Agreed. When viewed with a modern eye, that is actually one of the low points of the series.
As for squeamish, the drill in SPECTRE was pretty unpleasant to watch.
Viewing with a modern -- and therefore simplistic and myopically politicized eye -- means missing the whole point of the scene. Bond does not rape Pussy. Like it or not, she yields to him because she wants to. The entire context of their relationship, culminating in her later betraying Goldfinger and helping Bond, is constructed around the idea that she is drawn to him even though she doesn't want to admit it. The same trope is applied with Pat Fearing in Thunderball.
Human relationships are complex. So is attraction. So is seduction. The scene, as written and played out, takes that into consideration. In the age we live in, such relationships are reduced to the simplest of binaries. But not in the 60s.
Ah yes, Bond gives the girl the business in the barn and she sees the light and helps him save the day by turning against her villainous boss. There's some really deep storytelling.
Recognizing that perhaps rape means different things to different people and putting that term aside, I still don't know why it's controversial to assert that the scene depicts unsavory conduct.
Recognizing that perhaps rape means different things to different people and putting that term aside, I still don't know why it's controversial to assert that the scene depicts unsavory conduct.
In case you were not aware, Bond is something less than a Boyscout. He is an agent, acting on his instincts, sometimes pressing the females in his presence to bend to his will.
If they enjoy the 'bending', and subsequently realize the folly of their past affiliations, then his instincts have indeed proven to be correct.
No?*
It would appear from Pussy's feelings toward Bond at the end of the film that she was perfectly okay with whatever Bond did to her in the barn. If she thought she was raped, I don't believe she would have turned to Bond's side. I'm generally under the impression that people emotionally scarred after they are raped, and that would not describe Pussy. If people instead usually fall in love with their rapists, feel free to correct me. Bond did not exhibit model behavior in the barn, but it doesn't seem like he caused Pussy any harm either. She could very well have consented after the scene ends. But if Bond straight-raped her, that's a terrible thing.
It never would have crossed my mind as rape. Watched the scene a couple times tonight and I just don't see it.
The only Bond scenes I find abusively cringeworthy are the bikini choke in DAF and the slap in OP (I think it was OP). There are probably more if I really dug into it, but these are the two scenes I really don't like.
But Bond/Pussy in the barn..... I always interpreted that scene as consentual and flirtacious.
Agreed. When viewed with a modern eye, that is actually one of the low points of the series.
As for squeamish, the drill in SPECTRE was pretty unpleasant to watch.
Viewing with a modern -- and therefore simplistic and myopically politicized eye -- means missing the whole point of the scene. Bond does not rape Pussy. Like it or not, she yields to him because she wants to. The entire context of their relationship, culminating in her later betraying Goldfinger and helping Bond, is constructed around the idea that she is drawn to him even though she doesn't want to admit it. The same trope is applied with Pat Fearing in Thunderball.
Human relationships are complex. So is attraction. So is seduction. The scene, as written and played out, takes that into consideration. In the age we live in, such relationships are reduced to the simplest of binaries. But not in the 60s.
Ah yes, Bond gives the girl the business in the barn and she sees the light and helps him save the day by turning against her villainous boss. There's some really deep storytelling.
Recognizing that perhaps rape means different things to different people and putting that term aside, I still don't know why it's controversial to assert that the scene depicts unsavory conduct.
No, she chooses to allow Bond in. That's one of the things the scene makes clear. To deny her making that choice is just a form of patriarchy.
The point is she won't do so with just any man but only the man who can prove himself worthy, as evidenced by the constant posturing between them (and her rejection of Goldfinger). And that actually happens before they even enter the barn, when she comes to distract him sexually (why would she if she's already pointed out she's "immune"?) and he tells her that Goldfinger is mad and that it will all end. The realization on her face that it is not a frivolous game anymore and, more importantly, Bond is right informs us.
The barn "fight" is just the final physical representation of her giving over. She no longer just sees Bond as just another knuckle dragger. The music and comic build up to their kiss is supposed to clarify this.
Perhaps you don't have much life experience, but people are complex. If all you see in that scene is Bond "gives the girl the business . . . and she sees the light," then you are looking at the film with an overly simplistic eye. Pussy, like Bond, is a player who is quite aware of what her sexuality will get her, and she has navigated a world of killers and millionaires. She is not a child, nor is she helpless. She has demonstrated all through the film her capability, both physically and emotionally. There is nothing in her character that suggests she would allow Bond to have his way with her if she didn't want it.
