Historical critique of Bond and his fandom status

2»

Comments

  • FilipeJotaFilipeJota Brazil
    edited September 2018 Posts: 20
    @MooreFun
    MooreFun wrote: »
    FilipeJota wrote: »
    @MooreFun @NS_writings I took the liberty of answering you both in the same text. Hope you don't mind. Cheers!
    MooreFun wrote: »

    From Webster:

    Definition of misogyny
    : a hatred of women

    Anyone who claims Bond hates women is, frankly, insane. If he hates women, he does a bad job of showing it, considering how often he goes out of his way to save them even at risk of the mission or his own life. Even book Bond isn't that extreme for the time - he'll just as readily call someone a stupid bastard as he does a silly bitch.

    I’m afraid this definition of misogyny is too restricted and, therefore, incomplete, to say the least. I prefer the more precise and complete definition as stated in Wikipedia,


    And this is where I discard any and all arguments you might make. Citing Wikipedia may be popular among your friends, but it just means no one of letters is going to take you seriously.

    Good evening.

    Actually, friend, I'm academic by profession and I know there's absolutely no problem in looking in Wikipedia for references, as long as you cite your SOURCES (which I did). Besides, this is not an academic journal and I found the Wikipedia’s definition quite precise according to most serious definitions of misogyny. I’m afraid your disclaim attempt only stroke to me as laziness of thinking.

    "Sorry old chap, better luck next time".
  • FilipeJotaFilipeJota Brazil
    edited September 2018 Posts: 20

    You criticize EVERYTHING under your standards of political correctness? God, that's really tough. The point is you said you love a character since you were a baby (ok, I admit my mistake) and you use words that are proper of someone who hates the character. Like I said, there are 21st century creations that are much more questionable than James Bond. And that influence our kids much more than him (a game where you can pick up an AK47 and slaughter people on streets).

    So we are not allowed to criticize characters who supposedly “good”, only the “bad” ones. Aren’t you oversimplifying human condition and the complexity of artistic work? It seems to me you’re the one who likes Teletubbies and is overly-sensitive with critics. Maybe… Maybe you’re PC and I’m PI (sorry, silly joke). You know that nobody is either “good” or “bad”, right? People have contradictions and usually see themselves as “good”, despite being “bad” from your point of view. Nothing is black and white, even fictional universes and characters which pretend to be so, because they’re always expressing subjective judgements of what is to be good or bad, righteous, villainous, as well as what is justice, freedom, equality, etc. You can’t escape your social and historical background; you can’t escape the complexity of your own time and social relations. And that’s okay, that’s the fun of being human and living among people who disagrees with you, even when it comes to truths you take as universal and absolute. Again, you are not the judge of who’s right or wrong. I can perfectly support a football team and criticize it as hell, for several reasons (in fact, that’s the most common thing ever). That doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy watching them play.
    Nobody would deny anything, but I wouldn't go and openly tell an American friend about their wars or -to an extent- get here to talk about the Falklands. These are uncomfortable subjects to touch. If I had a Middle Eastern friend I wouldn't question how they treat women, and things like that. It's a matter of respect. Going to a Bond forum to trash Bond, or to a British forum to trash the British, is called trolling to me.

    As much sensitive it can be, if we only talked about what’s comfortable people wouldn’t talk to each other at all; we would simply reside in our bubbles of comfort and alienation, important issues wouldn’t be addressed, collectively debated and transformed into action. Nobody has the right to deny or hide its own dirt, because each and every dirt concerns humanity, not isolated nations. As stated above, no one escape its historical and social background, as much “good” or “innocent” it pretends to be. James Bond is not exception and I’ll not be reprehended by you for simbly stating the obvious: he is imperialist and nationalist. The world of Bond is not a escapist “Never Land” of fairy tales.
    Anyway, there you have an example on how Bond's actions are not British representative but world representative.

    Still works for the British government though.
    There's nothing disfunctional with adoring a character as people adore a football team and would defend it if attacked. I happen to defend the things I like: a relative, a friend, a girl, a place, a country or a fictional franchise. But I'm afraid there IS something dysfunctional with trashing a character you say you are a fan of. I'm not troubled for you or anyone attacking Bond, I'd simply ignore him. But I lose my mind when someone pretends to like something and attacks it under that facade.

    For this quote consider my first answer. Furthermore, I’m well aware that I’m a bit of a contradiction in the way I enjoy and analyse my favorite franchise and character. But that’s who I am. That’s the way I enjoy Bond-related content and that's what makes my experience so especial for me. Pierce Brosnan will always be my personal super hero, and yet simply an actor, portraying a character which, like every artistic creation, tells us something about our world and who we are – things which are not necessarily good.
  • FilipeJotaFilipeJota Brazil
    Posts: 20
    bondjames wrote: »

    Thanks for your kind words. I'm really enjoying this exchange we're having. I now these discussions may appear a bit "deep" sometimes, but, at the same time, I feel that anyone can offer something, any observation, idea or impression is worthwhile discussing and breaking down. So, without further ado...
    So I think Bond can survive as a stylized form of masculinity, as defined by the parameters of the specific timeframe. Such parameters will of course shift progressively with time. Will the character be 'watered down' as a result? Definitely, and regrettably.

    I believe Broccoli has recently said that it is his heroism and loyalty which define him now, along with superficial elements such as the cars, watches, glamour etc. It's clear to me that she has emphasized these elements since she took over from Cubby in the 90's (so much so that they now build bespoke watches and cars for the film). More recently, both she and Craig have also tried to downplay his other less savoury attributes in interviews. Do I agree with them? Not really, and sincerely hope that they both just say what they say in order to keep the media hounds at bay.

    I agree that certain women are treated as disposable pleasures - eye candy inserted to move the narrative forward and then discarded once the purpose has been achieved. However, I think the franchise and audience recognize this. It's been the case since the start of the series, and is not something only symptomatic of Bond. Despite this, and to a degree, I'd argue that the disposability of characters isn't confined only to women. There are many interesting men in this franchise who are discarded once their narrative purpose is complete. Saunders, Kerim, Mathis etc. etc. The only difference is that Bond, as a heterosexual, doesn't sleep with them first. So I believe death is just an acceptable and even expected element in a stylized spy fantasy franchise. It's par for the course. I'd say the franchise was ahead of its time in some respects. For example, Miss Taro in the original film wasn't killed, but rather was arrested. She was a smart but devious woman - a character we can relate to even today. Furthermore, I'd say that Bond films were also early showcasers of liberated and intelligent leading women. Characters like Pussy, Anya, Holly etc. were all ahead of their time, both sexually and in terms of their abilities. Were they sexy and glamorous too? Yes, of course, but then so was Bond, at least prior to Craig's more workmanlike, working class, tight suit blue collar iteration.

    You're absolutely right. Many 1960s Bond girls were more progressive than today. Although they are only progressive as their time allowed them to be, we've got to value those attempts and recognize the merits, given the conditions in which they were conceived (in terms of mentality, culture, values of that time and so on). And yes, death is not a privilege of sex, striking both male and female characters. However, it seems to me that the context and way in which death comes to female characters follows a distinctive pattern in comparison to male deaths. As I said, in cases in which they are indeed disposable, there isn’t any character development – from their part or Bond’s – and we don’t feel her loss in the story (I mean, in the emotional level we don’t connect with their loss). Besides, frequently they are innocent or merely civilians, not directly related to the villain or the plot. Examples might be: Solange in Casino Royale, Strawberry Fields in QoS, Corrine Dufour in Moonraker, Plenty O’Toole in Diamonds Are Forever, Jill Masterson in Goldfinger, Aki in YOLT, etc.). The male deaths, on the other hand, are mainly of clear allies, who actively help Bond and whose loss we feel (I still didn’t got over Sanders death or Kerim’s).
    If there is a concern, it's that with Craig, the producers have tried to root the series more in reality rather than high fantasy. That poses a risk, because then viewers are more likely to expect the films to conform to social norms. The more he tries to conform, the more they expect him to.

