30 replies to this topic

[quantumofsolace]

http://www.thejamesb...e-sacrifice.htm

[Emrayfo]

Interesting article. I certainly agree with its conclusion: 

 

"Bond’s cultural influence is pervasive and global with more than half the world’s population aware of who and what he is. This is an incredibly powerful and influential position for EON to be in. With violence towards women reaching epidemic proportions, it is perhaps time for EON and the Bond scriptwriters to use that global reach and influence for good and reexamine and tone down, at the very least, the role played by violence against women in future James Bond plots."
 

Of course there will be limits to that approach insofar as such 'ends' may from time to time serve necessary plot roles, but it is an admirable goal and something I think that should be aimed for, in the main. It is not necessarily violence per se, as the types, motivations and uses of that violence that ought be re-considered.

[SecretAgentFan]

I think this is political correctness-idiocy.  As in every story, the death of innocents of well-loved characters is a tool for evoking sympathy and motivation.

 

Violence against women or men or children is disgusting - but it will not be stopped if stories cease to depict it.  

[Hansen]

A very stupid article imo, mixing points that have nothing in common.
The author is not serving the cause he evokes. It is a pity on such an important subject

[Turn]

I don't mind the premise of the article, it has merit. But I would argue that thinking a lot of the people responsible for violence against women had any influence whatsoever from James Bond films is inaccurate to say the least.

 

Is violence against women reaching epidemic proportions as the author states? Personally, I'm seeing more violence against children by adults, men and women, not to mention police being gunned down at a frightening rate.  It's all sickening and has no place.

[tdalton]

I don't mind the premise of the article, it has merit. But I would argue that thinking a lot of the people responsible for violence against women had any influence whatsoever from James Bond films is inaccurate to say the least.

 

 

I'm not sure that they had direct influence from the Bond films, but I think the argument can absolutely be made that they're a part of the overall collection of influences that can cause someone's thinking to be skewed in a particular direction.  

[The*SPY*]

WHile I understand the writer's point, there is no mention of the male sacrificial lambs of the series.  THe "Sacrificial Lamb" element of the Bond movies is to add a personal element to Bond's mission, due to his most likely sense of responsibility for the people who through his involvement, met an unfortunate death.  I think the reason it weigh's more towards females is simply the long standing opinion that a man of Bond's capabilities should be a protector of women (such as a Knight in shining armor protecting the princess). While most of the men, with the exception of Quarell, are agents who should have some training and awareness of the dangers of their professions, a character such as Plenty O-Toole is truly an innocent bystander.

 

Sacrificial Lambs in Bond Films:
DN - Quarrell
FRWL - Kerim Bey
GF - Jill and Tilly Masterson
TB - Paula
YOLT - Aki
OHMSS - Campbell
DAF - Plenty O'Toole
LALD - Rosie
TMWTGG - Andrea
TSWLM ?
MR - Corinne
FYEO - Luigi Ferrara - Contessa Lisle
OP - Vejay
AVTAK - Sir Godfrey
TLD Saunders
LTK Della Leiter, and Sharkey
GE ?
TND -Paris
TWINE - Zukovsky
DAD- ?
CR - Solange
QoS - Mathis & Fields

SF - Severine

 

Women - 14

Men - 10 

Uneven, but truly not overly lop-sided.

Edited by The*SPY*, 24 June 2015 - 03:33 PM.

[Professor Pi]

It's a good article, relevant to the times.  Tracy and Vesper forge Bond's character.  But the Craig films should have a woman that survives a romantic dalliance with Bond.  That hasn't happened yet.  While Severine's character was the first instance we saw of Silva's evil (it was only talked about before that), her death was uncomfortably misogynistic.  With Solange and Paris, one wonders why those women are with men so ready to sentence their wives to death--that couldn't have gone unnoticed by them before.  But women smart and lucky enough to avoid them aren't in situations where James Bond would likely appear.  The literary Gala Brand married into domestic life after Bond in Moonraker.   Also in the books, Tiffanie Case moved out after living with Bond, presumably to a life of relative contentment.

