This was a fantastic look at the early Bond movies. And thanks MovieBob for reminding me of how much I hate 80s/90s era hyper-feminism. It makes me want to puke.
Escape to the Movies: Special: Bond Girls
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Not really. I think most people will catch the "we don't all think the same" followed by the "largely why many feminists" lines are humorously in conflict with one another.Ziren said:
No movement is ever universally unified, anyone with enough sense to remember to breath knows that. Which is why few people will give the rest of your argument merit, it starts off weak and then contradicts itself.
Don't get me wrong, I wish women had all the power in the world, but that huge wall of mismanaged text hardly helps the situation.
A pleasant surprise to see on Firefox's Live Bookmarks at 3 in the morning... and very interesting...
theultimateend said:
Those lines aren't contradicting each other because "many" doesn't mean "all" or even "the majority".
And while it's true that no movement, scene, etc. is universally unified, there seem to be a lot of people that don't realize this. Look at peoples reaction towards emos, goths, furries, gays or the fanatical antipathy by a lot of metalheads against Hip Hop and it's listeners. Unfortunately, the ability to look past stereotypes doesn't seem to be tied to their ability to breathe - otherwise the world would be a much better place.
EDIT: Note that I don't accuse Bob of being that ignorant. But there are people who are, and undifferentiated statements like present in this video only adds fuel to their fire.
The main problem with Feminism is that it's fighting different battles at the same time under the same banner, and the "Civil" war inside it means that any victories it does get are at the cost of some of its members.
Little reading for those interested
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette
It's Wiki, so take with a pinch of salt.
Like all sub-cultures, the fight has been taken by the most radical, and believers don't necessarily espouse all the views within. The simplest being that a Matriarchal society would have as many failings as a Patriarchal society and would be impossible to achieve while the ruling body is still in place.
Little reading for those interested
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette
It's Wiki, so take with a pinch of salt.
Like all sub-cultures, the fight has been taken by the most radical, and believers don't necessarily espouse all the views within. The simplest being that a Matriarchal society would have as many failings as a Patriarchal society and would be impossible to achieve while the ruling body is still in place.
To me, Bond has been changed so many times in style, campiness, fantasy or realism, that exactly that is what defines the Bond movies. What this video tells me, is that you like a specific era of Bond movies the best (probably the ones you saw as an adolescent?).
Trying to tie down Bond to one of these era's or even to the style of it's first installment or the original novels is not very usefull I think, simply because it is so long ago. There is no way you get get away with it, unless you are a very, VERY good director. Bond is still here because it changes with society, not despite these changes.
One cannot claim that a certain Bond era was 'better', just which era apparently is the most true to your ideas. This makes Bond quite a special series and I hope it will go on like this forever. Apparently the central theme will always appeal to pretty much all men and quite a few women.
I for one like the new Bourne style, although overdone in quantum. It is very much 'now' to make things realistic, painful and gritty for instance. However, I think I am prejudiced because of my firm dislike of the Brosnan movies (no fault to the actor btw).
The detachment of the Bond girl, up to the point that one cannot really talk about Bond girls any more, is another sign. Feminism has come a long way, even if most old feminists cannot see this, since they have trouble adjusting to true independence (Might seem shamelessly misogynistic, but honestly isn't).
Only problem is, what does it say about the emptiness of the nineties, that such crappy Bond movies were made :|
Trying to tie down Bond to one of these era's or even to the style of it's first installment or the original novels is not very usefull I think, simply because it is so long ago. There is no way you get get away with it, unless you are a very, VERY good director. Bond is still here because it changes with society, not despite these changes.
One cannot claim that a certain Bond era was 'better', just which era apparently is the most true to your ideas. This makes Bond quite a special series and I hope it will go on like this forever. Apparently the central theme will always appeal to pretty much all men and quite a few women.
I for one like the new Bourne style, although overdone in quantum. It is very much 'now' to make things realistic, painful and gritty for instance. However, I think I am prejudiced because of my firm dislike of the Brosnan movies (no fault to the actor btw).
