I Can't Think of a Clever Title: Skyfall

When I first saw Skyfall it was for the midnight premiere and my now ex-boyfriend took me to go see it because he knew how much I loved the franchise. I found myself completely in love with the movie, he, not so much. A lot of the allusions to the previous films went over his head because he had only seen all of Daniel's films. I had to explain to him the importance of having a new Money Penny, who is black (So Radical!). And I fought with him for being upset about how M was killed off and replaced by Lord Freaking Voldemort. He didn't quite understand why I was saddened by the fact that M was no longer portrayed by a female actress.

As most of you know, I am fascinated by the gadget side to the Bond films. I love the new Q. The actor happens to be my best friend's favorite actor, or at least one of them. He brings a fresh new take to Q Branch and definitely comments on how technology is a younger person's world. "He still has spots," Bond quips about Q's youth.  Q has more involvement as well. He traces the threats via spyware and actually helps Bond find Silva while running through the London Underground. Q's job beforehand was always: here's the gizmos, please return them.

Speaking of the scene in the London Underground, my mother always says how she wants to be an extra and just have Craig touch her shoulder like he does that one guy as he looks for Silva.

Skyfall is probably my favorite Bond film in the franchise. After I walked out of the theater I could not stop saying how good it was. It just seems like the franchise is now taking a new turn with Bond, portraying him as more of a man, who is fighting the aging clock to save the world from very realistic threats. We face terrorism and bomb threats all the time in this century. It's a very real fear.    

"Bond Girl" Role Takes a Turn?

        First off, I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed Skyfall. However, there was one element (or lack thereof) that I can't stop wondering about: where was the quintessential "Bond girl?" I mean, of course Sévérine was a plot-driver, but her role is utterly unnecessary compared to the camera time that Vesper got in Casino Royale or that of Natalia in Goldeneye. Her death is even kind of underwhelming. Although that sounds harsh, I think that her insignificance (Bond doesn't weep over her the way he did over Vesper) ultimately helps to play-up M's significance. That is, we finally see how important M is in Bond's life.
        The producers obviously made a choice to highlight Bond's orphan status, and I believe that was a poignant decision. Even in the beginning of the film--amidst the arguing and lying--we see the familial relationship between Bond and M. Furthermore, I'm fairly certain that Bond, Eve, and some of the other characters call M "Mum" when they address her, which works to ingrain M's motherly status in the minds of viewers. Keeping that in mind, M's death becomes extremely emotional, especially because it takes place at Bond's childhood home. When that house goes up in flames and M dies, it's as if Bond is truly stripped of all of his family.
       

Skyfall

Okay, so I could (and was) totally comparing this movie to Casino Royale, which is probably why I wasn't crazy about it. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, Casino Royale just did it for me. The beginning of the movie I thought was a little slow, and since I already knew Bond didn't really die, I was just anticipating this 2 1/2 movie getting to the point where Bond was back in action. My boyfriend says that even if I didn't know he was still alive, its hard to believe that he is actually dead. But I would have to disagree; they had his obituary up! And honestly, I thought the whole getting shot off the train thing was annoying. I mean, in action movies like that, the girl would HAVE to hit the bad guy, its what we expect!
I was a fan of the ending of the movie though. Bond was really shining with his sensitive side when he was all about saving M. Yeah that's his boss, but he was really out for her best interest, and she dies in his arms!!!!
So, James Bond looks pretty old with a beard. Its kind of amazing how young he appears when it's shaved! I think what gets me about the newer Bond films, is how less "Bondish" they are. we don't get as much of the theme song and its just more of an action film. Moneypenny was definitely not as great in Skyfall as she is in the older films. Bond just has such a more mysterious relationship with her in the older films, and this relationship was just kind of weird, in addition to the fact that she claims herself Moneypenny at the end of the movie.
With all the harping on Bond about his physical ability, the movie also gets a little slow. I mean, he was shot! And then fell off a very tall bridge into water, where he then went over a waterfall! What do you expect?! He is ragged on about his injuries and he also doesn't have a solid lady around. We do get our sex scene in the beginning, but then Moneypenny just gets close and shaves him!
Skyfall wasn't bad, it just wasn't my fav!

skyfalling all the films together

I cannot believe how much I enjoyed watching this Bond film! I’m not sure if it was the fact that the film was made in 2012 that caused for me to find the graphics to be really up to par, bright and rather explosive. The film right off the bat displays Bond listening to the authority of M despite the fact that she is a woman, his actions being to leave the shot man when she tells him to and this sets off the relationship between the two. Despite already having the knowledge that Bond “dies” in this film I was still surprised when it took place, I literally gasped out loud (secretly glad no one was home to hear me I sounded like an idiot). This film greatly depicts just how far Bond is willing to go to keep M alive and safe, in addition to just how much M believes in Bond and is willing to keep him in the field. Not only does this film touch on different aspects of other films it allowed for me to see what is that truly allowed for me to encompass the true feeling of a Bond field. Including: the super long chase scene, the constant hinting to Bond’s aging, Bond ordering a shaken instead of stirred drink (despite the fact that he has been drinking Heineken's).

I believe this film allowed for me to see a rather focused Bond film and for me that was depicted through the overall relationship between Bond and M and their need to display to viewers that despite a person’s sex working together is going to ultimately allow for people to come out ahead.

Favorite Quotes:

“…just changing carriages”-Bond

“…go to hell with dignity—I leave when the jobs done” –M

“We are both played out.” –Bond to M

“That was a waste of scotch.” –Bond

Lastly, during the second fight scene between Bond and Silva, their bodies against the jelly fish background really reminded me of the black shadows in the Bond opening credits of past films. 

Skyfall: Bond's run and the District line

We've come a long way in the Bond franchise from the days of naked women swinging on gun barrels. I know we watched the opening credits sequence for Skyfall in class on the first day, but that doesn't mean I don't love it just as much this time around as I did over a month ago. Maybe I'm just a sucker for computer graphics sequences, but I found that I wanted to look away from the screen but couldn't. There are so many allusions to death and specifically Bond dying that I wanted to waive my white handkerchief in the air and scream, "Stop shooting Bond! He's too attractive to die!" Speaking of computer images, I found this film to be a lot more artsy than some of the other ones we've seen, like GoldenEye. There are a few scenes where Bond is strategically silhouetted when either running or fighting. One is when he's fighting Patrice as the reflections from various Chinese advertisements are projected across the walls. Another is when Bond is running to the church to save M and Kincade from Silva. He's in silhouette yet again and his body is often only shown in parts, like his feet or head, and is juxtaposed with the dark, barren landscape ahead of him or the burning house behind him. I liked that even though Silva's island is in China, it looked like it could be located anywhere. There was nothing written on any of the walls divulging which language the people who once lived there spoke, so who's to say it wasn't actually in Europe or South America? It reminded me a lot of photos that were taken after WWII when Europe was attempting to rebuild or of the abandoned Chernobyl site.

