Independent study first draft

Historically, James Bond movies have confirmed Laura Mulvey's theory. Is that still the case today?

“You think women as disposable pleasures rather than meaningful pursuits”[1]

The 2006 movie Casino Royale presents women differently in comparison to the original Casino Royale (1967). The women in this movie are not depicted in the typical James Bond manner, and this more dominant female role is best shown through the character of Vesper Lynd, as she is seen as being ‘cut above the average Bond Girl’[2]. The more dominant role played by Vesper Lynd contrasts with the role played by Ursula Andress in Dr No (1962), who portrays the objectified female. Laura Mulvey’s theory, the ‘male gaze’ has become a big influence on the way of thinking of women and her views are expressed in her essay ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’. Within this essay, she discusses how women are seen as ‘the bearer of meaning and not the maker of meaning’[3] and this is well illustrated by the role played by Ursula Andress, whereas Vesper Lynd is portraying a female who creates meaning and challenges the character of James Bond.

In the past, women in Bond movies have been ‘symbolically annihilated’[4] and this was more or less the case in past Bond movies, most notably in Dr No (1962), in particular the scene involving Ursula Andress’s iconic scene. In this scene, Ursula walks seductively out of the water catching the ‘male gaze’ in the form of James Bond and the costume in this scene is particularly symbolic. Her costume includes a bikini, which portrays the promiscuous persona of the Bond Girl, however she is also is equipped with a knife, which in terms of gender equality symbolizes ‘women as representation signify castration’[5], but at the same time is at conflict, with the knife representing a phallic symbol, which places emphasis on the patriarchal society within the media. Similarly in other Bond movies, women continue to be dominated by the ‘superior sex’ and this is exhibited through the nature of the relationship between Bond and moneypenny, as Gauntlett describes their old flirtation as, ‘this kind of behaviour could qualify as sexual harassment’[6]. The way in which women are portrayed in the movie is separate from the way in which they are seen amongst the audience, as they are able to take any reading of the text they prefer. The physiological battle that women face in the media has become one of the major problems and as Greer puts it “every woman knows that she is a failure if she is not beautiful”[7] and this singular view is explaining the truth within the media, as all movies require good looking females, shown in Bond movies with the inclusion of Halle Berry, Eva Greene and Ursula Andress.

Looking at other genre of film, the fascination of having a beautiful woman in the movie is continued and this could form an argument of film institutions concentrating more on characters looks rather than on the aesthetics of the movie. This can be seen in the 1960’s classic Cool Hand Luke (1967) with the car-wash scene, in which the female character is represented as promiscuous but intentionally provocative. Women in this time period were seen, as ‘merely token females’[8] and were given no dominance in film and in Casino Royale, women continue to be stereotyped and dominated with specific reference to Bond girl, Caterina Murino who is left helpless in her demise. In this event, the clothing of the female is very symbolic as to how she is being represented, with her costume being low-cut revealing her cleavage and representing her as being promiscuous. Her constant seductive smiling to Bond reveals much about her role in the movie, as described by the Rolling Stones ‘a babe he takes back to his hotel room for a roll on the floor’[9].

Whether the producers and directors have subverted the representation of women, their intentions will remain, to include a good-looking woman who will make Bond look good. Only till recent times has the role of the woman changed in Bond movies and it was made clear by movies such as Goldeneye, Tomorrow never dies and Die another day, as all of these movies included dominant females, however Eva green has taken the representation of women in Bond movies to a new level, ‘Eva Green, is a cut above your average Bond girl’[10]. The first time we meet Eva Green is in the train representing the national treasury, which is a place of importance for a woman in modern ages. In the first scene including her, she creates an air of mystery around herself, as she is wearing black, which is a masculine colour and creates ambiguity about her. The Guardian describes her as being ‘no run of the mill Bond Girl’[11] and this is further reinforced with her battle of wits she has with Bond, who realizes that he she is ‘the equal of 007’[12] and finds it a challenge, as he has not come across this sort of challenge before.

