Sean Connery’s Bond Was a Rapist, Or So Claims New Bond Director

 

Apparently, man-bunned Cary Fukunaga, the director of the upcoming Bond flick, No Time To Die, has a license to kill potential box office before the movie even hits theaters. I’m not so sure producers Barbara Broccoli, Michael Wilson, and Daniel Craig share Fukunaga’s take on Connery’s portrayal of Bond. It’s obvious that John Nolte at Breitbart isn’t pleased:

“Is it Thunderball or Goldfinger where, like, basically Sean Connery’s character rapes a woman?” Fukunaga rhetorically asked the far-left Hollywood Reporter during an interview. “She’s like ‘No, no, no,’ and he’s like, ‘Yes, yes, yes.’ That wouldn’t fly today.”

Well, of course, it wouldn’t fly today, you g__d____ simpleton. But the only reason it wouldn’t fly today is because we now live in a world where everything is rape. Look at a woman wrong; it’s rape. Some woman later regrets her life choices; it’s rape. Micro-aggressions are rape. Everything is rape except when Joe Biden is credibly accused of rape.

I would add that even some of the titles of Bond films and the names of certain Bond women or Bond girls (I can’t believe I actually typed that) would be considered micro-aggressions by woke man-bunned metrosexuals and gender-fluid and gender-fluid-sympathetic woke culture fascists all by themselves.

Whether one agrees with Nolte’s later points about Bond’s attempt to sexually liberate the masseuse in Thunderball or not, from a marketing perspective, dissing such a well-loved and revered figure as Connery just before the release of the next Bond film just isn’t smart business. If Fukunaga was smarter, he might have referenced Connery’s character in Hithcock’s Marnie if he wanted to make a case of rape or even Clark Gable’s Rhett Butler in Gone With The Wind, who carries a protesting Scarlett O’Hara up the elegant staircase to what the audience can only infer is that she is to be sexually ravaged even as she is shown afterward smiling and glowing in bed in the morning sunshine. But they weren’t Bond films, and it seems that it was Fukunaga’s intent to show how much more woke and progressive his take on the Bond character would be.

Personally, I’ve been relatively pleased with the Daniel Craig Bond films. Casino Royale dispelled some of the naysayers who said that Craig wasn’t right for the role because he lacked the sophistication and elegance of Connery (a sophistication that Connery learned on the job) or Roger Moore (my least favorite Bond) or Pierce Brosnan. Craig has been a more physically adept and nuanced and psychologically-tormented Bond, less of a cartoonish superhero with a plethora (yes, a plethora) of silly gadgets (like an invisible car) and I believe has made the character more interesting. Transforming the character in this way was a conscious effort by Craig and producers Broccoli and Wilson. One of the more satisfying of the Craig Bond films, in my humble opinion, was Skyfall which eliminated the gadgetry and took the character back to basics including resurrecting the silver Aston-Martin DB5.

In the months leading up to the release of No Time To Die, there has also been much-animated discussion that the Bond franchise would be continued but 007 would be played by a woman. Rumors about this were fueled by the character of Nomi, a double-O agent, played by Lashana Lynch in the latest film. Ms. Lynch is a black British actress (or actor – mustn’t trigger anyone), so those more progressively woke may have thought that this was just the socially-judicious or -judicial or -justified (whatever) direction that the Bond films should take. The only problem is that these woke idiots are not the Bond audience. Broccoli is now on record as saying that Bond will continue to be played by a man putting the female Bond rumors to rest. Craig, who is leaving the franchise after this latest release, is also on record as saying that Bond should always be played by a man. So, Bond devotees may be relieved that Bond won’t go the way of the Boy Scouts. At least for now.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 61 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Wokester: “Is it Thunderball or Goldfinger where, like, basically Sean Connery’s character rapes a woman?” Fukunaga rhetorically asked the far-left Hollywood Reporter during an interview. “She’s like ‘No, no, no,’ and he’s like, ‘Yes, yes, yes.’ That wouldn’t fly today.”

    I submit that if his memory is faulty about which film it was, maybe his memory is faulty about the rape itself. Did he “basically rape a woman” or did he rape a woman? When it comes to something this serious, we had better be accurate with the language we deploy. This seems purposefully obscure.

