Bonding for Love: 007 and Predatory Masculinity

On May 27th, 2001, the Bronx community suffered a tragedy. 9 year-old Julian Roman, a karate and Superman fanatic, leaped from a 5-storey building in front of his friends and cousin. Unfortunately, Julian fell and crashed into a heating vent, eventually succumbing to his injuries and dying in the hospital. The aftermath made headlines all across the US and Canada, leading to some suggesting on the news that superhero comics were a bad influence. How do I know this? Because I was 10 years-old, and it struck me personally.

I mention that in light of how narrative art portrays its male protagonists, and how they’re perceived by the public. June marks the 8th month since Harvey Weinstein was outed as a serial predator. Despite the countless predators that’ve been outed in since November of 2017, as well as the fervour it’s created in its wake, there’s been little change in Hollywood’s depictions of sex and masculinity in film. Males are still seen as romanticized magnets for women, and nowhere is this more-apparent than with James Bond himself.

Before anyone gets angry, I want to give a disclaimer: I like James Bond. I don’t like a lot of his movies, I find most of them boring, but he’s proven himself quite a versatile character. Plus, there’s no denying a love of watching someone fulfill my every testosterone-filled fantasy on-screen, especially in ways that’d get me arrested. He’s the embodiment of what many men wish they could be, which is all-the-more reason why it’s important to recognize how much of a bad role-model he is.

James Bond got his cinematic start in 1962 with Dr. No, where he has his ever-so-famous name-drop during a poker game. It’s an iconic line for many reasons, but it also sets up who Bond is: he’s charming, slick, playful, intelligent and loves cigarettes. The movie also adapted a feature present in the books, yet dialled it down in order to keep up with the latter years of The Hays Code: his lust for women. It’s made most-apparent in Ursula Andress’s first appearance in the film, where she comes out of the ocean in a bikini and you know exactly what the “prize” is.

This lust for women surfaces in pretty much every Bond movie. In Goldfinger, arguably one of the best Bond entries, there’s a scene where Bond seduces Pussy Galore, the film’s main Bond girl, in an attempt to win-over Auric Goldfinger. The scene involves Bond pinning Galore to the ground, while she resists, culminating with a kiss. And to soothing music. Charming.

Except…not really.

For all it’s done for films as a whole, or even the spy sub-genre, Goldfinger’s romantic component hasn’t really aged all that well. Whether it’s Bond smacking a bikini-clad love interest on her rear without consent, or the aforementioned sex scene, Bond comes off as hostile, aggressive and predatory. And it makes the movie’s romantic scenes uncomfortable to watch with a 21st Century lens. But perhaps that’s a “reflection of the times”, making it an unfair critique.

So let’s fast-forward to much later in the James Bond franchise and discuss a more recent entry, Tomorrow Never Dies. The 35 years between Dr. No and the aforementioned film would’ve seen huge advancements in the franchise and the social conscious as a whole, but has Bond changed? Or is the pretense of Bond being asked to sleep with the married wife of the film’s antagonist proof that he hasn’t? We know he no longer smokes, something he makes clear in the opening scene, but has his womanizing really disappeared? The answer, obviously, is no.

Perhaps that’s not entirely fair; after all, Tomorrow Never Dies came out during a mediocre decade of action films and was a mediocre Bond film in a mediocre Bond run. You’re bound to have less-than-stellar portrayals of masculinity when your film isn’t trying all that hard. We can even handwave the feminism of the 90’s a bit because women in film tended to suffer greatly during that decade. That, and, honestly, Pierce Brosnan’s take on the character never spoke to me anyway. Therefore, I think the best way to accurately assess Bond’s toxicity is to look at his current portrayal by Daniel Craig.

