There is a change in style and attitude to his Bond articles in 2019 - Your theory seems the most believable as to why.
1 Like
Have you watched Killing Eve? I havnât but i know itâs a spy drama, and that itâs VERY different to the irreverent humour of Fleabag. Might be a better indicator of how sheâd approach Bond.
Yes, this - kind of! Not saying that I believe itâs the case here, just drawing my own inferences from the quote
My thoughts, for what thatâs worth⌠Killing Eveâs clever, but everything comes second to contriving those very witty clever moments. Fleabag is the same, but the 4th wall format makes these contrivances a virtue. Whereas contrivance fights against suspension of disbelief in a more traditional work like Killing Eve (and Bond). The result is fun but very very superficial. I donât remotely care about the characters.
I see a very talented writer stretching her skills and what I see as Eveâs shortcomings sheâll learn from. Iâm thrilled sheâs on Bond and besides, Iâm probably the only person on planet earth who doesnât think Killing Eveâs perfect.
Like I said, havnât watched it, but good to know you see potential (god, that sounds more patronising than I mean) in how suited she is the Bond.
I like Fleabag, but didnât love it. I will say that itâs FAR better than any other comedy written, produced and starring the one person is. She didnât use her own name for one, so sheâs far less driven by her ego than many in her position, as indeed her comments about Bond would confirm (speaks highly of the other 4 films, in particular their treatment of women and wants the actresses to have a more positive experience than she did as a young actress etc.)
Right i got that but i was asking what you think theyre so afraid of including that was once presumably included that youd like to see back?
Why would you care what the press make up? They hired her because sheâs good: anything else is just some tabloid writer trying to make you angry about something.
1 Like
Taking the piss out of the comments section of the Daily Mail? A bit tiresome. Shooting fish in a barrel. You can hit harder targets than that I would think.
2 Likes
âAvatarâ.
1 Like
What mtm said, as viscous as it was.
Somebody who works for the Mail might be sad.
Iâm already over it!
Iâll have you know Iâm entirely liquid!
1 Like
Itâs why I said pity, the patronising version of sad.
1 Like
Blame my I-pad it has anâŚoverzealous auto correct.
And, by god, the alternatives it gave for THAT sentence.
1 Like
To quote NSNA:
Q: Good to see you Mr. Bond. Thingsâve been awfully dull 'round here. Bureaucrats running the whole place. Everything done by the book. Canât make a decision unless the computer gives you the go ahead. Now youâre on this. I hope weâre going to have some gratuitous sex and violence!
James Bond: I certainly hope so too.
But to be a little more articulate, when PWB says, " âŚThe important thing is that the film treats the women properly. He doesnât have to. He needs to be true to this character.â
I personally think sheâs referencing the always clamouring assertions by parts of the media etc that Bond himself should change with the times. To a certain extent, yes. But no where near to the extent that one feels is being demanded. Bondâs iconoclastic - an antihero (he kills in cold blood for a living). Protesting about him wondering into a shower to join a woman who was a child sex slave is missing the point. Itâs absurd, perhaps, to suggest that a ruthless killer would give that a second thought.
As PWB says, itâs the film, not the characterâs in it whom have moral responsibility. What SF perhaps should have taken time to do was to somehow comment on this and identify the injustice. Bond needs to be free of this moralising, it suffocates Flemingâs character. So itâs not so much particular things that iâd like to see return. Itâs that iâm pleased to hear a writer nail why these pressures to conform to moral dictates should be ignored.
I dunno. Itâs creepy in a way Bond isnât usually, and that the sexually abused woman instantly succumbs and the film (as PWB mentions) treats it as okay is not really cool.
2 Likes
Indeed it is a little creepy. But is that really more disturbing than having a body count in maybe the hundreds? My issue with that scene is, as you said, the film suggests itâs all cool - that sheâs fine with it. Maybe she is fine with nude Craig appearing through the steam, but maybe our collective cultural guilt needed more than a moment from her to tell us itâs ok, i fancy Craig Bond.
Or, maybe it hadnât occurred to the production that it was creepy! Or, maybe Mendes et al wanted this creepiness - maybe they wanted to make this point that Bond, ruthless assassin who once proclaimed âThe bitch is deadâ, doesnât care. He barely batters an eyelid when Silva shoots her.
The film needs to say that this is the way damaged Bond behaves (because of the damage) and that we shouldnât all go out looking for ex-child prostitutes to strip off for and surprise in the shower. The absence of comment normalises it. PWBâs quote suggests to me that sheâll make that comment.
Right, but they still did it (and arguably did it again with Lucia where he claims her quite coldly) which would suggest they are not being censored by anyone - He used Solange and Fields in CR & QOS and got them both killed - theres not any real example that anything has changed to detooth Bonds character as a result of any âSJWâ screaming - the only thing they have done is brought in stronger women be it Judi denchâs M, Camille, Vesper, Helen MCCroryâs character etc⌠and these kinds of characters were around certainly as early as OHMSS.
I agree they need to be bold and make the statement that what Bond did was creepy - as letting it hang is tacit endorsement, but that would suggest they are being toothless to avoid upsetting men not women
Mendes mentions this in his commentary, but doesnât say if they wanted it as mutual or taking advantage, but does, several times, mention the moral ambiguity of Bondâs choices. Take that as you willâŚ
âŚthough iâd point out that PWB, after praising the writing of Craigâs Bond films, talks about the films being fair to women as Bond, the character, is notâŚ
âŚyes, I am implying Bond is intentionally portrayed as a jerk at times. The âblunt instrumentâ of the British services (something even Sherlock, an unrelated series, makes use of)
I think youâre both right and pushing me on this is fair enough. I guess i simply want more of Bondâs ambiguity. Itâs both a releasing escapism from social dogma and an opportunity to balance the devil in Bond with some context and time given to other characters to debate it in the text, or at least the subtext.
I want it both ways, iâm afraid. But i do believe that was the message in PWBâs quote; portray him as a devil at times and leave it to me, not the Bond to even the balance. Whatever the men can do, the women should get to do as well. Perhaps thatâs why i enjoyed Famke Janssenâs character so much.