James Bond Examined | Renegade Cut

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments

All this raises the question: can Bond be redeemed? From a social democrat POV at least, because obviously for an anarchist or libertarian socialist the agent of a state is not moral.

👍︎︎ 7 👤︎︎ u/lindendweller 📅︎︎ Mar 08 2019 đź—«︎ replies

This is one of this channel's best. It really got me to think because, like so many white guys in America, I grew up watching James Bond films. From my teens to my early thirties I unironically loved most of them (except for most of Moore's. I always found him insufferable). Over the last few years I've watched the new ones when they were in the theater, but otherwise kinda moved on. This video forced me to rethink why I liked them and what they were saying about the world.

And the thing is it's not like I entirely ignored many of the problems with Bond. Even my former Republican dad said the character was sexist. I got that the films did not exactly treat the female characters well, especially the many "Bond girls." I just didn't connect the dots so to speak and get that the movies were, in some way, advocating for a world were women would be treated that way.

The almost complete whiteness of the characters also strikes me now as unsettling. Especially since when non-Caucasian characters are introduced they're there to be villains or bed-time conquests for Bond. They never have their own agency or their own stories.

The only time I remember any gay characters being in a Bond film are the two gay assassins in Diamond Are Forever. I was a bit unsettled about that back then but now I don't know if I could watch Bond easily dispatch them at the end without feeling sick.

I think a lot of it for was that I viewed the films as a product of their times and because everyone was racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. back then these films shouldn't be singled out. I don't think that every film made back then should be burned or anything and I'm aware that a lot of media being made now is just as odious. I'm just thinking that Bond might go to that pile of media that was big for me at one time but that I now don't engage with, right next to Piers Anthony.

👍︎︎ 6 👤︎︎ u/kazingaAML 📅︎︎ Mar 09 2019 đź—«︎ replies

Alan Moore’s version of James Bond in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a rapist and thug.

👍︎︎ 5 👤︎︎ u/[deleted] 📅︎︎ Mar 09 2019 đź—«︎ replies
Captions
Did you know that James Bond was named after an ornithologist? No, really. Novelist and naval intelligence officer Ian Fleming named the most famous fictional secret agent after a scientist in a book he kept handy. Fleming once said of Bond “I wanted the simplest, dullest, plainest-sounding name I could find, 'James Bond' was much better than something more interesting, like 'Peregrine Carruthers'. Exotic things would happen to and around him, but he would be a neutral figure—an anonymous, blunt instrument wielded by a government department." It's just a bit of trivia I learned while researching James Bond and watching every canonical film from beginning to end. I am very tired. Of the origins of his personality, Fleming once remarked that Bond was a composite of all the secret agents and commando types he met during his naval service in World War II. It is perhaps because of this composite and this tabula rasa of a personality that Fleming instilled upon 007 that the character can be seen as a vestigial arm of the United Kingdom. By the creator's own admission, he is less man than tool. If Bond is a blunt instrument to be used by queen and country with no discernible personality of his own, then it stands to reason that he is intended to have goals, politics and values that are extensions of the United Kingdom as well. Not necessarily its people but its government. If Bond is what he was intended to be, then examining the ways in which he is portrayed as it relates to politics – both social and governmental -- is not only acceptable but necessary in understanding what we, the audience, are actually witnessing on screen. So, if Bond is a blunt instrument for the UK, then what is he assaulting? I hope, throughout the course of this video essay, that I can answer that question AND make it clear what Bond has come to represent. Let's begin. Imperialism is the practice of extending the power and reach of a nation through invasion, and acquisition of territory through economic influence. A nation's power is increased this way through military intervention, occupation, a coup to remove someone unfriendly to the nation's interests, espionage, sabotage and any other overt use of power to expand the economy and territory – to become not only a nation but an empire. Imperialism is not only practice, it is policy. It won't necessarily be written into a nation's constitution as the public standard operating procedure, but it is policy in the sense that it is frequently employed and justified through nationalism, patriotism and sometimes through concealment of the more subtle actions like espionage and coups. A western power conquering territory and claiming it as a moral good is an example of both imperialism and propaganda justifying imperialism. Colonialism is a related policy of controlling this new territory, often from afar, and snatching power from the indigenous people, making them either second class citizens or removing citizenry outright in favor of enslavement. If James Bond is what his creator explicitly said he is and the movies implicitly show him to be, then he is a figure whose purposes