Like many people on this campus, I recently saw Goldeneye, the new James Bond movie. It was, in essence, like any other James Bond movie -- the unadulterated sexism, the rampant male chauvinism. These characteristic Bond afflictions did not disappear because it was Pierce Brosnan asking for the martini rather than Sean Connery, Roger Moore or Timothy Dalton.
Bond spent the entire movie flirting with women, playing with men's toys and generally saving the day. The message of virility could not have been more direct if the word "machismo" were printed on the back of his crisp tuxedo.
It was great.
People who are aware of my politics, or who have been following my columns, might be a tad surprised to find me taking this stance on the issue (if James Bond can be called an issue, that is). For example, when I mentioned to a friend that I was planning on writing about the sexism in the Bond films, he responded, "Rachel, attacking a James Bond movie for being sexist is like attacking a Bruce Lee movie for being violent."
And that is just the point. The entire sum and substance of James Bond is sexist. By carrying this theme through, the producers of Goldeneye are just being true to form.
The 1990's is an era of political correctness and hyper-sensitivity to sexual harassment. A time when some men have begun to tiptoe around the opposite sex just a little too much, afraid that the slightest misstep will have them labeled sexist. A generation in which some women have become a little too quick to point fingers and declare injustices the product of rampant male chauvinism.
I don't mean to belittle the problems of our decade. Sexual harassment and gender inequity are real and thriving. Women are not on equal footing yet and to be honest, I am starting to doubt that we will be any time soon. As the British writer, social critic and feminist, Harriet Martineau said, "Persecution for opinion, punishment for all manifestations of intellectual and moral strength are still as common as women who have opinions and who manifest strength." But let's look on the bright side: if all the sexists, racists and anti-Semites actually disappeared tomorrow, what would I write about?
Sure, you can easily bash Goldeneye for its gender stereotypes. I went to see it with a fellow UGA and a mutual friend, among others. (Her male freshmen affectionately refer to us as the "feminist triumvirate.") On the walk home we talked about "boys with toys," and the symbolism in the spectacle of Bond in a military tank -- he takes part in a chase scene driving a vehicle with a large phallic protuberance on the front end of it. One of my friends, let's call her Erica Brandling-Bennett '98, was most invigorated by the evil female who crushes men to death with her thighs, sometimes after having sex with them.
There is definitely a lot to make fun of in Goldeneye (even if we do not argue the opening scene where he manages to fall into a falling plane). But the point is, in these delicate times, the producers of Goldeneye still had the audacity to create a movie centered around a glorified male chauvinist. And they did it well. Bond's boss, is a woman -- an older, strong woman, impermeable to Bond's masculine wiles. The Goldeneye Bond girl is actually crucial to the plot rather than being incidental, a wilting female whom he has to save and/or sleep with.
Here is a movie that was obviously the brainchild of a man. James Bond still seduces, still shoots, still saves the day, but this time he does it with the help of women. This, combined with the blatant, unapologised for sexism, is what makes this Bond movie entertaining. By creating strong female characters, the producers of Goldeneye have managed to update Bond, without spoiling his appeal. James Bond is a male chauvinist by definition. It is actually kind of refreshing to see one who is also a gentleman.
