Okay, and not to stoke the fire again, but because details matter - details I actually forgot about until I saw this clip posted on youtube.
Severine hopes for Bond to come to her yacht. We clearly see two glasses of champagne, we see her disappointment when the guard says they are ready to leave. And when Bond enters the shower she is turning to him, not in fear, but relishing his presence, happy to draw him closer. She clearly is no victim of Bond here.
The thing is, Bond doesn’t know she was disappointed as he wasn’t there to see it. And she didn’t turn to him until he actually appeared in the shower with her. That means he was going to step into the shower regardless of her reaction. Also, the very fact that Severine has been conditioned to accept men’s sexual advances from a young age means that we can’t take her consent at face value. Obviously, this is not to say that a character like that can never be shown to have sexual relations, just that the writers should be particularly careful in how they depict it. A better way would be to have Severine pursue Bond instead of the other way around. He should have been the one in the shower first, and then she should be the one who steps in. It’s often been that way in the past - the ending of For Your Eyes Only, for example - and should certainly have happened this time too. Then, nobody would have had a problem with the scene, as opposed to a lot of people. It’s such an easy fix to make.
It´s not. How could Bond have been in the shower before Severine steps in? She is under the impression that he did not make it to the yacht. She is disappointed, goes into the shower. Then he enters the room and joins her.
Did Bond have to make sure that she would not be startled? Should he have talked to her about her past before making any advances?
While I suggest that in real life any man should ask first and make sure, I do not expect a fictional character known and celebrated for his womanizing to do that.
And again - to immediately be concerned about Severine´s boundaries is a Pawlowian reflex that is not supported by the way the story is told. That is the reason I pointed to this particular scene. Mendes made it very clear that Severine wanted Bond to join her. And she is eager to embrace him.
Definitely, 100%.
It’s important that we don’t give this scene a casual pass just because it’s Bond and, in particular, the much-loved Skyfall.
This scene wasn’t so long ago. It was before Me Too, admittedly, but let’s not act like we men were all cavemen before October 2017. We knew what was appropriate and what wasn’t.
Very different situation. MooreBond had no interest in Bibi and considered her too young.
It´s not about giving this scene a casual pass, it´s about looking at the details of the narrative as they are laid out in that scene. If Severine had not waited for Bond, if there had not been two glasses waiting, if Severine had not been clearly disappointed by the guard´s announcement, then and only then you would have a point.
I’m not suggesting that Bond shoud’ve talked to Severine about her past before this - though it would have been a good thing to do. I’m saying that it should have been made explicit to Bond that she was consenting to this, and to the viewer in particular. As I said before, Bond didn’t see Severine’s disappointment, we did. And there’s a difference between being invited to share a glass of wine and being invited to have sex in the shower.
This issue came up on a different thread, and it’s an issue I’ve talked to directors about;
Where do you say a marker is for conveying information clearly and concisely, and when are you just beating people over the head with it? Every persons area of understanding is different, and when both the writer and director are clear on something where it is, how far should they assume ignorance on the part of the audience.
We did see the disappointment and the glasses. That is enough for the narrative to be established.
It doesn’t override the details.
But, hey, I’m beginning to feel as if I defend indefensible behavior. Which I’m really not. I just don’t feel comfortable with a line of argument that ignores the details.
As much as I always enjoy your insights, I think on this occasion you may well be defending the indefensible. I think there’s a difference between what we as the audience see and what the character of Bond sees. And as for the wine glasses - I’ve already said that there’s a difference between being invited to share a glass of wine and being invited to have sex in the shower.
I’ve also already provided a plausible fix for the scene. How better would it be for Severine to think that Bond was not there and to return to her cabin disappointed, only to find him in the shower before stepping in herself? This doesn’t take wild leaps of imagination to accomplish. It’s not like I’m providing a fix for the Silva-escape-guards scene, which would be a difficult thing to do. Anyone could have, and should have, recognized that the scene in the film is problematic and that there is an easy way to remedy it. That’s if you wanted to involve a shower at all. Why not just have them enjoy their wine and leave the rest to the imagination? Have Severine experience romance for what may be the first time.
Politically, Bond films don’t need this sort of scene muddying the waters.
That’s an interesting point, I’ll take it.
It does welcome different interpretations. But sometimes interpretations are not reflecting the truth of a scene.
Well, I disagree - not anyone could have and should have recognized that scene as problematic. Nor do I think that it would have been easy to rewrite that scene to fit that argument. Just having Bond enjoy wine with Severine - that would have felt too tame, to grandfather-ish for Bond. And romance with Bond never was in the cards nor wished for.
Whenever anyone feels angry that someone isn’t looking at a film the way they are, these three comments are referring to the same, 4 minute, scene.
