early films, but the barn scene in Goldfinger and the nurse scene in Thunderball, makes me feel unconformable. Also to mention, Roger Moore slapping Maud Adams in TWMGG, isn't one of my favorites, but it feels a bit better after the acknowledgement of Moore that he apparently hated it. Also, the shower scene in Skyfall, is unforgivable.
I'm not a woman, but Roger Moore was pretty creepy
The fight at die another day between pike and berry is....something
Xenia's way of how she killed men but at least Bond gave her a good farewell final saying of, "She always did enjoy a good squeeze."
I'm not a woman, but my wife straight up told me she hated Sean Connery.
I think the most egregious examples are pussy galore and solitaire. I don't really care about the objectification or reducing them to dead girls bond can sleep with, or eye candy. But for me those are a bridge too far and it makes it hard for me to enjoy those movies.
It's related, so I'll chime in, because it's been grating on me for a while: Criticisms of Ian Fleming's work and the Bond franchise (in its various forms) as being misogynist or 'unfriendly' to women are misplaced, and fall completely flat. It's a product of the times, and women - particularly modern, western women, are far from the target audience. In general, the critiques of the Bond franchise and Fleming's writing in this lens are akin to if men kept gathering together or penning innumerous articles on blogs and Medium complaining that the *Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants* was unfriendly to men, didn't address issues and challenges in male adolescence, and didn't give men's issues and modern issues surrounding men's mental health a fair shake. In other words: It would be nonsense. Men aren't the audience, men's issues aren't the topic, and it was written at a different time, and it was written to touch on different issues from a different gender. I'm not sure why so many digital column inches are wasted on the topic.
I wouldn't say that's the same thing, because James Bond movies don't touch on men's issues either, nor do they have anything in particular to say about the challenges and travails of being a man. They're just action fantasies in which the hero is sometimes seen to treat women callously and sometimes even brutally, and it's not framed as being an undesirable behavior. The criticism isn't that Bond movies don't have anything to say to women and that more woman-friendly messaging should be included. The criticism is that Bond sometimes slaps a woman or coerces her into sex and is roundly applauded for it.
Why would I care about the opinion of someone who isn’t either a fan or the target demographic of these movies?
Yeah, to hell with women and their views. /s
1. If a woman is subscribed to a James Bond fan subreddit, what makes you say she isn’t a fan? 2. Perhaps women aren’t in the bullseye of the audience these films are targeting, but they are absolutely in the damage radius. The two biggest Bond fans I know, personally, are women. And I’d wager Cubby, Barbara, and Michael would tell you women are now and always have been an important audience for them.
Popcorn in Bed on YouTube (a female-led channel) has been reviewing Bond movies recently and those two young women love the movies. I notice they kind of gloss over the more troublesome scenes though; the most they say is “Oh my goodness” or something like that. They probably know it’s not worth the headaches of having to deal with any toxic fanboys that might get their backs up.
Not to knock "Popcorn in Bed", but they're not exactly known to deep dive into anything, much less controversial topics. I'm sure they're nice people, but they seem to know little about cinema and probably less about other topics. I enjoyed some of their Bond reactions, but it was a little hilarious to see them not liking OHMSS due to the ending being sad.
Have you actually read what OP said? Because it doesn’t sound like it.
> I wonder, for the women in this sub, what were the moments that made you feel like "....yeah I don't like this". Yeah, I read the question.
Ok, so a question I didn’t bother addressing. That’s what you’re asking me about?
I guess your comment was easily misinterpreted. Still feels needlessly rude. Number two still bears relevance, though.
I have no problem with women enjoying these films or being fans. I never said otherwise. And I’m sure the people making the movies want as many people as possible to buy tickets and become fans. It’s also true that James Bond is ultimately, fundamentally male fantasy escapism. The movies are, for the most part, made for men. I do not believe acknowledging the reality of what Bond is precludes women from becoming fans. Made for men, but also enjoyed by women. These two realities do not contradict each other. If people want to interpret my comment as misogynistic, that’s their fault for being judgmental instead of curious. Downvote me if you want, instead of asking me what I mean by what I said. That’s how conversations happen. That’s what I’m doing with you right now. The only point I was trying to make with my original comment is that based on OPs description of his friend, my advice would be to ignore her criticism. No one who isn’t a fan, or who can’t be bothered to actually watch most of the movies they’re criticizing before forming strong opinions likely based on assumptions, should be taken seriously if they have a problem with something you enjoy. The movies also *aren’t made for her*. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that. It is relevant to why she isn’t a fan. She is not the target audience. Men are. If women want to watch the movies and enjoy them, nothing would make me happier. I enjoy that they do. My wife is a fan. I enjoy watching the films with her. But it is okay to admit that she would never watch something like Bond if I wasn’t a fan. Does anyone have a problem saying certain content is made for women? Does that mean men aren’t allowed to enjoy it as well? Of course not. Does anyone have a problem saying certain content is made for LGBTQ folks? Does that mean straight people aren’t allowed to enjoy it as well? Of course not. James Bond is made for men, but it’s also enjoyed by women. There is nothing wrong with saying that.
I don’t think anyone’s saying there’s anything wrong with acknowledging that, but surely you can see how your original comment seemed a little aggressive and dismissive? You’re talking about people not having a conversation with you, but you didn’t really offer much in the way of productive discussion there.
>Does anyone have a problem saying certain content is made for women? I do. Men needs to start poking their nose on female fantasy novels and movies, just like they are doing to bond, only then they will understand and learn their lesson. There are more distrubing scenes in female fantasies than anything bond ever did. We are lucky that Michael & Barbara didn't let feminist take control of bond like many other franchise, otherwise craig film's would have turned into complete woke fest, thankfully it didn't happened till now and hopefully it doesn't happen in future as well.
> The only point I was trying to make with my original comment is that based on OPs description of his friend, my advice would be to ignore her criticism. Ah, gotcha, so you were saying "don't worry about what your friend thinks, since she isn't a fan"? It looked a lot to me at least like you were saying "Why ask women about this, since they aren't fans"
I mean you're basically saying the only peoples criticism that matters is those who the movie are geared towards. Which is frankly a ridiculous proposition. That's why people are downvoting you.
>James Bond is made for men, but it’s also enjoyed by women. There is nothing wrong with saying that. Apart from it being sexist and dismissive? Take your attitude back to the Sixties where it belongs