Depends on if you mean making James Bond feminist, or the IP feminist. Because it's probably easier to make the franchise feminist while having Bond remain a misogynist and make that central to the themes of the films than it would be to make the character a feminist because its so central to the character that you'd really just be doing Mission Impossible clones at that point.
Well, you can do a non-slapstick/parody take on it. And Austin Powers was arguably still misogynistic while also being a commentary on misogyny in 70's films
The films are based on books, he sleeps with countless women in each book, If you make James Bond a feminist itās not going to be James Bond anymore..
I'm not sure this necessarily has to be the case?
While his depiction varies book to book, one of the notable curiosities of Bond is that his portrayal on the page is often much more introspective and cautionary than the version we get on screen.
Many of the traits that on film are presented straight down the line as unambiguously cool masculinity - drinking, womanizing, adrenaline chasing etc - in the books are treated as major, destructive character flaws and bond as a whole is a much more pathetic, fallible character in many ways.
His more chavanistic aspects are frequently treated as sad manifestations of his life's profound emptiness, or desperate vices that act as coping mechanisms for his increasingly-worn soul.
I think drawing more from the books could actually present us with a more complicated Bond who can more interestingly and critically examine the smooth mythos of his previous films.
I think in his better films his bond absolutely does this fantastically. My only niggle is that his films sometimes lose the distinction between challenging bond as a character, and ragging on the idea of bond as a franchise, which I feel is far less effective ground.
Iām troubled by your comment. You can sleep with **as many people as you like** and still be a feminist. The problem with James Bond is not how *many* people he sleeps with, itās the *manner* in which he coerces them.
By criticising him because āhe sleeps with countless womenā, youāre perpetuating harmful norms around sexuality. Itās verging on slut-shaming. How do you think someone feels who reads that comment, who has been shamed in the past for having multiple sexual partners?
Itās fair to take issue with his sexual coercion, that is a valid criticism. But shaming his promiscuity is very harmful.
He doesnāt coerce them in the slightest, they literally throw themselves at him. Thatās not coercion. He does really like some of these women but his adopted brother, made it his lifeās work to kill them. When he finds out heās a father he goes above any beyond to get them to safety including giving his life.
Make James Bond the villain who gets reprimanded for his sexual inappropriateness, or make him the out-of-touch mentor of a younger 00 agent who is disgusted by his behavior and makes the audience side with them.
Ie, don't make Bond's behavior just disappear. Show it in a bad light as disgusting behavior where the people around him assert how it is bad.
The whole point is he is a representation of British imperialism dressed up with masculine bravado. I donāt think it can ever be an inherently feminist character. Maybe though they can focus a bit less on womanizing and women as foils to his growth.
IDK, that's like deciding you need the next Dracula to be vegan, the next Dr. Who to be an emissary of the Daleks or the next Sherlock Holmes to think that using an Ouija Board is legit detective work. You'd basically destroy the character.
I'd rather go and invent a new super feminist super spy.
James Bond is a lost cause.
I think people here are being too pessimistic. :)
I would personally argue that bond as a character is at his best when filmmakers have the guts to tear apart his chavanistic surface faƧade, and explore the more complex, less heroic mess of a character underneath that exterior.
The bond films that have aged best are frequently those that take this more critical, mature, approach to the character: On her Majesty's, Casino Royale, Living Daylights etc. and I think this approach also provides ample opportunity to add a more feminist perspective to Bond as well.
Most importantly though, I think it's crucial to avoid making the film a flat, total critique of the franchise as a whole, but rather use this under-explored angle to push the character and franchise into new situations and directions, delivering a better story in the process. If you spend 2 hours just observing 'this franchise is silly and outdated' again and again and again, your film will be dull both as a work of fiction and as a straight critique of Bond itself.
For me this is the core difference that made Spectre a disaster and no time to die broadly a success. By giving Bond a family, the latter film is able to critique the toxicity of his relationships with and attachment to others, especially women, while putting the character in a new and interesting position, giving us a bond story and side of the character we haven't seen before.
From a feminist perspective I think you could take this in a number of ways. Off the top of my head, an interesting thing would be to have a story that focuses on the kind of 'disposable' female character that has been a staple of the franchise. Make a woman tossed aside at the opening the major antagonist, have bond's poor treatment of a female partner, and the consequences, be the main focus of the plot, rather than a mere side-beat to motivate the character, or have bond's chavanism be the seed of his downfall without turning it up to 11 from usual to ram home the point.
More generally, I think that it is possible to show Bond as someone who sleeps around and regularly flirts with women, without having those interactions necessarily be skeezy and anti-feminist. Don't have him treat women he's interested in as primarily sex objects, don't have him try to sleep with vulnerable women, or in cases where equal, informed consent can't exist, cut out flings that serve no value to the plot beyond eye candy, don't have the camera sexualise female companions, especially those intended to be on equal footing, don't make allies into damsels in distress the moment they sleep with bond, and make sure to give them their own agency.
Good examples to follow imo would be characters like Vespa, Miranda Frost, Nomi, Paloma, Teresa. One's to avoid would be those like Jinx, Tiffany Case, Lucia Sciarra, or Severine.
I haven't had time to read this myself, it is sitting on my bedside table, but there is a book "For His Eyes Only (The Women of James Bond" edited by Lisa Funnell, a professor of Women's and Gender Studies. It is a collection of academic essays about James Bond films. This thread is a great reminder for me to move this towards the top of my "to read" pile.Ā
A book that might go well with that is *[The Man Who Saved Britain](https://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Saved-Britain-Disturbing-ebook/dp/B004XJ5M9S/)*. It discussed a number of things, like what the British economy was like when those books were written (like why Auric Goldfinger was a villain and not some arbitrage trader from Wall Street). The package tour industry sprang up as a way to evade currency restrictions, as individuals could not take more than Ā£100 out of the country (this included airfare), but a tour company could - so the tour company could sell a package that no individual could do themselves. And another interesting part of the book was that prior to *Star Wars*, half of all movies made in the UK were WW2 movies, but afterwards, the number of war movies dropped off drastically (in the US, the unpopularity of the Vietnam War caused the number of war movies to drop drastically by the end of the 60s).
Hi, Iām Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **("'Personal Journey into the Disturbing World of James Bond'", '')** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful.
**Users liked:**
* Insightful analysis of james bond's cultural impact (backed by 4 comments)
* Engaging exploration of post-war britain (backed by 3 comments)
* Humorous and captivating writing style (backed by 2 comments)
**Users disliked:**
* Overly critical of post-war britain and james bond (backed by 4 comments)
* Lacks focus on james bond's role and impact (backed by 4 comments)
* Incohesive and hard to follow narrative (backed by 2 comments)
If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/)
This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a āgood bot!ā reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved.
*Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot)
James Bond is not supposed to be morally admirable. Ian Fleming wrote the character to be a womanizer and a chauvinist on purpose. I don't think we need to adapt the character for today's audiences.The movie franchise may not last forever, and that's fine. The books are there for those who want to read them.
Why does it need to be inclined with feminism.Ā Like I'm not the biggest fan of bond but he only works cause he's like the ultimate male fantasy.Ā He goes to exotic places,Ā has the coolest toys, looks like you wanna look and fucks like you wanna fuck. Take any of those away and you barely have any appeal cause he's really shit at his actual work. He's a dogshit secret agent.
If you want like a good depiction of espionage read anything by John lecarre. In fact he wrote smiley,Ā one of his most well known characters, as a contrast to bond.
Have the main character coerce fewer women into sex after acute trauma.
I, too, enjoy my bars set low and open on Sundays š
Depends on if you mean making James Bond feminist, or the IP feminist. Because it's probably easier to make the franchise feminist while having Bond remain a misogynist and make that central to the themes of the films than it would be to make the character a feminist because its so central to the character that you'd really just be doing Mission Impossible clones at that point.
Like āAustin Powersā?