    That's interesting, I've never thought on this perspective. I also think it's about time 007 go back to the classic spy flick genre, with classic tropes and stand alone adventures. That would be great fun (and other movies of the same genre are doing so, like Mission Impossible and The Man from UNCLE, which I thought was a wonderful idea and yet badly executed). Either way, I wonder how can we bring this classic feeling of Goldfinger and TSWLM without so much os these things I'm mentioning. Would it be that difficult to balance or not at all?
    I don't think Bond has ever been an epitome of good behaviour though. He has always been a reflection of outdated, stylized and exaggerated male fantasy, set in the context of the spy realm. Such an environment allows for mystery and intrigue, and certain liberties. I'm not condoning such behaviour or even suggesting that it should continue. Rather, I'm saying that I believe it's still possible for Bond to straddle that fine line between unacceptable and acceptable when it comes to the opposite sex. Will it be more difficult going forward? Perhaps, but that's part of the challenge. As long as there remains sexual tension and the potential for misunderstanding between the sexes (and I propose that there always will be), then there is a place of this in a Bond film. It may just have to be approached more playfully and 'PG' (or is that 'PC'), that's all. I think they did an excellent job of winking at it all in GE (M scene) and also in CR (train scene). Campbell's films seem to acknowledge Bond's outdated values best, while still having strong women characters (Natalya and Vesper).

    I love Campbell's style. He not only is the greatest action/ fight director I've seen, but also deals with character development. No wonder he's so goof at introducing new 007 to the public. He seems to be particularly interested in the adaptation process itself, of how a new Bond can be accepted and how to do it.
    There will always be an element of British identity, history and nostalgia wrapped up in the character of Bond. He is arguably their most famous and long lasting cultural export, apart from the English language. As you rightly said, his 'old fashioned' behaviour stems from the creator's own personal experiences and sensibilities, which he has imparted to the character. Again, I believe it will always remain in the characterization. It's just a question of how often it is acknowledged and in what way. As you noted, SF did a great job of weaving it in, as did QoS (Bond and Felix conversation about 'Brits' cutting up the world) and TLD briefly (when Kamran's men dismissively laugh at Bond's comment that he works for the British Government). Again, it's all a question of how this is approached. If it's done tongue in cheek, then it can still work. I don't believe it needs to be ignored - it just mustn't be taken too seriously.

    I'm open to a 'period' adaptation, but as I said on another thread I think it will create more problems by boxing the film makers in. One film may work, but I'm not sure keeping him in the past will be popular. I still believe Bond can remain current, as he always has. I agree though that 'how' the character is presented will be very important going forward, and perhaps more important than 'what' is presented. The actor selected post-Craig is crucial to that. He must be someone very likeable and I think needs a defter and lighter touch than Craig, so he can still push the boundaries of acceptable behaviour while not raising the anger of the sensitive.

    Yes, maybe you're right. Again, is not so much about "what", but "how". As long as they can keep this "how" in tune with the character, I think they manage just fine. But isn't their long lasting cultural export Sherlock Holmes? Hahaha
  • FilipeJotaFilipeJota Brazil
    edited September 2018 Posts: 20
    @bondjames
    bondjames wrote: »
    @FilipeJota , even though I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of where the franchise must reside in order to survive, I really appreciate your insights and thinking on the matter. It's fodder for interesting and stimulating discussion. I understand where you're coming from in terms of the general public's tolerance limitations for the iconography (if not truly the reality) of the character. In life people can be misunderstood (it happens too often actually), and so can fictional characters.

    It is a human characteristic to project simplistic stereotypes onto individuals, particularly if there is an element of a person which touches a negative nerve. Bond, due to his profession and predilections, is an easy target. Ultimately he is a complex character who can be interpreted any number of ways depending on one's point of view and perspective. EON's challenge is to continue to shape the public's perception of the character in a way that he remains popular with the masses (this is a money making enterprise of the highest order after all) while satisfying the die hard connoisseurs of the books and films. It's an unenviable task made all the more difficult by the generations who have grown up with this character in his various iterations. We all have our favourites and the next generation will too. One thing I'm certain of: Bond will always survive, even if he may not be the same in the future as he is now.

    Once again, I'm truly grateful for your compliments. That was exactly the idea of this post, aiming a general and interesting discussion concerning those aspects, regardless of political stance.

    I wonder how would be a Bond film made primarily for fans and not so much the general audience...
  • FilipeJotaFilipeJota Brazil
    edited September 2018 Posts: 20
    @NS_writings

    The narrative structure of the movie has nothing to do with what the character is doing. I agree, and even complain, about how Bond let Severine die. As for Paris Carver, Bond felt terribly sorry for her death and while he initially was using her to "pump" information, he felt really bad for her death and quickly avenged her. In thousands of movies secondary characters die. Are you gonna tell me Kerim Bey dying was a bad way of portraying men? Or killing M a bad way of portraying old ladies? Bond lives in a dangerous world, he loses the ones he loves and that's where his emotions come in.

    To that I'll give you the same answer as I did to @bondjames. Again, hope you don't mind:

    And yes, death is not a privilege of sex, striking both male and female characters. However, it seems to me that the context and way in which death comes to female characters follows a distinctive pattern in comparison to male deaths. As I said, in cases in which they are indeed disposable, there isn’t any character development – from their part or Bond’s – and we don’t feel her loss in the story (I mean, in the emotional level we don’t connect with their loss). Besides, frequently they are innocent or merely civilians, not directly related to the villain or the plot. Examples might be: Solange in Casino Royale, Strawberry Fields in QoS, Corrine Dufour in Moonraker, Plenty O’Toole in Diamonds Are Forever, Jill Masterson in Goldfinger, Aki in YOLT, etc.). The male deaths, on the other hand, are mainly of clear allies, who actively help Bond and whose loss we feel (I still didn’t got over Sanders death or Kerim’s).

    The loss of Paris Carver, unlike these mentioned, is actually felt by Bond and – in some level – the audience. She had very little screen time, but her loss was felt nevertheless (although the action sequence that followed it completely ruined the tone established by the death scene, once again compromising the character development of Bond, who was having a great ball with his cool car). The thing is, although Bond felt her loss, he didn’t think twice without exposing and putting her in danger in the first place. It doesn’t matter that he took a few minutes of grief before having fun or that he avenged her in the end. She nevertheless died by his indirect actions, and he new this would probably happen (as he new with Solange and every other I mentioned). Bond simply doesn’t care as much as he appears or even tries to. When he chooses not to be emotionally involved with his women, manipulate and use them to his own gain, that’s the most logical outcome, regardless of what he feels after the death.
    If the woman is abused by a sadistic villain, may I remind you the VILLAIN is someone bad that James Bond goes against.

    Yes, but that doesn't make Bond less sadist. Again, remember Bond's monologue in the book Casino Royale. "Good" and "bad" are idealized concepts to makes us feel good. In reality, these concepts don’t apply and are much more relative and complex than they appear to be when we were children or teenagers. Mathis accuses Bond of being a nihilist (some here might say postmodern), but he’s right. In the end, the difference between Le Chiffre and him is that he’s working for a government which thinks itself as “protector of the ‘free World’”. Roger Moore Bond may be lighter and funnier in tone, but that doesn’t make his actions and consequences less problematic (Miss Anders still dies by his indirect actions). No matter how “good guy” you think you are; your actions tell who you’re supposed to be, not your line of thinking or excuses. Get it?
    Sure, Severine wanted to have a few drinks, nothing more. So Bond, aka the man placed on a deathtrap in the casino, would have gone to the Chimera boat and say: "Hi, there's a lady here who told me that if survived, we may have some drinks. I wonder why Severine didn't kicked him out if he was that upset. She could have him killed by those two guys by shouting "INTRUDER! INTRUDER!", which would have worked better than a slap in her face. You just have to see the way she embraces him and they all get on a tide of passion. I think you're understimating a girl's feelings for a man like Bond. By calling her "vulnerable", you're even understimating a woman's power to even try to kill Bond as he's in the shower!!

    Have you ever read or heard any testimony of people who suffered sexual abuse? If you did, you would no that it’s not that simple. People end up with physical and psychological traumas that make any sexual receptiveness or initiative extremely difficult, most cases for life. They are often frightened and irreversibly insecure. Any assumption of “making a move” as if it’s just another girl or boy is a serious mistake, endangering the person and possibly provoking more scars. Not mentioning the fact that most people find very difficult to talk or report this kind of behavior, for fear of social judgement or self-judgement. Bond had no reason at all to assume this girl would be the same as the others. Sure, the screenplay makes it appear that she was indeed interested (as if a bottle of champagne was enough to convince anybody), but, no matter how consensual may appear, in the end the whole situation was highly unlikely to happen in every possible scenario – and this should be clear to the audience.
    Back in the day, slapping a woman was common (or at least, not that shocking). As slapping a kid for bad behaviour. Probably your grandfather slapped your grandmother at least once. I'm not saying is right, just stating that this was a different era and was not uncommon to see. As a matter of fact, Helga Brandt also slapped Bond (like Paris, like Elektra, like Lucia Sciarra). Helga also tied him and almost peels him off with a scalpel. So if you're against violence, be against EVERY KIND OF VIOLENCE. Maybe try the Teletubbies where you can find nice and fluffy things. In both cases of "human shielding", he was doing that with two villains setting a trap for him.

