On Sun, Jul 3, 2022 at 3:12 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > I would say if the argument is that what makes the series unique is the > specific identity of James Bond, then it would also be true that there > should be no more films in the series outside of his active timeline as an > agent. > > But I don’t buy that argument, I think the series is about > Double-Oh-Seven. That is one of 9 very special MI-6 Officers, who not only > have a license to kill, but very wide leeway to make decisions in the field > that have national and international security implications. Among that > elite group, Bond is even more unique, in terms of style, cool, charisma > and cynicism. I am satisfied that such a formula can be meaningfully and > interestingly translated into different eras, with different kinds of > identities. >
If the producers wanted to do a series akin to “Mission: Impossible” where different movies followed different Double-Oh agents and operatives, each with varying backgrounds, genders, personalities, and attributes, I’d be on board with that. And every couple films the various agents could assemble as a team to handle a superbig supervillain. Marvel certainly has found success along those lines. But 007 is James Bond, and James Bond is who he is. To state that James Bond is not a woman is not the same thing as saying there should be no movies about female secret agents. I’m not enough of a novel purest that I believe Bond must have thick dark hair and a dueling scar, because (and I say this as a ginger) hair color isn’t a defining character trait, but Bond’s misogyny is. Bond believing that this is a man’s world is central to the plot of every traditional Bond story. I suppose one could write a character who is both a lesbian and a misogynist, and it might be a great character, but it wouldn’t be James Bond. > > Also, I can’t sign on to the argument that Sydney Bristow can in any > meaningful way be seen as a female or American version of James Bond. > OK, she’s not, but if you were to take away everything that is James Bond, but keep the elite secret agent solving big world problems and fighting big supervillains (which you essentially claim is the heart of Bond more so than his character/personality), well, then she is. > On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 at 1:08 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 3, 2022 at 12:23 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I wasn’t pushing back against your tone, which I did not find too >>> preachy, but more against the tone taken by my children and their friends, >>> with whom I have a (mostly) friendly running debate about this. >>> >>> But I also have a running (and far less friendly) debate with >>> acquaintances who love the Bond from the 60’s and 70’s (Connery and Moore), >>> and are outraged by suggestions of a non-white or non-male Bond. Not only >>> am I in favor of diverse Bond portrayals for lots of obvious reasons, but >>> one reason the outrage about it disturbs me is that it suggests a >>> reification and a seriousness about the classic era films and original >>> novels that is not justified. >>> >> >> I’m not outraged by the idea, but they already made a successful >> franchise where Bond was an American woman… it was called “Alias” and I >> enjoyed it, too. >> >> At their first meeting, Judi Dench’s M referred to Pierce Brosnan’s Bond >> as a “sexist, misogynistic dinosaur, a relic of the Cold War,” and that’s >> the conceit of the character. I welcome a series about a secret agent who >> isn’t that, but I’d ask that he (or she) not be named James Bond. I would >> further make a motion that the next reboot of Bond be set back in the Cold >> War, because the farther you remove the character from his original >> setting, the harder it is to make it work. Don’t get me wrong, I quite >> enjoyed the Daniel Craig era, but Bond doesn’t really belong in the present >> day. >> >> >> Roger Moore himself criticized Bond diversity, saying that James Bond was >>> white, deal with it (in the same tone that Fox News anchors used to argue >>> for white Jesus and white Santa Claus). >>> >>> But of course, not only is James Bond not a real guy, but he is not even >>> a realistic portrayal of an MI-6 agent, nor is he really intended to be. >>> And the contemporary Bond is not fighting The Cold War (though he may still >>> be fighting Russians), and is no longer a creature of the 1960s, so there >>> is no reason 007 can’t be of West Indian, or Asian descent, or be a >>> cis-woman or a trans-man. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 at 10:22 AM Tom Wolper <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 9:23 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 at 9:57 AM Tom Wolper <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The more I think of Bond, both in the novels and the movies, the less >>>>>> I like him. I'll grant there's a limit to how much we can judge >>>>>> characters >>>>>> from another era by today's standards but Bond is drawn to appeal to >>>>>> adolescent boys. He embodies the worst of white attitudes at the end of >>>>>> the >>>>>> colonial era and he is an out-and-out misogynist. >>>>>> >>>>> I now I am supposed to agree with you about this, but I don’t. The >>>>> western world was racist, misogynist and imperialistic in the 1960s. That >>>>> sucked. I was a kid in that decade, and even I knew that’s how it was, and >>>>> how much it sucked - I didn’t need Twitter in the second decade of the >>>>> 21st >>>>> century to enlightenment me. But I don’t expect the cultural products from >>>>> the mid century to be censored or bowdlerized, not just because that would >>>>> mar the product, but because it would also cover up the fact of the >>>>> transgressive customs. See recent thread on the Julia Child mini series. >>>>> >>>>> I am a huge fan of Le Carre’, who is positioned as the anti Bond, but >>>>> I find I can enjoy both. I am not a fan of the Roger Moore era, but the >>>>> Bonds that followed were increasingly less chauvinistic, and even somewhat >>>>> less ethnocentric. >>>>> >>>>> The idea of a small group of intelligence service officers who are >>>>> allowed to make crucial life and death decisions affecting international >>>>> relations with potentially catastrophic consequences is I think an >>>>> inherently interesting set-up, and while Bond may not be as cynical and >>>>> world weary as George Smiley, he often knows enough to be almost as >>>>> distrustful of his own side, and of careerist conformity and ass kissing, >>>>> as he is of the other side. That’s not bad. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not going to tell people what they should and should not enjoy. I >>>> have been developing these thoughts about the Bond franchise but I haven't >>>> shared them and I see my argument needs work so I'll be less of a scold. >>>> >>>> The thing I have become aware of, mostly watching European movies in >>>> the time of lockdown, is that there were films being made that went against >>>> Bond's world. Maybe they never made it beyond art theaters and college >>>> towns. If I'm sensitive to anything in this, it's not the existence of Bond >>>> movies, it's the idea that the movies are good clean fun and shouldn't be >>>> evaluated. >>>> >>>> Le Carré seems to me for adults in a way Bond is for teenage boys. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiHgxB8gisr6_t7175zM1r3dkazS04c7SGOxth2oTLH4ZA%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiHgxB8gisr6_t7175zM1r3dkazS04c7SGOxth2oTLH4ZA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>> -- >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYLn3tYyops4eEFo20oe9BFXtmFRKDiVd2cC%2BOmyO91j4A%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYLn3tYyops4eEFo20oe9BFXtmFRKDiVd2cC%2BOmyO91j4A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- >> Kevin M. (RPCV) >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TVorNotTV" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4ADuoeYGHoCBDYmv2T5d8YOEBThoAYdewCvqxca2imJAw%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4ADuoeYGHoCBDYmv2T5d8YOEBThoAYdewCvqxca2imJAw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2BcLCZnEF27%2BQASp98z4xm84y-WsyHsknen-8igF%3DCv%3DA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2BcLCZnEF27%2BQASp98z4xm84y-WsyHsknen-8igF%3DCv%3DA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4C7H%3DryjczuD1sSNfVet0LObTfRdDZGhocmxQX11-_z-w%40mail.gmail.com.
