I was just wondering about Marnie, because otherwise I don't know what the "wife-beater" allegation is based on.
From memory it was tabloid speculation regarding Connery's private life and not to do with Bond. In response to your other question the Daily Mail is regarded as a fairly low standard purient affair,full of gossip,half truths and innuendo. Not a quality paper.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I don't think many Bond films translate well to now. That being said nothing is wrong with looking at a film in terms of when it was created and what is like now. You can like something and be aware of issues. Fleming was very feminist for his time and much more progressive than many people today. My gosh, Aziz Ansari, Millennial God, could learn about how to treat a date from Pussy Galore. So, enjoy the movies and use whatever as talking points.
'Quarel fetch my shoes' .Whats wrong with that? 'Shirt,go get me a bunch of bananas' Whats wrong with that.Sure one is a remark in fiction,and the other an incident of fact,but both are from the same period of time,late 1940's.I myself gave many such instructions.
'Shirt' was a Jamaican from Montego Bay ,Jamaica.A civilian who was employed at a military camp there.I was a Btrish soldier.
The incident with the bananas is real.Shirt,like Quarel, would have raised no objection.Why should anyone else?
That incident has stuck in my mind because he came back with a stalk of bananas that produced looks of amazement.Dozens of the fruit,cost one shilling to us,and Shirt probably made 6d profit.
How did they treat their women?Well it was no surprise to observe a man and a woman together on the road.He riding a donkey,she walking alongside wit a load of goods balanced on her head.Black people of course.
It's seen as wrong because it's a white man ordering a black man to perform a menial task.
(1) In the novel Bond and Quarrel have a much warmer relationship, which isn't reflected in the film. Mainly this is because in the novels they had already met and (pardon the pun) bonded in LALD, and they meet in the film series in DN (which is why in the film of LALD Bond's associate is Quarrel Jr rather than Quarrel himself).
(2) Bond is curt with most men in DN- check how he talks with the police commissioner at Strangways' place, Dent just before he kills him, the driver who picks him up at the airport, Dr No's men during the decontamination scene. They're all differently coloured and he talks to them in much the same way.
(3) It's a dangerous moment, time is short. Bond's an ex-navy officer giving an order under pressure.
It's seen as wrong because it's a white man ordering a black man to perform a menial task.
(1) In the novel Bond and Quarrel have a much warmer relationship, which isn't reflected in the film. Mainly this is because in the novels they had already met and (pardon the pun) bonded in LALD, and they meet in the film series in DN (which is why in the film of LALD Bond's associate is Quarrel Jr rather than Quarrel himself).
(2) Bond is curt with most men in DN- check how he talks with the police commissioner at Strangways' place, Dent just before he kills him, the driver who picks him up at the airport, Dr No's men during the decontamination scene. They're all differently coloured and he talks to them in much the same way.
(3) It's a dangerous moment, time is short. Bond's an ex-navy officer giving an order under pressure.
{[] Well Played! Sir.
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
I’d love to go to Berlin just to see Hansa Studios -{
stationed in Berlin for 2 years 1986-88, one of the duties was to guard Rudolph Hess in Spandau prison, best 2 years of my life!! Worked hard, played hard!
I'm going to make a wild guess- Bond will still be wrong!
Lots of people find that very creepy, even men here. Bond, naturally, gets the blame for being irresistible to every woman. The script is written to portray Bond this way, which is the real problem people have with it, even though Bond does nothing wrong. Then Bond goes ahead and rejects her advances and treats her like a child (the ice cream comment), which people probably find disrespectful. I think the intent of that was to show that Bond thinks of her as someone who would be inappropriate to sleep with and wasn't intended to be disrespectful. But giving into her advances would be worse, right?
One thing that really bothers me (and has always bothered me, even as a child) is Bond's treatment of Patricia Fearing (Mollie Peters) in THUNDERBALL, specifically in how he grabs her and forces her to kiss him during their first scene together. I find it disgusting, an unwarranted physical assault that's not consistent with Bond's character in either the movies or novels. He's too much of a gentleman to pull something like that, and it's surprising that Terence Young -- who was so methodical about the character's behavior -- would have allowed it.
