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