Examining Dalton's Two Films

[BondFan]

@secretagentfan

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.

Obviously, films aren’t real, which is why none of us are running across roofs dressed as a six-foot bat. But there are times when filmmakers certainly want us to engage with the psychology of a character. In the film before it, for example, we are asked to sympathize with Camille, whose family was killed. The restaurant scene of CR and the similar dining car scene in SP exists mainly to explain character and their psychology. It seems Eon want us to buy into somethings but not others.

I’m not suggesting the scene in SF should have turned into a TED Talk. But some reference to her past would have been appropriate, perhaps it could even have been a scene as tender as that other shower scene with Craig, in CR. One of the good things after that scene was they Bond and Vesper didn’t have sex.

Bond is a fictional character, who in his work as a gatherer of intelligence, and the person who is meant to thwart anti-Anglo interests, he is occasionally called to kill if required. But, as an icon of popular culture, and a film available to be screened to non-adults, it is largely seen as necessary to make his actions, in places in which they may be emulated in real life, appropriate and permissible.

For instance, for the hotel scene in Tomorrow Never Dies, Pierce really wanted to be seen smoking a cigarette, as he felt that would have worked for the atmosphere. However, he still didn’t do it, as he felt he had a responsibility to young viewers. As a cigarette is so much easier to acquire than a machine gun, which he was later seen to fire, this was worth considering. For the same reason, we wouldn’t hear Bond use the “n” word, even if it were part of his cover.

@secretagentfan

But she does not appear to resist either.

This is the point which has been raised here so many times, but which some people seem not to comprehend. Instead of repeating myself, which I’ve already had to do, perhaps I should just supply previous quotes and hope they’re actually read this time.

@BondFan

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.”

@BondFan

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.

[secretagentfan]

@BondFan

Obviously, films aren’t real, which is why none of us are running across roofs dressed as a six-foot bat.

That point I apply to everything in popular entertainment. It‘s entertainment, not a life advice.

And Brosnan not smoking because it would be a bad model for kids is mainly PR. Smoking is not healthy, sure, but killing people is not problematic for them?

I applaud the ban of smoking for Bond because it really is a bad habit of the past AND totally ridiculous for someone who has to stay in shape.

[BondFan]

Everyone knows killing people is wrong. But many people smoke, including many of the parents of the kids who watched that scene, so they may not otherwise know it’s a bad choice.

Sexual consent has perhaps been the biggest concern of the 2010s. It’s disappointing to see the Bond series on the wrong side of that. Ironically, post- Me Too, as we’ve seen with the production of NTTD, Eon are now bending over backwards to support women and other such social concerns, despite the scene of which we speak happening in the film just before last.

[MrKiddWint]

@BondFan

The fact she acquiesced means nothing when you consider her history of having to submit herself sexually

This aspect brings to the fore the difference between “consent” and “informed consent.” There is the common cultural belief/practice that women desire the experience, but are unwilling/taught not to display such desire out of fear of being perceived as easy or sluttish. As an example, I watched GUYS AND DOLLS the other night, and when Sky Masterson suddenly kisses Sister Sarah, at first she resists and then relents and responds (a pattern that is quite common in movies). That Severine does not raise objections does not mean she is offering consent.

@dalton

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

And that is the problem: how to be true to Bond as government-sanctioned assassin and as St. George. Sir Roger probably offered the best resolution in MR.

@secretagentfan

As for Bond´s treatment of women, it just does not work to apply today’s perspective on earlier times.

Today’s perspective was also present in some quarters in those earlier times, but no matter the time, Bond’s treatment of women was not morally correct.

@secretagentfan

But strangely, we can only conclude that now because we have evolved and understood those stereotypical gender roles to be a construct of machismo.

Again, there were viewers who were evolved when the movies were released, and it was the dissemination of their opinions which helped others to evolve.

@secretagentfan

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

Two sides of the same coin: women need protection since they are inferior and incapable of fending for themselves.

@BondFan

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.