    Do I really need to explain the colossal difference in social significance between a man slapping a woman and the other way around? As you putted yourself, back in the day men used to do this very often (in fact, they still do today, for domestic violence regrettably persists being a huge problem in our societies), as if they were “slapping a kid for bad behavior”. Sean Connery himself stated more than one time in interviews that he saw no problem in hitting women and actually recommended it, under the pretext of “putting them in their place”. This twisted educational purpose, based on the patriarchal logic of the man who “assumes control” over the woman’s hysteric/ angry/ irrational behavior, does not find any similitude in the case of a woman slapping a man (regrettable as it is). Different social meanings, different consequences in the way the two sexes relate to each other.
    Meaningless sex? I doubt it. He enjoys it and the girls also enjoy it altough there are no feelings involved in the act, so there's some mean to it. You failed to notice the "disposable pleasures" and "sexist, misogynist, dinosaur" are actually an in-joke for the people who question Bond's "morale" and laugh at it. It was done on purpose by EON to laugh at what moralist outsiders were saying and to show the change of times.

    I don't see them as jokes. To me they are sarcastic remarks which aim to publicly acknowledge Bond’s regrettable behavior and mentality in the eyes of contemporary audience, as well as put his character in a slightly vulnerable position. I enjoyed those remarks thoroughly.
    Madeleine WAS in danger and without Bond's intervention she would have been killed in the act. Bond followed a lead, it happened to be a woman who was already being targeted (Mr. White didn't kill himself only protect her with the little life he had left), so he didn't put her in danger. More than that, she did want to follow Bond into the mission: "I'm coming with you". "No, I want you alive", said Bond. Same went for Pam Bouvier, he tried to protect his girls and save them from danger altough sometimes they were the only chance to get to a lead.

    Many times, Bond wants a woman OUT of the crossfire and in a safe place, but the woman is so feminist that she wants to go to the battlefield (Honey, Melina, Pam, Elektra when she was the "victim").

    In the case of Swann, they were primarily after Bond, not her. They had no clue of her location until Bond came along. In the case of Pam you’re right. But that only proves that are exceptions to the rule. Besides, usually we have two types of Bond girl: the one to be sacrificed, for which he doesn’t care at all; and the one he stays with at the end, which he’s more able treat as actual human beings. I’ll ignore the feminist comment and pretend you didn’t blame women’s right movement for their deaths in films.
    Read Trigger Mortis. It's the follow up for Fleming's Goldfinger. You'll notice Pussy is a lesbian once again. You're forgetting Helga Brandt, who pretended to fall for Bond's charms in order to have him killed on the plane. Or Elektra King who manipulated him all the way. Or Miranda Frost who took him to bed in order to unload his gun. Anyway, I don't know why you think they didn't become "independent". Bond didn't remain with them, so after Bond left they could go back to their life and be as independent as they want.

    Sorry, since the book was written almost 60 years after Goldfinger, way after the fact, it's irrelevant wether she keeps being a lesbian. Fleming never intended to be that way at his time, since this was the way he envisioned his character and stories, and that's what I'm saying. As for Helga Brandt, Elektra King, Miranda Frost, Domino and Camile, you're right, they are pretty consistent characters, some of which with motivations of their own. On the other hand, you have Honey, Pussy, Solitaire, Anya, Goodhead, Octopussy, Way Lin, Madeleine Swann and Lucia Sciarra, all of them fairly independent and self-centered at the beginning and yet, later in the story, turn themselves in “damsels in distress”, naïve girls in love or completely shallow figures – a shadow of what their character used to be a few minutes prior.
    So there's homophobe in the Bond films because the hero is strongly heterosexual? That's truly laughable. To me an homophobic person is someone who despises gays or applies some kind of discrimination for their sexual orientation, and I haven't seen that in Bond's persona or in the film's production. As for Fleming, again, homosexuality was forbidden by law in the 1950s, given that he was a man living in that era I'm not surprised or horrified on how he thinks. Besides, I've also heard stories of gays explaining how they turned straight people to their side or straight women to lesbian, but I doubt you see that as "not normal". Regarding the Lazenby case, remember Bond is an heterosexual character and maybe they wanted to see how he reacted and would react onscreen. For a reason, every actor is screentested in fight and romance scenes.

    Did you read what I wrote? One more time: "Bond, although not personally or ostensibly homophobic, represents an idea of masculinity which defines itself by the unacceptance and/ or exclusion of homosexuality – considered a form a social deviance from “normality” (that is, as it “should be”)". All you've just said are perfectly legitimate reasons why people didn't see homossexuality in a positive or natural light. Precisely what I mean about homophobia. Yes, Fleming, Broccoly, Lazemby, etc. were all men of their time; that doesn't make them less "guilty" of thinking homossexuality as deviance. I'm not saying they are baaaad people. I'm saying that's how they thought.
    The same logic? It means you're making up a serious accusation of thin air. Splitting a big sandwich in two halves to make two sandwiches. Just because you consider the British Empire "racist" you are assuming Bond itself is a racist character. Quarrel, Pinder, Strutter, Quarrel Jr., Vijay, Robinson, Jinx, Leiter (Wright), Moneypenny (Harris) are the black allies of Bond troughout the whole saga. I hardly see them as mysterious and irrational. Most of them are valuable to Bond's adventures. Perhaps Quarrel, Pinder and Vijay are more representative of the point you're going to since they're natives, but I can't really see how Bond mistreated them because of their race.

    Again, did you read what I wrote? I’m describing racism as representation. Just as having a black or gay friend doesn’t make one person less racist or homophobic, the Bond franchise is no less racist by including other cultures and ethnic groups. It's the the way in which they represent that makes the difference. A perfect example is Live and Let Die and the whole VooDoo background, as a macabre religious cult of savage people, who capture the white girl and ultimately are defeated by the Western hero; YOLT, when Bond becomes a Japanese by adding fake skin and hair; in Moonraker, when Bond comes to Brazil, navigates the Amazon river, falling in the Iguaçu Falls and ending up in a Aztec temple (really? What was that?). The franchise is full of these racist forms of representation, stereotypically reducing other people’s culture and landmarks.
    Would make a great headline: "Man Who Loves James Bond Wants The Franchise To End". I'm sorry, but you remind me to people at Law School who hate lawyers but keep on the same career.

    Once again, you know that is perfectly plausible to choose a profession, field of study, fandom or anything you like to do and yet be self-critical towards it, don't you? Nobody has to blindly love everything as a religious sect (and if you do so, you should really see a doctor).
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,567
    Sorry but if you didn’t feel a sense of loss or waste when Aki, Solange or Fields died (M’s speech about her being a filing clerk was heartfelt) then you miss a trick. I was saddened by all three, but not so much Saunders
  • NS_writingsNS_writings Buenos Aires
    Posts: 544
    "To that I'll give you the same answer as I did to @bondjames. Again, hope you don't mind:

    And yes, death is not a privilege of sex, striking both male and female characters. However, it seems to me that the context and way in which death comes to female characters follows a distinctive pattern in comparison to male deaths. As I said, in cases in which they are indeed disposable, there isn’t any character development – from their part or Bond’s – and we don’t feel her loss in the story (I mean, in the emotional level we don’t connect with their loss). Besides, frequently they are innocent or merely civilians, not directly related to the villain or the plot. Examples might be: Solange in Casino Royale, Strawberry Fields in QoS, Corrine Dufour in Moonraker, Plenty O’Toole in Diamonds Are Forever, Jill Masterson in Goldfinger, Aki in YOLT, etc.). The male deaths, on the other hand, are mainly of clear allies, who actively help Bond and whose loss we feel (I still didn’t got over Sanders death or Kerim’s)."


    So you'll reply with the same nonsense.

    "The loss of Paris Carver, unlike these mentioned, is actually felt by Bond and – in some level – the audience. She had very little screen time, but her loss was felt nevertheless (although the action sequence that followed it completely ruined the tone established by the death scene, once again compromising the character development of Bond, who was having a great ball with his cool car). The thing is, although Bond felt her loss, he didn’t think twice without exposing and putting her in danger in the first place. It doesn’t matter that he took a few minutes of grief before having fun or that he avenged her in the end. She nevertheless died by his indirect actions, and he new this would probably happen (as he new with Solange and every other I mentioned). Bond simply doesn’t care as much as he appears or even tries to. When he chooses not to be emotionally involved with his women, manipulate and use them to his own gain, that’s the most logical outcome, regardless of what he feels after the death."

