Skyfall
'Roll in the hay' is one way of putting it... I was 13 at the time and recently watched Goldfinger again. I now thought the scene rather shocking and quite ridiculous: James Bond rapes Pussy Galore, who then falls in love with him. Perhaps it had to affirm the then popular myth of "if a girls says no, she means yes"?*
Back in 1964, the writers obviously deemed the scene normal behaviour for the James Bond character. So did Fleming himself: I remember a scene in one of the books where Bonds gets a massage and rapes the masseuse 'after a short struggle'.
Bond may have been a better dresser back in 1964 - a gentleman he was not. Plus, after Le Carré's George Smiley and Len Deighton's Bernard Samson, Bond seems too unreal and one-dimensional. I also find the books have not aged as well as, say, Dorothy Sayers' novels about Lord Peter Wimsey. Now there's a gentleman if ever there was one! No forced quickies in the barn or short struggles for the second son of the 15th Duke of Denver!
Bart
* The correct saying, as far as I know, goes like this: "If a lady says no, she means maybe; if she says maybe she means yes; if she says yes she is no lady."
Back in 1964, the writers obviously deemed the scene normal behaviour for the James Bond character. So did Fleming himself: I remember a scene in one of the books where Bonds gets a massage and rapes the masseuse 'after a short struggle'.
Bond may have been a better dresser back in 1964 - a gentleman he was not. Plus, after Le Carré's George Smiley and Len Deighton's Bernard Samson, Bond seems too unreal and one-dimensional. I also find the books have not aged as well as, say, Dorothy Sayers' novels about Lord Peter Wimsey. Now there's a gentleman if ever there was one! No forced quickies in the barn or short struggles for the second son of the 15th Duke of Denver!
Bart
* The correct saying, as far as I know, goes like this: "If a lady says no, she means maybe; if she says maybe she means yes; if she says yes she is no lady."
-
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:17 pm
- Contact:
Bart, if we were to act on your understanding of what a lady means when whe says no and maybe, I fear that we would have to forget about being a gentleman and try to get ourselves acquainted with cold cells and prison garb.
I think the point that you were originally making is that when she says 'no', she might really mean 'no'!Taller wrote:'Roll in the hay' is one way of putting it... I was 13 at the time and recently watched Goldfinger again. I now thought the scene rather shocking and quite ridiculous: James Bond rapes Pussy Galore, who then falls in love with him. Perhaps it had to affirm the then popular myth of "if a girls says no, she means yes"?*
Back in 1964, the writers obviously deemed the scene normal behaviour for the James Bond character. So did Fleming himself: I remember a scene in one of the books where Bonds gets a massage and rapes the masseuse 'after a short struggle'.
Bond may have been a better dresser back in 1964 - a gentleman he was not. Plus, after Le Carré's George Smiley and Len Deighton's Bernard Samson, Bond seems too unreal and one-dimensional. I also find the books have not aged as well as, say, Dorothy Sayers' novels about Lord Peter Wimsey. Now there's a gentleman if ever there was one! No forced quickies in the barn or short struggles for the second son of the 15th Duke of Denver!
Bart
* The correct saying, as far as I know, goes like this: "If a lady says no, she means maybe; if she says maybe she means yes; if she says yes she is no lady."
The world seems obseesed with rape and sexual abuse at the moment! I don't remember the 'rape' scene in one of the books. The shower scene in the film Thunderball arguably involves some coercion but, in the book, he actually seduces the therapist, over a meal, after he leaves the clinic. The Wimsey books are in the realm of literature; involving carefully defined characters; the Bond books are just ripping yarns and need to be seen in that light, as well as in the light of the behaviour of the age in which they were written. Moreover, I guess that, according to the strict moral code of any age, say the bed-hopping in OHMSS is oprobrious but Bond is never put forward as an icon of moral probity - after all his job is killing people! The books and the films were intended just as entertainment, in the realm of phantasy fiction.
NJS
Rather recently, while on vacation with my wife and young son, we dined at a restaurant/pub by the name of "The Saint". Accordingly, the walls were adorned with old posters of Roger Moore´s Simon Templar, the Volvo P1800, the "halo" cartoon, etc.NJS wrote:I think that selecting 'the best' Bond actor and films is largely determined by one's age.
My wife said: "James Bond"
I said: "That is not James Bond"
My son said:"Who´s James Bond?"
I said: "The guy who jumped from the helicopter with the Queen"
My son said: "Yeah, daddy´s right. That´s not James Bond"
NJS,I think the point that you were originally making is that when she says 'no', she might really mean 'no'!