An interesting thing about SF: the mental scars/trauma of past events are on display for the male characters, but not for the female ones–a subtle diminution of female agency and experience.

@BondFan

It would be far more appropriate if he had talked to her first, there was obvious consent, and then the shower.

Exactly–male and female on an equal narrative footing. Problem: it detracts from Bond as the central character with narrative agency. Audiences generally dislike reactive antagonists.

@secretagentfan

Bond is a fictional character whose behavior has a clear imperative, and everything is shown in dramatically pointed scenes, edited together for maximum effect.

But all the emphasis on Bond’s psychology/trauma in the Craig Era interferes with the clear imperative (as a counterpoint, recall the clear/elegant imperative in MR). My take is that these movies tried to have their cake and eat it too: Bond as both psychologically-fraught/traumatized antagonist and entertaining action movie hero. For me, the mixture does not work, except in SPECTRE where he becomes Robot Bond.

@secretagentfan

Again, it´s the trope of the charming male who will mainly have to show up to encourage sexual interest, no argument about that.

Agreed.

@secretagentfan

Disgusting? Depends on how one judges Bond per se.

Not how one judges Bond, but rather how one judges women, their capacity for agency, and their proper depiction.

@BondFan

But there are times when filmmakers certainly want us to engage with the psychology of a character.

And it is the uneven way the filmmakers have distributed this engagement that is open to discussion/critique.

@BondFan

I’m not suggesting the scene in SF should have turned into a TED Talk.

Touche.

@secretagentfan

It‘s entertainment, not a life advice.

But when movies start providing more detailed psychologies for their characters, they are offering more than just entertainment.

[secretagentfan]

@BondFan

Eon are now bending over backwards to support women and other such social concerns,

So they cannot do anything right?

[secretagentfan]

@MrKiddWint

But when movies start providing more detailed psychologies for their characters, they are offering more than just entertainment.

Are they? Or are they just reacting to what is expected in entertainment at that moment in time?

The Bond films have always been designed to incorporate the zeitgeist in order to win the biggest mainstream audience. In that regard, they are as cold-blooded as their protagonist.

[MrKiddWint]

@secretagentfan

Are they? Or are they just reacting to what is expected in entertainment at that moment in time?

As I was showering to go out this afternoon, I was reflecting on this aspect of my post.

In your post, you oppose “entertainment” to “life advice.” When filmmakers offer detailed psychologies for their characters, they are offering life advice, i.e., these actions will result in these psychological results. Bergman and Cassavetes (to name just two artists) based their careers on making such films.

Maybe in today’s world what is considered entertainment includes aspects of life advice (I think an argument can be made that this is now true). But if so, that psychology then needs to be equitably devoted to both male and female characters.

[Orion]

…alcoholic serial killer for the British government that fights well dressed billionaire criminals in his own hand tailored suits made by the head of the label, and takes an Aston Martin to go anywhere…

With the kind of gritty realism I’m sure many use it as a blue print for life.

[BondFan]

They can and, from the little we have seen of NTTD, now have. A pity, though, that it took a movement as massive and all pervasive as Me Too before they could make a decent effort. One might even say they have no choice now, and it’s only when their golden goose risks looking dated and outmoded that something has been done.

Amazed Barbara Broccoli let the shower scene through, really.

[BondFan]

@Orion

…alcoholic serial killer for the British government that fights well dressed billionaire criminals in his own hand tailored suits made by the head of the label, and takes an Aston Martin to go anywhere…
With the kind of gritty realism I’m sure many use it as a blue print for life.

With respect, you’re making a straw man argument. Bond isn’t a serial killer and, of the four antagonists who battle Craig’s bond, three of them weren’t billionaires.

[BondFan]

@MrKiddWint

@BondFan

The fact she acquiesced means nothing when you consider her history of having to submit herself sexually

This aspect brings to the fore the difference between “consent” and “informed consent.” There is the common cultural belief/practice that women desire the experience, but are unwilling/taught not to display such desire out of fear of being perceived as easy or sluttish. As an example, I watched GUYS AND DOLLS the other night, and when Sky Masterson suddenly kisses Sister Sarah, at first she resists and then relents and responds (a pattern that is quite common in movies). That Severine does not raise objections does not mean she is offering consent.