    She was the only link to get close to the villain and find out about his scheme. The same could be applied to any detective, policeman, anyone following someone's trail. He did, in fact, to get her out of the country far from Carver. What would you have suggested? Bond kills Kaufman and then - cut to Bond leaving flowers to Paris in a grave? He had more urgent matters then: escaping the police (who would frame him as a murder), getting to the car surronunded by the villains and escaping those villains. The "having a great ball with the cool car" thing is also taking some revenge against Carver's men, the revenge initiated with Kaufman's death. More than that, it narrows down to escaping a threat: more men waiting for him on his car, and neutralize him so he could get that bloody encoder which was his objective in the first place.


    "Yes, but that doesn't make Bond less sadist. Again, remember Bond's monologue in the book Casino Royale. "Good" and "bad" are idealized concepts to makes us feel good. In reality, these concepts don’t apply and are much more relative and complex than they appear to be when we were children or teenagers. Mathis accuses Bond of being a nihilist (some here might say postmodern), but he’s right. In the end, the difference between Le Chiffre and him is that he’s working for a government which thinks itself as “protector of the ‘free World’”. Roger Moore Bond may be lighter and funnier in tone, but that doesn’t make his actions and consequences less problematic (Miss Anders still dies by his indirect actions). No matter how “good guy” you think you are; your actions tell who you’re supposed to be, not your line of thinking or excuses. Get it?"

    Right. Perhaps the Nazis weren't that bad despite slaughtering thousands of innocents. Perhaps, since the West was so evil, they should have let Germany conquer all Europe and the whole world. Mathis rightfully puts Bond on his place as he was divagating product of the inflicted torture and reminds him Le Chiffre made some hits before their game (microphones on his room, the Bulgarian bombmen).

    If Andrea dies for his actions, I don't know why would she come to Bond and wish for Scaramanga to be dead. Moreover, I don't know why she sent that 007 bullet to put Bond in the trail of Scaramanga when the man didn't really want to kill him in the first place. I think you're underestimating Andrea as a poor innocent bimbo when basically SHE gave the mission to Bond (indirectly). She used him, and he used her, if you want to see it that way. But for sure he wouldn't want her to die. It's not Bond who put her in the line of fire, she risked her own life for her freedom: in this case, she went for the only man she knew Scaramanga considered his match and could get him killed. The truth is... she was already death when she was living next to Scaramanga. She could get killed or be free. Or keep that luxury slave life, which she tried to avoid at all cost even if that meant her death.

    "Have you ever read or heard any testimony of people who suffered sexual abuse? If you did, you would no that it’s not that simple. People end up with physical and psychological traumas that make any sexual receptiveness or initiative extremely difficult, most cases for life. They are often frightened and irreversibly insecure. Any assumption of “making a move” as if it’s just another girl or boy is a serious mistake, endangering the person and possibly provoking more scars. Not mentioning the fact that most people find very difficult to talk or report this kind of behavior, for fear of social judgement or self-judgement. Bond had no reason at all to assume this girl would be the same as the others. Sure, the screenplay makes it appear that she was indeed interested (as if a bottle of champagne was enough to convince anybody), but, no matter how consensual may appear, in the end the whole situation was highly unlikely to happen in every possible scenario – and this should be clear to the audience."

    I have heard and read testimonies of some people who framed men of sexual abuse and then were proved wrong. And they didn't go to jail, they solved everything with an "I'm sorry". People using that as a way to get more fame or money or simply to destroy someone's name. Look how many kids of today (at least in my country) use the word "rape". "Watch out of that man, he's gonna rape you", or "wow, you almost raped me!". There's even a song titled "Molester" around. The screenplay makes it appear that she was indeed interested because she WAS indeed interested. It appeared consensual because it was consensual and you can tell how much they felt attracted to each other.

    "Do I really need to explain the colossal difference in social significance between a man slapping a woman and the other way around? As you putted yourself, back in the day men used to do this very often (in fact, they still do today, for domestic violence regrettably persists being a huge problem in our societies), as if they were “slapping a kid for bad behavior”. Sean Connery himself stated more than one time in interviews that he saw no problem in hitting women and actually recommended it, under the pretext of “putting them in their place”. This twisted educational purpose, based on the patriarchal logic of the man who “assumes control” over the woman’s hysteric/ angry/ irrational behavior, does not find any similitude in the case of a woman slapping a man (regrettable as it is). Different social meanings, different consequences in the way the two sexes relate to each other."

    There should be no difference in a world of "equalty". A woman takes advantage of slapping a man because he can't answer back in the same place or it'd be "violence". There's a big difference between "equalty" and "superiority" and you advocate the latter. In an equal world, anyone hitting anyone in any way (unless it's a martial arts exposition or an accident) would be locked up or sanctioned in a way. Men to women, women to men, dad to kids or even viceversa. Connery was right with what he said? No. But are feminazis right when they say every man should be killed and destroyed ("Kill The Male")? For some people, it seems they are.

    "I don't see them as jokes. To me they are sarcastic remarks which aim to publicly acknowledge Bond’s regrettable behavior and mentality in the eyes of contemporary audience, as well as put his character in a slightly vulnerable position. I enjoyed those remarks thoroughly."


    Then you clearly don't understand the in-joking nature of the Bond franchise, their way to laugh at themselves: "Does this still work?" The jet pack from Thunderball. "Exploding pen? We don't do this anymore". Same goes to the "sexist, misogynist, dinosaur" line. I spoke with one of the GoldenEye screenwriters who confirmed me that for an article I wrote on MI6 Confidential magazine (familiar name) two years ago. This was a laugh at what people like you were thinking of Bond. I know you enjoyed those remarks and tought it was a case of social justice inside a Bond script, but it clearly wasn't. It was as banal as the "exploding pen" from Skyfall. Just to show how the world was changing and how Bond could still be true to himself even if he had to adequate some anthics.

    "In the case of Swann, they were primarily after Bond, not her. They had no clue of her location until Bond came along. In the case of Pam you’re right. But that only proves that are exceptions to the rule. Besides, usually we have two types of Bond girl: the one to be sacrificed, for which he doesn’t care at all; and the one he stays with at the end, which he’s more able treat as actual human beings. I’ll ignore the feminist comment and pretend you didn’t blame women’s right movement for their deaths in films."

    Hinx was assigned with killing "The Pale King", Mr. White. He went to Austria to finish the job after he "fired" Sr. Guerra and offered for the task. The objective was killing him and his family (Mr White talks about how he left Blofeld for his way of dealing with women and children that had nothing to do with a target). If they had a clue of Mr. White's location, they surely had a clue of who his daughter was and where she might have worked - they watch everyone, remember. Without Bond, Hinx would have killed White and then Madeleine.

    With the exception of (maybe) Severine, I don't think there's a single girl Bond doesn't care at all.

    The feminist comment was spot on: what should Bond have done to be the "respectful man"?
    If he left Madeleine in L'American, out of the line of fire, he was underestimating her, leaving her aside of a "men's world", considering she wasn't capable of handling guns or have a role in action. If he allowed her to go to the field, as he finally did, he was risking her life and "using her" and not considering she's a "defenseless" woman. So, following your SJW logic, Bond and any man in that place were f*cked from the beginning.

    "Sorry, since the book was written almost 60 years after Goldfinger, way after the fact, it's irrelevant wether she keeps being a lesbian. Fleming never intended to be that way at his time, since this was the way he envisioned his character and stories, and that's what I'm saying. As for Helga Brandt, Elektra King, Miranda Frost, Domino and Camile, you're right, they are pretty consistent characters, some of which with motivations of their own. On the other hand, you have Honey, Pussy, Solitaire, Anya, Goodhead, Octopussy, Way Lin, Madeleine Swann and Lucia Sciarra, all of them fairly independent and self-centered at the beginning and yet, later in the story, turn themselves in “damsels in distress”, naïve girls in love or completely shallow figures – a shadow of what their character used to be a few minutes prior."

    There are the same chances of a straight turning gay than viceversa. Pussy Galore, in the novel, became a lesbian for her hatred to men (being abused as a teen) - until she found a man like Bond who wasn't a molester. That was the way back then, I'm sorry you can't time travel and tell Fleming all this so that he changes his mind thinking that the future would be so "great" and "open minded".

    Honey got into the lion's den. Another one Bond wanted to escape to safety, yet she insisted in staying (well, her boat was broken anyway). She underestimated the tough guys behind the island! Men that were even a challenge for a professional like Bond.

    Pussy succumbed to Bond's charms and that saved the life of a whole town (nerve gas + atomic bomb). But I guess Bond shouldn't have been played the only card he had left in order to save much more than the US economy: innocent lives.

