Deathmatch 2023 - Sideswipes

Special Interest Games
62

I think that is the wrong conclusion to draw. I would counter that since the production and dissemination of those particular racist tropes will have no negative impact on your daily life, they are not as impactful when you see/read them, and as a result, easier to accept/not be bothered by.

As I have posted before, I am married to a Black man, and many times he has pointed out the racism of a trope or an idea, and what I had once uncritically accepted–since it had no impact whatsoever on my life–I now saw as a trope/idea that put forth and endorsed racist concepts. I have had similar conversations with female friends, who have alerted me to sexist representations that flew over/under/around my head.

But what if you were a Nazi? Wouldn’t you want an accurate portrayal? Nazis can be utility villains for you, since you are never going to be mistaken for one. But image if you were this fellow:

image
image824×537 98.4 KB

My husband speaks of how frequently white people will say that he is so different from the Black people they know, and when he draws them out a bit, he discovers that most Black people they know are characters they have seen in films and on television. The racist tropes/stereotypes never

Nor can they be made to stay there. Interpenetration is the name of the cultural game.

I know you do. So do I. I bet every community member here can make the same claim, but I do not believe that is the sole reason for possessing the ability to be entertained by these tropes in reel life (as argued above).

I do not think one has to want to look for them. They are very much served up without any qualms.

2 Likes
63
June 10 - Goldfinger - How Bond persuades Pussy to change sides
  • A good idea, well executed
  • A good idea, poorly executed
  • A bad idea, poorly executed
  • A bad idea, but executed as well as it was ever going to be

0 voters

64

I believe everything depends on one’s willingness to acknowledge always, always, always that stories made up for entertainment are NOT reality, and that therefore one must ALWAYS draw conclusions about life from reality only.

I am shocked, however, that people did not rely on their own experiences but on movies/tv in encounters with your husband.

So I admit that my faith in some people’s ability to separate entertainment from reality is misplaced. (Why am I surprised, after all which has been going on?)

Maybe it’s because I am a writer (oh, no, drawing that card again?) that I am open to defend tropes as a way to communicate plot faster. But I am aware of my responsibility to show human beings as real/dimensional as possible.

I still believe, though, that one cannot conceive a story without tropes. In other words: if a Bond film uses a villain who is white, British and heterosexual, without any Flemingian disfigurements or psychological afflictions, wouldn’t that also immediately suggest that „those people“ are evil and transport a prejudice?

65

I politely disagree, simply because the film makes a pointed difference between the people whose children get abducted and the rich, self-important clique which indulges in those unspeakably cruel and disgusting eating habits.

As for superstition: people always were prone to magical thinking, and they still are today, everywhere in the world, mostly in regions with little education. Not that education precludes our Western „civilized“ world from indulging in religious superstition.

66

Wow, I’m the only one who voted “Good idea, poorly executed” for Bond’s turning of Pussy, so maybe I should explain my reasoning.

I think it was a good idea to have Pussy save the day by her defection to the side of the angels when none of Bond’s own efforts were enough. I think it’s good that the defection occurs thanks to a connection she makes with Bond, so that ultimately 007 is still sort of responsible for the save, just not through his usual means of cunning and physical acumen. But it would have worked better for me if her change of heart were based on something he said, or some behavior he exhibited at Goldfinger’s horse farm that made Pussy think, “What am I doing? I’m on the wrong side of this thing.” I don’t know what that would have been, but I’m confident it could have been done.

I don’t think “Bond ‘cures’ a woman of lesbianism” is a good idea, which may be what the question was really asking. In that context, I’m really not sure how to answer this one. The film is less of a problem than the novel in that it’s more ambiguous what her orientation is: “I’m immune” doesn’t necessarily mean she’s queer, it could just as easily mean Bond holds no appeal (or that she’s still emotionally attached to John Steed, who knows). The novel is far less equivocal. On the other hand, the film is more of a problem in that Bond’s “seduction” looks for all the world like flat-out rape, which manages to offend both with the “All women want to be raped” idea AND the “All a lesbian needs is a real man” notion.

From a technical standpoint, with due respect to Ms Blackman’s judo skills, those throws in the hayloft always look silly and staged to me. The goofy musical stings don’t help.

So if it’s “how Bond persuades Pussy to change sides” in the sense of the fact that it’s a plot point: Good idea. If it’s “HOW Bond persuades Pussy” in terms of method: Bad idea. And either way, it’s thoroughly unconvincing as executed.

1 Like
67

Also, the statement „Bond turns her into a heterosexual“ has always been too much of an assumption.

Fact is: Bond forces himself on her. In a way which was weirdly an accepted trope in that era, even in romantic comedies, with the protagonist almost always forcing a kiss on the unwilling heroine, only for her to succumb to this „sign of affection“ wholeheartedly.

But after that, Pussy helps him to thwart Goldfinger‘s plan and may show interest in another roll in the hay. Only I never thought: now she is not a Lesbian anymore. She might have been bisexual before, and she will definitely have sex with women afterwards.