 

Plenty of Bond women survived the 80s and 90s films without being the one Bond closed credits with--Talisa Soto in LTK, Magda in Octopussy, all the women in The Living Daylights.  AVTAK's May Day redeems herself with her self sacrifice by choice so that's not really a sacrificial lamb. Then there were those who were killed more due to their villainy than because they were female sacrifices--Elektra, Xenia, Miranda Frost.  The others were pretty strong women characters on paper, even if some were miscast--Stacey Sutton, Pam Bouvier, Natalya Simonova, Christmas Jones, Wai Lin, Jinx--and seemingly without the horrible things done to them in their past that were mentioned in the article.  The Craig films have none of that.  Camille is close, but even she was given the damaged past and doesn't end up with Bond.

 

I'm sure the SPECTRE writers are aware what will happen if they cast a Bond woman over 50 and then sacrifice her character.  It's time to move on from those tropes. 

Edited by Professor Pi, 25 June 2015 - 03:42 PM.

[Hansen]

Camille did survive in QoS and avenge herself for the torture she underwent.
Again, debating such an important subject within a pure entertainment scheme is irrelevant

[Emrayfo]

I think this is an important discussion to have. It is not about apportioning blame against the Bond films; they have only ever reflected cultural norms. The discussion is about a general move across society, including in cultural artifacts like films and novels as well as real-world behaviour, to start challenging and modifying those norms.

 

The*SPY* above compares lists of what he terms male and female "sacrificial lambs" across the films, but in general the manner/context of the deaths of the women, the kind of violence directed towards them, and the motivations for that violence are quite different than those same factors in the cases of the males. That is what should be under discussion, not body-count. There are cases where such deaths will serve as a relevant plot device but not in all instances. It is not about removing or sanitising all such depictions, but thinking about the underlying rationale and purpose. Is it essential or is it gratuitous?

 

Will evil men likely be misogynistic? We can probably count on it, along with their general misanthropy. But I feel the deaths of both Solange and Severine were gratuitous from a story-telling perspective; especially Solange. Severine's death led to a mythic Bondian action scene, where Bond goes through a kind of instant apotheosis to finally incarnate himself, but surely that could have been arrived at another way. I think Professor Pi's comments above about the Craig era Bond films to date are valid and ought to be considered by the creatives responsible for pulling together SPECTRE and its probable sequel.

[tdalton]

Again, debating such an important subject within a pure entertainment scheme is irrelevant

 

It's hardly irrelevant.

 

Entertainment reflects the society which creates it.  It's a perfectly valid exercise to debate these types of things within the realm of entertainment.  If we're looking to make things better in society at large, then recognizing these issues within the realm of entertainment and addressing them within the various media themselves as well as debating the type of content that is put out there is one way in which to begin to accomplishing that goal.

[Hansen]

I do not agree. Entertainment is made to entertain. When it comes to make a better world, you have other media (including films). Mixing the two feels awkward and dangerous to me.
Regarding the subject of violence on women, honestly I do not see how you can have the idea of pointing Bond for that.
If we go that route, Bond is anti-gay because he killed Wint and Kid, his driving is the worst example for people. we never see him using a condom, this is again a bad example for young generation.
I guess we could create a thread to number all Bond's bad habits that may have a negative influence ;-)

[Double Naught spy]

 I suspect it is the other half of the world's population - the half that isn't familiar with 007 - that is responsible for most of the violence towards women.   For example: I have a hard time believing that, after a long day of kidnapping, raping and enslaving school girls, those paragons of civilization in Boko Haram settle in for the night watching a James Bond marathon on TV.  

 

 

 

 

[SecretAgentFan]

 I suspect it is the other half of the world's population - the half that isn't familiar with 007 - that is responsible for most of the violence towards women.   For example: I have a hard time believing that, after a long day of kidnapping, raping and enslaving school girls, those paragons of civilization in Boko Haram settle in for the night watching a James Bond marathon on TV.  

[tdalton]

Yes, because that's an appropriate and non-hyperbolic example.  

[Double Naught spy]

tdalton -  With all due respect, you don't get to determine what is and is not "appropriate" regarding an example I've used to convey a position I am taking.   It's my personal opinion, and as such, only I can determine whether or not the example I've given appropriately illustrates it or not.  To be clear - I believe that any effort by Eon to "do their part" to quell the worldwide violence against women would miss the mark completely because many of those who treat woman as chattel most likely view something like a 007 film as symbolic of the 'wicked and evil western culture' in the first place.  As the originator of this position, I feel that my "hyperbolic" example perfectly illustrates what I am attempting to communicate.   And what is more hyperbolic anyway?  My example of a real-life group of savages who are known perpetrators of violence against women?  Or, that the "make believe" deaths of Tracy, Jill, Rosie, etc. in the films somehow brainwashes moviegoers into thinking its OK to commit acts of violence against women?

