I think works of narrative art often possess both narrative logic and psychological logic, and I would guess that psychological logic is more highly valued/desired today among audiences that narrative logic. Artists tell stories and paint psychological portraits. As more and more people tell their stories from their cultural perspectives, getting the psychology correct becomes trickier. Assuming universal psychological traits can be treacherous.
I should say I was referring specially to the attached examples in that thread such as Edge of Tomorrow, Ghostbusters and Groundhog Day.
Would you ever really think that Bond would take advantage of a victim of sexual abuse?
I think that is the inherent question here. And since I do not see Bond that way ever I have no problem with his behavior anyway.
Also, he is the fantasy character with the power to make almost any woman fall in love with him, and if she is not loyal to a villain and trying to kill him Bond is always the white knight for her. It’s as easy and corny as that.
2 Likes
My final thoughts on Showergate: I don’t see the issue with the shower scene: the preceding casino is dripping in sexual tension as it seems clear both parties fancy the pants off each other. Or maybe that’s just me. Maybe I’d better take a cold shower.
5 Likes
This…
1 Like
Which narrative does not play well with narratives featuring characters possessing traumas and psychological scars. If Fantasy Bond would never take advantage of a victim of sexual abuse (which is true), what the heck is a character with such a history doing in his movie? (Fantasy Bond also would never be traumatized or psychologically [much less physically] wounded.) SP corrects the errors of the previous three Craig Bond films by bringing back the fantasy element through the positing of Robot Bond.
3 Likes
Nevertheless, flirting does not constitute consent. Surely everyone is aware of this concept by now. If me and a young woman chatted/flirted and then, later at her flat, I joined her in the shower uninvited, I could well be arrested.
Regarding the “would Bond take advantage of a victim of sexual abuse”: well, we may follow Bond through all the films, but that doesn’t mean everyone does. Skyfall came out four years after the previous film and it’s likely this was the first Bond film many younger people had seen, particularly as it’s a 12A, and positive word of mouth meant that those who weren’t Bond fans went to see this one. Meaning, such people wouldn’t have our understanding of the character.
No offence to anyone intended, but I’m really quite surprised I’m having to justify this in 2019.
1 Like
I have always read that scene as part of the entire Maccau scene, it’s one long fever dream. Bond literally enters the mouth of the dragon ( fights with many heads of said dragon including some literal ones) seduces the dragon lady ( she is framed like the lady from Shanghai and the dragon lady from the golden child) this seduction is part of the journey , the journey of Bond of at George and our journey watching every bond movie.
I’m certainly no writer , but to my eye it’s a metaphor for Bond movies as a whole inside that sequence.
2 Likes
I’ve been following this discussion through the past few days (or is it weeks?) and I’m under the impression that it’s chasing its own tail. What I don’t understand is the concentration on this one scene in Bond history.
Would Bond take advantage of a victim of sexual abuse? Yes. Honey Ryder.
Erm… Tatiana Romanova. On their first meeting, he knows that she’s not in that bed on her own will (as he’s suspecting a trap from the get-go), yet he plays along.
GF: Pussy Galore - been discussed enough.
TB: Pat Fearing. Close to rape. Fiona Volpe: “What I did was for Queen and Country.”
That’s only the first four. One could dissect almost each of Bond’s actions towards women, be it Solitaire in LALD (I find that one to be much more shameful than Severine), Rosie Carver (“You wouldn’t, not after what we’ve just done” – “Well I certainly wouldn’t have killed you before.”) or Andrea Anders in TMWTGG. Psychologist Caroline in GE “Let’s toast to your evaluation, shall we? A very thorough evaluation.” A true gentleman , wouldn’t you agree, Dr Warmflash, Signora Sciarra?
Oh, but that were different times back in the day? Well, if you say so, Mr Polanski…
In brief: to me, the Bond – Severine relation seems much more consenting than many others with woman in Bond history (see above).
This whole thing reminds me of a discussion we had on the old boards where we had a member who took the effort of editing the Bond movies for his children by eliminating all those “amoral” scenes of Bond kissing or seducing women, but had absolutely no problem with them watching Bond torturing or killing people (Sandor’s death in TSWLM? – Oh, the hilarity…)
We’ve been somewhat comfortable with the Bond “every man wants to be like and every woman wants to be with” for years and now we suddenly need to discuss Bond’s behavior towards woman? What about the body count? Seducing woman (regardless of their backstory) is part of his job description and part of the Bond DNA, as well as killing people (sic!), which no one seems to care about.
James Bond is not Spongebob Squarepants. He’s not a nice person, and we should always bear that in mind when discussing his “morals”.
8 Likes
Reminds me of a discussion from some years back, pre-SKYFALL if I remember correctly, where it was argued that certain kinds of themes - human-trafficking, child soldiers - are effectively off-limits for film Bond since including them via characters would break the mould. I didn’t, at the time, follow the argument closely; now it seems here with Severine we have a character who was given a backstory for certain purposes but wasn’t treated adequately within the Bond narrative.