are to protect the practice of imperialism for as long as possible during the waning days of the British Empire and to safeguard capitalism in the face of a looming communist threat. World War II effectively left the UK bankrupt. The British Empire was crumbling under the weight of its smaller wallet and anti-colonial revolutions that it simply did not have the funds to fight. People were fighting back, and they were broke. The United States supported the United Kingdom with their imperialist ambitions for a while if it meant ruffling the feathers of communists states, but ultimately, the UK disengaged from many its colonies over the course of the mid to late 20th century. It wasn't until the 1997 handover ceremony in which the UK gave up Hong Kong to China that the Empire had finally and truly ended. Throughout this decrease in international power and influence, there was Bond: boldly fighting communists, terrorists and racist caricatures of people who the UK had previously colonized and subjugated. In You Only Live Twice, Bond disguises himself in yellowface. It's all too easy to dismiss outrage over this racial insensitivity as “hoping to be offended.” Well, “offense” all on its own isn't the problem. Why it bothers people and what it is conveying and influencing both matter. So, let's talk about that. All on its own, yellowface reflects an ethnocentric perception of East Asians rather than the authentic depictions of their culture. Yellowface is reductive and portrays East Asians as broad caricatures. These images infect popular consciousness and influence the way we think about people, even to the point of thinking about them not as people at all but as the caricature. But it's especially troublesome when you consider the United Kingdom's history in Asia, more specifically in China. The British market loved their tea and silk but did not have enough silver to trade with the Empire. Instead, they bartered with opium that the British took from India. The government in China and British markets began to clash in what became known as the Opium Wars, which I assure you is not as cool as it sounds. The increase in opium in China from 1790 to 1832 created a generation of addicts, and the wars themselves cost of the lives of thousands upon thousands of people. The result of this was British control of aforementioned Hong Kong. So, a movie about a British agent in yellowface has an added level of cringe to it. Live and Let Die takes place partly in the Caribbean. British colonial efforts in the Caribbean included but was not limited to exploiting the islands for sugar. The plantation system and the slave trade led to regular slave resistance in many Caribbean islands throughout the colonial era. In the film, MI6 agents are killed in a Caribbean nation, prompting the involvement of James Bond. The film of course depicts these killings as despicable rather than referencing the fact that these agents were conducting espionage on a sovereign nation. Such a nation would have good reason to believe that MI6 is either plotting a coup or plotting to destabilize a power that does not share its economic interests because that is the consistent track record of the UK and its ally, the US. The less said about James Bond infiltrating India in Octopussy, the better. Actually, you know what? That's kind of a cop-out. Let's talk about India. The British crown ruled India from 1858 to 1947. Although, prior to that, The British East India controlled the nation for about a century. By 1890 about 6,000 British officials ruled 250 million Indians. In 1919, when peaceful protesters defied a government order and demonstrated against British colonial rule, they were blocked inside the walled Jallianwala Gardens and fired upon by Gurkha soldiers. Under the orders of Brigadier Reginald Dyer, the soldiers kept firing until they ran out of ammunition, killing as many as a thousand protesters and injuring another thousand within about 10 minutes. Dyer was praised as a hero by the British public [you tried] who raised 26,000 pounds for him as a thank you for killing so many Indians. Kind of like a GoFundMe for a massacre. Depending on who you ask, between 12 and 29 million Indians died of starvation while it was under the control of the British Empire, as millions of tons of wheat were taken from India and sent to Britain. In 1943 alone, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when good ol' Winston Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal. Of the famine in 1943, Churchill exclaimed “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits. … Let the Viceroy sit on the back of a giant elephant and trample Gandhi into the dirt.” In 1947, with the British Empire losing India, Cyril Radcliffe was tasked with drawing the border between India and the newly created state of Pakistan over the course of a single lunch. That is not a joke. Radcliffe split the subcontinent along religious lines – India for the Hindus and Pakistan for the Muslims. This uprooted over 10 million people. This meant that Hindus in Pakistan and Muslims in India were forced to escape their homes. Radcliffe's parting gift to India was to create an incredibly violent and dangerous situation. Some estimates suggest up to one million people lost their lives in sectarian killings. To this day, many British citizens see their oppression of India as a net positive for Indians. Shashi Tharoor, author of Inglorious Empire, finds the argument that modernization could not have taken place in India without British imperialism to be galling. In response to the claim