If you wish to be uncomfortable, that is your choice, but a reasonable person would argue that it should come from what is actually there and not simply from what you choose to project onto it.
Viewing with a modern -- and therefore simplistic and myopically politicized eye -- means missing the whole point of the scene. Bond does not rape Pussy. Like it or not, she yields to him because she wants to. The entire context of their relationship, culminating in her later betraying Goldfinger and helping Bond, is constructed around the idea that she is drawn to him even though she doesn't want to admit it. The same trope is applied with Pat Fearing in Thunderball.
Human relationships are complex. So is attraction. So is seduction. The scene, as written and played out, takes that into consideration. In the age we live in, such relationships are reduced to the simplest of binaries. But not in the 60s.
Ah yes, Bond gives the girl the business in the barn and she sees the light and helps him save the day by turning against her villainous boss. There's some really deep storytelling.
Recognizing that perhaps rape means different things to different people and putting that term aside, I still don't know why it's controversial to assert that the scene depicts unsavory conduct.
No, she chooses to allow Bond in. That's one of the things the scene makes clear. To deny her making that choice is just a form of patriarchy.
The point is she won't do so with just any man but only the man who can prove himself worthy, as evidenced by the constant posturing between them (and her rejection of Goldfinger). And that actually happens before they even enter the barn, when she comes to distract him sexually (why would she if she's already pointed out she's "immune"?) and he tells her that Goldfinger is mad and that it will all end. The realization on her face that it is not a frivolous game anymore and, more importantly, Bond is right informs us.
The barn "fight" is just the final physical representation of her giving over. She no longer just sees Bond as just another knuckle dragger. The music and comic build up to their kiss is supposed to clarify this.
Perhaps you don't have much life experience, but people are complex. If all you see in that scene is Bond "gives the girl the business . . . and she sees the light," then you are looking at the film with an overly simplistic eye. Pussy, like Bond, is a player who is quite aware of what her sexuality will get her, and she has navigated a world of killers and millionaires. She is not a child, nor is she helpless. She has demonstrated all through the film her capability, both physically and emotionally. There is nothing in her character that suggests she would allow Bond to have his way with her if she didn't want it.
If you wish to be uncomfortable, that is your choice, but a reasonable person would argue that it should come from what is actually there and not simply from what you choose to project onto it.
Obviously we perceive things differently. You see choice in that scene and I see force. You suggest - without basis - that I lack life experience and therefore lack the depth to understand the complexities of the relationship between Bond and Pussy. I suggest that your overwrought analysis assumes facts that are not depicted on-screen.
I will agree to disagree with you and I'm happy to leave it at that.
What facts are not depicted onscreen? She kisses Bond back and embraces him and then later turns against Goldfinger to help him. She treats the moment as a conquest that she gives in to rather than a rape and never once accuses Bond of having violated her. There's nothing overwrought about that. Occam's Razor: It's obvious and the intended interpretation.
If anyone is assuming facts not in evidence, it's you. You want to see it as a rape and are therefore characterizing it as such without anything to back up the claim, including ignoring the entire context of their relationship as depicted in the film.
And another topic I happily choose not to discuss on this forum..... I really don't understand why people react in the way they do when someone sees something different than they do. When seeing these heated discussions unfold I wonder when people forget that we are the 0,0001% of the Bond fans that take the time to spend our free time on forums like this, discussing things, usually in a civil way, with other people in that 0,0001% of Bond fans.
"But of course, I forgot your ego, Mr. Bond. James Bond, the one where he has to make love to a woman, and she starts to hear heavenly choirs singing. She repents, and turns to the side of right and virtue..."
Did she know about Pussy-???
And another topic I happily choose not to discuss on this forum..... I really don't understand why people react in the way they do when someone sees something different than they do. When seeing these heated discussions unfold I wonder when people forget that we are the 0,0001% of the Bond fans that take the time to spend our free time on forums like this, discussing things, usually in a civil way, with other people in that 0,0001% of Bond fans.
I agree with all of this, and I apologize for my role in hijacking this thread. I find it curious that my interpretation of the scene has been met with such visceral opposition. Duly noted.
In any event, I will not be commenting further on the topic at hand. -{
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
It's an interesting question, with regard to the power of individual perception...I can honestly say that never, in the dozens of times I've viewed GF, has it ever occurred to me that what happened between Bond and Pussy was rape---in fact, this thread is the first time I've encountered the notion expressed by anyone.
