4 ms·
The Bond girl ideal is uncomfortable for women because they are only objects: they exist for a single purpose, to be gazed at. Maybe they have a cheeky few word
by marquis 13y ago
The Bond girl ideal is uncomfortable for women because they are only objects: they exist for a single purpose, to be gazed at. Maybe they have a cheeky few words but they are one-dimensional. Real sexuality is 2-way: both people are involved. For a really good look at how frustrating this is for women see Helen Mirren's famous interview with Michael Parkinson, where he tells her she is "projecting sluttish eroticism".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmlP_cFOoAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmlP_cFOoAM
- TheCraiggers 13y agoSex sells, and that works both ways. It's hard for me to come up with a better analogy, because I don't watch the traditional female equivalent of a Bond movie, whatever that may be. However, I sure know that Thor's bathing scene, with his perfectly tanned, flexing muscles glistening in the candlelight in the newest movie sure as hell wasn't for my benefit. And from the annoying hoots from the group of girls behind me, I can surmise they felt their price of admission justified. Again, I know it's not a great analogy. Thor, while not being the most interesting character by far, is surely not just on screen as simply a flexing bicep. That said, the Beast from Beauty and the Beast didn't transform into a scrawny ugly man, either.
- marquis 13y agoFortunately for Thor, being a man, has more to do on screen than just be there for the female gaze. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test
- TheCraiggers 13y agoPerhaps you missed it, but I acknowledged the fact that Thor was not just there for female gaze. And for what it's worth, Thor passes the Bechdel test, if only barely.