Just happened on this critique, after having seen Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. As I left the theater I was thinking almost the opposite. I do agree with her that the lack of sensuality and language was refreshing and seems to be an impossible mission these days in cinema. The one plot twist I guessed and there wasn’t much for plot anyway. I did like the uncertain nature of the female lead, just like a woman isn’t it? But I prefer Bond.
Don’t worry Hunt, she’s got your back.
Not just any Bond mind you. I prefer Daniel Craig’s Bond. I was pleasantly surprised by Casino Royale. My views should be the opposite. I was a teenager while Pierce Brosnan ruled as Bond, I was then more impressionable. Generally people prefer their own company, I mean culture. Of course every version of 007 has enough devices that appeal to the baser male instincts, but the bond from the Casino reboot was better. Men were men and women were women. Craig was rough and tumble, less calculating, and his heroines were actually afraid. They might even be called damsels in distress. After witnessing a violent battle the heroine is left crying and alone in the bathroom. As every man knows this is not an uncommon occurrence. On the other hand Brosnan was a 90’s man, the metrosexual. His boss was a woman, and half of his adversaries in combat were some sort of sexually perverse woman. While M:I did have less sensuality, Bond is beginning to portray gender roles more accurately, which I think is good, and gives me great hope for civilization. This in a day when female Army Rangers are the most happening thing around. I don’t have much use for Mission Impossible’s heroine and her ridiculous ninja moves, and I don’t think the God of the universe, who created them male and female, has much use for it either.
In the last Bond film the one female character in the field actually shoots Bond. The metrosexual is the villain, but he’s not just partly on fire, he is a full on flamer. And Bond confronts it comfortably, masculine. We get a new M, who is a protective, responsible, male. While we see the outgoing M lay down her life, taking responsibility for her faults, in a chapel of all places. I also enjoy the new hot shot Q as a Millennial who doesn’t really see the need for boots on the ground. And as to the dig about Bond’s wardrobe. Any self respecting man should dress appropriately. A suit and tie is respectful of others.
What the hell is going on here Pierce Brosnan?
The relationship between culture and art is complicated. But I think it’s fair to say that the art of cinema has a profound impact on the youth of it’s generation. The 90’s guy phoenomenon had a big impact on the church. As feminized males became the standard. Many traditional males left the church, and many more were pushed out for being—males. They were always ready to cry and share their feeling, but slow to get into a rigorous debate or stop evil when it reared it’s head. There are plenty of dragons to fight, and plenty of boys willing to pick up a sword. The 90’s turned them into women, it shoved ADD medication down their throat to pacify them, instead of teaching them how to sword fight. Telling them to stand down, instead of teaching them what to fight for, whom to fight and whom to defend. I say good riddance 90’s guy, good riddance Pierce Brosnan. Long live men as men and women as women. As for Ethan Hunt. . .eh.