If one views the Bond canon (either literary or cinematic) with an eye toward ferreting out and identifying misogyny or gender inequality, there is a great deal of low-hanging fruit on that tree. It's escapist stuff; not intended to do anything but entertain, and certainly not an instructional manual on properly sensitive post-modern human relations.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I find it curious that my interpretation of the scene has been met with such visceral opposition.
Curious? You accuse our hero of rape! James Bond may be a sexist, misogynist dinosaur and a relic of the Cold War whose boyish charms, though wasted on M, obviously appeal to that young woman she sent out to evaluate him, but he's no rapist.
It's an interesting question, with regard to the power of individual perception...I can honestly say that never, in the dozens of times I've viewed GF, has it ever occurred to me that what happened between Bond and Pussy was rape---in fact, this thread is the first time I've encountered the notion expressed by anyone.
If one views the Bond canon (either literary or cinematic) with an eye toward ferreting out and identifying misogyny or gender inequality, there is a great deal of low-hanging fruit on that tree. It's escapist stuff; not intended to do anything but entertain, and certainly not an instructional manual on properly sensitive post-modern human relations.
The rape notion about the barn has been discussed here before (http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/43933/the-deplorable-sexism-of-early-bond-movies/) and in other places. As part of a younger generation, I've been taught from a young age to never touch anyone without asking. I've also been taught that sex without any verbal consent can be rape, no matter how many times you've had sex with that person before. People have been conditioned to be more sensitive about these kinds of things.
The rape notion about the barn has been discussed here before (http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/43933/the-deplorable-sexism-of-early-bond-movies/) and in other places. As part of a younger generation, I've been taught from a young age to never touch anyone without asking. I've also been taught that sex without any verbal consent can be rape, no matter how many times you've had sex with that person before. People have been conditioned to be more sensitive about these kinds of things.
Yes, people. As in regular citizens. Ordinary folk. Law-abiders.
The rape notion about the barn has been discussed here before (http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/43933/the-deplorable-sexism-of-early-bond-movies/) and in other places. As part of a younger generation, I've been taught from a young age to never touch anyone without asking. I've also been taught that sex without any verbal consent can be rape, no matter how many times you've had sex with that person before. People have been conditioned to be more sensitive about these kinds of things.
Yes, people. As in regular citizens. Ordinary folk. Law-abiders.
Think that describes Bond OR Pussy? :v
It describes younger people today. Nowadays, many people consider rape as serious a crime as murder, while back then they didn't. In America, people's attitudes (as well as the laws) towards sexual conduct have changed considerably in the past few decades.
If one views the Bond canon (either literary or cinematic) with an eye toward ferreting out and identifying misogyny or gender inequality, there is a great deal of low-hanging fruit on that tree. It's escapist stuff; not intended to do anything but entertain, and certainly not an instructional manual on properly sensitive post-modern human relations.
I'm not sure anyone here expects Bond to be a beacon of sensitivity. I suspect that for many, including me, that is part of the appeal. But for the sake of clarity, the question here was "talk about a scene that makes you squeamish." Someone brought up the barn scene, and I agreed.
It's an interesting question, with regard to the power of individual perception...I can honestly say that never, in the dozens of times I've viewed GF, has it ever occurred to me that what happened between Bond and Pussy was rape---in fact, this thread is the first time I've encountered the notion expressed by anyone.
If one views the Bond canon (either literary or cinematic) with an eye toward ferreting out and identifying misogyny or gender inequality, there is a great deal of low-hanging fruit on that tree. It's escapist stuff; not intended to do anything but entertain, and certainly not an instructional manual on properly sensitive post-modern human relations.
What's getting lost in the modern interpretation is context.
I see it all the time in the classroom these days -- students ignore everything but the minutiae that they think supports a claim and then argue that claim. When one tries to show that there is a larger contextual picture built around it, they're usually dismissive because that doesn't support their claim.
That's just "an opinion," no matter that it is better supported by fact. When you ask them for facts to support their claim, you usually get some version of "Well, that's just the way I feel" and then some platitude about how we're all entitled to our opinions. (It helps if it's part of some prevailing fad, too.) In the meantime, we struggle to show that effective argumentation is built on more than just the foundation that someone believes something.
True, the writer or speaker has an obligation to choose carefully what he or she presents, but the audience also has the obligation to view it with literacy and not only project onto it what they wish to see. But it's that desire to experience a text as merely a blank canvas upon which the viewer is free to express any interpretation -- no matter how thin or unreasonable nor what the makers of the text envisioned -- that is an expression of low literacy. A low-literacy audience misses the point.
