46 replies to this topic

[Strawhairedagent]

Hello, this is my first post. I was thinking this after seeing both of Daniel Craig's films, and I reckon EON / the writers aren't sure how to bring Bond into the 21st century sexually. Just as the series abandoned smoking as filthy, I think sleeping around is no longer considered glamorous like it was in the 1960s. Craig's Bond initially behaves like Connery, seducing the terrorist's wife to gain information before going on an emotional journey as he falls for and loses Vesper.

I personally found it so incongrous that Bond easily seduced Fields, but I supposed there were enough complaints about the 'rules' broken by Quantum of Solace that they needed one conquest (as MI6.co.uk calls it) because they chose to make Camille an ally and not a romantic partner. It's funny because Yusef works for Quantum in a manner reminiscent of the usual cinematic Bond: he romances (not seduces) women in high positions so he can (cruelly) manipulate them later. He is a sleazy mirror image.

I don't really have any conclusion other than to spark debate on how Bond has changed in the area of sex, how it relates to deepening his character, or whether EON knows how to handle it.

[iexpectu2die]

I hadn't considered this possible parallel between Yusef, and the Bond of old. Interesting - thinking of it that way shows just how much the character has changed recently.

[jaguar007]

I don't think it as much to do with a change in the character to be more PC, I think it has to do more with his love for Vesper.

[Righty007]

"Strawhairedagent," is your username a reference to Ian Fleming's Felix Leiter? If so, well done.

[Zorin Industries]

Bond is a fantasy.

In the 1980's when everyone was terrified of a sexual cold war in the shape of AIDS, it made a certain sense for Dalton to only get his rocks off once a film.

But I think Eon - despite bringing a reality to Bond in these last two films - have actually embraced the fantasy of the character once again. I didn't feel SOLACE lacked any bedroom gymnastics. It would have left an odd taste in the mouth had BOND bedded CAMILLE - even at a closing "oh James" moment - especially in a film that suggests an off camera rape more than once.

[HildebrandRarity]

I think Bond will be back doing more bedding now that he's gotten his quantum of solace. But I don't expect him to do four girls in one movie like Moore in AVTAK.

[Mr_Wint]

It would have left an odd taste in the mouth had BOND bedded CAMILLE - even at a closing "oh James" moment - especially in a film that suggests an off camera rape more than once.

Maybe, but suggesting a rape kinda left an odd taste too.

[Zorin Industries]

It would have left an odd taste in the mouth had BOND bedded CAMILLE - even at a closing "oh James" moment - especially in a film that suggests an off camera rape more than once.

Maybe, but suggesting a rape kinda left an odd taste too.

It's part of the darkness of BOND's world. Part of the sadism inherent in his contacts and their proclivities.

Look at ANDREA's nearly broken arm in GOLDEN GUN, BOND slamming PAM down when he thinks she's betrayed him in LICENCE TO KILL, a character like LUPE LAMORA who is a blatant sexual abuse victim throughout the same film, the underage BIBI coming onto BOND in EYES ONLY.... That rape scene in SOLACE is all in the audience's head. It is suggested, but you see nothing. And the right people get their just desserts.

[BlackFire]

Well you should remember Bond is still hurt by Vesper's betrayal and death so it must not be easy to Bond going through this having sex with every girl, that's why he only had sex with Fields (I think)

In Casino, he was very happy to the idea of sex with Solange.

[Publius]

It's funny because Yusef works for Quantum in a manner reminiscent of the usual cinematic Bond: he romances (not seduces) women in high positions so he can (cruelly) manipulate them later. He is a sleazy mirror image.

This is how I interpreted it as well. Glad I'm not alone.

Anyway, I think Bond knocking boots with multiple women in each film is as much of a cliche as "shaken, not stirred," and I'd rather see it be made the rare exception rather than the rule.

And welcome to CBn!

[Judo chop]

I think this might be a good test to see how far Bond has come. (Please excuse the horrible pun!! )

In QOS, Bond discovers that Camille used sex to get through Greene to the General. Camille then asks Bond if he has a problem with that.

His most genuine answer, “No. None at all whatsoever.”

Another a 2-second clip of dialogue which, through precise acting, says so much about this Bond. I wonder what the responses would be from the previous 5 Bonds given the same situation and the same question?

With Craig’s closest comparison, Connery, I get the sense that even if the choice of words were the same, there would be a detectable undercurrent of “it wouldn’t do to make a habit of it”.