I felt a little sorry for Bond in the beginning half of the movie when he was constantly shown as being old or told he was too old to adequately perform his duties as a 00 agent. I mean, he's practically gasping for breath after swimming a few laps in the pool in his hotel in Shanghai. Granted, I look like that after climbing just one set of stairs in Mortimer, but I'm not a secret agent. This is also super nit-picky, but I had a little trouble not laughing whenever he ran. I could be the only one who feels this way, but he just looks super awkward and robot-like when he runs. It's totally not natural.

I was a little taken abac that there wasn't an outright Bond girl. There's Moneypenny (who totally blew my mind at the end when her name was revealed) and Severine (who was only onscreen for two seconds before she was outed as an unwilling prostitute to Silva), but neither are with Bond for the entirety of the film. Speaking of Severine, how did she not get the crap scared out of her when Bond snuck up behind her in the shower. I wouldn't complain if Bond wanted to jump in the shower with me, but if he showed up behind me without any warning or without making a sound, I would probably try to assault him with my shampoo. Speaking of silent ninja-like people, how did absolutely no one hear Silva escape and kill one of his guards? There were people in the next room just chillin and hanging out and looked at Bond like he was a crazy person when he did his freakish running style through their office. I would think at least one person in the entire MI6 headquarters would think, "Hmmm maybe I should check on the super dangerous prisoner in the next room since there's some flashing red lights and sirens going off above my head."

One other thing that surprised me was the lack of explosions! I thought for a brief time that gunfire would be the new event that would happen every five seconds to remind viewers just how masculine the movie really is. Then I got to the end. Looks like Silva didn't get the memo the director wanted to take the explosions down a notch. When he busted that hole in the tube tunnel and the District line train fell through and just kept right on going through all the walls, I just shook my head. Sure, the District line is awful in and of itself and I would avoid it at all costs last semester, but this takes major delays to a whole new level.

casino royale

After finishing this Bond film I would certainly have to say that the casting of Daniel Craig truly brings a new vibe to the Bond franchise. Comparing him to Connery, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan I certainly can see a freshness brought to light. Craig has a rigid jawbone and those piercing baby blues that help captive viewers-- or at least myself. The film in relation to the novel, well of course even though I enjoyed the action within the film I have to favor the extreme detail that the novel provides.

With this film being produced in 2006 I can definitely say the Bond films have come along way! I think that not only was the film more modern and with "my time" it also allowed for me to follow the plot line much easier that the past films we watched which seemed to be all over the place. I look forward to watching Skyfall and tying all the films together.

Casino Royale--What's 'Good' & What's Evil?

             As I was watching Casino Royale, I noticed myself (of course) comparing the movie to the book. However,  I was surprised to see the film's representation of Le Chiffre. Based on our discussion of 'typical' Bond villains, I was expecting to see the sweaty, gross, and--as I believe Fleming put it--the "globular" Le Chiffre. Even though the actor did have the expected non-normative feature that we expect of any Bond villain (his extremely foggy eye--a cataract?), I must admit that I was a bit disappointed in his appearance. I was expecting to be disgusted! Yet, I was distracted from Le Chiffre's weeping and even from his eye by his perfectly coiffed hair and impeccable suits.
            This made me think of how good and evil are presented to us as viewers. When we're little, we often see extreme versions of physical portrayals of character traits in order to help us determine the difference between good and evil. For instance, we knew the Wicked Witch of the West was 'bad' because she was green, had warts on her nose, a scratchy voice, and was generally ugly. Of course, Glinda the good witch only shined with goodness in comparison--with a little help from her pristine pink ball gown.
            I know Bond films are far from children's films, but I can't help but wonder about the filmmakers' decisions to depict the villains with a bit of glamour. Although I've only read one of Fleming's novels, I feel like he wrote Le Chiffre--and maybe all of his villains--with a clearer idea of raw ugliness that was meant to translate into pure evil. I think the preservation of some of the actors' beauty is an interesting topic to think about, and I believe it can 'mess with' how we interpret certain situations in the films.

Michelle Sloey

3/23/14

Dr. Karl

Article Synopsis
                                                                 Strong Females Prevail

The article I read for this week was "Shaken and Stirred: A content Analysis of Women’s Portrayals in James Bond Films" by Kimberly A. Neuendorff et al. and this article greatly encompassed the use of women and how these women’s characteristics attributed to the way women related to beauty. The article discusses the "Bond Girl" throughout and relates her to the ever so smooth and violent Bonds of the Bond films. While the article still does an insufficient job of persuading me to believe the authors complete argument there were still aspects of the article that stood out to me especially while watching the film Goldeneye, which portrayed Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. I personally saw this film as a step in the right direction for the woman displayed within the Bond films, and I found it rather suitable to cast "M" as a female. Although, despite my own opinion of the article, it does straightforwardly address the concept that the authors of the article focused to shed light on - that Bond was a "…sexual predator and gentleman" (748), and with his character noted in this light casts the need to have only"…heavily attractive female counterparts to his character" (747 ). As the article kept on the use of the ‘Bond Girls’ throughout the different films displayed the knowledge for me to be able to gather the concept that viewers could ultimately observe the interactions between Bond and these different female characters in a positive manner and then want to act in such a mirroring way. The article recounts the idea that when juxtaposed against a particular theory ‘Social Cognitive Theory’ that viewers of the Bond franchise are going to subconsiously absorb the idea that these woman are what viewers need and should be aiming to be like, ...suggests that individuals will observe, imitate, and learn from others, including fictional others, in a way yo provide a monitoring system for their own behaviors, attitudes, and values" (748 ). For me as a viewer and a reader of this article although I could see that the "Bond Girls" are obviously showing more skin off then covering up I personally do not believe that too many individuals are going to view the Bond series and feel as if they should go out and dress and walk in the footsteps of these woman. The article does place the concept that the "Bond Girls" within the films are recieving more "masculine and powerful" roles and this does help with off setting what viewers are going to take away when seeing these woman and their lack of "masculine and powerful" contributions due to their dress and appearance. Within the film "Goldeneye" the female character that stood out the most to me was that of "M" and I found that having Bond's boss potrayed by a female really was used to open the eyes of the viewers and could be used as a tool to inform individuals that woman can do any job that men do. I really found the dialogue between the two characters 'M' and Bond within this film as a rather pivotal point within the Bond franchise for "Bond girls" or females within the series themselves. One of the converations amongst the two characters M and Bond allude to the point that 'M' is displaying authority over Bond and despite her being a woman she does not buckle when it comes to addressing her point, "Not quite, 007. If you think I don't have the balls to send a man out to die, your instincts are dead wrong. I've no compunction about sending you to your death. But I won't do it on a whim. Even with your cavalier attitude towards life". I found this to be such a powerful statement within the Bond films and it needed to be made by a woman, when she was able to address him by saving "If you think I don't have the balls..." that really allows for female viewers to gather that woman despite their sex should be able to hold authority over their male coutnerparts. M's way of communication within her dialogue with Bond would allow for viewers to demonstrate that woman were capable of attaining infomation like men and that they were able to excute their knowledge in a prestine manner and therefore able to function when running their own business. Although this article greatly addresses the lack of intelligent and "useful" female counterparts to the Bond character I do believe that the article fell short with completely addressing the significant changes the Bond franchise has made thus far within the film Goldeneye with displaying strong independent female roles.

