A Conservative Look at Goldfinger

[Bond77]

A contributor to the politically conservative website "Big Hollywood" discusses the virtues of the classic Bond film:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lgrin ... er-part-1/

[Bond77]

An excerpt from the article that is right on the money:

In such a hostile cultural/political environment, it’s heartening that Fleming’s writings haven’t been widely banned as hate-speech, and that Goldfinger still ranks in most polls as the best Bond adventure, better even than the slicker, bigger-budgeted, more politically correct ones of recent times.

[JackWade CIA]

In a word compelling. One of the more interesting Bond related write ups I've seen recently. Looking forward to part 2

And yet even a movie with the esteem and cultural impact of Goldfinger has its enemies and party poopers. Anyone who’s made a cursory study of the Bond phenomenon is familiar with many of the early critical bashings. The most infamous came from the (then young and liberal, now old and conservative) historian Paul Johnson, who in 1958 wrote a New Statesman review of the novel Dr. No titled “Sex, snobbery and sadism,” in which he wildly attacked Fleming’s achievement: “I have just finished what is without a doubt the nastiest book I have ever read. . . Fleming deliberately and systematically excites, and then satisfies the very worst instincts of his readers. This seems to me far more dangerous than straight pornography.”

You might assume that Johnson’s half-century-old opinions were superseded long ago by more modern tastes. Not so — mainstream critics and bloggers continue to lament the perpetual popularity of the Bond franchise. Over at BBC News Finlo Rohrer asks “Is James Bond loathsome?” Techland’s Matt Selman accuses Fleming’s stories (and, to the degree they adhere to them, the films) of being “packed with outdated, but probably deeply-felt, sexism, racism, and, yes, even homophobia. . . a recent re-read of Goldfinger revealed the hate-speech was hilariously explicit.” He also condemns Bond’s successful seduction of Goldfinger’s lesbian pilot, the aptly named Pussy Galore, as “every idiot male moron’s fantasy.” Even Fleming fans grant, as Bond expert Bob Chapman does in the above-mentioned BBC article, that the stories are “sexist, heterosexist, xenophobic, everything that is not politically correct.”

My opinion is that Bond continues to be one of the most profitable franchises in history for good reasons — ones that have little to do with theaters and bookstores being filled with “idiot male morons” indulging in their penchant for “deeply-felt, sexism, racism, and, yes, even homophobia.” We live in an era where ostensibly sane people are busy trying to protect us from horrors like soda pop and table salt. In such a loony world, it’s no surprise that we now get a non-smoking Bond who takes his marching orders from a hectoring Hillary Clinton/Madeleine Albright-style “M” (remember Judi Dench’s quiet tirade in Goldeneye (1995) about Bond being a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur”?) In such a hostile cultural/political environment, it’s heartening that Fleming’s writings haven’t been widely banned as hate-speech, and that Goldfinger still ranks in most polls as the best Bond adventure, better even than the slicker, bigger-budgeted, more politically correct ones of recent times.

The public’s continuing regard for Goldfinger begs a question: what do modern-day movie lovers take away from this early incarnation of James Bond as envisioned by Ian Fleming, and brought to life on celluloid by Sean Connery? What do we glean from that misogynist dinosaur world of sex, snobbery and sadism?

Next week in For Conservative Movie Lovers, we begin to answer that question by delving into the life of the creator of James Bond: Ian Fleming.

[Kristatos]

In a word compelling. One of the more interesting Bond related write ups I've seen recently. Looking forward to part 2

Yes, it's quite frustrating that it cuts off just as it's really starting to get going. As for the "banning as hate speech", I think modern audiences regard its politically incorrect attitudes as quaint relics of the past. Certainly when I went to see it in the cinema, the audience roared with laughter as Bond dismissed the ditzy, bikini-clad Dink with a slap on the bum so that he and Felix could indulge in some "man talk". From what I understand of the modern OSS 117 films (which I still haven't seen), much of the humour derives from the hero's, ahem, "period" attitudes.

[007]

How ironic that Bond is now in the hands of some pretentious bint.

[Dr. No]

a non-smoking Bond who takes his marching orders from a hectoring Hillary Clinton/Madeleine Albright-style “M”

he has a point here
I would like to see teh second part and see where he goes with this.

[Powder Puff]

Fleming deliberately and systematically excites, and then satisfies the very worst instincts of his readers

I'm certain Ian Fleming did this to amuse himself in a tongue in cheek way as well as to create a series of exotic thrillers. The naughty man.

[Bond77]

Here is part two of the series of articles from bighollywood.com:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lgrin ... er-part-2/

[Dr. No]

Here is part two of the series of articles from bighollywood.com:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lgrin ... er-part-2/

Thank you! I am enjoying this!

[Kristatos]

So part two is a potted biography of Fleming and part three looks to be a potted biography of Seannery. When do we actually get to the conservative look at Goldfinger?

[Bond77]

Here is part 3 of the article series from bighollywood.com:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lgrin ... er-part-3/

[Bond77]

Here is Part 4 of the series: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lgrin ... er-part-4/

[Bond77]

Here is Part 5: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lgrin ... er-part-5/

[Bond77]

Part 6 of the series: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lgrin ... er-part-6/

[Bond77]

The final installation of this six part series ties the previous five installations together. It compares Fleming's work with the works from John LeCarre and Len Deighton. It delves into the late Kingsley Amis' thoughts on Fleming and 077.

The piece also describes why Judi Dench's portrayal of M was antithetical to the constructs of Bondian legend, "I’ve always found Judi Dench’s weirdly passive-aggressive, ball-busting, feminist-fantasy M of the recent Pierce Brosnan/Daniel Craig movies a nauseating false-note of a character (and one echoed by Joan Allen’s equally implausible attempt at grizzled gravitas in the Bourne films)."

The author finally goes into the "Conservative Look" that was promised in the first installment. Whether you're to the right of Margaret Thatcher, or to the left of Gordon Brown, all Bond finds will garner an interesting perspective from this article.

[Kristatos]

The author finally goes into the "Conservative Look" that was promised in the first installment. Whether you're to the right of Margaret Thatcher, or to the left of Gordon Brown, all Bond fans will garner an interesting perspective from this article.

Indeed. In fact, I think the author does himself a disservice by pitching it at only a third of its potential readership (if one accepts the old formula that a third of the population is conservative, a third liberal and the the other third consists of the independents and swing voters who decide the results of elections).

[Bond77]

The author finally goes into the "Conservative Look" that was promised in the first installment. Whether you're to the right of Margaret Thatcher, or to the left of Gordon Brown, all Bond fans will garner an interesting perspective from this article.

Indeed. In fact, I think the author does himself a disservice by pitching it at only a third of its potential readership (if one accepts the old formula that a third of the population is conservative, a third liberal and the the other third consists of the independents and swing voters who decide the results of elections).

I agree with your point, Kristatos. The article series stands well on its own without being pitched as being conservatively slanted. I think the author did that though to match the niche of the site that published his article. Bighollywood.com is a American based website owned by Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart is a conservative media personality who has a host of websites that offer conservative commentary.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the U.S. the conservatives make up approx. 40% of the voting population and liberals make up approx. 20% according to recent polls. However, regardless of you political views, this is a fun article series that I think many Bond fans will enjoy. All six entries are posted in this thread for DCiNBers.

[Dr. No]

Thanks for posting there it has been interesting to read