A couple of months ago, my other fifth car commuter challenged me to re-watch all the James Bond movies from Sean Connery to Daniel Craig along with everyone in-between. I had seen an original Bond movie here and there but couldn’t really remember the stories. I thought it would be fun to revisit the past and see how the movies have evolved since his introduction. Who doesn’t love the suave James Bond? I took the challenge.
Sean Connery introduced us to MI-6 and Her Majesty’s Secret Service along with the villainous organization of
Spectre with “Dr. No” in 1962. He would play Bond in a total of six of the seven movies through 1971 and again in 1983’s “Never Say Never Again”. George Lazenby filled-in for the seventh movie: “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” in 1969. Not one of the better Bond films, so there won’t be much to discuss. Connery was THE Bond at the time.
As I watched the Connery movies, one thing was hilariously obvious. They were made by men, for men. James Bond is the epitome of the male fantasy. Handsome, debonair in the dangerous profession of espionage. Lucky at cards, completely irresistible to women, access to high-tech gadgets, totally unafraid, able to out-maneuver the pesky henchman, and confronting villainy with a calm confidence and a witty line. When he first delivers the signature introduction: Bond, James Bond, I have to admit, even 57 years later the charm is still real.
I always remembered Bond being the ultimate player but as I watched movie after movie I found myself in dismay saying: “No, Bond, not #MeToo!!” Not only was he a player but he was a sexual harasser. My eyebrows first went up in Dr. No when one woman he was seducing; Miss Taro tried to fend him off by using her freshly painted nails as the rebuke, which he ignored. Granted, she was also in a plot to kill him, but does that justify Bond getting handsy?
The second moment came during “Goldfinger” with another villainous woman Pussy Galore. The name alone made me laugh and there wasn’t enough room in my sockets for my eye-roll. He lures her to a barn; the music suggest a playful scuffle as she deflects his advances as lighthearted foreplay. He gains the upper hand and he uses all his strength to press himself down to kiss her as she is using all her strength to push him away. He over-powers her and once his lips meet hers, she can’t resist his magnetism and ends up working for the good guys. Now rape cures villainy?!
The worst example was during “Thunderball”. Bond is at a health clinic with female attendants. Cue another eye-roll. The attendant he has been trying to seduce, straps him to a ridiculous contraption to stretch his back. I cringed when she says, “This is the first time I have felt really safe all day”. The machine malfunctions after being tampered with in a plot to once again kill him. When she saves him from the runaway machine, unaware of the circumstances, she is afraid she might lose her job. He’ll keep her secret provided she continues backing into the shower, sex for his secrecy. We know what happens behind the frosted glass of the shower. We aren’t supposed to be too worried because in the next scene, she is now in love with him?
This then leads me to the only scene that stood out during “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” with George Lazenby. Towards the end, Bond’s current fling becomes hysterical seeing that he might be trapped in the buildings they are trying to blow-up. Her father punches her (closed fist) to knock her out so she doesn’t run after him. This left me quite shocked.
This is not what I remembered. How do I reconcile this new view of James Bond? It was a different time? This is accepted during the sixties? Does he get a pass because he was fighting villainy? I did find myself forgiving him. Is it because he is a fictional character? Is it ingrained sexism?
Will you watch the Bond movies? I would like to hear your thoughts.
#DoubleD’s
James was shaken and not stirred for a reason. He embodied the classic spy, assassin and womanizer of his time. To compare the #metoo to the ’60s is ridiculous. Are we to believe that 007 would commit rape? I think not. The ’60s was very “loose” , rebellious and wanted to break out from the rigidness of the ’50s but to say that he raped her in that scene is a bit too far. Movie’s even today want to push the envelope and create all these unrealistic scenarios. Are we to believe that all the shooting and bombs exploding in all of these Bond movies, he didn’t get hit once or had his head taken off? Just take a look at John Wick, this is a prime example of something that is so unbelievable that is just a movie that a person likes for the violence, period. Hell, Keanu has the acting chops of the terminator! His range is from DUH to Whoa Dude. I looked up Octopussy on Rotten Tomato’s and it got 43% and John Wick??? 88% !!! This says a lot about today’s culture. Mass shootings everywhere with cries for gun control but we love a John Wick movie, hmm. What do we have in 007? Sex sells, baby and it sold everything back in the ’60s. I saw an ad that has two women in Heineken suites walking down the street in the winter and the ad says, “Grab a cold Heiney”. How, would women react to that Ad back in the ’60s? I’m guessing no reaction at all. I also came across a microwave Ad, yes microwave Ad, that has a woman sitting on a chair next to the microwave on top of the stove in her kitchen with a Martini in her hand, wearing a plunging white cocktail dress with Double D’s on display and the add says “Stacked for convenience” I wonder what “stack” we are