13 replies to this topic

[Surrie]

I think we can all agree that there is a stark difference between the likes of 'Mary Goodnight' and 'Natalya Simonova', but is their purpose still the same? Bond girls originally were part of 'the male gaze', depicted from a masculine point of view with the aim to please male viewers.

 

Although the times have changed throughout the life of the Bond franchise can we claim that the purpose of the Bond girl has changed at all, or can we only hope to have variations of the bond girl within the franchise? 

 

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this, particularly how you boys perceive the women in these films. 

[DaveBond21]

Interesting question probably inspiring someone to write an essay about it.

 

One of the things I am passionate about in general is women being paid the same amount of money as men for doing the same job - this is something that is still not the case in 2016. However things are getting better year on year and women are more and more rightly being treated as equals.

 

At the same time, there has been an increase in interest in the likes of the Kardashians and Real housewives and the bimbos from Geordie Shore, for example. Plus in any luxurious, expensive location you will see attractive women hanging off the arms of rich men of all ages.

 

So while I applaud that the Bond women have evolved so that they are at least on the same level as the male characters, if a 007 movie does feature an attractive woman merely as eye candy, then it is only representing something that happens in real life, and can't be criticised for doing so.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

[AMC Hornet]

Women were for recreation. On a job, they got in the way and fogged things up with sex and hurt feelings and all the emotional baggage they carried around. One had to look out for them and take care of them. (CR)

 

Bond had no intention of marrying anyone. If he did, it would certainly not be an insipid slave. (FYEO:QoS)

 

"You don't have to bow to me and I shall never bow to you." She held out her hand. "How do you do. My name is Kissy Suzuki...I hope you are good at peeling potatoes."

Bond was delighted. Thank God for a straightforward girl at last! No more bowing and hissing! He said, "I took a degree in it." (YOLT)

 

Bond (Fleming)'s attitudes towards women apparently changed over time and I presume to speak for others when I say I hope most men have adapted to the idea that women aren't prizes to be won or possessions to be controlled. Unfortunately, the frequency of reported (and unreported) incidents of domestic abuse indicate that a lot of men have a lot of catching up to do.

 

For the most part the Bond films have presented intellectual and moral strength as desirable traits in women, while ambition and sociopathy are presented as less so (femme fatales like Fiona Volpe, Helga Brandt and Xenia Onatopp behave like men, so while they are beautiful and exotic, their appeal is less enduring). A woman can be a partner on a mission without having to be Bond's equal. Despite that, a lot of posters admire Domino Derval (Claudine Auger), although she was little more than the villain's mistress - even after she agreed to help 007.

 

Diana Rigg's Tracy had the same pedigree as Honor Blackman's Pussy Galore (in fact, Rigg's character on The Avengers was developed specifically to have "M(ale) appeal" (not my pun). They were pushing the limit with the likes of Holly Goodhead and Wei Lin - what the hell did they need Bond for?

 

So, yes - Natalya Simonova had knowledge and skills vital to the success of the mission. Even Christmas Jones had that, yet she gets a lot of flak for being young and beautiful, and therefore unbelievable (?). Personality-wise, I prefer Mary Goodnight to either of them (what does that say about me?).

 

Don't look to me to defend Stacey Sutton. Fleming never created a character who just stood around screeching to be rescued. Perhaps if she'd been played by... anyone else? I think (and hope) that such throwbacks are passe, and that the days of the love interest being limited to the role of plot device are really over.

 

For what it's worth, my favorite female characters in the series are Kissy Suzuki, Tiffany Case (until near the end), Rosie Carver, Mary Goodnight, Kara Milovy and Pam Bouvier,

 

Plus, I'll include Catherine v Schell (OHMSS) for looks alone.

 

So what's that say about me?

[Surrie]

Interesting question probably inspiring someone to write an essay about it.

 

One of the things I am passionate about in general is women being paid the same amount of money as men for doing the same job - this is something that is still not the case in 2016. However things are getting better year on year and women are more and more rightly being treated as equals.

