Emily Rose

‘Spectre’ (2015, Mendes) is the twenty-fourth film in the James Bond franchise and the fourth film featuring Daniel Craig as Bond. Before release Craig publically stated that this film would buck the James Bond trends and introduce a new type of Bond girl for the modern female audience. Lea Seydoux plays Dr Madeleine Swann, she can fight for herself, she knows how to use a gun, and yet she is still the damsel in distress for Bond to rescue and ultimately seduce. Dockterman explored this character and pointed out that the fundamental flaw in the representation of gender equality in Bond is that “to modernise the Bond girl is to deprive Bond of his power. To modernise a Bond girl, she has to embody female empowerment and strength without a man. But since he is our hero, it’s unlikely to see a woman save the day.

Even in ‘Spectre’ Lea Seydoux’s character isn’t the first woman Bond seduces, and yet as the film progresses it’s almost as if it is hinting that this is the woman Bond will finally settle down with: he beds widow Lucia Sciarra, played by Monica Belluci, for information about her husband only a short way into the film. Belluci serves only to move the plot along, however unlike in previous films such as ‘Casino Royale’ (2006, Campbell) she at least escapes with her life. The previous deaths of M (Judi Dench) and Vesper (Eva Green) are shown to be important to Bond, however even those serve as plot devices in ‘Spectre’. Christoph Waltz’ character summed it up perfectly when he asked Bond “Did you think it was a coincidence that all the women in your life end up dead?”

It is impossible to examine the misogyny in James Bond without looking back to the earlier films. Despite being given a risqué name, Pussy Galore from ‘Goldfinger’ (1964, Hamilton) had the potential to form the first stepping stone to a more equal Bond. Elizabeth Ladenson explored the difference between Galore and the rest of the Bond girls, not only was she a lesbian character but she was a judo expert capable of fighting for herself. Jaime Hovey wrote about the importance of Pussy Galore, and the importance of how Flemming claimed James Bond “cured Pussy Galore of her lesbianism”. Hovey explores a perfectly resourceful woman like Galore, she resembles a more masculine type of femininity – she can fight like Bond can, she can fly a plane, but she’s also attracted to women like Bond is. According to Hovey, by “curing” her lesbianism and seducing Pussy Galore, Bond transforms her from a ‘butch’ to a ‘femme’ which is the familiar stereotype of femininity to us as an audience for a Bond girl.  If Pussy Galore had remained a lesbian character throughout the film, it would have symbolised an incredible amount of female empowerment. By letting her be seduced by Bond she becomes just another Bond girl added to the pile of his past sexual encounters, another woman yet to challenge Bond’s masculinity.

An interesting character to note the development of is Miss Moneypenny. Moneypenny features in more films than any character other than James Bond himself, making her incredibly important when dissecting the franchise from a feminist perspective. Tara Barbrazon described how even though Moneypenny is a central female character, and that Bond talks to her the same way he talks to other women, this “muffled eroticism” formed the longest unconsummated onscreen relationship, and concludes by saying that Moneypenny remains the woman behind the man (M) and the legend (Bond.)

Even though she is different to the other female characters, Moneypenny is treated the exact same way – in ‘Dr No’ (1962, Young) Bond goes as far to refer to Moneypenny as ‘government property”, and she’s shown to enjoy his sexual advances even if they never go further. However as of yet, Moneypenny has not been killed or sexually assaulted like many other female characters. ‘Skyfall’ (2012, Mendes) saw a change to Moneypenny with Naomie Harris taking over the role as a field agent who helps Bond on his mission. She proves to be useful on the mission, able to drive and shoot, however she ends up shooting Craig’s Bond, ‘killing him’. Because of this her field agent status is stripped from her, and she reverts back to simply being the ‘sexy secretary’ she always was. At least in ‘Spectre’, Moneypenny is no longer shown to lust after Bond, and has a sex life of her own away from him; however, as Dockterman notes, Moneypenny is relegated to reading out instructions for Bond from behind a desk while he drives his Aston Martin. The character developed and then reverted back to how things were in the 1960’s, with Moneypenny sat at a desk being leered at by Bond.

