The idea that Bond and Severine had a deal makes it even more toxic. That’s the very definition of prostitution (we’re already dealing with child sex slaves) and it hardly makes Bond look very heroic (if he didn’t fancy her, would he not have bothered helping her at all?). If Severine were to have sex again, in a story where things should be made clear in order to avoid this sort of negative interpretation, she should be the one pursuing him.
It’s astonishing that no one in the production noticed how this scene looks. It probably wouldn’t occur now, but it’s taken everything that’s happened in the last few years for the industry to take note of such things.
Regardless of what may be decided on in this forum, the fact is that many, many people saw this as a big no-no, and those who didn’t notice it will likely agree when revisiting it.
If many saw it that way it only means that people have a reflex now to react that way. But the facts are laid out very differently.
Bond does not force himself on Severine.
And in every movie Bond is irresistible for women, while often very pushy in order to persuade them.
Also, let’s not forget: he is not a nice guy, he is a paid assassin, with the only objective to get things done. To cry foul because he does not adhere to a moral code of contact is absurd.
Absolutely! That’s what makes the preceding scene in the casino so great. While Bond tries to work out Severine, she is just as calculated, sizing up the prospects for her potential rescuer, culminating in the test against her bodyguards. She clearly sexually likes what she sees and her disappointment when her yacht sets off is that someone who could seemingly save her… and is a bit tasty… isn’t coming. Bond knows she is attracted to him and so… we get to the shower. I think it works because of the quality of the acting and that MeToo retrofitting is unhelpful here.
Was it meant to make Bond look heroic? I’m not sure there. My guess would be that the scene was meant to depict him as ruthless and resourceful: he’s after Severine’s boss. She may have been a victim in the past - but she is, for all intents and purposes, playing with the bad boys now. As Bond said, she may be afraid - but that doesn’t exclude her from loving Silva and perhaps liking very much their current venture. Maybe she’s there to trap him?
As for the prostitution angle, there is a reason espionage is called the second oldest profession: they often go hand in hand and the films have numerous characters whose activities are on closer inspection at least related to selling themselves out, Bond arguably amongst them.
Is it creepy? That very much depends on the general view one takes on prostitution - or espionage for that matter. Today, various scenes from the past wouldn’t happen, from GOLDFINGER’s stable scene to TMWTGG’s beating of Andrea - or that of Tracy.
I’d still argue the shower scene with Severine is not playing in that league.
I re-watched that film recently, and that bit sits more uncomfortably for me than anything else in the series, its Andrea’s beating followed by Pussy in the barn. The fact her dad didnt make him suffer a slow painful death is a miracle.
Do we know this at that point? Or is our knowledge of her fate - used as expendable target for a ‘game’ - clouding our judgement? I ask myself how I’d feel if that hadn’t happened. Because there Bond’s reaction was also frequently cited as cruel.
I understand and agree with uncomfortable, seen through today‘s lense.
Yet, who ever said that Bond is a fellow you can get comfortable with? If anything, Craig made Bond more realistic again by making him dangerous again.
She is victimized as a child and now by Silva. Bond is her chance to get out. One might argue that he shows her compassion and acts as someone who gives her a choice, who does not treat her like a slave but like a woman who decides her fate.
But what would the alternative to that shower scene have been? Bond sleeping alone on the boat, maybe rejecting her mechanical advances? That would have been PC Bond, not true to his character. He rather wants to feel like the knight in shining armor and her to feel like a woman treated right for the first time.
That’s what I meant with my post above: is a character who’s depicted as a victim of the sex trade completely, entirely ‘victim’ in every other respect? Can she, in our view, even have the mental faculties to decide about her sexuality (or her life in general) out of her own free will?
I’d say the Severine we meet, the one who is on Silva’s payroll and probably fulfilling various duties for him - like arranging the buyer of the painting sits perfectly fine for his own big black fate - has a past as victim. But that’s not the only thing that defines her. She is trusted enough by Silva to deal with hired help. But she’s also guarded closely. She probably cannot just hop out for some shopping the way Sanchez’ Lupe Lamora could.
In all fairness: Lamora is depicted very differently from Severine. In that bar scene we get the full force of a character who has deeper and worse issues than Lamora could even think of. Severine is clearly a much more realised character with barely half the scenes Lamora has.
Also, Bond speculating on her back story is not the same as giving us truthful knowledge of her past. The scene reminds us of the train scene in CR, still Bond might guess some things right but of course not everything. I always get the feeling that Severine is scared of Silva while still putting on a show for Bond. Nobody is exactly what he or she appears to be. And she would not have lost any sleep over Bond being killed at the casino.
I think condemning Bond here and concentrating on the poor victim Severine is like immediately rushing to the lost girl helping her to cross the street when she actually did not want that at all.
We do not deal in final decisions here, your view is as valid as any other one as long as it’s argued with reason. One can definitely understand the critique even if one doesn’t share the perspective.
There’s one other thing in relation to Severine that grates and makes it difficult to properly understand the situation around her:
She’s bringing Bond to Silva and is supposedly punished for this. But then it turns out Silva wanted Bond to catch him. In order to set his wider scheme in motion.
So why did Silva punish her when she did what he wanted? There’s a hole in the motivation there and Severine is at the centre of a not overly logical turn of events.
My take was that Silva was always going to kill Severine. The monologue about things being disposed of when they no longer serve a purpose seconds before he executes her is him telling Bond that Severine has fulfilled her purpose (bringing Bond to him) and now she has no more use to him, so he is disposing if her.
I always interpreted it as Silva showing off to Bond: see how little I care? She did what she was supposed to do but also hoped you could kill me - and you can’t.
Yes to both of you. I think there even was a line of dialogue, Severine saying something to the effect of being sorry when they moved in on Bond. So the conclusion would be she was in on it from the start.
I think Severine was a reincarnation of the ‘Cigar Girl’ from TWINE, too afraid of her employer to switch sides for good.
I don’t think his original plan ended with a murder/suicide because he was originally going to kill her at her hearing in front of everyone. The murder/suicide seemed more like an impulsive decision he made at the end in the chapel.