One issue concerning the make-up of the female character lies within the gender of the producers and directors and with all of them being male, only a male perspective is offered. ‘All actresses had to perform a bedroom scene with Daniel’, gives a clear indication of the patriarchal society that is surrounding the media today, however the male directors have managed to give the female a more dominant role as it subverts the old stereotype of women only being any use for domesticated jobs such as cleaning. Women in the past were looked at as only being concerned with ‘cleaning and family’, however this movie shows different. The second wave of feminism also comes into effect here, as after the 1960’s through till the late 1970’s, women didn’t get the equality the thought they deserved and when they did, it started to reflect it in the movies and the movies with powerful women in them were in essence reflecting the ‘zeitgeist’.
Some scenes in particular in two of the James Bond movies were shot because of the beauty that was on display from the women however, these scene could also have argued to being objectifying women further. The scenes in question are the scene including Ursula Andress and Halle Berry, as both women were in identical scenes and can be contrasted with a specific scene in Casino Royale. Both women are wearing bikini’s which portray them as promiscuous but both women have knifes on the bikini’s which connote danger, but also contradict their ‘power’, as the knife represents a phallic symbol, which still connotes the male dominance in the patriarchal society. The women in these scenes were the ‘figure in [the] landscape’[13], as they were the centre of attention in these scene but they were also being gazed upon by Bond, therefore reinforcing Mulvey’s ‘male gaze’[14]. These two symbolic scenes can be contrasted with a scene in Casino Royale, in which Bond is seen coming out of the ocean in a small pair of shorts and this can be said to be feeding into the ‘female gaze’[15], whereby a role reversal occurs and the male is being sexually objectified and in essence is being seen as a ‘merely token [male]’.

Bond has been the ‘figure in [the] landscape’[16] for the whole length of the series, showing the patriarchal society however, Bond has not and is not the most powerful person in the Bond series, as his boss ‘M’ is being played by a woman, Judi Dench. ‘M’ is the person in control and she makes her power felt to the men in Bond, especially Bond himself who she sees’s as a “cold hearted bastard”[17]. Scenes in the movie such as, when Bond has the tracking device planted in his arm is an example of ‘M’ exerting her power over Bond and bringing to the forefront the accumulated power of women over the past ten or twenty years, “we’ll know where you are”[18]. Scene’s such as this one are there to show that the media and spy movies in particular are not overly controlled by men and that the female is able to be powerful in the media, and generally confirms to the up rise in powerful females in recent Bond movies, with Halle Berry and Eva Green leading the way and Gauntlett reinforces this shift in representation with ‘Although Bond changes little, the female characters have become ore resourceful as the series has progressed’[19]. With women pushing the equality amongst the genders, the producers felt that it was important to show that the leading Bond girl Vesper Lynd was shown to be confident and self assured when it came to meeting with Bond. “I am the money”[20] is the first sentence spoken by Vesper Lynd as she first meets with Bond and it is very significant, as it shows her to be confident and by saying this, she is aware of how valuable she is to Bond.

Throughout the movie, women continue to be given a voice and continue to be shown as powerful and valuable and this is shown the best through the scene of Vesper Lynd having her arms tied behind her back and being made to lie down in the middle of the road. The significance of this scene lies within the fact that, she is made to lie in the middle of the road because villain, Le Chiffre knows how valuable she is to Bond and puts her at risk. Similarly, in Die another Day (2002), Halle Berry who is playing the Bond girl, is put in a place of jeopardy, as the villain again knows that she is valuable towards Bond. Historically, the bond girl who is by the side of James Bond is always put in jeopardy, as in the context of the James Bond series; she is portrayed as ‘merely a token female’[21] and it can be argued that the directors have done nothing to subvert this stereotype from carrying on its path in demoralising the female gender.

Looking at Goldeneye (1995), the way in which women are being represented in that movie is very contrasting within the text, as there are two main women in the text, both of which are shown in contrasting ways. ‘Natalia’ is shown to be the ‘damsel in distress’ figure even though she is portrayed as being intelligent and self assured, as shown by her job, working with computers in a society where she is surrounded by men. The other male counterpart, ‘Xenia Onnatop’, is represented in a complete contrasting manner, as she is shown to be the action female, with her being on the fight against good. Her power is shown through her aggressive nature, particularly when racing against James Bond, which usually is associated with men. Another side to her is shown, but this time it is shown through her sexually seductive nature, in which she is completely dominant over her male counterparts. ‘Xenia’ is the perfect symbol of Mulvey’s theory of ‘women as representation signify castration’[22], as she literally attempts to dismantle her sex partners into submission, therefore exerting her power over males.

