Bond, James Bond

Problematic Toxic Masculinity Tropes #3

Problematic Toxic Masculinity Tropes #3

Bond, James Bond

When Felix Leiter, CIA agent, finally catches up with Bond, he’s right where he wants him (Miami Beach). Except for the fact that he’s undergoing a massage by a pretty young woman in a bathing suit. Felix approaches, interrupting the girl’s ministrations, but Bond doesn’t seem to mind. He introduces the girl as Dink, then quickly dismisses her:

“Dink, say goodbye to Felix,” Bond commands.

“Hm?” Dink squeaks.

“Man talk,” explains Bond, turning the woman around by the shoulders and giving her a resounding smack on the rear.

Within the next mere ten minutes of Goldfinger, we see James Bond overpower, dominate, and/or seduce no fewer than four people. Thing is, we are supposed to love the rascal (or should I say, rapist) for it. Throughout the rest of the movie, Bond exercises this easy and smug superiority towards everyone he encounters, from showing off his class (his brandy knowledge) in front of his boss M, to cheating at golf, to forcing Goldfinger’s pilot to sleep with him, destroying Tilly’s car to trap her… The list goes on. It’s the combination of high class trappings paired with an almost sadistic domination of everyone he encounters. Steeped in colonialism, it’s the blending of sexism, racism, and ‘good breeding’ that creates the perfect monster; the double edged sword we call a ‘gentleman.’ And what does it say about the culture that produces both?

Bond, James Bond

Problematic Toxic Masculinity Trope #3 is titled after a pop culture character that most epitomizes this perfectly toxic combo: the monster and the gentleman. Bond is so secure in his inarguable superiority that he ravishes, maims, or kills anyone he deems inferior to him. Which is, of course, everyone. This is the very definition of colonialism, and it’s also where the definition of ‘gentleman’ comes from. Social status means everything to the Bond, James Bond trope character, which means manners, etiquette and breeding must be displayed at every turn.

Ah, but this means that Bond is not as secure in his masculine superiority after all—his utter domination doesn’t go unquestioned, not without his conscious, constant efforts. And here is where the damage of this trope comes to the fore. The gentleman Bond is another impossible masculine ideal, but a particularly ugly one: it’s the concept of precarious manhood. This paradoxically vulnerable version of masculinity means having to pass constant tests to prove oneself as a man, and Bond’s approach to doing this is to establish his dominance and superiority onto everybody—even to those above him in rank. It’s Bond’s way or the highway, even if you’re M. Bond knows best, and Bond is better than anyone: he’s right even when he’s wrong, which is a lot of where he gets his wide appeal.

Bond, James Bond. Coolest dude in town. That’s because he shot everybody else.

This godlike egotism creates destructive disdain for those he considers below him (which, remember, is everybody), but especially those of other races and/or genders. Racism, exoticism, misogyny, and classism are what the gentleman monster is all about. Bond exudes a smug feeling of superiority over everyone he meets, from the expendable savage (like Quarrel from Dr. No), to the squealing tart (Dink in Goldfinger), to the barbaric American (Felix Leiter). But it’s okay; he’ll still save the world at the end, so consumers of the Bond trope often overlook how horrible he was to everyone on his way to his heroic ending.

Man, What a Dick

“But these books/movies are from a different time, before political correctness and everyone going woke!” you might well say. And sure, the racism and sexism rampant in the Bond, James Bond trope are obviously nothing to admire, let alone emulate. It’s all rather calculated in the books, and almost cartoonish in the older movies. The newer films (arguably starting with Brosnan, but definitely apparent in Craig’s tenure in the role) try to do better, but his awful behavior almost becomes more insidious and damaging than when Bond’s bigotry was obvious and aboveboard, smacking Dink in the ass for man talk. 

Either way, these behaviors are overlooked and excused by those who aspire to the epitome of masculinity that embodies Bond’s character, and that’s what’s so damaging. We’re reminded over and over and over again how superior Bond is; we’re supposed to want Bond if we’re female, and want to be him if we’re male. Which raises another point: up to very recently, the heteronormativity of Bond has gone explicitly unquestioned, ergo: to be truly masculine, one must be straight as an arrow. More on this in Trope #5: Sassy Gay Friend.

This idolatry is hugely problematic—Bond is terrible. We shouldn’t want to be or be with him, and yet he (and his tropey clones) has been a cultural icon for over seventy years. This institutionalized form of masculinity can’t be good for the men who try to be him, nor the women who attempt Bond Girl status. Treating the entire world like garbage doesn’t make a real man in the real world a charming rake, but a horrible asshole.* And a woman who is treated the way Bond Girls are treated? Well, unfortunately that happens all the time, and this is a big part of what #metoo was a reaction against. But it ain’t cute or fun in real life.

*Look at satirical cartoon Archer for some scathing play on this very idea.

A brief note regarding Bond in the books vs. the films: 

In Ian Fleming’s original novels, we get to explore Bond’s inner emotional life, and it’s much richer than anything we’re able to get from the movies. The character is more intense, more unlikeable, but withal understandable and human, in contrast to the Prince Charming of all the films (particularly the old ones, when nobody gave a shit about being careful with the awfulness, portraying him as almost jovially terrible).

It’s my impression that we’re not supposed to like Bond of the books—we’re supposed to be interested in his adventures and be fascinated by his actions in exotic, fantasy environments, but we’re not supposed to like him. It’s easier to recognize the monster that is Bond in the novels, in other words. But the movies force us to like him, be charmed by him, no matter what horrific acts he commits. There’s no time for Bond’s inner life in the flicks, so he’s less human, and far less complex. Actors like Brosnan and Craig (and, to be fair, some of the screenwriters) have tried to show some of that inner life from the books with their acting chops, but film is a medium that just doesn’t allow for the internal character development of a novel. Also, film franchises that focus predominantly on shallow action to this day rake in the most cash…

Daniel Craig inserting some emotion into Bond as he reacts to M’s death. Do I need to worry about spoiler warnings? I can’t imagine so.

Take out the Trash

And so here we are, fans of Bond and the other Bond-like trope characters, charmed by the man that treats everyone around him like garbage. Or kills them. What to do?

The main thing to do is just what I’ve been saying through all the tropes articles of both series: be aware of what we’re being spoon-fed, and be a more active participant in the culture that is influencing us. Also, we can continue to call out the problematic aspects as we catch them, and, more importantly, demand better. And, I dunno—read the books.

And, hey, who knows what will become of this character, now that a woman is 007? 

(Spoilers? Spoilers. Sorry.)