I felt the scene did convey mutual, informed, consent (and btw, if we’re going for it’s not consent, there’s conditioning, Bond has been conditioned to seek out female approval) but I personally would not have gone as far as that if I wrote the scene (I would’ve had him sat by the table when she comes out of the shower, but 7 year old film, I can’t change it)
@BondFan, you clearly hate this film, why do you keep putting yourself through dwelling on it 7 years later?
I think hate and angry are strong words. I believe Skyfall has a number of interesting flaws, with this shower scene being just one of them. I’m perfectly calm in discussing these issues, and I’m entitled to do so. As I’ve said upthread:
“Personally, I always enjoy plot and seeing how everything slots into place … I casually analyse films I like as much as the films I don’t. Other people - not neccessarily those on this board - feel uncomfortable in pointing out that something they like could be improved upon … Really, though, understanding why something has gone wrong, or how something could be better, is an interesting and helpful exercise.”
If I may, you got similarly annoyed with someone on the Nolan thread for discussing his concerns about that director. We’re allowed, however, to be interested in perceived flaws. Some fans of Doctor Who, for example, discuss whole eras they didn’t particularly like. It’s the same here. The discussion can sometimes be more enjoyable than the film itself.
As I was the one who started this thread, I tried to end it a couple of days ago (once we had thoroughly exhausted the topic and it was beginning to get out of hand) in saying how I have leant my copy of Skyfall to a friend who has always loved it. It was, I thought, quite a sweet sentiment to end on - tying together someone who didn’t like the film with someone who does, and the idea of spreading pleasure.
Not annoyed, just genuinely confused, as It’s not so much the “how dare you see a flaw” as the seeming need to be seen as factually right on something you don’t like. Not liking something i get, the need to start a conversation on the things you don’t like, seems ludicrous to me. This is especially true of major film making, which, like a puppy, only responds to positive reinforcement. If you don’t like a film doing something, don’t watch that film. The more people share that view, the less money that film will make and the art will change.
In both the Severine shower scene, and Inception’s ending (as I seem to recall that discussion you’re referring to was about) the director thought they had conveyed their meaning, I got aforementioned directors point, so I agreed. There are those who didn’t see it that way, but, and this is a genuine question, should film makers change their works for those who perhaps don’t see a scene a certain way, just to make sure they do? At what point is that talking down to the audience? That positive reinforcement says Nolan and Mendes are right in their levels of communication, but the Dceu and the Terminator sequels are so very, very, wrong.
I happen to agree with you on the Inception point, as it happens. The important thing in that scene is that DiCaptrio’s character doesn’t care what is real or not anymore. He just accepts happiness and, essentially, doesn’t look a gift horse in the mouth. However, it is perfectly fine for someone who had a problem with it to be involved in a conversation about the film.
I think, essentially, it can be a worthwhile endeavour to discuss things. Notice, for example, how I have never said, “Skyfall was soooooo bad, omigod, it’s like … how?”. Instead, I’ve aimed to articulate the problems I believe to be present in the script and ask for other views, as such thoughts are both interesting to hear and may well make me see the film differently. It’s quite open-minded of me, really, though that does not mean I will take any alternative that is offered. Regarding the shower scene, I believe it’s possible to make it clearer without being heavy-handed about it, and I have even outlined a couple of very obvious and easy alternatives above which, I believe, have some merit, at least in part.
People wouldn’t watch The Room if they didn’t think it was interesting to observe and discuss flaws. Obviously, enough people think it is interesting to do so, not least because there is both a book and a film dedicated to it.
You see such a prospect as a negative thing to do, while I think it’s quite interesting myself. It’s similar, in fact, to how we see Skyfall itself differently.
Peace and love.
Fair enough. I was actually going to use The Room as accidental positive reinforcement. People talked about how bad it was, so loads of people have tried to see it, making it a financial success over time. Wiseau now has an Oscar nominated film on his CV.
I know, crazy, isn’t it 
Same goes for Mystery Science Theater 3000.
Is it possible that the scene has two narratives in conflict with each other? Narrative #1 is Severine setting the table for Bond to appear (which would be in keeping with the Bond tradition where his appeal wins over all women, e.g., “Take me around the world one more time, James.” Narrative #2 is the characterization of a female character as someone who has been conditioned to accept men’s sexual advances and the trauma which ensued from such conditioning. These two narratives conflict since #2 calls into the informed consent aspects of #1.
N.B. I use the term “informed consent.” In my day-to-day life, I work with abused and neglected youth (and sometimes other family members). The concept of informed consent arises from the fact that while a woman could consent to sex out of fear of a beating if she says no, such consent is not informed, but rather coerced. In terms of SF, the question is how much coercion is felt by Severine as a result of her past trauma.
In other words, there’s an ambiguity there. If, however, the scene had been written more sensitively, there wouldn’t be any more than one interpretation.