One thing that really bothers me (and has always bothered me, even as a child) is Bond's treatment of Patricia Fearing (Mollie Peters) in THUNDERBALL, specifically in how he grabs her and forces her to kiss him during their first scene together. I find it disgusting, an unwarranted physical assault that's not consistent with Bond's character in either the movies or novels. He's too much of a gentleman to pull something like that, and it's surprising that Terence Young -- who was so methodical about the character's behavior -- would have allowed it.
The point in context is she's playing hard to get, a role not uncommon both in heterosexual male fantasy -- of which Bond clearly qualifies -- and real life in the 1960s.
I've written about the accusation of "rape" in the Bond films quite a bit, as I find it contextually disingenuous. It's amazing that audiences can accept that Bond can name the genus of some obscure flower or notice that a thug is sneaking up from the reflection in a paramour's eye but somehow won't accept that he's equally perceptive about human nature.
We're to believe Bond knows when a woman wants him and is merely playing hard to get. That's the case with Pussy Galore, certainly, as well as Patricia Fearing. Both give into his charms and ultimately want more, as evidenced on film.
To read these scenes out of context is like reading Bond as a cold-blooded murderer simply because he kills his enemies -- without regard for his duties or his licence to kill.
One thing that really bothers me (and has always bothered me, even as a child) is Bond's treatment of Patricia Fearing (Mollie Peters) in THUNDERBALL, specifically in how he grabs her and forces her to kiss him during their first scene together. I find it disgusting, an unwarranted physical assault that's not consistent with Bond's character in either the movies or novels. He's too much of a gentleman to pull something like that, and it's surprising that Terence Young -- who was so methodical about the character's behavior -- would have allowed it.
The point in context is she's playing hard to get, a role not uncommon both in heterosexual male fantasy -- of which Bond clearly qualifies -- and real life in the 1960s.
I've written about the accusation of "rape" in the Bond films quite a bit, as I find it contextually disingenuous. It's amazing that audiences can accept that Bond can name the genus of some obscure flower or notice that a thug is sneaking up from the reflection in a paramour's eye but somehow won't accept that he's equally perceptive about human nature.
We're to believe Bond knows when a woman wants him and is merely playing hard to get. That's the case with Pussy Galore, certainly, as well as Patricia Fearing. Both give into his charms and ultimately want more, as evidenced on film.
To read these scenes out of context is like reading Bond as a cold-blooded murderer simply because he kills his enemies -- without regard for his duties or his licence to kill.
The power dynamics in TB make it more problematic. In GF Bond is a captive and as the scene develops Pussy demonstrates that she is physically capable of defending herself if she chooses. In TB she is in a subordinate role, evidently concerned about loosing her job. I see no evidence that she was particularly interested in Bond until after he manipulates her into having sex with him.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
One thing that really bothers me (and has always bothered me, even as a child) is Bond's treatment of Patricia Fearing (Mollie Peters) in THUNDERBALL, specifically in how he grabs her and forces her to kiss him during their first scene together. I find it disgusting, an unwarranted physical assault that's not consistent with Bond's character in either the movies or novels. He's too much of a gentleman to pull something like that, and it's surprising that Terence Young -- who was so methodical about the character's behavior -- would have allowed it.
The point in context is she's playing hard to get, a role not uncommon both in heterosexual male fantasy -- of which Bond clearly qualifies -- and real life in the 1960s.
I've written about the accusation of "rape" in the Bond films quite a bit, as I find it contextually disingenuous. It's amazing that audiences can accept that Bond can name the genus of some obscure flower or notice that a thug is sneaking up from the reflection in a paramour's eye but somehow won't accept that he's equally perceptive about human nature.
