On this, International Women's Day, an ad was released by EON Productions, makers of the James Bond films, who have not produced any Bond material since 2008 and will not produce any more until 2012 or 2013.
This is the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkp4t5NYzVM
Pretty clever, yeah? Using James Bond, long a symbol of misogynistic (not to mention imperialist) power, as a toll to argue for feminist equality. Bringing him down to size by making him wear drag, which humiliates him.
Except it isn't really. The problems with this ad are so many, so legion, that I'm compelled to devote a patented longwinded Rowerowefightthepower rant against them.
First, I would argue that the biggest complaint against the feminist movement is the notion that it is combative, vindictive, and anti-men -- that it seeks to surplant a male dominated society with a female dominated society as revenge. This fear has led many men to dismiss, ignore or even fight the feminist movement. This is clearly not the intent of this ad, which is obviously to promote EQUALITY between the sexes. I agree that this is a good intent. But the content of the ad does not support this intent. One important distinction to note is that this is not an ad featuring Daniel Craig and Judi Dench, it is explicitly an ad featuring James Bond and his superior M (the head of the British Secret Service). So we have a woman in a superior position berating a man (who is her employee) and placing blame on his gender for the misfortunes of her own gender, and forcing him to wear women's clothing in the full knowledge that this places him in a humiliating position. The ad intends to show a humourous juxtaposition -- instead the message comes across as angry, bitter and vindictive, especially in the strong, forceful tone of voice Dench uses in her performance. I have nothing against Dench being strong, but I think that the image of Dench as M alone, as strong woman in a position of power, does more for the movement than the humiliation of one of her operatives (by her). Lead by example and inspiration, not shame and the fostering of ill-will. Imagine if the ad were just Dench, sitting in a chair, as the camera zooms in on her slowly, making the same statements, but bereft of their connnection to Bond. I argue that this is more effective, and confuses the issue less. A woman in a position of power dressing down a man under her does not do much to argue the idea that women are still opressed.
My second issue with the ad is the way it presents its satistics. I will not argue the validity of the numbers themselves, that is outside my field of expertise or ability to prove or disprove. But I do argue about the way they are presented. Bond is the only figure shown to us, the camera zooming in on him as M lists off how many women wordlwide do not have an education, are sexually assaulted, are murdered, and so on and so forth. M mentions that 70 million girls worldwide are deprived of education, as the camera shows us Bond. The implication is that Bond (or what he represents) is to blame for this state of affairs. So what does Bond represent? Bond is an agent of MI6, Britain's external intelligence agency, he represents western, male, authoritarian power. But the millions of girls not getting schooling are not in the UK or the US or any of their allies -- they are in the third world nations (where, surprise surprise, millions of BOYS also do not receive an education) or in the Muslim states were women are oppressed as a matter of accepted social tradition. Speaking of those Muslim nations, they are largely responsible for the massive worldwide statistics of female oppression -- and these states, their regimes, and their policies are the exact targets of the organization Bond works for. So blaming Bond is misrepresentative, unfair and inaccurate.
Finally, I must make a general point about the use of Bond that speaks less to feminism and its message, and more to the James Bond character himself and his legacy. This ad is not a third party construction using Bond as a target in general -- its a specific ad featuring specifically the real actors currently playing James Bond and M and produced with the full knowledge and participation of the company which makes his films. Now, it is well known that Bond is not a feminist character, nor was his creator Ian Fleming much of a women's libber. Bond was a creation of the fifties, so he is a hard drinking, heavy smoking, womanizer -- the fiftie's man's man. These aspects have been toned down over time to fit modern sensibilities but it is clear that as he was created Bond does not represent feminism. While this makes him a good ironic target for a feminist ad, we must realize this was all done by the rights holders of the character -- who must know he represents misogyny because that's the ad's point and therefore know the ad is against the principles of the character and yet knowingly let the character be used against his own principles. This does not bode well, showing as it does that the current owners of Bond do not agree with his values or support them, explaining perhaps why the Bond films have not held their former luster for sometime. Its like al-Qaeda agreeing to do a video supporting religious diversity -- you know that the values of the organization have been compromised and no longer stand for what they once did. And even if they do want to change Bond into something that fights for feminism, then that's exactly what they should do -- show him fighting for feminism, not as a target of it. Have Bond address the audience with the stats, even acknowledging that the character himself hasn't exactly covered himself in glory in the way he's treated some women in the past, before making a hardened case to all of the men out there who mistreat women that there's nothing masculine about doing such a cruel thing. That way, there's no side issue, all we come away thinking about are the words Craig has spoken as James Bond. This is your hero and ours, he is sold to us on the basis that he is a hero -- show him as a hero, not as the villain.
I agree that a woman working the same job as a man should earn as much as a man. I agree that she should not be fired as punitive action against becoming pregnant. I agree she has the right to her own body and her own use of that body. But I believe these ideals can be promoted through positive, strong (and strongly feminine) portrayals of women, to role model for young girls everywhere, NOT by humiliating masculine symbols, fermenting resentment between men and women, and placing blame for the opression of women on those who are not responsible for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment