I won’t comment on the Severine moment, but I’m a fan of the Lucia scene and the “life insurance - “all too briefly” comments. In fact, I’d say the “can’t you see I’m grieving?“ - “No” exchange is the best in the film. Your mileage may vary, but Bond is a cold hearted bastard and I don’t think that aspect should be neutered too much. I commend the filmmakers for having the guts to go there in SPECTRE.
2 Likes
The case of Severine and Pussy Galore aren’t too terribly different. Severine didn’t invite Bond into the shower. Inviting him on the boat is not the same thing, and given her history as a slave, Bond shouldn’t have preyed upon her. He doesn’t have to force himself upon her to get her to submit to him, as he does in GF, but given that she’s lived a life of having to submit herself to whatever people want of her, it cuts that part out of the equation for Bond. Both are, IMO, incredibly wrong and distasteful, even for a cold hearted bastard like Bond.
I didn’t mean to say that it was OK in Pussy’s case because it was then, because it wasn’t OK then either. It’s just disappointing in this day in time because, especially now, filmmakers should know better. They should have known better then as well, and they should have known better when it happened in Live and Let Die as well.
2 Likes
I think the difference is that Pussy very clearly rejected Bond’s advances and watching him continue regardless makes really uncomfortable viewing. With Severine there are no objections and him surprising her in the shower is ok because the previous casino scene has made the chemistry and mutual desire between them explicit. I do see what you mean about her past making her vulnerable, but they are consenting adults entering a transaction, albeit with benefits: Bond gets the introduction to his target and she gets rid of the monster who has trapped her. The sex is a bonus for both of them. I definitely agree with you about Solitaire though: considering what a gentleman Roger Moore was, that move to trick Solitaire into bed was seedy by anyone’s standards and is more befitting a late Carry On film than Bond.
I got into some serious hot water when I criticized the shower scene here last year. It wasn’t pretty.
I think there’s a big difference between flirting in a public place and just assuming that person would want to have sex. Who’s to say she was ready or even interested in a physical relationship at that point? She might have wanted a few dates first.
The fact she acquiesced means nothing when you consider her history of having to submit herself sexually, and Bond couldn’t know she wouldn’t mind until he actually stepped inside. It’s not a million miles from a rapist saying, “She’ll enjoy it once we get started.”
I couldn’t believe my eyes at the time and still think of it as a black mark on the series.
I find it interesting that people always point to the Connery films when there’s something just as disgusting that went on in a film that was released this very decade. But that’s something so prevalent in modern society: discredit the past and be smug about the present.
Now, I’ll just hide under this table…
1 Like
No need to. You’re 100% correct.
It’s definitelly not a million miles from that. It’s more like the two are located on the same city block.
1 Like
For the record, since I was the one discussing this with you and probably adding degrees to the ‘hot water’:
I still don’t see this scene as problematic as you and others do. But it is absolutely, vitally important that fans, especially younger fans, make their concerns heard and acknowledged. It’s exactly such matters that need discussion and reflection, repeatedly and as often as necessary to make their importance felt.
It’s not crucial whether I or any other fan or casual viewer share your view, that’s not the point. It is that there is a problem and that, when we enjoy the film, we should be aware of the blind spot where this problem is located.
4 Likes
I appreciate that.
And adding this again: Bond is not a family friendly nice guy, he is a cold-hearted assassin.
3 Likes
There was a move at some point in the 70’s towards that, and it still has that a general air. Interestingly there was a HUGE thing when making Dr No, l when they had to fight for the murder of Dent, as they felt it was needed to properly enforce that this was not the family friendly hero! By the time we get to TSWLM the directors grandson wanted Jaws “to be a goodie” and then it changed.
Probably an essay about the change somewhere
1 Like
To go back to an argument from another thread, yes it’s true that Bond is cold-hearted and, overall, a pretty despicable bastard. But, when he’s held up to be a hero by the filmmakers, and especially in this new era of a more personal Bond, ask the audience to identify with the character, it’s not really all that much to ask that he not be a borderline rapist.
Taking the Severine moment for example. This isn’t something that even adds to the plot. It’s not as though it’s there to show us that Bond is a bastard in any kind of constructive way. It’s there because, without it, SF doesn’t have a sex scene. Beyond that, the only possible reason it could be there is to “capitalize” on the earlier mention of her having been enslaved in an effort to make the audience uncomfortable.