In Casino Royale, we see a vengeful, jerkish Bond drown a rogue informant in a sink, chase down another rogue informant that he later kills, chase down yet another rogue informant in an airport and, of course, shoot a rogue informant in the leg when it’s revealed that he might have information on his dead girlfriend. He also sleeps with a married woman to get information, causing her death, and falls in-love with an operative he initially distrusts. He doesn’t force himself on her, for a change, but there’s still a bit of the classic Bond in his relationship with Vesper Lynd. In other words, little has changed since 1962 when it comes to how Bond views women.

The situation magnifies in Quantum of Solace. The premise involves Bond seeking revenge for the death of Lynd, and there’s a subplot involving Mi6 sending a female agent named Strawberry Fields to rope him in. Fields fails, and, in a completely unwarranted moment, the two end up having sex. I guess the writers felt that the movie lacked a sex scene, so why not shove it in where it doesn’t belong? It’s not like Fields doesn’t end up dead anyway, so…

Moving on to Skyfall, Bond only has one creepy sex scene: it centres around him travelling to Hong Kong to find out who’s been leaking the names of Mi6 operatives. After a semi-inappropriate striptease with a fellow operative, which is cut short by the reality that she’s trying to shave his face, Bond meets up with a prostitute. Despite her initial fear for her life, said prostitute agrees to help him. And, true to franchise tradition, Bond breaks into her apartment while she’s showering and screws her.

Smooth.

This leads to Spectre. Long-time readers of my work will remember what I thought of Spectre, but it’s worth noting that Craig’s Bond’s at his toxic worst here. Not only does he force himself on a recently-widowed woman who’s older than him for information, in what’s arguably the most rape-y scene in the franchise, but he winds up with yet another Bond girl, Madeline Swan, in an attempt to uncover the true mastermind. Initially, the situation looks to be going fine: the two share chemistry, they have a mutual respect for one-another, and Swan even sets boundaries. It’s only once the two are attacked on a train by a henchman, whom they defeat by accident, that they’re left wondering what to do next.

So they have sex. And it’s awkward. And it’s uncomfortable. And it reeks of desperation, completely spitting in the face of everything that was established prior.

If you’re wondering why I’m spending so much time on this topic, it’s because James Bond doesn’t exist in a vacuum. He might’ve started as a window into how men were expected to behave in the 60’s, regardless of whether or not it was right, but times change. What was “accepted” then isn’t so much now. Especially in-light of the Me Too movement.

Perhaps I wouldn’t care if this sort of “get the woman, no matter what” mentality was anomalous to James Bond. But toxic behaviours have long half-lives. That Indiana Jones lifts heavily from the James Bond franchise, right down to Indy’s forceful romanticism, should be indication. That Harrison Ford’s 80’s persona breathed forceful romance, right down to one of his characters openly raping someone, should be indication. That Peter Quill’s character from the Guardians of the Galaxy movies openly deconstructs this sort of behaviour, while simultaneously engaging in facets of it, should also be indication.

Even in real-life, the effects of this behaviour can be seen through incel culture, which preaches that men must take revenge on society because women “refuse to have sex with them”. Elliot Rodgers was incel, as was the guy from Toronto who mowed down bystanders with his van. Incel behaviour might not directly be influenced by James Bond, but if the Superman kid mentioned in the start of this piece is any example, then it’s definitely symptomatic of it. Media plays a big part in shaping how we view society, for better or worse.

I’m not saying the Bond movies should be boycotted, as that’s an absurd reaction to largely-forgettable (and occasionally-enjoyable) films. I’m also not saying that common-sense shouldn’t be used when viewing this content, as it should. But I do feel that it’s time for James Bond’s standard of masculinity to rehabilitate itself. I don’t care if that “ruins who he is”: If Harrison Ford has spent the last decade deconstructing the characters that made him famous, then James Bond, which has directly influenced Ford’s repertoire, should nix its “trophy girl” mentality.

And no, making the next Bond a woman won’t fix the problem (even if it’d be a welcome change.)