Work Cited
Neuendorf, Kimberly, et al. "Shaken And Stirred: A Content Analysis Of Women’S Portrayals In James Bond Films." Sex Roles 62.11/12 (2010): 747-761. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.



　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

finallllllllllly

Let me just start his post off by saying finallllllllly!! Pierce Brosnan where have you been all semester?! Much like another post I read earlier I used to play the Goldeneye video game, I will never forget how cool I had thought I was being 007 while playing my older brother's Bond game for the N64! Anyways, I am not sure if it is just that I grew up with the knowledge that Brosnan himself was James Bond, or what it could be because when watching this film I knew he was the Bond for me. Brosnan just has a look to him that screams I am James Bond and I just melted when watching him, I did not even mind the corny actions he made while wanting to make out and thrusting the girl against the wall. This is the Bond I know and have always envisioned and I wish we got to see more of Brosnan! However, this film definitely correlated the concept of good vs evil with the connection Bond had with 006, I felt that I was actually able to follow the plot and actually feel emotions from what was taking place. I am not sure if maybe with the time the film was shot that producers had better equipment to work with or what because nothing drew me away from understanding the plot line, where in other films it had at times been confusing to follow the whole movie through.

As for M, I really enjoyed that she was a SHE! Not only was the concept of having a woman in this upper position it was nice to know that he was actually listening to her. I did fact have to "LOL" when she calls him a sexist misogynist dinosaur, however I had to re-watch this scene to listen to the exact conversation between the two and it made me upset with Bond’s character for he addresses the fact that he does not believe that M can do her job because she is a woman, I know he states that at first he did not trust her and that his thoughts are easing into this concept of her on power, but it just upsets me that STILL there is a problem with men in Bond films not believing in the right to female power. Very lame Brosnan. Anyways her response is golden and I believe that Judi Dench truly nailed the authoritative role of M.

Overall I think the Bond films are continuing to get better and better, their plot lines seem to flow more consistently.

Casino Royale: Heightened emotions and vulnerability

I knew it was only a matter of time before the dashing Daniel Craig was set to take on the James Bond role in class. Like some have already mentioned, he’s pretty different physically from the other Bonds we’ve encountered. However, his build and strength reminds me a lot of Sean Connery and that might be why I find myself so attracted it him. It could also be that he possesses a quality we haven’t seen in the other Bond incarnations: he genuinely learns to care for and love Vesper.

The scene when he’s just walked in on Vesper having a complete emotional breakdown while sitting fully-clothed in the shower just about broke my heart. His emotional compass isn’t quite what we’ve seen before. It doesn’t take having sex with a woman for him to want to spend more time or become emotionally attached to her. Here, Bond puts whatever he’s thinking or feeling aside to comfort Vesper and ensure she’s cared for. I did wonder what Vesper’s actual role was, though. In the novel she’s an actual agent, but she sort of just shows up on Mathis’ arm without an introduction in the movie version. If she’s supposed to be an agent, all I can say is she’s a crappy one. I would think that someone who’s experienced wouldn’t break down at the thought of Bond killing two other men mostly out of self defense.

Maybe it’s because we’re seeing the beginning of Bond’s career as a 00 agent that I’m picking up on these huge emotional differences in the actors’ portrayals. I mean, Bond handed in his resignation notice to M and was ready to leave the service and start a life with Vesper. Granted, he’s willing to do this in the book too, but he doesn’t actually go through with it. Casino Royale also points out that Bond isn’t invincible. He’s constantly battered and bruised and scratches line his face. At one point, he literally dies from being poisoned and is only saved at the last minute by Vesper. After watching several of these films already, I’d forgotten exactly what Bond was: a human. He makes mistakes by trusting and loving the wrong people and is susceptible to injury and death just like the rest of us.

GoldenEye: Short skirts and women in power

I’m going to have to agree with Lindsay about Brosnan’s sex appeal. I’m not sure what it is, but he’s got some sort of spark that screams, “I’m James Bond and I’m going to save the day.” Sexiness aside, there’s just some things within the Bond franchise that don’t get better with time. Like, for example, the fact that Bond seems to have a kink for rough, forceful make out sessions. While he didn’t throw Natalya into a haystack like Moore or literally rip her clothes off and throw her onto the bed like Dalton, Brosnan didn’t have a problem pulling her close and promptly shoving his tongue down her throat without warning. Of course, Natalya fought back at first, but who can resist Bond’s forceful charm for an extended period of time?

What struck me as odd is that Natalya, aside from managing to keep all of her clothing relatively clean no matter how many explosions she survived, was wearing a skirt. In Russia. In the middle of winter. Really? I don’t care if she had tights on underneath; if Boris had to wear a parka just to leave the original facility, how did Natalya not automatically freeze to death when she left in her skirt and sweater? Throughout the film, various characters complained about how cold it is in Russia and how unnaturally long the winter lasts. Apparently she didn’t get the memo and thought skirt season was a go.

