Racism, Sexism & Homophobia
agentknight
Posts: 1MI6 Agent
Hi fellow bond fans, I am an A2 Level student doing a study into racism, sexism and homophobia in the James Bond movies and then comparing them to the novels. I am focussing on Goldfinger, Diamonds are forever & Live and let die (my favourites).
Comments
You should post extracts from it here when you are done -{
Man With The Golden Gun is probably the most sexist though.
Hey! "Chew Me" is racist and sexist!
"Better make that two."
ummm...not sure you can lay sexism, racism and homophobia as they were shot in the seventies/sixties
Different times
I agree broadshoulder. There is a difference between racism/sexism/homophobia and cultural ignorance. If the norms of time periods equal prejudice then we will all be branded as racist/sexist or homophoboc by some future generation.
I'm not so sure about that. In the past it may have been more culturally acceptable by the majority to show prejudice to certain groups of people, but those prejudices were still clear. Treating someone like they are a lesser person compared to treating someone as an equal is an absolute. The terms that people find offensive change, but the ideas behind them do not. Cultural ignorance still exists, and there are still many cultures (like much of America) that think less of groups of people just as much as many people did in the 60s and 70s. In those cultures, the norms have not changed. Their prejudices have not changed, and I don't think it should be ignored just because those people are ignorant. If the overall norms at one time were different, that doesn't make Racism, Sexism & Homophobia any more acceptable.
Hmm, a pretty straight-up objective. Yes, I agree one cannot fault past generations for their mores and beliefs, but its good to examine contrasting cultures via historical dialogue, because who knows? enlightenment flows both ways in an historical stream and sometimes modern society can still learn a thing or two from the past.
Regarding the premise, these do exist in those movies as well in their counterpart novels, though handled in different ways naturally because of the gaps when they were adapted. There are tons of commentary books on both the films and Fleming books that go into their social and historical contexts. However, there's nothing like the pressure of an assignment to motivate one to sit down and take in the primary souces (Bond films and novels) first hand and as mentioned, please do share about your paper here. Good luck and welcome!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
ummm....not really. How can a person from 2015 put himself in the mindset from 1962?
Different times...
Those men playing Bridge in DN would have a different mindset due to prejudices, experiences etc, upbringing etc
Many people today have those same mindsets, prejudices and experiences. It's how some people are raised, no matter what time they are from, and nothing can ever make that right. As I'm from America I grew up watching a man on television named Fred Rogers. He was born in the 1920s and thought of all people equally, no matter their race or gender, though homosexuality wasn't something he could cover on his show due to public norms at the time (and probably still wouldn't be able to today). If someone like him could exist back then, there's no reason to accept prejudice from others.
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/40883/ian-fleming-casual-racism/
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/33256/the-racism-in-bond/
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/29780/ian-fleming-racism/
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/43933/the-deplorable-sexism-of-early-bond-movies/
Calling a black person a derogatory name in 1960 was racist then as it is now. It was just more acceptable back then.
It's a challenge, I can tell you, writing today in the milieu of the early 1940s, where so-called 'enlightenment' (by today's PC standards) didn't exist - and trying to make it work for a 21st century audience is tricky to say the least. It's necessary to somehow be true to the period whilst not offending. It pretty much demands---on its face---a protagonist whose POV is largely in step with modern accepted/expected progressivism, but still rings true to the morality of the time, and it's a tall order. My own arena is 1940s Miami Beach, not long after certain businesses had signs that read 'Gentiles Only,' and when blacks could not be on the beach after sundown.
In my opinion, stuff written during a particular era, such as Fleming's Bond, should be viewed within the context of its time---not simply condemned from a puritanical modern position, but rather used as an educational tool to build future (better illuminated) perspectives upon. You can't fix the past, and pretending that we're actually now superior is a bit of self-delusion. The human condition is flawed; those flaws merely morph and shift with the times, and don't really go away.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
True, but not rocket science. I think any academic question about this type of thing for Bond itself is merely done for the point of comparison than criticism...