 

At the same time, there has been an increase in interest in the likes of the Kardashians and Real housewives and the bimbos from Geordie Shore, for example. Plus in any luxurious, expensive location you will see attractive women hanging off the arms of rich men of all ages.

 

So while I applaud that the Bond women have evolved so that they are at least on the same level as the male characters, if a 007 movie does feature an attractive woman merely as eye candy, then it is only representing something that happens in real life, and can't be criticised for doing so.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I have actually already written a lengthy essay on the subject - thinking of expanding and re-researching on this topic. 

 

So are you saying that the Bond women are representing what happens in real life (with regards to eye-candy)? If that's the case, then we are not only watching a Bond film through the eyes of a male but the world through the eyes of males? Or is it more accurate to say that some types of women's behaviour is moulded due to the world we live in? 

 

I am not generalising all women here, but the few that actually enjoy being perceived in this respect. 

 

Women were for recreation. On a job, they got in the way and fogged things up with sex and hurt feelings and all the emotional baggage they carried around. One had to look out for them and take care of them. (CR)

 

Bond had no intention of marrying anyone. If he did, it would certainly not be an insipid slave. (FYEO)

 

"You don't have to bow to me and I shall never bow to you." She held out her hand. "How do you do. My name is Kissy Suzuki...I hope you are good at peeling potatoes."

Bond was delighted. Thank God for a straightforward girl at last! No more bowing and hissing! He said, "I took a degree in it." (YOLT)

 

Bond (Fleming)'s attitudes towards women apparently changed over time and I presume to speak for others when I say I hope most men have adapted to the idea that women aren't prizes to be won or possessions to be controlled. Unfortunately, the frequency of reported (and unreported) incidents of domestic abuse indicate that a lot of men have a lot of catching up to do.

 

For the most part the Bond films have presented intellectual and moral strength as desirable traits in women, while ambition and sociopathy are presented as less so (femme fatales like Fiona Volpe, Helga Brandt and Xenia Onatopp behave like men, so while they are beautiful and exotic, their appeal is less enduring). A woman can be a partner on a mission without having to be Bond's equal. Despite that, a lot of posters admire Domino Derval (Claudine Auger), although she was little more than the villain's mistress - even after she agreed to help 007.

 

Diana Rigg's Tracy had the same pedigree as Honor Blackman's Pussy Galore (in fact, Rigg's character on The Avengers was developed specifically to have "M(ale) appeal" (not my pun). They were pushing the limit with the likes of Holly Goodhead and Wei Lin - what the hell did they need Bond for?

 

So, yes - Natalya Simonova had knowledge and skills vital to the success of the mission. Even Christmas Jones had that, yet she gets a lot of flak for being young and beautiful, and therefore unbelievable (?). Personality-wise, I prefer Mary Goodnight to either of them (what does that say about me?).

 

Don't look to me to defend Stacey Sutton. Fleming never created a character who just stood around screeching to be rescued. Perhaps if she'd been played by... anyone else? I think (and hope) that such throwbacks are passe, and that the days of the love interest being limited to the role of plot device are really over.

 

For what it's worth, my favorite female characters in the series are Kissy Suzuki, Tiffany Case (until near the end), Rosie Carver, Mary Goodnight, Kara Milovy and Pam Bouvier,

 

Plus, I'll include Catherine v Schell (OHMSS) for looks alone.

 

So what's that say about me?

 

Thank you for quoting Fleming! I am confident in saying perhaps the 'Bond franchise' even established the 'male gaze' or, at least, helped to do so. Fleming did create very interesting female characters, but perhaps the male-dominated world of film-making back in the 60's subconsciously endorsed this way of thinking of and viewing women. We can most definitely see a shift in some of the female characters from '95 onwards when MGW and Babs took over. I know Babs is a champion of equal pay for women, and no doubt tried to shift 'the gaze' during Craig's swimshorts scene in CR. 

