You have a fair point. Fleming's Bond is very much a misogynist. But what, exactly, is wrong with that, aside from being socially unacceptable these days? You're quite right in that the literary Bond had his misogynistic and racist thoughts exposed in the novels, but unless I'm very much mistaken, he rarely expresses them, which means that in the translation to cinema, he would keep his misogynistic and racist views to himself.
I want to see the films modernised - in that the producers create new stories, filmed in an environment surrounded by new technology. But I also think that the character - and all the main supporting characters who were created by Fleming - should not be materially different from that which was depicted in the novels, in appearance, behaviour and mannerisms.
In this day and age, being a misogynist and a racist is more than just "socially unacceptable", IMO. It would be downright stupid. Granted, back in the days of Bond's origin there was still a lot of misinformation and misguided viewpoints stemming from a number of factors, including more limited interaction among various races and cultures, governments that actually promoted and supported discrimination and segregation, the widespread notion that women couldn't handle certain jobs "reserved" for men, etc. But if the Bond films are going to take place in the present day, wouldn't Bond have to be a bit of a moron to still cling to those outdated and widely discredited viewpoints? I'm not saying there aren't individuals who still harbor those views even today, but those people tend to be morons. Bond is many things, but he's not stupid.
I'd agree that in the real world, being a sexist, racist mysogynist doesn't go down too well. But James Bond isn't real, he's a fictional character created by Fleming. I do not believe that by supporting keeping the character as he was written means that I'm condoning those views - and likewise, I do not believe that EON making a film with that character as he was written means that they endorse those views.
I didn't like Judi Dench's M partly because she is a woman. This is not because I believe a woman cannot be the head of the British Secret Service, but because M wasn't written as a woman. M isn't just the head of the British Secret Service, he is the man named Sir Miles Messervy, who heads the British Secret Service according to the Fleming novels.
Yes, but you can still move with the times and be faithful to Fleming, such as the Dalton era did and the current Craig era is doing. I think you misunderstand my point here. Of course Bond had to change with the times and be modernised in order to survive, but I was pointing out that fidelity to Fleming is not the death knell to the Eon Bond film series many had long predeicted it would be. Look at Skyfall for heaven's sake! It took much from Fleming's latter Bond novels YOLT and TMWTGG. Don't try to better yourself or read about the character's origins in Fleming. You'll surely soon learn that Fleming's Bond is not as black and white as you paint him here. Dink and the "man talk" arse-slap did not come from Fleming (the same with the "fetch my shoes" line from Dr. No that you reference) - that character doesn't even appear in the Goldfinger novel. Chalk that doubt to the scriptwriters Richard Maibaum and Paul Dehn.
I find it astounding (though not very surprising) that you have not tread a page of Fleming even out of curiosity. You might learn actually something. Heaven forbid that would happen.
So come on oh great superior intelligence, what aspects of literacy bond would you like to be show by silver screen bond?
All of it. Warts and all.
I guess I have trouble with the notion that everything about Bond and his world in film has to be the same as written by Fleming over 50 years ago. That would make sense to me if the Bond films were period pieces, but they're not. We can have the essence of Bond and still adapt the character (and his surroundings) to fit the modern world. I submit that, fictional character or not, in today's world it would be ludicrous to depict Bond to be as racist and as sexist as he sometimes appears in the novels. The character of James Bond is a well-travelled, intelligent, sophisticated man of the world who should have the wherewithall to realize that those outmoded views should have no place in the 21st century. I am not suggesting that if one wants those attributes to continue to be a part of Bond because they existed in the novels, then it means one endorses those views. But I do believe it does the James Bond character a disservice to suggest that he would still cling to such primitive views as if he has learned nothing over the years. Perhaps my view on this is heavily influenced by the fact that I believe not all idiots are racists, all racists are most certainly idiots. Clearly Bond is not an idiot.
If people want bond on screen to be portrayed faithfully to fleming's character then I suggest the film makers concentrate on the more likeable and acceptable points, which I think DC already does a great job at.
What exactly are the characteristics of Bond that would make him "likeable" as a person? Hard nosed? Ruthlessness? Heavy-handedness?
The point is that Bond isn't a very likeable person, people like him because he's perceived to be the "good guy", but as quoted in the novella The Spy Who Loved Me,
The top gangsters, the top FBI operatives, the top spies nd the top counter-spies are cold-hearted, cold-blooded, ruthless, tough killers, Miss Michel. Yes, even the "friends" as opposed to the "enemies". They have to be. They wouldn't survive if they weren't.
