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
The film's supporters like myself have tried to explain many of these things to you several times, and given very plausible explanations for them. You know from those conversations that there are many levels of psychology and deception being played out over the course of the film. If you can't accept them and try to look at the film in a different way that's fine, but it's annoying that you are still asking the same questions for which you have answers. You sound like a broken record.
Why does M do it? Simple. She still doesn't entirely trust Bond and in her desperation to recover the hard drive (a McGuffin that has already been explained) she orders Eve to do it. These are among the bad decisions, starting in TWINE and here the driving force behind Silva's plot of revenge, that lead to her downfall. How hard is this to figure out?
Why did Silva choose the courtroom? He wanted her killed in public, and this was all part of an elaborate plan we saw unfold when Q fell into his booby trap. He knew where she would be and used the tubes and a disguise to get there. He could have gotten her when he bombed MI6- but he wanted her to see it. He wanted her to know someone was stalking her and that it was another of her bad decisions, hence "think on your sins" that had caused this.
Why did he run? Are you kidding? His two henchmen were killed. He's outnumbered with Bond, Eve, and a then one armed Mallory all looking to shoot him. He makes a tactical retreat in order to regroup. Who wouldn't run? Him dying before making sure M goes first is defeat in his eyes, and he refuses to allow that to happen. That's when Bond decides that his childhood home is the best place to confront Silva- it offers clear views of anyone advancing and has the escape tunnel in case it gets too hot upstairs, which is how everyone escapes and it is not inplausible compared to many other instances even going back to the sinkhole parachute jump in QOS. Didn't the British use underground bunkers in WW2 to protect themselves? Silva knows London but he doesn't know this place. There will be no massive civilian or MI6 casualties here and at this point, Silva has already proven he doesn't care how many people die when he unleashes one of his bombs. Bond feels he can best protect her here and avoid more innocents being killed, it's that simple, and he is confident he can do so.
That's why I reject the opinion that this is a narrative leap, and have yet to see a good reason presented by the media or critics here.
It is a fact that CR-QoB-SF are the 007 movies of the day and as such represent a taste that does currently seem to be appriciated, the BO is the proof that a lot of folks seem to like this movie. Which is good news for the 007 fan and means that there will be a next movie with James Bond. So we can always expect improvement and see how Logan will deliver as a solo writer. In my opinion P&W have gotten the bad reputation where directors and other writers involved got a get out of jail card. I am curious what this Logan fellow will deliver for 007. And I do hope we get a director versed in actionmovies next I am kind of fed up with all this introspective humbug.
See last time I watched it I didn't get that from it. To me it didn't seem like Pussy switched sides because she wanted to do the right thing, to me it seemed like it was because Bond had forced himself on her and she'd decided "yeah, I would like to have sex with Sean Connery actually, I'll become a good guy now"
Maybe I need to give it a rewatch but that's one of the things that bugged me about GF last time. I used to really enjoy it, it used to be my favourite Connery film, but despite having a great Bond, a good theme song, a great score, a great car, etc, I really don't enjoy it as much as I used to. I think lots of people rate Goldfinger highly because it invented the formula, but although it may have invented it, I don't think it perfected it.
I find Goldfinger not as good as it's preceding and succeeding movies, still it is a solid Bond movie. Maybe it is because the chemistry between Connery and Blackman was so natural, but the way he seduced her didn't bother me in the least. Pussy Galore appears to be selfish and unwilling to think things through, but in the end what he says about Goldfinger influences her choice as much as her attraction towards Bond.
I'm with Ludovico on this one, this was her greater motivation. Having sex with Bond only convinced her to open her eyes to doing the right thing, if it hadn't then we would have had Fiona Volpe v1. What bothered me more was Fleming's irrational view that sex and feelings for a man can cause a hardcore lesbian to change her nature. That doesn't happen, it only means she is bisexual.
GF introduced the superspy formula, whether it was perfected here is a reasonable debate. I thought Sean improved on that while incorporating the character of the first two films into one big package in Thunderball. That to me was his best performance as Bond, but again without Goldfinger everything in the series would look very much different than what we know, plus it's an amazing film in so many other areas and one I still feel is the very best in the series.
We are digressing from the topic.
I've heard all the contorted 'explanations' and frankly don't find them remotely convincing. There are people on here who'll try and convince you that P+W's previous car-crash TWINE is in fact an ingeniously plotted and profoundly moving contribution to screenwriting history. Pull the other one. P+W have produced conistently awful plots and when allowed to, dreadful dialogue.
I agree this discussion is a bit tired, but believe me, I find the mental contortions people seem to throw themselves through to explain away SF's dodgy storytelling equally tiresome.
EXACTLY
What is the point of debate if the other person thinks they know it all already?
P.S- Had to come back and acknowledge post #2000 :) It took awhile.
Great post, @thelivingroyale. You have said this stuff time and time again, so the next time I rewatch GF I will keep your comments in mind and see how the film feels when analyzed from this perspective. It has been a while for me to, and the last time I watched it I was going on only a few hours of sleep, which didn't help to focus my attention where it was needed and not on my eyelids (no mark against GF).
