An equal with Bond
words
Buckinghamshire, EnglandPosts: 249MI6 Agent
You know how in recent Bond films there is always a bond girl who almost defensively claims to be 'an equal with Bond' when questioned about the Bond girl stigma.
Well, I was thinking about this, and hasn't there been a strong Bond woman in nearly every movie, and don't they nearly always need to be rescued by Bond at some stage no matter how 'equal' they are?
Is there fundamentally any difference between the strong willed Honey, and the feisty Wai Lin. After all, they both have to be rescued in the final reel. And are Fiona in Thunderball and Pussy in Goldfinger any less Bond's 'equal' than Pam Bouvier or Jinx?
When you think of it like this, the whole 'equal with Bond' thing, that I know irritates alot of you, is ridiculous. Any actress should be proud to follow in the footsteps of these strong female characters and not be so defensive!
Well, I was thinking about this, and hasn't there been a strong Bond woman in nearly every movie, and don't they nearly always need to be rescued by Bond at some stage no matter how 'equal' they are?
Is there fundamentally any difference between the strong willed Honey, and the feisty Wai Lin. After all, they both have to be rescued in the final reel. And are Fiona in Thunderball and Pussy in Goldfinger any less Bond's 'equal' than Pam Bouvier or Jinx?
When you think of it like this, the whole 'equal with Bond' thing, that I know irritates alot of you, is ridiculous. Any actress should be proud to follow in the footsteps of these strong female characters and not be so defensive!
Comments
Personally, I prefer women who are not presented as a phony equal to Bond, but rather "earn their stripes" through their actions. Take Domino. No one would deny she's a coddled, spoiled mistress -- hardly a poster girl for feminism. Yet Bond is dead if she doesn't shoot Largo in the back. It could be argued that she is truly Bond's equal, based on her courage and on the fact that she undeniably saved his life.
Sorry JFF, don't see as much of this with Natalya.
Yes that's right, and thinking about it , what about Tracey? Spoilt little rich girl but tough as old boots in the final analysis.
Also... ...this is where you're way off base. Speaking for myself, I am not at all threatened by the idea of a capable women agent. What I question is the need to have one in so many films. Not that everything should follow Fleming to the letter, but did any of the novels have one? What I also dislike is the manner is which these characters are presented -- always with some press conference stating, "my character's not the typical Bond girl, she's his equal" -- as if being a typical Bond girl is a bad thing. I feel preached to, and the whole thing rings all the more hollow when the women -- every single one of them -- end up in bed with him. Yes, I know, it's not like he forces them, but just once I would like to see one of these so-called equals resist his advances. Now that would give us something to talk about!
First time I've ever felt the need to ask this of you, HH...WTF are you talking about???
I'll be happy to explain, Hillary. When Eva Green explained to the media that she accepted the role of Vesper because Vesper was the "equal" of Bond, a lot of people on this site started saying as you did: what is she talking about? An "equal" to James Bond? What a load of crap. These actresses are always saying that, then they never turn out to be, etc ..."
What I understood Green to mean was not that Vesper would be matching Bond karate kick for karate kick, but rather that the Vesper character would be fully vested in the story, rather than the typical eye-candy that most Bond women are.
And they are indeed, in my opinion, from Honeychile Rider through Tracy to Jinx. The only Bond girl that is really necessary to the character arc of any of the Bond films is Vesper. The whole point of CR is that Bond starts out rash and cocky, then falls in love and is betrayed by a woman, an experience that leaves him hardened and tempered. Vesper is instrinsic to that storyline in a way that none of the other women have been.
The fact that some Russian agent or pilot or assassin or colleague of Bond's was a woman is not necessary to the story. The fact that they're women is simply a novelty. I could imagine any one of those characters as a man. Wouldn't make a damn bit of difference, except of course, Bond wouldn't be poking 'em.
That's WTF I'm talking about
Now I get your point, HH. However, I don't see your argument applying to Tracy. Bond only finds Blofeld because Draco tells him about Gumbold. And Draco only tells him because he wants Bond to court Tracy. And Bond only meets Draco because he has...um...interacted with Tracy the night before. Tracy facilitates Bond's escape from the village. Bond only defies M's orders not to attack Piz Gloria because Blofeld has Tracy up there. And, of course, the whole falling in love/marriage thing runs throughout.
