Skyfall - Grading & Discussion

[Trekker4747]

I don't think it was supposed to be making any kind of statement about sex-trade or even on cyanide dental implants going horribly wrong for that matter. I don't think James Bond movies overall try and to make statements about anything, really, they're just supposed to escapist entertainment. I don't think anything was trying to be said about the woman being in the sex trade she was just the common Bond femme fatale, while also having some sort of "tragic story" which also goes with the trope's use in Bond movies.

[sidious618]

T'Baio wrote:

---

In Skyfall, sex slavery was used merely as a plot point, and then the victim was discarded by the plot callously. No comment was made on the subject, and the victim was essentially forgotten. It was crass, not current. And sex slavery is a little different than media manipulation.

I agree. It was my only main problem with the movie.

[doubleohfive]

Those of you interested in the subject of Bond girls, sexual politics and the Bond franchise might find this article interesting. (Fair warning - there are Skyfall spoilers within.) If you can ignore some of the bad grammar and mistakes, it's worth a read.

[ATimson]

I think it's probably too early to judge Skyfall for Eve's fate - I think we'll have to see what future movies do with her first. But I'll admit that I would have been more comfortable if she was part of the MI6 office gang (like Tanner is and Charles Robinson was) - explicitly making her the secretary feels like it's going to end up being a regressive non-role.

[Captrek]

I'm sure this is going to be a very different Moneypenny. They wouldn't set her up the way they did in Skyfall with the intention of using her the way they used Lois Maxwell.

[sojourner]

Coming in after not having read the previous 20 pages. Loved the film. One question, forgive me if this has been brought up. Wouldn't it have been awesome if Connery had played the caretaker?

[Trekker4747]

sojourner wrote:

---

Coming in after not having read the previous 20 pages. Loved the film. One question, forgive me if this has been brought up. Wouldn't it have been awesome if Connery had played the caretaker?

Yeah, but his very presence would have upstaged Craig.

[JarodRussell]

sojourner wrote:

---

Coming in after not having read the previous 20 pages. Loved the film. One question, forgive me if this has been brought up. Wouldn't it have been awesome if Connery had played the caretaker?

The shcreen would have exshploded.


No seriously, my life would have been complete. It's unfortunate he didn't appear, it was a golden opportunity.

[The Wormhole]

doubleohfive wrote:

---

Those of you interested in the subject of Bond girls, sexual politics and the Bond franchise might find this article interesting. (Fair warning - there are Skyfall spoilers within.) If you can ignore some of the bad grammar and mistakes, it's worth a read.

A better thought out article than the other one earlier in the thread, but still, some issues:

-Its claim that Monneypenny is "mocked for her one mistake." As I remember, it's mostly Bond who keeps bringning it up, and even then it seems mostly to be good-natured ribbing. And besides, considering she did shoot him and he was declared legally dead as a result, can one really expect Bond to just shrug it off as "stuff happens."?

-I was under the impression that Monneypenny was temporarily re-assigned to administrative duties while a review was conducted in the wake of what was essentially a failed mission. She discovered a liking for administrative duties and therefore stuck to that instead. There is nothing sexist here. It's quite common in many Bond films for Bond himself to be suspended of his duties following a failure, although he usually goes ahead and acts on his own anyway. And there is nothing sexist about choosing work you prefer doing.

-As mentioned previously, Judi Dench wanted this to be her last Bond movie, so what if her replacement is a male?

-Yes, M was raked over the coals for her mistakes in this movie, but that's what happens to people in authority when they screw up. And I feel I should point out that the one who was most accusatory of her during the enquiry was another female.

[Lonemagpie]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

-As mentioned previously, Judi Dench wanted this to be her last Bond movie, so what if her replacement is a male?

Actually, IMO having another female M immediately after Dench would have undermined her contribution and her successor's, because any actress following immediately in the role would have been inevitably compared to Dench in a way that Voldy won't...

[T'Baio]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

-I was under the impression that Monneypenny was temporarily re-assigned to administrative duties while a review was conducted in the wake of what was essentially a failed mission. She discovered a liking for administrative duties and therefore stuck to that instead. There is nothing sexist here. It's quite common in many Bond films for Bond himself to be suspended of his duties following a failure, although he usually goes ahead and acts on his own anyway. And there is nothing sexist about choosing work you prefer doing.

When arguing whether a film is sexist, i.e. a product of cultural patriarchy, I don't think one can argue like this, as in within the context of the plot and character machinations as portrayed in the film. You have to argue outside of that, and whether the film needed to be written like that in the first place.

Just for argument's sake...of course a sexist, chauvinist, patriarchal writer is going to write Moneypenny as a woman who likes clerical duties. You even provide an example...of course Bond always does what he wants, avoiding desk duty, and being a man of action, while the woman decides she likes clerical duties. Writing the character wanting it doesn't mean the film isn't sexist, it just means the writer is trying not to write it that way.

I really don't believe the Moneypenny situation is an inherently sexist one, I believe they're just trying to set up a classic Bond trope for future films. But in the discussion on whether it is sexist or not, I think one has to argue in the context of the creation of the film, not what takes place fictionally within it.

[Agent Richard07]

I don't think they took a woman of action and turned her into a secretary because of any deep-seated sexism. I think they were trying to take a classic character who was a secretary and give her a more interesting background.

[RoJoHen]

sojourner wrote:

---

Coming in after not having read the previous 20 pages. Loved the film. One question, forgive me if this has been brought up. Wouldn't it have been awesome if Connery had played the caretaker?

The caretaker? I wanted Connery to play the villain!

A former 007 turned evil!

[doubleohfive]

RoJoHen wrote:

---

The caretaker? I wanted Connery to play the villain!

A former 007 turned evil!

No.

[RoJoHen]

doubleohfive wrote:

---

No.

Mostly I just wanted the villain to be somebody we had met before. They had the big build up with the whole "he knows us; he's one of us" thing that I was expecting to see a familiar face when the villain eventually revealed.