by Niall Ferguson that the empire laid the foundations for eventual success in a future globalized world, Tharoor rightly countered with this: “Ferguson also suggests that, in the long run, the victims of British imperialism will prove to have been its beneficiaries, since the Empire laid the foundations for their eventual success in tomorrow’s globalized world. But human beings do not live in the long run; they live, and suffer, in the here and now, and the process of colonial rule in India meant economic exploitation and ruin to millions, the destruction of thriving industries, the systematic denial of opportunities to compete, the elimination of indigenous institutions of governance, the transformation of lifestyles and patterns of living that had flourished since time immemorial, and the obliteration of the most precious possessions of the colonized, their identities and their self-respect.” James Bond's forays into other countries without their permission to perform covert operations with an iron-clad license to kill makes for a potentially exciting premise. But also a solid portrayal of imperialism shown in a very personal way – with one agent – rather than how it is generally employed: with massive armies and intelligence operations involving many people. Bond becomes a kind of avatar for imperialism. It's important to note that Bond's actions are rarely if ever seen as questionable to the audience. They are aspirational. When we see these depictions, we have to ask ourselves: Who or what is the target, and who is creating this portrayal? These movies are not critical of British imperialism. These are uncritical action movies in which imperialism is a fun romp. It doesn't hold a mirror up to society if the target is the victim. It trivializes the victim. I know from experience discussing this in the past, when these concepts are brought to light, someone always says “Well, what about movies made in those very countries? Don't they often depict the English and Americans badly?” Yeah, maybe. Bollywood probably depicts the British unfavorably at times. But to claim this is the same is a false equivalency. People of color depicting those who have historically colonized and enslaved them is not the same as a UK film depicting the people who they colonized and enslaved. It might look similar on the surface but only if you completely ignore context and history. If someone violently attacks you and you have to employ violence as a means of self-defense to save your life, you and your attacker are both technically being violent, but your self-defense is more justified than the violence of the aggressor. Only a Sith deals in absolutes, and context is for Kings. People who wish to dismiss these issues always call it people “being offended.” The problem with Bond as the avatar of imperialism isn't simple “offense.” The problem is what it projects as “good” and “civilized” and what it projects as “bad” and “beastly.” The United States and the United Kingdom are noticeably different in parliamentary composition, laws about firearm ownership, healthcare and other aspects that make up the lives of citizens in differing nations, but the US and UK share similar cultural attitudes as they relate to the bones of their national identities: capitalism and imperialism being among the most obvious and demonstrable but also attitudes as they relate to traditionalism, nationalism and reactionary perspectives as they relate to immigration, terrorism and other boogeymen of the west. Many of the cultural similarities between the US and the UK are embodied in James Bond, a figure who is both inherently British and containing qualities, attitudes, attributes and worldviews beloved by and/or espoused by Americans. Because of this, Bond is not seen as “foreign” in America because without the accent or the references to serving MI6, the paradoxical world famous secret agent is as welcomed in American pop culture as he is in his country of origin. One quality of Bond that is perhaps even more American than British is that of anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism is a variety of ideas and attitudes that have points of convergence. For one, it's a hostility and explicit mistrust of anyone of anything perceived as intellectual for fear that it or they are out of touch with common concerns or have nefarious intentions. Anti-intellectualism positions itself as a populist movement, generally right-wing, and seeks to damage or discredit academia and scientific research for its own goals. Populism, at its core, is a style of rhetoric that positions two powers in the public discourse: the people and the elites. However, populism as a right-wing tactic ignores the actual people vs. elites – meaning the poor and the rich respectively – and cobbles together “the elites” as bookworm socialists, tenured professors, and really anyone who lives in major cities. If you have ever heard American politicians tell rural voters that people from New York City and Washington DC are out of touch with “real America” – you have heard what is essentially populist rhetoric. These mistakenly labeled elites – the bookish twenty-something earning $10 an hour and reading Marx at a Starbucks or the professor with the audacity to teach African-American studies -- don't actually wield greater societal power than the politicians who condemn them or the billionaires who supply said politicians' coffers, but in framing them as if they do, the targets of this rhetoric – voters – might believe it just enough to support said rhetoric and the other goals of