    • #1
  2. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Cary Fukunaga? The Cary Fukunaga? Well, that’s it for Sir Sean, then. After all, Fukunaga is a Hollywood powerhouse. He’s directed some TV shows that I’ve never seen, and produced TV shows that I’ve never seen, and he’s got a Bond movie coming out, which chances are I’ll never see.

    • #2
  3. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    The way the woman says “oh no” in Thunderball is clear that she does not really mean it. 

    Goldfinger is much worse. 

    • #3
  4. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    He didn’t claim that Connery wrote his Bond films, did he? So he’s not dissing Connery, he’s dissing the writers of Goldfinger. As far as Goldfinger is concerned, it’s my favorite Bond film, but even years before there was a women’s movement and decades before #metoo that scene has always been disturbing. Yes, it’s somewhat similar to the staircase scene in GWTW and the “porthole scene” in Marnie–both excellent comparisons. But even the idea that there could be such a thing as marital rape barely existed in 1939, or even 1964. 

    The barn scene in Goldfinger is different, though. They aren’t married, and she’s a lesbian. Yes, it’s a rape scene, even though it’s treated in a lighter, joke-ier tone than the ones in Marnie and GWTW.  Lesbians have always hated the scene because it basically says that there’s nothing about lesbianism that a good strong man can’t “cure”. I don’t blame them. 

    • #4
  5. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    It is worse in the book. 

    And so what? James Bond is trying to stop Fort Knox from being Nuked. Strangling her with his bare hands would have been better? Bond did what he had to do that resulted in a win. 

    And it was a movie of its time. 

    • #5
  6. Brian Watt Member
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    He didn’t claim that Connery wrote his Bond films, did he? So he’s not dissing Connery, he’s dissing the writers of Goldfinger. As far as Goldfinger is concerned, it’s my favorite Bond film, but even years before there was a women’s movement and decades before #metoo that scene has always been disturbing. Yes, it’s somewhat similar to the staircase scene in GWTW and the “porthole scene” in Marnie–both excellent comparisons. But even the idea that there could be such a thing as marital rape barely existed in 1939, or even 1964.

    He seems to be taking issue with Connery’s portrayal of the character in Thunderball even though the characterization is true to what Fleming and the filmmakers wanted the character to be like.

    The scene in Marnie was apparently very controversial even when the film was released in 1964.

    The barn scene in Goldfinger is different, though. They aren’t married, and she’s a lesbian. Yes, it’s a rape scene, even though it’s treated in a lighter, joke-ier tone than the ones in Marnie and GWTW. Lesbians have always hated the scene because it basically says that there’s nothing about lesbianism that a good strong man can’t “cure”. I don’t blame them.

     

    • #6
  7. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    It is worse in the book.

    Yeah. Pussy Galore was a lesbian because she’d been raped. It took Bond having sex with her to turn her straight. Yikes!

    I never got the sense in the movie that she was supposed to be a lesbian. Was it too subtle?

    • #7
  8. Brian Watt Member
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    It is worse in the book.

    Yeah. Pussy Galore was a lesbian because she’d been raped. It took Bond having sex with her to turn her straight. Yikes!

    I never got the sense in the movie that she was supposed to be a lesbian. Was it too subtle?

    I think an argument can be made that Ms. Galore was actually gender-confused and gender-fluid and clearly not the bull-dyke she may have wanted others to think she was in her attempt to establish status within the patriarchy of the Goldfinger organized crime empire. She mistakenly believed if she acted like a dominant male that she would be respected and feared. Mr. Bond merely showed her that she was living a lie and deceiving herself. 

    Let the fireworks begin.

    • #8
  9. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    It is worse in the book.

    Yeah. Pussy Galore was a lesbian because she’d been raped. It took Bond having sex with her to turn her straight. Yikes!

    I never got the sense in the movie that she was supposed to be a lesbian. Was it too subtle?

    Too subtle for me, anyway.

