And you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
If you believed male traits were equal to female ones but simply different, you wouldn't be trying to teach someone the traits of the other. You wouldn't see a need to "balance" a boy out because you wouldn't see it as a fault that he is learning the male traits of his father.
And you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
If you believed male traits were equal to female ones but simply different, you wouldn't be trying to teach someone the traits of the other. You wouldn't see a need to "balance" a boy out because you wouldn't see it as a fault that he is learning the male traits of his father.
I did read what you said. Did you?
Has any of this got much to do with Masculinity in the Craig era ? or did that get left behind several posts ago
And you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
If you believed male traits were equal to female ones but simply different, you wouldn't be trying to teach someone the traits of the other. You wouldn't see a need to "balance" a boy out because you wouldn't see it as a fault that he is learning the male traits of his father.
I did read what you said. Did you?
I'm not talking out of both sides of my mouth, I am simply defending my opinion, and correcting your misunderstanding that I am sexist, and a chauvinist - as you have wrongly accused me of saying 'women were superior to men', as we show emotion differently. I didn't.
Surely a boy who learns how to 'balance' out his ability to know it's OKAY to show emotion, is not correcting a fault (again, your interpretation that I think that it is one, it isn't) - but rather giving him both sides of the story.
Has any of this got much to do with Masculinity in the Craig era ? or did that get left behind several posts ago
Well, my origional post was.... and then Gassy Man started brandishing words like Sexist and chauvinist - and accusing me of being both. But you're right, we have got off topic, however, no doubt he will want the last word on the matter.....
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
And you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
If you believed male traits were equal to female ones but simply different, you wouldn't be trying to teach someone the traits of the other. You wouldn't see a need to "balance" a boy out because you wouldn't see it as a fault that he is learning the male traits of his father.
I did read what you said. Did you?
Has any of this got much to do with Masculinity in the Craig era ? or did that get left behind several posts ago
Perhaps you should address that to the other person. It didn't drift from the topic until she began to write about her personal life, including what she chooses to teach her five-year-old son.
And you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
If you believed male traits were equal to female ones but simply different, you wouldn't be trying to teach someone the traits of the other. You wouldn't see a need to "balance" a boy out because you wouldn't see it as a fault that he is learning the male traits of his father.
I did read what you said. Did you?
I'm not talking out of both sides of my mouth, I am simply defending my opinion, and correcting your misunderstanding that I am sexist, and a chauvinist - as you have wrongly accused me of saying 'women were superior to men', as we show emotion differently. I didn't.
Surely a boy who learns how to 'balance' out his ability to know it's OKAY to show emotion, is not correcting a fault (again, your interpretation that I think that it is one, it isn't) - but rather giving him both sides of the story.
Has any of this got much to do with Masculinity in the Craig era ? or did that get left behind several posts ago
Well, my origional post was.... and then Gassy Man started brandishing words like Sexist and chauvinist - and accusing me of being both. But you're right, we have got off topic, however, no doubt he will want the last word on the matter.....
When one writes that "every man needs help with his emotional education," one is being sexist, especially when the context is that a man can only get that help from a woman.
One does not need help unless one is helpless, and one does seek help from someone who is equally or moreso helpless.
By definition, that means the man is in the inferior position to the woman who -- in your own words -- has judged him not to want but to need emotional education, and it's every man to boot!
Imagine if a man were to write "every woman needs help with her intellectual education," and to suggest in context that that help could only come from a man. People would be correctly judging that to be a sexist statement.
Or substitute sex or gender with race if the bias doesn't seem obvious: "Every black person needs help with his or her emotional education" (and can only get that help from someone of a different race).
You have a need to "balance out" your husband's "don't cry boy" attitude toward your son. Would you feel the same need with a daughter, but vice versa, that is, to balance out your attitude that "it's okay to show emotions" by teaching her that an equally valid response is to "retreat within herself" and "solve problems on her own"? Or would you privilege one of the tactics over the other or perhaps not even consider teaching her a "male" approach to emotions?
A quick add to that to bring the thread back to James Bond:
In Casino Royale, Bond is believed by the two most important women, Vesper and M, sometimes condescendingly, to be emotionally immature, but if one watches the story carefully, one sees that the lesson Bond learns is that by giving in to his emotions and revealing too much, he lets his guard down and ultimately is betrayed. By Quantum of Solace, M has grudgingly come to accept that she has misjudged Bond in many ways, though her suspicions that he is a far better agent than she might otherwise expect from his attitude or his behavior are proven quite true.