The world seems obseesed with rape and sexual abuse at the moment! I don't remember the 'rape' scene in one of the books. The shower scene in the film Thunderball arguably involves some coercion but, in the book, he actually seduces the therapist, over a meal, after he leaves the clinic. The Wimsey books are in the realm of literature; involving carefully defined characters; the Bond books are just ripping yarns and need to be seen in that light, as well as in the light of the behaviour of the age in which they were written. Moreover, I guess that, according to the strict moral code of any age, say the bed-hopping in OHMSS is oprobrious but Bond is never put forward as an icon of moral probity - after all his job is killing people! The books and the films were intended just as entertainment, in the realm of phantasy fiction.
NJS
I was trying to juggle two cones here: 1) the then popular false myth among a certain kind of men that when a woman says no, she's not serious; and 2) the elegant and lighthearted theory from which the abominable false theory was mistakenly condensed. (I'm guessing here, of course. But it seems plausible. )
And you're right: the world is obsessed with all kinds of sexual abuse right now. On the other hand: James Bond would nowadays not even dream of a roll in the hay à la Goldfinger as a demonstration of his cool. Which is a positive development, no?
I am delighted you consider the Wimsey novels to be literature - the official verdict is: detective novels are no good, by definition. I thoroughly enjoyed them. And they certainly had a positive influence on my development as an adolescent, and beyond.
Unfortunately, the author apparently had no clue about male clothing - the only thing I can now remember her writing about Wimsey's clothes is his lordship entertaining some ladies at a dinner table by making popping sounds with his stiff shirt-front, in a hilarious demonstration of one of the pitfalls of classic dinner attire... .
Bart
The Goldfinger roll in the hay was, actually, drawn out of Fleming's own phantasy of 'converting' a lesbian - as, both in the book and the film, Pussy Galore and her flying circus of female aviators are lesbians. It is not a very right-on, modern concept but, perhaps, Fleming was not alone in wishing to rise to the challenge. Bond, nowadays, certainly since Quantum of Solace, does not remotely derive from any Fleming writing and will (note that he no longer smokes) more and more conform to modern norms of behaviour and expectations and, in the process, will become more and more removed from the outsider-Bond of the books; despite the Eton education, the book-Bond was something of an outsider, a loner and an odd-ball. He was also given to sentimental introspection and doubt over his life (albeit he dismissed such thoughts impatiently - e.g. see the beginning of the novel OHMSS).Taller wrote:NJS,I think the point that you were originally making is that when she says 'no', she might really mean 'no'!
The world seems obseesed with rape and sexual abuse at the moment! I don't remember the 'rape' scene in one of the books. The shower scene in the film Thunderball arguably involves some coercion but, in the book, he actually seduces the therapist, over a meal, after he leaves the clinic. The Wimsey books are in the realm of literature; involving carefully defined characters; the Bond books are just ripping yarns and need to be seen in that light, as well as in the light of the behaviour of the age in which they were written. Moreover, I guess that, according to the strict moral code of any age, say the bed-hopping in OHMSS is oprobrious but Bond is never put forward as an icon of moral probity - after all his job is killing people! The books and the films were intended just as entertainment, in the realm of phantasy fiction.
NJS
I was trying to juggle two cones here: 1) the then popular false myth among a certain kind of men that when a woman says no, she's not serious; and 2) the elegant and lighthearted theory from which the abominable false theory was mistakenly condensed. (I'm guessing here, of course. But it seems plausible. )
And you're right: the world is obsessed with all kinds of sexual abuse right now. On the other hand: James Bond would nowadays not even dream of a roll in the hay à la Goldfinger as a demonstration of his cool. Which is a positive development, no?
I am delighted you consider the Wimsey novels to be literature - the official verdict is: detective novels are no good, by definition. I thoroughly enjoyed them. And they certainly had a positive influence on my development as an adolescent, and beyond.
Unfortunately, the author apparently had no clue about male clothing - the only thing I can now remember her writing about Wimsey's clothes is his lordship entertaining some ladies at a dinner table by making popping sounds with his stiff shirt-front, in a hilarious demonstration of one of the pitfalls of classic dinner attire... .
Bart
Dorothy L Sayers was a brilliant (if rather bohemian) academic. She also wrote on theological themes and translated Dante. She seems to have written the Wimsey books as personal escapism and to make some dough. I guess that she largely leaves us to see Wimsey dressed as we should expect him to be dressed. However, returning to the theme of gentlemanliness regarding women - even Wimsey, in his youth, kept a mistress in Paris and, not at all as a soul-mate! The theme is returned to in Clouds of Witness - Cathcart and his Parisian mistress and Denver himself and the farmer's wife. Indeed it is (married) Denver's refusal to bring his married mistress's name into the matter that, effectively, lands him on trial for murder before the House of Lords. As I say, the mores of each age are different in relation to these matters and it is a complicated business to assess Mars and Venus in any age let alone one that is quite far-removed from our own.
ll very complicated. If a modern man pursued his intended mate as assiduously as the last Czar of the Russias had pursued his eventual Czarina, he would probably end up being subject to an injunction against molestation. But the human race needs to survive!