focusing on? Can we really take a movie and compare it to a movement of today? I give you, A Clock Work Orange. A young lad who busts into a house with his friends with bad intentions. The friends beat the man while he rapes his wife. He gets caught and is subject to a “Treatment” where his mind is rehabilitated by strapping him to a chair with his eyelids opened by metal wire traps with constant images flashing in front of him. Would this be acceptable today? The treatment worked, right? Fast forward to the early ’90s with the movie “Disclosure” How many times did Michael Douglas’s character say “No” while Demi More was trying to seduce him and ultimately have sex with him? Does that mean women with power can just have sex with any man they want? Does a man saying No mean NO? Do men have the ability to turn down an attractive woman or are we just cavemen and she gets a pass because men want it all of the time? Would you have the same reaction watching that as you do our agent of her majesty service? Is that the way it is now or was the movie trying to provoke an emotion? Let’s look at modern, sophisticated society that we live in today, shall we? The Bachelorette, yes this piece of trash, that is in a B.S story of trying to find LOVE. PLEASE! Ok, I’m going to put you in a room with 25 dudes that have all have the wrong intentions and you’re going to make out several times, put on skimpy outfits, swimsuits, mount them in very uncomfortable situations and at the end of each episode you say your falling for them in within 2 weeks! Not to mention the humiliation of the MEN getting rejected and dismissed on national television in a roll call at the end of each episode. #I’msorrythatishypocritical. Oh and the BEST PART at the end, we are going to sleep with 3 guys and decide if we want to marry them or not. HA! #mesmellBS! This is more tolerable than a scene in a Bond movie and more accepted? How would people of the future look back at this dumpster fire of a show? So get the eye drops for the eye rolls for both of us, because between the crap that is on TV and Movies today is way worse than any 007 movies. To me, Bond was a fantasy world where everything goes, and nothing is real. 007 is about women, sex, cars, and gadgets! Every teenage boy’s dream and every woman’s hero, not a movement of today.
Wendy, you raise an interesting point. But, I’d argue “#007WasJustFantasyEscapismForHisTime”.
James Bond epitomized the ideals of a hero in the 50’s (when the books were first published) and 60’s (when the movies came out). He was a debonair vagabond that vanquished super villains, won at the gambling tables, and set the standards for drinking, dressing and having the coolest tech gadgets. He was the stereotypical tall, dark, and handsome. And he seduced chicks — even (especially!) the ones that tried to kill him.
He was invented over 60 years ago. This was pre-civil rights, pre-feminism, pre-anti-war movement. Sixty years from now, in 2080, some (many?) of today’s behaviors will seem primitive, offensive or clueless through the lens of a generation that isn’t even born yet. They’ll watch today’s movies and gawk at (and make fun of) many things we don’t even notice today because they are within the norm for our times.
For instance — cars? People in 2080 will see cars in old movies from 2019. They’ll recall the quaint old days when people still burned fossil fuels in privately-owned cars that sat idle 95% of the time. Yeah, accidents in those primitive things killed 50K people per year because the cars couldn’t even self-drive. Quaint and primitive.
A burger commercial? Wtf! Today’s fast food commercials watched in 2080 will seem absolutely disgusting. Uhhh, people actually killed, processed and ate dead animals? Ewwww…
Smoking? Fugetaboutit! Movies? And the list goes on.
My point is that 007 was a reflection of his time and targeted to the morals and ideals of the audience of that time. In order to double-check my theory, I consulted with an authority of the 1960’s — my mom. She essentially said James Bond was hot and she wouldn’t have minded being seduced by him. #JamesBondIsOkayInMyBook
I was turning this around in my head a couple of times. You bring-up two interesting points that I might have to talk about in later posts. First, about “the norm” and second, about the advantages of the “hot” girl/guy. You mentioned several movements that have brought about change. What does it say about humans that it takes a “movement” to break what is seen as normal and in the end, treat people better? It does make me understand why some older-aged people don’t understand the #MeToo movement. It is why 60’s Bond does get a pass. You mentioned some great examples of what might change in the future. I tried to think of other “normal” things that future generations might consider egregious, but it’s considerably difficult. That’s a fireside chat question. I appreciate not just your input, but your mom’s as well. Great feedback!! Thank you!!
You don’t have a penis, so you can’t understand how magical they are. In fact, our household has two of ‘em, and some people want to burn our house down. They are scared of the magical concentration of penis powers under one roof. So there you have it, a penis is a magical thing.
Oh, and I’ve never watched an entire Bond movie. Why would I, when I could be practicing magic!!
You are correct that I can’t relate. But even so, you still need to get permission to practice magic on someone. The suave James Bond shouldn’t be excused, even if he is fighting villainy. I would like to hear your thoughts if you ever watch a movie.