The detachment of the Bond girl, up to the point that one cannot really talk about Bond girls any more, is another sign. Feminism has come a long way, even if most old feminists cannot see this, since they have trouble adjusting to true independence (Might seem shamelessly misogynistic, but honestly isn't).
Only problem is, what does it say about the emptiness of the nineties, that such crappy Bond movies were made :|
The problem with audiences these days is in terms of the Bond film and Bourne films (and maybe even the batman films) is that they confuse dark, gritty and realistic with deep, intelligent and mature. The Dark Knight wasn't a brilliant film because it chose to be edgy and morbid, but because it explored the original ideas that inspired the creation of the comics (remember, Bob Kane published the first issue during the time of the Great Depression) and puts it into contrast with modern day issues and politics (the comparison of Batman with Bush and Obama with Dent (and yes this comparison has been made)) while also concentrating on making its character 3-dimensional and mature. Spider-man 2, which is a very stylized and fantastical film, I found it to have a very relatable and personal story with its protagonist, making him feel much more full-fledged, despite the being advertised and distributed as popcorn summer blockbuster film. In the case of the original Bond films; they really do just feel like a teenage boy's wet dream, because they lack maturity, not edge.
Now onto the issue of feminism. A person previously made a good point that it (like all things in society) is a progressive thing. Despite what you're gender is, you're an individual and you'll have your own specific preference into that aspect of your personality and background (e.g. ethnicity, nationality) and so it would only be natural for there to be different views and clashes into its representation. People's perspective and feelings towards these types of representations change whether it be because of new social issues brought up by society (or vice versa). You're insight of the radical turn of the feminist perspective is neither interesting nor new, and I feel it's only brought up because of your nostalgic feelings towards the original Bond films. It's only human nature for people's perspective (and society's in general, since society has always functioned in correlation with the same type of architecture of the human personality) to gradually change and head into a different direction. And even still, there will always be different opinions of women's representation. Some women feel more open about their sexuality and some feel its exploitation. Is it because they can't make up their minds? No. Does it have anything to do with their gender and how the opposite sex views them? Debatable. But in the end it really just boils down to the fact they're an individual, and their final view or opinion should have no cause of effect from their personal background or appearance; whether it be gender, ethnicity etc.
My preference of Vesper over the more traditional "Bond Girls" has less to do with political correctness and more to do with the fact that I just find the original "Bond Girls" boring and one-dimensional. They're much more independent over their sexuality, and while that might be true to a certain extent, it never really extends beyond that (which is probably why you commented on how they're all the same characters). Feminism is about treating women as an equal personality and individual, and not to disregard them of that right, because of their gender. Having each female protagonist playing the same type of character goes completely against the idea of an independent and distinct personality, and therefore goes against the sole meaning of feminism. Granted, you can say that about just every other aspect of the film (James Bond could be considered sexist to men) but that just shows you the you shouldn't connect more serious and pressing issues with something as juvenile as the original Bond films.
I think solely my preference of the new Bond films, or more precisely Casino Royal (actually, come to think of it, just Casino Royale) is that there's pain in it. I mean, granted, in the originals people did get hurt and killed, but there was never any consequence to it. In Casino Royale, it explored and showed how Bond's dangerous and violent personality, coupled with his often disregard of the opposite sex, affected him and Vesper, and how her flaws and psychological problems both effected them by the end of the film. It was a deconstruction of his character and a satire of all the things I disliked about the originals. It was just style over substance back then. Here, I think both are incorporated equally well. A film that's constructive with its plot and characters' personality doesn't make it dark or gritty; it makes it deep and mature. Something the general movie-going public needs to get passed its' heads.