Personally, I don’t think it’s necessarily one or the other, right or wrong to give Severine the background she has and the fate she faces in the story. I don’t see her character as exclusively the victim - she has, and must have, a tale and function of her own. But I’m undecided whether that tale was used perhaps ‘cheaply’ and therefore flawed.
However, as was pointed out above, Severine is by no means a first. Nor will she probably be the last character to appear in a controversial role.
1 Like
Since SKYFALL was about people being used and abused (Bond, Silva, Severine, even M) I think it was absolutely legitimate to give Severine that backstory. It´s only due to the welcome and needed MeToo-movement that people now tend to have a reflex which applies a no tolerance-policy to everything, often disregarding the facts.
But as you point out - the bigger question for us here is which kind of themes a Bond film really can take on. And Bond´s behavior is certainly on EON´s radar, hiring Waller-Bridge to polish the script for BOND 25.
2 Likes
I’m afraid I read this with the same sense of impending dread that I feel when I hear, “I’m not a racist, but…” and sure enough…
Intimating that your own morals are somehow more evolved than mine is actually fairly offensive. Nonetheless, my shoulders are broad and I’ll take this in the spirit in which I hope it was intended.
Indeed, but I think the key to enjoying Bond is the ability to differentiate between fantasy and real life. I’m with Phoebe Waller Bridge: "The important thing is that the film treats the women properly. He doesn’t have to. He needs to be true to this character.” As Stromberg observed, that character has been pretty consistent, even in his ‘marriage Bond’ incarnation where he Kiss Kiss Bang Bangs anything that moves while engaged to the love of his life or his ‘mid AIDS crisis one girl Bond’ incarnation in which he takes a glass of champagne as a cue for a quickie before reporting for duty. Skyfall is guilty only of delivering typical Bond, which I think is exactly what they promised before the film was released. Anyway, it’s all getting a bit heated here, so Elvis ( 
this one, not the pointless one from Quantum) has left the thread.
1 Like
As an aside, that’s something I appreciate about M’s treatment of Bond in Skyfall: she passes him even though he failed the tests. Most would see that as sabotage, and that’s the argument Silva uses. But I see it as full confidence in Bond’s ability to lift when the times comes, just as M sent Bond on an ‘impossible mission’ as a spur in Fleming’s YOLT. The answer can be distilled down to ‘he can do it because he’s James Bond’.
2 Likes
I think she does have confidence in him - but she also uses him because he is expendable. And in addition to that it underlines that M does not really care about her agents´ well-being. She wants to deploy him because she knows he is loyal to her. If Bond had died she would just have gone on to the next agent. In that regard, I do believe Silva´s disappointment in her is justified. Then again, he mistakes the relationship with her as personal when it is only professional.
2 Likes
Also - and maybe even more important - we’re lead to believe she’s been the one who recruited Bond. He’s perhaps more her agent than SIS’: she trusts his abilities because she was the first to spot his potential.
Which is another part of SKYFALL I like very much: not all the decisions are strictly logical from an operative point-of-view. But they are human, i.e. they follow the human pattern of not always choosing the most reasonable option: M trusting Bond with her life instead of a huge army of bodyguards; Bond not bringing M to a Naval base but his own rural backwaters.
3 Likes
2 Likes
That is a brilliant way to put the question. And if I can add (which as everyone knows is my tendency): does the inclusion of such a tale in a film that is (in part) a fantasy inherently cheapen the tale no matter the intentions of the artists involved (which goes to SAF’s comment: "the bigger question for us here is which kind of themes a Bond film really can take on)?
But then the question becomes: how does/should a film treat a main character/protagonist who does not treat women well? Bond films are star vehicles for both the character and the actor portraying him. As I watched MR the other night, I tried to note how many scenes did not involve Bond and I can only remember four: the hijacking of the shuttle; M asking Moneypenny where Bond is; Jaws going through the metal detector; and Dolly and Jaws sharing champagne. I think all other scenes have Bond in them even if they start without him or go on for a brief period after he has exited. With the character of Bond so central, the film has to take a positive view of him (unless it goes the path of LOVE STREAMS, but I do not think John Cassavetes was ever considered as a possible director of a Bond film).
Can Bond 25 square this circle? I look forward to watching the attempt.
1 Like
Sherlock Holmes is a drug addict and an arrogant jerk
Tony Stark is an alcoholic and an arrogant jerk
Luke Skywalker is radicalised by a religious cult, kisses his sister and tries to kill his dad.
All 12 ratings at highest.
No judgement held, just pointing out how few “heroes” in fiction are nice people in real world terms…tbh being at least a little morally grey seems par for the course (though I think Luke was just Lucas making it up as he went and pretending it was a master plan)
1 Like
Luke is a nice young man who learns about his abilities and fights evil. When he finds out that the evil henchman is his father he tries to persuade him to be good again.
Just because details matter 
1 Like
I know, I know, I’m being facetious.
Like I said, I do think Lucas was making it up as he went, it’s only with the later details he added that it gets…weird.
1 Like