We're to believe Bond knows when a woman wants him and is merely playing hard to get. That's the case with Pussy Galore, certainly, as well as Patricia Fearing. Both give into his charms and ultimately want more, as evidenced on film.
To read these scenes out of context is like reading Bond as a cold-blooded murderer simply because he kills his enemies -- without regard for his duties or his licence to kill.
The power dynamics in TB make it more problematic. In GF Bond is a captive and as the scene develops Pussy demonstrates that she is physically capable of defending herself if she chooses. In TB she is in a subordinate role, evidently concerned about loosing her job. I see no evidence that she was particularly interested in Bond until after he manipulates her into having sex with him.
That's another limited modern interpretation -- that power on the job or in the context of customer/worker is the only dynamic that matters.
Her sexuality is her power, as has always been the case with a beautiful woman, and while he keeps coming on to her, she rebuffs him, more like a mother or babysitter with a petulant child than someone abused or terrified. He advances, but she establishes the line. She's in control. Someone in her position would be used to men and how to deal with them. To deny this is to deny her agency as a beautiful woman.
Remember, this is the era of men pinching stewardesses on the bottom and so forth. When she "gives in," she's smiling," coquettishly, as the saying used to go. Now, Molly Peters is not the best actress, so perhaps her limited range is not obvious enough, but it's clear from the context she yields, which she hadn't before. And afterwards, she's clearly enamored enough with him to want more.
Ultimately, the scene does not play out as Bond "raping" her as finding the avenue to let her give in to her desires.
Again, in a modern context, this may not make sense. We've reduced flirtation and seduction to signing affidavits and turning launch keys before anything can happen, but in the context of the time -- especially in a male fantasy -- this would have been more commonly understood. Yes, it does push the boundaries a bit, but it's not intended to be "rape."
One of the big problems with the culture today is that people will watch everything (including movies from 50 years ago) and judge it based on the current outrage trend of the moment. No thought about context or the culture at that time.
One of the big problems with the culture today is that people will watch everything (including movies from 50 years ago) and judge it based on the current outrage trend of the moment. No thought about context or the culture at that time.
While I don't think it's precisely wrong to look at something with contemporary mores -- especially if there were people who felt the same in that time period but were too much a minority to do anything about it, a la slavery -- I do think a popcorn movie exists in a fixed point in time, even if their ideas are still relevant. With Bond, there's such an obvious construction. It's not War and Peace. What troubles me is when people try to shoehorn in their ideas in defiance of what is literally shown or said onscreen. In this case, the male-female interaction, predicated on many dynamics of power, including the sexual appeal of the characters involved. Clearly, Pat Fearing is a sexual being, and clearly, she has both burden and agency because of it. Denying this is denying the reality of her character.
One thing that really bothers me (and has always bothered me, even as a child) is Bond's treatment of Patricia Fearing (Mollie Peters) in THUNDERBALL, specifically in how he grabs her and forces her to kiss him during their first scene together. I find it disgusting, an unwarranted physical assault that's not consistent with Bond's character in either the movies or novels. He's too much of a gentleman to pull something like that, and it's surprising that Terence Young -- who was so methodical about the character's behavior -- would have allowed it.
The point in context is she's playing hard to get, a role not uncommon both in heterosexual male fantasy -- of which Bond clearly qualifies -- and real life in the 1960s.
I've written about the accusation of "rape" in the Bond films quite a bit, as I find it contextually disingenuous. It's amazing that audiences can accept that Bond can name the genus of some obscure flower or notice that a thug is sneaking up from the reflection in a paramour's eye but somehow won't accept that he's equally perceptive about human nature.
We're to believe Bond knows when a woman wants him and is merely playing hard to get. That's the case with Pussy Galore, certainly, as well as Patricia Fearing. Both give into his charms and ultimately want more, as evidenced on film.
To read these scenes out of context is like reading Bond as a cold-blooded murderer simply because he kills his enemies -- without regard for his duties or his licence to kill.
