Women take 'Bond girls' in stride

[Goldeneye]

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/01/27/ ... tride.html

BY CRAIG D. LINDSEY - Staff Writer

Last month I wrote that I wasn't a big fan of the James Bond movies but that I could understand how men, especially those who grew up on Bond movies, would find the super spy appealing, even someone worth looking up to.

However, I forgot to add one group to the Bond fan base: women who enjoy the movies even though, on the surface, they objectify women.

I received an e-mail message from a Cary psychotherapist, Stephanie Ladd, who said she remembers watching Bond movies as a youngster and being wowed by them, especially those starring Sean Connery.

"Sitting in a dark movie theater on a Saturday afternoon watching a James Bond movie is an adolescent memory that gives me a warm feeling for many reasons," Ladd wrote. "As much as boys' and men's fantasies may have been pumped up by Bond movies, women's fantasies were also galvanized." (Miss Ladd, if you're reading this, you might want to go to the Colony tonight. "Diamonds Are Forever," the last official Bond film to star Connery, is playing.)

Even a scholar, like N.C. State University associate film studies professor Marsha Orgeron, can have a sweet spot for 007.

"One of the things I've always found intriguing about them is the way that I can watch them over and over again, and yet it's always like watching them for the first time," Orgeron said in e-mail.

"Something about the formulaic nature of the films - bad guy, Bond in trouble, Bond escapes trouble, sexy woman who has an agenda, Bond in trouble, Bond escapes trouble, exotic locale, gadgets galore, sexy woman comes back, Bond in trouble, Bond out of trouble and sailing off into sunset with sexy woman (though not necessarily aforementioned sexy woman) - makes them engrossing and entertaining, and yet totally forgettable on the level of detail."

And yet, for all the escapist entertainment value in the films, Ladd and Orgeron agree that the Bond movies specialize in giving audiences women to ogle.

From the Bond debut "Dr. No," in which curvy Ursula Andress sauntered out of the water in that iconic white bikini, to Oscar winner Halle Berry's re-creation of that scene 30 years later in "Die Another Day," the producers of the Bond films always made sure the hero had some gorgeous, usually scantily clad, sidekicks.

Dangerous ladies

While these women (the "Bond Girls") were eye candy for the viewer, often saddled with punny, cheeky names like Pussy Galore and Holly Goodhead, it's often been said that these women were early feminist archetypes.

Many of them played more than pretty faces. They were dangerous, fiercely independent ladies who even Bond couldn't handle. Washington-based lawyer Robert A. Caplen decided to explore this in his book "Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond," released in October.

Caplen, whose parents live in Hillsborough, started work on "Shaken" 10 years ago as his undergraduate thesis at Boston University. He was trying to better understand the feminist movement, so he used the Bond movies and Ian Fleming's Bond novels to create a "male-friendly introduction" to feminist studies.

"The goal was to use the Bond Girl as an example of how the feminist movement was either portrayed or was reacted to on film," Caplen says.

Relying mostly on the first 11 Bond films in his research, Caplen found that Bond girls weren't exactly the strong, self-sufficient feminist types people have assumed. Take Andress' Honey Ryder from "No," for example. "She's considered the model Bond girl," Caplen says. "She was self-sufficient. She had her own career. She was book smart. She could recite the encyclopedia through the letter 'T.'

"And even though she may have those traits, the way that she was presented on film really conflicts with that. ... She represents, in my opinion, the ideal feminine character, which is not a strong, assertive, independent woman. It's somebody who ultimately is subservient to James Bond in his world."

In the end, Caplen thinks, much like female Bond fans Ladd and Orgeron, that Bond should be seen as just the popcorn adventure it is.

"And I'm sure there are a lot of feminists who view the movie as this pure entertainment, and kind of enjoy them for that purpose only, and kind of get a laugh out of it. And that's perfectly fine."

Ladd agreed. "I realize how chauvinistic the early Bond films were, objectifying women from the get-go, but that doesn't mean feminists couldn't be turned on by Connery's (in particular) suave machismo.

"Even if they'd die before they'd admit it."
craig.lindsey@newsobserver.com or 919-829-4760

[Alessandra]

Interesting article. I didn't think the early Bond movies were chauvinistic. Moneypenny was in love with Bond but sure as hell was never "binding" to his will. Actually I always enjoyed their banter because she always reproached him while flirting rather than just look like a woman after a man. I think Moneypenny is the ultimate well-rounded female figure in Bond. She is in love with him but she never, ever behaves as if he's some sort of superior to her, quite the opposite. She keeps up the banter and stands up for herself, crush or no crush on Bond. She of course shows her soft side when she worries sick for him, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, that's part of being a well-rounded woman.

