Portrayal of Moneypenny throughout the decades

Here comes the promised article...

https://theconversation.com/what-would-moneypenny-do-sexual-harassment-desire-and-james-bond-88410

Interesting. Not the total hatchet job I expected.

The author Monica Germana 'received an Everett Helm Fellowship to research the Ian Fleming Archive at the Lilly Library (Indiana University, Bloomington, 2011)', while The Conversation claims to combine academic rigour with journalistic flair. The least they could do is spell Terence Young's name right.

Does Moneypenny really function as an object of desire? Wasn't Lois Maxwell's preference to playing her over Sylvia that she wasn't "overtly sexual". 

As always, revisionists tend to forget the mutual understanding between Bond and Moneypenny.

I hate to disagree with her, but I was actually wondering if Bond is not "misusing" Moneypenny in a very different way. Moneypenny would like to have a relationship / affair with him and he keeps her at bay (as probably seen best in TLD). Yet he keeps on teasing her which must be considered very cruel in case he does not have the intention to ever go out with her at all.

Monica Germana does point out that Moneypenny also is a "desiring" object, though. This does account for a mutual understanding, doesn't it?

Obviously, Moneypenny wants to be an object to be desired, otherwise she would not start the flirtation. I am not sure what other function she might have...especially that mentioned very weak embodiment in TLD. She is so desperately trying to get his attention whereas he does not seem to take any interest in her at all. I think her function must be seen in relation to the Bond girls. She might be a contrasting character. Either she embodies the woman who wants Bond and is kept at bay or she represents the woman Bond cannot have (as for the Brosnan period). In either way, she is simply strengthening Bond's role of a womanizer.

In the end this article made me wonder if the latest Moneypenny shot Bond on purpose. A turned down woman, a sexual harrassed woman, whatever she might have been before we see her in Skyfall, it would definitely be someone who has a motive and the opportunity.  

Am I the only one who finds Caroline Bliss interesting in the role? I like the chemistry she has with Tim in TLD despite it being in Q's lab instead of the office. Her extremely short cameo in LTK is essentially a throwaway.
As far as it being a sexual relationship that's neither here nor there. What has kept it interesting and fresh all these years since Terence Young created the dynamic in Dr. No is that it is all of the exciting and vivid interaction one desires in all walks of life-but with a knowing figure. Their past or present relationship is really immaterial. The Bond-Moneypenny repartee is today something from a bygone era; that of the office camaraderie, or the hard working sassy career gal of 30's and 40's era fiction, or yes even the pining secretary...but whichever way you choose to look at it the situation is heightened by the fact they deal with life and death stakes on a daily basis.

This reminds me that I need to read the rest of the Moneypenny Diaries. They only published the first one in the US.

FieldsMan wrote:

Does Moneypenny really function as an object of desire? Wasn't Lois Maxwell's preference to playing her over Sylvia that she wasn't "overtly sexual". 

As always, revisionists tend to forget the mutual understanding between Bond and Moneypenny.

Indeed ... it's playful, a way of blowing off a little steam in the office. They both know nothing's ever actually going to come of it.

To quote Samantha Bond - 'Moneypenny would sooner drink ink than actually get involved with Bond'.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

To quote Samantha Bond - 'Moneypenny would sooner drink ink than actually get involved with Bond'.    

And yet it is Samantha Bond's Monneypenny who uses the VR glasses to simulate  an erotic relationship with Bond.
So, she would rather drink ink than going for the real thing; but a virtual fantasy looks totally desirable? Do I get it right?
That's why I do not like her Moneypenny. She is somehow overdone in an attempt to make her "feminist". The result looks not feminist but rather petulant to me. She is overtly aggressive in a way to regain power and then she submits to her secret fantasies which all involve Bond. In the end, she is the dreamer who still pines for the big man, but to hide it, she makes nasty aggressive remarks. That is not feminism. That is just downright stupid...
And, using these glasses is not so much different from a look into the Playboy and I have difficulty to see the reduction of the male person to a mere male piece of flesh as "feminist". Looking down on the other gender does not change the imbalance / injustice of genders...

Largely agree with that assessment, Kath.

And like most of DAD, the VR scene was utter shyte.

I hadn't heard or seen that quote, but it wouldn't surprise me that Samantha Bond was simply being cheeky. I don't see her as being aggressive nor petulant - just quick witted. Look at the last moments of the Moneypenny scene in GE and TWINE: "Someday you'll have to make good on your innuendo" and Bond and her moving in for a sneaky kiss. She's giving it back to Bond as much as Bond gives it to her, and the results are a little more sexually charged than usual. Maybe that's what the idea aggression is coming from.

Yes Kath, you did get it right.

As CJB has already said, the VR scene in DAD is misjudged to say the least.