the populist, right-wing politician. In short, anti-intellectual rhetoric does not frame being “smart” or “correct” as bad or dangerous. Rather it frames so-called intellectuals as peddlers of false ideas and actually not “smart” or “correct” and that the genuinely correct people are whoever the politician wants as their voting block. It's an attractive idea, to be told that you are more correct and smart than the people who society says are the most educated. And that's how anti-intellectualism intersects with populism. At its most extreme, anti-intellectualism is utilized in totalitarian governments, such as fascist Italy and Germany. Benito Mussolini praised men “of action” – fascism is intertwined with a kind of chauvinism and cult of strength. Intellectuals, in contrast, are portrayed as weak. The diminishment and mockery of education has the intended side-effect of keeping the populace uneducated and also unwilling to confront those in power for fear their perceived unacceptance of this status quo will be viewed as born of reading too much and knowing too much. This is shown in microcosm in the battle of wits and antagonistic relationship between James Bond – man of action – and Q, the quartermaster, inventor and top nerd of MI6. Q, a title and not a name, is head of Q Branch or Division. Some version of Q has appeared in every Bond film, with a few exceptions like Live and Let Die and the first two Daniel Craig Bond films, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, perhaps as an attempt to distance the rebooted franchise from the gadgetry, light sci-fi elements and camp that had become targets of mockery in the Austin Powers movies. Despite both serving MI6 and with no real reason to have any personal animus toward one another, Q sees Bond as a nuisance more than anything else. Conversely, Bond figuratively rolls his eyes at Q's inventions while still benefiting from them, all the while taking jabs at Q himself. Q's personal distaste for Bond is referenced as being protective of his nerdy inventions, which Bond often damages or outright destroys in the course of saving the world. Bond is largely unsympathetic and cooly dismisses Q's concerns with his trademark smugness and alpha male sense of superiority over the impotent bookworm archetype that is Q. Bond himself is intelligent and well-traveled, but his intelligence never broaches the barrier of “nerd-dom.” His abilities are practical – for example, his knowledge of other languages helps him assassinate representatives of powers unfriendly to his country. Either that or to seduce women. Bond is far from an oaf, but his intelligence is always displayed as the “right” way to be smart for those who traffic in anti-intellectualism. His cunning is sometimes showcased more as street smarts, particularly in the Daniel Craig Bond era. Bond went to university, but his education has gone into service of his country and by extension values like nationalism and imperialism. He didn't become an “artist” or a “professor” or a “scientist” or any of the other professions for whom anti-intellectuals show such disdain. Bond may have studied at Cambridge, but he would be damned if he ever took courses in “gender studies.” Bond is smart in the way that Q is not: Bond is cool and uses practical knowledge to achieve practical goals, the way that the anti-intellectual chooses to see himself. These ideas certainly do not come from James Bond, it's merely representative of these ideas. Although the popularity of media like this has done nothing to curtail it. Anti-intellectualism as public policy and popular thought was furthered in the United States and the United Kingdom not by the fascists that the two nations helped defeat in World War II but by their own internal cultures and reaction to the Cold War, a recurring backdrop in the Bond films. Intellectualism began to be synonymous in the McCarthy era with “communism” – all these intellectuals reading Marx in university and questioning the capitalist and imperialist dogmas of the west. In Ian Fleming’s early novels, Bond was explicitly a weapon to be used against the Communists. In the films, Bond more often faced off against SPECTRE, but during the Cold War, the imaginations of the audience would undoubtedly replace SPECTRE with the Soviet Union. There are other more explicit Cold War references in the film series. In the decade prior to the earliest Bond films of the 1960's, anti-intellectualism was given the stamp of approval by celebrity figures and politicians. In 1954, President Eisenhower said “I heard a definition of an intellectual that I thought was very interesting: a man who takes more words than are necessary to tell more than he knows.” Oh, Ike's got jokes. According to Richard Hofstadter, author of Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, “The right-wing crusade of the 1950's was full of heated rhetoric about 'Havard professors, twisted-thinking intellectuals...in the State Department'; those who are 'burdened with Phi Beta Kappa keys and academic honors' … those who try to fight Communism 'with kid gloves in perfumed drawing rooms'” Much of this anti-intellectualism is Amero-centric, but the United States and the United Kingdom don't simply share certain cultural attitudes: they share media. British theaters are flooded with American films. The James Bond films may be partly the property of EON Films, a British film production company, but they are generally co-produced by MGM, an American media company, and distributed by the likes of 20th Century Fox (among others) over the years. The