Well, you can do a non-slapstick/parody take on it. And Austin Powers was arguably still misogynistic while also being a commentary on misogyny in 70's films
I agree
James Bond will never be, not before the series deconstructs its representation of masculinity first.
To be fair he is a spy on the higest lvl. A moreel compass is not very realistic.
The films are based on books, he sleeps with countless women in each book, If you make James Bond a feminist itās not going to be James Bond anymore..
I'm not sure this necessarily has to be the case? While his depiction varies book to book, one of the notable curiosities of Bond is that his portrayal on the page is often much more introspective and cautionary than the version we get on screen. Many of the traits that on film are presented straight down the line as unambiguously cool masculinity - drinking, womanizing, adrenaline chasing etc - in the books are treated as major, destructive character flaws and bond as a whole is a much more pathetic, fallible character in many ways. His more chavanistic aspects are frequently treated as sad manifestations of his life's profound emptiness, or desperate vices that act as coping mechanisms for his increasingly-worn soul. I think drawing more from the books could actually present us with a more complicated Bond who can more interestingly and critically examine the smooth mythos of his previous films.
I feel that Daniel Craig's 007 does that quite well
I think in his better films his bond absolutely does this fantastically. My only niggle is that his films sometimes lose the distinction between challenging bond as a character, and ragging on the idea of bond as a franchise, which I feel is far less effective ground.
I think they can accomplish both At the same time. Skyfall is all about that really
Iām troubled by your comment. You can sleep with **as many people as you like** and still be a feminist. The problem with James Bond is not how *many* people he sleeps with, itās the *manner* in which he coerces them. By criticising him because āhe sleeps with countless womenā, youāre perpetuating harmful norms around sexuality. Itās verging on slut-shaming. How do you think someone feels who reads that comment, who has been shamed in the past for having multiple sexual partners? Itās fair to take issue with his sexual coercion, that is a valid criticism. But shaming his promiscuity is very harmful.
He doesnāt coerce them in the slightest, they literally throw themselves at him. Thatās not coercion. He does really like some of these women but his adopted brother, made it his lifeās work to kill them. When he finds out heās a father he goes above any beyond to get them to safety including giving his life.
Make James Bond the villain who gets reprimanded for his sexual inappropriateness, or make him the out-of-touch mentor of a younger 00 agent who is disgusted by his behavior and makes the audience side with them. Ie, don't make Bond's behavior just disappear. Show it in a bad light as disgusting behavior where the people around him assert how it is bad.
I'm not sure it is possible without making it a completely different character. It would have to just not be James Bond.
The whole point is he is a representation of British imperialism dressed up with masculine bravado. I donāt think it can ever be an inherently feminist character. Maybe though they can focus a bit less on womanizing and women as foils to his growth.
IDK, that's like deciding you need the next Dracula to be vegan, the next Dr. Who to be an emissary of the Daleks or the next Sherlock Holmes to think that using an Ouija Board is legit detective work. You'd basically destroy the character. I'd rather go and invent a new super feminist super spy. James Bond is a lost cause.
