Are modern audiences too offended by Pussy Galore?

The hero's actions are a tool to progress a story. It's the message conveyed by your story that is important.

Because you can make a movie like Downfall and show Hitler's atrocities and show it was wrong. That's just fine. Or you can take the same story, distort every sense of reality and present Hitler as a noble leader who was misunderstood and his actions were in fact moral. Do you think that both films are equally valid and harmless?

PS. I have not seen it yet, so I can't be sure this is 100% correct, but think Birth of a Nation.

This idea that a film has to present a terrible thing as a terrible thing is so stupid. Cinema is art, and there are no rules or limitations you can put on it. It's not the movie's job to tell you that rape is wrong, because everyone already knows that. If it portrays a lady's man as such even if he goes a little too far, the movie itself is not obliged to show some terrible consequences so you know that it was wrong.

You know what I really can't stand about people like Jabs. They want to use the loosest possible definition to accuse someone of the most heinous crime. It's just a judgmental veil for their own intolerance and resentment.



I don't like James Bond movies at all. (edit: Sorry, I don't mean at all. I mean generally. There are a couple of exceptions.) I won't go so far to say the scene had nothing wrong with it, but calling it rape is absurd.



Going too far out of his way to find fault with it, but I'd say not looking at it deeply enough to fully understand it is his problem.

Downfall was actually showing a more human side to Hitler and his entourage. It was somewhat sympathetic, but it also didn't lead the viewer by the hand showing things to clearly be right or wrong. It just shows you what happened and tries to be faithful to the historical events as they actually transpired leaving you to make up your own conclusions. It's not like James Bond where it polarizes good and evil.

Real rape is evil. But a fictional character in a movie who's suppose to be: dangerous, cunning, roguish, jet setting, playboy secret agent spy who kisses a girl against her will is not rape. It's nuts to call it rape. It's also not an issue as you say as it's a fictional movie.

Can I ask you a question?

I guess some people just have an easier time than others separating fact from fiction. I look at Bond as a superhero in far fetched movies. One of his powers is his power over women. He does not rape her, and in the real world sometimes no does mean yes. That's a given, yet I don't think anyone with sound mind thinks it is ok to test that. On the other hand, sometimes it's easy to tell when no means yes.

One of my favorite characters is Lester Burnham. I often times identify him, yet I don't like that he lusts over a high school girl. I don't want movies to be the moral police. Nobody should. If anyone has confusion discerning right from wrong in a movie, they should turn off the movie and seek help.

Apparently it does, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I like how after a brief conversation I am already part of several categories. Perhaps if you shed your preconceptions of people and join in this one-on-one conversation with this here individual, it would all progress slightly faster and I wouldn't need to sit here and write these lines.

To answer your 'judgemental' comment, with a question of my own. If you witnessed this scene taking place in front of you, would you stop it or would you say 'lets wait and see, she might be into it'.

Go right ahead.

Just to clarify the "medium" is cinema right?

I think it goes without saying that, "for characters to feel real their actions (and reactions) need to have some basis in the vast range of human behavior we know as reality." I can't think of anything more redundant. But to suggest this is the goal of the entire medium, and then give a double standard for surrealism and allegory, is an arbitrary persecution of the art of escapism.

Jabs, what I wanted to ask you is related to what Cricket said about some people just have an easier time than others separating fact from fiction. Are your views on this Bond subject based on some type of personal philosophy? Or is there some psychological/emotional stuff coming into play that maybe we don't know about? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

Yes it is cinema I was talking about. Yes my statement was absolutely redundant but as I said, in order to clarify I thought it necessary to cross the t's and dot the i's in this one. Allegory usually also abides by the same rules. Surrealism is an artistic movement by itself, with the express purpose of going beyond reality. It doesn't distort reality in the same way i.e. glorifying evil. If it were, we would be having a different discussion.

Now to the point about escapism. I'm generally fine with it even though it is not my cup of tea. My qualms are not about escapism, because we have seen time and time again films that aim solely at entertainment without treading moral waters. MI, Indiana Jones, Star Wars etc. There is room for entertainment in cinema and some films exceed in that. They can achieve this without conflating fun with immoral. We have seen them work very well without going that route. Bond is in a category of its own. My problem is not that it's dump escapism, but that it uses themes like the ones discussed to achieve it. Add to that the fact that those films are meant to be viewed "with your brain turned off" and you got a very dangerous situation of people never second-guessing their decisions.

Just to put things in perspective, Those 88 seconds of a scene that you pay no more attention to, went through a process of having Fleming write them, two people adapt them to a screenplay, Hamilton direct them, two people act them and several others assist. Does that process sound like something that nobody really thought of deeply before it reached your screen for those 88 seconds?

There is no emotional trauma behind this, if that's what you were tip-toeing around. There should be no need for one to have experienced something like that in order to be against it.

I do agree with cricket's statement that some people find it hard to separate real life from fiction. It is because a lot of people are like this, that I am voicing my opinion. Now we all may think we are above that and what we see/read doesn't affect us, but that is clearly not true. Put yourself in an alternate world were murder was still illegal but every book ever written and every film ever made presented murderers as heroes. Do you think that would have no effect in that reality?