 

As it stands, your commentary about my post amounts to nothing more than a failed attempt to bully me into silence.   I've read and been impressed with your other posts in the past, and know that you're better than that!  So, instead of trying to make me feel as if I've committed an Orwellian thought crime, why don't you share your disagreements with my opinion?  Do you think the James Bond film franchise advocates violence against women?  Do you disagree that Boko Haram commits inhuman atrocities against young girls? 

[Call Billy Bob]

I think this is political correctness-idiocy.

The hammer has hit the nail! Well said, SAF.

[tdalton]

And just like you, all I've shared is an opinion. There was no attempt at "bullying", an offensive claim in its own rite. I simply stated that I believed bringing Boko Haran into the discussion wasn't appropriate. I don't believe that adds much to the discussion because they're not the segment of the global population that this issue is really touching on. They're not being influenced by mass media to do what they do. When something is so blatantly wrong, which their actions are, its easily recognizable. What this article seeks to discuss, IMO, is the culture of ignorance or dismissiveness towards these issues within the world outside of those types of groups, where progress on women's rights have stalled due to the idea on a lot of mens' parts that the fight ended with the 20th amendment and other such measures elsewhere.

I do believe that the Bond franchise, and western entertainment in general, does very much contribute to that culture of putting women in a subserviant position in society. I do not think I need to answer your second question since the answer is pretty obvious.

[Hansen]

Pussy Galore, Domino, Aki, Tiffany, Anya, Melina, Pam, Natalya, Wei Lin, Jinx, Camille are not subservient to me.
On the opposite, and whatever the mass media may say, Bond girls have always been pretty strong and independent

[SecretAgentFan]

I do believe that the Bond franchise, and western entertainment in general, does very much contribute to that culture of putting women in a subserviant position in society.

 

I would only agree with you on this considering the 60´s and early 70´s.  Then again, these Bond films only reflected the ideas of that era (and what came before it), they did not invent it.

 

In the end, however, this discussion can be traced back to the old question: how much does popular culture influence violence (against anybody)?  Does it only reflect opinions?  Is it helpful to vent negative thoughts in a harmless way - or does it encourage people to act out in real life?  

 

Personally, I don´t think that Bond films can be held responsible for any real life violence - these films are just too much escapism and they have no ambition to leave that kind of fantasy realm.  The "torture porn" of the 00´s, however, makes me wonder whether people who enjoy watching those horror films and the shamelessly depicted pain of human beings are losing the impulse to reject violence.  The same goes for some "gross out"-comedies of the last ten years, films which are aimed at teenagers who are growing up being fed the idea that crossing any sort of boundary is cool and funny.

[Emrayfo]

No one in this space, so far as I can tell, is alleging that Bond films are more sexist or misogynistic than any other films or even the general culture which they come from. If anything, they can only ever be representative of that culture. This is clear when we see that certain ways of treating women and non-white characters that were considered normal in the original 1960s films would be hard to imagine taking place today. In large part that is because the broader culture itself has changed and the films reflect the time in which they were made.

 

Bond films are not the causes of violence against women in the Western world. To the extent this problem exists, it is a social and cultural problem. But Bond films are both influenced by this culture and can in turn have some influence on it, no matter how slight. I am sure many members of this forum would happily wax lyrical about how influential the original films were on broader Western pop culture, on everything from masculine cool to fashion to film-making. How can it be impossible then to imagine they could possibly have any positive or negative influence on how we think about or treat women?

 

In the 1990s EON made the strong decision to have Bond stop smoking. This was a controversial decision to many people at the time, but reflected a conscious moral choice on the part of the producers. In many ways this put them at the forefront of cultural change in regard to smoking – well in advance of similar changes to many other creative properties on television or film and also well in advance of the many non-smoking laws that have since been legislated across the Western world. Whilst James Bond can hardly take the credit for reducing smoking rates and related lung cancer in the decades since, it is one small part that is representative of a broader social change and helped to make that change the norm. Rather than playing catch-up, Bond films were at the forefront.