2 Likes
But it does assume Bond is factually right in his deduction, rather than falling for a villains honeypot scheme - which Severine has already demonstrated she does - and do keep in mind Silva WANTED Bond there and all those cronies were taking her orders. Rather than being a damsel in distress, it’s more likely she saw an opportunity with Bond’s blatant misogyny and hero complex, where it didnt cross his mind she was actually in charge, a performance she keeps going so as to toy with Bond later as worries how to rescue the beautiful woman he saved. She probably didnt know that Silva would kill her just to make a point to Bond, but he does do that with one his other henchmen later in the film (he shoots his henchman at the hearing before leaving)
Also bear in mind this is a rusty agent who just failed his competence tests.
2 Likes
I think in the interest of maximizing the box office after TMWTGG they decided that Bond should in fact be much more family friendly, especially with Sir Roger being such a charming good guy. We all know that Moore himself hated the way he disposed of Locque in FYEO, a movie which was supposed to bring more of an edge to Bond films again, while also maintaining the world wide embrace of the family audience.
Dalton definitely changed this - and after LTK lost the family audience (even the PG rating) Brosnan´s task was to bring it back. But this was kind of having the cake and eating it, too, since they did try to make Bond more dangerous again.
Only when the 00´s (no pun intended) made troubled and brutal anti-heroes palatable (for the whole family, ironically), Craig could be brought in and succeed. Although I do wonder how much of the family audience he could hold, in contrast to Sir Roger´s “four quadrant”-success.
As for Bond´s treatment of women, it just does not work to apply today’s perspective on earlier times. Sure, one can and should find his behavior despicable when he forces himself on the opportunistic and antagonistic Pussy, turning her into an at least bisexual ally. But back then, and even for at least three or four more decades, that male behavior was widely celebrated as “persistent male bravado”. Watching other movies from those eras, male heroes regularly sent women away while talking business or kissed them until they sighed thankfully for having their own libido finally activated.
Wrong and disgusting? Absolutely. But strangely, we can only conclude that now because we have evolved and understood those stereotypical gender roles to be a construct of machismo. (Well, some of us have.)
I still think there are fine lines to consider during the Bond films, though.
In the Connery era Bond regularly looks at and treats women as inferior, but he is also protective of those who are on his side (established as the heroic one). He is not an undesirable tyrant, he is the knight in shining armor.
In the Moore era Bond starts out the same, and the way he “turns” Solitaire actually is the same method he uses on Pussy. The female antagonist, helping the main villain, succumbs to Bond´s charms. But she is not overpowered by him here. Instead MooreBond tricks her by showing (us) that her card reading is a sham. He uses it to make her join his heroic endeavour. Not only that, he obviously has made her enjoy sex so much she asks for a second helping. That is not rape, this is seduction of a willing participant.
As for Severine - I agree with Orion here. She is a consenting adult, and at no time she is presented as a traumatized woman who cannot stand the thought of sex anymore. In an interesting variation on Bond´s formerly mentioned behaviour, she tries to seduce him to join her, then she is shown disappointed that her charms do not seem to have worked on him, and then he does turn up, so she willingly engages in sex with him. Again, at no point she is resisting. I repeat: she is a consenting adult. Has she internalized the disgusting idea that as a woman (used as a sex slave in her early years) she always has to agree whenever a man wants sex? Possible. But in every scene here Severine is calling the shots. I would expect her to say no to Bond, just not to Silva, due to his absolutely ruthless brutality. - I also have to say that on first viewing I was still expecting Severine to turn the tables on Bond, just making him believe that she wants him to rescue her from Silva. And I believe this is what Bond is supposed to think here, too.
Lucia - well, Bond does force herself on her, and at this point she probably agrees to sex with him because a) she does not know who else could protect her, b) it is Daniel Craig, c) she is Monica Bellucci and definitely tough enough to kick him in the groins if she does no longer need him. I’m making fun of this, I know, but the whole character is not really given too much to establish her true motives. She does not grieve for her husband, she just goes through the motions because she is mainly afraid for her own life which is not worth anything anymore since her husband’s failure has hurt Spectre. But what are her true motives? Was she aware of her husband’s actions? She did enjoy the benefits of it (living in that luxurious villa), but was she trying to get away from him, only couldn’t do so? We don’t know. - Again, CraigBond - during the seduction - is behaving rather menacingly, as if he cannot trust her either. In the end, he is doing the same old Connery/early Moore-schtick: turning the antagonist into a helpful or at least not harmful ally by really bringing a stellar performance in bed.