I absolutely loved the fact that not only was M a woman, but she was a woman who wasn’t afraid to speak her mind and tell Bond what she really thought of him. When she called him a “misogynistic dinosaur,” I just about died of joy. For once a woman wasn’t seduced by the elusive Bond and managed to get into a position of power in her own right.

I also want to mention at the very end when Bond and Alec are dueling at the top of the satellite thing and Bond kicks Alec off the platform. He could have let him fall to his death and that would’ve been the end of it. However, Bond makes a point to reach down, at first apparently to save Alec like all good guys seem to want to do. Instead, he deliberately lets him go with Alec knowing full well it was Bond who was killing him out of revenge. Moore would never do something like that and I’m not sure Connery would either. It’s cruel, calculated and deliberate, characteristics we usually see from the villains.

Casino Royale and the New Bond

When I was looking for an article for my synopsis this week, I found a lot of magazine and newspaper articles written around the time that "Casino Royale" was released. Because the Daniel Craig movies have been so successful, I had forgotten that initially his casting and a few other factors had been criticized by the public. I can remember having a conversation with a friend before I watched the movie about how physically different Craig was from Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan, who was originally offered the role in the movie. Even after "Casino Royale", the movies have been criticized for apparently breaking with the traditional Bond mold, the most famous example probably being the Heineken branding placement from "Quantum of Solace."
From watching the movies in this course, we know that this isn't the first time these traditional breaks have happened: the Aston Martin has been switched out for a BMW, the multiple Bond girls have been traded out for a single heroine, and unlike Honey Rider, women are sometimes allowed to wear pants. But there is obviously a change in the Craig Bond movies: the darker, moodier, more cynical character, the adapted plot from the first Fleming novel. There are obvious similarities, present from the original story and not: the early scene in Madagascar, the gambling (poker, not baccarat), Bond's physicality, the abuse to Bond's penis, etc. And yet the biggest change is something I found in the article I'm going to cover for my synopsis: the portrayal of Bond as a mixture of common tropes from earlier Bond movies. The article argues, reasonably I believe, that Vesper isn't a true Bond girl; instead, she's a sort of compound Bond heroine. The Bond girl role is instead filled by James Bond himself due to the way his body is displayed for the viewer's gaze. It's almost a return to the homo-eroticism of the Connery movies, but it isn't offset by a girl in a bikini (Vesper Lynd is usually covered up, even on the beach).
I've always really liked this movie, but it's interesting watching it after reading Ian Fleming's novel. While I do think that the movie actually might be more true to the cultural perception than the book, I was disappointed in Vesper's film character after reading the book. I always viewed Vesper in the movie as a departure from the Bond girls I watched when I was growing up, and I do believe that she isn't part of that mold. And her character is much more fleshed out than an object trying to be a woman, as she is in the book. But I'm realizing that she doesn't actually do much and Bond does actually relegate her to a simple pretty distraction at one point. But what can you do? It is a Bond film, after all.

Thank God Bond Knows How to Drive a Tank!

I think I saw on an interview on Ellen, that one time Pierce Brosnan was flying somewhere and the pilot was kind enough to bring him into the cockpit. The pilot then asked if Brosnan wanted to try his hand at flying it, to which he replied yes thinking that there was an auto-pilot or something on. Apparently, the pilot thought that since Bond could fly planes, Brosnan automatically could too. So for a brief 45 minutes (or so), a normal man who never had a flying lesson was flying a passenger plane. You can watch the interview here. Now my thoughts drift and wonder if Brosnan can actually drive a tank through the city streets in Russia. Is there anything Bond can't do?

That scene was pretty corny. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I especially liked the winged horse statue that landed (and didn't even dent the tank) and rode triumphantly through the streets. Who leaves tanks just unlocked and poorly guarded? Apparently the Russians. It was blatant and in your face: Bond is riding the winged Pegasus in victory like Bellerophon attempting to defeat the chimera. The scene is just dripping with patriotism. Nothing could stop the determination of Bond behind a large tank as he crushed cars and smashed the walls of buildings. He was going to save Natalya and the audience knew it. 

As I mentioned in class, I love the Q Branch aspect to the Bond franchise. The fact that Alec and Boris were brought down by a simple pen is truly funny. "The writing is on the wall," and "The pen is mightier than the sword," Bond quips after Q tests the device. In this case, yes it was. My only qualm is that the pen exploding was purely accidentally. Boris had to mistakenly pick up the pen, and then have the urge to click it multiple times in order to set it off. This scene is rooted in luck. As the movie opens, Alec tells Bond that mission are rooted in two things: luck and fate. And this scene was a mixture of both. In Skyfall (Spoiler) the new Q makes a snarky comment on the lack of gizmos and comments on what was Bond expecting, "An exploding pen?" (End Spoiler)  

Remember how we talked in class about Goldfinger's kink of painting his lovers gold? Well, Onatopp takes her kink to a whole new level. She literally gets off by torturing her victims. In the spa scene where her and Bond are fighting, it seems like she almost climaxes. Everything about her fighting is very similar to having sex. For goodness sakes, she squeezes men between her thighs in a position similar to the Girl on Top Cosmo recommends ha ha. Kudos to her Thigh Master!

I also enjoyed the star studded cast: we got Ned Stark, and Hagrid and Nightcrawler. Oh my! 