In my view, the fact that an action any sane person would be forced to stop if he/she were present, is casually ignored when put on screen and glorified is exactly why this sort of attitude (both from the perspective of the creators for presenting it that way and from the viewers for 'turning their brain off' while watching it) is dangerous.

Actually we're not making the same point. I misspoke when I said, "because it was clearly depicted in an unsettling way." I meant that as a separate point. I was making a counter point to your point about Last Tango in Paris showing the consequences of the rape. The point I was trying to make is that even if the movie didn't depict the rape as wrong everyone already knows rape is wrong, but the way it's depicted makes the viewer feel the extent of how wrong it is. I was also trying to make a counter point about how the consequences don't need to be shown because the rape itself was depicted in an unsettling enough way, so it was already understood. The consequences being shown was for the sake of expanding on the nature of rape and how the characters were affected, for character development and story.

I would like you to stop referring to the James Bond scene as a rape scene. Unless you actually think kissing is sex. It doesn't depict rape. It doesn't even depict sex in that scene. It depicts sexual harassment and implies consensual sex. The whole, "It's not consent even if she enjoyed it because she was manipulated," argument, and the, "It's not okay to portray her giving in because it doesn't happen like that in real life," arguments are separate issues (and those quotes are just hypothetical arguments). The issue I'm arguing is simply that it is not a rape scene, because no sex is depicted at all in that scene.

Do you understand the difference between depicting and implying?

I do understand the difference but unless you are saying that sex did not occur and it is just one of the possible outcomes, then this point is moot. So is that what you are saying? You think Bond threw her down on the barn, climbed over and held her down her just to steal a little kiss?

Edit; Answer that at your leisure. I am just going to put out there some more stuff regarding the scene, just to understand that it is not intended (at least in its source material) as innocuous as you think.

I'm actually glad you asked. This is a very good question.

Personally I would intervene at the point where she's trying to leave and he grabs her by the arm to pull her back. That is where I would step in and say, "She isn't interested pal, take a hike." If I came in as he was forcing himself down on her, I'd physically intervene and try to pull him off. If as I was trying to intervene she started kissing him back and moaning with pleasure I would stop in my tracks and back away.

But I have a much higher moral standard. Although I defend this scene from the accusations you're laying against it, it means we disagree on a certain aspect of morality, but it does not mean my standard is lower than yours. I think womanizing is wrong, and even looking at women and thinking lustful thoughts is wrong. I've cried many tears beating my own chest with how sorrowful I am for all the times I've lusted. I would not condone many of James Bond's actions, but I also do not agree with the extent of the persecution he now seems to be facing.

I hope you don't mind if I choose to disregard the other comments you made in this post. I still stand by what I said about you. And don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I can't stand you, as I don't know you, but I can't stand what you're doing by going so far out of your way to demonize a character that is generally a hero who on a regular basis by profession saves countless lives. There are far worse evils going ignored to be harassing casual light entertainment for being a little morally ambiguous.

(Edit: Or, before I back away I might ask her if she's alright. And I have a strong feeling at that point she'd say she's fine and close the proverbial door herself.)

I would have to disagree with you here. I've read enough Orwell to see where thought crime leads to. You or Bond or anyone can fantasize about anything as much you like. Performing the action itself is what is wrong.

"Generally a hero" is exactly because you chose to ignore some actions of the character. The "there are far worse evils out there" argument is ridiculous in its face. Lets build a society this way, why don't we? This guy stole but forget him cause that other guy murdered. Wait this guy here did three murders, forget that previous guy etc.

You are free to do as you please. I am also free to mind you cherry picking and concluding to "well I still stand by what I said". If you want to have a conversation with Janet the "Time's up" lady from your neighborhood, or Bob the PC guy from work, go talk to them by all means. When in conversation with someone, one should have the decency to answer one's points, not just pick and choose what he feels like responding to. But it is what it is, I guess. Mea culpa for trying to talk seriously on the internet.

Sean Connery's Bond is more morally ambiguous, which is probably why he's the most controversial. However you interpret this scene, he definitely treats women more like objects in these early movies (I always felt bad for Sylvia Trench in From Russia With Love).
Even with that being said, Connery will always be my favorite Bond, and From Russia With Love is my favorite in the series. He really represents the essence of "cool", like a detective trying to deduce what's going on and coming up with clever solutions to every problem. You also have to keep in mind Ian Fleming started writing the books in the 50's, which was a very different time. The movies actually toned him down if anything (for example Bond is a lot more racist in the books).

I think Roger Moore also struck a good balance. He's still the classic womanizer we know him as, but a bit more gentle in the way he's flirting.

__________________

The part that needs clarifying is why you think that cinema is supposed to do anything. Where do your rules come from? Why aren't people supposed to do things like portray a womanizer as a hero and reward him for seducing a woman without showing any negative consequences?