One of the reasons for the male dominance and the objectification of women, is because it lies within the character make up of James Bond, as from the start of the series, he has always been ‘fascinated with women’. In Dr No (1962), Bond who is being played by Sean Connery, keeps watch on Ursula Andress, as she becomes an iconic figure in the epic Bond series. The character make up of Bond has been kept throughout the series as has some characteristics of other characters. Ursula Andress being a ‘self-educated orphan girl’[23], proves a great make up of a strong minded and confident character, and this can be seen in the character of Vesper Lynd as well, as she is also an orphan child. Looking at similar scenes from Dr No and Die another Day, both Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan are constantly gazing at Ursula Andress and Halle Berry and this gazing at women in two different time periods, shows how similar MGM have tried to keep Bond’s character over a period of 40 years, as his character has attracted a huge following including younger generations of people. Looking at Casino Royale however, the character of James Bond has been slightly altered with as he is shown to be more mechanical and muscular however, the aesthetics of Bond have remained, ‘Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond’[24].

Audience play a major part in the success of the Bond series but also play huge parts in determining how women are being represented, as the audience are able to take an oppositional or preferred reading of the movie. All of the Bond movies have a vast following and all of the movies have a diverse target audience, with there being people who have followed from the beginning, to youngsters who want to be like Bond. The aesthetics of Bond have remained and that will appeal to the long time followers, ‘although Bond changes little’[25]. The more recent movies such as, Casino Royale and Die another Day on the other hand, would be attracting new members of the public because of the way in which women have been portrayed, which is ‘more resourceful’[26] and more dominant as the series as gone along. As well as the male segment of the audience having their hero in Bond, newer female members of the audience will also have their hero’s, as they would want to be idealising strong female character such as, Halle Berry as ‘Jinx’ and Eva Green as ‘Vesper Lynd’. ‘M’, is the only woman who has played a dominant role throughout the movies she has appeared in and in the context of the movies, she is seen as the perfect role model for the female segment of the audience, as she dominates Bond and shows her power. “You are a sexist misogynistic dinosaur”[27] is the kind of power that she exerts over Bond and in the context of her role; she is the ‘maker of meaning’[28] and also the main threat to Bond in terms of power and she represents ‘castration’[29].

Another key factor in the women being objectified as sex objects is the fact that Casino Royale (2006) has not put enough emphasis on all of the gadgets, which have become an essential part of a Bond movie. It can be argued that some of the aesthetic pleasure has been lost and more concentration has been put on sexual beauty. However, the lack of spy equipment and gadgets is another reason as to why women have been given more dominance and more importance during the movie. Eva Green who plays Vesper Lynd has been given the responsibility of playing a more ‘resourceful’[30] role in the movie whereas 40 years back, Ursula Andress was given the ‘eye candy’ role whereby she was there to please males. The clothes and the props in Casino Royale are contrasting to the clothes and props in Dr No, whereby Eva Green is strong minded without the use of violence or weapons, whereas Ursula Andress is a symbolic representation of castration, as she is equipped with a knife.

Overall, Bond has managed to subvert Mulvey’s theory, as the way in which women are being represented has moved on and become more dominant and more hands on. Looking back to the first Bond movie in the epic series Dr No, it is made clear how far the character make up of the female has progressed throughout the series, most notably the Bond girl, who has been the main focus when it comes to women. Looking at some scenes in particular for example, the first time we meet both Ursula Andress and Vesper Lynd, they are portrayed to the audience in completely contrasting ways, with Ursula Andress being armed with a knife and Vesper Lynd wearing black and being portrayed as mysterious. The fact that a knife was used 40 years ago to show women as powerful is demoralising to today’s women, as women in those days needed phallic symbols to exert their power. In Casino Royale however, the way in which women are exerting their power is completely opposite, as Vesper Lynd is wearing black, which is a masculine colour and portrays herself as an enigmatic individual. Vesper Lynd subverts all of the labels that women were given before, such as weak and domesticated and dominated by a patriarchal society, women being ‘symbolically annihilated’[31] has been evaporated by this performance by Eva Green, as she has carried the weight of women being objectified on her shoulders and she has succeeded in subverting the way in which women have been represented.

Word count: 3004 words

Bibliography
Works cited

Books
Gauntlett, D. (2008). Media, Gender and Identity. New York: Routledge.

Greer, G. (1999). The Whole Woman. New York: Doubleday.

Turner, G. (2001). The Film Cultures Reader. New York: Routledge.

Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema: screen 16, pp 6-18

Gunter, B. (1995), Television and gender representation, London: John Libby

Tuchman, G. (1978), The symbolic annihilation of women in the mass media


Internet

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/nov/10/jamesbond.danielcraig
(Guardian review of Casino Royale by Peter Bradshaw)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._No_(film)
(Information page on Casino Royale including actors, directors and the plot of the text)

http://cid.nada.kth.se/pdf/cid_51.pdf
(An essay on whether or not there is a female gaze)

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/gaze/gaze09.html
(Notes on Laura Mulvey’s theory, the ‘male gaze’)

http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=153830&section=review
(‘Casino Royale overview’, review of the text by channel 4)

http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/7349978/review/12450444/casino_royale
(‘Casino Royale’ review by Rolling Stones)

Moving image texts

Casino Royale (2006)

Die another Day (2002)

Dr No (1962)

Cool hand Luke (1967)

Works consulted

Books

Morley, D. (1996). Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies (Comedia). New York: Routledge.

Clover, C. J. (1993). Men, Women and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film. London: Bfi Publishing

Bennett, T., & Woollacott, J. (1987). Bond and Beyond (Communications & Culture). New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Internet

http://www1.medialiteracy.com/representation.jsp
(Link to a website, which focuses on the representations of women and the general roles of gender, race and representation)

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Modules/MC30820/represent.html
(Link to a website which focusses on the representations of different groups in the media and how they affect the media)

http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gender/gaze/gaze.htm
(Notes on the male gaze, just giving an overview of the theory)

Moving image texts

Goldeneye (1995)



[1] Casino Royale (2006)
[2] Film 4 review of Casino Royale (2006)
[3] Mulvey Laura, (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’: screen 16, pp 6-18
[4] Tuchman Gaye, 1978, ‘The symbolic annihilation of women in the mass media’
[5] Mulvey Laura, (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’: screen 16, pp 6-18
[6] Gauntlett David, (2002), ‘Media, gender and identity’ New York: Routlage
[7] Greer Germaine, (1999), ‘The whole woman’, London: Doubleday
[8] Gunter Barry, (1995), ‘Television and gender representation’, London: John Libby
[9] http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/7349978/review/12450444/casino_royale
[10] http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=153830&section=review
[11] http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/nov/10/jamesbond.danielcraig
[12] http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=153830&section=review&page=2#reviewnav
[13] Turner, Graham, (1989:20), ‘The film cultures reader’
[14] Mulvey, Laura, (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’: screen 16, pp 6-18
[15] http://cid.nada.kth.se/pdf/cid_51.pdf
[16] Turner, Graham, (1989:20), ‘The film cultures reader’. New York: Routlage
[17] Casino Royale, (2006)
[18] Casino Royale, (2006)
[19] Gauntlett, David, (2002), Media, gender and identity, New York: Routlage
[20] Casino Royale, (2006)
[21] Gunter, Barry, (1995), ‘Television and gender representation’, London: John Libby
[22] Mulvey, Laura, (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’: screen 16, pp 6-18
[23] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._No_(film)
[24] http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/nov/10/jamesbond.danielcraig
[25] Gauntlett, David, (2002), ‘Media, gender and identity’, New York: Routlage
[26] Gauntlett, David, (2002), ‘Media, gender and identity’, New York: Routlage
[27] Casino Royale (2006)
[28] Mulvey, Laura, (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’: screen 16, pp 6-18
[29] Mulvey, Laura, (1975), ‘Visual pleasure and narrative cinema’: screen 16, pp 6-18
[30] Gauntlett, David, (2002), ‘Media, gender and identity’, New York: Routlage
[31] Tuchman Gaye, 1978, ‘The symbolic annihilation of women in the mass media’