I found it a little too rape-y for my tastes.
Or, I should say that I do now. I was raised in a misogynistic household so when I was a kid and saw a man force himself on a woman who eventually relented to him it seemed...natural. Sadly, this type of scene was quite common in films and TV shows when I was a kid. I wonder if they were copying GF or if it was a trope that existed long before that.
But at any rate, I'm secure enough and mature enough now to realize that no means no.
And I found it a lot too rape-y for my tastes. That's why I said earlier that I thought it was disgusting. I just can't root for a "hero" who does that, and while I'm not that fond of Goldfinger anyway, that totally destroys it for me. Saying that times were different or something doesn't make it ok - I can't just ignore that Bond basically rapes a woman who then magically becomes an ally. If Bond was still behaving like that nowadays I'd have stopped going to see the movies long ago.
As I said, as incredible as it seems now that type of scene - a guy forces himself on a woman, she tries to push him off, he uses his greater strength to keep holding her and kissing her, she eventually succumbs and starts kissing him back - was very common on TV in the 70s when I was a kid. The really sad thing was that I was taught by my father that woman are always supposed to be submissive to men, so when I was a kid I didn't see anything wrong with it. Luckily as I got older and gained more life experience I met people who had more...modern views on that (and many other things as well).
Didn't Fleming say in one of his books that all women secretly desire to be raped? After all, this is the guy that thought that allowing women the right to vote caused homosexuality...
And yes, I know that sort of scenes were common in older movies, but that doesn't make them less unpleasant for me to watch.
Good for you to have gotten wiser. :)
Except does not rape her. She does accept his advances in the end and not out of fear. Yes, it is a chauvinistic scene, it is not PC, but it does not advocate violence towards women. In the movie, Oddjob is the one violent towards women, following the orders of his master. He treats Pussy Galore well and Jill even said he never tried to sleep with her. He still has no problem covering Jill of gold paint.
And it is utterly off topic.
I didn't mind, for the same reason I didn't mind his seduction of Pussy Galore, Pat Fearing, etc. He had been working on Séverine too. And it's not like Bond has never been depicted as quick to make a move. How long did it take Bond to bed his contact in Rio in MR?
It wasn't the speed with which he did it *cough* - it was the circumstances. About 5 mins prior it was made apparent she was involved in the sex trade at a young age.
What can I say? Consistency is highly overrated!
Honestly, I'm not looking for help. Not yet any way.
True Severine had her demons but I'm not sure I'd call her a "vulnerable" woman. She was the kind of person who would know straight away that it was Bond touching her from behind without having to turn round. She knew the difference between "good" men and "bad" men because of her experiences in the sex trade. Bond knew this. I never thought it was creepy at all.
BAIN this is total nonsense. not vulnerable! She's a victim of child abuse and a prisonner of a psychopath who murders her in the next scene. At least Bond gets to dip his wick though. pure class.
in terms of the depiction of women this is one of the most retrograde bonds for decades.
What I meant is that she's become "self reliant" because of her experiences.
Also, didn't Ursula Andress get abused repeatedly as a youngster and is only saved at the end of Dr No because Bond finds her in time. He also has no problem getting some at the end.
What about Tracy? Clearly sexually promiscuous and "troubled" at the start of OHMSS (I suspect not all the men she was with treated her nicely when having sex with her) yet Bond didn't hesistate to "dip his wick".
I think you're being a tad unfair.
Not quite rape, but close. It certainly advocates the idea that when a woman repeatedly says no, she doesn't actually mean it, and when she fights back as much and as long as her physical strength allows her to, she's not that serious about it, either, and it's ok for a man to use superior physical strength to get what he wants and indeed, the woman actually wants it that way. When after losing the battle she's finally on her back with the man on top of her, forcefully kissing her, she'll suddenly happily consent despite previous verbal and physical resistance. So I would say that scene advocates violence and rape.
I totally agree with this.
Severine was not Bond's victim, and why some people insist she was I don't understand. Tragic childhood and life in many ways? Yes. So? Is she not allowed to be anything BUT victim all the bloody time? That is just so patronizing. She apparently wanted Bond, invited him, waited for him, had the champagne for two ready, and all that. And Bond started his approach slowly and gently to make sure not to frighten her and that his presence in the shower was fine with her. Nothing creepy about that.
Or Manuela in MR... Okay, she waited for him not wearing much, but he still didn't ask much question before undressing her.
Absolutely.
We will never know though, if she was going to pay for her "freedom" with sex or if she was really interested in him as a man. Probably both. There is no rule, that someone with her past cannot enjoy men, if he's HER choice. He wasn't forcing her at all, he was gentle and if she feared, he might try to seduce her, she would have had said gun close by to fight im off. They even bothered to mention, she was "naked". It was HER choice to be vulnerable and obviously trusted him enough to not make it a bad experience.
I still don't see why it should be close to rape. It is morally ambiguous, it is certainly macho, it is not rape. The moment she consents, it cannot be, by definition. Had she kept saying no AND he had carried on, then of course it would have been. But this was not the case. And beside, Bond's advances are mixed with his plea about Goldfinger's madness. When he grabs her, it is about this as much.