In both stories, Bond becoming far less emotional, not more, is vital.
Ok guys, and in your opinion how has the image of Bond and the masculinity concpet changed from traditional Connery and Moore Bond's to Craig's portrayal?
It's basically swung back, with Craig more in the mold of Connery and Lazenby.
One big difference though is that in the age of the action hero and sci-fi staples like the Terminator, Bond has to be physically invulnerable on an even greater scale. For instance, I can't imagine a scene where Connery's Bond would respond to a nail to his shoulder by simply pulling it out and tossing it aside with barely a second thought. It's to Craig's credit that he makes that moment believable. At the same time they've invested a little more into our understanding of why Bond can be battered to an inch of his life in one scene but look reasonably presentable in the following scene.
It's basically swung back, with Craig more in the mold of Connery and Lazenby.
One big difference though is that in the age of the action hero and sci-fi staples like the Terminator, Bond has to be physically invulnerable on an even greater scale. For instance, I can't imagine a scene where Connery's Bond would respond to a nail to his shoulder by simply pulling it out and tossing it aside with barely a second thought. It's to Craig's credit that he makes that moment believable. At the same time they've invested a little more into our understanding of why Bond can be battered to an inch of his life in one scene but look reasonably presentable in the following scene.
I'm not sure if it has 'swung back' or gone somewhere new (for the Bond Films at least) Connerry's Bond was capable of showing fear, remember the Tarantula in DN, the Laser in GF, or the look of disbelief and fear when faced with Oddjob. I agree with you that neither Connerry or Lazenby would toss the nail aside in the same way but the current incarnation is as you suggest almost super human. I think this is a shame, but wonder if it is to counter some of the emotional vulnerability in DC's Bond so far. In any event I'm hoping for more of a plausable physicality next time and less of the indestructable super- man. Bond should be tough, and tenacious but not invinceable. I'm convinced that DC can pull this off very well, and in a similar manner to the one that Connerry used to do so convincingly
It's basically swung back, with Craig more in the mold of Connery and Lazenby.
One big difference though is that in the age of the action hero and sci-fi staples like the Terminator, Bond has to be physically invulnerable on an even greater scale. For instance, I can't imagine a scene where Connery's Bond would respond to a nail to his shoulder by simply pulling it out and tossing it aside with barely a second thought. It's to Craig's credit that he makes that moment believable. At the same time they've invested a little more into our understanding of why Bond can be battered to an inch of his life in one scene but look reasonably presentable in the following scene.
I'm not sure if it has 'swung back' or gone somewhere new (for the Bond Films at least) Connerry's Bond was capable of showing fear, remember the Tarantula in DN, the Laser in GF, or the look of disbelief and fear when faced with Oddjob. I agree with you that neither Connerry or Lazenby would toss the nail aside in the same way but the current incarnation is as you suggest almost super human. I think this is a shame, but wonder if it is to counter some of the emotional vulnerability in DC's Bond so far. In any event I'm hoping for more of a plausable physicality next time and less of the indestructable super- man. Bond should be tough, and tenacious but not invinceable. I'm convinced that DC can pull this off very well, and in a similar manner to the one that Connerry used to do so convincingly
I know what you mean. To me, Connery brought the greatest dimension to Bond, even if the scripts increasingly gave him less opportunity to show it, and it's to his credit as an actor that with a relatively subtle look or a modulation of his voice he could express that while his 007 was incredible, he was still somehow grounded as a human being. Craig has the same potential.
My biggest disappointment with Craig's Bond is that he's defined in more extreme ways all around -- physically, emotionally, morally. There are fewer shades of distinction, even if the scripts paid some lip service to the ambiguities pf his profession. (I find most of the scripts post-Connery to be more obvious and less satisfying in dealing with Bond as anything more than the formula he's become . . . I suspect that's in part because the audience is presumed to be younger in general.)
This will change, and I also suspect if the third Craig outing is more fantastic than the previous two, he'll try to compensate for that by making Bond a little more "everyman" than before, if that makes sense.
Among what Craig did right was making us believe his balls-out Bond was even plausible. That's smart because as he ages, his Bond will slow down a bit and become more worldly -- and he'll still seem pretty admirable as the hero; again, much like Connery.
I'm hoping Craig will be around for at least three more films so we can see this evolution.
I think he is masculine in terms of that old school masculinity, which in a way is not allowed any more, it is politically incorrect, men are now supposed to be more feminine and emotional, show their feelings more, making them these somewhat metrosexual characters. It is far more interesting, on screen anyway, to have this strong, in control guy...and then you see a chink of emotion and vulernabilty - which makes the charcter more intriguing.
Bond should be Old School with emotions,On hearing His Vesper has Died He was upset,For a while But then He stiffened his upper lip and got on with it.Fleming didn't feel the need to do a revenge follow-up Because he was from the Generation who helped Build and Keep the British Empire,That wasn't made by men who Kept breaking down at the least little thing.Bond should be from the same mold, No More of this Metrosexual Crap.
I want Bond Back smoking, Driving expensive cars and If a female agent needs a slap Then he should Give her One, as well as giving her one.Any more strife in Bonds life should be handled with a shrug "It couldn't be helped Old Boy" then asking about the Latest cricket Scores.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I think its ok for the character to (occasionally) demonstrate emotion, HOWEVER Bond needs, first and foremost, to be professional.
Bond was very much, the "stiff upper lip" sort of chap. We could see he was affected and sometimes extremely bitter about his experiences yet he always remained loyal to queen and country, always putiing his job first.
Bond should be Old School with emotions,On hearing His Vesper has Died He was upset,For a while But then He stiffened his upper lip and got on with it.Fleming didn't feel the need to do a revenge follow-up Because he was from the Generation who helped Build and Keep the British Empire,That wasn't made by men who Kept breaking down at the least little thing.Bond should be from the same mold, No More of this Metrosexual Crap.
I want Bond Back smoking, Driving expensive cars and If a female agent needs a slap Then he should Give her One, as well as giving her one.Any more strife in Bonds life should be handled with a shrug "It couldn't be helped Old Boy" then asking about the Latest cricket Scores.
Wasn't You Only Live Twice the novel where Bond is initially so depressed about Tracy's death, he's virtually suicidal, and then M gets Bond on the Japan mission and he becomes vengeful when he realizes that Dr. Shatterhand and his wife are actually Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Irma Bunt?
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Wasn't You Only Live Twice the novel where Bond is initially so depressed about Tracy's death, he's virtually suicidal, and then M gets Bond on the Japan mission and he becomes vengeful when he realizes that Dr. Shatterhand and his wife are actually Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Irma Bunt?
Yup, that's the one I read. I actually thought Bond came off as fairly vengeful there...
I also thought that Fleming did a pretty fair job of setting up Vesper's demise in the CR book as a motivation for his ongoing focus on addressing SMERSH and its machinations, even though Vesper wasn't specifically mentioned in follow-up books. Still, I guess we all see such things in our own way.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Wasn't You Only Live Twice the novel where Bond is initially so depressed about Tracy's death, he's virtually suicidal, and then M gets Bond on the Japan mission and he becomes vengeful when he realizes that Dr. Shatterhand and his wife are actually Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Irma Bunt?
Yup, that's the one I read. I actually thought Bond came off as fairly vengeful there...
I also thought that Fleming did a pretty fair job of setting up Vesper's demise in the CR book as a motivation for his ongoing focus on addressing SMERSH and its machinations, even though Vesper wasn't specifically mentioned in follow-up books. Still, I guess we all see such things in our own way.
I thought my memory wasn't failing me. Thanks, Loeff.
Sorry guys I thought this Thread was about Masculinity in the Craig MOVIES. My Mistake
But as for the novels and Modern Bond, Will we see Bond pleading for his life in a torture scene as in Goldfinger ( Realistic yes,But not very Heroic ) and as the novels,a reintroduction of that mild 50's racism, along with the heavy Smoking.As with everthing We all take what we want from the novels. I see Bond as a strong Hreo type, keeping his emotions in check Others see him as a modern man full of emotions weeping at the drop of a hat,( Once a Month ) ), Into self-help Books,Eating healty food,wearing sandals and very Metrosexual.
I simply Don't Compare the Bond of the Novels with the screen Bond, They are two Seperate Animals. But hey what the hell do I know I'm just a dumb smuck who likes action Films,raised watching J Wayne and B Willis.Always taught Boys don't cry or show their feelings, so Once again I'm an Old Dinosaur " a timex watch in a digital world".So for this New Bond Sam Mendes is The right Director,I predict Loads of Emotional turmoil for Bond to Deal with,Blubbing in M's office,Comforted By Dame Judi,and told "There,There everthings going to be all right . You big bad G.I. Joe !" )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Wasn't You Only Live Twice the novel where Bond is initially so depressed about Tracy's death, he's virtually suicidal, and then M gets Bond on the Japan mission and he becomes vengeful when he realizes that Dr. Shatterhand and his wife are actually Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Irma Bunt?
Yup, that's the one I read. I actually thought Bond came off as fairly vengeful there...
I also thought that Fleming did a pretty fair job of setting up Vesper's demise in the CR book as a motivation for his ongoing focus on addressing SMERSH and its machinations, even though Vesper wasn't specifically mentioned in follow-up books. Still, I guess we all see such things in our own way.
Bond was certainly a vengeful character at times in the books. However the big difference was that he let the act of revenge come to HIM. In YOLT Bond is deeply depressed following the death of his wife yet he was trying to get back to work...and couldn't even do that!
There is lso something else. Times change. WHat was in in the sixties cannot be in all the time, even though the retro style is in. We will never see a new Connery and I don't think any actor would to try and copy Connery. It would be lame and all actors want to make a character their own. Not someone else.
Yes Craig is very amgry all the time but he has a lot of good oneliners in Casino Royale. QOS was simply bad. It was something that started with Brosnan, a concept saying - Every second movie has to be crap.
1) GoldenEye (Masterpiece)
2) Tomorrow Never Dies (Crap)
3) The World Is Not Enough (Good)
4) Die Another Day (First half: Very good/Second half: CRAP!!!!!)
5) Casino Royale (Almost a masterpiece)
6) Quantum Of Solace (Quite lame)
Comments
If you believed male traits were equal to female ones but simply different, you wouldn't be trying to teach someone the traits of the other. You wouldn't see a need to "balance" a boy out because you wouldn't see it as a fault that he is learning the male traits of his father.
I did read what you said. Did you?
Has any of this got much to do with Masculinity in the Craig era ? or did that get left behind several posts ago
I'm not talking out of both sides of my mouth, I am simply defending my opinion, and correcting your misunderstanding that I am sexist, and a chauvinist - as you have wrongly accused me of saying 'women were superior to men', as we show emotion differently. I didn't.
Surely a boy who learns how to 'balance' out his ability to know it's OKAY to show emotion, is not correcting a fault (again, your interpretation that I think that it is one, it isn't) - but rather giving him both sides of the story.
Well, my origional post was.... and then Gassy Man started brandishing words like Sexist and chauvinist - and accusing me of being both. But you're right, we have got off topic, however, no doubt he will want the last word on the matter.....
One does not need help unless one is helpless, and one does seek help from someone who is equally or moreso helpless.
By definition, that means the man is in the inferior position to the woman who -- in your own words -- has judged him not to want but to need emotional education, and it's every man to boot!
Imagine if a man were to write "every woman needs help with her intellectual education," and to suggest in context that that help could only come from a man. People would be correctly judging that to be a sexist statement.
Or substitute sex or gender with race if the bias doesn't seem obvious: "Every black person needs help with his or her emotional education" (and can only get that help from someone of a different race).
You have a need to "balance out" your husband's "don't cry boy" attitude toward your son. Would you feel the same need with a daughter, but vice versa, that is, to balance out your attitude that "it's okay to show emotions" by teaching her that an equally valid response is to "retreat within herself" and "solve problems on her own"? Or would you privilege one of the tactics over the other or perhaps not even consider teaching her a "male" approach to emotions?
In Casino Royale, Bond is believed by the two most important women, Vesper and M, sometimes condescendingly, to be emotionally immature, but if one watches the story carefully, one sees that the lesson Bond learns is that by giving in to his emotions and revealing too much, he lets his guard down and ultimately is betrayed. By Quantum of Solace, M has grudgingly come to accept that she has misjudged Bond in many ways, though her suspicions that he is a far better agent than she might otherwise expect from his attitude or his behavior are proven quite true.
In both stories, Bond becoming far less emotional, not more, is vital.