Notably, there is one exception to the rule that all women in Bond are treated the same. In ‘Goldeneye’ (1995, Campbell) the character of M, Bond’s superior, was recast as Judi Dench. In one of their first scenes together, M briefs Pierce Brosnan’s Bond about finding Goldeneye, and the pair share a bottle of whiskey. Comparable to his interactions with Miss Moneypenny or any of the “Bond Girls”, it’s clear she is demonstrating her power over him, and more importantly that he is aware of it. In their first meeting she refers to him as a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the cold war.” The first time Bond has ever been challenged on his attitudes towards women, and it’s coming from the character who was recast as a woman. This is a defining step for James Bond towards the equality of gender representation, and it comes as late as 1995. During this first briefing with Bond, M even compares herself to a man by saying “If you think for one moment I don’t have the balls to send a man out to die, your instincts are dead wrong.” She’s attacking Bond where it hurts him the most: his masculinity. By comparing her metaphorical testicles to his, she emasculates him in one short sentence.

 However, as McNeely commented in his essay ‘The Feminization of M’, there are inconsistencies in the way Dench’s character addresses Bond’s misogyny throughout the franchise. McNeely shows how after emasculating Bond in ‘Goldeneye’, she goes on to join in with his flirtation and use of double entendre in ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’ (1997), and even hires Miranda Frost to seduce Bond in ‘Die Another Day’ (2002). With Daniel Craig becoming the new Bond, M’s defining femininity becomes that of the mother, with Bond sarcastically calling her “mum” often. This maternal femininity is often shown in female characters that aren’t shown to be sexual, as opposed to the other prominent female stereotype of the “femme fatale” which is attributed to Bond girls. Ultimately it’s clear that M’s shifting values demonstrate how those behind Bond tried to change their attitudes towards women within the franchise, but gave up and reverted back to conforming to the gender stereotypes that worked so well for them in the past.

Toby Miller in his essay ‘James Bond’s Penis’ examines the franchise as both a contribution to, and symptom of sexism, and compares it to pornography. Clearly the misogyny in 21^st Century Bond isn’t as harmful as that of the 1960’s and 70’s, however attitudes towards women in the world have changed since then, so why not in Bond? Prejudice towards women before the beginning and throughout second wave feminism reflected in women’s on-screen representation. So there is nothing that gives the recent James Bond films the excuse to reflect these now seemingly prehistoric portrayals of women as simply sex objects, other than regarding Bond’s treatment of women as ‘traditional’ of that of the franchise as he has been doing it for so long. If that is so, the image Bond is producing for young boys and men to watch is that treating women like this is acceptable, and even by oppressing women in such a way they still ultimately fall for him.

However, these gender stereotypes are no longer the popular opinion amongst Bond’s audience. In 2015, former Labour party leader Ed Milliband said it was time for a female James Bond and criticised the film’s representation of women, a comment that provoked Martin Daubney to respond that “if the easily offended got their way, they would drain the lifeblood from cinema” and accused the “radical feministas” who disagree with the presentation of women in James Bond of wanting to “neuter every Alpha male in popular entertainment.” This comment from Daubney is evidence enough that James Bond is still stuck in the 1960’s, but people accept that as a British tradition. This shows that misogyny is deemed apparently acceptable in “Alpha male” characters, as that is simply just a trope of their character and part of the “lifeblood” of the modern film industry.

This claim of misogyny as the “lifeblood” of cinema is backed up by statistics released by Women Make Movies, an organisation founded thirty years ago to spread the word of female misrepresentation in cinema. WMM reported that only 11% of all clearly identifiable protagonists are female, with 78% being male.  They also go on to compare how in the highest rated 500 films, 28.8% of women are shown as sexually revealing with 26.2% female actors getting partially naked on screen. There is also still a lack of women behind the camera in modern cinema, with only 1.9% of directors being female. These statistics point to the dark truth that James Bond reflects not only the 1960’s attitudes towards women domestically, but the modern attitudes towards women in cinema.

In summary, as enjoyable as the James Bond franchise is to many people for its cinematography, gadgets and fast cars, under the surface the representation of Bond girls gives a window into the truth about the prejudice towards women in cinema. Not only are the women in Bond films shown as disposable, usually dying as a result of James Bond having sex with them, they only exist to move the plot along and to give the male audience something to look at. This concept is the famous feminist film theory of the ‘Male gaze’ coined by Laura Mulvey; if the Bond girls were taken out of the film entirely it would just be a regular spy film, by adding them in it creates excitement and seduction for the male audience. The lack of power that the Bond girls have reflects the lack of female empowerment of all women in the film industry: surely it is about time for the world to be ready for a more gender equal cinema.