Is this a tired trope that we should not find funny anymore in future Bond films (um, NTTD, maybe)?
I think so. I don’t need to see Bond do that again, simply because it has become a sign for missing originality. Bond is clever, so why not have him persuade a woman by directing his charms at her intellect?
1 Like
I have to disagree here. Solitaire isn’t shown that the cards are a sham in the scene. We the audience are shown that when Bond drops them on the table, but Solitaire engages with Bond under the impression that she is destined to because the cards have now twice shown that she and Bond will be lovers. She pulls away from Bond after seeing the card looking distraught at having seen the lovers card. Adding into this the fact that she does not seem to be a particularly mature character in that she is quite young (Seymour is 22) and incredibly naive due to being sheltered in the way that she has been. Add to this the fact that a man more than twice her age (Moore is 46 in the film) is using both her youth and naivety as well as her religious beliefs against her in order to trick her into bed, it comes across at the absolute best as being incredibly creepy. It borders on and, IMO, crosses the line into a more sinister territory.
Moore in those 2 films is a very sinister figure, a hold over from early Connery. When you reach TSWLM it is a very different character Moore is playing.
Well, her religious beliefs are exposed as ridiculous - it´s Bond against the cult, and she does not have to see the cards at all. That’s the whole point: the quasi-religious fool is freed from thinking that her cards actually hold the truth by being led ad absurdum.
And their age difference is not creepy at all since she is willing to participate.
I’m reluctant to jump down this rabbit hole - particularly as you and I tend to butt heads nowadays - but I struggle with the idea that trauma should be explicitly presented before someone acknowledges it’s even there. She could have many mental scars because of her past. They had a conversation in a public place, during which she showed interest, but that doesn’t mean Bond should later walk in on her while she’s showering because “when I saw her earlier, she was clearly gagging for it.”
She may have wanted to pursue a relationship, even a sexual one, but not jump into bed immediately.
This fits into a larger confusion in modern society and sexual politics. Sex is less taboo than it ever has been, and more prevalent. Many people “do it” on first dates, for example. Meanwhile, female objectification and the broadening definition of sexual harassment make interactions rather more difficult to navigate. For instance, the office romance is apparently in decline as people are anxious about making the first move, even a simple offer to join them for coffee.
In Skyfall, we do see Severine’s disappointment on the boat when Bond fails to show up, but the point is that Bond didn’t see this himself. And, as I said earlier, the fact she embraced Bond when he did arrive could be due to her past indoctrination to submit herself to a man, though, in any event, Bond wouldn’t know she would embrace him until he had actually made this move.
It would be far more appropriate if he had talked to her first, there was obvious consent, and then the shower. As it is, Eon were being egregiously tone-deaf.
I’m quite nervous of another frying now, but there we go.
They are exposed to the audience as ridiculous (not as though we needed it), but they are not exposed as such to her, which is the point She goes to bed with Bond because she feels as though she’s destined to because of the cards. Just because she comes around to it later in the film, and maybe even realizes that it was a sham, doesn’t mean that it happens in that moment. She’s willing to participate in their subsequent encounter, but she does not appear to be in their first as far as I’m concerned.
Now, now. As Dustin already said: we’re engaging in a discussion here, and no one can claim that he’s right. It is an interpretation of an audiovisual medium, hence the discrepancies which lead to different opinions.
I agree with your points per se - but I also think that you are applying your arguments to a character who is not known or designed for evaluating thoroughly and empathetically the psychological state of anyone.
What you are describing is the way one should behave in life. Bond is a fictional character whose behavior has a clear imperative, and everything is shown in dramatically pointed scenes, edited together for maximum effect.
Should he behave more responsibly because he is seen as a hero the audience aspires to be?
NO!!! Nobody should aspire to be a cold-hearted assassin, after all.
2 Likes
I dont agree, as I dont think Bond’s guess is right - nothing she or Silva’s goons do actually agree with it, as she is blatantly in charge, and she isnt actually taking him to be the white knight, she is delivering him to Silva, who WANTED him there.
2 Likes
But she does not appear to resist either. Again, it´s the trope of the charming male who will mainly have to show up to encourage sexual interest, no argument about that. You could substitute any scene here where Bond (or any male hero) smiles at the women, and she can’t help from embracing and kissing him.
Disgusting? Depends on how one judges Bond per se.