    • #9
  10. Brian Watt Member
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    He didn’t claim that Connery wrote his Bond films, did he? So he’s not dissing Connery, he’s dissing the writers of Goldfinger. As far as Goldfinger is concerned, it’s my favorite Bond film, but even years before there was a women’s movement and decades before #metoo that scene has always been disturbing. Yes, it’s somewhat similar to the staircase scene in GWTW and the “porthole scene” in Marnie–both excellent comparisons. But even the idea that there could be such a thing as marital rape barely existed in 1939, or even 1964.

    To be more clear, it’s not a direct diss of Connery but a sideswipe diss at him that he would gladly agree to play a rapist.

    The barn scene in Goldfinger is different, though. They aren’t married, and she’s a lesbian. Yes, it’s a rape scene, even though it’s treated in a lighter, joke-ier tone than the ones in Marnie and GWTW. Lesbians have always hated the scene because it basically says that there’s nothing about lesbianism that a good strong man can’t “cure”. I don’t blame them.

     

    • #10
  11. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    There was never any confusion about Cathy Gale.

    • #11
  12. Brian Watt Member
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Waiting for the TCM intro to Thunderball soon:

    “Clearly the character of James Bond in the film you are about to see was an oppressive, patriarchal, misogynist who took pleasure in harming and in some cases raping women and someone who today’s audiences find objectionable and horrific. We must warn you that if you’ve never seen a Bond film you may experience numerous micro-aggressions and may need to find a safe space or seek the help of a therapist. We are showing this movie in its original form without any editing or censorship because we want our TCM viewers to understand just how systemically-misogynist and oppressive society was when these films were made, in the hopes that we can all learn to create a more socially-just world with equity where hate-filled dramas that glorify rape like the one you are about to see are never made again.”

    • #12
  13. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Waiting for the TCM intro to Thunderball soon:

    “Clearly the character of James Bond in the film you are about to see was a oppressive, patriarchal, misogynist who took pleasure in harming and in some cases raping women and someone who today’s audiences find objectionable and horrific. We must warn you that if you’ve never seen a Bond film you may experience numerous micro aggressions and may need to find a safe space or seek the help of a therapist. We are showing this movie in its original form without any editing or censorship because we want our TCM viewers to understand just how systemically-misogynist and oppressive society was when these films were made, in the hopes that we can all learn to create a more socially-just world with equity where hate-filled dramas that glorify rape like the one you are about to see are never made again.”

    As long as I can fast-forward through that tripe …

    • #13
  14. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    It is worse in the book.

    Yeah. Pussy Galore was a lesbian because she’d been raped. It took Bond having sex with her to turn her straight. Yikes!

    I never got the sense in the movie that she was supposed to be a lesbian. Was it too subtle?

    She very much so is in the book, and Fleming is way off on his understanding. He is, in fact, rather explicit in lesbians needing a good man. The movie was a lot better. 

    It was also the 1960s.

    • #14
  15. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Brian Watt: In the months leading up to the release of No Time To Die, there has also been much animated discussion that the Bond franchise would be continued but 007 would be played by a woman.

    Why not?  Apparently NTTD has a woman director . . .

    • #15
  16. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Wow, Director Man-Bun is really behind.  This was almost 30 years ago:

     

    • #16
  17. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    It is worse in the book.

    Yeah. Pussy Galore was a lesbian because she’d been raped. It took Bond having sex with her to turn her straight. Yikes!

    I never got the sense in the movie that she was supposed to be a lesbian. Was it too subtle?

    I would argue that being raped doesn’t make someone lesbian, especially if they’re really “born that way,” and a bad experience with a bad man could indeed be reformed by a good experience with a good man.

    • #17
  18. JimGoneWild Coolidge
    JimGoneWild
    @JimGoneWild

    Look, his name is Fukunaga and he has a man-bun. He should have never ever been allowed to direct a Bond film. Period! 

    • #18
  19. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    JimGoneWild (View Comment):

    Look, his name is Fukunaga and he has a man-bun. He should have never ever been allowed to direct a Bond film. Period!

    That’s also true, of course.

    “Man-Bun!  James Man-Bun!”

    • #19
  20. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Percival (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    It is worse in the book.

    Yeah. Pussy Galore was a lesbian because she’d been raped. It took Bond having sex with her to turn her straight. Yikes!