US and UK also trade in politics. The policies of both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980's, for example, are seen as complementary. James Bond is a product of the 1950's – his first fictional adventures appearing in novels from that era: the decade of the rise of anti-intellectualism as popular convention. By the 1962, Dr. No, the first Bond film, was a smash. In Goldeneye, Bond expresses his opinion of the new M in anti-intellectual terms, claiming his instincts are greater than her research, analysis and calculations: You think I'm an accountant. A bean counter more interested in my numbers than your instincts. The thought had occurred to me. Good. The audience is meant to side with Bond here, reinforcing his anti-intellectual dog whistles as correct. Framing is critical, and the Bond films do not frame 007's bravado as a negative. Depiction does not equal endorsement, of course, but the films are framed for Bond to be right, for M to be wrong or at least less right, and for the audience to sympathize with Bond and therefore his implied worldview. Let this be perfectly clear: this does not mean that Bond is an anti-intellectual because he, well, travels, and stays in shape or even because shoots people for queen and country. Bond being a “man of action” merely makes him attractive to those with pre-existing anti-intellectual views pre-dating Bond. The character need not openly declare “I am an anti-intellectual” whilst winking at the camera. But that's because he never needs to in order for his role as the avatar of this worldview to be clear to the audience. Bond merely needs to exist as Bond in order to be the hero of the anti-intellectual. He doesn't think, he acts, and when he does think, it's about sex or something acceptable to adopters of this worldview like effective ways to ward off bad guys – especially communists or entities that audiences would liken to communism due to not knowing enough about communism. He's never portrayed as unintelligent. He's portrayed as “above” intelligence, wryly smirking as the know-it-all who rebukes know-it-alls. He's suave and well-dressed, which means he does NOT fit the “salt of the Earth” type that anti-intellectualism positions as being correct, but his attitudes are more in line with the worldview and rhetoric than not, particularly as it relates to gender roles. Anti-intellectuals simply cannot resist mocking “gender studies” in universities and decrying feminism, socialism and anti-imperialism as being owned by “the elites” even though its opposites, meaning capitalism and imperialism, are utilized by the actual “elites”: governments with far-reaching military powers. This is what makes Bond an anti-intellectual hero. The politics that he, and by extension the films, express to the audience. Let's be clear about one more thing: the fact that Bond is attractive to people with this worldview does not mean he is exclusively attractive to people with this worldview. One can be opposed to the rise of anti-intellectualism and enjoy Bond films, but clearly this character has a certain demographic appeal. Oh, and leave Q alone. He gave you an invisible car, dude. In Goldfinger, James Bond sacrifices this woman and then sexually assaults a lesbian before making her enjoy it through the power of his boner. In the novel, this is even more explicit, as Bond's rape of the lesbian is considered “corrective” by Bond. In Thunderball, Bond tries to force himself on a woman, and then later convinces a woman to have sex with him or else she will be fired. The new James Bond assaults this woman in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. In Diamonds Are Forever, Bond takes off this woman's clothes and strangles her. In Live and Let Die, Bond uses a woman's religious beliefs to con her into sex. The Man with the Golden Gun features Bond assaulting another woman. Then we have The Living Daylights in which Bond strips a woman to distract someone else. In Skyfall, Bond learns a woman was sold into sex slavery when she was a child, which means she was repeatedly abused and raped her whole life and then makes a pass at her. And on and on and on. I assure you, that is the abridged version. One movie features objectification of women in the most literal sense of that word. The point is that when I say James Bond is a misogynist in this section, and I will a lot, I'm not talking about patting a woman on the keister or being a little insensitive in a way that is shameful but in keeping with the time it was made. It's far, far worse than that. Did I mention the corrective rape was set to romantic music? James Bond is a big gross creep beyond the limits of even what was considered misogynist in the 1960's. But what does all this mean in the context of broader ideas about gender roles pre-dating the Bonds that undoubtedly influenced said films? People often mistakenly define “misogyny” in simplest terms: a fear or hatred of women. The dictionary backs this up. Complex social systems, societal organizing, historically-codified behavior and systemic oppression all wrapped up in an emotion, a feeling. But this ignores said systems and the learned behavior that becomes the background radiation of life. Kate Manne, author of Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny, defines the term more accurately: “There’s a tendency to define misogyny as this deep hatred in the heart, harbored by men towards girls and women. I define misogyny as social systems or environments where women face hostility and hatred because they’re women in a man's world — a