Bond claiming to have appealed to her „motherly instincts“ is nothing but his typical chauvinistic way of overestimating his sexual power. Something Fiona will make fun of in the next film.

I always thought that Pussy was just acting on her own interests when she became aware that the CIA was circling Goldfinger. She was much too bright to have thought: Goldfinger will keep me out of jail. So she joined forces with the good guys.

2 Likes
68

Agreed, but stories are made up of elements/tropes/facts that are taken from reality and repurposed. Even a text as abstract as Samuel Beckett’s “The Lost Ones” is composed of tropes from real life. More importantly, these tropes carry their societal/cultural meanings and histories of use with them into their new life in a story, and are not stripped of these attributes by their use therein. As you yourself have commented, Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint do not lose their offensive stereotypes when brought into DAF’s story world (though as you know, I argue that Hamilton and Mankiewicz use the their trope in such a way as to undercut it).

Agreed, and here is where the problem lies. When tropes are used, and their real world connotations/histories are neither stripped nor challenged, then, while they help tell the story, they also infect it with bias(es). To refer to Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint again: they could easily have remained two gay tropes signaling evil, but Hamilton/Mankiewicz cut against this reading by making them a loving couple–holding hands after murdering; finishing each others sentences; showing jealousy.

Agreed. Our disagreement is not about the use of tropes, but about whether are suddenly scrubbed of their cultural baggage when someone employs them (and to scrub them would make no sense, since it is the tropes’ acquired meanings and histories that make them useful in the first place).

No, because in real life where these tropes originate, Britishness, whiteness, and heterosexuality have no history of being deployed as signifiers of evil.

2 Likes
69
June 11 - Licence to Kill - Bond’s motivation to go rogue
  • A good idea, well executed
  • A good idea, poorly executed
  • A bad idea, poorly executed
  • A bad idea, but executed as well as it was ever going to be

0 voters

70

I doubt that, and these days, as a white old man myself, I wonder whether the tables have turned.

I hasten to add that I do not condone the behavior of many white male and older heterosexuals in the slightest. I encountered a man in power in my line of work who became the subject of controversy and finally left his high powered job. While I never witnessed the terrible behavior I did experience his immense arrogance and flirting with female employees, and I was happy to see him leave because he truly represented the horrible qualities of the type I was referring to (except not being British but German).

In the end, I think that the role of the villain in Bond films or other genre pictures will always require certain tropes. Taken from real life or a mix of movie experiences, it will remain something that will be criticized for being unrealistic or transporting bias. Is there any way around that?

4 Likes
71

I’d argue that since Die Hard (where, ironically, he was playing it sort of German) British is the go to signifier for evil. The more RP the accent, the more evil.

3 Likes
72

I think the motivation is there. When Tracy died Bond wouldn’t rest until Blofeld was found and killed. Especially in the context of LTK, Bond is shown to be very close to Felix, and he’s probably one of the few true friends he has. Almost like a brother. I believe Bond could go all in for someone like that if he feels like the crime isn’t being taken seriously enough, and it’s part of a deeper conspiracy.

3 Likes
73

Both parties arguing a very convincing case and making my opinion flip flop like a politician’s manifesto promise. However, I can’t see any evidence to say

[ quote=“MrKiddWint, post:68, topic:2575”]
Britishness, whiteness, and heterosexuality have no history of being deployed as signifiers of evil.
[/quote]

The following (I’ve picked a variety in a range of films of varying quality, but these could easily be replaced by as many others) would all have something to say about that:

James Mason in North by Northwest
General Zod in Superman II
Scar in The Lion King
John Lithgow in Cliffhanger
Benedict Cumberbatch in Star Trek Into Darkness (bizarrely given the character’s name… then again, much of that movie is bizarre)
Jason Isaacs in The Patriot

That last one I think gets to the core of this particular stereotype: the modern film industry is American, the Americans were treated appallingly by the British, hence the war of independence. Ergo the British are upper class self interested villains who exercise their power for selfish gains with extreme cruelty. As a Brit, does this stereotype offend me? No. But being white British remains a position of privilege in our society. Where stereotypes are insidious is where they are used to further the idea of backwardness or to dehumanise a la 1930s Germany… or indeed to stereotype that all Germans actively participated in this. In short, I remain on the fence on this debate…. Though I am firmly in the camp of finding Octopussy a damn fine movie that serves pure Bond on every viewing.

2 Likes
74

I vote for “good idea, well executed.” Bond is not the type to let Felix and Della’s fates go unpunished, and the Dalton version isn’t the type to bow to rules and protocol when his instincts and conscience tell him otherwise. In this sense, it’s vital that we had TLD first, to show that Dalton Bond is his own man and often knows better from his position “on the ground” than M does from behind the safety of his desk in London. There’s no way LTK could have worked with Roger’s Bond for all sorts of reasons, but one is that he’s much more of a “company man” than Dalton is. I’m not saying Roger would’ve turned a blind eye to Felix’s maiming, but putting him in an “orders versus conscience” situation would have been a no-win scenario, script-wise. TLD showed us Dalton-Bond already has one foot out the door (“If he fires me, I’ll thank him for it”) and will decide for himself which way to go, thanks very much.