The reason why you and others, if I may be so bold, don't see the scene as rape is because there is no rape, not in terms of what is shown onscreen nor in terms of contextually in how the film treats Bond and Pussy. People may not like it or may not think it's politically correct, but Pussy gives in to Bond because she wants to. That's the way the character and scene are written. Anything else is just an attempt to ignore what is there and subvert the text to another agenda.
The ancient Romans had the right idea ......as I recently commented on in the Law thread.
They had their danglies crushed with marble slabs. sounds very sensible to me.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
The rape notion about the barn has been discussed here before (http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/43933/the-deplorable-sexism-of-early-bond-movies/) and in other places. As part of a younger generation, I've been taught from a young age to never touch anyone without asking. I've also been taught that sex without any verbal consent can be rape, no matter how many times you've had sex with that person before. People have been conditioned to be more sensitive about these kinds of things.
Well, as I said, the notion that it was rape in GF is brand-new news to me. One might as well say that Bond raped the widow Sciarra in SP, and that Roger Moore raped every woman he kissed three minutes after meeting them for the first time.
Not being dismissive of rape, mind you. But James Bond---while not on any list awaiting sainthood---is no rapist, IMHO.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
If one views the Bond canon (either literary or cinematic) with an eye toward ferreting out and identifying misogyny or gender inequality, there is a great deal of low-hanging fruit on that tree. It's escapist stuff; not intended to do anything but entertain, and certainly not an instructional manual on properly sensitive post-modern human relations.
I'm not sure anyone here expects Bond to be a beacon of sensitivity. I suspect that for many, including me, that is part of the appeal. But for the sake of clarity, the question here was "talk about a scene that makes you squeamish." Someone brought up the barn scene, and I agreed.
As I said, that is interesting to me. While I don't see it at all, I'll grant that you do. Vive le difference {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Nowadays, many people consider rape as serious a crime as murder, while back then they didn't.
I've always thought that rapists should probably get sentences equivalent to that of those selling large quantities of pot (life). X-(
I don't know how I'm supposed to interpret this comment.
That if we send non-violent small-time drug dealers to prison for life, then CERTAINLY rapists (especially the extremely violent ones) should do at least as much time...
I've always thought that rapists should probably get sentences equivalent to that of those selling large quantities of pot (life). X-(
I don't know how I'm supposed to interpret this comment.
That if we send non-violent small-time drug dealers to prison for life, then CERTAINLY rapists (especially the extremely violent ones) should do at least as much time...
Got it. I was almost worried you were lowering rapists to level of non-violent drug dealers.
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,777MI6 Agent
Here are mine:
LALD - The Voodoo related violence. That film still gives me the creeps!
MKR - Corrine getting ripped apart by the dogs is horrible.
LTK - The whipping of Lupe. Violence against women? X-(
CR06 - Stairwell Strangle. A realistic Hitchcockian murder. The implication factor is awful.
QoS - Bond as The Terminator. Slate's death is appallingly graphic.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
Comments
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Ah yes, Bond gives the girl the business in the barn and she sees the light and helps him save the day by turning against her villainous boss. There's some really deep storytelling.
Recognizing that perhaps rape means different things to different people and putting that term aside, I still don't know why it's controversial to assert that the scene depicts unsavory conduct.
If they enjoy the 'bending', and subsequently realize the folly of their past affiliations, then his instincts have indeed proven to be correct.
No?*
*Apologies for my entirely non-PC wording here.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
The only Bond scenes I find abusively cringeworthy are the bikini choke in DAF and the slap in OP (I think it was OP). There are probably more if I really dug into it, but these are the two scenes I really don't like.
But Bond/Pussy in the barn..... I always interpreted that scene as consentual and flirtacious.
The point is she won't do so with just any man but only the man who can prove himself worthy, as evidenced by the constant posturing between them (and her rejection of Goldfinger). And that actually happens before they even enter the barn, when she comes to distract him sexually (why would she if she's already pointed out she's "immune"?) and he tells her that Goldfinger is mad and that it will all end. The realization on her face that it is not a frivolous game anymore and, more importantly, Bond is right informs us.
The barn "fight" is just the final physical representation of her giving over. She no longer just sees Bond as just another knuckle dragger. The music and comic build up to their kiss is supposed to clarify this.