Now onto the issue of feminism. A person previously made a good point that it (like all things in society) is a progressive thing. Despite what you're gender is, you're an individual and you'll have your own specific preference into that aspect of your personality and background (e.g. ethnicity, nationality) and so it would only be natural for there to be different views and clashes into its representation. People's perspective and feelings towards these types of representations change whether it be because of new social issues brought up by society (or vice versa). You're insight of the radical turn of the feminist perspective is neither interesting nor new, and I feel it's only brought up because of your nostalgic feelings towards the original Bond films. It's only human nature for people's perspective (and society's in general, since society has always functioned in correlation with the same type of architecture of the human personality) to gradually change and head into a different direction. And even still, there will always be different opinions of women's representation. Some women feel more open about their sexuality and some feel its exploitation. Is it because they can't make up their minds? No. Does it have anything to do with their gender and how the opposite sex views them? Debatable. But in the end it really just boils down to the fact they're an individual, and their final view or opinion should have no cause of effect from their personal background or appearance; whether it be gender, ethnicity etc.
My preference of Vesper over the more traditional "Bond Girls" has less to do with political correctness and more to do with the fact that I just find the original "Bond Girls" boring and one-dimensional. They're much more independent over their sexuality, and while that might be true to a certain extent, it never really extends beyond that (which is probably why you commented on how they're all the same characters). Feminism is about treating women as an equal personality and individual, and not to disregard them of that right, because of their gender. Having each female protagonist playing the same type of character goes completely against the idea of an independent and distinct personality, and therefore goes against the sole meaning of feminism. Granted, you can say that about just every other aspect of the film (James Bond could be considered sexist to men) but that just shows you the you shouldn't connect more serious and pressing issues with something as juvenile as the original Bond films.
I think solely my preference of the new Bond films, or more precisely Casino Royal (actually, come to think of it, just Casino Royale) is that there's pain in it. I mean, granted, in the originals people did get hurt and killed, but there was never any consequence to it. In Casino Royale, it explored and showed how Bond's dangerous and violent personality, coupled with his often disregard of the opposite sex, affected him and Vesper, and how her flaws and psychological problems both effected them by the end of the film. It was a deconstruction of his character and a satire of all the things I disliked about the originals. It was just style over substance back then. Here, I think both are incorporated equally well. A film that's constructive with its plot and characters' personality doesn't make it dark or gritty; it makes it deep and mature. Something the general movie-going public needs to get passed its' heads.
Love your reviews, and this episode was amazing. I registered just so I could reply to this. I'm surprised you didn't talk about the production company at all.
Sure your overview of the evolution of feminism was a bit simplified, but given the time you had, you did just fine. Showing the evolutionary ties to the sexual cultures of the day was great but much more history and you would have started losing some people.
My thoughts on Bond. James Bond.
Connery - Iconic Bond, he made the series a success.
Moore - Scorned as a campy parody of the coolness that Connery brought to the character, but the actor did a fine job. Probably the second best Bond if you mean JAMES BOND.
Dalton - A much needed attempt to evolve the franchise, but ultimately a failure.
Brosnan - Easily my second favorite actor to hold the role, but he was a bit long in the tooth when he finally got the job. I wish he'd been able to take the role when he was younger, he could have been a close second to Sean Connery.
Lazenby - Don't really have an opinion. Sorry.
Daniel Craig - Great reboot of the series, but ultimately ending the Bond Film mysticism and making it just another spy series. However the Daniel Craig movies are in many ways better movies, they just aren't BOND movies.
Gadgets - I love slightly high tech gadgets, but the invisible car lost me.
Sure your overview of the evolution of feminism was a bit simplified, but given the time you had, you did just fine. Showing the evolutionary ties to the sexual cultures of the day was great but much more history and you would have started losing some people.
My thoughts on Bond. James Bond.
Connery - Iconic Bond, he made the series a success.
Moore - Scorned as a campy parody of the coolness that Connery brought to the character, but the actor did a fine job. Probably the second best Bond if you mean JAMES BOND.
Dalton - A much needed attempt to evolve the franchise, but ultimately a failure.
Brosnan - Easily my second favorite actor to hold the role, but he was a bit long in the tooth when he finally got the job. I wish he'd been able to take the role when he was younger, he could have been a close second to Sean Connery.
Lazenby - Don't really have an opinion. Sorry.
Daniel Craig - Great reboot of the series, but ultimately ending the Bond Film mysticism and making it just another spy series. However the Daniel Craig movies are in many ways better movies, they just aren't BOND movies.
Gadgets - I love slightly high tech gadgets, but the invisible car lost me.