Cilogy wrote: ↑

February 3rd, 2020, 1:30 pm

[youtube][/youtube]

Thankfully I dodged this one, when I was going through the series.

So, um, the point of Fleming's character is that he's a pig and is a vicarious rather than an aspirational hero.

Revelations that James Bond is a rapey misogynist relic are like revelations that the prequel Jedi are shit. Congrats, you have arrived at the point.

Yeah, I mean how can you enjoy any Bond movie then?

Well, the point sucks, I'm afraid. I don't get entertained by watching a rapey pig going around, getting all the girls he ever desires and defeats all the shady folks who come his way. I can't care less if he suffers and dies or lives and have fun.

Are we actually going to pretend that these were sophisticated character studies about a complicated anti hero and not the manifestation of "Every girl wants him, and every boy wants to be him" nonsense?

That he's not supposed to be the perfect saviour of the people, with one teeny tiny character flaw of being a rapist misogynist scum?

Are you seriously suggesting that the toxic culture that was created and inspired by characters like these, for generations, where simply a case of people being wildly misled, and the posters and advertisements as well as the storylines themselves were not trying to romanticise and glamorise the ugly aspects of Bond's character? Even though it always works for him and he gets away with it.

If so, why have they softened him up over the years? If he's not the hero why are they concerned with his image and aren't letting him go as wild as he used to? They suddenly decided that they want people to like him and root for him right as the society was undergoing a change of perception on this type of behaviour?

Doesn't sound right to me.

the way i personally choose to deal with this is acknowledge this having existed at some point and then use it as a learning experience, in a way. even problematic art is interesting to deconstruct and it broadens your perspective and provides insight of how things were. yes, regardless of flemming’s intentions, the world has spent decades glorifying a character who perhaps should have never been glorified, and propped him up as an ideal man. but i’d rather not just bury my head in the sand and try to forget this ever happened - there’s interesting value in stuff like this, viewed both from an artistic and sociological perspective and it’s important that these things are constantly dissected and never forgotten

like, no one is forcing you to watch a connery bond film. but to claim moral superiority over this also doesn’t give you as many brownie points as you probably think. art can be both immoral and valuable; you don’t have to look up to it to enjoy it

Hitting the nail right on the head Ruth

Ruth is right. Even Triumph of the Will is worth studying and appreciating for its aesthetic beauty and persuasive power. Or, say, Battleship Potemkin. Or Soy Cuba.

We have to decide the line for ourselves what we're comfortable with insofar as what we deem entertainment, but this absolutist perspective does much more harm than good; this is true in relation to art, culture, and one's own viewing habits. There's so much that can be beautiful, interesting, important in these "Problematic" old texts when taken in their historical context.


-Vader

Ruth wrote: ↑

February 5th, 2020, 12:29 pm

the way i personally choose to deal with this is acknowledge this having existed at some point and then use it as a learning experience, in a way. even problematic art is interesting to deconstruct and it broadens your perspective and provides insight of how things were. yes, regardless of flemming’s intentions, the world has spent decades glorifying a character who perhaps should have never been glorified, and propped him up as an ideal man. but i’d rather not just bury my head in the sand and try to forget this ever happened - there’s interesting value in stuff like this, viewed both from an artistic and sociological perspective and it’s important that these things are constantly dissected and never forgotten

like, no one is forcing you to watch a connery bond film. but to claim moral superiority over this also doesn’t give you as many brownie points as you probably think. art can be both immoral and valuable; you don’t have to look up to it to enjoy it

Did anyone force you to read my post, that you are criticising it? Paradox.

Master Virgo wrote: ↑

February 5th, 2020, 12:45 pm

Ruth wrote: ↑

February 5th, 2020, 12:29 pm

the way i personally choose to deal with this is acknowledge this having existed at some point and then use it as a learning experience, in a way. even problematic art is interesting to deconstruct and it broadens your perspective and provides insight of how things were. yes, regardless of flemming’s intentions, the world has spent decades glorifying a character who perhaps should have never been glorified, and propped him up as an ideal man. but i’d rather not just bury my head in the sand and try to forget this ever happened - there’s interesting value in stuff like this, viewed both from an artistic and sociological perspective and it’s important that these things are constantly dissected and never forgotten

like, no one is forcing you to watch a connery bond film. but to claim moral superiority over this also doesn’t give you as many brownie points as you probably think. art can be both immoral and valuable; you don’t have to look up to it to enjoy it

Did anyone force you to read my post, that you are criticising it? Paradox.

and

Ruth wrote: ↑

February 5th, 2020, 12:29 pm

the way i personally choose to deal with this is acknowledge this having existed at some point and then use it as a learning experience, in a way. even problematic art is interesting to deconstruct and it broadens your perspective and provides insight of how things were. yes, regardless of flemming’s intentions, the world has spent decades glorifying a character who perhaps should have never been glorified, and propped him up as an ideal man. but i’d rather not just bury my head in the sand and try to forget this ever happened - there’s interesting value in stuff like this, viewed both from an artistic and sociological perspective and it’s important that these things are constantly dissected and never forgotten

like, no one is forcing you to watch a connery bond film. but to claim moral superiority over this also doesn’t give you as many brownie points as you probably think. art can be both immoral and valuable; you don’t have to look up to it to enjoy it

I agree, especially with the last part.

I guess I'm sort of coming to terms with this stuff now. Also, it's just weird that something that made me comfortable for so long now makes me question everything about it, about myself, about my own past behavior and attitudes especially towards women.

Like when I was in college, after a hard exam I'd always look forward to getting some Subway and plopping on the couch and watching From Russia with Love or Goldfinger. Now, I literally can't do it anymore. I mean, I can appreciate it from an artistic or critical perspective, but I can't enjoy it like I used to.

It's super interesting how this has developed.