C
The BFI Southbank in London has confirmed a new season of 1960s films, featuring the iconic composer John Barry’s scores. The lineup includes films that range from risqué to cool to raw, with highlights like The Ipcress File and Midnight Cowboy, in addition to the beloved James Bond series.
There is a clear caution that states: “Please be aware that numerous films in this collection may include language, images, and other content that reflect attitudes that were common during their time but may be considered offensive today (just as they were then).”
Historians who study offensive behavior will surely appreciate the final four words of this statement: the additional acknowledgement that some actions were questionable at the time, and that offensiveness is not subjective, with no excuses. However, this raises the question of why these films are being shown if they are not being categorized as purely historical artifacts. It can be argued that they are being presented as quality films, despite the occasional discomfort they may cause, due to their cinematic value.
Should audiences be given a warning beforehand? Are they justified in suspecting that the content may be pretentious and self-serving? Is a warning necessary for the initial warning: “Attention: the following disclaimer was composed by a lower-level employee with the purpose of avoiding social media backlash.”
James Bond is notorious for his countless and well-known transgressions, most of which involve his attempts at humor that often result in grotesque outcomes. For instance, in Goldfinger, he rudely dismisses a young woman and makes a sexist remark about needing to have “man talk” with a CIA colleague. He also suggests using “earmuffs” to tune out the Beatles. In You Only Live Twice, he even goes as far as disguising himself as a Japanese person, a cringe-worthy joke that is not only triggering but also fails to redeem the problematic Fu Manchu movies of Christopher Lee. Despite his bold and nonchalant attitude, James Bond has always been known for his outrageous behavior. In fact, as early as 1958, even progressive critic Paul Johnson was appalled by the sadism, sexual desires of an adolescent, and snobbishness exhibited by Bond in the novel Dr No. However, these very same elements were what made 007 a commercial success, especially among those who appreciated his absurdity.
The warning signal serves as a preventative measure, similar to a dose of medicine, to protect individuals from encountering offensive content. It is based on the belief that modern understanding allows us to recognize negative elements in past media, such as movies, TV shows, or literature. However, what about current cultural events? For instance, Dave Chappelle’s recent Netflix special, The Dreamer, has sparked controversy over its transgender jokes. Surprisingly, there is no warning signal for this, despite being produced by a corporate entity that is undoubtedly aware of sensitive issues. Is this due to the protection of free speech and artistic expression? These factors also apply to old James Bond films. It seems doubtful that trigger warnings are not included here because it would require the corporation to take responsibility for contemporary sensitivities. Eventually, trigger warnings may become as unnoticeable and overlooked as the terms and conditions we agree to before making online purchases. In any case, we can still appreciate the music composed by John Barry.
Source: theguardian.com