 

The issue of the original article is not a question of the subservience of women to men or not. That point was not even raised. Nor does the article state that violent treatment or violent deaths of female characters should be banned. In fact, where it served the purpose of plot, the original article was supportive of such events. It noted that some of these occurrences can be extraneous to the story – gratuitous and unnecessary. And rather than saying (and I paraphrase here), ‘Lets remove all violence against women from Bond films’, it posited the very different suggestion of, ‘How about we remove some of the more gratuitous violence against women, or at least think about it and it’s place in the story rather than just accepting it as a matter of course’. I fail to see why such a position should prove so problematic to so many. Society is starting to more seriously engage in these issues so it makes sense to me that Bond films should as well. That is most definitively not “political correctness”. It has nothing to do with being “politically correct”. It is about being careful not to succumb to built-in societal and cultural biases regarding women and their worth/place.

 

[SecretAgentFan]

Political correctness in motion pictures, IMO, creates an alternate reality that does not help at all.

 

Sure, you can take all the violence against women out of a Bond film or any film for that matter.  This will not change anything in the real world, however.  Because the reason for violence is not rooted in films, it is deep seated in human behaviour, an ill-fated urge for power over others.  

 

Also, take out the female sacrificial lambs and you will ask: wait, why do always men who are helping Bond have to be murdered?  Is it necessary to portray kind and loyal males as not strong enough to withstand the opponents?  Or: why is it that men who have a strong business sense and are building powerful corporations always have to be depicted as villains?  Why is it that people who deal with weapons always are drawn as evil?

 

In the end, we would have a story about people always being respectful and nice, evading conflict and finding proper solutions for everybody.  And if that in turn would result in a world that operates the same way - hey, great!

 

But that´s not the world we´re living in - and I´m afraid that will never happen.

 

 

The Bond films have reacted towards societal changes a lot.  With the end of the Cold War new villains were chosen.  And women got stronger and stronger, "Bond´s equal".  Does that mean no female character can ever be depicted again as weaker or victimized?  Why not, I ask.  Because there are no women like that?  At the same time I want to stress that there are just as many men who are weak and victimized.  And those are depicted in Bond films as well.  Hell, Bond himself is a broken character, especially now in the Craig era.  He might be physically strong - but emotionally he is a wreck.  Why does no article urge EON to portray a secret agent as stable and happy?

 

Naw, wait, that would be silly, wouldn´t it?

[tdalton]

There's too much to quote, so I'm not going to do so.  With regards to the idea that Bond films and entertainment don't cause discrimination, abuse, or whatever label you want to give it in the Western world, that's true, to a degree, but at the same time the entertainment that we create and consume does help to fuel a cyclical pattern of societal behaviors and prejudices that allow for certain groups to remain at a perceived lesser status than others.  Since this debate focuses primarily on women, I'm going to keep my focus there.

 

Nobody, at least not myself, is suggesting to remove the sacrificial lamb from Bond films, or entertainment in general.  Sadly, people in every day life fall into that category, so it's fair game to portray them on the big screen.  For that matter, it's not so much about what actually is depicted in entertainment so much as what is not depicted.  Entertainment helps to reinforce ideas that are either already entrenched in a person's mind or, in the case of the younger more impressionable population, it actually helps to mold them.  Strictly using the Bond films as an example, all that an impressionable person will see in terms of the female gender are sacrificial lambs, naive romantic interests, or the well-intentioned "Bond equals" who are often depicted as being somewhat well equipped to take on that role, but are almost always presented as being, to some degree, inferior to Bond himself. 

 

My question would be, where are the truly competent women to balance all of that out?  The argument has been made here that you can't get rid of the sacrificial lamb and other such roles because they exist in real life.  By that same token, there are scores of competent, intelligent, very impressive women all over the globe.  Where are they in the Bond films?  One would have thought that we'd gotten that in Dench's M.  Dench herself is the type of woman I'm speaking of.  She's a very talented actress, having earned the distinct honor of carrying the "Dame" title.  Her character, as written by Purvis & Wade, Logan, Haggis, and those that came before them, has proven rather incompetent, especially in her final appearance in Skyfall, where it's her incompetence and arrogance that ultimately costs her her life.  In this supposedly more nuanced era that Craig has ushered in, the women have generally fallen into rather cliched roles that don't really put them in an impressive light.  Vesper was a traitor.  Camille was a decent attempt at a truly strong female character, but her story was so cliched.  They tried to position Eve as a "Bond equal", but she proves incompetent and ultimately decides to retreat behind a desk and become a secretary by the end of the film.  There are other, even more sinister examples of this over the course of the films.  We've seen Bond embark on behavior that borders on, or outright crosses, the line of rape.  Seeing our supposed "heroes" behave in that way validates that behavior.