The Incredibles II Review

The Incredibles II is a movie people were anticipating for a long time. Initially, Brad Bird stated that a sequel to The Incredibles wasn’t gonna happen, as he “doesn’t do sequels” and “the movie ended fine”. But demand lingered for 9 years, until Pixar finally announced plans for one at the end of 2013. By the time the movie was slated for 2018, the time lapse had been 14 years. Even the opening to the movie had several of the voices, as well as Bird, thanking everyone for being patient. The question is, though, if that patience was warranted.

The Incredibles II takes place right after its predecessor, kicking off with the battle the original film had teased at the end. The Parr family, now a superhero team, take on Metro City’s newest threat as effectively as you’d expect, yet it doesn’t impress the police and mayor enough to convince them that supers should become legal again. It does, however, garner the attention of billionaire siblings Winston and Evelyn Deavor, who do wish to make supers legal again, so they hire Helen Parr, aka Elastigirl, to moonlight hero work while Bob Parr, or Mr. Incredible, takes on the stay-at-home-parenting role in their new mansion. Complicating matters is a super-villain desperate to mess everything up, as well as Bob’s frustrations over not connecting with his angsty daughter Violet, his mathematically-challenged son Dash and his newly-super-powered baby Jack-Jack. By the time the real threat comes to a head, it’s clear that the Parrs will have to team-up again to save the day.

Right away, it’s obvious The Incredibles II will be a fun time. Past Pixar sequels not part of the Toy Story franchise, with the exception of Finding Dory, have tended to suffer in quality, but The Incredibles II is pure joy. Everything from the witty banter between the Parrs, to the slick action, to even the retro-future vibe aesthetic, is present from the first movie, except dialled up to 11. Brad Bird clearly feels comfortable enough in this world to return, and his passion and care shows.

Musically, the same can be said too. Michael Giacchino returns, and his jazz-orchestral style underscores the film’s runtime. You can’t have a movie about the Parrs without John Barry-inspired tracks, and I trust no one but Giacchino to pull that off. Especially since the original film had my favourite of Giacchino’s compositions in his short career as a film composer. (And Giacchino’s had quite the career!)

The visual style also returns. Bird’s influences here are James Bond, Mission Impossible and futurist sci-fi, and all three are present. Even the character designs, which look straight from a traditionally-animated film, fit at home, with the advancements in technology allowing for upgrades in detail. My only complaint is that Bird’s team haven’t mastered the art of human feet. They show up in only a few shots, true, but they don’t translate well to CGI.

But that’s okay, because the movie compensates with its action set-pieces. There’s the opening that reorients fans from the first movie, ending, obviously, on a downer. Then there’s the monorail chase, arguably the most intense part of the movie, a close-quarters fight that dizzies the audience, and a climactic battle on-par with the Omnidroid fight from the first film. And let’s not forget when Jack-Jack first discovers his powers. I know the original movie hinted at his capabilities in the finale, but they blossom here and it’s great.

The voice work is top-notch. Everyone reprises their roles, with one exception, and they feel more at home this time around. Special shout-outs to Bob Odenkirk and Catherine Keener as Winston and Evelyn respectively, as they’re easily the stand-out roles. My only complaint is Dash’s replacement: Huck Milner. I know Spencer Fox couldn’t return for obvious reasons, he’s too old, but Milner never doesn’t feel like an imitation.

It’s easy to think the movie’s on-par with the first in every way. Sadly, while a lot of fun, it does feel like a part-2 to a great first entry. The Incredibles was dense, juggling many themes, but it had flow and sailed to the end without hiccups. The Incredibles II tries to do the same with several plot threads, but it’s also much less graceful in its cohesion. It doesn’t end up mattering, but it’s noticeable.

The movie also has a downgraded villain compared to its predecessor. Syndrome was silly, but he had layers and a connection to Mr. Incredible. Screenslaver, while good, lacks that immediate oomph. The film tries connecting him to Elastigirl, and the Mandarin-style plot-twist works better than it did in Iron Man 3, but he’s no match for Syndrome and his ultimate reveal is a little too obvious. That said, he gets an intense fight involving strobe lighting halfway through the movie, so props for being different.