RogBond might have appeared a little put off, even.

Just more fuel on the spark of debate. Other thoughts?

[Mr_Wint]

It would have left an odd taste in the mouth had BOND bedded CAMILLE - even at a closing "oh James" moment - especially in a film that suggests an off camera rape more than once.

Maybe, but suggesting a rape kinda left an odd taste too.

It's part of the darkness of BOND's world. Part of the sadism inherent in his contacts and their proclivities.

Look at ANDREA's nearly broken arm in GOLDEN GUN, BOND slamming PAM down when he thinks she's betrayed him in LICENCE TO KILL, a character like LUPE LAMORA who is a blatant sexual abuse victim throughout the same film, the underage BIBI coming onto BOND in EYES ONLY.... That rape scene in SOLACE is all in the audience's head. It is suggested, but you see nothing. And the right people get their just desserts.

It should never be a part of Bond's world. I can only accept this in the gritty, disgusting, world Dirty Harry lives in. But even then, I've some reservations. It's more than enough to have it in our real world.

I belive that there is gigantic step from male chauvinism to sexual abuse.

[avl]

It would have left an odd taste in the mouth had BOND bedded CAMILLE - even at a closing "oh James" moment - especially in a film that suggests an off camera rape more than once.

Maybe, but suggesting a rape kinda left an odd taste too.

It's part of the darkness of BOND's world. Part of the sadism inherent in his contacts and their proclivities.

Look at ANDREA's nearly broken arm in GOLDEN GUN, BOND slamming PAM down when he thinks she's betrayed him in LICENCE TO KILL, a character like LUPE LAMORA who is a blatant sexual abuse victim throughout the same film, the underage BIBI coming onto BOND in EYES ONLY.... That rape scene in SOLACE is all in the audience's head. It is suggested, but you see nothing. And the right people get their just desserts.

It should never be a part of Bond's world. I can only accept this in the gritty, disgusting, world Dirty Harry lives in. But even then, I've some reservations. It's more than enough to have it in our real world.

I belive that there is gigantic step from male chauvinism to sexual abuse.

I'm pretty sure it was part of Fleming's Bond's world...

[sark]

I think sleeping around is no longer considered glamorous like it was in the 1960s.

You don't watch TV, go to movies, or listen to the radio much, do you?

[Mr_Wint]

It would have left an odd taste in the mouth had BOND bedded CAMILLE - even at a closing "oh James" moment - especially in a film that suggests an off camera rape more than once.

Maybe, but suggesting a rape kinda left an odd taste too.

It's part of the darkness of BOND's world. Part of the sadism inherent in his contacts and their proclivities.

Look at ANDREA's nearly broken arm in GOLDEN GUN, BOND slamming PAM down when he thinks she's betrayed him in LICENCE TO KILL, a character like LUPE LAMORA who is a blatant sexual abuse victim throughout the same film, the underage BIBI coming onto BOND in EYES ONLY.... That rape scene in SOLACE is all in the audience's head. It is suggested, but you see nothing. And the right people get their just desserts.

It should never be a part of Bond's world. I can only accept this in the gritty, disgusting, world Dirty Harry lives in. But even then, I've some reservations. It's more than enough to have it in our real world.

I belive that there is gigantic step from male chauvinism to sexual abuse.

I'm pretty sure it was part of Fleming's Bond's world...

So you want to see more of this in future Bondmovies?

Maybe I'm the only one who think it is totally inappropriate... but I doubt that.

[Tarl_Cabot]

It would have left an odd taste in the mouth had BOND bedded CAMILLE - even at a closing "oh James" moment - especially in a film that suggests an off camera rape more than once.

Maybe, but suggesting a rape kinda left an odd taste too.

It's part of the darkness of BOND's world. Part of the sadism inherent in his contacts and their proclivities.

Look at ANDREA's nearly broken arm in GOLDEN GUN, BOND slamming PAM down when he thinks she's betrayed him in LICENCE TO KILL, a character like LUPE LAMORA who is a blatant sexual abuse victim throughout the same film, the underage BIBI coming onto BOND in EYES ONLY.... That rape scene in SOLACE is all in the audience's head. It is suggested, but you see nothing. And the right people get their just desserts.

It should never be a part of Bond's world. I can only accept this in the gritty, disgusting, world Dirty Harry lives in. But even then, I've some reservations. It's more than enough to have it in our real world.

I belive that there is gigantic step from male chauvinism to sexual abuse.

I'm pretty sure it was part of Fleming's Bond's world...

Very much so. Most of Bond's adversaries were past their sexual prime,had issues with women and were threatened by Bond's sexual appeal.

It should never be a part of Bond's world.

Bond's job is to defeat evil. So, should we have only bad guys that have high ethical/moral standards as it relates to the treatment of women?

Maybe I'm the only one who think it is totally inappropriate... but I doubt that.

It wouldn't do to make a habit of it but Bond's world has to have it's share of ugliness on occasion. I don't want to see implied rape in a Bond movie every two years either Mr Wint.

[avl]

Exactly - I'm not advocating they make the things X rated but Bond's world has always mixed sex and sadism...Largo and Domino, Sanchez and Lupe, etc etc etc

[pgram]

Hello, this is my first post. I was thinking this after seeing both of Daniel Craig's films, and I reckon EON / the writers aren't sure how to bring Bond into the 21st century sexually. Just as the series abandoned smoking as filthy, I think sleeping around is no longer considered glamorous like it was in the 1960s. Craig's Bond initially behaves like Connery, seducing the terrorist's wife to gain information before going on an emotional journey as he falls for and loses Vesper.

I personally found it so incongrous that Bond easily seduced Fields, but I supposed there were enough complaints about the 'rules' broken by Quantum of Solace that they needed one conquest (as MI6.co.uk calls it) because they chose to make Camille an ally and not a romantic partner. It's funny because Yusef works for Quantum in a manner reminiscent of the usual cinematic Bond: he romances (not seduces) women in high positions so he can (cruelly) manipulate them later. He is a sleazy mirror image.

I don't really have any conclusion other than to spark debate on how Bond has changed in the area of sex, how it relates to deepening his character, or whether EON knows how to handle it.

I don't think there 's any permanent problem there. It all had to do with characterisation, and Bond 23 is going to be a lot more 'traditional' in this sense (I believe and hope).

Still, I find the remark about Yusef interesting. As days go by since my second viewing, I can't help thinking he was underused. Look at it this way:

In all Bond history, there has been no other male character that could be considered handsome, or seductive. Other than Bond. A real lover. Who gets the girl in a bond film, other than Bond and Kerim Bey in FRWL and Leiter in LTK? Have you ever thought that maybe that's why they became real friends, appreciating each other? Who else? Bad guys (Sanchez, Gf, Scaramanga, Largo and so on) but it 's all been about creepiness.

This of course makes sense, considering Bond is not a real character, but a projection of male fantasies. Who 'd fantasise about someone else get the girl, unless he was really masochistic?

But it poses an interesting question: how would Bond react if he had competition in that matter? Those who 've read High time to Kill, have an idea, but Benson's characterisation proves to be at least poor.

Like I posted in another thread, I think it' d be a good idea if Yusef and his seducing techniques were a bigger part of the story in QoS. If Bond rivalled him in seducing a girl. Maybe an MI6 agent (also underused Fields, maybe?). Characterisation-wise it' d give plenty of opportunities. Humour could come out of it, as the two studs competed for their prey. And if (when) Bond wins in the end, it'd give him another quantum of solace too, from an ego point of view.

[Jim]

I have some uncertainty about unsurity.

[deth]

this is the first film where we don't see Bond kiss anyone while making love isn't it... (Camille doesn't really count)

[Double-Oh Agent]

But I think Eon - despite bringing a reality to Bond in these last two films - have actually embraced the fantasy of the character once again. I didn't feel SOLACE lacked any bedroom gymnastics. It would have left an odd taste in the mouth had BOND bedded CAMILLE - even at a closing "oh James" moment - especially in a film that suggests an off camera rape more than once.

Why would Bond's bedding of Camille have left an odd taste in the mouth and the bedding of Fields does not? What's the difference? He actually had more of a relationship with Camille than he did with Fields.

[Zorin Industries]

But I think Eon - despite bringing a reality to Bond in these last two films - have actually embraced the fantasy of the character once again. I didn't feel SOLACE lacked any bedroom gymnastics. It would have left an odd taste in the mouth had BOND bedded CAMILLE - even at a closing "oh James" moment - especially in a film that suggests an off camera rape more than once.

Why would Bond's bedding of Camille have left an odd taste in the mouth and the bedding of Fields does not? What's the difference? He actually had more of a relationship with Camille than he did with Fields.

It misses the point of their dynamics to have them bed each other. He's on the rebound and she hardly has it on her mind bearing in mind she is trying to kill the man who raped and murdered her family.

[SecretAgentFan]

Exactly.

Imagine Bond sleeping with Camille at the end. Everybody would find it laughable that she suddenly has no problem with sex anymore. The critics would have a field day.

Finally, a Bond film takes its characters seriously and some people can only complain about it.

It should never be a part of Bond's world. I can only accept this in the gritty, disgusting, world Dirty Harry lives in. But even then, I've some reservations. It's more than enough to have it in our real world.

I understand your position on Bond now much better, Mr.Wint. If one wants Bond to stay in a fantasy world, then QOS must be seen as a betrayal.

[pgram]

Exactly.

Imagine Bond sleeping with Camille at the end. Everybody would find it laughable that she suddenly has no problem with sex anymore. The critics would have a field day.

Finally, a Bond film takes its characters seriously and some people can only complain about it.

It should never be a part of Bond's world. I can only accept this in the gritty, disgusting, world Dirty Harry lives in. But even then, I've some reservations. It's more than enough to have it in our real world.

I understand your position on Bond now much better, Mr.Wint. If one wants Bond to stay in a fantasy world, then QOS must be seen as a betrayal.

I wouldn't call it betrayal, but at least brand jeopardy. Bond has to remain in the fantasy realm, otherwise he 'll vanish among the crowd. There 's, for example, Jack Ryan, for political espionage. While I aprove of the more serious approach, and the character driven stories, QoS, if followed by a similar film, might be an unwelcome departure from the brand's qualities.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Exactly.

Imagine Bond sleeping with Camille at the end. Everybody would find it laughable that she suddenly has no problem with sex anymore. The critics would have a field day.

Finally, a Bond film takes its characters seriously and some people can only complain about it.

Who said Camille has a problem with sex? Yes, her mother and sister were raped and killed as well as her father murdered and she understandingly wanted revenge for their deaths. But I don't see anywhere in the film that says that Camille has a problem with sex. Shoot, it even states that she slept with Dominic Greene to get closer to Medrano so she can exact her revenge on him. If she had problems with sex, she wouldn't have gone that route.

[Double-Oh Agent]

But I think Eon - despite bringing a reality to Bond in these last two films - have actually embraced the fantasy of the character once again. I didn't feel SOLACE lacked any bedroom gymnastics. It would have left an odd taste in the mouth had BOND bedded CAMILLE - even at a closing "oh James" moment - especially in a film that suggests an off camera rape more than once.

Why would Bond's bedding of Camille have left an odd taste in the mouth and the bedding of Fields does not? What's the difference? He actually had more of a relationship with Camille than he did with Fields.

It misses the point of their dynamics to have them bed each other. He's on the rebound and she hardly has it on her mind bearing in mind she is trying to kill the man who raped and murdered her family.

Bond was also on the rebound when he slept with Fields, too. I still don't see why he'd sleep with her and not Camille when it's obvious that neither relationship will last so there's no long-term commitment worries with either one.

But having killed Medrano and accomplished her mission, she wouldn't be consumed by it any more either. Rather, I can see where she would want some companionship with Bond after having survived what she and he have just gone through and coping with the aftermath, which in turn, could lead to a release of tensions in a one night stand. Instead, Bond just drops Camille off at a town in the middle of nowhere and leaves her. I don't buy that at all.

[sharpshooter]

In QOS, Bond discovers that Camille used sex to get through Greene to the General. Camille then asks Bond if he has a problem with that.

His most genuine answer, “No. None at all whatsoever.”

Exactly. He's still the same Bond, nothing has changed.

[Pierce - Daniel]

He needed info for Solange so he took her to his falt got the news then pissed off to get Dimitrios.
He had sex with Vesper, it's implyed at least 3 times surely, that's more then enough. He never got off with Camille as she was a pretty mucked up lady and all she cared about was avenging her family, the final scenes showed the sexual tension in them, but Bond is still in mourning. I guess he slept with Fields becasue he just wanted to have sex, no strings attached, just her and the next day he wouldn't need to see her ever again, he didn't want a meaningfull relationship just a one night stand. Vesper has forced him in a postion where he'll never get close to a woman again, so from now on it's just meaningless sex for 007..

