Mumsnet Talk

reciperifle.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/bond-villain.html

There are spoilers but this is the piece the Times refused to run because they are cowards.

The new James Bond is the most offensive and misogynistic of the series to date using the eroticisation of a child sex trafficking survivor as the "slut who dies for fucking Bond" trope. It's beyond the pale.

I enjoyed the film, exept for that scene, where Bond steps into the shower to have sex with a woman he knows was sold into sexual slavery at age 12.
There was absolutely no need for that scene at all, it's only seconds long and serves no purpose whatsoever.
It would had been far more powerful for him to simply hold her hand or something, I found the scene pretty harrowing, she looked scared and upset, not turned on when Bond was kissing her neck. Her "execution" was very brutal too.

Thanks for posting Stewie. One of my friends who is film crazy is currently writing a book about strong female role models (he's on my fb timeline) I would love your thoughts on it when it's done.

Wow. You can't totally give up on men after reading that.

That scene ruined the whole film for me. It would have been so much more powerful for him to have just climbed on the boat. And, her death scene was appalling. I think its the worst of the Bond films which is really sad because actually Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace both moved into a new realm. QofS even ended with a strong woman walking away from Bond to lead the Bolivian resistance. Then, they followed it up with the sexual exploitation of a child survivor of sex trafficking.

Posie I'd love to read the book

I hadn't twigged that she was a sex worker or sold to the guy, I think I must have made a dash for the loo or something. But I just remember thinking why would he just walk in the shower?

Oh god, reading that blog depressed me. DS really wants me to take him to see it because ALL his friends have seen it and he feels left out. But based on that review it sounds awful. Nothing like peer pressure to make you feel like a bad mother.

Thank you for posting that.

In a casino scene, Bond picked up on the "ownership" tattoo on her wrist, that was when she told him she was 12 when sold to a gang. She was practically crying in the shower when he got in behind her, it was a very odd and disturbing scene.

It felt like a rape scene to me. It made me so uncomfortable. When I originally blogged about the film, I didn't include that scene because it just felt too creepy for me to write about. I put a little addendum to my blog post but I am so glad Coren wrote this. I'm rather disappointed the Time didn't run it though.

It was all so depressing.

Female agent can't drive or shoot for toffee, gives up fieldwork to become a secretary.

Strong, independent female lead gets the chop & is replaced by ageing male.

Sex trafficking victim used as wet wank (in more ways than one) and then is brutally killed in an off the cuff manner complete with cheap joke.

Head of Inquiry is Delores Umbridge wannabe who gets put in her place by ageing male.

Man who looks like face drawn on Sid James's left bollock & walks like an upright chimp lauded as hero / sex god.

Yawn.

I went to see it today with DSs age 10 and 12. Overall I thought it a good and thoughtful film with a lot more depth than usual. The particular scene you are talking about I too did think odd, out of place and not at all necessary. In fact, I didnt understand why she got shot. There seemed to be a big jump in the story there.

On the plus side though, I thought the amount of usual sexism with women as just bodies there to add glamour as 'Bond Girls' was a lot less than usual with strong women characters in the form of 'M' and the New Miss Moneypenny.

I don't view Craig's Bond as a hero/sex god, I see him as a deeply troubled and flawed man, not at all attractive.
I had to laugh at the Delores Umbridge comparison.

Bela I agree.

He's a hero in that he is the protagonist and the highest paid part.

Christ -for years I have avoided everything Giles Coren has written on the grounds that when I first encountered his journalism many years ago he was a smug and intermittently sexist twat. Clearly he has changed very significantly for the better!

Very good.

Bloody hell I had no idea. I missed about 10 minutes of it as went to the foyer to complain about noisy twats, I had no idea that the woman who was shot has been sex trafficked. Bloody hell puts a different slant on it.

It was horrible the way she was killed, but what you say makes me feel uncomfortbale about this film which I enjoyed, but now wish I had seen fully.

Good on Giles Coren.

And I really like Esther Walker's blog.

Yet another man who 'comforts' a woman by fucking her......

Here's another brilliant blog is response to Coren : exiledstardust.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/women-the-makers-of-skyfall-hate-you/

Vagenda: vagendamag.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/dead-sexist-how-bond-still-has-long-way.html

Me: therealsgm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/james-bonds-skyfall.html

"There was absolutely no need for that scene at all, it's only seconds long and serves no purpose whatsoever"

See I think it does serve a purpose.

It normalises rape.

A lot of men are rapists. An awful lot more of them aren't rapists but they are quite rapey and they support rapists without admitting or acknowledging and in some cases even realising that that's what they do.

This scene reassures them that it's all right. If even hero Bond does it, it's not that bad, is it? And it's not "real" rape - she's not a "real" victim - after all, she's damaged goods already, so it doesn't count.

This scene reinforces rape culture. That is its purpose.

My 18 yr old son was desperate to see this film. He has read Coren's article, read posts here and is going to see' Beasts of the Southern Wild' instead.

He said "how can we make an informed decision where to spend our money if we are not told about these things"

So thank you StewieGriffinsmum

God. I always found Giles sort of mildly amusing but maybe a bit smug and dismissive of people. Liked him on those things with Sue Perkins but less keen on his restaurant reviews. His column this Saturday (the one he clearly had to dash off to replace this one) about all weddings being vulgar was one of the examples of the type of writing he does that I like least.

I feel like I totally have to reassess him. That is a brilliant article and shame on the Times for not printing it.

Interesting that he ended this week's column with this:

"That said, I do have some sympathy with Clark’s [Clark Kent of superman] behaviour. I was myself 27 the first time I stormed out of The Times for ever, fed up with taking orders and convinced I was the most powerful man on the planet. I later stormed out of The Mail on Sunday, Tatler and The Independent, then went back to The Times, then stormed out. Then came back here ten years ago and have not stormed out since. Except a couple of times, when I didn’t really mean it.

So let me take this story down a peg or two, from the inside, by pointing out that it may not necessarily be about the death of newspapers, or the relevance of superheroes in the age of the internet, or the hubris of a young space alien at odds with a dumbed down media.

It may just be that after 74 years, Clark Kent has finally worked out what it takes to get a pay rise in this business."

In the light of the blog, it sounds a bit like a subtle dig of the 'if I were younger and had more energy I would storm out over this' ilk.

It is so depressing that I hadn't even seen this viewpoint in mainstream media. I have small children and am not likely to see Skyfall at the cinema (if I am shelling out for a babysitter, I want something better than a film I can wait for on DVD!). All the reviews were about how amazing the film was. Even Mark Kermode, who I usually find quite good on misogyny, didn't pick up on it (at least in the section of review I heard).

Good on Giles. And good on Esther for highlighting it.