NJS
-
- Posts: 452
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:42 pm
- Contact:
If I remember correctly, the scene tales place in Gaudy Night and the offending, popping, shirt-front does not belong to Wimsey (unthinkable ! ) but to a visiting academic (maybe even a foreign one !). The popping sound is involuntary.Taller wrote:
I am delighted you consider the Wimsey novels to be literature - the official verdict is: detective novels are no good, by definition. I thoroughly enjoyed them. And they certainly had a positive influence on my development as an adolescent, and beyond.
Unfortunately, the author apparently had no clue about male clothing - the only thing I can now remember her writing about Wimsey's clothes is his lordship entertaining some ladies at a dinner table by making popping sounds with his stiff shirt-front, in a hilarious demonstration of one of the pitfalls of classic dinner attire... .
Bart
Frog in Suit
Taller wrote:'Roll in the hay' is one way of putting it... I was 13 at the time and recently watched Goldfinger again. I now thought the scene rather shocking and quite ridiculous: James Bond rapes Pussy Galore, who then falls in love with him. Perhaps it had to affirm the then popular myth of "if a girls says no, she means yes"?*
Back in 1964, the writers obviously deemed the scene normal behaviour for the James Bond character. So did Fleming himself: I remember a scene in one of the books where Bonds gets a massage and rapes the masseuse 'after a short struggle'.
Bond may have been a better dresser back in 1964 - a gentleman he was not. Plus, after Le Carré's George Smiley and Len Deighton's Bernard Samson, Bond seems too unreal and one-dimensional. I also find the books have not aged as well as, say, Dorothy Sayers' novels about Lord Peter Wimsey. Now there's a gentleman if ever there was one! No forced quickies in the barn or short struggles for the second son of the 15th Duke of Denver!
Bart
* The correct saying, as far as I know, goes like this: "If a lady says no, she means maybe; if she says maybe she means yes; if she says yes she is no lady."
I don't think they really tried to make any bones about him being a gentleman, originally. From last month's vanity fair article,
"Connery’s rough-hewn background served Cinema Bond well—it made him a more plausible creation than Fleming’s Bond. Whereas the latter is a roguish posh boy, steeped in the finer things in life, who just happens to be a cold-blooded assassin, the former is not unlike Don Draper as portrayed by Jon Hamm in Mad Men: a mysterious self-creation whose virile good looks opened doors in his young adulthood, and who seized upon these openings to learn the ropes as a gentleman, connoisseur, and lover, transforming himself into a convincing but dangerous facsimile of all of the above."
He is supposed to be sort of a good looking brute or wolf in sheeps clothing who luckily, fights for the good guys. Its the character much more interesting than just another British gentleman detective in my opinion.
I don't know, the guards officers were once renowned for their exceptional style.marburyvmadison wrote:That is true, but is it conceivable that a secret agent, who has undergone intensive military training and have had to rough it out with KGB spies, would look quite as immaculate as the Bond of yesteryear? I think that if JB were more than a mere fictional character, he'd probably resemble Craig, than, say, the polished looks of Pierre Brosman, Roger Moore or a young Sean Connery. Not that I'm disagreeing on the problems with Tom Ford's suits on Craig, but merely pointing out that the portrayal of Bond by Craig is in all likelihood more realistic.rodes wrote:The James Bond of years back was a man of resplendent taste. Breakfast was his favorite meal, he wore a bespoke Chesterfield, and only the woman who kissed him could sense the Floris 89. Today, James travels in a track suit and sneakers. He has no time for breakfast and owns no overcoat. He shops at J Crew and sports designer cologne. The latest Bond girl has to buy his dinner jacket for him because he came to Monte Carlo without one. Does anyone really believe that he can tie his own bow tie? All this is rather sad. After all, how hard could it have been to make Daniel Craig look good?
It turns out you are right, frog in suit. There is a Dr. Threep (must be a foreigner ) whose shirt-front appears to lead a life of its own. Wimsey doesn't demonstrate what can go wrong with one's shirt, he explains. This is the passage from Gaudy Night (as you also rightly remembered):If I remember correctly, the scene tales place in Gaudy Night and the offending, popping, shirt-front does not belong to Wimsey (unthinkable ! ) but to a visiting academic (maybe even a foreign one !). The popping sound is involuntary.