historical patriarchy.” By mistakenly defining misogyny merely as a hatred of women, it opens up a bad faith counter-argument in favor of the misogynist. “I can't be a misogynist,” he might say. “I love women!” This means that because the man who has been accused of misogynist behavior dates women, is married to a woman, has daughters or has a good relationship with his mother, he cannot be a misogynist. If misogyny only means hatred of women and the man associates with women either romantically or within the confines of his immediate family, then that man has his very own “get out of jail free” card when accusations are levied against him. It's the “I have a black friend” of misogynist defensiveness. Men who sometimes date black women can still be racist because racism is not about simple love and hate nor is it about sexual desire. It's about control over women as a social system, particularly when women are in what men consider to be “men's spaces,” which is really just any position of authority or even agency. Comparatively, men who date women are not somehow excused from being accused of misogyny. Heterosexuality has never been a tonic to cure misogyny. If it were, the dominant sexuality on Earth would have prevented misogyny from existing since the beginning of the species. As it obviously has not, this defense is bunk, and if this defense is bunk, then it stands to reason that misogyny is more than “hating” women. In real life, misogynists are rarely as brazen as the fictional James Bond. This is because misogynists generally believe they are in the moral right by preserving a status quo that feels correct to them. They want to be socially and morally correct, and by enforcing misogyny as status quo, they can achieve this. A lot of misogynistic behavior is directed toward women who violate patriarchal norms and expectations or who aren't serving male interests in the ways in which they are expected. Misogynists rarely admit to their misogyny because the invisible hierarchies that govern our social behavior are unquestioned by those benefit from them. They believe if the hierarchy has been violated, women are being morally objectionable or have the incorrect attitude. If women have been cast as “subordinates” or “support” for men over the centuries, then this hostility toward their own agency comes from the alarm of being “usurped” or “neglected.” From the aforementioned book, Kate Manne gives this schematic illustration: “Imagine a person in a restaurant who expects not only to be treated deferentially— the customer always being right— but also to be served the food he ordered attentively, and with a smile. He expects to be made to feel cared for and special, as well as to have his meal brought to him (a somewhat vulnerable position, as well as a powerful one, for him to be in). Imagine now that this customer comes to be disappointed— his server is not serving him, though she is waiting on other tables. Or perhaps she appears to be lounging around lazily or just doing her own thing, inexplicably ignoring him. Worse, she might appear to be expecting service from him, in a baffling role reversal. Either way, she is not behaving in the manner to which he is accustomed in such settings. It is easy to imagine this person becoming confused, then resentful.” James Bond offers a power fantasy to heterosexual men, not only in terms of the obvious power of his fighting prowess and high-tech gadgets but a fantasy of “power” over women. The Bond girls are subservient to him. He treats them and mistreats them as he pleases. Now you might counter with examples of strong women in Bond films, but even “strong” women with minds of their own eventually fall to his charms. In fact, it is in these strong women that the Bond films rebuke the agency of women the most. Their dalliances outside of gender norms are either punished by Bond or shown to be, in the end, less important than serving Bond sexually. It's important to note that these women – except in earlier cases – are shown to consent to Bond's sexual advances, but that is where the fantasy comes in. None of these characters are real. This isn't a documentary. The exchange between them is the fantasy of heterosexual men – all women wanting them – but also the ideology of misogyny being laid bare, a fantasy of worldview. In the end, all women want to be with Bond, and in the minds of misogynists, dominated by Bond. Even the “strong” women, especially the strong women. The only women Bond does not bed are Ms. Moneypenny, who is obsessed with Bond, and the Dame Judi Dench version of M, who the audience will undoubtedly view as too old for Bond. All other women are “entitled” to Bond. If a man has a sense of entitlement to women, he will be prone to hold women to false obligations. Please excuse my brief but necessary aside. Saying “Maybe it's satire!” in response to problematic content is not helpful when something is easily identifiable as sincere and not satire. When the films poke playful fun at Bond, that is not satire. At worst, it's a roast – jokes directed at a person or idea that do more to praise the person or idea and hand wave the faults instead of outright condemn. Satire criticizes. Satire condemns. Satire is opposed to something – it is not sympathetic to it. For example, Most Wes Anderson movies are NOT SATIRES of white people's problems because the films ultimately sympathize with those problems even if the films also playfully mock the characters in service of comedy. This is especially true if their character arcs and growth have nothing to do with what