Bond leaves feminists shaken not stirred
Everything else has been brought into the present, but the portrayal of women is stuck in the past
Last week, along with half the country, I decided to brave the crowded cinemas to see the newest James Bond film, Spectre. Some have described Spectre as gratuitous, but I thought that it was fantastic, both in terms of the cinematography, and the primal enjoyment in watching people get beaten to a pulp. But despite enjoying it, I came out of the cinema with a slightly bitter taste in my mouth.
The writers, directors, and producers of the modern, Daniel Craig incarnations of James Bond have obviously tried to make their films progressive, and to bring them in line with the modern world. And for the most part, they’ve succeeded. Moneypenny is now a young, hot, black woman with a life outside MI6, and Q is an Imperial-worthy geek who always ends up saving the day by hacking some computer system.
Does James Bond have some sort of sexually transmitted disease that only affects women?
Within the genre of a renegade spy who somehow faces no consequences for disobeying orders and can make himself invisible to all intelligence agencies just by driving a highly conspicuous car across Europe, the film does a pretty decent job of re-styling it for the modern era. But where it fails is in its portrayal of women.
Female characters appear, and often start off being presented as strong, well-rounded, independent women who don’t want or need any help from James Bond. But invariably, three scenes later, the sexual tension has built (or appears out of nowhere in a rather contrived way) and we see them tumble into bed, followed by some fight scene where he displays his apparently irresistible masculinity.
That’s fine, he’s hot, it’s a sexy situation, I get it. But after sleeping with him, these female characters seem devoid of any personality and merely follow him around like a helpless puppy, occasionally needing saving. What is it about James Bond that does this? Does he have some kind of sexually transmitted disease that only affects women, attacking their frontal lobes?
These days, it’s not appropriate to reduce women from supporting characters to decoration after they have been explicitly sexualised.
Writing these characters as subservient, helpless and timid after they have served their duty being a piece of ass is no longer acceptable. Every other aspect of the film has been carefully scrutinised and updated to make it realistic and relevant for today, but by leaving in this dated portrayal of women, the writers are demonstrating a latent sexist attitude. They are showing that they only consider women’s personalities to be a means of justifying their being interesting enough for Bond to shag them, not worth bothering with once he’s got his leg over.
Many people will speak in defence of this, arguing that Bond being a womaniser is an important part of the genre, and to some extent, I agree. I have no problem with James Bond having sex with as many of the female (or male) characters as he desires. But sleeping with James Bond and being a powerful female character are not mutually exclusive, and I think that it is time that the producers address their misogynistic attitudes and truly bring James Bond into the modern era.