Goldeneye and Nostalgia

I really enjoyed watching this movie because I realized during the opening scenes that this was probably one of the first Bond movies I ever saw; I'm fairly certain I remember watching this movie in my dad's living room, maybe seven years old, watching 007 miraculously free-fall into the pilot-less plane and feeling absolutely entranced. That was the beginning of my James Bond-filled childhood, and to this day, I still feel like I've got one foot firmly in the Pierce Brosnan-Bond camp.
This "camp", however, really made rewatching "Goldeneye" interesting for me:  I've been thinking lately about how little my and (as far as I can tell) society's conception of James Bond the spy matches up to the actual character, as depicted in the books and films. For example, I've always made jokes about how it was probably inappropriate for me to grow up watching these movies, but it hasn't been until we've reviewed them for class that I've realized just how sexist, racist, and imperialist they are. Accordingly, my view of the iconic 007 that I walked into this class with is so different from what I'm seeing: the 007 I grew up with was a standard brave, virtuous hero who always got the girl because that was how things worked. Now that I'm older, James Bond in his many incarnations seems more vindictive, inappropriately breezy, and sometimes even cruel. Likewise, when I talk about these movies with people outside of class, they describe James Bond as the epitome of sexy and cool, the infallible and expert spy with the famous martini request. And yet the movies actually show Roger Moore directing sexual innuendo at much younger women, or James Bond being constantly beaten up, stymied, and somehow being recognized everywhere as an MI6 agent, as that isn't/shouldn't be a secret. Blame it on pop culture, branding, or what have you, I swear the impression doesn't wholly match up the to the product, at least critically.
Still, now that I've expressed this naive point, I think that Pierce Brosnan-the Bond I remember watching most clearly-does fit my impression of Bond the most out of the movies we watched so far. But even though the Brosnan movies might be the least critically objectionable Bond movies, there are still issues: Xenia Onatopp, for example, the effective female assassin, is clearly and obviously sexually aroused by killing, because how else do you depict women besides reducing them to their sexuality? Likewise, in the car race scene in the beginning, Moneypenny tells Bond that she knows he's only driving so recklessly because "you are just trying to show off the size of your...your...ego." Bond brushes this off and later stops the car to joke that he has no problem with "female authority". Scenes like this read like shaking off the past, but also like a brush off of the psychoanalysis that is applied to the Bond films. But just because Bond only sleeps with one woman and cracks a joke about the critical lens doesn't mean the criticism isn't legitimate and that the problems have disappeared.

Casino Royale

I loved this Bond film! Obviously because it was more modernized, that helped, but Daniel Craig is also a great Bond. I do have to admit, I did see some older looking features in his face and his hair isn't dark as we described the usual Bond, but he plays a damn good Bond.
The biggest thing I noticed about this Bond film was that it wasn't as "Bond" like as the others. We have Bond and he's 007, but its more of a film based on Bonds love for one woman and his mission against Le Chiffre. He makes out with that guys wife in the beginning, but then its all about Vesper. The part when he tried to save her broke my heart, so not like Bond!!!! The other thing I liked about this film was the fact that it was a starting over to the Bond films. My boyfriend let me know that it is supposed to be a fresh start for Bond, since he just became 007 in the beginning of the film. Starting from the beginning helps us see where Bond comes from and possibily why he does what he does.
I also obviously compared the novel to the film, which had alot of differences. The kidnapping scene when Vesper gets taken seems way shorter in the film. She also isn't placed in the middle of the road in the novel, where Bond flips his car trying to avoid her. The torture scene was pretty intense, but I'm glad it was short lived in the film. I thought I was reading about the torture of Bond's poor penis forever when I was reading the book!
Also, the whole ending was completely different. I loved the films version better, which I'm pretty sure they had to do. If they would have had the same ending as the book, it wouldn't have been a good ending for the film, but it was for the book. If that makes sense. Because the film was so action filled, the dramatic ending where Bond tries to save Vesper brings it altogether. If she had just been found dead in her room like in the book, it would have been a boring ending to a great film.
P.S- Bond resigning in the film....not cool.
I also really enjoyed Le Chiffre's character. It was the perfect actor for it, and the blood tears were great. They really played up how he owed those guys money, and his actions at the playing table were great. And I have to admit, the playing pieces looked so much fun! I really felt the need to just go buy some and play around with them. =) (but I refrained)
Another difference I noticed was the part when Le Chiffre tries to get rid of Bond the second time around on the table because he can't lose. Where I was expecting Le Chiffre's two men to come behind Bond, I see Le Chiffre's girlfriend (who was going to get her arm chopped off not even an hour before to no interest of Le Chiffres) put the poison in his drink. This really brought in great use of the gadgets and his car, since his life was saved through this tiny machine.
Overall, Casino Royale was a great Bond film. I'm excited to see Daniel Craig in Skyfall!

GOLDENEYE!!!

This is so my type of Bond! Holy sexy! I don't know if it's because when I used to play the video game when I was younger this is the James Bond I was exposed to or just because Pierce Brosnan is just one hunk of a man, but he is the perfect Bond. He's got the dark features, the nice body, the perfect accent, and he's just a great James Bond. Now granite this movie is a little less aged than what we have watched before, I still think Brosnan nails it. Though I have to say, we are still exposed to some corny moments in Goldeneye. Like When Bond is on the motorcycle chasing after the plane and parachutes off the mountain and somehow manages to float right next to the plane door, get in safely, and still have time to get the plane above the mountains so it doesn't crash? Come on. Buts its a Bond film, so it can get away with it.
Now the girl that kills with her thighs, Xenia.....really!?!? That was just weird. At first I had forgotten that professor Karl mentioned this chick with the killer thighs, but then when shes on the boat with the man in the beginning, I knew she wasn't getting pleasure sexually, but getting pleasure from squeezing a man to death with her thighs. This chick is just a wild character and got on my nerves. There were just too many cases where sexual sounds were coming out of her mouth, and is so wild and rough! I was glad to see her go when she got "squeezed" between the tree branches. =)
Overall, I liked the mission in this film. Besides Octopussy, I have a hard time following what the problem is in the movies because its not usually something concrete, like the egg in Octopussy. However, in this film I got the whole Goldeneye thing, and what exactly it did. I also liked that besides the one random lady in the car in the beginning, Bond is really just with Natalya. I enjoy when Bond interacts with one woman the whole movie, and actually completes a mission with her by his side.
Oh, and this Bond film DID NOT end with Bond seducing a woman! Though him and Natalya did try in the field, until they were surprisingly surrounded by many soldiers, and I thought that was pretty funny.

Bored of Dalton

I could not help but to be upset with the way the Bond men seem to be decreasing in their “sex appeal”, for me Moore and Dalton are just making the mark for me. After our discussion last class with Dr. S I would have to say that I am certainly more open to seeing the different roles both of these men are bringing to their concept of “Bond”, and displaying their own depiction of what it entails to be “Bond”. However I believe that while Connery sets the overall “Bond” standard, both Moore and Dalton seem to run the opposite way when it comes to furthering their plots. Within The Living Daylights, Timothy Dalton’s character I believe shocked all of us girls watching for he only has a relationship with one female, I believe that this single relationship opens the viewer’s thinking and perception of Bond for he is showing that he can maintain a “connection” with one female throughout the duration of the film. I believe that this notion of only being with one woman opened up the movie to a different lens to be viewed from, for example I was able to follow this movie more as a love story than that of a normal Bond action thriller. The plot and location choices within this Bond were the most over the top of any of the films we watched thus far this semester. The fact that the directors want to cram such vivid demographics to address and make a connection with all of its viewers took away from the narrative and argument of the movie. Basically this was certainly the most “confusing” Bond film that I have watched and I hope that with seeing now three Bond’s that the next Bond will be able to further my interpretation of what makes Bond “Bond”. 