It’s hard to fault The Incredibles II for its shortcomings. Even had it been a tighter film with a villain equal to Syndrome, I doubt it’d have met expectations. The Incredibles was one of Pixar’s best movies in their heyday, and even now it holds up incredibly, so disappointment was inevitable. That this movie manages to be a worthy follow-up at all is testament to how much time and effort went into it. I applaud Pixar for doing that.

Also, the short before the film, “Bao”, was heartbreaking and charming, so kudos for that.

WALL-E: A 10 Year Reflection

WALL-E is a film from the greats at Pixar. First released on June 21st, 2008, it, being Pixar’s 9th theatrically-released venture, was incredibly well-received by both critics and audiences. It currently holds a 96%/8.6/10 average on Rotten Tomatoes (based on 249 reviews), a 95 on Metacritic (based on 39 reviews) and an 8.4/10 on IMDb (based on 847397 reviews), the latter placing it at #62 on IMDb’s Top 250 List. It won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature at the 81st Academy Awards, and it was nominated in the categories of Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Original Song, Best Sound Mixing and Best Sound Editing. Even after 10 years, it remains one of Pixar’s most-beloved films. Which is all-the-more reason why, despite having a soft-spot, I’m incredibly conflicted over the movie.

Even though I’ve wanted to discuss this film for many weeks, I’ve put it off due to a combination of life stresses and not knowing what to say. Compounding that was the fact that it’d been over half-a-decade since I’d last seen it, so my thoughts weren’t fresh. But I saw it again anyway. Have my thoughts changed? Yes and no.

(FYI, for those who’ve yet to see WALL-E, there’ll be spoilers. You’ve been warned.)

What works?

WALL-E has many strengths, key amongst them being its storytelling. The film, or the parts focusing on WALL-E and EVE, tells a conventional story, a Hollywood romance, in an incredibly-unconventional manner. As sentient robots with minimal verbal skills, the love story between the leads is largely shown through visuals and body language. This is really hard to do in film, so any attempts at tackling it well should be applauded. This movie, to its credit, does that.

I like WALL-E and EVE. Despite clearly being coded male and female, the two aren’t your conventional masculine and feminine ideal. WALL-E, the male, is timid, shy and incredibly naïve, having spent most of his existence alone on a decayed and garbage-festered Earth. EVE, the female, is aggressive, quick-tempered and warrior-like, having been programmed to be the perfect soldier. Despite this, the two present facets of their traditional roles, and by the time the movie has ended, WALL-E has transformed into a confident male and EVE a compassionate female.

Speaking of which, I like the romance between WALL-E and EVE. It’s super-conventional, more on that later, but it’s silly and goofy in a cute way. Given how clumsy and insecure WALL-E is, as well as how aggressive and competent EVE is, it makes sense that WALL-E would initially be intimidated by EVE. Even when it starts blossoming in the second-act, it never feels unnatural. By the time the third-act climax rolls around, and WALL-E is badly wounded trying to save humanity, the heartbreak feels earned.

I also like a lot of the side-characters. Most of the humans are pretty disposable, more on that later too, but the robots are fun: there’s the germophobic janitor who keeps getting fed up with WALL-E’s messiness, the police officer who breaks protocol because he’s a jerk, the ship’s autopilot, or AUTO, being modelled off of HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey and the quirky, misfit’s in The AXIOM’s equivalent of a looney-bin. I also like the little bug that WALL-E befriends, while Captain B. McCrea is a lot of fun as a bumbling-yet-well-meaning man who’s become overcomplacent with the lap of luxury. And John and Mary are the film’s most-underrated human couple, taking on the most-personality of all of The AXIOM’s passengers. Essentially, the characters that matter the most are well-represented.