    Solitaire is much like Andrea Anders, she was objectified by THE VILLAIN: the man used her to tell the future and didn't even let her decide her future, only the villain was the man who could "take her power out". Yes, Bond may have used her as a bait. But the lovers card popped up some time before. And who else could have warned Bond about Rosie with that inverted Queen of Cups TAROT card? She knew it was happening. Despite the Lovers card fake deck, their relationship was announced since much before they get into bed. On the other hand, Bond could have let Solitaire die at the end and just go for Kananga in some other way, but he risked himself enough to make a dynamic entrance (bombs + shooting someone in plain sight) to rescue Solitaire.

    Anya knew the rules of the game, that Bond didn't want to kill her boyfriend and that was self defense. That it was stupid to kill him for a personal trouble when, ultimately, he saved her life. "He has Anya in there". A man not caring for a woman would have let the Atlantis to get torpedoed with Anya and Stromberg in there and go for a round of beers with Commander Carter.

    Goodhead was the only one who could place Bond in outer space - vital to complete the mission, something not even the Americans, British or Russians could do from Earth. Falling for someone doesn't make you week, unless you see as "not independent" to fall for someone.

    Octopussy, like Honey and Tiffany Case, underestimated the men they were dealing with. She tought Kamal was a simple smuggler that could have easily defeated. I think that feminist army should made every feminist proud because they could equal a whole army with few weapons. She's the typical not dangerous criminal that gets involved with dangerous criminal attempting to murder innocents to provoke a war.

    Wai Lin was virtually an equal of Bond. The way she was captured could have happened the other way around. In fact, she had the fuses for the bomb. What makes you think she ended not being independent? Again, silly reasoning of "woman who falls for a man is weak".

    I explained about Madeleine avobe. But Blofeld knew how much Bond would care for her, so she used her to make a final blow to Bond. Once again, a man who gives a damn about women would have quietly escaped from the bomb rigged MI6 just to go after Blofeld, but he let his enemy get a lot of adventage just for rescuing a girl. Hardly what a misogynist would do.

    Lucia. Does it look like she loved her husband? Her husband gived a damn about her and she was never independent. Her life was threatened by SPECTRE's policy of "no leads", Bond was there to save her. The widow of a criminal who is independent yet she calmly accepts she'll be killed. Yes, Bond might have signed her death warrant by killing Sciarra but still, he saved her life and ensured her protection. Maybe she should have been a real feminist and infiltrate the Palazzo Cardezza meeting next to Bond: "Hi there, Bond saved me so I'm alive. Can we go to the meeting to find out something?"

    "Did you read what I wrote? One more time: "Bond, although not personally or ostensibly homophobic, represents an idea of masculinity which defines itself by the unacceptance and/ or exclusion of homosexuality – considered a form a social deviance from “normality” (that is, as it “should be”)". All you've just said are perfectly legitimate reasons why people didn't see homossexuality in a positive or natural light. Precisely what I mean about homophobia. Yes, Fleming, Broccoly, Lazemby, etc. were all men of their time; that doesn't make them less "guilty" of thinking homossexuality as deviance. I'm not saying they are baaaad people. I'm saying that's how they thought."

    Yes, it narrows down to "Bond is not homophobic but he represents a era were people were homophobic so yes, he's homophobic".

    "Again, did you read what I wrote? I’m describing racism as representation. Just as having a black or gay friend doesn’t make one person less racist or homophobic, the Bond franchise is no less racist by including other cultures and ethnic groups. It's the the way in which they represent that makes the difference. A perfect example is Live and Let Die and the whole VooDoo background, as a macabre religious cult of savage people, who capture the white girl and ultimately are defeated by the Western hero; YOLT, when Bond becomes a Japanese by adding fake skin and hair; in Moonraker, when Bond comes to Brazil, navigates the Amazon river, falling in the Iguaçu Falls and ending up in a Aztec temple (really? What was that?). The franchise is full of these racist forms of representation, stereotypically reducing other people’s culture and landmarks."

    Yes, it narrows down to "Bond is not racist but he represents an era where all heroes were white and all villains were black or Asian so yes, he's racist".
    The voodoo was a crucial part of the story, and the thing there was not about people being black. Bond has, in fact, black allies and a villain who is a black guy smarter than the voodoo believers. So, there's not a generalization of black people.

    Bond had to become a Japanese to infiltrate an island of Japanese fisherman. In the same way he posed as a Latin American colonel to infiltrate a Latin American base.

    An Aztec temple next to the Iguazú falls and a French castle in the Californian desert. It's bollocks to see this as "racist". There may be some of this representation or stereotypes, but making this racist on purpose? Like, Christopher Wood said... "ok, let's make something fully degrading for the Latin American culture and place an Aztec temple in Brazil". Bond writers don't think that way, unlike "social justice warriors" trying to find every way to frame every white, straight and male human being as the "authors of all their pain",

    "Once again, you know that is perfectly plausible to choose a profession, field of study, fandom or anything you like to do and yet be self-critical towards it, don't you? Nobody has to blindly love everything as a religious sect (and if you do so, you should really see a doctor)."

    Yes, there are plenty of lawyers saying "lawyers are a bunch of thieves and liars, I wanna become one of those". Because you want to become what you hate the most in life, not what you admire. I mean, someone who hates numbers wouldn't become a mathematician, unless he suddenly develops a great interest in numbers. In the same way, someone who loves James Bond won't be a James Bond hater, unless he starts feeling horrified by all this "morale" you want to point out and starts developing an interest for a franchise/character closer to his morale.

    Nobody has to blindly love everything as a religious sect, but nobody should hate and attack what they claim to love or enjoy.
  • FilipeJotaFilipeJota Brazil
    edited September 2018 Posts: 20

    @NS_writings

    I’ll try to be quick because I don’t have much time and I don’t think we’re and will be in the same page any time soon. I truly respect your views, despite the personal manner in which you defend them, so I’ll try to be direct, so you can first and foremost understand my point of view, instead of bluntly judging everything according to yours.
    She was the only link to get close to the villain and find out about his scheme. The same could be applied to any detective, policeman, anyone following someone's trail. He did, in fact, to get her out of the country far from Carver. What would you have suggested? Bond kills Kaufman and then - cut to Bond leaving flowers to Paris in a grave? He had more urgent matters then: escaping the police (who would frame him as a murder), getting to the car surronunded by the villains and escaping those villains. The "having a great ball with the cool car" thing is also taking some revenge against Carver's men, the revenge initiated with Kaufman's death. More than that, it narrows down to escaping a threat: more men waiting for him on his car, and neutralize him so he could get that bloody encoder which was his objective in the first place.

    I said everything I needed to say about this case. When I said "having a great ball", I was refereeing specifically to Bond's laugh while inflating the tires. Plus, is a common acknowledge in screenwriting process the fact that two scenes with distinctive and opposite tones don’t work together (one followed by the other or at the same time).
    Right. Perhaps the Nazis weren't that bad despite slaughtering thousands of innocents. Perhaps, since the West was so evil, they should have let Germany conquer all Europe and the whole world. Mathis rightfully puts Bond on his place as he was divagating product of the inflicted torture and reminds him Le Chiffre made some hits before their game (microphones on his room, the Bulgarian bombmen).

    If you really think – really, really think – that Western, Anglo-Saxon and Judaic-Christian civilization came to prominence through “good deeds” and because it was fundamentally “good” compared with others, I’m afraid you’re the most naïve person I’ve ever met in my life. You’re serious in need for some decent History lessons, as well as humanities in general, since you apparently don’t have a clue how human beings and human societies work. I’m not saying that “good” and “evil” don’t exist at all, but rather that these concepts are ideological constructs, variable in space (social formation) and time (period in History). They’re not true by themselves, as if they were universal and conceived out of nowhere. We, human beings, create those ideas and attribute subjective meaning to them, depending on what is to be “good” or “bad” to each society and in each time – some Philosophy classes might go in hand as well (I’m not making this stuff up, these are the current trends in historical, anthropological, sociological, psychiatric thinking, and they are not all left-wing thinkers you know). If the Nazis had won WWII we would be learning a very different historical narrative in schools and academia, putting them as “good” – or at least as “bad” as it was necessary for them to be – and the Allies as the “wrong party” – committed to destroying Western Civilization by permitting race mixing. The Nazis saw themselves as “good”, as the “true redeemers” of Civilization, and not because they were “crazy”, but because this was an actual current thought at the time, supported by many people, in several countries, from distinctive social backgrounds and political strains. The only thing that changed is that today we have a distinctive and new ideological apprehension of the concepts of “good” and “evil” – which doesn’t make them less true and objective. So yes, maybe the “hero” James Bond is not so a-historical and a-social as you think. I’m sorry to be the one to tell you Santa doesn’t exist, but he doesn’t. The World is quite grey, not black and white.
    If Andrea dies for his actions, I don't know why would she come to Bond and wish for Scaramanga to be dead. Moreover, I don't know why she sent that 007 bullet to put Bond in the trail of Scaramanga when the man didn't really want to kill him in the first place. I think you're underestimating Andrea as a poor innocent bimbo when basically SHE gave the mission to Bond (indirectly). She used him, and he used her, if you want to see it that way. But for sure he wouldn't want her to die. It's not Bond who put her in the line of fire, she risked her own life for her freedom: in this case, she went for the only man she knew Scaramanga considered his match and could get him killed. The truth is... she was already death when she was living next to Scaramanga. She could get killed or be free. Or keep that luxury slave life, which she tried to avoid at all cost even if that meant her death.