 

With regards to the idea that taking violence towards any group out of the films won't help, that's also true, at least if that's the sole thing that's done.  But, I vehemently disagree with the notion that violence has zero root in the entertainment that we consume.  That's not to say that it's directly, or entirely, or even mostly, responsible for it, but, as I said earlier, it provides a reinforcement of already held beliefs.  If more strong, intelligent, impressive women were depicted in the mainstream media, then those attitudes might begin to change.  That's not to say that you have to get rid of the cliched roles that many female characters (and male characters, for that matter) happen to fall into, but they need to be balanced out with characters that don't fall into that mold.  If the general male population was exposed to more women in the media that fall into the category I've already described, then attitudes towards those women might change. 

 

If you look at how quickly the tide turned in the LGBT debate in the US over the last decade, the media led the charge in that matter.  It was the characters that were depicted in TV shows, films, and other forms of media, the characters that didn't fall into the usual stereotypes, that began to turn the tide.  The same could happen for people of other "groups" (a term that we should do away with anyway), if their voices could be heard in the media. 

 

I think it's pretty clear through the other discussions we've had on this topic that this is a subject, most notably the spirited debate that we had about Bond's actions towards Solitaire with regards to the tarot cards, that I'm very opinionated about.  If I've offended anyone, I really am sorry, but at the same time, there are certain subjects about which I don't believe that there's much room for debate, and the treatment, or more specifically, the mistreatment, of women in today's society is one of them.  Women deserve the same respect that men get, and the fact that many don't get it strictly because they're women (the pay gap being a prime example of this) is a moral injustice that the Western world, most specifically the United States, has shamefully allowed to continue on for far too long. 

[Hansen]

Interesting point on the Craig era, tdalton

I also think that female characters have been much weaker or awkward I should say during this period

[SecretAgentFan]

There's too much to quote, so I'm not going to do so.  With regards to the idea that Bond films and entertainment don't cause discrimination, abuse, or whatever label you want to give it in the Western world, that's true, to a degree, but at the same time the entertainment that we create and consume does help to fuel a cyclical pattern of societal behaviors and prejudices that allow for certain groups to remain at a perceived lesser status than others.  Since this debate focuses primarily on women, I'm going to keep my focus there.

 

Nobody, at least not myself, is suggesting to remove the sacrificial lamb from Bond films, or entertainment in general.  Sadly, people in every day life fall into that category, so it's fair game to portray them on the big screen.  For that matter, it's not so much about what actually is depicted in entertainment so much as what is not depicted.  Entertainment helps to reinforce ideas that are either already entrenched in a person's mind or, in the case of the younger more impressionable population, it actually helps to mold them.  Strictly using the Bond films as an example, all that an impressionable person will see in terms of the female gender are sacrificial lambs, naive romantic interests, or the well-intentioned "Bond equals" who are often depicted as being somewhat well equipped to take on that role, but are almost always presented as being, to some degree, inferior to Bond himself. 

 

My question would be, where are the truly competent women to balance all of that out?  The argument has been made here that you can't get rid of the sacrificial lamb and other such roles because they exist in real life.  By that same token, there are scores of competent, intelligent, very impressive women all over the globe.  Where are they in the Bond films?  One would have thought that we'd gotten that in Dench's M.  Dench herself is the type of woman I'm speaking of.  She's a very talented actress, having earned the distinct honor of carrying the "Dame" title.  Her character, as written by Purvis & Wade, Logan, Haggis, and those that came before them, has proven rather incompetent, especially in her final appearance in Skyfall, where it's her incompetence and arrogance that ultimately costs her her life.  In this supposedly more nuanced era that Craig has ushered in, the women have generally fallen into rather cliched roles that don't really put them in an impressive light.  Vesper was a traitor.  Camille was a decent attempt at a truly strong female character, but her story was so cliched.  They tried to position Eve as a "Bond equal", but she proves incompetent and ultimately decides to retreat behind a desk and become a secretary by the end of the film.  There are other, even more sinister examples of this over the course of the films.  We've seen Bond embark on behavior that borders on, or outright crosses, the line of rape.  Seeing our supposed "heroes" behave in that way validates that behavior.