The power dynamics in TB make it more problematic. In GF Bond is a captive and as the scene develops Pussy demonstrates that she is physically capable of defending herself if she chooses. In TB she is in a subordinate role, evidently concerned about loosing her job. I see no evidence that she was particularly interested in Bond until after he manipulates her into having sex with him.
I have a hard time with the idea of "she is strong so it was okay because if she wanted it to stop she would have hurt him." For example, Kayla Harrison won an Olympic Gold in judo. She was assulted and if you look at pictures of her at the time and the "family friend" who abused her she "totally could have taken him.'' I just think this is a really weak argument and does not take into account power dynamics (not purely physical) as well as being flustered, confused, etc. Pussy was gay (or at least queer) so they figured this was the "best" way to deal with the subject. He forces himself on her and wears her down. Nothing says great consensual sex like wearing someone down, maybe confusing them and hoping they will hit you if they really don't like it.
But again, I see nothing wrong with considering something in the context of the time and now. Stating that a modern interpretation is invalid is rather short sighted. And full disclosure one of my favorite movies is "Holliday Inn" which is full of blackface and very problematic songs, but I love it and understand when it was made it was acceptable.
Anyway I expect to get blamed for this opinion. I already know many of you disagree with me )
Totally fictional secret agent James Bond is in a totally fictional desperate situation, required by the plot of his totally fictional adventure designed (successfully) to entertain mass audiences. He knows that the very next day international master criminal Auric Goldfinger is planning to kill 60,000 people (apparently twice as many as American motorists kill in a year, at least in 1964) in order to carry out his plan to irradiate the gold in Fort Knox. It would probably be a Good Thing if he could prevent that happening- even real people 50 or 60 years later couldn't complain about his preventing 60,000 deaths....surely?
His plan to hide a note explaining Goldfinger's plan to the CIA along with a homing device on a hoodlum leaving the premises hasn't worked out. His options are almost nil. If only the woman in charge of spraying the lethal gas from the air was on his side! There seems to be an attraction between them- if time weren't so limited he could maybe persuade her to see that murdering 60,000 people was wrong in 1964, and would still be wrong 50 or 60 years later. Perhaps he should take the one and only opportunity available to him when the two of them are on their own to test the strength of their attraction...? No, perhaps not. He should allow those 60,000 people to die, probably including himself too based on a remark from Goldfinger about being too close for comfort, just in case someone should judge him for his actions many years later.
Pussy is undeniably lesbian in the novel but not in the film- and that isn’t my opinion but that of the screenwriter Richard Maibaum who “played it as ‘man-hating’, a perfectly acceptable, recognisable proclivity”.
The point in context is she's playing hard to get, a role not uncommon both in heterosexual male fantasy -- of which Bond clearly qualifies -- and real life in the 1960s.
I've written about the accusation of "rape" in the Bond films quite a bit, as I find it contextually disingenuous. It's amazing that audiences can accept that Bond can name the genus of some obscure flower or notice that a thug is sneaking up from the reflection in a paramour's eye but somehow won't accept that he's equally perceptive about human nature.
We're to believe Bond knows when a woman wants him and is merely playing hard to get. That's the case with Pussy Galore, certainly, as well as Patricia Fearing. Both give into his charms and ultimately want more, as evidenced on film.
To read these scenes out of context is like reading Bond as a cold-blooded murderer simply because he kills his enemies -- without regard for his duties or his licence to kill.
The power dynamics in TB make it more problematic. In GF Bond is a captive and as the scene develops Pussy demonstrates that she is physically capable of defending herself if she chooses. In TB she is in a subordinate role, evidently concerned about loosing her job. I see no evidence that she was particularly interested in Bond until after he manipulates her into having sex with him.