There's little doubt in my mind that Fleming was describing the person James Bond is - the man who is a lonely assassin, the man who has no friends and who can't sustain a relationship, the man who is losing his humanity. So what, exactly, is likeable about Bond the person?
Bond the character, on the other hand, is a character that I've come to love through the Fleming novels precisely because of what he is - a cold-blooded, cold-hearted, ruthless, tough killer, a "person" who I'd neither like to befriend nor make an enemy of, but a "person" who I admire because he does the jobs that I don't have the guts to do.
I guess I have trouble with the notion that everything about Bond and his world in film has to be the same as written by Fleming over 50 years ago. That would make sense to me if the Bond films were period pieces, but they're not. We can have the essence of Bond and still adapt the character (and his surroundings) to fit the modern world. I submit that, fictional character or not, in today's world it would be ludicrous to depict Bond to be as racist and as sexist as he sometimes appears in the novels. The character of James Bond is a well-travelled, intelligent, sophisticated man of the world who should have the wherewithall to realize that those outmoded views should have no place in the 21st century. I am not suggesting that if one wants those attributes to continue to be a part of Bond because they existed in the novels, then it means one endorses those views. But I do believe it does the James Bond character a disservice to suggest that he would still cling to such primitive views as if he has learned nothing over the years. Perhaps my view on this is heavily influenced by the fact that I believe not all idiots are racists, all racists are most certainly idiots. Clearly Bond is not an idiot.
That's a fair point. No, I don't think James Bond is an idiot. I do agree that the films should be modernised in that the storylines evolve over time, and the character is surrounded by new environments and new technology, but I do not believe the essence of the James Bond persona should be changed one iota. James Bond is not a hero, he is not a person to aspire to be, unless one is a cold-hearted killer himself, so the fact that he has a few vices and traits which makes him ... "not fit in", for want of a better phrase ... isn't fatal to the character, in my view. He may be, according to Judi Dench's M in Goldeneye, a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the cold war", but he's still James Bond, the best 00 agent that they've got, so they accept him for who he is because of what he does for them, and so, I submit, should we.
Comments
I guess I have trouble with the notion that everything about Bond and his world in film has to be the same as written by Fleming over 50 years ago. That would make sense to me if the Bond films were period pieces, but they're not. We can have the essence of Bond and still adapt the character (and his surroundings) to fit the modern world. I submit that, fictional character or not, in today's world it would be ludicrous to depict Bond to be as racist and as sexist as he sometimes appears in the novels. The character of James Bond is a well-travelled, intelligent, sophisticated man of the world who should have the wherewithall to realize that those outmoded views should have no place in the 21st century. I am not suggesting that if one wants those attributes to continue to be a part of Bond because they existed in the novels, then it means one endorses those views. But I do believe it does the James Bond character a disservice to suggest that he would still cling to such primitive views as if he has learned nothing over the years. Perhaps my view on this is heavily influenced by the fact that I believe not all idiots are racists, all racists are most certainly idiots. Clearly Bond is not an idiot.
What exactly are the characteristics of Bond that would make him "likeable" as a person? Hard nosed? Ruthlessness? Heavy-handedness?
The point is that Bond isn't a very likeable person, people like him because he's perceived to be the "good guy", but as quoted in the novella The Spy Who Loved Me,
There's little doubt in my mind that Fleming was describing the person James Bond is - the man who is a lonely assassin, the man who has no friends and who can't sustain a relationship, the man who is losing his humanity. So what, exactly, is likeable about Bond the person?
Bond the character, on the other hand, is a character that I've come to love through the Fleming novels precisely because of what he is - a cold-blooded, cold-hearted, ruthless, tough killer, a "person" who I'd neither like to befriend nor make an enemy of, but a "person" who I admire because he does the jobs that I don't have the guts to do.
That's a fair point. No, I don't think James Bond is an idiot. I do agree that the films should be modernised in that the storylines evolve over time, and the character is surrounded by new environments and new technology, but I do not believe the essence of the James Bond persona should be changed one iota. James Bond is not a hero, he is not a person to aspire to be, unless one is a cold-hearted killer himself, so the fact that he has a few vices and traits which makes him ... "not fit in", for want of a better phrase ... isn't fatal to the character, in my view. He may be, according to Judi Dench's M in Goldeneye, a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the cold war", but he's still James Bond, the best 00 agent that they've got, so they accept him for who he is because of what he does for them, and so, I submit, should we.