And, no, I don't see Tracy's being a woman as simply a novelty.
On your broader point, I think I am in agreement. My only caveat to full agreement is that I suspect that you view CR through the same rose-colored lens through which I view OHMSS.
As for the 'Bond's equal' debate...let's not be asserting that fans are threatened by such a thing, as that's a bit of a cliched generalization...
I'd tend to agree with HH that Vesper's intrinsic value to the plot makes her the closest to being Bond's equal of any in the series. Just making his love interest a kick-ass superspy (like Wai-Lin or Jinx) isn't enough. Holly Goodhead's ability to do one of the few things Bond cannot (fly a space shuttle) raises her value considerably...
I would, however add Tracy to the mix, as her death is no less intrinsic to OHMSS than Vesper's treachery in CR.
Bond's equal or not, many of the girls---both in the novels and on film---pull Bond's chestnuts out of the fire on occasions too numerous to list here...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I certainly do look at CR through rose-colored glasses -- but if I seem overenthusiastic, it's only because it's been such a long time since a Bond film caught my interest. I'd be a little more subdued probably if more of the films since the Connery era had been like FRWL and CR.
But back to your point, Tracy. I love Diana Rigg, and so it pains me to say this: You could cut her out of the movie no problem. Sure, Draco would need some new motivation for telling Bond about Blofeld, but that could be easily done. I never get the sense watching OHMSS -- and I just watched it again recently -- that Bond was in love. He meets Tracy then humps all the chicks in the Harem. In the novel at least, he thinks about Tracy, fantasizes about her and what marriage would be like. Now I know Bond wouldn't be the first guy to follow his unmentionable wherever it may lead, but in a movie, where the character's interior thoughts are hidden from view, "action is character," as the saying goes. I saw no difference in Bond's character after meeting Tracy. The only intimation that he was in love was during that insipid sequence with Armstrong in the background. So that's why I think Tracy could have been easily excised. If you're not going to show Bond in love, why bother?
I'll concede the point that OHMSS could be done without Tracy and her subsequent murder...but IMRO it would be a greatly diminished yarn.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
What's ironic to me is that several people have wondered aloud if Bond and/or Vesper really were in love in CR, which floors me every time because it seems so obvious to me that they were. That's something that is sorely missing from OHMSS, in my view. But the series was still young then and everything was focused on action. Thirty years later, the action has grown a little stale so they try a little character for a change.
Ironic indeed, because I see it in OHMSS as well as CR...two sides of the same coin, to me, since these are the only two times (in print AND film) when the plot actually hinges on Bond's true love for the leading lady...I suppose it's not surprising that some have a hard time accepting it, in one film or another, since the bar for such a character departure has been placed high by 19 other films which show Bond in a more shallow light.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Given the recent nature of Vesper on film, I think it will be some time before they dare to 'go there' with Tracy in a remake of OHMSS...it likely won't be with Craig...even more likely, it won't be with Eon...might not even happen in our lifetimes
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
And maybe that's part of my problem with Tracy. Bond just goes on his merry way. It was an incredible waste of a story, which is why doing them over right makes sense to me. But you're probably right about EON. But McClory's dead, so the "Bloefeld" character should be available. I don't care if it's Craig. Probably too late for him, anyway. Get another guy who can act to do all three. And who knows? I never thought Eon would have done CR the way they did. Maybe there's hope.
Given that these so-called "equal females" are inventions of the cinematic presentation of Bond, and were invented most likely to counter what are properly regarded as outmoded ways of portraying women, I simply wish they were done with more conviction and less ballyhoo. I am not a woman so maybe I am out of line, but I have more respect for a female character who shows her equality through courage (killing Largo) or skill (piloting a space shuttle) than one whose equality is asserted at a press conference but who ultimately ends up being bailed out by Bond and then screwing him.
Quite right. Maybe because just about every Bond girl, whether she's presented as "Bond's equal" or not, certainly has the eye candy factor. If just one of these women were not a "classic beauty" or were a size 10 instead of a size 2, I could swallow the whole presentation a little better. Would anyone argue that Samantha Bond is not a creditable actress? Why couldn't she have played Jinx, and someone of Halle Berry's beauty play Moneypenny? We all know why -- because Halle has the eye candy factor. And yet, we're not sold that, we're sold on her "equality" with Bond.