The Living Daylights

             As I was watching The Living Daylights, all I could think about was our conversation about the changing image of masculinity. While I think Timothy Dalton plays a seemingly serious Bond (he's not winking at us about jokes, like Rodger Moore did), he also seems to be the kind of man that women actually want to be with instead of forced to be with. That is, he's not nearly as pompous as Moore nor as aggressive and egotistical as Connery; to me, he's likable.
             Even though the plot is quite difficult to follow--one minute they're in Afghanistan, the next they're in Russia (I think)--I feel that Dalton's likability makes up for the confusing plot and lack of explanation. I feel almost embarrassed to say this, but I found myself rooting for the love story between Bond and Kara more than I was rooting for Bond to save the world--but I think that's the point. With this new idea of masculinity comes new purposes for the Bond films. Instead of concentrating solely on saving the world with a relationship as a sub-story, The Living Daylights makes Bond's and Kara's relationship a central point that not only drives the plot, but exposes a soft and kind side to Bond.
              However, I'm curious to learn how the next film begins. It seems wrong to present viewers with a Bond who actually stays with one woman for the duration of an entire film only to begin a next film with an entirely different string of women. Yet, I know that it is part of the Bond formula to present a new damsel in distress, and I know that indeed, there will be other women to save.

So, Where Are the Kara Milovy Spin-Off Movies?

I thought that "The Living Daylights" was interesting because, like "Octopussy", it exemplified a number of features of changing masculinity mentioned in Jefford's article, "The Big Switch." "The Living Daylights" is another late 80s film, and Dalton's Bond is strikingly different from the spy we've come to expect: while he's called in to perform his typical feats of espionage, we see that he is more likely to follow his gut and abide by his principles and ideas rather than follow orders. This fits with Jefford's explanation of the reformed male action figure; less stereotypically masculine, less physical, depicting a manliness more defined by one's choices than one's ability to run through a wall. But this new and improved Bond model means that when problematic features common to the James Bond films appear, they seem insidious: forcibly removing Puskin's girlfriend's clothes to distract the guard, the suddenly stereotypical portrayal of Afghanistan, etc. And yet, in spite of it, I'm tempted to call this film the least misogynistic so far because of the character of Kara Milovy.

Obviously, the film seems strange to us because, for once, Bond is involved with only one woman. Once again returning to the feminist timeline, 1987 was only about five years away from the rise of Third Wave feminism, which was less about burning bras and protesting beauty pageants and more about trying to incorporate varying perspectives of women into the philosophy. A "have it your way" type of feminism, if you'll forgive my Burger King reference. Women are part of the workforce, the home, and most assuredly the movie's audience: because of this, just as Moore and Dalton's Bonds had to change to fit altered societal standards, they needed women who could balance out this new power structure. I don't think the movies could have worked without Octopussy and Kara. But with the need to create more developed heroines, I feel like something interesting happened: I became more interested in Kara as an action hero than Bond. Sure, Kara starts out naively enough (once again, women can't use guns, guys), and of course she has her slip ups, which are supposed to reinforce Bond's control of the situation, but she miraculously changes from this innocent, stubborn girl to this women who drugs Bond, leads a hoard of Afghan rebels into combat, drives a truck onto a plane, and ends up playing her Stradivarius-made cello in concerts around Europe. I'm much more interested in her journey than Bond's, as he disregards orders and seems to survive on luck alone, but without Connery's charisma.  I'm confused about a number of things in this movie: how they ended up in Afghanistan, whether "ghetto blaster" was an acceptable term in the 80s, whether the bullet hole will increase or decrease the Stradivarius's worth, but I'm sure of one thing: I'd rather watch Kara Milovy battling KGB agents with 2 hours to spare before preforming a notoriously difficult Beethoven than listen to Dalton claim he didn't shoot the beautiful girl because of "his gut." Is it really too late for a spin-off?

Globetrotting with a side of explosions

I felt sort of sorry for The Living Daylights. It’s pretty clear the movie was trying its hardest to hold my attention, but between all the defections, side-switching, faked assassinations and explosions, there was no way I stood a chance at following the plot. By the end of the movie, it seemed like every little action would set off an explosion. I have a feeling the producers and director had the idea that real men like violence and explosions, which is too bad for people like me who only like a healthy dose of explosions now and again.

I was also pretty confused at the entire purpose of why Bond and his lady friend were in Afghanistan to begin with. I understand they were on a Russian base and one of the countless and confusing Russian men was exploiting the profits from the opium trade, but it could have taken place in Russia or Austria. I didn’t think there was a need to go globetrotting for the sake of just traveling. It’s almost like Bond was trying to show how savvy he was no matter which country he’s in.

While I actually admired the fact that Bond was able to stick with one woman for the entire film (shocker, I know), she was still lacking just a bit in the intelligence department. When she was driving the airplane at the end when Bond went to go disarm one of the bombs in the back but ended up locked in a battle with Necros, the one explicit instruction Bond gave her was to steer the plane and not touch anything. What was the first thing she did when she was alone? Start pushing levers and buttons. Even after everything is said and done, she almost crashes the plane into some rather visible mountains. Instead of doing what a normal person would do, she screams and covers her eyes. Last time I checked, that wasn’t the correct way to drive an airplane.

This Movie Scared the Living Daylights Out of Me

For starters, let me say how thankful I am for the fact that I did not grow up in the 80's. The booming and very cheesy 80's music that sprung up randomly is what really got me. How am I supposed to take Bond seriously if that's part of the soundtrack?
Dalton's Bond is very different that both Connery and Moore for obvious reasons. Perhaps the world needed a Bond that went off of his gut instincts and not one that blindly follows orders. However, I felt myself very annoyed at Dalton. He seemed to portray Bond with a rough and yet very unnecessary grittiness. His answers were clipped and he lacks the clever wit of the two previous Bonds. Yes, there were a few funny moments, like when Q told Bond that he could activate his keychain bomb to go off by using a very unique whistle. A cat call. And Bond almost proceeded to do such to really push Q's buttons.
I found myself distracted for a majority of the movie. Maybe it was the confusing plot line that had too many double crossing and re-crossing characters or maybe I wasn't as invested because Bond didn't quite charm his way into the pants of my heart.
Speaking of pants, the single female love interest really threw me for a loop. One minute she was loyal to Koskov and then as soon as they have their 'super awesome just as friends date' at the fair, she's rocking the ferries wheel's basket with Bond. And why was she so obsessed with her cello? Yes, it's a really nice and expensive instrument but it seemed as soon as she consummated her friendship with Bond, she no longer cared.
All in all, I wasn't as happy with this movie and realized why my mother, who is a huge Bond fan, doesn't allow us to watch any of Dalton's versions.

Really, one woman?!

 The Living Daylights was actually a pretty good film. I mean Bond has one woman, who almost plays the role of his girlfriend! Even though we all know Bond doesn't have girlfriends, it was very shocking that he only sleeps with one female. I actually had to re-think the whole movie to make sure Bond only slept with Kara. He sticks with her the whole film, and seems to genuinely care about her. I wasn't really sure about Timothy Dalton though. I mean he was young and in shape, but his face wasn't Bond-like to me. I'm not really sure what I mean by this, but he just didn't look like a Bond character. Basically, if he was in a line-up of different men to play Bond, I wouldn't pick him =). The film also had a pretty good story line, even though at times it was a little hard to figure out exactly what Bond was fighting for (but that is nothing new). The one difference I noticed was the enimies weren't as bad looking as they are usually portrayed. The blonde guy that is always strangling people and pretended to be the milk man (I think his name is Necros?), wasn't terrible looking, at least not as bad as what they usually do in Bond films. Even the other men Bond is against who are by the pool look pretty good. I think with the new Bond character we get, we also get some change in what the Bond films are actually doing. Since we've had Dr. Sols come in, I've been thinking about how he said once they lost Connery and Moore came in, they were trying to tone down on the masculinity a little, and you definitely see it in this movie. Dalton is a love sap for Kara AND SHE IS THE ONLY WOMEN HE SLEEPS WITH!
Going back to Octopussy, I thought that Moore film was actually pretty good too. I mean, anything is better than Man with the Golden Gun. I think after I realized Moore's strategy vs. his physical aspects, he was a pretty good Bond. Who doesn't prefer a lover over a fighter? I also was a very big fan of Octopussy herself and the strong female role she played. I loved how she had say over the men like Kamal, even though she ended up getting turned on and getting captured. I liked the idea of the female only island and that Octopussy had a giant group of women working for her. They kicked some serious man ass! I ended up watching this film twice because I am doing my article synopsis on it, and I noticed they had 009 and 007 in the clown suit. 009 obviously ends up dying in the beginning, but does both of them being in the same clown suit represent anything?
I don't know at this point if I like Moore or Dalton better as Bond, they both have their pros and cons with me right now. I would say right now I think Moore has the better mysterious looks, but Dalton has the darker features that help him out a little. I liked Dalton's acting moves better in terms of fighting, and his character as a whole seemed less corny to me.

Bond's Changing Masculinity

Similarly to the Doctor Who franchise, the Bond films are known for the different actors. With each new Doctor, the series would take a new turn, and revolve around the new characteristics that actor brought to the show. Just like in Bond, the transition from Sean Connery to Roger Moore dramatically changed in the portrayal of Bond's masculinity. 

Connery's masculinity focused more on the kill where it seems that Moore focuses more on the amount of women he seduces. In the movies, Connery's Bond was set on the mission at hand, and carried it out with spy vigor. He hunted down both Dr. No and Scaramanga by using his keen wit and handiness with his gun. The movies made it appear that he actually knew what he was doing, where in the Moore films, he happened to defeat the villains by judo chopping his way to them. In the train scene in Octopussy, Moore spends a majority of the train scene running away and hiding from the baddies. How did they not notice him in the gorilla suit? And how did he even manage to get out of it that smoothly?

In contrast to Connery, Moore spends more of the movie smoozing the women of the film. In The Man with the Golden Gun, he had two women fighting for his attention and he successfully slept with both of them. In the Connery era, he sleeps with women to gain an edge over the villain. By sleeping with Andrea, Bond learned important information about the gold plated assassin. The possibility of sex with Bond is what determined Miss Goodnight to prove herself to him. She attempted to stow away in Scaramanga’s trunk, only to need Bond to save her.  It appears as Bond’s masculinity is measured by the numbers of women he has had sex with. The more women, the manlier Bond seems.

Femininity in Moore's Bond

After watching both of the Moore films and critiquing his Bond against that of Connery’s; I just cannot get over how attractive (even I saw it) Connery was and Moore’s character just did not do it for me. Not only did he look “old” but anyone could tell that his workout consisted of watching TV and eating the whole bag of chips and then working out. –And I’m not saying that every man should have a six pack “because that will make hot”, I am saying that a more in shaped Bond character displays a strong independent spy who can take care of himself. However the way Moore’s physical characteristics in addition to his acting skills he displays to viewers a “more sensitive” Bond. Unfortunately, with having different people playing the same character the notion of having a particular look of “Bond” it our heads after seeing Connery, when we switch to Moore he is not what we have connected to the “Bond in our head”. Moore’s Bond is in a way more feminine, and in Octopussy he is even surrounded by women. Moore’s traits within the film demonstrate feminine qualities displayed within TMWTGG by how he stops and thinks his actions through (like a woman would), unlike Connery’s Bond who may have ended up killed because he would have attempted to fight the guy in Fat’s dojo. Moore’s character also emphasizes femininity at the end when he comes down in a balloon a gathers Octopussy. This can be seen as feminine for his character seems to be used now to attract female viewers, the directors have to make the Bond character more feminine to relate to female viewers. Although when watching these films in class all of us women can address that Connery was a “more attractive Bond” that maybe Moore’s physical appearance was chosen for a marketing reason?

It's time for Octopussy! While you're all posting insights on the evolving status of Bond's masculinity, I thought I'd share this movie poster, rife with Orientalist visual tropes. How many can you count?