actually makes them problematic instead of what the director believes makes them problematic. Monty Python's Life of Brian is a satire of, as the troupe themselves admitted, “closed systems of thought” – the example in the film being absolute devotion to dogma above else, both religious or political. Life of Brian condemns. Bond films support. Bond films making jokes about the secret agent's promiscuity is not condemnation. Even Die Another Day, the most self-referential of all Bond films, is at best a roast and not satire. Satire requires intent, a target and explicit criticism or condemnation. James Bond films do not satirize Bond's attitudes. Ian Flemming did not write his Bond novels as satirizing his own much-treasured naval service, and the producers of the James Bond films did not create over twenty films spanning over half a century to make you denounce saving the world and getting the girl. James Bond in film has always been portrayed as aspirational. The phrase “Maybe it's satire!” in response to problematic content in media is almost always in bad faith, a hand grenade thrown into the conversation with the intent of scattering the interlocuters in hopes of never having to think critically about said problematic content in media they enjoy. It's a cowardly move, and we have to be braver than that. There is a mild amount of self-reflection in Goldeneye, released in 1995, a full 33 years after the first Bond film, Dr. No, and 40 years from the first novel. M remarks on Bond's sexism in a blunt manner. His sexism, more cheerfully called “womanizing” back in the day, was only jokingly referenced by his superiors in previous films, often with a hint of envy. However, this scene does not re-contextualize Bond because it's not biting enough. M is portrayed as cold and unfeeling, like the anti-intellectual perception of the film series' real life critics, and Bond does not accept this criticism. Bond does not become a “satire” of earlier Bond from Goldeneye and going forward. Instead, this scene is a playful “roast” of Bond by the filmmakers – pointing out lovable flaws in the service of making the character or behavior endearing. The mild self-referential nature of later Bonds do little to re-contextualize earlier behavior because the filmmakers choose instead to ignore it or laugh harmlessly at it. Your favorite problematic content cannot be hand-waved as “satire” every time you don't want to acknowledge what it is actually communicating. End of brief but necessary aside. Does that about cover it? Well, an analysis of the text won't be enough for some people and want arguments from authority – the worst kind. So, OK. Do you know who else thinks James Bond is a misogynist? James Bond. Daniel Craig, whose comfort with the role has had peaks and valleys, once said “But let's not forget that he's actually a misogynist. A lot of women are drawn to him chiefly because he embodies a certain kind of danger and never sticks around for too long.” But even the most recent Bond film, SPECTRE, starring the most self-aware Bond actor of them all, has traces of this. Bond's powers of seduction – his display of dominance of a woman – helps him further his cause. Depiction does not always equal endorsement, but James Bond's misogyny is generally framed that way for an audience all too eager to see their pre-existing beliefs re-affirmed by media. Bond is a misogynist because of the text of the film, and his misogyny is portrayed as either correct, laudable, aspirational or at least whimsical more often than it is framed as wrong. So, for those in the back, James Bond is both a product of his time but also an unnatural extension of the values of those times that have either ended or should have ended. He is a blunt instrument, an empty vessel in which to inhabit the values, history and interests of the United Kingdom government. He is a misogynist, a low-key abuser and as an agent of the UK, he is also an agent who tacitly promotes imperialism. Bond is fictional, so the blame for this is not on him. Bond does not exist, he has no agency. What we are witnessing when we're watching a movie is not the ideas of fictional characters but of the culture than created them and the culture that endorses them. Bond was not only the fantasy of men who wished to be him and the women who presumably wished to be with him. He was the fantasy of a United Kingdom that still held the world at the edge of a sword. He is the sometimes smirking, sometimes sneering face of the “real man of action” that spits in the face of the intelligentsia. In conclusion, I will let M herself give my opinion on the Bond character and films, only when she says it in Goldeneye it is framed as cold or wrong, I would say it with conviction: I think you're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War. Sounds about right.
Info
Channel: Renegade Cut
Views: 247,622
Rating: 4.7858081 out of 5
Keywords: james bond, james bond review, james bond analysis, renegade cut, imperialism in africa, imperialism in india, imperialism, colonialism, colonialism in africa, colonialism and imperialism, misogyny, sexism, patriarchy, anti-intellectualism, donald trump, tucker carlson, fox news, trump, trump speech, capitalism, united kingdom, united states, james bond scene, james bond clip, james bond explained, james bond vs austin powers, james bond movies, 007, daniel craig, spectre, bond, america
Id: RFBmM1HLooA
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 39min 3sec (2343 seconds)
Published: Fri Mar 08 2019
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.