*The woman is going about her day by doing all the sattelite work when she adjourns to get coffee. The defenseless Severnaya team is gunned down by some psychotic woman and when Natalya drops her coffee cup, she manages to trick her executioner into thinking she escaped into the vent when in fact she was in the cupboard the whole time.
*She survives an exploding sattelite installation, climbs out of the defunct and burning dish, gets a sled dog team and somehow gets to St. Petersburg, pretty resourceful!
*She cons her way into the computer store with a well-crafted story and is able to talk to Boris who she still thought was a friend. (She does need to be rescued, but every Bond girl does).
*In the Jungle, while she is temporarily knocked out by Xenia, she had the courage to attack with the tree branch which distracted Bond, enabling him to kill her.
*She beats up Boris while he cowardly hides and squeals
*In the Control Center, Bond tells her to stay put but she does no such thing and hacks into the mainframe computer and changes the access codes. Since she is more valuable to Trevelyan than Bond, he is held at gunpoint and needs to be rescued. If not for the lethal pen, who knows what Natalya would've had to do to free him. She pretty much disabled the sattelite though.
*She commandeers a helicopter gunship by sneaking in and at the right moment surfacing from her hiding place so Bond could be rescued.
All in all, Natalya was a tough (and beautiful) cookie the whole time, and blows all the other alleged "Bond equals" out of the water, the only one coming close to her are Pam Bouvier and Holly Goodhead.
I don't believe most fans are threatened by strong female characters, on the contrary, my conjecture is that there have been women from the start of the Bond movies that could hold their own opposite him.
As far as I can see, it is the actresses who have played Bond girls recently who feel threatened. In some way they feel that being rescued by Bond or playing second fiddle will be a demeening experience, and I think this is unique in the action genre. You don't hear many actresses in other blockbuster movies coming out ahead of release sayin 'don't worry, I'm an equal to the male lead!'.
I just think self conciously coming out claiming to be an equal to the star of the show is a bit of an insult to the many marvellous actresses who have down the years happily played a foil to Bond in a dignified and courageous manner!
None of the Bond girls are Bond's equal. The same way none of his male allies(Leiter, Kerim Bey, Tiger Tanaka, etc.) are his equal. And the villains sure better not be his equal. No one is equal to Bond because he is the best. I think sometimes Michelle Yeoh, Halle Berry, et al, sometimes forget in their press interviews that they are not playing the main character in the Bond films they agreed to appear in.
ITA. I like Jill St. John's happiness and good attitude about her having been a Bond girl as she said so in her interview with Maryam d'Abo in the Bond Girls Are Forever documentary.
I'll end this with a comparison. As tough as Wai Lin and Jinx were, that were not necessarily tougher than Honey, who calmly explained how she murdered the man who raped her. That woman is tough, yet I don't think she came off as a wannabe 'female Bond' in the same way that Wai Lin and Jinx did.
But that was what the montage in OHMSS so nicely conveyed...time passing, moments spent together, obviously enjoying each other's company. I didn't get as nearly a strong impression in CR that there was any connection as I did in OHMSS.
As for cutting Tracy out of the story in OHMSS - yeah you could re-write it so her part wasn't needed. But you could do the same for CR with just a little bit of shuffling. Bond could be betrayed by a man just as easily as a woman (see GE for an example). I do agree that Vesper has a more important role than other Bond women. If they had taken more care in building the story in CR, it would have been fantastic.
As I said when I wrote that post, we're going around in circles on this, Fish. My opinion is my opinion -- I have tried to explain it as best I can. As you have now chosen to ascribe motives to me that are not only unfounded but false, I will leave you to twirl in circles on your own.
Thanks for ruining what until now had been an interesting debate. You and your arguments are much more interesting when you're analytical, a lot less so when you're angry and accusatory.
This is one instance where switching the sex of the character most definitely wouldn't work, Darenhat. As someone who values a well-built story, you surely understand that the drama of Bond's betrayal is in the fact that it was by someone he loved. A man definitely wouldn't do, without a really major "shuffle."