Octopussy: Regarding the Changing Face of Masculinity in the Late 20th Century

We've talked in class previously about the physicality of the character of James Bond, particularly as it applies to Sean Connery, the former Mr. Universe. We've also noted that Roger Moore is an arguably "softer" Bond. After watching "Octopussy", I feel that we have even more evidence to support these observations. In the Connery Bond films, we see a James Bond whose body is a central theme of the work: he is shirtless while a tarantula crawls over his sleeping body in "Dr. No", he wears extremely short shorts in "Goldfinger", and while he regularly uses a gun in both films, emphasis is placed on his aim and calm, determined demeanor (such as the "dragon" scene in "Dr. No", for example, where Quarro falters while Bond shoots straight). In contrast, Moore has a decidedly lesser physical presence. While he is shirtless in a few (usually post-coital) scenes, he's usually somewhat covered, and we're more likely to see him in a suit or tuxedo than in a pair of Connery's tight pants. But his lesser physical presence is also highlighted by his actions: every fight scene seems to involve him somehow outsmarting or thinking his way out of the situation, as he does both at Fat's karate school and in the scene at the (extremely stereotypical) Indian bazaar. Moore is also more likely to use gadgets, and while this might have been an attempt to make Bond seem more modern, it inevitably places more emphasis on his mind than his body: while he does use guns and knives, he also uses tracking devices, acidic fountain pens, special watches, planes and air balloons. He seems to be an especially adept pilot, a skill that takes years of testing and training to develop.
With these things noted, I am reminded of Jeffords' article, "The Big Switch". While "Octopussy" was released in 1983, not quite the nineties, a number of the things she notes seem to stand as we transition from Connery to Moore. I'm particularly drawn to her statement about the movie "Lethal Weapon", where the aforementioned weapon is the protagonist's body. Jeffords notes that the focus switches in a lot of nineties movies from the stereotypical, "weaponized" masculine physical presence to a more general masculine point of view; one that prioritizes the ability to change, has a degree of sensitivity, etc. This change apparently came about in part to changing social norms, particularly with the rise of feminism; likewise, "Octopussy" was released 20 years after Betty Friedan published "The Feminine Mystique" and the U.S. Congress first passed the Equal Pay Act, as well as a number of other civil rights laws passed in the mid to late 60s. As a result, perhaps, "Octopussy" has more women in visible, if not necessarily central roles, such as Octopussy herself and her band of female acrobats. But just as Jeffords points out the shortcomings of these enlightened masculine movies like "Switch" (in which the script shies away from queer elements and the reborn man never truly recompenses the women he injured), "Octopussy" is still a Bond movie, filming women's cleavage with spy cameras and whatnot. It is only the nature of Bond's masculinity that has changed.

Masculinity: From Connery to Moore

          When the Bond films switch from Connery as 007 to Moore as the seductive spy, I feel as though Bond looses a bit of charisma. While Connery seems more ruggedly masculine, Moore appears softer--from his emotions to his facial features.
          In several ways, Moore's personality and the ways in which he presents and holds himself contribute to the decline in charisma. For example, Moore just cannot seem to banter with Miss. Moneypenny in the same way that Connery did; he doesn't make very much eye contact, and he seems as though he is thinking of other things when he is with a woman. While it is no question that a secret serviceman has other important things to think about--like stopping a bomb from detonating--Moore let's his worry show on his face, while Connery seemed to always "keep it cool." Similarly, Moore appears to use his brain before his fist quite often. He makes rationale decisions when defending himself in the dojo in The Man with the Golden Gun, and even forfeits asserting his masculinity by making an intelligent choice in stepping back and allowing the sisters who are masters in martial arts take on the men of the dojo.
          Of course, these decisions are not choices of Moore, but of the filmmakers and directors. Obviously, the filmmakers began to show Bond using a sort of "mind over matter" logic, and, although Connery played a logical Bond, he often chose to exert himself physically before mentally. For instance, Connery's Bond was not mentally quick enough to prevent Quarrel from his unfortunate death in Dr No because he was far too concerned with finding a place for Honeychile--his new love interest--and him to hide.
          It seems as though as the films progress, what Bond lacks in charm, he makes up for in cleverness. While both Connery and Moore undoubtedly exert masculinity, they are different forms of male power--Connery with an aggressive and consistent force, and Moore with a more quiet but forceful wit and fervor.

Changing masculinity from Connery to Moore

When I first watched The man with the Golden Gun,  all I kept thinking was they needed to get Moore out of there. He seemed so weak compared to Connery, and definitely didn't have to body to compete. He is a much older Bond, which also sets him off a little bit as well. From what we talked about in class, Moore's physical features (other than his body) are very soft compared to Connery. Connery has darker hair and everything on his face protrudes more, making him look more intimidating. Moore has lighter hair (which I don't know why, but to me makes him look less intimidating) and he just looks of the more relaxed type. From the fighting scene in The man with the Golden Gun, we see Moore run away as soon as he feels outbeaten. However, upon watching it the second time around in class, I noticed Moore's Bond character is just more focused on strategy with the brain versus the body. While Connery's Bond character may have fought hard and won (or lost perhaps), when Moore knows he is outnumbered in people and strength, he quickly jumps out the window. I also noticed alot of strong strategies in Octopussy, which I might add, was a much better film with Moore. This film brings out the strategies Moore uses to make up for his lack of "bod". Right in the beginning, the plane scene was pretty well done. Although slighty fake looking because of the films age, Moore outbeats all of those men, and escapes, just in time to land in the exact spot where he needs to fuel up for gas. I loved how the horse in the trailer was fake the whole time, and he just pops out with a plane; mostly because I wasn't expecting it. Also, at the auction, Moore switches out the fake egg with the real one. Even though the real egg eventually gets taken from him quite easily, the sneakyness of switching the eggs without the audience even knowing is what makes Bond (Moore) a good 007.
Besides Connery and Moore being compared by body and brains, I noticed in Moore's films the stronger female role, which also diminishes the male role (including Bonds). While Moore still plays a Bond that loves the ladies, to me he seemed more in a panic. It was almost as if he releyed on others to help him more, where I think Connery would trys to handle everything on his own. Also, with the island of just women, we get alot of female fighting against males. Octopussy takes a strong female role with power and with fighting. She seems to have the upper hand and say with Kamal (I believe his name is), and has many females to back her up. Along with Octopussy and her crew, Moore is all about saving Octopussy, where Connery is the kind of Bond that would leave any women behind. Moore returns in his British air balloon to save the day (and does). Connery would have just left, most likely ran into her at the end of the movie, and still would have been able to have sex with her.