 

With regards to the idea that taking violence towards any group out of the films won't help, that's also true, at least if that's the sole thing that's done.  But, I vehemently disagree with the notion that violence has zero root in the entertainment that we consume.  That's not to say that it's directly, or entirely, or even mostly, responsible for it, but, as I said earlier, it provides a reinforcement of already held beliefs.  If more strong, intelligent, impressive women were depicted in the mainstream media, then those attitudes might begin to change.  That's not to say that you have to get rid of the cliched roles that many female characters (and male characters, for that matter) happen to fall into, but they need to be balanced out with characters that don't fall into that mold.  If the general male population was exposed to more women in the media that fall into the category I've already described, then attitudes towards those women might change. 

 

If you look at how quickly the tide turned in the LGBT debate in the US over the last decade, the media led the charge in that matter.  It was the characters that were depicted in TV shows, films, and other forms of media, the characters that didn't fall into the usual stereotypes, that began to turn the tide.  The same could happen for people of other "groups" (a term that we should do away with anyway), if their voices could be heard in the media. 

 

I think it's pretty clear through the other discussions we've had on this topic that this is a subject, most notably the spirited debate that we had about Bond's actions towards Solitaire with regards to the tarot cards, that I'm very opinionated about.  If I've offended anyone, I really am sorry, but at the same time, there are certain subjects about which I don't believe that there's much room for debate, and the treatment, or more specifically, the mistreatment, of women in today's society is one of them.  Women deserve the same respect that men get, and the fact that many don't get it strictly because they're women (the pay gap being a prime example of this) is a moral injustice that the Western world, most specifically the United States, has shamefully allowed to continue on for far too long. 

 

I respect and applaud how thoughtfully and passionately you lay out your ideas and opinions.

 

I do get the feeling, however, that you are reducing the female characters in the recent Bond films to parts of their behaviour, thereby sabotaging your argument.

 

Let me try to explain that.  I do not want to see a female character in a Bond film that is just clinging to the hero, fulfilling his demands, having no strong opinions on her own, making stupid decisions and ending up tortured or dead.

 

What I want to see in a Bond film (or any other film) are characters who are believable human beings.  That means: they are not just weak or strong, they are not only handling situations competently, they also make grave mistakes.  This is what a fully rounded character is: human.  Nobody is only strong all the time.  Even the toughest come crashing down.

 

And since this applies to every gender, the depiction of characters should also be free of stereotypical attributes.  Only then I really can suspend my disbelief and engage in the process of identification that is necessary for the experience of any fictional story.

 

I do believe that the Craig era has made a major step forward in this direction.  

 

If you discount Vesper just as a traitor, Camille´s motivation as cliched or M as incompetent I think you are wrong.

 

- Vesper is a complicated character, being torn between her loyalties but in the end accepting the dire consequences of her tragic mistake, punishing herself.  To me, this is a very strong character.

 

- Camille´s motivation, revenge for her family, might be not original... but then again there is only a very limited set of possible human motivations (greed, lust, morality, love, revenge), and her decision to go after the General regardless of the horrors that she has to endure for that perfectly mirrors Bond´s motivations in QOS - therefore the choice for this character is the right one.  Apart from that, Camille shows resilience, strength and independence - but she also is overcome with fear and desperation in the end.  Again, a fully rounded, believable female character.

 

- M makes mistakes.  Everybody does, and especially in her profession she has to act fast, sacrificing others, and that naturally leads to miscalculations.  But that is not incompetence.  Instead, it is her trust in Bond that displays her wisdom, and it is her humanity that makes her feel regret for all the human casualties, resulting in her decision to pay the price for it, even if it will kill her.  - The male M of previous eras also made mistakes, sending 007 on missions, foolishly expecting him to behave, always being surprised that Bond did his own thing - but he never had to face dire consequences.  The fact that this facet was added to the female M´s tenure is another proof for a much more interesting portrayal of female characters in the Craig era.

 

- Eve Moneypenny.  I don´t consider her incompetent either.  Shooting Bond is not a mistake that would have happened only to her.  She warns M that she does not have a clear line of sight.  In the heat of the moment, two people fighting on a moving train will not be an easy target for anybody.  The fact that Eve decides to withdraw from field duty is not a sign of "female weakness" but a respectable decision based on what she wants to risk again.  She obviously does not want to be the one pulling the trigger in situations in which she cannot decide for herself.  Nothing weak about that, IMO.