FieldsMan wrote:

I hadn't heard or seen that quote, but it wouldn't surprise me that Samantha Bond was simply being cheeky. I don't see her as being aggressive nor petulant - just quick witted. Look at the last moments of the Moneypenny scene in GE and TWINE: "Someday you'll have to make good on your innuendo" and Bond and her moving in for a sneaky kiss. She's giving it back to Bond as much as Bond gives it to her, and the results are a little more sexually charged than usual. Maybe that's what the idea aggression is coming from.

If I say "aggressive" I have something like that scene in mind when she throws the (how has Monica Germana put it?) "Freudian cigare" into the dustbin. She's symbolically throwing Bond's penis into the trash!
Do you think that this is part of their flirting style? I thought this was one of those desperate attempts to make the Bond films more "modern" and whatever.
And what do you make of the VR glasses scene? Why does she go for her virtual Playboy?
And you do not mind that Bond is reduced to a male piece of flesh? I find that offensive. Feminism should not turn tables by making men objects. You know what I mean?

Kath wrote:

[Moneypenny's] symbolically throwing Bond's penis into the trash!

Or inserting it in herself - Freudian theory is open to many interpretations.

A Freudian analysis of Clinton-Lewinsky would be interesting to read. Quite apart from the obvious daddy-daughter issues, why did Clinton sodomise her with a cigar? Why did she carefully preserve that semen-stained dress? None of it makes much sense on a analytical level, but then sex rarely does.

Kath wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

I hadn't heard or seen that quote, but it wouldn't surprise me that Samantha Bond was simply being cheeky. I don't see her as being aggressive nor petulant - just quick witted. Look at the last moments of the Moneypenny scene in GE and TWINE: "Someday you'll have to make good on your innuendo" and Bond and her moving in for a sneaky kiss. She's giving it back to Bond as much as Bond gives it to her, and the results are a little more sexually charged than usual. Maybe that's what the idea aggression is coming from.

If I say "aggressive" I have something like that scene in mind when she throws the (how has Monica Germana put it?) "Freudian cigare" into the dustbin. She's symbolically throwing Bond's penis into the trash!
Do you think that this is part of their flirting style? I thought this was one of those desperate attempts to make the Bond films more "modern" and whatever.
And what do you make of the VR glasses scene? Why does she go for her virtual Playboy?
And you do not mind that Bond is reduced to a male piece of flesh? I find that offensive. Feminism should not turn tables by making men objects. You know what I mean?

I think Moneypenny is suggesting to use it on herself but the gag is that she throws it in the bin. And it's not aggressive since she knows Bond did very little to bring her a gift, and Bond knows she knows it. 

The VR scene is a bit of fluff in a film that's already taken everything else to excess. I find Bond to be much more objectified in CR more than anything else. Nothing in DAD suggests feminist overtones.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Kath wrote:

[Moneypenny's] symbolically throwing Bond's penis into the trash!

Or inserting it in herself - Freudian theory is open to many interpretations.

I see...

FieldsMan wrote:

And it's not aggressive since she knows Bond did very little to bring her a gift, and Bond knows she knows it. I find Bond to be much more objectified in CR more than anything else. Nothing in DAD suggests feminist overtones.

I don't think that the aggressive message here is throwing a gift away...
But I see your point.

But Bond falls "in love" in CR? (However that might work out on screen is another question, but that is what we are supposed to believe). How is he objectified here? We are talking about CR06?
And Vesper makes a deal to save his life? Poor Vesper is running two errands to save the men she has fallen in love with. That is all she's ever done. Vesper is not that bad after all. Bond is simply unable to sympathize with her love for her boyfriend and calls her a "b*tch" when he should know better...But that' probably just hurt and jealousy. The Craig Bond is the "emotional" Bond ("emotional" in the meaning that we are given his personal story as a backbone to everything else). So now I am lost...

I believe what FieldsMan is referring to is this -



The camera lingers on Craig's gym-toned body; we're being invited to ogle. It's a nod to (and deliberate reversal of) the Ursula Andress scene in Dr No.

Ah, now I see. Thanks!
Although it does interchange quite nicely with the riding Solange who does always remind me of Lady Godiva.

Yet, my point was slightly different. Here it is the camera that makes Bond an object. In DAD, it is Moneypenny. Someone pointed out that Jinx eyes Bond, well, in a certain way. That goes into the same direction. The female gaze. I do not make any differences between the female gaze and the male gaze. If Bond eyes our lady here, that is old hat and old-fashioned; if the lady eyes Bond, it is "modern". No, it isn't, at least not to me.
The two of them here are clearly eying each other, so, that is another chapter again.

If you do not see my point imagine Bond using the VR glasses to imagine Moneypenny...

Female gaze good, male gaze bad.

hegottheboot wrote:

Am I the only one who finds Caroline Bliss interesting in the role?

I did, too. Shame she had such a short run.

Getting fictional characters like Bond or Moneypenny involved with the #MeToo movement (which is what this author is trying to cash-in on) is just fucking stupid. Same goes for the articles that count how many drinks Bond has in the books or films, and then follow-up with saying he's an alcoholic. If you're reading or watching Bond and are getting offended by his smoking, drinking, womanizing, etc., then I don't think you should be involved with these stories. They're too much for you to handle. These aren't Aesop's Fables. What did Fleming say? They're not for schoolboys?

Reminds me of when jackasses got upset over the shower scene in SKYFALL, claiming that Bond raped Severine (somehow) by taking a shower with her. The cinematography, provided by the great Roger Deakins, stated otherwise, suggesting that she was prepared for Bond's arrival after pouring two drinks.

That said, the article isn't actually a bad read. Bond has long been in the sights of social justice warriors, though, and it's getting annoying at this point.

Thanks! Glad there's someone else who enjoys good ol' crooked glasses Penny. I think she was a great choice that simply wasn't given enough to do much like John Terry as Leiter.

Indeed this is merely the latest in decades of cheap potshots...which is quite ironic as despite not being as developed as Fleming's characterizations Bond Girls in the films can be viewed as part of 60's cultural shifts in that before this time women were generally passive side characters onscreen outside of being the femme fatale, the wife or mother figure etc. and suddenly in DN you have female characters making their own decisions, trying to kill people, being sexually active by their own will and choice, being morally complex, duplicitous, and even capable of withstanding an entire action narrative.

Soo...where are the clickbait articles on that aspect? That's what I thought... it's like the "news" stories from the 80's during the AIDS crisis where they "analyzed" Bond's promiscuity.

Very good point, hegottheboot. People who know little about the series unfairly tarnish it as somehow lacking in "strong" women; something which is untrue from Dr No onwards. Of course, later on there was an obsession with having the female be "Bond's Equal" by having her do karate and stuff as if that's the only way for a character to be complex and interesting. There's a happy medium between docile housewife and Jinx.

Seem to remember denials by EON at the time that Bond's relative lack of bed-hopping in TLD was due to the AIDS scare.

Even at that, he still adds another 2 notches to the bedpost in it. And one of those is by the end of the pre-credit sequence.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Seem to remember denials by EON at the time that Bond's relative lack of bed-hopping in TLD was due to the AIDS scare.

Even at that, he still adds another 2 notches to the bedpost in it. And one of those is by the end of the pre-credit sequence.    

Never understood how Dalton was considered the sexless Bond. In LTK, both Bond girls are fighting over him right until the end. Not to mention he steals a kiss from his friend's new wife.

I guess Dalton is compared to his immediate predecessor who fucked girls in front of his work colleagues in three movies - and he was shirtless while doing it.

CJB wrote:

Very good point, hegottheboot. People who know little about the series unfairly tarnish it as somehow lacking in "strong" women; something which is untrue from Dr No onwards. Of course, later on there was an obsession with having the female be "Bond's Equal" by having her do karate and stuff as if that's the only way for a character to be complex and interesting. There's a happy medium between docile housewife and Jinx.

I think that people see it from a present-day perspective and so misjudge the women. I wonder if a woman can only be Bond's "equal" if she's doing karate. I say that Tracy is pretty much Bond's equal; he marries her for a reason. When he meets her for the first time she outraces him (at least in the book, I am not sure about the film at the moment...help me here...Hilly?). She' s a gamer, she drinks, she's a devil on skiers. Bond has only one equal and that is his wife.

FieldsMand wrote:

Never understood how Dalton was considered the sexless Bond. In LTK, both Bond girls are fighting over him right until the end. Not to mention he steals a kiss from his friend's new wife.

Exactly, what is Bond doing there? That's not one kiss, that's a dozen, as far as I remember. And then he says that he has a right to it because he is the best man. Well. It all looks like Felix would be perfectly fine with it, but curiously enough he is never present when they kiss. But then, Bond would never jeopardize his friendship with his bestie for a woman. No woman would ever fit in between Bond and Leiter. Those kisses always puzzle me. They somehow make no sense. It is not implied that there is a serious adultery going on, because Bond loves his friend too much; so why stage those kisses at all? To illustrate that he loved her to, as a friend? Do you give a dozen kisses to your friend on the day of their wedding? Why doesn't he kiss Felix then?
It all looks like they keep on kissing and kissing, but it is sanctioned by tradition. Is it?

That fight between those two women is one of the worst scenes in the whole series to me. One is a tomboy and the other the Oriental, exotic, submissive female and when the tomboy cries (!, because tomboys can cry, too), that Bond would never decide in favour of a woman like her (that's a healthy amount of self-confidence); he jumps into the pool. I have a feeling that I should have learned a lesson here and that I do not get it. Can someone help me? Bond also loves tomboys?
Or do I just feel paranoid that a lesson was lost on me?