    I never got the sense in the movie that she was supposed to be a lesbian. Was it too subtle?

    Too subtle for me, anyway.

    In the book, she talks like a raucous cross between Martha Raye and Fran Drescher. (Fleming was a snob about American voices, and about nearly everything else). In the movie, she’s a sophisticated, well spoken Englishwoman. 

    • #20
  21. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Waiting for the TCM intro to Thunderball soon:

    “Clearly the character of James Bond in the film you are about to see was an oppressive, patriarchal, misogynist who took pleasure in harming and in some cases raping women and someone who today’s audiences find objectionable and horrific. We must warn you that if you’ve never seen a Bond film you may experience numerous micro-aggressions and may need to find a safe space or seek the help of a therapist. We are showing this movie in its original form without any editing or censorship because we want our TCM viewers to understand just how systemically-misogynist and oppressive society was when these films were made, in the hopes that we can all learn to create a more socially-just world with equity where hate-filled dramas that glorify rape like the one you are about to see are never made again.”

    To be fair, I’m also waiting for the SoCon review of Beauty and the Beast:

    “Since long before this abomination appeared, we’ve been sounding the alarm about the twisted lust of the lavender brigade! The homosexual LGBT homosexualisms of this horrifying Disney movie are way out of control, and that can only mean one thing…explicit sodomy, and lots of it! In fact, since the movie came out, we’ve had teams of inspectors with electron microscopes trying to locate the perversions, and the fact that we haven’t located them can only mean one thing…the hidden ones are the worst! As Liberace often said about Karl Marx, “party doctrine is, if you can’t be blatant, be latent!” 

    • #21
  22. Brian Watt Member
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Waiting for the TCM intro to Thunderball soon:

    “Clearly the character of James Bond in the film you are about to see was an oppressive, patriarchal, misogynist who took pleasure in harming and in some cases raping women and someone who today’s audiences find objectionable and horrific. We must warn you that if you’ve never seen a Bond film you may experience numerous micro-aggressions and may need to find a safe space or seek the help of a therapist. We are showing this movie in its original form without any editing or censorship because we want our TCM viewers to understand just how systemically-misogynist and oppressive society was when these films were made, in the hopes that we can all learn to create a more socially-just world with equity where hate-filled dramas that glorify rape like the one you are about to see are never made again.”

    To be fair, I’m also waiting for the SoCon review of Beauty and the Beast:

    “Since long before this abomination appeared, we’ve been sounding the alarm about the twisted lust of the lavender brigade! The homosexual LGBT homosexualisms of this horrifying Disney movie are way out of control, and that can only mean one thing…explicit sodomy, and lots of it! In fact, since the movie came out, we’ve had teams of inspectors with electron microscopes trying to locate the perversions, and the fact that we haven’t located them can only mean one thing…the hidden ones are the worst! As Liberace often said about Karl Marx, “party doctrine is, if you can’t be blatant, be latent!”

    Yeah, my intro is funnier and closer to the truth.

    • #22
  23. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Waiting for the TCM intro to Thunderball soon:

    “Clearly the character of James Bond in the film you are about to see was an oppressive, patriarchal, misogynist who took pleasure in harming and in some cases raping women and someone who today’s audiences find objectionable and horrific. We must warn you that if you’ve never seen a Bond film you may experience numerous micro-aggressions and may need to find a safe space or seek the help of a therapist. We are showing this movie in its original form without any editing or censorship because we want our TCM viewers to understand just how systemically-misogynist and oppressive society was when these films were made, in the hopes that we can all learn to create a more socially-just world with equity where hate-filled dramas that glorify rape like the one you are about to see are never made again.”

    To be fair, I’m also waiting for the SoCon review of Beauty and the Beast:

    “Since long before this abomination appeared, we’ve been sounding the alarm about the twisted lust of the lavender brigade! The homosexual LGBT homosexualisms of this horrifying Disney movie are way out of control, and that can only mean one thing…explicit sodomy, and lots of it! In fact, since the movie came out, we’ve had teams of inspectors with electron microscopes trying to locate the perversions, and the fact that we haven’t located them can only mean one thing…the hidden ones are the worst! As Liberace often said about Karl Marx, “party doctrine is, if you can’t be blatant, be latent!”

