Think of every movie that you have ever seen. How many times does the woman play the victim? How many times is she the pawn? I think it’s interesting to delve into the world of movies and television popular culture and look into what roles women and men play in these movies. These stereotypes are heavily prevalent when watching the movie “Skyfall”, in which I will perform an intersectional analysis on.
Skyfall touches on several issues concerning gender. In this movie, women are depicted in a binary view of being either the victim or the pawn. I think that it’s interesting how one of the main characters, Mum needs saving. It’s compelling that James Bond is pronounced dead and rises back from the shadows after several months because he is needed to “save” Mum. Did Mum really need saving though? Couldn’t she have dealt with the attackers without James Bond’s assistance? Women are played as the pawn in this movie which is proven when another character, Severine, brings 007 to the bad guys. Although she is brutally murdered, she plays a vital component in the plot of the movie because she is pawned by 007 to get him to the bad guys. Another character, Eve, is used by 007 for sexual reasons but is also used in the plot to distract some of the bad guys from killing 007 during various interactions. It’s important to note that no characters are presented as homosexual, transgender or of any sexual nature other than cisgendered and straight. Why is it that the characters are not depicted as of different sexual orientations? What would be different if they did?
Skyfall has several racial prejudices as the plot of the movie evolves. First of all, the powerfully portrayed woman, Mum, is a white female. Her dominance and power is a result of her race and I think it would have been a very different story if Mum was not white. As a result of Mum’s orders, another character, Eve shoots James Bond and is apparently responsible for his “death”. Of all the characters, is it surprising that the only coloured character is the one who made the mistake? Is it even Eve’s mistake if she was just following orders? Eve was presented in a lose-lose situation because if she had neglected to make the shot, she would have gotten into trouble by her superiors (such as Mum) but she made the shot and got into trouble anyway. The way Skyfall presents several racial prejudices is not surprising.
I think Class plays a part in the plot evolution of Skyfall. The protagonists of the movie are all middle-upper class. This is prevalent in the character, Mum. She is heavily high-class which is proven in her numerous cars and luxury homes. I don’t think that Mum would have been as powerful if she was of a lower socio-economic class which is why class has become huge part of Skyfall’s plot.
Skyfall historically similar to what our society expects out of an action film. Middle-upper class, white, cisgendered females needing saving is not something new to society. What perplexes me the most is trying to understand why this image is rarely altered. Why is society so interested and excited about movies that depict women as helpless? Will the need for women to be saved ever change?
11rac8
kenzierenee
mika128
rileychung
VicP10
GenderStudies 
You’ve made some interesting points here. Skyfall is obviously the poster-movie for objectification of women. However, I also think it may also be a bad example to use. The James Bond series is now over 60 years old. There is a very exact formula for all of the movies, and I think (even with changing social views on how women should be portrayed in movies) the producers of Bond movies would be terrified to abandon such a well-established and successful tradition.
This isn’t an excuse for the objectification of women in these films — it’s more like a possible explanation. While women are shown now as more cunning, more able, and definitely portrayed as more active agents in the plot that they were earlier in the series, they are still generally in the role of “pawn” or, more often, victim. If you think about it though, there’s not a lot of change that could happen here: if they made another movie with a fully autonomous and powerful female villain who never needs saving, everyone would proclaim “Oh! So women are evil??” And if Bond was given a female partner, people would say “Oh! So women can only be sidekicks??” And it’s not like there will suddenly be a movie with Jane Bond when James finally kicks it. There’s not a lot that can be changed about the role of women in this particular series without ruining it entirely.
However, there are many parallels between this series and almost every other action film ever made. Most of the points you’ve made about the Bond series apply to the entire action genre, where there is definitely room for improvement (without the kind of backlash that would be expected from diehard Bond fans).
Personally, even as a woman, I like the movies. I understand why women are represented the way they are in the context of a Bond movie, so it doesn’t bother me as much. I realize that’s not the reality for everyone, but the Bond formula is gold and I don’t think it needs to change.
When I watched “Skyfall,” (which happened to be my first Bond film), my first thought was that Eve was used solely as a pawn; her death halfway through the film made me very critical, as in – “are women really that disposible?” However, as Kenzie says, the Bond formula has worked well for the past 60 years, why change it? Bond wouldn’t be Bond if he weren’t a womanizer!
When you asked at the beginning about movies where women are pawns and victims, one popular film that breaks this mold is The Hunger Games. Yes, Katniss is pawn and victim of the Capitol, but so is everyone else in this fictitious world. Katniss is the one who breaks free from this oppression. Hopefully this new formula will be one to keep afloat in popular culture.
I found it interesting how you said there were no homosexual?transgender characters in James Bond. However, I interpreted Javier Bardem’s character in “Skyfall” as homosexual (so did my mom, so I wasn’t the only one). I thought it was fascinating how they had this feminized male character playing a powerful antagonist. Nevertheless, perhaps this is not the best light to shed on homosexuals. I could also be completely wrong on my reading. Another thought I had while watching Skyfall was, “if they have different actors playing James Bond, could Bond potentially be played by a woman?” This casting choice would stir up a lot of controversy. Just some things to consider!
I absolutely forgot about Raoul Silva, the antagonist. He was definitely portrayed as a gay man, but he was also portrayed as super creepy when he was hitting on Bond and even being overtly sexual in a lot of scenes. While the character – regardless of sexuality – is seriously messed up, I think this is actually a great portrayal of how a lot of homophobic people feel about the gay community. Some people seem to feel that to be homosexual means you have to be messed up in some way, which obviously isn’t true. And another fear many homophobes talk about is the fear is that gay men will hit on all men, regardless of orientation or whether or not the person is into it (which I think is really egotistical, to be honest). I thought it was interesting that they had a gay character in a Bond film, but I was also kind of disappointed that the first gay character was not only the bad guy, but that they made his homosexuality a big part of why he was so creepy.
I remember thinking as I watched Skyfall that the part of Severine actually played a very small role in the plot. Agreeing with the other commenters, there is definitely a strict Bond formula that would be very hard to deviate from. In Skyfall, it seems they added the attractive Severine solely to have a “Bond Girl” and her absence really wouldn’t have had much affect on the story at all. If people keep seeing and enjoying the movies there won’t be much incentive to change the formula anytime soon, but I think a “Jane Bond”, and how she would be portrayed would be very interesting. The James Bond character also plays a role in shaping some unrealistic expectations of men, but once again this is part of the formula and part of the appeal of the films.