Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
One of the most peculiar aspects of contemporary living in the West is that despite being required to adhere to the provisions of political correctness, Westernmost popular media-products continue to remain strongly inconsistent with the currently predominant political ideology of ‘tolerance’ and ‘non-sexism’. The validity of the suggestion can be well illustrated in regards to the recently produced ‘Bond movies’, which appear only slightly less sexist, as it used to be the case with the same category of films, produced throughout the sixties and seventies.
According to Neuendorf, Gore, Dalessandro, Janstova, and Snyder-Suhy (2010), “Despite the societal progression of feminist ideology, the women of Bond continue to be portrayed in a rather limited and sex-stereotyped manner” (p. 758). In its turn, this implies that the ideology of ‘non-sexism’, which promotes the idea that there is no reason to believe that men and women are inheritably different (in the psychological sense of this word), cannot be thought of as such that represents an undisputed truth-value. After all, had this idea been fully valid, there would have been examples of truly matriarchal societies in the history of humankind.
Yet, there is none, “The anthropological record shows that all societies for which evidence exists are (or were) patriarchies… Stories about long-lost matriarchies (societies in which women-as-a-group dominate men-as-a-group) are myths” (Henslin, Possamai and Possamai-Inesedy 2011, p. 297). The reason for this is quite apparent – biologically speaking, the representatives of Homo Sapiens sub-species are nothing but hairless primates. Within the species of primates, however, males always dominate (one of the reasons for this is that they happened to be physically stronger). The very laws of nature predetermine such a state of affairs.
Therefore, it will be only logical to assume that there is nothing accidental about the strong appeal of ‘Bond movies’ to the audiences – these movies confirm the validity of the audience members’ deep-seated unconscious anxieties, as to what the relationship between men and women should be all about. In my paper, I will explore the legitimacy of this suggestion at length, in regards to Guy Hamilton’s 1964 film Goldfinger (starring Sean Connery) and to Marc Forster’s 2008 film Quantum of Solace (starring Daniel Craig), while elaborating on the discursive significance of both movies and outlining what appear to be the gender-related similarities and differences between them.
The main similarity between Goldfinger and Quantum of Solace is that both films fit rather well within the conceptual framework of a ‘Bond movie’, the origins of which can be well traced back into the Medieval era, strongly associated with the courtly tradition of chivalry/knighthood. As Taliaferro and Le Gall (2006) noted, “Courtly tradition is highly problematic from the standpoint of a contemporary philosophy or ethics of areas and gender, but we… suggest that the Bond books and films (do) employ… (this) tradition” (p. 101).
The foremost characteristic of this tradition is that it presupposed that the knights’ willingness to defend the honor of their ‘dames of heart’ had the value of a ‘thing in itself’. That is, these knights did not think of their ‘love’ to a particular woman is necessarily sexual, but rather in ‘platonic’ terms. In essence, while courting women; medieval knights were predominantly concerned with trying to prove the integrity of their existential self-identity to the world, rather than with striving to marry the objects of their love-passion. In other words, within the context of the courtly tradition of a knighthood, despite having been praised as ‘goddesses’, women always remained objectualized.
This is the reason why in both: Goldfinger and Quantum of Solace, Bond-Connery and Bond-Craig appear to have regarded their romantic/sexual affairs with women in terms of a ‘conquest’. For example, it is quite apparent that, after having met the character of Pussy Galore initially, Bond-Connery did not think of her as being particularly desirable. After all, she was much older, as compared to the women with which he has had sexual encounters earlier in the movie.
Nevertheless, it was specifically because, while socializing with Bond-Connery, Pussy did not seem to be willing to succumb to his charms, which made Agent 007 to apply an additional effort into trying to ‘win’ her. After having realized that Pussy remains rather unaffected by his pretentious sophisticate ‘machismo’, Bond-Connery decided to overwhelm her physically in the barn (01.27.31).
Essentially the same thesis applies, when it comes to discussing the discursive significance of the relationship between Bond-Craig and the character of Camille Montes (‘Bond girl’) in Quantum of Solace. Even though that, as compared to what is being the case in Goldfinger, the 21st century’s Agent 007 does not exhibit much of an explicit intention to ‘conquer’ Camille, his de facto agenda, in this respect, remains utterly similar to that of Bond-Connery.
Namely, to validate even further its deep-seated conviction of being a ‘superior man’, by the mean of proving itself irresistible to women, every time the circumstances allow. For example, there is a memorable scene in the film, where Bond-Connery tries to lure Camille into his car while denying her the right to have any objections, “Bond: You’ll show me the Green’s newly purchased lands. Camille: Do I have a choice? Bond: Do you need to have one? Camille: I don’t know why, but you sound very convincing” (00.01.14). The unmistakably sexist overtones of this conversation are quite clear.
Another indication of the fact that the manner, in which Bond-Connery and Bond-Craig treat ‘Bond girls’, adheres to the provisions of a ‘courtly tradition’ is that it presupposes that the women in question are ‘worthy’ (noble). That is, they are capable of appreciating Agent 007’s sheer manliness, which in turn implies their endowment with masculine psychological traits – hence, making them naturally inclined towards affiliating themselves with ‘manly’ pursuits. For example, in Goldfinger Pussy is represented as a highly qualified pilot. In Quantum of Solace, Camille is shown as such that pursues the career of an industrial spy.