[David_M]

I agree the distinction between Mary Goodnight and Natalya is stark, but Goodnight wasn't the first Bond girl, so it's probably more instructive to go all the way back to DN.  I would argue the "Bond girls" started off as fairly strong characters and only over time -- and not for all that long -- turned into airheads and arm ornaments for Bond (most of the '70s with Stacy Sutton thrown in).  Still, almost none of them are especially complex.

 

I would describe the Bond Girl "types" as follows:  (1) Plucky, spirited young woman who is not without ability, and may have her own agenda, but is way out of her league in Bond's world and ultimately needs his protection and/or rescue (Honey, Tania, Natalya, Tracy, Camille, Melina, Madeline), (2) Female "match for Bond" who thinks she doesn't need 007, and indeed may not (Anya, Holly, Wai-Lin, Jinx, arguably Pam), (3) "damsel in distress" whose sole purpose is to get Bond into dangerous situations so as to rescue her, and who may well be a complete idiot (Solitaire, Goodnight, Stacey, to a lesser extent Kara).  

 

Some fall into more than one category, like Domino (sort of "plucky," but also fairly helpless), Pussy and Octopussy (Bond "equals" who never quite come off as equal), and Tiffany, who spends half DAF as a Pussy Galore "tough crook" type and the other half as a useless, "stupid twit."  And then there are a couple that don't easily fit my categories, like Kissy, who's a fairly competent and resourceful agent and doesn't need rescuing, but also makes no pretense of being Bond's equal, and Vesper, who is an intriguing mix of good girl and bad girl, innocent and manipulator.

 

In the end, though, I do think they all serve the same purpose; they're supporting players in the adventures of a male fantasy figure.  Some are brighter than others, or more useful in tough spots, but in the end very few of them are really an "equal" for Bond, and that's why they're there: to remind us how great Bond is.  It's not just the women, though: plenty of male supporting characters are also there to remind us they're not as smart, tough or cool as Bond, though some come closer than others.  Felix starts off as the lean, cool Jack Lord but shows up next time as an older, plumper, less well-dressed actor.  This wasn't by accident. Depending on the era, audiences might want the Bond girls to be a little more or less competent, but in the end they almost all need Bond to save them.  And when they don't, when they really do seem to be Bond's equal, they're arguably not as successful, or well-liked.  Jinx gets little love from fans, Wai-Lin is really cool but leaves you wondering why she's not in her own movie instead of hanging out with Bond, even Holly Goodhead -- secret agent and astronaut (!) with a PhD thrown in for good measure -- is more convincing in the scenes where she's miffed at, exasperated with or nauseated by Bond than the ones where she "loves" him.  In a way, i would say that not only does a female equal work against the success of the Bond formula, it actually defies credulity.  To wit:  what would a truly independent, competent, self-reliant woman see in a guy like Bond?

 

Anyway, I think it may be wrong to read a lot of "gender politics" into Bond, or at least any kind of agenda in the "War of the Sexes."  I think the Bond girl exists for the same reason as the various male sidekicks and allies, or indeed the nice clothes and cool cars: they are props, basically, to sell the narrative of Bond, the cool hero.  Child-like waif or super-crook, grade school dropout or nuclear physicist, they're all somehow coincidentally gorgeous...go figure...and their job is to make 007 look good.  The ones who make us question why he doesn't just let them die (Stacey) or alternately, why he even needed to show up (Wai-Lin and Jinx) are usually the ones with less fans.  Any "character development" for Bond girls has to occur somewhere between those two extremes, because in the end, it's not about them.

[Surrie]

Thanks for the in-depth reply David-M! Ultimately, I agree with your sentiments that the Bond girls and props/allies are all there to support Bond. Despite how each Bond girl is characterised their purpose is the same - they inspire Bond's actions and encourage him to push the story forward with his actions. 

 

If we look at cinema in general from this century and the 20th I think the Bond franchise has actually been more cutting-edge with empowering women into different roles. You've mentioned some great Bond girls, such as Dr. Holly Goodhead who as you put it doesn't need Bond, but we can argue that despite her strength and intelligence was she being undermined by her given surname? 