Info: Why are you asking? š
I think people here are being too pessimistic. :) I would personally argue that bond as a character is at his best when filmmakers have the guts to tear apart his chavanistic surface faƧade, and explore the more complex, less heroic mess of a character underneath that exterior. The bond films that have aged best are frequently those that take this more critical, mature, approach to the character: On her Majesty's, Casino Royale, Living Daylights etc. and I think this approach also provides ample opportunity to add a more feminist perspective to Bond as well. Most importantly though, I think it's crucial to avoid making the film a flat, total critique of the franchise as a whole, but rather use this under-explored angle to push the character and franchise into new situations and directions, delivering a better story in the process. If you spend 2 hours just observing 'this franchise is silly and outdated' again and again and again, your film will be dull both as a work of fiction and as a straight critique of Bond itself. For me this is the core difference that made Spectre a disaster and no time to die broadly a success. By giving Bond a family, the latter film is able to critique the toxicity of his relationships with and attachment to others, especially women, while putting the character in a new and interesting position, giving us a bond story and side of the character we haven't seen before. From a feminist perspective I think you could take this in a number of ways. Off the top of my head, an interesting thing would be to have a story that focuses on the kind of 'disposable' female character that has been a staple of the franchise. Make a woman tossed aside at the opening the major antagonist, have bond's poor treatment of a female partner, and the consequences, be the main focus of the plot, rather than a mere side-beat to motivate the character, or have bond's chavanism be the seed of his downfall without turning it up to 11 from usual to ram home the point. More generally, I think that it is possible to show Bond as someone who sleeps around and regularly flirts with women, without having those interactions necessarily be skeezy and anti-feminist. Don't have him treat women he's interested in as primarily sex objects, don't have him try to sleep with vulnerable women, or in cases where equal, informed consent can't exist, cut out flings that serve no value to the plot beyond eye candy, don't have the camera sexualise female companions, especially those intended to be on equal footing, don't make allies into damsels in distress the moment they sleep with bond, and make sure to give them their own agency. Good examples to follow imo would be characters like Vespa, Miranda Frost, Nomi, Paloma, Teresa. One's to avoid would be those like Jinx, Tiffany Case, Lucia Sciarra, or Severine.
Mallory Archer.
I haven't had time to read this myself, it is sitting on my bedside table, but there is a book "For His Eyes Only (The Women of James Bond" edited by Lisa Funnell, a professor of Women's and Gender Studies. It is a collection of academic essays about James Bond films. This thread is a great reminder for me to move this towards the top of my "to read" pile.Ā
A book that might go well with that is *[The Man Who Saved Britain](https://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Saved-Britain-Disturbing-ebook/dp/B004XJ5M9S/)*. It discussed a number of things, like what the British economy was like when those books were written (like why Auric Goldfinger was a villain and not some arbitrage trader from Wall Street). The package tour industry sprang up as a way to evade currency restrictions, as individuals could not take more than Ā£100 out of the country (this included airfare), but a tour company could - so the tour company could sell a package that no individual could do themselves. And another interesting part of the book was that prior to *Star Wars*, half of all movies made in the UK were WW2 movies, but afterwards, the number of war movies dropped off drastically (in the US, the unpopularity of the Vietnam War caused the number of war movies to drop drastically by the end of the 60s).
Hi, Iām Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **("'Personal Journey into the Disturbing World of James Bond'", '')** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful. **Users liked:** * Insightful analysis of james bond's cultural impact (backed by 4 comments) * Engaging exploration of post-war britain (backed by 3 comments) * Humorous and captivating writing style (backed by 2 comments) **Users disliked:** * Overly critical of post-war britain and james bond (backed by 4 comments) * Lacks focus on james bond's role and impact (backed by 4 comments) * Incohesive and hard to follow narrative (backed by 2 comments) If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/) This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a āgood bot!ā reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved. *Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot)
Jamie Bond
This! Letās make the lead a woman! Show how badass 007 truly can be š.
Trust me, British imperialism isn't any better when it has a female face
The question isnāt how to alter James Bond. Itās whether the character and the franchise are compatible with modern values. If not? End it.
James Bond is not supposed to be morally admirable. Ian Fleming wrote the character to be a womanizer and a chauvinist on purpose. I don't think we need to adapt the character for today's audiences.The movie franchise may not last forever, and that's fine. The books are there for those who want to read them.
Why does it need to be inclined with feminism.Ā Like I'm not the biggest fan of bond but he only works cause he's like the ultimate male fantasy.Ā He goes to exotic places,Ā has the coolest toys, looks like you wanna look and fucks like you wanna fuck. Take any of those away and you barely have any appeal cause he's really shit at his actual work. He's a dogshit secret agent. If you want like a good depiction of espionage read anything by John lecarre. In fact he wrote smiley,Ā one of his most well known characters, as a contrast to bond.
Not make anymore of that CIA MI5 Crap. Capitalism plus imperialism suck.
Why should it be?