I think arguing with someone inherently means that both sides are open to change their opinions.
Essentialists, grounding their belief in supernatural or other non-facts, will only fall back on their opinions, presenting them as THE truth. So, there’s no arguing with them, unfortunately.
Arguing with Ian Fleming today, however, how would that work out? We can only speculate, of course, whether he would be the staunch pro-Brexit keeper of nationalism or adjust to the facts and make Bond follow.
I think this is a matter of perspective. Being a young-ish, white male, I can’t say that I’ve experienced much racism, nor that I should be talking for those that do. From people that I know have, they’ve told me it’s always much easier to deal with those that are openly racist, the voluntary racists as you put it. At least they are being honest with their hate. The involuntary racists are the harder ones to deal with. They are more likely to be the ones who don’t think they are being racist and will get more offended at being called out for their racist words/actions than owning up and apologizing about it. I agree that this is the camp Fleming would fall into. He didn’t think there was anything reprehensible about his words and/or beliefs and actually thought he was being respectful to the black community with Live and Let Die. When he was called out for it, he got incredibly defensive. The South Park episode “With Apologies to Jesse Jackson” tackles this issue quite well. After Randy sparks a lot of anger and backlash over a very stupid answer on Wheel of Fortune he spends the majority of the episode trying to be portrayed as not racist and eventually gets the term n-word guy banned instead of the n-word. It epitomizes the white guilt narrative and shifting the argument from the victims being those targeted by racism to the victims being those that perpetrated the racism. Meanwhile, Stan is grappling on how to empathize with Token over the issue of racism until he finally realizes he has to listen because he’ll never know how it feels to be a black person being subjected to racism from whites.
Agreed. But sometimes a lack of malice does not mean that there is no harm, since one is still confronted with an accepted inherent hierarchy. We see this today with transgender issues: “No you cannot be a girl, since God made you a boy, and that is what you are and always will be.” There is no malice against the trans person, but there is the harm/discrimination caused by adhering to essentialist dogma. Going forward, I believe the essentialist/non-essentialist divide will be a significant cultural/societal fault line.
Agreed, but cumulative ignorance is the danger, with those sharing the same ignorance becoming a force in society. We end up with dueling ignorances: I would claim that people are ignorant of scientific truth, while my opponents would claim that I was ignorant of Christian truth.
No, but I think we are demonstrating how certain new awarenesses have dispersed throughout society.
Agreed. One of the reasons I enjoy posting here. Maybe not being able to agree on what is the best James Bond move ever facilitates respectful conversation in other areas (although how anyone could deny DAF or SPECTRE as pinnacles of the genre is beyond my comprehension).
Of course there is room–my corner is capacious. I have much love for TMWTGG–Moore Bond at his nastiest, and Hamilton recovering from LALD (though I think 2:35 is his best aspect ratio).
Qualms: I feel the change in scriptwriter midstream convulses the plot beyond acceptable Bondian limits (which aren’t exactly narrow in my book). As I have said before: Mankiewicz replacing Maibaum worked, but the reverse turned out to be a shakier proposition. DAF features the best and most sustained examples of Hamilton’s gift for the poetic leap, e.g., in DAF, Bond suddenly–with just a straight cut–has acquired a white lab coat and clipboard or traveled from sub-basement 5 to ground level. For me, his and Mankiewicz’s strengths complemented each other (while on the deficit side, their blind spots were mutually reinforcing).
As for DAD: I need to give the Brosnan Bond films a thorough review. I remember liking them, but have never felt compelled to revisit them as I do with the Connery and Moore films.
I find myself consistently enjoying DAD, and it is definitely not in my bottom tier of Bond films (although it’s in my bottom half). Great Brosnan performance, solid action, beautiful locations, and the North Korea stuff was a nice change of pace from the usual Bond fare.
Only Jinx, some cringey dialogue, and the ice surfing let the film down. And maybe some of the CGI stuff with the plane and icarus at the end.
Yes, the CGI is dodgy (that falls on Tamahori). I don’t think Jinx is a bad character, she was let down by the writing. Halle Berry deserves so much better.
I watch the Connery and Moore films more frequently too, but think GE and TND are excellent. TWINE has its moments but overall I think it’s a downgrade, and his weakest film.
Briefly at the time, it felt like DAD represented a modern series template that could’ve been embraced: slow motion, CGI use and speed ramping. As we know, that was rejected with the reboot.
However, I did get DAD vibes from certain parts of the latest NTTD trailer, and not in the negative sense. DAD does have an escapist sense of adventure that I find appealing. It’s more about how far to go with that, eg. the ice wave.
Mysticism and Eugenics , two cornerstones of Flemings beliefs. I echo what has been said earlier so shan’t regurgitate, it is a turgid racist book, as is Goldfinger, the inability to make Solitaire a black character is proof of this. It shows Flemings love of mysticism was dwarfed by his racism as he could have a possible voodoo clairvoyant as a heroine as long as she was white.
These books however are great teaching tools and we can learn from these so as to grow as a society. To remove is to forget and to forget is to open a door for these beliefs to grow.