 

I don't think there really is much difference between Bond girls throughout the era's - which makes me question whether the films are depicting reality or have the Bond films (and all other films) help shape this reality? 

 

Even though Jinx's character didn't need Bond and her character existing in the 2000's (relatively new-age Bond girl) she was still subjected heavily to 'the male gaze'. We are forced to look at Jinx through Bond's own gaze when he picks up the binoculars and watches her exit the sea - we are forced to objectify her from a voyeuristic position. Jinx is coded to ensure her visual presence has maximum effect, so much so that when she exits the sea it is in slow motion - as if this is how Bond is seeing her in his mind. 

 

So, despite Jinx's strong character she experiences intense scrutiny before we even know her name, and she is completely unaware of this. Many Bond girls have had the same treatment, but only recently have we seen Bond through the eyes of a female gaze/female audience. In fact, thinking about it now Bond is used by Vesper and the story is spurred on by her own actions not entirely Bonds. She is the first and original Bond girl - therefore can cinema be blamed for supplying us with these views of Bond girls as we didn't see a true representation of Vesper until about 50 years into the franchise, or was the cinema simply following/representing the reality we live in at the time? 

[AMC Hornet]

Interesting point about first seeing Jinx from a voyeur's perspective - that happened so frequently in the series that I haven't the energy to tabulate all the names, plus those who were in a vulnerable position when Bond happens upon them (Jill Masterson, Andrea Anders and Octopussy spring immediately to mind). All to give Bond the tactical advantage, I presume.

[David_M]

 

 

You've mentioned some great Bond girls, such as Dr. Holly Goodhead who as you put it doesn't need Bond, but we can argue that despite her strength and intelligence was she being undermined by her given surname? 

 

Well, this is a typical disconnect for the series.  Holly is arguably the most learned and accomplished of all the Bond girls, but she looks like she walked out of a perfume ad, she has a name that suggests a sex act and she's played by an actress whose range makes Roger Moore look like Olivier.  Her spiritual descendant is Christmas Jones, a "nuclear physicist" who looks (and acts) like a blow-up doll.

 

At some point one has to deal with the fact that the character on the script page -- scientist, super-spy, astronaut, crime boss, computer genius -- is being interpreted by a fullsome ingenue whose chief strength lies in a set of numbers that has nothing to do with IQ.  The series is great at paying lip service to equality and women's lib and "strong female characters," but in the end they're all eye candy first.  I seem to remember a lot of press around the time of Goldeneye saying Natalya was a "modern woman" who wouldn't spend all her time in a bikini, but I also remember a lot of press photos showing her in exactly that.  I lost track of how many leading ladies said at a press conference, "My character isn't the usual bimbo Bond girl; she's Bond's equal."  Then we saw the film and learned her character was the biggest airhead in the lot.  Eventually this claim was made so often the press conferences felt like "Mad Libs", and 9 times out of 10 they were about as truthful as Broccoli's claim that MR was "Science Fact."

 

Sometimes I get the distinct impression the series (at least Classic Bond...the Craig era is harder to nail down) had a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" relationship with the viewer.  It got to the point where they had to acknowledge the equal rights movement, and at least pay lip service to gender equality, but deep down we knew, and they knew, that part of the Bond formula includes pretty girls, and the rest was just yakkety-yak.  The scientist and the astronaut and the superspy would all end up in bed with Bond at the end, so let them prattle on about equality, so long as they looked good doing it.

 

Understand, I'm not a feminist and I have no problem with the above, because Bond is fantasy and for my money doesn't owe the viewer anything more than entertainment.  And I really do think that women, as much as men, enjoyed the classic formula and were quite okay with settling for the merest nod to gender equality before getting back to the fun.

 

 

 

 

I don't think there really is much difference between Bond girls throughout the era's - which makes me question whether the films are depicting reality or have the Bond films (and all other films) help shape this reality? 