 

- Severine.  She has been victimized throughout her life.  She tries to take a chance to escape this by trusting Bond - but this is a gamble she will finally lose.  Is this a sign of weakness?  Or is she showing strength by finally trying to get out of Silva´s grasp, knowing full well that as Bond puts it "someone usually dies".

 

Let me stress this again: any character, regardless of their gender, that is only portrayed as constantly strong, intelligent and moral would not help to send a positive message to the audience.  Just the opposite.  It would leave us with a stock character, an unrealistic one setting everybody up for a huge disappointment and wrong assessments of real human beings.

[tdalton]

It would be one thing to have these characters in the Craig films if they were balanced out with female characters who actually were completely and totally competent with what they do.  Each of these characters ultimately succumb to stereotypes assigned to them by a male-centric mentality that doesn't think that women should rise to the level of men, an idea that has been unfortunately entrenched in a large segment of the Western population and has been reinforced by the entertainment industry.  

 

For any impressive traits that Vesper may have, she can't be on Bond's level because she's a liar and a traitor.  She has to be stripped down to a level below Bond in order for Bond to look good in the end.  Camille is the closes thing they have to an impressive female character, but she's weighed down by a rather insulting and cliched backstory, where the writers can only think to have her use her sexuality to work her way up through Green's organization to get a shot at Medrano. 

 

As far as M is concerned, she's been shown to be far more incompetent than her predecessors.  The previous Ms only, as you said, made the mistake of sending an alcoholic womanizer out into the field on missions.  Dench's M makes those mistakes as well, but she shows time after time after time that she can't handle the other aspects of her job.  She's completely fooled by Elektra, admits to not even doing even basic security checks on Vesper, actually thinks that a woman like Strawberry Fields will be successful in arresting Bond (she's just as responsible for Fields' death as Bond is), and then just drops the ball on every possible occasion in Skyfall which leads to countless deaths.  It's been discussed countless times on these forums just how incompetent Dench's M actually was, even in addition to these examples.  Then, to top it off, they treat the arrival of Fiennes' M as this triumphant moment.  A male M is back in charge and Moneypenny is back behind a desk where she "belongs".  It's treated as though everything is now right with the Bond universe, that we're back to how everything was heading into Dr. No.

 

Still, it would be fine to have these characters portrayed in this way if they actually had Bond run across women who are generally competent and perhaps even better at what they do than Bond.  The argument has been made that you can't get rid of characters like the sacrificial lamb and the other types of female characters who exist in the Bond films, and that's a sound argument, but the other side of that argument should also be true then, that if they can exist in the Bond films because they exist in the real world, then Bond should come up against women that are totally competent and on his level or above because those women also exist in the real world.  

[SecretAgentFan]

I still disagree - why does a film have to balance out characters?  A story needs the characters that are essential for it, nothing else.  And a Bond film in particular is always based on the classic hero myth - in the end he has to be the one who is victorious.  

 

I also do not think that "Vesper has to be stripped down to a level below Bond in order for Bond to look good in the end", as you put it.  Vesper´s dilemma is a tragedy that M helps to clear up.  Bond at first reacts like a sulking little boy, antagonizing the one who hurt him ("The bitch is dead."), yet we know that M´s words make him feel bad about it, and he still misses Vesper and the life he could have led with her.  That´s a major reason why he goes after Mr. White and tries to avenge Vesper.  The final confrontation with Vesper´s "boyfriend" makes him realize exactly how Vesper and the next woman could be misled - and he forgives this woman just as he forgives Vesper.

 

Concerning your points about Dench´s M I would argue that one cannot equate her M during the Brosnan era with the M during the Craig era.  And again, I do not consider people who make understandable mistakes as incompetent.  And your interpretation of the triumphant return of a male M with Moneypenny behind a desk where she belongs... well, that´s very polemic.  One can interpret the SKYFALL ending in a different way as well: there is just another M who now is male, and Moneypenny has chosen desk duty (but will act according to her ideals, as the teaser for "SPECTRE" implies).

 

In the end, I wonder whether audiences would really love to see a Bond film in which another character, male or female, being on Bond´s level or above.  I must admit: I don´t.  I want him to be superior in the end.

[Hansen]

On this part of the debate, I am fully with tdalton, especially on M's incompentence.

