I know that physical disfigurement or some sort of disability for the villain is part of the Bond tradition. But recently there was this, so I prepare myself for a (small) backlash if the villain turns out to be blind. Because for certain media outlets the Bond franchise is their favourite shooting target. In the age of click-bait they’ll complain, no matter what.
Yep, I saw that, too.
On the other hand, I think Bond films are kind of invincible. Sure, there will be articles or some groups protesting. But mass audiences will watch Bond no matter what.
Does anyone Really think a disfigured face in the street is a sign of evil? Taking this further, perhaps the BFI should no longer offer funding for a film if the villain kills people. Perhaps even stop offering if there IS a villain.
Neither Bond movies nor DC films (as the attached picture is) get BFI funding. It’s for British independent movies, so does not pertain to Bond.
Click-bait from The Telegraph and nothing more.
Also - what film where they watching that they though Ledgers portrayal of the Joker “relied heavily on his use of make-up”
Irrelevant for this discussion anyway, blindness does mean physical deformities or scaring.
I wonder if the “blind villain” element is why we’re seeing articles tying the script back to the Benson novels? I know that old chestnut gets rehashed every now and then, and Benson himself has said it’s not going to happen, but it might have given some journalist the idea that there’s a direction connection between the blind Bond 25 villain and Le Gerant.
Agreed. Deformities, creatures and the bizarre have always been Bond tropes. The franchise shouldn’t have to censor its creative licence for the special interest fun police. I’m actually glad that the Craig era hasn’t buckled in the way Bond’s sexual appetites are depicted. The scenes involving Severine in the shower, and widower Lucia, for example, are brave considering the climate we’re in these days.
True, the BFI doesn’t fund Bond movies. But funding is not the reason why I mentioned the article, it’s because I wanted to show there might be a growing concern in the British film industry and/or society about the portrayal of people with facial scars or disabilities. Of course, most people don’t care about the issue, and it won’t influence the success of the movie at all, but that won’t prevent certain media outlets from using it as ammunition. And who knows, maybe things will change in the future. The portrayal of women, Bond smoking, new sex mores during the AIDS crisis, and so on. It’s not as if the franchise hasn’t evolved over the years.
I’d argue if you’re thinking the scar is what makes him a villain, that’s on you. 2 out 3 of the most iconic British heroes (James Bond and Harry Potter) have scars canonically, does that mean they’re villains? Bruce Wayne IN THE VERY FILM THEY CITE has several scars, and yet that’s not mentioned. Scars do not denote character traits, all they show is you’ve lived a life.
Well, I wouldn’t say “brave”. Severine´s past, despite being mentioned, is not really given attention. Drop it and it wouldn’t matter. As for Lucia´s widow status: “Can´t you see I’m grieving?” - “No.” (Fantastic dialogue, by the way) - That immediately does away with all moralistic concerns because neither can the audience see Lucia´s sadness. In fact, we know she doesn’t care, and her late husband was a killer anyway.
And we also musn’t forget that some people have the scars exactly because they are villains. Waltz’ Blofeld would still look perfectly nice, had he behaved nicely and not try to rule the world or get into Bond’s head.
I would, as I said, considering the climate we’re in these days. It’s a balancing act. The themes the PC crowd would take issue with are still under the surface.
Sometimes I wonder if that really is a question of “social climate”. I believe there always was a group of people who feel offended by anything. But in the age of the internet their voices are heard immediately and their impact gets blown out of proportion.
As for Bond, he is at his core a character who offends people. A slightly sadistic macho assassin. If people take offense at the villains he kills or the women he beds they should hate him first.
For those who remember her…
Should say, she died before I was born, I’m just well read enough to know she was the loud person given a voice/platform before the internet handed that to all, consequence be damned.
Hey you Whitehouse… ha ha, charade you are.
I agree, but you can’t deny that a (small) group of, let’s call them complainers, can have a considerable impact, even if they’re being blown out of proportion. The BFI just decided to change it’s funding rules. To me, that’s impact. I’m not saying it will have an impact on the next Bond movies, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a villain with a facial scar or disability is something we’ll see less and less in the future.
Bond has more villains without any physical alterations than it has with. You wouldn’t notice any change, and people are still going to whinge about the Bond film with the bimbo in a bikini where he has a jet pack in his shoe and faces off against a villain with an eye patch and a robot hand inside a his private volcano island.
Trademark; false idea of Bond movies for almost 60 years.
Lots of buzz and smoke here as I awoke to all this. But, where there’s smoke…
As I’ve filtered all this I am hopeful of quite a few aspects regardless of nothing official, my thoughts drifted to FRWL and the SE documentary of how it was nearly a disastrous situation but brilliantly came about in both rewrites and post production to what it is.
I think this is coming together and has the potential to be something grand.
I’m not quite ready to go “All In”, but I do think I won’t be needing buy back either.
Isn’t that “guilty until proven innocent”
Something like that but yes.
I agree, that’s impact. But while I don’t mind a Bond movie or any movie depicting a villain with any physical, psychological or what have you special trait I don’t see a problem if things like disfiguring scars will be dropped from Bond films.
Let’s face it (sorry for the pun), the idea of deformed outside appearance as a sign for a villainous mind is rather cardboard and dumb. And we had those characters in so many Bond films I would not miss that at all. Just as I won’t miss any female character portrayed as weak, constantly crying out “Oh, James, I´m so afraid!”
That doesn’t mean I want every female character be “Bond´s equal”, nor every villain to look handsome or bland. But I would prefer characters whose motivation is made clear by their actions, not by their looks.