    That's interesting. I haven't thought on that. It's true, she sent him the mission and accepts/ bares responsibility for her actions, knowing the risks. I appreciate this counterbalance of my arguments and I'll think about it.
    Look how many kids of today (at least in my country) use the word "rape". "Watch out of that man, he's gonna rape you", or "wow, you almost raped me!". There's even a song titled "Molester" around. The screenplay makes it appear that she was indeed interested because she WAS indeed interested. It appeared consensual because it was consensual and you can tell how much they felt attracted to each other.

    I wouldn't know about the first part, but I'm in favour of sexual education and social awareness programes in schools, workplace and other institutions, addressing things like sexual abuse and violence against women. About Severine, still doesn't convince me.
    There should be no difference in a world of "equalty". A woman takes advantage of slapping a man because he can't answer back in the same place or it'd be "violence". There's a big difference between "equalty" and "superiority" and you advocate the latter.

    You're actually confusing the literal meaning of the term "equality" to "equity". The main idea of what I'm saying is to treat differently those who are born or culturaly treated as unequal, so equality can be achieved by this balance. Get it? I'm not saying that a woman hitting a man isn't a regrettable act though. Both are. But the distinctive social meaning relate to the distinctive social places reserved to each sex in the same society, being one dominating towards the other (favouring man in this case).
    I spoke with one of the GoldenEye screenwriters who confirmed me that for an article I wrote on MI6 Confidential magazine (familiar name) two years ago. This was a laugh at what people like you were thinking of Bond. I know you enjoyed those remarks and tought it was a case of social justice inside a Bond script, but it clearly wasn't. It was as banal as the "exploding pen" from Skyfall. Just to show how the world was changing and how Bond could still be true to himself even if he had to adequate some anthics.

    I'll read your article as soon as I can, but I don't see how this approach invalidates what I said. They may be "jokes", yes, but they still represent an acknowledgement of the protagonist's defects and reproving behavior.
    Hinx was assigned with killing "The Pale King", Mr. White. He went to Austria to finish the job after he "fired" Sr. Guerra and offered for the task. The objective was killing him and his family (Mr White talks about how he left Blofeld for his way of dealing with women and children that had nothing to do with a target). If they had a clue of Mr. White's location, they surely had a clue of who his daughter was and where she might have worked - they watch everyone, remember. Without Bond, Hinx would have killed White and then Madeleine.

    Yeeaaah, alright. I think this can be said.
    The feminist comment was spot on: what should Bond have done to be the "respectful man"?
    If he left Madeleine in L'American, out of the line of fire, he was underestimating her, leaving her aside of a "men's world", considering she wasn't capable of handling guns or have a role in action. If he allowed her to go to the field, as he finally did, he was risking her life and "using her" and not considering she's a "defenseless" woman. So, following your SJW logic, Bond and any man in that place were f*cked from the beginning.

    Of course not, just don't let her join in. Regardless of what people would say, sexual discrimination has nothing to do with it. It's a simple security issue. But I understand the ambiguity which you addressed and admit this can be tricky sometimes.
    There are the same chances of a straight turning gay than viceversa.

    What? I don't "turn" gay or heterossexual, you are gay or heterossexual. The difference is that some people repress those feelings.
    Pussy Galore, in the novel, became a lesbian for her hatred to men (being abused as a teen) - until she found a man like Bond who wasn't a molester. That was the way back then, I'm sorry you can't time travel and tell Fleming all this so that he changes his mind thinking that the future would be so "great" and "open minded".

    This is one of the most objective proofs of Fleming's homphobia. The simple premisse of someone "turning a lesbian" out of "hate for men" is something that only a prejudiced man could conceive, since conservative/ heteronormative (not heterossexual) men assume that "there are no lesbian women, only women who haven't met the 'right man' yet". Either way, that's who he was and that was his time -- as much as this still continues nowadays. I'm not morally judging him for that. I'm stating a fact: he was homophobic and mysoginist. That doesn't mean he was a "bad guy" (since for you there are only "good guys" and "bad guys" in this World), that's just who he was. Period.
    Honey got into the lion's den. Another one Bond wanted to escape to safety, yet she insisted in staying (well, her boat was broken anyway). She underestimated the tough guys behind the island! Men that were even a challenge for a professional like Bond.

    Pussy succumbed to Bond's charms and that saved the life of a whole town (nerve gas + atomic bomb). But I guess Bond shouldn't have been played the only card he had left in order to save much more than the US economy: innocent lives.

    Solitaire is much like Andrea Anders, she was objectified by THE VILLAIN: the man used her to tell the future and didn't even let her decide her future, only the villain was the man who could "take her power out". Yes, Bond may have used her as a bait. But the lovers card popped up some time before. And who else could have warned Bond about Rosie with that inverted Queen of Cups TAROT card? She knew it was happening. Despite the Lovers card fake deck, their relationship was announced since much before they get into bed. On the other hand, Bond could have let Solitaire die at the end and just go for Kananga in some other way, but he risked himself enough to make a dynamic entrance (bombs + shooting someone in plain sight) to rescue Solitaire.

    Anya knew the rules of the game, that Bond didn't want to kill her boyfriend and that was self defense. That it was stupid to kill him for a personal trouble when, ultimately, he saved her life. "He has Anya in there". A man not caring for a woman would have let the Atlantis to get torpedoed with Anya and Stromberg in there and go for a round of beers with Commander Carter.

    Goodhead was the only one who could place Bond in outer space - vital to complete the mission, something not even the Americans, British or Russians could do from Earth. Falling for someone doesn't make you week, unless you see as "not independent" to fall for someone.

    Octopussy, like Honey and Tiffany Case, underestimated the men they were dealing with. She tought Kamal was a simple smuggler that could have easily defeated. I think that feminist army should made every feminist proud because they could equal a whole army with few weapons. She's the typical not dangerous criminal that gets involved with dangerous criminal attempting to murder innocents to provoke a war.

    Wai Lin was virtually an equal of Bond. The way she was captured could have happened the other way around. In fact, she had the fuses for the bomb. What makes you think she ended not being independent? Again, silly reasoning of "woman who falls for a man is weak".

    I explained about Madeleine avobe. But Blofeld knew how much Bond would care for her, so she used her to make a final blow to Bond. Once again, a man who gives a damn about women would have quietly escaped from the bomb rigged MI6 just to go after Blofeld, but he let his enemy get a lot of adventage just for rescuing a girl. Hardly what a misogynist would do.

    Lucia. Does it look like she loved her husband? Her husband gived a damn about her and she was never independent. Her life was threatened by SPECTRE's policy of "no leads", Bond was there to save her. The widow of a criminal who is independent yet she calmly accepts she'll be killed. Yes, Bond might have signed her death warrant by killing Sciarra but still, he saved her life and ensured her protection. Maybe she should have been a real feminist and infiltrate the Palazzo Cardezza meeting next to Bond: "Hi there, Bond saved me so I'm alive. Can we go to the meeting to find out something?"

    I'm sorry but I don't have time to answer each and every case individualy. What I can say is that I agree with you in some specific aspects, still disagree in others and some I utterly disagree. In some respects, I don't think we're speaking the same language. You think that by misogyny or homophobe I'm refering to "bad men" who let people die or onstensibly discriminate against someone. But I'm talking about more subtle and yet fundamental aspects.
    Yes, it narrows down to "Bond is not racist but he represents an era where all heroes were white and all villains were black or Asian so yes, he's racist".
    The voodoo was a crucial part of the story, and the thing there was not about people being black. Bond has, in fact, black allies and a villain who is a black guy smarter than the voodoo believers. So, there's not a generalization of black people.