WALL-E looks, and sounds, beautiful. It’s no big deal to mention that Pixar’s movies look amazing, since they always do, but the attention to detail here is amazing. Everything from how Earth looks gross and messy, to how The AXIOM is clean and organized, is accounted for. Pixar takes minute details like lighting and space seriously, and this extends to the film’s constant reminder that this is a science-fiction movie on a post-apocalyptic Earth. Additionally, the designs of the characters, be they human or robot, are varied enough to be memorable, while the integration of live-action musical segments never feel out-of-place. Best of all? Even 10 years later, and especially with advancements in technology, the movie’s visuals still look photorealistic now. That’s something that, honestly, few early-CGI-animated movies, even Pixar movies, can attest to.

I also like the sound design. So much of it can be attested to Ben Burt, who helped bring the Star Wars movies to life, reprising his role as sound director. Everything, from WALL-E’s boot-up noise being reminiscent of an Apple computer, to AUTO’s voice sounding synthetic, to even the contrast between WALL-E’s primitiveness and EVE’s polish, adds to the experience. Even the voice acting is great, with Sigourney Weaver lending her voice to the announcer aboard The AXIOM. And yes, Ben Burt voices WALL-E perfectly, especially alongside Elissa Knight as EVE.

I love the musical selection, both its score and soundtrack choices. It’s Thomas Newman of Finding Nemo composing here, and while not quite as memorable, there are definitely stand-outs, like Define Dancing, that play during WALL-E’s best moments. The movie also references Hello Dolly’s musical cues at several points as a running motif, enhancing the film’s running theme of isolation. And, in a direct reference to 2001: A Space Odyssey, the movie uses Also sprach Zarathustra in a tense moment where Captain McCrea faces off against AUTO. It’s as funny as it is awesome.

Thematically, the movie has three major threads that tie it together, an ambitious undertaking. I’m not fond of how they’re tied together, and I’ll cover that shortly, but it’s interesting to see what it has on its mind. I like the film’s romantic thread, as that’s where it excels the most. I like the movie’s attempt at satirizing consumerism aboard The AXIOM, showing how lazy and environmentally-neglectful capitalism is. And I like the suspense thriller aspect with AUTO’s attempt at domination. They’re all clever threads that warrant their own movies.

Finally, the movie’s humour works. It’s not straight comedy, but the laughs it has are great. Perhaps my favourite gags are the “just a trim?” line that’s used several times in movie’s second-half, the germophobic “foreign contaminant” line that gets brought up constantly and Captain McCrea’s confused “uh…” line that activates the ship’s registry. There are other lines too, but I’ll stop there.

Okay, time for to switch gears!

What DOESN’T work?

Enough to bug me.

Let’s get the biggest elephant in the room out of the way: WALL-E’s an incredibly-unsubtle critique on neglect of the environment under capitalism. It’s a neat angle on environmentalism that so many films get wrong, true, and it makes sense that the two would go hand-in-hand, but I can’t help finding this a tad hypocritical. Pixar’s no Disney, but this cheap jab at an institution it benefits from makes the message feel insincere. If it were Disney proper, I wouldn’t mind as much, as they poke fun at themselves constantly. But I expect more from Pixar, and I feel this was the wrong subject for them to approach.

I also realize that this is a tough point to call out. As Leon Thomas once mentioned in his review, artists aren’t corporate entities, so whether or not the intended message is manipulated for mass profit isn’t up to them. What I do take issue with, however, is claiming that the film wasn’t intended as a pro-environmentalism piece. Because if intent mattered as much as execution, then it’d be easier to excuse Rick Deckard’s rape of Rachel in Blade Runner as “aggressive love”. Execution overrides intent.

I wouldn’t be as turned off if it weren’t for another pro-environmentalism movie released the following year, Avatar, being bashed for the same reason WALL-E’s given a pass. Avatar isn’t a perfect film by any means: it’s a ham-fisted, white saviour movie on top of a pro-environmentalism piece, and not even the best of either. But I don’t feel like the “save the trees” message in Avatar is hiding behind another, much better story. I do with WALL-E.