[Zorin Industries]

But I think Eon - despite bringing a reality to Bond in these last two films - have actually embraced the fantasy of the character once again. I didn't feel SOLACE lacked any bedroom gymnastics. It would have left an odd taste in the mouth had BOND bedded CAMILLE - even at a closing "oh James" moment - especially in a film that suggests an off camera rape more than once.

Why would Bond's bedding of Camille have left an odd taste in the mouth and the bedding of Fields does not? What's the difference? He actually had more of a relationship with Camille than he did with Fields.

It misses the point of their dynamics to have them bed each other. He's on the rebound and she hardly has it on her mind bearing in mind she is trying to kill the man who raped and murdered her family.

Bond was also on the rebound when he slept with Fields, too. I still don't see why he'd sleep with her and not Camille when it's obvious that neither relationship will last so there's no long-term commitment worries with either one.

But having killed Medrano and accomplished her mission, she wouldn't be consumed by it any more either. Rather, I can see where she would want some companionship with Bond after having survived what she and he have just gone through and coping with the aftermath, which in turn, could lead to a release of tensions in a one night stand. Instead, Bond just drops Camille off at a town in the middle of nowhere and leaves her. I don't buy that at all.

I do. It makes beautiful, poetic, great story sense. It's a fantastic gesture in a series that usually ends up - whatever has happened - between the sheets in some random locale we have not seen elsewhere in the film.

Her story started when her sisters and mother were raped infront of her and set on fire. She has bigger issues to deal with and address than sleeping with James Bond. And even though he did indeed bed FIELDS - look what happened to her? There was a cause and effect to him sleeping with her (as there was with SOLANGE). A cause and effect that was part of his steep learning curve.

[Daddy Bond]

Well, you know, I'm not trying to be morbid, and everyone knows how I feel about Bond's "sordid escapades" (quoting Q), but...

The last three women he's been with ended up DEAD, D, E, A, D, DEAD - and pretty tragic deaths at that (if you leave Camille out of the equation).

I would think to be true to Craig's story arc, he would now be more cautious, just as he was more cautious and restrained about killing at the end of QoS.

Come to think of it, what is the death ratio for Bond's women according to the movies???

Let's see? (The first # represents those killed, the second represents those who, at least, accompanied Bond or were on Bond' side or, well, you know - that number is up for debate...)

DN = 0/2 = DEATH RATE: 0%
FRWL = 0/1 or 3? = DEATH RATE: 0%
GF = 2/3 = DEATH RATE: 67% (ROUNDED)
TB = 2/3 = DEATH RATE: 67%
OHMSS = 1/3? = DEATH RATE: 33%
DAF = 1/2 = DEATH RATE: 50%
LALD = 1/2 = DEATH RATE: 50%
TMWTGG = 1/2 = DEATH RATE: 50%
TSWLM = 0/2 = DEATH RATE: 0%
MR = 1/2 = DEATH RATE: 50%
FYEO = 0/2 = DEATH RATE: 0%
OP = 0/2 = DEATH RATE: 0%
AVTAK = 1/2
TLD = 0/1 = DEATH RATE: 0%
LTK = 0/2 = DEATH RATE: 0%
GE = 1???/2 1/2 = DEATH RATE: 50%
TND = 1/2 = DEATH RATE: 50%
TWINE = 1/2 1/2 = DEATH RATE: 50%
DAD = 1/2 1/2 = DEATH RATE: 50%
CR = 2/2 = DEATH RATE: 100%
QOS = 1/2 = DEATH RATE: 50% (OR 100% IF YOU DON'T COUNT FIELDS)

So, percentage wise, Craig is the most lethal for a woman to be with. A lady with Craig will likely die.

A lady with Connery will either likely live or likely die, depending on what part of Connery's career she meets him at. As a young man he would have protected you. As he got older, he got more deadly.

A lady with Moore has about a 50% chance of dying in his earlier career, but a pretty good chance later in his career.

Well, with Broz, your looking at a certain 50% you're going to kick the bucket, and about 75% if you're bad.

With Laz, well, about 33% you'd did.

Ah, but Dalton protects his women. Dalton's women have a 100% survivability rate.

So, there you go, Craig is the most lethal, Dalton is the least.

Now, I did this off of the top of my head, so feel free to correct my numbers.