    I suggest you read my answer again and again until you understand what I mean.
    Bond had to become a Japanese to infiltrate an island of Japanese fisherman. In the same way he posed as a Latin American colonel to infiltrate a Latin American base.

    Doesn't matter the context, it's still racist by the standars which I have described.
    An Aztec temple next to the Iguazú falls and a French castle in the Californian desert. It's bollocks to see this as "racist". There may be some of this representation or stereotypes, but making this racist on purpose? Like, Christopher Wood said... "ok, let's make something fully degrading for the Latin American culture and place an Aztec temple in Brazil". Bond writers don't think that way, unlike "social justice warriors" trying to find every way to frame every white, straight and male human being as the "authors of all their pain".

    Again... I'm not saying that they're "bad men", doing this on porpose. YOU are putting words in my mouth. I'm saying this is the way the always did, that's the way which characterizes representation in the franchise, and it is, in fact and according to the standards which I have described, still racist.
    Yes, there are plenty of lawyers saying "lawyers are a bunch of thieves and liars, I wanna become one of those". Because you want to become what you hate the most in life, not what you admire. I mean, someone who hates numbers wouldn't become a mathematician, unless he suddenly develops a great interest in numbers. In the same way, someone who loves James Bond won't be a James Bond hater, unless he starts feeling horrified by all this "morale" you want to point out and starts developing an interest for a franchise/character closer to his morale.

    Jesus... What I can say to you, my friend, is that, unless you are whiling to grasp the World in more than two colors, you'll always see the world as two extremes, two mutually excluding choices, without possibility of middle ground, critical thinking and relativization. In short, you'll always see everything as a question of faith, not ideas, and, therefore, will always be fanatic and intolerant.

    That's why you'll never understand me. You simply don't want to.
    Nobody has to blindly love everything as a religious sect, but nobody should hate and attack what they claim to love or enjoy.

    You have no right to say what anyone should or should not do. Stay away from people's lives and learn not to judge what doesn't concerns you. Not everything is about you and your religious cult (which exists only in your head).

    (And before you say I'm judging Bond and the franchise. I'm not. I'm stating facts and personal obervations which are historically and socially relevant. I personally think is bad? Yes. But I'm in no place to tell them how they should make movies).
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'll just be very brief and make a very clear point. What I've read here on this SJW-washing thread, is a load of bull. Like all the writers of the Daily Mail and the Sun, this is seriously and abysmally expressed when there's a strong set of mishaps that are happening, yet they're only happening in your own head. Interpreting words and claims the way you please. If that's what passes for an academic historian, then I fear for the future of humanity.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,532
    I'll just be very brief and make a very clear point. What I've read here on this SJW-washing thread, is a load of bull. Like all the writers of the Daily Mail and the Sun, this is seriously and abysmally expressed when there's a strong set of mishaps that are happening, yet they're only happening in your own head. Interpreting words and claims the way you please. If that's what passes for an academic historian, then I fear for the future of humanity.

    Amen.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,948
    @FilipeJota you pride yourself on your academic standing, and yet you persevere in pressuring definitions so they fit your worldview. Making Bond (and I'm referring to Fleming's creation, not the glamorised Film version) a mysogenist so you can built your anti-imperialist theories and implicitly blame white men for all the misery in the world. It just doesn't fly. If Bond is a mysogenist because he falls in love easily, then half the world populace is. Name any woman he beds in the novels and find he sees her as a disposeable pleasure (actually there's one, but I'm not going to help you there) and I'll send you a bottle of wine.
    If he's a mysogenist, then so am I. I bedded women just for pleasure, have had a string of affairs, etc. The only difference is, I found my true love and she didn't get shot by Blofeld.

    When it comes down to post-modernism, I can easily point out the flaws in that thinking as well (and it's destructive powers). Only the social sciences are human constructions, there is a real truth out there. We may or may not be able to perceive it, and if we do we'll never know, because we are bound by our human limitations. This was known and built into science (falsification) for a long time before some social scientists thought it necessary to promote themselves and had an ego telling us their work was as important as, say, physicists. Let me be clear, without humans the galaxy will still exist, and with it absolute facts, whatever they may be, or may be at the same time (referring to quantum theory). But when we make everything relative, as postmodernists tend to do, we lose all basic qualities of life. Basically postmodernists give every line of thinking as much creadability as the next. So rpoudly they march with their equal-rights flags unfurled, not noticing they give hatred and bigotry the same chance. It's post-modernism that brought Trump to where he is, defeating left-America on their own turf with their own weapons. And NOW they all want 'the truth' to be valuable again.

    So no, your 'he's a mysogenist because he didn't show enough emotions' argument doesn't hold up at all. He isn't. The homophobic reasoning is based on the same misconsception, but I guess you understand how that works now.

    And be careful with your historic research if you're as biased as you've shown yourself here to be. It may result in gibberish. This coming from a fellow historian.
  • FilipeJotaFilipeJota Brazil
    Posts: 20
    I'll just be very brief and make a very clear point. What I've read here on this SJW-washing thread, is a load of bull. Like all the writers of the Daily Mail and the Sun, this is seriously and abysmally expressed when there's a strong set of mishaps that are happening, yet they're only happening in your own head. Interpreting words and claims the way you please. If that's what passes for an academic historian, then I fear for the future of humanity.
    Remington wrote: »
    I'll just be very brief and make a very clear point. What I've read here on this SJW-washing thread, is a load of bull. Like all the writers of the Daily Mail and the Sun, this is seriously and abysmally expressed when there's a strong set of mishaps that are happening, yet they're only happening in your own head. Interpreting words and claims the way you please. If that's what passes for an academic historian, then I fear for the future of humanity.

    Amen.
    @FilipeJota you pride yourself on your academic standing, and yet you persevere in pressuring definitions so they fit your worldview. Making Bond (and I'm referring to Fleming's creation, not the glamorised Film version) a mysogenist so you can built your anti-imperialist theories and implicitly blame white men for all the misery in the world. It just doesn't fly. If Bond is a mysogenist because he falls in love easily, then half the world populace is. Name any woman he beds in the novels and find he sees her as a disposeable pleasure (actually there's one, but I'm not going to help you there) and I'll send you a bottle of wine.
    If he's a mysogenist, then so am I. I bedded women just for pleasure, have had a string of affairs, etc. The only difference is, I found my true love and she didn't get shot by Blofeld.

    When it comes down to post-modernism, I can easily point out the flaws in that thinking as well (and it's destructive powers). Only the social sciences are human constructions, there is a real truth out there. We may or may not be able to perceive it, and if we do we'll never know, because we are bound by our human limitations. This was known and built into science (falsification) for a long time before some social scientists thought it necessary to promote themselves and had an ego telling us their work was as important as, say, physicists. Let me be clear, without humans the galaxy will still exist, and with it absolute facts, whatever they may be, or may be at the same time (referring to quantum theory). But when we make everything relative, as postmodernists tend to do, we lose all basic qualities of life. Basically postmodernists give every line of thinking as much creadability as the next. So rpoudly they march with their equal-rights flags unfurled, not noticing they give hatred and bigotry the same chance. It's post-modernism that brought Trump to where he is, defeating left-America on their own turf with their own weapons. And NOW they all want 'the truth' to be valuable again.

    So no, your 'he's a mysogenist because he didn't show enough emotions' argument doesn't hold up at all. He isn't. The homophobic reasoning is based on the same misconsception, but I guess you understand how that works now.

    And be careful with your historic research if you're as biased as you've shown yourself here to be. It may result in gibberish. This coming from a fellow historian.



    I see our disagreement is pretty deep. It's a fundamental disagreement, I'm afraid, in multiple grounds interlinked. Nevertheless I respect your opinions and I'm very happy for your comments. As much interesting as it can be discussing those issues in the way they relate to Bond and other characters and franchises in pop culture; as much productive it can be in terms of critical analysis and comprehension of our current forms of representation and social practice, maybe indeed this is not the most adequate place to discuss it. Not because it's not worth it, but rather because it requires a series of other discussions, about inter-related issues which are indirectly associated with each point, until it comes a moment when we're not discussing these issues as they relate to Bond, but these in themselves.

    Once again I appreciate your comments, observations and counter-arguments. I'm not here to personally offend or attack anyone, I just wanted to know what you folks thought about it and exchange some ideas.