    Yeah, my intro is funnier and closer to the truth.

    YMMV.

    • #23
  24. Brian Watt Member
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Waiting for the TCM intro to Thunderball soon:

    “Clearly the character of James Bond in the film you are about to see was an oppressive, patriarchal, misogynist who took pleasure in harming and in some cases raping women and someone who today’s audiences find objectionable and horrific. We must warn you that if you’ve never seen a Bond film you may experience numerous micro-aggressions and may need to find a safe space or seek the help of a therapist. We are showing this movie in its original form without any editing or censorship because we want our TCM viewers to understand just how systemically-misogynist and oppressive society was when these films were made, in the hopes that we can all learn to create a more socially-just world with equity where hate-filled dramas that glorify rape like the one you are about to see are never made again.”

    To be fair, I’m also waiting for the SoCon review of Beauty and the Beast:

    “Since long before this abomination appeared, we’ve been sounding the alarm about the twisted lust of the lavender brigade! The homosexual LGBT homosexualisms of this horrifying Disney movie are way out of control, and that can only mean one thing…explicit sodomy, and lots of it! In fact, since the movie came out, we’ve had teams of inspectors with electron microscopes trying to locate the perversions, and the fact that we haven’t located them can only mean one thing…the hidden ones are the worst! As Liberace often said about Karl Marx, “party doctrine is, if you can’t be blatant, be latent!”

    Not sure what world you’ve been living in for the last 20 or more years if you really think that Social Conservatives are the folks who are warping the culture and somehow a threat to society.

    • #24
  25. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Waiting for the TCM intro to Thunderball soon:

    “Clearly the character of James Bond in the film you are about to see was an oppressive, patriarchal, misogynist who took pleasure in harming and in some cases raping women and someone who today’s audiences find objectionable and horrific. We must warn you that if you’ve never seen a Bond film you may experience numerous micro-aggressions and may need to find a safe space or seek the help of a therapist. We are showing this movie in its original form without any editing or censorship because we want our TCM viewers to understand just how systemically-misogynist and oppressive society was when these films were made, in the hopes that we can all learn to create a more socially-just world with equity where hate-filled dramas that glorify rape like the one you are about to see are never made again.”

    To be fair, I’m also waiting for the SoCon review of Beauty and the Beast:

    “Since long before this abomination appeared, we’ve been sounding the alarm about the twisted lust of the lavender brigade! The homosexual LGBT homosexualisms of this horrifying Disney movie are way out of control, and that can only mean one thing…explicit sodomy, and lots of it! In fact, since the movie came out, we’ve had teams of inspectors with electron microscopes trying to locate the perversions, and the fact that we haven’t located them can only mean one thing…the hidden ones are the worst! As Liberace often said about Karl Marx, “party doctrine is, if you can’t be blatant, be latent!”

    Not sure what world you’ve been living in for the last 20 or more years if you really think that Social Conservatives are the folks who are warping the culture and somehow a threat to society.

    Of course, I didn’t say that. 

    But too many social conservatives are good at writing exaggerated hysteria. More so than the left? How about, “Just really good at it”. 

    • #25
  26. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    But too many social conservatives are good at writing exaggerated hysteria. More so than the left? How about, “Just really good at it”.

    I don’t think they’re very good at it at all, which is why it doesn’t gain much traction in culture. Meanwhile, leftism marches on.

    Lefties love any art that gives them positive “representation” no matter how awful that art is. Far-righties do the same. Except the makers of art are generally leftist, therefore the depiction of far-righties is rarely positive. It’s always that they are backward, slope-foreheaded, mono-syllabic idiots. Whereas the leftists are always beautiful and brave.

    If we had more righties in the arts giving positive depictions of conservatism — in GOOD art — maybe things might change.

    It’s been said that all good stories are conservative at heart, so . . . maybe it’s just a matter of writing good stories and avoiding the leftist cliches.