Perhaps you don't have much life experience, but people are complex. If all you see in that scene is Bond "gives the girl the business . . . and she sees the light," then you are looking at the film with an overly simplistic eye. Pussy, like Bond, is a player who is quite aware of what her sexuality will get her, and she has navigated a world of killers and millionaires. She is not a child, nor is she helpless. She has demonstrated all through the film her capability, both physically and emotionally. There is nothing in her character that suggests she would allow Bond to have his way with her if she didn't want it.
If you wish to be uncomfortable, that is your choice, but a reasonable person would argue that it should come from what is actually there and not simply from what you choose to project onto it.
Obviously we perceive things differently. You see choice in that scene and I see force. You suggest - without basis - that I lack life experience and therefore lack the depth to understand the complexities of the relationship between Bond and Pussy. I suggest that your overwrought analysis assumes facts that are not depicted on-screen.
I will agree to disagree with you and I'm happy to leave it at that.
If anyone is assuming facts not in evidence, it's you. You want to see it as a rape and are therefore characterizing it as such without anything to back up the claim, including ignoring the entire context of their relationship as depicted in the film.
Did she know about Pussy-???
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I agree with all of this, and I apologize for my role in hijacking this thread. I find it curious that my interpretation of the scene has been met with such visceral opposition. Duly noted.
In any event, I will not be commenting further on the topic at hand. -{
If one views the Bond canon (either literary or cinematic) with an eye toward ferreting out and identifying misogyny or gender inequality, there is a great deal of low-hanging fruit on that tree. It's escapist stuff; not intended to do anything but entertain, and certainly not an instructional manual on properly sensitive post-modern human relations.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
The rape notion about the barn has been discussed here before (http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/43933/the-deplorable-sexism-of-early-bond-movies/) and in other places. As part of a younger generation, I've been taught from a young age to never touch anyone without asking. I've also been taught that sex without any verbal consent can be rape, no matter how many times you've had sex with that person before. People have been conditioned to be more sensitive about these kinds of things.
Think that describes Bond OR Pussy? :v
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
It describes younger people today. Nowadays, many people consider rape as serious a crime as murder, while back then they didn't. In America, people's attitudes (as well as the laws) towards sexual conduct have changed considerably in the past few decades.
I'm not sure anyone here expects Bond to be a beacon of sensitivity. I suspect that for many, including me, that is part of the appeal. But for the sake of clarity, the question here was "talk about a scene that makes you squeamish." Someone brought up the barn scene, and I agreed.
I see it all the time in the classroom these days -- students ignore everything but the minutiae that they think supports a claim and then argue that claim. When one tries to show that there is a larger contextual picture built around it, they're usually dismissive because that doesn't support their claim.
That's just "an opinion," no matter that it is better supported by fact. When you ask them for facts to support their claim, you usually get some version of "Well, that's just the way I feel" and then some platitude about how we're all entitled to our opinions. (It helps if it's part of some prevailing fad, too.) In the meantime, we struggle to show that effective argumentation is built on more than just the foundation that someone believes something.
True, the writer or speaker has an obligation to choose carefully what he or she presents, but the audience also has the obligation to view it with literacy and not only project onto it what they wish to see. But it's that desire to experience a text as merely a blank canvas upon which the viewer is free to express any interpretation -- no matter how thin or unreasonable nor what the makers of the text envisioned -- that is an expression of low literacy. A low-literacy audience misses the point.
The reason why you and others, if I may be so bold, don't see the scene as rape is because there is no rape, not in terms of what is shown onscreen nor in terms of contextually in how the film treats Bond and Pussy. People may not like it or may not think it's politically correct, but Pussy gives in to Bond because she wants to. That's the way the character and scene are written. Anything else is just an attempt to ignore what is there and subvert the text to another agenda.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I don't know how I'm supposed to interpret this comment.
They had their danglies crushed with marble slabs.
Well, as I said, the notion that it was rape in GF is brand-new news to me. One might as well say that Bond raped the widow Sciarra in SP, and that Roger Moore raped every woman he kissed three minutes after meeting them for the first time.
Not being dismissive of rape, mind you. But James Bond---while not on any list awaiting sainthood---is no rapist, IMHO.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
As I said, that is interesting to me. While I don't see it at all, I'll grant that you do. Vive le difference {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Got it. I was almost worried you were lowering rapists to level of non-violent drug dealers.
LALD - The Voodoo related violence. That film still gives me the creeps!
MKR - Corrine getting ripped apart by the dogs is horrible.
LTK - The whipping of Lupe. Violence against women? X-(
CR06 - Stairwell Strangle. A realistic Hitchcockian murder. The implication factor is awful.
QoS - Bond as The Terminator. Slate's death is appallingly graphic.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS