Idk Bond is this interesting cultural touchstone that I think is important to keep around. I know for me it was actually a very effective first step in to becoming critical of how women are depicted in cinema, and that message got through to me at actually a pretty early age. Around high school IIRC.
That being said I do think directors should be bolder in their vision and take bigger risks with it. It could be so much more and its history in many ways will make that all the more impactful.
TL;DR: We aren’t beholden to Fleming’s original vision. Bond can be whatever we want them to be.
The different “interpretations” of the character have always interested me. Most of the screen depictions of bond have not aligned with the literary version, to varying degrees. In my opinion, Timothy Dalton came the closest.
But more to your point, the depictions of both women and minorities in Bond films is kind of an interesting timeline. Live and let Die is a good example. It has the first Black bond girl. Not insignificant in 1973. But, it’s also peak “blaxploitation” and contains so many racist stereotypes that it sounds like a worn out record.
I remember watching it as a kid and thinking the antagonists, most of whom are black, seemed more like cartoon villains than anything, despite some half-assed attempts to sprinkle in a little sophistication here and there. It’s a movie with some strange paradoxes.
Right? There’s nothing quite like it. It has this tendency to combine several tropes and ideas from major films surrounding it. It’s safe in that it’s often familiar but it always has a “bond flavor” that alters it heavily
Idk Bond is this interesting cultural touchstone that I think is important to keep around. I know for me it was actually a very effective first step in to becoming critical of how women are depicted in cinema, and that message got through to me at actually a pretty early age. Around high school IIRC.
That being said I do think directors should be bolder in their vision and take bigger risks with it. It could be so much more and its history in many ways will make that all the more impactful.
TL;DR: We aren’t beholden to Fleming’s original vision. Bond can be whatever we want them to be.
Edit: yes the “them” was intentional
The different “interpretations” of the character have always interested me. Most of the screen depictions of bond have not aligned with the literary version, to varying degrees. In my opinion, Timothy Dalton came the closest.
But more to your point, the depictions of both women and minorities in Bond films is kind of an interesting timeline. Live and let Die is a good example. It has the first Black bond girl. Not insignificant in 1973. But, it’s also peak “blaxploitation” and contains so many racist stereotypes that it sounds like a worn out record.
I remember watching it as a kid and thinking the antagonists, most of whom are black, seemed more like cartoon villains than anything, despite some half-assed attempts to sprinkle in a little sophistication here and there. It’s a movie with some strange paradoxes.
Right? There’s nothing quite like it. It has this tendency to combine several tropes and ideas from major films surrounding it. It’s safe in that it’s often familiar but it always has a “bond flavor” that alters it heavily