    I'll stick more to other issues related to Bond -- such as you do -- and I'm open to anyone who wishes to discuss those subjects personally. I hope we can have many discussions, agreements and disagreements ahead, and, quoting Stromberg:

    Gentlemen, my most profound thanks.
  • FilipeJotaFilipeJota Brazil
    edited September 2018 Posts: 20
    @CommanderRoss
    @FilipeJota you pride yourself on your academic standing, and yet you persevere in pressuring definitions so they fit your worldview. Making Bond (and I'm referring to Fleming's creation, not the glamorised Film version) a mysogenist so you can built your anti-imperialist theories and implicitly blame white men for all the misery in the world. It just doesn't fly. If Bond is a mysogenist because he falls in love easily, then half the world populace is. Name any woman he beds in the novels and find he sees her as a disposeable pleasure (actually there's one, but I'm not going to help you there) and I'll send you a bottle of wine.
    If he's a mysogenist, then so am I. I bedded women just for pleasure, have had a string of affairs, etc. The only difference is, I found my true love and she didn't get shot by Blofeld.

    When it comes down to post-modernism, I can easily point out the flaws in that thinking as well (and it's destructive powers). Only the social sciences are human constructions, there is a real truth out there. We may or may not be able to perceive it, and if we do we'll never know, because we are bound by our human limitations. This was known and built into science (falsification) for a long time before some social scientists thought it necessary to promote themselves and had an ego telling us their work was as important as, say, physicists. Let me be clear, without humans the galaxy will still exist, and with it absolute facts, whatever they may be, or may be at the same time (referring to quantum theory). But when we make everything relative, as postmodernists tend to do, we lose all basic qualities of life. Basically postmodernists give every line of thinking as much creadability as the next. So rpoudly they march with their equal-rights flags unfurled, not noticing they give hatred and bigotry the same chance. It's post-modernism that brought Trump to where he is, defeating left-America on their own turf with their own weapons. And NOW they all want 'the truth' to be valuable again.

    So no, your 'he's a mysogenist because he didn't show enough emotions' argument doesn't hold up at all. He isn't. The homophobic reasoning is based on the same misconsception, but I guess you understand how that works now.

    And be careful with your historic research if you're as biased as you've shown yourself here to be. It may result in gibberish. This coming from a fellow historian.

    As for you specifically, since you are indeed a fellow historian, obviously we have fundamental disagreements in epistemology and methodology of History as well, since I've never seen an historian literally exclude the elemental aspect of historicity from human condition, assuming that notions such as "good" and "evil" or "right" and "wrong" are universal truths by themselves, alienated from any possible subjective value given by time and space. It seems to me it would be wise for you to revise some important aspects of historiographical thinking and research, particularly addressing the subject of "objectivity" and "subjectivity" in scientific work. Myself any many others like me don't deny objectivity, but we don't go so far as saying that objectivity is all there is in any science. There's always subjective elements of judgement which come into the equation in each and every field of study (especially in the humanities), and that doesn't necessarily implies being "biased", but accepting your human condition as a subjective and political being. Objectiveness in historiographical research does not reside in the interpretation you have and the ideological stance you assume, but whether or not you employ adequate method of analysis, aiming to comprehend the past instead of simply judging it.

    In my exposition I addressed only social, political and cultural phenomena (not physical or mathematical). In no moment I judged Bond and the franchise without carefully and thoroughly historcize them. That’s why is not so much a moral judgement as it is an analytical judgement – although both are inseparable from any research in humanities.

    For further reading on epistemology and methodology, I suggest: Foucault, Michel de Certeau, Jacques LeGoff, Antoine Prost, Paul Ricoeur, Hayden White, Marc Bloch, Fernand Braudel, Reinhart Koselleck.
  • NS_writingsNS_writings Buenos Aires
    Posts: 544
    I'll just be very brief and make a very clear point. What I've read here on this SJW-washing thread, is a load of bull. Like all the writers of the Daily Mail and the Sun, this is seriously and abysmally expressed when there's a strong set of mishaps that are happening, yet they're only happening in your own head. Interpreting words and claims the way you please. If that's what passes for an academic historian, then I fear for the future of humanity.

    This guy is resented because I cut his bullsh*t straight away on my FB wall, so he resorts here - a place where James Bond "fans" won't do the proper believing in the so called "freedom of speech": a freedom of speech in which allowing someone in a James Bond site write the same garbage as anoyone in The Guardian would do is right but exposing that he hates James Bond from the first page of Casino Royale to the last second of SPECTRE is wrong, because we can't say such a thing like "he's not a real Bond fan" when that pops up without me saying it. I'm not even saying he's not a Bond fan, I'm just reminding you he's not a Bond fan.

    If there's another dolt thinking about my "religious cult" here, I personally want to state I never treated someone different for their skin colour, nationality, gender or sex orientation. My only limit is the offence towards me or someone/something I love. In this case, is James Bond. It could have been a relative, a love interest, a friend, a city or a country (well, in this case this guy also throws some bricks to England, a country and culture I love beyond Bond). Sorry, some people may have water in their veins, but if someone is peeing my garden I kick him out - in a way or another - instead of letting some sort of political correctness make me allow him anything.

    I think Mr. Jota here belongs to a different cult where every "minority" can do anything they want just because they rightfully deserve to achieve their revenge on every white western straight men. Talk me about a religious cult. Typical antic where you can't appreciate anything because it's too "homophobic", "racist", "bigoted", "misogynistic" and whatever for enjoyment.

    Perhaps I was mistaken in saying this thread should be closed and this is certainly not my place to give orders, and it's been for a while a site I loved very much and where I contributed (site and magazine), but I personally think this kind of declarations should be out of a James Bond fan site - any part of it.

    My advice (and it's just an advice) to the mods and managers of this site, is that threads like this discredits a character we all came to love. And discredits the site as a whole. The #1 unofficial source of James Bond news has a forum where the character is trashed. It would be different if this was a movie site/forum, or even a spy genre site/forum where you can show some preference to a character over another regarding morals or image or anything.

    I'm quite sure more people feel exactly what I feel, but don't dare to defend what they love or like or enjoy. I did. I know the price I may pay, from being blocked here to being blacklisted by the whole team and my upcoming article taken away from MI6 Confidential. But if that's the price I have to pay for responding to the attacks to a character I love, so be it.

    While Mr. Jota sees a "religious cult", I see a fictional character being some sort of companion to cheer me up in troubled years. I can tell of many hard years where the release of a Bond film changed my bad mood completely. Did that change my life? No, but made me way happier.

    Funnily, all of this started when I pointed out there were "Bond fans" who hated Ian Fleming. Everyone told me that didn't exist, that was impossible. By trying to contradict me, we found not only someone who hates Ian Fleming but someone who feels a great contempt for Bond's image (and claims to be a Bond fan since he can remember).

    As Dalton's Bond says in LTK... "Let's go fishing!"
  • FilipeJotaFilipeJota Brazil
    edited September 2018 Posts: 20
    Funnily, all of this started when I pointed out there were "Bond fans" who hated Ian Fleming. Everyone told me that didn't exist, that was impossible. By trying to contradict me, we found not only someone who hates Ian Fleming but someone who feels a great contempt for Bond's image (and claims to be a Bond fan since he can remember).

    Exactly, I hate Bond, Fleming and everything related to it. If saying that makes you feel better, if attacking me personaly makes you feel better, when I have done nothing of sorts, fine. Funny how words can be so open to interpretation, especially for people with childish mentality, with no capability at all of making the distinction between analytical and moral judgement.

    Anyways,

    "Ciao, bello!"
  • NS_writingsNS_writings Buenos Aires
    Posts: 544
    Misogynistic
    Homophobic
    Racist
    Schizophrenic
    Pathetic
    Anachronistic
    Naive
    Sadistic
    Self-destructing

    Great words to describe something you love! Try writing a romantic letter with those words, or a friend, or your work buddies, or to anyone you love or appreciate. What a true sign of appretiation!

    "That's the main reason why I think the character shouldn't be played by a woman or a black actor."

    Because every woman and every black person is good, while Bond is evil. Maybe someone with the dignity and great heart of O.J. Simpson should never play a fictional character like Bond.

    You are the one "with a childish mentality, with no capability at all of making the distinction between analytical and moral judgement" where you put morale in every thing James Bond did while praising today's popular culture with songs about molesting women and videogames where you can kill everyone and score points. In the GTA games, you get a gun and slaughter people without making any distinction of race, creed, sexual orientation, political views or gender. If you follow the storylines, as far as I know, you could find thousands of things that could elevate the "questionable" to the place of saints.

    "Ciao, bello!"

    You may feel attracted to me and I won't blame you for that. I know I'm handsome. But... I'm not on your team, if you catch my drift.
    Anyway, I respect your feelings and I won't question that.
This discussion has been closed.