I don't know where to start with this one. For one thing it's a double standard, but there's so much wrong with your arguments on this topic that it being a double standard is pretty much moot and just par for the course. For another thing, there is nothing beyond reality. Reality encompasses everything. Anything that isn't a part of reality is not a thing, it doesn't exist. Fantasy is still real fantasy. James Bond is escapism, and that is a genre that you can't nullify. You have not made any argument for the case that escapism is not valid, that it doesn't have a place in cinema, or that it shouldn't be allowed. But you talk about James Bond as if it's supposed to be realism just because it's a movie, but then it doesn't necessarily apply to other movies that are other genres... Unless we make some progress I'm getting pretty close to my threshold for illogical arguments. I'm beginning to think you're committed to your position regardless of whether it's wrong.


So then you have no grounds for saying James Bond should portray seducing a woman as wrong, or that he raped her. You predicated your own argument on what the medium should do, and now you've allowed it to do the very thing you were arguing against. So now it seems that your own issue is not fully understood and you're still seeking to discover what your own stance actually is. I myself can't quite tell, but it sounds like you're contradicting yourself. Maybe that Pussy Galore scene bothered you and you haven't quite been able to put your finger on it.


What if the goal is to conflate fun with immorality? It's a movie full of glorified and glamourised sex and violence. And when did we reach a consensus on what is immoral? We only agree on superficial elements of morality. When it comes to digging deeper our world views are fundamentally extremely different in their perspectives on morality.


I agree with your sentiment that James Bond is dumbed down and brainwashing. The famous KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov, said that when he worked for the KGB they loved James Bond movies. Not that they loved watching them, but they loved that Americans loved watching them, because it meant that the American people would be totally clueless about what actually goes on in the spy realm. So yeah, they served in dumbing down the American public. But there is a big difference between having an issue with a particular movie just not being a good movie and saying that movies should be a certain way morally.

I think it's valid to say that James Bond movies are bad for the reasons you're giving, but not to imply that their creators were not allowed to make them that way.

I mean, I have my own personal philosophy of art. I think that for something to truly be art it must be creative, talented, and of excellent quality. Otherwise I don't really consider it art. But that isn't the full semantic range of the word art, and I would not feel justified in going around imposing my personal philosophy of art on other people. I often use the word art in a looser sense to refer to the broader medium which includes works that lack creativity, talent, and quality, but I wouldn't tell someone they shouldn't make whatever they're making because it doesn't fit my standards.

I have a problem with you arguing that James Bond had any obligation to portray anything a certain way other than in an escapist way since it is escapism. Then again, it is escapism because it portrays things that way. If someone sets out to make a movie, they can make it any way they want. That's freedom.

If you just have an issue with the movie being morally bad, we can mostly agree.



You're the one who called it, "dump escapism."

You are answering to points I never made, even some that I expressly said that I do not support. You are expanding on a notion that all escapist movies are bad, whilst I made the opposite point earlier. You are talking about what is art and seem to be blurting out whatever comes to your head, whether it is relevant with the discussion or not. I am not talking about escapism, but glorifying evil to the point where you claim a man who rapes/forces himself on women and uses them as tools (which according to your own morals is wrong) is a hero. And yet, I seem to be the one conflating film and reality as per some of the points heard earlier. At least I am consistent; I believe rape to be wrong, thus when it takes place either in real life or in cinema, I think the person committing it is in the wrong. You believe rape is wrong, but when it happens on screen with the right music and by a person you've been made to believe is a good guy, then you go to great lengths to say that it's not what it looks like. From saying, she agreed to it in the end, to making a great impression of an ostrich by burying your head in the sand and claiming that since you didn't see penetration nothing happened. Even though you know Bond's modus operandi and the source material confirms it. Even though the author finds homosexuality a 'psycho-pathological malady' and feels all she needs to get over it is the right man to stick it to her. Even though he named the woman Pussy Galore. Go ahead and keep ignoring all that, claim all of this is normal and adhering to reality as we know it if you wish. Praise the everlasting Bond who can turn a woman straight with a touch of his magical penis and turn him into a paragon of masculinity as many generations have done. All of that because you have been taught to follow whatever information is given to you instead of developing your own critical thinking. They say Bond is good so can he be bad, right? But other than that, you are not influenced by film or other media. You are your own man, forming your own unbiased opinion. How could they be biased anyway, since you must be a fool to be influenced by the narratives you receive?

Playing devil's advocate to salvage the reputation of a fictional character by stating plausible deniability. If you want to continue this, lets try to find some common ground instead of building an ever-expanding series of arguments.

If after all that I have posed here, you are still willing to claim that this was not rape and that the motives of the creators were not anachronistic misconceptions of basic human conditions, then I think we should leave it at that.

No, you do not understand the difference. Depicting has nothing to do with occurrence. The scene has to show the rape in order for it to be depicted.

He actually said penetration is not a requirement for rape. Someone explain to Jabs what sex is. He won't listen to me.

An interesting note, Ostriches don't actually bury their head in the sand when facing danger. That's a common misconception.