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.