Craig's era is very mysoginistic, even more than Connery's.

During all eras, we had strong female characters, even Bond's equivalent.

For Craig, it still has to come (I would make an exception with Vesper, as the complexity is primarily due to the fact that Fleming wrote it).

 

In this aspect, the Brosnan era was in my view the most progressist (M aside)

[tdalton]

 

Concerning your points about Dench´s M I would argue that one cannot equate her M during the Brosnan era with the M during the Craig era.  And again, I do not consider people who make understandable mistakes as incompetent.  And your interpretation of the triumphant return of a male M with Moneypenny behind a desk where she belongs... well, that´s very polemic.  One can interpret the SKYFALL ending in a different way as well: there is just another M who now is male, and Moneypenny has chosen desk duty (but will act according to her ideals, as the teaser for "SPECTRE" implies).

 

In the end, I wonder whether audiences would really love to see a Bond film in which another character, male or female, being on Bond´s level or above.  I must admit: I don´t.  I want him to be superior in the end.

 

With regards to the final scene of Skyfall, I don't see how it can be seen as anything other than triumphant.  They don't necessarily set it up as being that way because M and Moneypenny are now male and taking her spot behind the desk, but those elements get wrapped up and twisted into the painfully obvious bit of fan service that is the final scene.  They can't be extracted from the scene, IMO, and that's one of the big problems that I've always had with that moment.  I wasn't the only one groaning in the theater when they got to that scene at the end.  It went down pretty much like a lead balloon.

 

And, to your last point, I really can't dovetail your idea there with the fact that you've been very high on Skyfall since its release.  Bond is in no way superior at the end of Skyfall.  If anything, he's very much responsible for a lot of what happens.  He shares a great deal of responsibility in M's death, with the brainless scheme of taking her to Skyfall being his, even though I'd say that she shoulders the majority of the blame for setting the whole chain of events in motion, but he has to take his share of it as well.  If anything, I think Mallory is the only one who comes out of Skyfall with his dignity in check.  He was professional and competent all the way through, moreso than Bond or any of the other principal players.  I think that we have our answer on whether or not the public would accept a film in which someone turned out to be better than Bond, because it happened with Mallory in Skyfall.

 

I don't think that there's a problem with showing a character that can get the best of Bond or who shows hints of being better than he is.  They've toed that line before with Blofeld, seeing as how he managed to escape Bond's grasp over the course of several films.  It doesn't have to be a situation where everything is perfectly balanced.  It doesn't have to be one for one.  But, given that we've had virtually no female characters depicted as exceptionally competent, secure, intelligent or any of the other things I've argued about, over the course of the franchise, it wouldn't be a case of having to put one in to balance off another character.  But, if we're keeping all of the cliched roles that women tend to fall into in the entertainment industries in the Bond films on the basis of the fact that they exist in the real world and therefore are fair game to be depicted, it wouldn't be so much to ask for them to create a female character who doesn't fall into those cliched categories since those types of women do very much exist in the real world as well and Bond is surely going to come across them from time to time.

 

Even if you look at the number of villains, who are often billed as something of a co-lead, there have been very few females in those roles.  We've had Elektra and we've had Rosa Klebb.  Neither of them could be considered full blown villains in the same way that many of the other villains have been.  Elektra was hidden in the shadows behind Renard for most of the film and Rosa Klebb was part of a rather large ensemble of villains that included Grant, Blofeld, and Kronsteen.  We haven't had a female villain who has been the big, co-lead featured villain of a Bond film in the entire history of the franchise.  Even going that route would be something of a start.

Edited by tdalton, 28 June 2015 - 06:50 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

I just have a different opinion on this.  For me, Bond is triumphing over Silva in the end - "Last rat standing." He is reinstated and has the trust of the new M.  Dench´s M becomes collateral damage - she viewed Bond and her other agents the same way - a balance has been restored, the cruel truth accepted.

 

I also do not see Mallory as "better than Bond" in the end.  If you accuse Bond of causing Dench´s M´s death you have to accuse Mallory as well - he knows what´s going on and does not do anything to protect the two either.

 

As for the cliched female roles - I still believe that there are examples for well-rounded characters in the Craig era.  Then again, Bond films (or any other action film) are not specializing in character development, so I do not expect that, nor do I miss it.  That´s just my personal approach to this kind of entertainment.