As far as the Bond girls they are in my opinion not objects at all in most cases, and there's always an evil one who manages to kick Bond's ass and is fiercely independent. Honey Rider was just a well-rounded character... she didn't treat him as if she was "inferior" to him at all, quite the opposite, especially when they first met. Then the fact she is scared and relies on him to protect her isn't sexist at all.. it is HUMAN. Honey Rider is one of my favourite Bond girls, together with Pussy Galore (another one who was FAR from just a female object, and definitely fiercely independent, especially for those times) and my possibly absolute favourite, Pam Bouvier. Pam Bouvier is the perfect example of how it's just not true that women are simply objectified in Bond movies. They represent the reality in that there's almost always one who is very independent and looks after herself and one who needs Bond's help as she's in trouble. Not all women are independent and not all women are strong so it would be ridiculous to have all women be like that in movies. And a LOT of women nowadays too are entirely dependent on men. So in my opinion, the Bond movies are actually FAR more feminist than many others. I do not like feminists, let it be clear. Just like I don't like macho-ism. Extremes are always a very wrong way of dealing with things. I consider people just PEOPLE, no matter whether they are men or women. So whatever they want to do, they are people and as such anyone can do whatever they want, with no preclusion.

I think many confuse the fact that Bond girls fall for Bond, and sleep with him, and they wear great, elegant, sexy clothes, with the fact they're objectified. I've never seen any of these women who were "duped" into falling for Bond. They all VERY willingly decided to be with him, and they never did it simply because "they needed a man", but because they wanted to be with him and couldn't resist him. A woman wearing girly and elegant clothes is just as independent as one who (may I add showing lack of character and weakness) feels like she needs to dress like a man or more conservatively in order to be taken more seriously. It is obviously not ok to go to work in a cocktail dress, but that's basic etiquette, nothing to do with being a woman. Just like a man can't go to work in a tux, a woman can't go to work in a cocktail dress. I see WAY too many women, especially in the US, who give up their femininity because they think they need to be like men. I find that incredibly wrong on many levels. There's a lot of hypocrisy at the base of this...

But in short, to get back to Bond: absolutely untrue that women are only objects. Why, because he changes many of them? So? They're all more than willing to be with him and very often ACTIVELY pursue him. (whether it is to kill him or to sleep with him ) And, let's not forget that even in real life there are MANY women who are shallow and only interested in sleeping around, just like men. So.. LONG LIVE Bond girls and their attitude, which is I find a far more enlightened one than that of a lot of women out there.

PS: to this let me add. There is an exception: VESPER LYND as she was portrayed by Eva Green. One of the reasons why I was FURIOUS over the way they portrayed Vesper in the movie was that Eva Green made her look like a COMPLETELY incompetent, superficial little girl, who basically manged to do what she did just by pure coincidence. Vesper instead is supposed to be an extremely competent, strong woman and a threat for Bond (who is in fact very annoyed and says the word "BITCH" twice in the novel, after Mathis tells him a woman is going to be sent over to work with him). Green's portrayal of Vesper was horrid, and the way it was written was an insult to how Vesper was in the CR novel. She is the only Bond girl in movies that I really did find offensive. Not to mention the horrible style and the TRAGIC make-up. Of course James Bond wasn't better either in the movie CR, and he had nothing to do with the Bond we read about in the novel CR, but that's another matter.

[Mazer Rackham]

Babs was out a few years ago saying the Bond girls are Feminist Icons. I cant remember if she changed her tune to be the New Bond Girls are Feminists Icons after the reboot.

The first and foremost thing to understand about Bond is he fell in love with the girls. Evey Bond book brought a new girl, a new damsel and Bond would be smitten, he wasn't a heartless Lothario. In CR there was some less than romantic albeit disturbing assessment of Vesper, later books were more balance. Nine times out of ten he was trying to save the girl at great risk to his well being. This seems to get lost in bright limelight of the movies, where especially in Moore era/1970s there was a popular culture objectification and Moore was a perfect cad at times. That's not Moore and that's not really Bond either. It was a product of its times. Over all as a series (1 to 20) the Bond girls we strong, self determined if not shapely role models. Something that wouldn't be found commonly in the movies for many decades.

[Kristatos]

Yes, I think Fleming genuinely liked women and wrote them well, for the most part. Bond may have made some misogynistic remarks at times, but I don't think they represented his true character. We all sometimes say things we don't mean.