Frog in Suit
"There is a question on which I'm anxious to be instructed," said Miss Pyke, "if you will not take it amiss."
Miss Pyke, of course, was still worried about Dr. Threep's shirt-front, and determined on getting enlightenment. Harriet hoped that Wimsey would recognize her curiosity for what it was: not skittishness, but the embarrassing appetite for exact information which characterizes the scholarly mind.
"That phenomenon," he said, readily, "comes within my own sphere of knowledge. It occurs because the human torso possesses a higher factor of variability than the ready-made shirt. The explosive sound you mention is produced when the shirt-front is slightly too long for the wearer. The stiff edges, being forced slightly apart by the inclination of the body come back into contact with a sharp click, similar to that emitted by the elytra of certain beetles. It is not to be confused, however, with the ticking of the Death-watch, which is made by tapping with the jaws and is held to be a love-call. The clicking of the shirt-front has no amatory significance, and is, indeed, an embarrassment to the insect. It may be obviated by an increased care in selection or, in extreme cases, by having the garment made to measure."
"Thank you so much", said Miss Pyke. "That is a most satisfactory explanation. At this time of day, it is perhaps not improper to adduce the parallel instance of the old-fashioned corset, which was subject to a similar inconvenience."
"The inconvenience", added Wimsey, "was even greater in the case of plate armour, which had to be very well tailored to allow of movement at all."
There you have it: one more reason not to buy off the rack!
Bart
[edit: typo]
Last edited by Taller on Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
So that's what living life to the extreme is all about...It may be obviated by an increased care in selection or, in extreme cases, by having the garment made to measure.
I came across this trivia today and it recalled this thread to me... (trivia came with said picture)
To help him get a feel for the clothes, director Terence Young asked Sean Connery to sleep in his tailor fitted suit.
Dr No. (1962)
To help him get a feel for the clothes, director Terence Young asked Sean Connery to sleep in his tailor fitted suit.
Dr No. (1962)
Even the very best suits (sometimes, even the very best shoes), have to stand being slept in from time to time...
NJS
NJS
-
- Posts: 452
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Thank you for doing the research which I was too lazy to attempt. Bespoke is the only way forward. (but we knew that, didn't we?)Taller wrote:It turns out you are right, frog in suit. There is a Dr. Threep (must be a foreigner ) whose shirt-front appears to lead a life of its own. Wimsey doesn't demonstrate what can go wrong with one's shirt, he explains. This is the passage from Gaudy Night (as you also rightly remembered):If I remember correctly, the scene tales place in Gaudy Night and the offending, popping, shirt-front does not belong to Wimsey (unthinkable ! ) but to a visiting academic (maybe even a foreign one !). The popping sound is involuntary.
Frog in Suit
"There is a question on which I'm anxious to be instructed," said Miss Pyke, "if you will not take it amiss."
Miss Pyke, of course, was still worried about Dr. Threep's shirt-front, and determined on getting enlightenment. Harriet hoped that Wimsey would regognize her curiosity for what it was: not skittishness, but the embarrassing appetite for exact information which characterises the scholarly mind.
"That phenomenon," he said, readily, "comes within my own sphere of knowledge. It occurs because the human torso possesses a higher factor of variability than the ready-made shirt. The explosive sound you mention is produced when the shirt-front is slightly too long for the wearer. The stiff edges, being forced slightly apart by the inclination of the body come back into contact with a sharp click, similar to that emitted by the elytra of certain beetles. It is not to be confused, however, with the ticking of the Death-watch, which is made by tapping with the jaws and is held to be a love-call. The clicking of the shirt-front has no amatory significance, and is, indeed, an embarrassment to the insect. It may be obviated by an increased care in selection or, in extreme cases, by having the garment made to measure."
"Thank you so much", said Miss Pyke. "That is a most satisfactory explanation. At this time of day, it is perhaps not improper to adduce the parallel instance of the old-fashioned corset, which was subject to a similar inconvenience."
"The inconvenience", added Wimsey, "was even greater in the case of plate armour, which had to be very well tailored to allow of movement at all."
There you have it: one more reason not to buy off the rack!
Bart
As to sleeping in one's new suit, I was told once that tweeds (serious tweeds, not this new loose, light-reflecting, modern stuff...) must be worn once or twice in the rain before being presentable (sortable in French).
Frog in Suit
FiS - Yes, hang all tweeds out in a leaky barn for a few days before they are actually worn!
NJS
NJS
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests