It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/bond-novels-are-sexist-suggests-emma-thompson/ar-AA1OTsjV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=68f8ad2b7c004cdab72bac6f9d013404&ei=9
Dame Emma Thompson has suggested that Ian Fleming’s 007 novels are sexist.
The Academy Award-winning actress said the James Bond books she read as a teenager told her that women should fall in love and get killed.
Dame Emma, 66, said other famous spy novels did not encourage readers to believe in “female power”, as they depict women seducing men and not showing what they are “capable of”.
Writing in the Radio Times, she said: “I read and re-read all of Alistair MacLean, Raymond Chandler, Ian Fleming, Len Deighton, John le Carré and Arthur Conan Doyle while a teenager, so it’s astonishing that I grew up into someone who believed in female power.
“By the laws of probability, I should still be looking for parts that require me to seduce and get killed, fall in love and get killed, be naked and already dead or manage a cigarette holder without burning myself.”
The Love Actually star is set to feature in an adaptation of Mick Herron’s Down Cemetery Road.
She said the writer’s work, which also includes the Slow Horses series, pass the Bechdel test – because they have at least two female characters who talk to each other about something other than men.
On Herron’s work, she continued: “Women get to do stuff and say stuff. His books pass the Bechdel test with lots of room to spare.
“You get the feeling he knows what we are capable of, and there were precious few thriller or spy writers doing that while I was growing up.”
Dame Emma’s comments echo those Dame Helen Mirren made earlier this year, amid speculation about who will be the next James Bond.
Dame Helen said the franchise was drenched in “profound sexism” and she never liked how women were portrayed in the film adaptations.
Although James Bond almost always escapes from dangerous scenarios unscathed, the same cannot be said for his female accomplices.
In February, creative control of James Bond was handed from American-British producers to Amazon MGM Studios.
It prompted an outcry that the franchise is now entirely in American hands, with Valerie Leon, a former Bond girl, warning it “won’t be [British] anymore”.
Yes, a lot of classic literature will fail the Bechdel test but that's because society in the past for the most part failed the Bechdel test. While women did work in intelligence and police (and Bond shows that) it is unlikely their work would not revolve around a man.
The Bechdel test also falls apart when there is a third-person limited or first POV of a male protagonist. It really should only be a general overview of many works during a time period: about half of works should pass and another half should fail because about half should have a female protagonist (and the other half a male one).'
I cannot speak for the others but I don't think Le Carre or Fleming necessarily fall into those traps either when they do feature female characters. Fleming certainly has girls that exist independent of Bond (Vesper, Gala, Tiffany, and Domino for instance) and I believe only three Bond girls get killed because of Bond (that is, excluding Vesper's suicide, which is a product of her life outside of Bond!). Women do get to do stuff and say stuff, just through the context and lens of the main character.
Le Carre is a bizarre mention as well because from what I've read his novels rarely involve seduction and death is used quite sparingly. They generally feature few female characters but they are not treated poorly or come across badly.
I have only read Deighton's Berlin Game, so I am not qualified to comment across his broader works, but yes there are few female characters and they exist only as wives to other characters but one of them is quite important to the overall story (perhaps that's what she means by the overuse of seduction?).
Conan Doyle is probably the most likely to fall into the trap. Holmes is kind to women but the stories perhaps don't think much of them in terms of agency or in terms of handling the truth at times. It's not a surprise considering he's the oldest author on the list, but then again there is Irene Adler who is a large subversion of the expected docile nature of women in the Victorian era. (Adler, who in the most popular Holmes adaptation to date does less and is sexed up more).
Her point is more about 'female power' in the books really, not just specifically about whether they survive, or are naked, or holding cigarette holders. And it's not like she doesn't have a point, as MajorDSmythe said, they're products of a different age. She's not even particularly criticising them, just pointing out a fact really.
This thread contains many people arguing on its earlier pages that we should accept the Bond books as being products from another time displaying old fashioned attitudes rather than trying to change them, and that does mean accepting it.
That's true. Several excellent works have been made in another time where standards were different. Pointing out that society has moved on is not a bad thing, that doesn't mean however these works lose their craftsmanship.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading GF, which I finished yesterday, it was very well written and full of energy and quirky characters, but Bond's thoughts about Koreans and homosexuals aren't quite, uhm, gentlemanlike.
Even then, an author should be able to put words in his characters' mouths, regardless of whether he agrees or disagrees with them himself. He should be allowed to insult, shock, and upset us. He should be allowed to reflect the times without fear of having his words "sanitized" decades later.
We can use Goldfinger as a starting point for a conversation about a problem, but we won’t solve that problem by “cleaning up” Goldfinger simply to avoid being confronted with what makes us uncomfortable.
Whenever I read Fleming, I often come across things that clash with my own morals, ethics, outlook, and way of life. Yet the Bond adventures, and Bond himself, are far more than the sum of the elements we might disapprove of in 2025. I still love, cherish, and enjoy them as much today as when I first discovered them. That’s because I don’t expect art to be spotless, sanitized, or free of controversy. It would be a dull world indeed if it were.
Indeed, if anything 'sanitizing' literature or film or music would do more harm than good. This is also true outside the world of Bond. How can society learn if we pretend something wasn't the case, right? I have had this debate also concerning the early Tintin comics, which will bring us off the Bond topic, but as a fellow Belgian you'd certainly be aware of that too ;).
As a Tintin fan, I know perfectly well what you're talking about. :-) And in that specific case, I'm also opposed to any form of censorship.
And I doubt many parents are encouraging their kids to read it as entertainment.
And I guess you could see some of these edits as keeping the books' original intentions alive. Once they become historical artefacts that a reader learns about the attitudes of times gone by, once Tintin in the Congo has moved to the adult section of the bookshop, then it's become something different, it's no longer a fun comic book which provides simple enjoyment for kids. Maybe you could say IFP are trying to maintain the Bond books as exciting thrillers to be enjoyed today rather than as historical textbooks from which to learn about racist attitudes of the past. They want to sell books, ultimately.
I think therein lies the problem. The fact is while Fleming’s books are still read by curious readers and Bond fans, they’re not the best seller airport novels they were in the 50s/60s. They’ve become, for better or worse, artefacts from a different era, albeit ones that are historically/culturally significant and have provided the foundations for films and video games that have continued to be contemporary and enjoyed today. I’d say the same about the books of Charles Dickens. Or the plays of Shakespeare. They’re never going to be read or viewed as they were in their eras.
That fine incidentally. I’ve said before a more preferable route to go down is to have critics write introductions to these re-releases and outline the context/contemporary interpretations of these stories. Some have suggested even adding footnotes to add context too. Many will continue to enjoy these books today (I do), and Bond onscreen doesn’t seem to be going anywhere soon, but you’re never going to edit away some of the sentiments in these books that modern readers will pick up on, even if you change a word or two.