I guess I understand Bond and Tracy were in love in OHMSS because I "get" the hackeneyed device of the montage. I've been to the movies before. Soft-focus photography, two attractive people laughing and smiling and walking through the woods, while someone croons in the background can only mean one thing -- love. Which is why it's hard for me to understand how some folks failed to pickup similar "movie signals" throughout CR. If I would fault CR's script on anything, it's the reliance on some of these cliches to advance the love story.
Yeah..it's hackneyed, but you could definitely say it made it's point by the merit of having never been done in a Bond film. My disappointment with CR was fueled by the fact that we really don't see Bond sharing too much with Vesper than what we have seen shared in other Bond films (i.e. bodily fluids). I felt Bond's declaration of love from the hospital bed seemed rather sudden.
I agree that the betrayal of Vesper is deepened because she was a woman whom Bond loved, but since I never felt emotionally caught up in the pair, the impact for me had as much power as the Trevalynn betrayel in GE.
A formula? No. In fact, the exact opposite, really. The reason why the 'hackneyed' montage worked was because it was outside the typical Bond formula. Bond has been attracted to, and slept with, numerous women during his cinematic exploits. In order to to convey that this was different, the filmmakers should actually do something different. Are we supposed to watch Bond in CR and say "Well, he must love Vesper because he finds her attractive and slept with her"? How is that different from previous Bond liasons? Bond found Pussy Galore attractive, and slept with her. Did he have the same feeling? It's for this reason, formula should be avoided, like it was in OHMSS, which makes it a much more successful story IMO.
Finally, it has to be mentioned that regarding Jinx, there was going to be a Jinx spin-off at one point. So, yes, while I have no problem with strong women, I do have a huge problem with those two women.
Oh my god. Why do you have to be so aggressive?
I don't get that with CR. While I do believe that Bond had feelings with with Vesper (due to Craig's acting in the death scene) I am not convinced that he loved her; at least not in the same way that I am convinced that Bond was in love with Tracey. This is really due to the script as I felt that Bond's and Vesper's relationship was enormously undeveloped; far more so than in OHMSS. Dialogue such as "I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours" certainly didn't help matters.
Then there's Vesper. While I believe that Tracey loved Bond (Rigg's acting aside, she went all the way to Switzerland just to see Bond) I don't even know if Vesper cared about Bond. As well being due to the script which I think was much less undeveloped than in OHMSS, I place much of the blame on Green whom IMO delivered a horrible performance. I would dearly have loved for her not to have played Vesper. I actually think that Caterina Murino could have done a better job.
Basically, while I know that Bond and Tracey were in love, I don't have nearly the same reaction to Bond and Vesper. That's why the suicide scene was IMO so ineffective. Although it was demonstrated in that scene that Bond did care about Vesper*, I'm not convinced that it was love, and I certainly don't know wether Vesper was fond of Bond in the slightest or was just annoyed that the money had been lost.
*The suicide scene wasn't the first time that I actually got a sense that Bond cared about Vesper. I also got a sense in the shower scene; however I tend to ignore that scene as it was too creepy for my liking.
You weren't sure about Bond's feelings? Gee Dan, in the beach scene he tells her he loves her. As for Vesper, the whole point is that while she does love Bond, she also is betraying him. She didn't expect to fall in love with him, but did. That of course complicates things and is unsettling to her. Her situation is a bit more complicated than Tracy's, so if Green plays her a bit on the ambivalent or tentative side, that's a wise choice in my estimation. I would also add that it is absolutely true to the novel. The kind of doubts you expresss are the same as Bond's in the book. Most of the last third of it concerns Bond's puzzlement at Vesper's apparently on-again, off-again feelings for him. Get a copy of the book and check it out and tell me that's not correct. So it seems to me that Green nailed the role, but you fail to recognize it because it wasn't a more by-the-numbers, woman-in-love performance like the one delivered in OHMSS by Rigg and so many other actresses in so many other movies. It strikes me that it's going to be hard for the filmmakers to attempt to portray any kind of "real" human emotion, which usually doesn't conform to the comfortable cliches of the movies. But I think most people understood Vesper's tentativeness for what it was.
HH, I'm beginning to wonder:
-- Are you financially vested in CR?
-- Are you personal friends with the filmmakers or performers?
-- Are you actually Paul Haggis posting under an alias?
-- Is there a vast anti-CR cabal I'm not aware of that poses a threat to life as we know it?
What else could possibly compel you to answer critiques of the film with such ridicule and condescension?