Therefore, even though Bond-Connery and Bond-Craig do apply a certain effort into trying to win these women’s affection, they do not suffer any harm to their reputation of ‘ice-cold men’, as a result. This again promotes the vision of women, as such that can only be with men on more or less equal terms, for as long as they are being psychologically comfortable with the so-called ‘Faustian’ existential virtues, concerned with the assumption that, “Individual’s will-power must never cease combating obstacles, that the catastrophes of existence come as an inevitable culmination of past choices and experiences, and that the conflict is the essence of existence” (Greenwood 2009, p. 53).
This is because, for ‘noble’ men to be able to pursue romantic/sexual relationships with women, these women should not only be capable of bonding with men in body but also spirit. Partially, this explains the clearly ‘non-knightly’ Bond-Connery and Bond-Craig’s attitudes towards the ‘common’ women, reflected by the easiness with which both secret agents slap the latter on their rear ends, for example.
This is exactly the reason why feminists hate Bond movies with such a passion. These movies expose the conceptual fallaciousness of the feminist idea that a certain ‘power-equilibrium’ can be achieved between the representatives of both sexes, “The goal of feminism is not to transfer domination and oppression (and masculinity) into the hands of women. Rather, feminists have exposed this type of power to dismantle it” (Sutherland 2010, p. 116).
After all, as physicists are well aware of, ‘dismantling energy’ means bringing about ‘entropy’ – the notion synonymous with the notion of death. For just about any open-thermodynamic system (such as the human society) to be able to function properly, it must be ‘fueled’ by the continuous flow of energy from the system’s energetically-rich parts to the energetically-poor ones. Once, there is no such a flow of energy, the system effectively ceases to exist – hence, the impossibility of fully gender-egalitarian or class-egalitarian (Communist) societies.
In its turn, this helps us to understand better the true significance of what feminists refer to as the Bond series’ ‘male-chauvinism’. As it appears from watching Goldfinger and Quantum of Solace, the people specifically can remain thoroughly analytical and courageous, while facing life-challenges, which creates objective preconditions for them to be able to prevail in the end. Such their ability, however, has no gender.
The only reason why men seem to contain more ‘analytical ice-coldness’ (the actual energy of progress) in them is that as opposed to what is being the case with women, endowed with ‘internally’ situated vaginas, men are more capable of detaching their psyche from their ‘externally’ situated penises. Hence, the phenomenon, well known to psychologists – whereas, men are only sexual from time to time, women are always sexual (except those that suffer from the Candace Syndrome). For example, to experience the sensation of instant sexual arousal, it takes most women as little as having their hands touched by men– the motif that is being continually overplayed in Goldfinger and Quantum of Solace.
Thus, even though both films are indeed sexist to an extent, it does not mean that they intentionally degrade women. Rather, these films prompt viewers to think that the functioning of male and female psyches cannot be discussed outside of what accounts for the specifics of men and women’s physiology – the idea, thoroughly supported by the recent discoveries in the field of neurobiology. Therefore, there is nothing particularly surprising about the fact that, as the relevant statistical data indicate, ‘Bond films’ appear to be equally enjoyed by men and women – by being exposed to these films, female and male viewers can get a better grasp of their gender-related existential identity.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to suggest that Goldfinger and Quantum of Solace are thoroughly similar in how they treat women. The main difference between these two films is that; whereas Bond-Connery does succeed in penetrating its ‘Bond girl’ with his penis, Bond-Craig does not. One of the possible explanations for this is that, while working on Quantum of Solace in the era of political correctness, Marc Forster deliberately strived to refrain from stereotyping the behavior of female characters.
However, it is much more likely that by exposing Bond-Craig, as such that has not had sex with Camilla, the director simply wanted to emphasize the sheer ‘three-dimensionality’ of the movie’s main character, as an individual well capable of keeping its sexual urges under control – even though that Camilla never ceased giving him seductive looks.
Another strongly notable difference between Goldfinger and Quantum of Solace is that; whereas, in Hamilton’s film the character of M is a male, in Forster’s movie she is a female. This may be well interpreted as such that signified Forster’s willingness to make his film more consistent with the discourse of ‘gender-tolerance’.
There is still a certain controversy to it though as if Forster was trying to suggest that it is specifically old and rather unsightly women that are capable of remaining ‘ice-cold’, while faced with the impossible odds. The validity of this suggestion can be illustrated in the scene in which M starts rubbing lotion into her saggy-old facial skin (00.46.47) as if implying that the price of women’s smartness is their ugliness.
I believe that the earlier provided line of argumentation, in regards to the discussed subject matter, fully correlates with the paper’s initial thesis. Both: Goldfinger and Quantum of Solace are indeed rather sexist. Yet, this is exactly the reason why these movies proved a huge commercial success.
References
Goldfinger, 1964. [Film] Directed by Guy Hamilton. UK: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
Greenwood, S 2009. Anthropology of magic, Berg Publishers, Oxford.
Henslin, J, Possamai, A & Possamai-Inesed, A 2011. Sociology: a down to earth approach, Pearson Australia, French’s Forest.
Neuendorf, K, Gore, T, Dalessandro, A, Janstova, P & Snyder-Suhy, S 2010, ‘Shaken and stirred: a content analysis of women’s portrayals in James Bond films’, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, vol. 62 no. 11-12, pp. 747-761.
Quantum of Solace, 2008. [Film] Directed by Marc Forster. UK: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer/Columbia Pictures.
Sutherland, J 2010, “Constructing empowered women: cinematic images of power and powerful women”, in J Sutherland & K Feltey (eds), Cinematic sociology: social life in film, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, pp. 113-127.
Taliaferro, C & LeGall, M 2006, “Bond as chivalric, comic hero”, in J Held & J South (eds), James Bond and philosophy: questions are forever, Open Court, Chicago, pp. 95–108.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.