Thanks! I just got mixed-up. I don’t know if he has sex with the aide. I assume, “yes,” because it’s Bond. I did find this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_girl - but it's Wikipedia, so it might not be 100% accurate.
Modern critics can stuff a sock in it. They need to stop judging yesterday’s movies by today’s standards (and Bond films are another thing entirely). I understand where something like Bond forcing himself on Pussy Galore is morally bad, but in the context of the films, his sexual powers win over all women. Adopting that attitude is nasty in real life. Still, Bond is Bond, and I’m always going to dig it.
I’m pretty sanguine with Bond’s seduction of the spa employee (even if I do acknowledge that it wouldn’t be above-board in real life), but I’m also unable to enjoy scenes in Breakfast at Tiffany’s where Mickey Rooney is in yellowface. Where I draw the line is “cancelling,” and I’d never judge anybody for liking certain films (I do like BAT, just not those scenes).
Bit of a digression from Bond, but it’s interesting to parse this stuff.
I think Bond was with Dink before the film starts. I don’t think they were making fun of Bond. I think they were trying to show the “ultimate man’s man,” even if they were having fun with it. So, I don’t think they were mocking him. As to the Beatles reference, they had yet to release their best works, if my memory serves, and at the time would have seemed to a lot of people as, basically, the ‘60s rock equivalent of a boy band. This is why I refused to criticize Justin Bieber for the first several years of his fame (artistically, anyway) because it’s too easy to jump on a dismissive bandwagon and find out later that the Fab Four are actually pretty deep musicians and songwriters. In short: I think at the time of Goldfinger, it would make sense to show Bond as a “sophisticated gentleman” by indicating his taste as avoiding the Beatles. Probably a jazz/classical guy.
Do you know, I don’t really mind the Craig era. ‘60s Bond is awesome and fun, but it would play differently if made and released these days. I don’t say they should keep him to a one-woman man, but they do have to let the character evolve a little bit. As long as he’s always a bit of a womanizer, I’m okay with it.
I agree with you: Bond is a male and female fantasy.
I’ll also agree that Thunderball had quality and quantity. Although it doesn’t have any of my very favourite Bond girls (Tracy, Vesper, Tatiana, Elektra) it still has some wonderful girls.
Only Bond film I haven’t seen is No Time to Die. I heard it’s very good, actually. Good or bad, I’ll check it out sooner or later.
Bang-on with your evaluation of ‘60s “animal” Bond vs. ‘70s “PG” Bond.
I appreciate that you put SPOILERS in front of the Lazenby thing. I always try to include those warnings, even for old films.
Your right about Vesper: she hurts Bond so deeply that he almost never lets himself get attached or fall in love ever again (excepting Tracy). Although, I do believe that certain movies allow him to fall in love – at least for the duration of whichever film it is. From Russia with Love, for instance; I think he does actually start falling for Tatiana. There’s some delightful, refreshing “cute couple” stuff they get up to – especially on the train – where they’re more playful and flirty in addition to overtly sexual.
It would be nice to see the Bond series emphasize the swinging sexuality of the character again. Just so long as they don’t wind up getting a laugh out of it (or, just playing it for laughs, more accurately) or worse, using it to scold Bond or make some progressive point. I’m all for progress, but Bond has got to always be a little inappropriate. It’s what makes him unique.
reply
share