@dalton

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

And that is the problem: how to be true to Bond as government-sanctioned assassin and as St. George. Sir Roger probably offered the best resolution in MR.

@secretagentfan

As for Bond´s treatment of women, it just does not work to apply today’s perspective on earlier times.

Today’s perspective was also present in some quarters in those earlier times, but no matter the time, Bond’s treatment of women was not morally correct.

@secretagentfan

But strangely, we can only conclude that now because we have evolved and understood those stereotypical gender roles to be a construct of machismo.

Again, there were viewers who were evolved when the movies were released, and it was the dissemination of their opinions which helped others to evolve.

@secretagentfan

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

Two sides of the same coin: women need protection since they are inferior and incapable of fending for themselves.

@BondFan

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.

An interesting thing about SF: the mental scars/trauma of past events are on display for the male characters, but not for the female ones–a subtle diminution of female agency and experience.

@BondFan

It would be far more appropriate if he had talked to her first, there was obvious consent, and then the shower.

Exactly–male and female on an equal narrative footing. Problem: it detracts from Bond as the central character with narrative agency. Audiences generally dislike reactive antagonists.

@secretagentfan

Bond is a fictional character whose behavior has a clear imperative, and everything is shown in dramatically pointed scenes, edited together for maximum effect.

But all the emphasis on Bond’s psychology/trauma in the Craig Era interferes with the clear imperative (as a counterpoint, recall the clear/elegant imperative in MR). My take is that these movies tried to have their cake and eat it too: Bond as both psychologically-fraught/traumatized antagonist and entertaining action movie hero. For me, the mixture does not work, except in SPECTRE where he becomes Robot Bond.

@secretagentfan

Again, it´s the trope of the charming male who will mainly have to show up to encourage sexual interest, no argument about that.

Agreed.

@secretagentfan

Disgusting? Depends on how one judges Bond per se.

Not how one judges Bond, but rather how one judges women, their capacity for agency, and their proper depiction.

@BondFan

But there are times when filmmakers certainly want us to engage with the psychology of a character.

And it is the uneven way the filmmakers have distributed this engagement that is open to discussion/critique.

@BondFan

I’m not suggesting the scene in SF should have turned into a TED Talk.

Touche.

@secretagentfan

It‘s entertainment, not a life advice.

But when movies start providing more detailed psychologies for their characters, they are offering more than just entertainment.

An interesting post and a forensic rebuttal.

[MrKiddWint]

@Orion

With the kind of gritty realism I’m sure many use it as a blue print for life.

Yet in some ways Bond’s cinematic life and lifestyle are (necessarily) offered as a blueprint for living. In this community we have the thread “When you feel like a James Bond moment?”

Companies pay vast sums for product placements with the hope that sales will result. For this investment to pay off, viewers have to see (in some ways) Bond and his behaviors as a blueprint for life–or at least, a blueprint for how they wish/want to act, but cannot (some mode of identification is in play). With the avenues of imitative action closed off, the next best thing is to own the materialisms Bond possesses (or so goes the hope).

Bond movies have successfully juggled blueprint, aspiration, fantasy, wish fulfillment, and product plugs for decades. What can be problematic is which aspects are offered as attainable/imitable and which are not, and (more interesting I believe) how the two categories often bleed into one another.

[Orion]

It was reductio ad absurdum, but it is equally useless in a debate.

[Orion]

The same could be said of Iron Man and Batman, which are based on a medium that still has an attitude “for kids” from the general society, unlike Bond where the books are adult without question for the most part, but both display most of the qualities Bond does.

It’s an interesting point - when does a films financial considerations (product placement etc) begin to confuse the story elements. The story needs these 3 to be morally grey at best, but then you’ve got a HUGE sum of money from Gillette to make people want their razor because Bond/Bruce Wayne/Tony Stark uses it.