Switching gears, the relationship between WALL-E and EVE is unconventionally-conventional. It follows unusual characters, but plays like a cliché love story: boy meets girl. Girl is initially uninterested in boy, yet is won over by goofy hijinks. Insert slow trust between boy and girl. Insert misunderstanding. Insert reconciliation of misunderstanding. Insert tragic accident that shakes up relationship, leading to “will he, or won’t he?” moment. Insert sappy conclusion where boy and girl reunite and express their feelings.

I don’t mind this type of storytelling, especially in a romance, but don’t pretend it isn’t rote and predictable.

Completing the story complaints, the three plot threads, environment, romance and dark thriller, don’t mesh well. They’re fine solo, and they’d make excellent movies in their own right, but combined they’re constantly in-conflict with one-another. A scene that should feel romantic, like WALL-E and EVE flying in space, is undercut by the environmentalist undertones of Captain McCrea re-educating himself on Earth’s lost terms. It never doesn’t feel jarring, and that’s a problem.

Then there are the characters. Remember how I said that the robots were more-interesting than the humans? With the exceptions of Captain McCrea, Mary and John, every human is interchangeable. It’s the same issue I had with Princess Mononoke, where the cast of side-characters doesn’t stand out, except magnified tenfold. It’s inevitable when your human characters are an afterthought, but that doesn’t make it any less disappointing.

By the way, remember how I mentioned that the CGI looks amazing even now? Well, I lied a little. There’s one exception involving the humans in the promo ads for The AXIOM. They look off. As in, Uncanny Valley levels of off. It wouldn’t be as distracting had the rest of the human models in-film followed suit, but because they don’t, it’s disturbing. I know the film wants them to mesh with BnL’s shady, live-action CEO, to show how far humans have fallen, but that doesn’t make it any less jarring.

Speaking of jarring, the Hello Dolly musical numbers can feel that way too initially. The movie starts with an opening set to one of that film’s show-stoppers that contrasts the barren wasteland of future Earth, and it works…but then it’s cut off and we’re introduced to WALL-E. It took me several viewings to figure out where the film was going with this, and while I get it now, think it’s brilliant and feel as though it meshes perfectly with the movie, to the uninitiated it can be confusing.

There are other, minor details that also don’t add up. There’s a recurring joke about “pizza plants” that’s more cringe-worthy than funny. The movie’s pro-environmentalist message is openly spelled-out by Captain McCrea halfway through the film. And the end song in the credits, though catchy, is as subtle as a boot to the face. These are little annoyances, but when juxtaposed with the bigger annoyances, they add up.

The verdict?

It confuses me when people blanket praise WALL-E for its storytelling, yet point out that everything beyond the Married Life montage in Up falls flat. Ignoring that film’s a subjective medium, Up’s scrapbook montage in the film’s third-act hits me much harder than the Married Life montage. And for all of its ambitious storytelling, WALL-E’s a far messier movie. Up might be a simple adventure story, but it’s also a clever coming-of-age tale for Carl Fredrickson. It might be silly, but at least that silliness suits its premise. Even the message about family being what you make it to be feels more fleshed-out and consistent in Up than WALL-E’s three storylines.

I know that WALL-E’s well-loved. I love it too. I think it’s an incredibly well-made movie that’s also quite ambitious. But I don’t think it’s one of Pixar’s best from their golden age. I, honestly, think it’s one of their lesser-entries from that time period.

That having been said, I don’t think it’s a total waste of time. I remember one of my old ScrewAttack buddies openly stating that WALL-E would’ve been better as a short film, to which I vehemently disagree. I think WALL-E’s a fine movie, but it’s not a great one. It would’ve been great, however, had it tightened itself up. But it’s too late to rewind time.

Either way, I hold no ill-will against those who think that it’s one of Pixar’s best. It’s well-made, it’s ambitious, and at least one-third of the film, or WALL-E and EVE’s romance, is worthy of full marks. I simply can’t put it on the pedestal that everyone else has for 10 years.

But then again, feel free to disagree with me. I won’t stop you.