Instead of deriding how Bond doesn't really do anything in this movie, I've come to see it as this unique spin on the protagonist within the narrative, since in the first two and fourth he is at the forefront of his mission but here… he's this dissolute person which is sort of a different spin on things anyone else think so? Basically it is thinking outside of the box with storytelling.
Lazy Bond in Goldfinger
#1
Posted 29 June 2014 - 10:44 PM
#2
Posted 30 June 2014 - 12:15 PM
Well he annoys Auric Goldfinger a lot and gets to make him make mistakes and gets attention drawn to his operations. And cures a lesbian. (which is perhaps more scifi than MR ever will be)
#3
Posted 30 June 2014 - 12:34 PM
Actually, Bond uses a lot mental manipulation in this film.
The golf game making Goldfinger curious and nervous
The laser scene where he convinces him to keep him alive
The way he escapes the jail
How he makes Goldfinger talk...
For once he seems to rely as much on his mind as on his muscles and wit
#4
Posted 30 June 2014 - 01:02 PM
I see a lot of criticism from fans that Bond doesn't do anything in GF. No, he's not engaging in fisticuffs or an action sequence every few minutes and I think that's maybe where at least part of that perception comes from. People have even complained he's not the one who turns off the bomb in Fort Knox So what?
I've maintained several times that just by staying alive that Bond saves the day in several ways in GF. No handy gadgets to keep him alive in this one. Not my favorite film, but it is interesting and stands out a lot in the way this is handled. It also helps there are two strong villains whose presence are felt throughout the film. More so than SPECTRE in the following films with its vast network.
#5
Posted 01 July 2014 - 07:03 AM
I agree with turn about GF, save that it is one of my favourite Bonds, and also 007 does use one rather handy gadget, the Aston Martin DB5 with "accessories". Admittedly he ends up crashing it - the first of several - but it does keep him going in that car chase, and before then is useful in tracking down Goldfinger, as is the homer device planted in Goldfinger's Rolls-Royce.
Bond does seem passive once in Goldfinger's circle, but as argued above, by just being there he's in a position to stop Goldfinger's plot, although admittedly the way he does it isn't that well explained, beyond using his charms on Pussy Galore.
#6
Posted 05 July 2014 - 08:32 PM
Well he annoys Auric Goldfinger a lot and gets to make him make mistakes and gets attention drawn to his operations. And cures a lesbian. (which is perhaps more scifi than MR ever will be)
You don't "cure" lesbians. You cure sick people.
#7
Posted 06 July 2014 - 02:12 AM
Whoa! Lets NOT forget that the film version of Pussy Galore was NEVER identified as a lesbian. The closest example one could use was her telling 007 that she was "immune" to his charms. Heck, that could be her merely asserting her loyalty Goldfinger in the face of meeting her employer's enemy. However, since Fleming described the character as explicated being a lesbian, I guess it is fair to assume that her film-version was one as well.
I agree to the point made that lesbians (and gay men for that matter) do not need to be "cured." However, in an effort to preemptively defend the fifty-year-old film and its creators from any 21st century accusations of insensitivity, could we not assume, given the fact that she succumbed to 007's charms, that Pussy Galore was never truly a lesbian to begin with?
To put it another way - if, in another movie, a gay hero/lesbian heroine seduced a straight character of their own sex, wouldn't we merely conclude that the 'straight' character had been previously in denial and/or confused about their true sexual identity prior to the hero/heroine's advances? Considering the unbelievable ease in which 007 managed to convince her to 'switch sides' (sexual, as well as her loyalty to Goldfinger), I've always assumed that Pussy Galore was merely a very confused and conflicted woman.
Edited by Double Naught spy, 06 July 2014 - 02:18 AM.
#8
Posted 06 July 2014 - 08:19 AM
To put it another way - if, in another movie, a gay hero/lesbian heroine seduced a straight character of their own sex, wouldn't we merely conclude that the 'straight' character had been previously in denial and/or confused about their true sexual identity prior to the hero/heroine's advances? Considering the unbelievable ease in which 007 managed to convince her to 'switch sides' (sexual, as well as her loyalty to Goldfinger), I've always assumed that Pussy Galore was merely a very confused and conflicted woman.
I think so. In the novel, Pussy clearly says she wasn't attracted by men because she had been raped (by an uncle, I think?), so I agree with your post.
#9
Posted 06 July 2014 - 11:48 AM
On the other hand: it's just fantasy stuff and not to be taken too seriously. In Bond's world: Bond can!