In 1989, “Bond goes rogue” was daring and gutsy. By now, it’s just tiresome and ridiculous. In the intervening years, he’s gone rogue so many times it makes no sense to keep him on the payroll, but this first time it was “Wow.”

LTK was “well executed” in terms of motivation, in terms of how the “resignation” went down at the Hemingway House and in terms of showing just how much Bond is capable of on his own, without the resources and sanction of MI-6 (save Q). It was also brilliant to work in the wedding as it would naturally dredge up a lot of old, painful and still unresolved memories of Tracy to add fuel to the fire. Bond has sacrificed enough for his job; consider the camel’s back broken, as of now.

I don’t think it was all that well-executed in other ways. First, it’s been over a decade since we saw Hedison’s Felix – and that time with another Bond – and the last actor who played Felix was so nondescript both we and the producers have forgotten him, so the “best buddies” angle rings a bit hollow. We buy that Bond is upset, but we don’t feel it like he does. And when at film’s end Bond is told, basically, “All is forgiven, see you back at the office on Monday,” it’s pretty hard to swallow, considering he’s disobeyed direct orders, left a swath of destruction and contributed to the deaths of British and Korean agents through his insubordination. Even at the time, I thought, “Don’t believe him, Bond! As soon as you’re back at the office, you’ll be arrested!”

Anyway, I enjoy LTK as a one-off exploration of what could happen if you trained the world’s greatest assassin only to have him go off on a personal vendetta, completely out of your control. On the other hand, as the prototype for so…very…many…“this time it’s personal” Bond scripts, sometimes I still wish it had never been made, but it’s not fair to hold that against the film. I think.

4 Likes
75

Good idea, well executed (in general).

As a plot - yes, completely buy TD’s Bond going off on his own with much havoc and revenge on his mind. “This is not a country club, 007!” Imagine Bernard Lee in that scene (no disrespect to Brown). The infiltration of Sanchez’s organization is classic “spy” stuff and his manipulation of his adversary a side of the character that perhaps we’ve not seen enough of over the years.

Which brings me too…as a film - LTK is imperfect in the sense that as others have documented (007th Minute, anyone?) that too often it has to be a Bond “film.” The character study (of both Bond and Sanchez) is deserving of more than the tone of mid-era EON, those “moments” completely undermining the rhythm of what could have been a unique entry in the series. Of course, “unique” does tend invoke the widest - or should that be wildest - of emotions in both the general audience and us fans. See QoS.

Talking of which, is a much better reflection of “angry-Bond-off-on-his-own” because artistically, it makes absolutely no concession to it’s existence as a “Bond-film.” Content instead to, behind all the noise and punches thrown, be a character study of the central character.

I’ve always liked LTK, and if one isolates the performance of the lead as the primary marker of artistic excellence, it’s hard to find a better one across the series, topping both SC and Sir Rog’s in whatever you feel is their best performance.

Good, and imperfect Good.

2 Likes
76
12 June - You Only Live Twice - Japanface Connery
  • A good idea, well executed
  • A good idea, poorly executed
  • A bad idea, poorly executed
  • A bad idea, but executed as well as it was ever going to be

0 voters

77

Even John Barry couldn’t save it.

6 Likes
78

Ironically given that it’s one of the very few things to make it from novel to screenplay, this is one of those examples that proves “back to Fleming” doesn’t have to be a good thing. It’s also interesting that Roger is eternally dumped on for the clown disguise by people who conveniently forget Sean shuffling around embarrassingly in the least convincing “Asian” disguise since John Wayne’s Genghis Khan (though thankfully not as cringey as Mickey Rooney in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”).

It might have helped if SPECTRE was shown monitoring the village through spies on the ground or cameras somewhere, but as it is, Bond’s disguise seems pointless and half-baked. The time could’ve been better spent on other things.

5 Likes
79

Insofar as it’s a means in the novel of Bond not being spotted, it doesn’t work in the film as Bond seems under perpetual attack once he’s in the disguise - Aki’s death, spiked stick thing - so it doesn’t really work at all as a means of hiding him and the threats are more frequent when he’s in “disguise”. It seems to disappear as a disguise pretty quickly, too. As you say, not everything from Fleming is worth the doing.

4 Likes
80

I like the fact we have Bond undercover for the second time in a row after impersonating Sir Hillary Bray (in the book sequencing). If the idea was to be used I prefer what Fleming did, in having Bond being a mute coal miner. Someone with a reason for not talking and drawing a bit less attention to himself.

3 Likes
81

It was the challenge for Dahl, as the first accredited writer to be under instructions to dump the source material pretty much entirely. How do you do enough to even halfway justify the use of the title? As it is the screenplay feels like a series of references to the novel, a la DAD to the film series. They’re not relevant, they don’t propel the plot, they merely remind the viewer of something. And once you’ve gone - oooh, that’s from the novel, you just move on.

And to paraphrase our friend Orion, even Ken Adam couldn’t save it…

4 Likes