"Lesbians and 007 - a licence to deconstruct"
#1
Posted 08 June 2003 - 04:43 PM
Article by Andrew Lycett, he of the Fleming biography
(Goes on more than this - worth reading; sensationalist headline and is really a report on the Indiana University thingie)
"Pussy Galore would have purred in agreement. Lesbians regard Sean Connery as the most attractive screen James Bond because his stylised masculinity accords with the butch persona that they like to project. Pierce Brosnan does not do it for them: his 007 has been over-prettified to appeal to a wider female audience in today's politically correct times.
"As Jaime Hovey, assistant professor of English at the University of Illinois at Chicago, memorably put it last weekend: "James's transformation from murderously efficient prick (word beginning with P, rhymes with sick, if the asterisks have worked their magic) to stylishly accesorised dildo" is neither interesting nor sexy"
Pierce Brosnan: Stylishly Accesorised Dildo (or S.A.D - hmm...)
Very, very odd things have been happening in Indiana. Remainder of article reports equally crazed debate. Fun fun fun.
#2
Posted 08 June 2003 - 04:51 PM
#3
Posted 08 June 2003 - 10:33 PM
Any links to this article?
-- Xen
#4
Posted 11 June 2003 - 01:57 PM
Just wanted to bring this thread back basically because I like the dildo thing. Marvellous.
#5
Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:33 PM
Originally posted by marktmurphy
Just wanted to bring this thread back basically because I like the dildo thing. Marvellous.
...not that this is capable of being misconstrued in any way.
I think "the Lesbians" have a point though - is James Bond (as a concept) still directed at the same audience as it was forty-one years ago? Has it moved from a male wish-fulfliment to a unisex (neutered?) character? Basically, fifty years on from the carpet beater incident, have his testicles been removed - and been replaced by a dildo?
#6
Posted 11 June 2003 - 06:29 PM
The male wish fulfillment on the part of the (male) audience is still there (I believe) but we're just not allowed to express this or at least advocate it.
So the audience is there, but just not served in quite the same way.
#7
Posted 11 June 2003 - 09:42 PM
#8
Posted 13 June 2003 - 01:04 AM
#9
Posted 13 June 2003 - 01:07 AM
#10
Posted 13 June 2003 - 01:16 AM
He must have appealed to their maternal instincts...
#11
Posted 13 June 2003 - 04:45 PM
#12
Posted 09 July 2003 - 05:11 AM
#13
Posted 27 July 2003 - 03:05 AM
#14
Posted 27 July 2003 - 03:33 AM
#15
Posted 27 July 2003 - 07:48 PM
I'm not sure whether to ignore this post or fight it, but it's my duty as the blunt instrument of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Roger Moore to not only protest this post but make damn sure it never happens again. Roger may not have been as "macho" as Sean but he is all man - how in the world could anyone think otherwise?
Furthermore, I think Roger is a fine example of masculinity in real life. He's sensitive without being a wuss. He cares about his fellow man. He doesn't take life too seriously - he's always there with a great one-liner, just as he was when he played Bond. We could make a comparison to the real-life, wife-beating, greedy, ornery Connery, but let's not;P.