    • #26
  27. Brian Watt Member
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Waiting for the TCM intro to Thunderball soon:

    “Clearly the character of James Bond in the film you are about to see was an oppressive, patriarchal, misogynist who took pleasure in harming and in some cases raping women and someone who today’s audiences find objectionable and horrific. We must warn you that if you’ve never seen a Bond film you may experience numerous micro-aggressions and may need to find a safe space or seek the help of a therapist. We are showing this movie in its original form without any editing or censorship because we want our TCM viewers to understand just how systemically-misogynist and oppressive society was when these films were made, in the hopes that we can all learn to create a more socially-just world with equity where hate-filled dramas that glorify rape like the one you are about to see are never made again.”

    To be fair, I’m also waiting for the SoCon review of Beauty and the Beast:

    “Since long before this abomination appeared, we’ve been sounding the alarm about the twisted lust of the lavender brigade! The homosexual LGBT homosexualisms of this horrifying Disney movie are way out of control, and that can only mean one thing…explicit sodomy, and lots of it! In fact, since the movie came out, we’ve had teams of inspectors with electron microscopes trying to locate the perversions, and the fact that we haven’t located them can only mean one thing…the hidden ones are the worst! As Liberace often said about Karl Marx, “party doctrine is, if you can’t be blatant, be latent!”

    Not sure what world you’ve been living in for the last 20 or more years if you really think that Social Conservatives are the folks who are warping the culture and somehow a threat to society.

    Of course, I didn’t say that.

    But too many social conservatives are good at writing exaggerated hysteria. More so than the left? How about, “Just really good at it”.

    That wouldn’t be an exaggerated claim would it? Does the left have the ability to look at the film and television shows they produce that push any number of woke agendas from LGBTQ+ activism, to praise of violent activism in the cause of social justice, to climate alarmism – in any sort of self-reflective or critical way? If so, I’ve never seen it.

    • #27
  28. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    That wouldn’t be an exaggerated claim would it? Does the left have the ability to look at the film and television shows they produce that push any number of woke agendas from LGBTQ+ activism, to praise of violent activism in the cause of social justice, to climate alarmism – in any sort of self-reflective or critical way? If so, I’ve never seen it.

    I am frequently amazed by the cognitive dissonance whereby the people who create films and television shows that depict the good guys engaging in amazingly choreographed gun battles, with blood spurting everywhere are the same people who insist that guns are so awful they must be strictly controlled and never allowed into the hands of the citizens.

    • #28
  29. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Percival (View Comment):

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Waiting for the TCM intro to Thunderball soon:

    “Clearly the character of James Bond in the film you are about to see was a oppressive, patriarchal, misogynist who took pleasure in harming and in some cases raping women and someone who today’s audiences find objectionable and horrific. We must warn you that if you’ve never seen a Bond film you may experience numerous micro aggressions and may need to find a safe space or seek the help of a therapist. We are showing this movie in its original form without any editing or censorship because we want our TCM viewers to understand just how systemically-misogynist and oppressive society was when these films were made, in the hopes that we can all learn to create a more socially-just world with equity where hate-filled dramas that glorify rape like the one you are about to see are never made again.”

    As long as I can fast-forward through that tripe …

    They won’t allow it.

    • #29
  30. Brian Watt Member
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    But too many social conservatives are good at writing exaggerated hysteria. More so than the left? How about, “Just really good at it”.

    I don’t think they’re very good at it at all, which is why it doesn’t gain much traction in culture. Meanwhile, leftism marches on.

    Lefties love any art that gives them positive “representation” no matter how awful that art is. Far-righties do the same. Except the makers of art are generally leftist, therefore the depiction of far-righties is rarely positive. It’s always that they are backward, slope-foreheaded, mono-syllabic idiots. Whereas the leftists are always beautiful and brave.

    If we had more righties in the arts giving positive depictions of conservatism — in GOOD art — maybe things might change.

    It’s been said that all good stories are conservative at heart, so . . . maybe it’s just a matter of writing good stories and avoiding the leftist cliches.

    Yes, there have been a few decent examples, “Mr. Jones”, “Apocalypto”, “Richard Jewell”, “13 Hours” being some of the more recent but most of the production companies and the distribution channels do seem to be controlled by strident leftists who are more content to push leftist garbage that seeks to indoctrinate rather than entertain. I suppose it’s the same complaint about the political climate in California and the feeble GOP. 

    • #30