I have a hard time with the idea of "she is strong so it was okay because if she wanted it to stop she would have hurt him." For example, Kayla Harrison won an Olympic Gold in judo. She was assulted and if you look at pictures of her at the time and the "family friend" who abused her she "totally could have taken him.'' I just think this is a really weak argument and does not take into account power dynamics (not purely physical) as well as being flustered, confused, etc. Pussy was gay (or at least queer) so they figured this was the "best" way to deal with the subject. He forces himself on her and wears her down. Nothing says great consensual sex like wearing someone down, maybe confusing them and hoping they will hit you if they really don't like it.
But again, I see nothing wrong with considering something in the context of the time and now. Stating that a modern interpretation is invalid is rather short sighted. And full disclosure one of my favorite movies is "Holliday Inn" which is full of blackface and very problematic songs, but I love it and understand when it was made it was acceptable.
Anyway I expect to get blamed for this opinion. I already know many of you disagree with me )
Don't think I do disagree with you. I find your point re power dynamics being more than physical compelling. I never meant to suggest that it was alright, just that it was a factor in mitigation. Grassy also ably points out the issue re contemporary lenses. I think there is more agreement than dissent.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Pussy is undeniably lesbian in the novel but not in the film- and that isn’t my opinion but that of the screenwriter Richard Maibaum who “played it as ‘man-hating’, a perfectly acceptable, recognisable proclivity”.
You are correct. I should have said in the book she is queer. I was trying to say, and should have said, they took this plot line and turned it into something that could actually be in the movie and would be more logical in the context of the film franchise.
Good point. Remember that Bond has a mission to accomplish to stop the nuking of Ft Knox and the death of 60,000 people. He will do whatever he has to and make it happen. Morality be damned.
Bond: "But who would want to kill me, sir?"
M: "Jealous husbands, outraged chefs, humiliated tailors . . . the list is endless."
It's not just Bond that should be singled out. Anyone watch a 2009 movie called
AVATAR ? .... to control another you must force your Hair Braid in to the tendrils
of another creature, to make it submissive ? .... sort of a Rapist inference there.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
From memory it was tabloid speculation regarding Connery's private life and not to do with Bond. In response to your other question the Daily Mail is regarded as a fairly low standard purient affair,full of gossip,half truths and innuendo. Not a quality paper.
'Shirt' was a Jamaican from Montego Bay ,Jamaica.A civilian who was employed at a military camp there.I was a Btrish soldier.
The incident with the bananas is real.Shirt,like Quarel, would have raised no objection.Why should anyone else?
That incident has stuck in my mind because he came back with a stalk of bananas that produced looks of amazement.Dozens of the fruit,cost one shilling to us,and Shirt probably made 6d profit.
How did they treat their women?Well it was no surprise to observe a man and a woman together on the road.He riding a donkey,she walking alongside wit a load of goods balanced on her head.Black people of course.
It's seen as wrong because it's a white man ordering a black man to perform a menial task.
(1) In the novel Bond and Quarrel have a much warmer relationship, which isn't reflected in the film. Mainly this is because in the novels they had already met and (pardon the pun) bonded in LALD, and they meet in the film series in DN (which is why in the film of LALD Bond's associate is Quarrel Jr rather than Quarrel himself).
(2) Bond is curt with most men in DN- check how he talks with the police commissioner at Strangways' place, Dent just before he kills him, the driver who picks him up at the airport, Dr No's men during the decontamination scene. They're all differently coloured and he talks to them in much the same way.
(3) It's a dangerous moment, time is short. Bond's an ex-navy officer giving an order under pressure.
{[] Well Played! Sir.
-Mr Arlington Beech
I'm technically from Generation Z but this is depressing.
-{
I'd like them to find a movie or series that was made over two decades ago that doesn't offend them!
Lots of people find that very creepy, even men here. Bond, naturally, gets the blame for being irresistible to every woman. The script is written to portray Bond this way, which is the real problem people have with it, even though Bond does nothing wrong. Then Bond goes ahead and rejects her advances and treats her like a child (the ice cream comment), which people probably find disrespectful. I think the intent of that was to show that Bond thinks of her as someone who would be inappropriate to sleep with and wasn't intended to be disrespectful. But giving into her advances would be worse, right?