One big difference though is that in the age of the action hero and sci-fi staples like the Terminator, Bond has to be physically invulnerable on an even greater scale. For instance, I can't imagine a scene where Connery's Bond would respond to a nail to his shoulder by simply pulling it out and tossing it aside with barely a second thought. It's to Craig's credit that he makes that moment believable. At the same time they've invested a little more into our understanding of why Bond can be battered to an inch of his life in one scene but look reasonably presentable in the following scene.
I'm not sure if it has 'swung back' or gone somewhere new (for the Bond Films at least) Connerry's Bond was capable of showing fear, remember the Tarantula in DN, the Laser in GF, or the look of disbelief and fear when faced with Oddjob. I agree with you that neither Connerry or Lazenby would toss the nail aside in the same way but the current incarnation is as you suggest almost super human. I think this is a shame, but wonder if it is to counter some of the emotional vulnerability in DC's Bond so far. In any event I'm hoping for more of a plausable physicality next time and less of the indestructable super- man. Bond should be tough, and tenacious but not invinceable. I'm convinced that DC can pull this off very well, and in a similar manner to the one that Connerry used to do so convincingly
My biggest disappointment with Craig's Bond is that he's defined in more extreme ways all around -- physically, emotionally, morally. There are fewer shades of distinction, even if the scripts paid some lip service to the ambiguities pf his profession. (I find most of the scripts post-Connery to be more obvious and less satisfying in dealing with Bond as anything more than the formula he's become . . . I suspect that's in part because the audience is presumed to be younger in general.)
This will change, and I also suspect if the third Craig outing is more fantastic than the previous two, he'll try to compensate for that by making Bond a little more "everyman" than before, if that makes sense.
Among what Craig did right was making us believe his balls-out Bond was even plausible. That's smart because as he ages, his Bond will slow down a bit and become more worldly -- and he'll still seem pretty admirable as the hero; again, much like Connery.
I'm hoping Craig will be around for at least three more films so we can see this evolution.
Aptly put!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
http://apbateman.com
I want Bond Back smoking, Driving expensive cars and If a female agent needs a slap Then he should Give her One, as well as giving her one.Any more strife in Bonds life should be handled with a shrug "It couldn't be helped Old Boy" then asking about the Latest cricket Scores.
Bond was very much, the "stiff upper lip" sort of chap. We could see he was affected and sometimes extremely bitter about his experiences yet he always remained loyal to queen and country, always putiing his job first.
Yup, that's the one I read. I actually thought Bond came off as fairly vengeful there...
I also thought that Fleming did a pretty fair job of setting up Vesper's demise in the CR book as a motivation for his ongoing focus on addressing SMERSH and its machinations, even though Vesper wasn't specifically mentioned in follow-up books. Still, I guess we all see such things in our own way.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
But as for the novels and Modern Bond, Will we see Bond pleading for his life in a torture scene as in Goldfinger ( Realistic yes,But not very Heroic ) and as the novels,a reintroduction of that mild 50's racism, along with the heavy Smoking.As with everthing We all take what we want from the novels. I see Bond as a strong Hreo type, keeping his emotions in check Others see him as a modern man full of emotions weeping at the drop of a hat,( Once a Month
I simply Don't Compare the Bond of the Novels with the screen Bond, They are two Seperate Animals. But hey what the hell do I know I'm just a dumb smuck who likes action Films,raised watching J Wayne and B Willis.Always taught Boys don't cry or show their feelings, so Once again I'm an Old Dinosaur " a timex watch in a digital world".So for this New Bond Sam Mendes is The right Director,I predict Loads of Emotional turmoil for Bond to Deal with,Blubbing in M's office,Comforted By Dame Judi,and told "There,There everthings going to be all right . You big bad G.I. Joe !"
Bond was certainly a vengeful character at times in the books. However the big difference was that he let the act of revenge come to HIM. In YOLT Bond is deeply depressed following the death of his wife yet he was trying to get back to work...and couldn't even do that!
Yes Craig is very amgry all the time but he has a lot of good oneliners in Casino Royale. QOS was simply bad. It was something that started with Brosnan, a concept saying - Every second movie has to be crap.
1) GoldenEye (Masterpiece)
2) Tomorrow Never Dies (Crap)
3) The World Is Not Enough (Good)
4) Die Another Day (First half: Very good/Second half: CRAP!!!!!)
5) Casino Royale (Almost a masterpiece)
6) Quantum Of Solace (Quite lame)