"Better make that two."
Perfect answer.
Also I would read the books particularly Live and Let Die, Doctor No and probably Moonraker (the Germans are interesting) to get an idea of what Fleming is like.
Your exam is going to be flawed if you carry on with "the past - wrong" and "the future - right"
A simple academic argument is to just state that "something is the way it is and provide evidence a, b, c."
A complex and usually well marked academic argument is "something is the way it is a,b and not in c,d, and why."
"Better make that two."
Would you agree that the best way of finding out about this is reading the books?
"Easy" as in, many find it easy to judge sensibilities of the past through the lens of modern standards,
or
...racism, sexism and homophobia indeed existed in the Bond books and earlier movies even in moderate levels, but it's "easy" to indict these attitudes as wrong because Fleming/the producers should have known better?
-a child putting a plastic garment bag over her head and the mother scolding her for possibly soiling the clean clothing it contained.
-small children mixing alchoholic beverages for their parents and their dinner guests.
-adults smoking with children in the same room or vehicle interior; sometimes the mother would request her young daughter to light a cigarette for her before handing it over to her mother.
-children, not wearing seatbelts, clinbing back and forth over the seatbacks in a moving car.
In those situations, should the adults have known better?
Another favorite is from the Christmas time classic, "Miracle on 34th Street," in which an adult man who was very recently a total stranger to a mother and her daughter, asks permission to "borrow" the little girl to spend time with him aloine in his apartment; this seemed so innocent to the people in the story and its setting, but which today would raise not only some serious red flags, but sirens and amber alerts as well. Then there's Elvis' 1960s movie, "It Happened at the World's Fair" in which 2 adult men take in a temporarily orphaned little girl to live with them in their home, despite the objections from a social worker that the audience is actually rooting against.
It's nice to think so. But modern institutions of 'higher learning' do not refrain from criticising what the elite deem 'unenlightened,' so in my experience there is no shortage of judgmentalism from academia...or those inculcated by it.
My novel (set in 1941) was criticised by such a person for being 'misogynistic' because of the villain's attitude toward and treatment of women, when in fact the piece features two strong female characters---arguably to the point of not being entirely period accurate.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
little unfair to blame him. It's what most people thought at the time.
We now think those ideas are wrong, but who knows maybe in 70 years
time, others will look back on some of our ideas and think us, as Racist, sexist
and Homophobic too.
Like I said before, treating other people as equals is an absolute. Say if people of a certain race feel they are being treated and respected equally today (which is still not the case in reality), in 70 years they won't be able to look back and say how racist people were then. In Fleming's day, Fleming's comments that we see as racist now would have been seen as racist then by the people he was offending. White people would have been more okay with his comments at the time, but it all comes down to whether a group of people is being offended or not. It's more than just about how straight, white males feel, which is the perspective you are judging Fleming.
of that time. Was society wrong ? in my opinion yes, but lets not put the responsibility
of all societies wrongs on Fleming's shoulders.
But his attitudes only reflected the opinions of other straight, white males similar to him, who dominated Western society at the time (as well as a large number of white women). There are still large groups today who feel exactly the same way that Fleming did, and I sadly know a number of people who are still like Fleming. Not as much has changed as you think, and because of that I don't think we should be judging society differently then than we do now.
Huge changes for Gay people for instance, instead of having to move to
a nearby big city for a night out, without fear of getting a Kicking, from
some thug. Now many bars have Gay nights, people don't have to hide
their sexuality and gay couples regularly attend functions, weddings etc
as a couple -{ Now I think this is a great improvement, and we've really
moved on.
So in many ways I actually agree with you Matt S, some of the racist lines in
the Books, I cringe. When reading.
world but I do agree there is still much to be done, and many still hold racist,
homophobic views.
Please don't think I'm arguing with you, I do agree with much of what you say.
I'm merely trying to point out that Fleming was not an extremist in his views, as
they were the views of the white upper class of the time.