“Man talk” lol, don’t think that would fly now
JFK
. Risico.
Gun In My Hand
Never Dream of Dying
I've written about the accusation of "rape" in the Bond films quite a bit, as I find it contextually disingenuous. It's amazing that audiences can accept that Bond can name the genus of some obscure flower or notice that a thug is sneaking up from the reflection in a paramour's eye but somehow won't accept that he's equally perceptive about human nature.
We're to believe Bond knows when a woman wants him and is merely playing hard to get. That's the case with Pussy Galore, certainly, as well as Patricia Fearing. Both give into his charms and ultimately want more, as evidenced on film.
To read these scenes out of context is like reading Bond as a cold-blooded murderer simply because he kills his enemies -- without regard for his duties or his licence to kill.
The PC Dukes of Hazzard
The power dynamics in TB make it more problematic. In GF Bond is a captive and as the scene develops Pussy demonstrates that she is physically capable of defending herself if she chooses. In TB she is in a subordinate role, evidently concerned about loosing her job. I see no evidence that she was particularly interested in Bond until after he manipulates her into having sex with him.
Her sexuality is her power, as has always been the case with a beautiful woman, and while he keeps coming on to her, she rebuffs him, more like a mother or babysitter with a petulant child than someone abused or terrified. He advances, but she establishes the line. She's in control. Someone in her position would be used to men and how to deal with them. To deny this is to deny her agency as a beautiful woman.
Remember, this is the era of men pinching stewardesses on the bottom and so forth. When she "gives in," she's smiling," coquettishly, as the saying used to go. Now, Molly Peters is not the best actress, so perhaps her limited range is not obvious enough, but it's clear from the context she yields, which she hadn't before. And afterwards, she's clearly enamored enough with him to want more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq4cc6R50G0
Ultimately, the scene does not play out as Bond "raping" her as finding the avenue to let her give in to her desires.
Again, in a modern context, this may not make sense. We've reduced flirtation and seduction to signing affidavits and turning launch keys before anything can happen, but in the context of the time -- especially in a male fantasy -- this would have been more commonly understood. Yes, it does push the boundaries a bit, but it's not intended to be "rape."
But again, I see nothing wrong with considering something in the context of the time and now. Stating that a modern interpretation is invalid is rather short sighted. And full disclosure one of my favorite movies is "Holliday Inn" which is full of blackface and very problematic songs, but I love it and understand when it was made it was acceptable.
Anyway I expect to get blamed for this opinion. I already know many of you disagree with me
His plan to hide a note explaining Goldfinger's plan to the CIA along with a homing device on a hoodlum leaving the premises hasn't worked out. His options are almost nil. If only the woman in charge of spraying the lethal gas from the air was on his side! There seems to be an attraction between them- if time weren't so limited he could maybe persuade her to see that murdering 60,000 people was wrong in 1964, and would still be wrong 50 or 60 years later. Perhaps he should take the one and only opportunity available to him when the two of them are on their own to test the strength of their attraction...? No, perhaps not. He should allow those 60,000 people to die, probably including himself too based on a remark from Goldfinger about being too close for comfort, just in case someone should judge him for his actions many years later.
Pussy is undeniably lesbian in the novel but not in the film- and that isn’t my opinion but that of the screenwriter Richard Maibaum who “played it as ‘man-hating’, a perfectly acceptable, recognisable proclivity”.
Don't think I do disagree with you. I find your point re power dynamics being more than physical compelling. I never meant to suggest that it was alright, just that it was a factor in mitigation. Grassy also ably points out the issue re contemporary lenses. I think there is more agreement than dissent.
M: "Jealous husbands, outraged chefs, humiliated tailors . . . the list is endless."
Thank you.
AVATAR ? .... to control another you must force your Hair Braid in to the tendrils
of another creature, to make it submissive ? .... sort of a Rapist inference there.