 

 

I don't think Bond films reflect reality in any way, shape or form, and frankly every time they pretend to they lose their way.  Bond is better than reality; it's fantasy.

 

But maybe your point is that popular entertainment helps shape the way we look at ourselves and the world around us, or maybe more accurately, how we choose to perceive reality and warp it into something we like better.  In that case, I would agree the Bond series was a factor, along with the Playboy Club, sexy stewardesses, cigarette ads and a million other things that helped shape a fantasy view of sex and society in the 60s and 70s that women were asked (and may or may not have agreed) to play into.  I think you could argue that as time went on, a certain segment looked back at the 60s as "the good old days" and because of it the Bond films continued to celebrate a 60s' view of sexual relations long after it reflected anything close to reality.

 

 

 

Even though Jinx's character didn't need Bond and her character existing in the 2000's (relatively new-age Bond girl) she was still subjected heavily to 'the male gaze'. We are forced to look at Jinx through Bond's own gaze when he picks up the binoculars and watches her exit the sea - we are forced to objectify her from a voyeuristic position. Jinx is coded to ensure her visual presence has maximum effect, so much so that when she exits the sea it is in slow motion - as if this is how Bond is seeing her in his mind. 

She also ends up needing to be rescued, just like all the others.

 

Jinx, I believe, crosses a certain line that makes her less appealing than other Bond girls.  As I said above, I think part of the game is that we'll allow a certain amount of pretension in Bond's "equals" because we all know, deep down, that they're not really his equal and we're just humoring them.  Because, you know, they're hot and all.  But Jinx is just a little too smug about it, a little too much the equal, a little too self-assured.  She is, in a nutshell, not that likable.  In that context, that lingering gaze as she walks from the surf seems in retrospect almost mean-spirited, like a pouty grumble that, "Yeah, well at the end of the day, she's still just a chick."

 

Also it should be noted that as soon as she starts talking to Bond, she launches into double-entendres as crude and witless as Bond's own, and it's not attractive (to me, anyway).  I also didn't like it when Samantha Bond's Moneypenny was vulgar.  This might be an interesting sidebar for your studies, too: that the Bond girls are expected to put up with, or even dig, Bond's childish innuendo, but if they ever engage in it themselves they lose much of their appeal.  That probably says something about gender roles, but again that's not my field.

 

 

 

 

In fact, thinking about it now Bond is used by Vesper and the story is spurred on by her own actions not entirely Bonds. She is the first and original Bond girl - therefore can cinema be blamed for supplying us with these views of Bond girls as we didn't see a true representation of Vesper until about 50 years into the franchise, or was the cinema simply following/representing the reality we live in at the time? 

 

Honestly, I don't think they put a lot of thought into it.  To return to the comparison to cars, clothes and gadgets, sometimes we got winners, sometimes not so much.  Certain elements of the formula were constant, but their effectiveness tended to vary greatly.

[Mr_Wint]

Stacey always gets a bad rap, as being a sort of extreme "damsel in distress". But if you think about it, she was a more human character than what we typically see with Bond girls. To begin with, you get so see her house which is very rare. We learn about her background with Sutton Oil and her education. We can see the relationship with her boss and being fired from the job etc. I can't think of any other Bond girl given so much material. Small little details thrown in that makes us believe she really did exist before Bond came into her life. Her cat, comments about her cooking, driving home after work eating candy, her grandfather who always liked a good fight and so on.

I think that was a deliberate move by the writers, since AVTAK was an attempt to move away from the spectacle/gadgets and focus more on characters. But it is never recognized, perhaps due to the character being a little bit helpless. But then again, if she is a human being, her reaction to being trapped in an elevator or hanging on top of the golden gate bridge is perfectly normal...