[secretagentfan]

@MrKiddWint

In your post, you oppose “entertainment” to “life advice.” When filmmakers offer detailed psychologies for their characters, they are offering life advice, i.e., these actions will result in these psychological results. Bergman and Cassavetes (to name just two artists) based their careers on making such films.

I agree if you refer to films made by those directors or films dealing with real life.

Pulp fiction - such as Bond - of course also try to keep grounded by reality in order to establish believability to a certain degree. And some aspects are designed to steer the audience into a certain lifestyle and also a particular mindset. But only in the broadest sense which could and should never be mistaken as a really helpful advice for living your own real life.

As someone who tells stories for a living (drumroll please) I definitely try to bring in reality even in the most trite genre piece. But I would never compare that to a story I create in order to actually show real people dealing with real life issues.

Yes, as a kid I looked up to my heroes from genre fiction and thought that if I could behave a little bit more like Bond or Han Solo or Indiana Jones my life would improve. But that kind of “learning the ropes” HAS to change when one grows up and finds life much more complex, difficult and unpredictable. If adults still model themselves after genre heroes (without being amused by that notion or treating it as a fun diversion) there is a deeper problem to solve.

Returning now to “Examining Danton’s Two Films” I would notice this segway: Dalton definitely broke with the notion that Bond is a hero for kids to emulate. He deliberately separated that kind of audience perspective from his portrayal by showing that Bond is ruthless and dangerous, more depressed than suave, more complex and probably unpleasant than the previous incarnations.

[cgebby]

@sharpshooter

I’m aware of all those other scenes. In this one I’m more referring to aggression of performance. Dalton is seething and looks like he’s about to lose complete control.

Yes, you’re rright. The other instances I cite are more misogynistic and Bond is rather cold in all of them. Dalton’s seething rage really captured the flavor of the books. Brosnan with Renard in the bunker in TWINE pales in comparison.

But Craig’s anger with Vesper in the “funding terrorism” line on the balcony at Casino Royale is up there with Dalton’s.

[sharpshooter]

@secretagentfan

Dalton definitely broke with the notion that Bond is a hero for kids to emulate. He deliberately separated that kind of audience perspective from his portrayal by showing that Bond is ruthless and dangerous, more depressed than suave, more complex and probably unpleasant than the previous incarnations.

Yes. The brooding element is what I like the most from his performance, I think. Add in cigarettes, the first time Bond had smoked since The Man With The Golden Gun, and you have a very different type of performance. However he did have very admirable traits, with loyalty being at the top of the tree. Dalton’s steely performance also shows someone who is very good at their job, which is succinctly put by Pushkin - “you are professional, you do not kill without reason.”

[BondFan]

@secretagentfan

If adults still model themselves after genre heroes (without being amused by that notion or treating it as a fun diversion) there is a deeper problem to solve.

It’s not so much adults that worry me - not thirty- or forty-somethings, anyway - but those who are teenagers and in their early or mid twenties, when they are first experiencing sexual/romantic relationships.

[BondFan]

@MrKiddWint

@Orion

With the kind of gritty realism I’m sure many use it as a blue print for life.

Yet in some ways Bond’s cinematic life and lifestyle are (necessarily) offered as a blueprint for living. In this community we have the thread “When you feel like a James Bond moment?”

Companies pay vast sums for product placements with the hope that sales will result. For this investment to pay off, viewers have to see (in some ways) Bond and his behaviors as a blueprint for life–or at least, a blueprint for how they wish/want to act, but cannot (some mode of identification is in play). With the avenues of imitative action closed off, the next best thing is to own the materialisms Bond possesses (or so goes the hope).

Bond movies have successfully juggled blueprint, aspiration, fantasy, wish fulfillment, and product plugs for decades. What can be problematic is which aspects are offered as attainable/imitable and which are not, and (more interesting I believe) how the two categories often bleed into one another.

Brilliant analysis. I don’t think even this lot could argue with that.

[cgebby]

@secretagentfan

his portrayal by showing that Bond is ruthless and dangerous, more depressed than suave, more complex and probably unpleasant

It is for this reason that LTK has one of my favorite scenes. After he kills Sanchez, in one of the most ironic and horrid deaths, Bond is exhausted and spent. There’s no one liner or quip. Dalton brought Fleming’s spirit onscreen in that moment. It’s not until Pam arrives that he perks up a bit.

As a side note, I’m finding this conversation very enlightening. Everyone is making good points, even among the disagreements, and there’s insight to each post. As a kid, I had my first crush and first Bond movie in the same year. So I did see Bond as sort of a romantic role model early on. There are better cinematic role models for that for sure, but not many in movies a 4th grader wants to see. Star Wars was the same year. Fortunately, I never emulated Bond’s more questionable traits, but kept the quips and, hopefully, charm of some of the lighter moments. But the lines Moore gets away with in MR still astound me today.

As for Solitaire, the initial card Moore pulls out at random in Mr. Big’s Harlem place does say that they will be lovers, and I’m not so sure the film ever says the cards are wrong. Indeed, many of its forecasts prove correct (“he brings death and destruction.”) And the end with Baron Samedi on the train certainly doesn’t refute the cult. Not that I’m saying cards aren’t a sham, quite the opposite. Though I did have a female friend who got into astrology after a breakup, which was the opposite trajectory of Solitaire’s.

It’s also interesting to note the shifts in Bond films with the character and portrayal of women. LALD/TMWTGG to TSWLM is noticeable for the appeal to the family friendly character. However, the way women are objectified in MR compared to a more respectful treatment in the two movies before and after is a stark contrast. In FYEO, Moore treats Lisl and Melina well. Each relationship develops consensually. And Bond knows Bibi is too young to consent, though she’s probably as old as the Solitaire character. Sylvia Trench would also be interesting to discuss as she’s clearly into Bond yet he is always called away before any consummation happens.

CR/QoS to SF/SP is another shift in how the women are portrayed. The former develop relationships and earn their authenticity but the latter two are more problematic. One thing I’m surprised no one brought up is Bond’s “waste of Scotch” line, which I take more as his coldness covering his feelings among a bunch of male henchmen, but many view it mysoginistically at face value. I see it as a callback to his quashing vulnerable feelings after having been betrayed by Vesper, and also as sort of male bravado in front of other men about to kill him.

But back to Dalton, I think the women in TLD and LTK are some of the strongest in the series. Pam literally saves Bond’s life in the cocaine factory which we hadn’t really scene onscreen since Tatiana in FRWL or Tracy in the ice rink. But in LTK Bond is clearly doomed without help, whereas the other too he still has a fighting chance. Later, the script diminishes Pam’s strength with the line “I love him so much!” reducing her to a teenage girl envious her crush had a dalliance. I don’t see that happening to Nomi, who appears to be similar to Pam’s character as a strong field agent. And it didn’t happen with Natalya in GE either as she’s seen as strong and intelligent throughout the film.

It’s interesting though that among the women I know that have seen Bond films with me (TLD, LTK, TWINE, DAD, CR, SP I all had dates for), none of them bring up these issues. My sister never said anything about Andrea Anders’ depiction, and in fact, she was the one who suggested to my parents it was time for me to see a Bond film (TSWLM) when I was ten. I mentioned to her Connery’s controversial comment about slapping women some years ago, and her response was “he can slap me anytime.” One girlfriend slapped a kiss on a Connery poster I had, and many profess a desire for Daniel Craig. The astrology one I mentioned earlier said, “Oh, that man!” in reference to Craig. Similar sentiments were made with Pierce Brosnan. Not so much with Dalton, which is ironic given that his Bond treats women better in his films. One girlfriend even told me, “I like all the Bond posters you have in your house.” She had two daughters but didn’t feel uncomfortable with Bond. Not that any of this sanctions his more questionable behavior, but I do find the women’s take on Bond interesting at times.