[David_M]

I think Stacey's more grounded, earth-bound nature is recognized, but it's certainly not celebrated.  Part of the formula for a successful Bond girl seems to be certain quota of mystique and exoticism, if not flat out glamour.  Stacey, as you point out, has none of that; she lives alone with a cat, has a fairly boring office job in city government working for a jerk and drives an average car.  She may not be plain-looking, but in every other respect she's as plain as they come. Worse, by first appearing in glamorous surroundings at Zorin's party only to later be revealed as an "Average Jane," she introduces the disturbing notion that ALL the Bond girls, as exotic and alluring as they may seem, may turn out at the end of the day to be ordinary mortals who have to clean out the cat box, punch a time clock and pump their own gas.  It's an unwelcome intrusion of the pedestrian into an otherwise fabulous fantasy world. You're right that she gets picked on more than the even more helpless Solitaire or the much stupider Mary Goodnight (who, as a field agent, has no excuse) but if so I think that's because she doesn't even give us that element of glitz and glamour we expect from a Bond girl. It's hard not to think, "James, James.  You can do so much better..."

 

I want to go back to an earlier point:

 

So, despite Jinx's strong character she experiences intense scrutiny before we even know her name, and she is completely unaware of this.

 

 

I don't think Jinx is special, in this.  Any woman who comes out of the surf in a bikini is going to be sized up by any males (or females, really) around, and if she's judged beautiful, that sizing-up is going to go on for a while.  

 

It's a human thing, not a male thing, to form a first impression of someone based on their looks.  In time we will come to know the person behind the face and body; whether genius or dullard, saint or sadist, religious or atheist, liberal or conservative, chatty or tight-lipped, but the thing that kept us around long enough to find out was that initial attraction.  Also, it's not like she doesn't subject Bond to the same sizing up, and come on to him as surely as he does her.

 

Further, the "rising from the surf" routine serves a strictly utilitarian goal by alerting us: "Attention: This is the Bond girl," just as we have other time-honored signals to tell us who's the villain.  It's also, in this particular case, one of many ham-handed call-backs to earlier films, and if it's shot in slow motion (I don't remember, and don't care to check), it's probably to make sure every person in the audience gets the unsubtle reference to Ursula Andress and Dr No.

 

And I don't think she's "unaware" she's being scrutinized.  No human being walks like that naturally; she's obviously trying to attract attention.

 

Besides, as a trained agent, Bond was doubtless simply staring in an effort to detect hidden weapons, right? :-)

[Hockey Mask]

Every Bond girl during production says she's different than the rest. In the end, it ain't that different.

[Surrie]

You all have extremely relevant points. This demonstrates just how broad a topic this is, and how pinned it is to just an individuals opinion. I am no feminist, but do find this topic extremely interesting - I especially like hearing how males feel and think in regards to this topic. As a gay female, I can appreciate how the Bond girls are represented but I am absolutely not outraged by it at all. At the end of the day - I am looking too ! It is, as described above, a fantasy and I agree, a nod to 'the good ol' times'. 

 

This topic always seems to evoke strong opinions!

[agentbug]

If I could paste into this reply box I'd write an essay, but as I can't I'll simply add this:

 

Although we first view Jinx voyeuristically, it is this very first impression that helps hide (although not very convincingly) that she is in fact a secret agent herself and quite capable of taking care of herself and doing some of the things Bond does. My point being, by showing us this first image, it does helps hammer home how this image can be misleading. Not all that meets the eye, and all that.

[Surrie]

If I could paste into this reply box I'd write an essay, but as I can't I'll simply add this:

 

Although we first view Jinx voyeuristically, it is this very first impression that helps hide (although not very convincingly) that she is in fact a secret agent herself and quite capable of taking care of herself and doing some of the things Bond does. My point being, by showing us this first image, it does helps hammer home how this image can be misleading. Not all that meets the eye, and all that.

 

I agree with your point. But, in the same respect - to hide her true identity and take on this type of image and character is glaringly obvious she is appealing to what she thinks 'males will want to see' in order to not draw attention to herself and have them think any further about her character. Bond falls for it, and doesn't realise she is there as an agent until he finds her paperwork in the dead surgeons office.