“Bond girls are a homogeneous breed: gorgeous pathetically grateful (for the most part) when 007 notices them, big-haired (for the most part) and the object of endless double entendres.”

The above quote is how author Paul Simpson describes Bond girls. The Bond films are arguably one of the most racist, snobbish, sexist, violent, voyeuristic, glossy, glorified showpieces of mere gadgetry and gimmickry. One would argue that this was the case more in the Sean Connery/Roger Moore era of the 60s until the 80s.

At the same time there was serge of emergence of second wave feminism in the early 1970s. Feminists would criticize Bond films for the negatively sexist portrayal of Bond girls. Firstly they are known as Bond girls – suggesting an ownership by James Bond secondly as they are not known as women but rather girls.

This conflicts with ideologies of feminists especially radical feminists as they argue that female oppression is due to the system of patriarchy i.e. domination of men. This can be seen true of Bond girls because they are produced by men, filmed by men and predominantly viewed by a male audience. As James Chapman stated that Bond girls are produced to provide glamour, sex appeal and therefore merely to be beautiful to look at he also says that Bond girls are not hugely intricate to the plot of the films.

The title sequence depicts Jill, a Bond girl painted in gold with nothing but a bra and knickers on, throughout the opening credit sequence the camera focuses on Jill’s body. Mulvey would argue that this scene shows the Fetishistic gaze whereby the gaze is objectifying Jill in a sexual manner. Also in another scene, Bond is seen to be extremely sexist towards Felix Leiter Bond's CIA liaison in the United States. He states to Derek to say goodbye to Felix, Felix looks confused as she is told to leave; she then looks towards Bond he simply quips “man talk!”
This shows that Felix was in the beach scene to provide sex appeal as soon as the film wants to get down to business she is told to leave. As she walks off Bond slaps her bottom in a misogynist fashion.

Mulvey’s main argument is that cinema produces the male gaze this can be said to be true for Bond films. As they are male films produced for a male audience. Laura Mulvey’s essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema corresponds to Bond girl’s representation in Goldfinger.

Bond charms the cleaning lady for the keys to Auric Goldfinger’s hotel room; he walks straight in and leans straight on top of Jill to look through the telescope. This shows he has no respect for women and does what he sees fit with them. Jill and Bond get into a conversation, having just met and Bond asks “why do you do it” and Jill replies “because he pays me” Bond sneers “is that all he pays you for”. Having just met Jill, Bond is already making assumptions that she is Auric’s prostitute. Also Jill is portrayed a submissive Bond girl, who after only minutes of meeting Bond is already saying that she is beginning to like him, this shows that she has overcome Bonds charm.

Because a patriarchal society in which we live in has structured film form i.e. Bond films have therefore constructed Bond girls for the pleasure of a male audience. Some critics even refer to Bond films as the first form of Playboy due to its sexual references and double entendres of Bond girls.

Bond and Jill are seen in bed together Bond picks up the phone and Jill seems to irritate Bond because he then grabs her head and pushes her so violently away from him that she falls over. Many feminists would argue that is very violent towards women yet Jill simply laughs it off just as the audience in the 60s probably would have. This scene definitely would not be appropriate in any film now; it also shows Bond in a very aggressive light, to an extent this scene depicts domestic violence.

Mulvey’s inscription of, the image of women in cinema is related to Bond girl’s twofold image. Firstly Bond girls are the object of male desire. Ian Fleming refers to Bond girls as the arm candy in the books and his pillow fantasies in the films. They way that Bond girls are constructed in filmic codes seems to suggest that they signify male desire – this is done intentionally by the men behind the film and also by the patriarchal society in which we live in has structured film form.

As Pussy Galore introduces herself to Bond she states that she is in fact Mr Goldfinger’s personal pilot. Bond replies “and how personal are you?” again he implies that being a woman there must be more of a relationship with Goldfinger, he is also suggesting that she like Jill may be Goldfinger’s “personal” prostitute. Only 8 minutes into the film and Bond is in a strip club, where he walks into a girl in a bath tub and starts to flirt with her. Bond is supposed to be seen as the “knight in shining amour” that saves women in the film. However in this particular scene he pushes the girl straight into a man sent to kill Bond, who then accidentally hits the woman over the head with a pole. Bond does not seem to be the knight in shining amour in this scene. Again this displays women as disposable sexual objects, when they are not needed they are left for dead.

Mulvey claims that cinematic codes create a gaze, a world, and an object, thereby producing an illusion cut to the measure of desire. This is particularly true in relation to Bond girls as; cinematic convention such as the camera focusing on the body of Jill painted in gold; produces moments of pure erotic spectacle as the camera holds the female body for the unmediated erotic look of the spectator by focusing the camera on parts of her body and then her face.

Secondly Bond girls are a signifier of the treat of castration. This is because a Bond girl does not have a penis, implying a threat of castration and hence displeasure. This explains why the Bond girls that try to kill Bond have overtones of lesbianism; this signifies that they are bad. These particular Bond girls are the few who never succumb to Bonds charms. In the novel by Ian Fleming, Pussy Galore has a slight hint of lesbianism and it is very explicit that Bond is turning on the charm however she simply quips “oh don’t bother I’m immune” but following the conventions she does by the end of the film, succumbs to Bonds charm.

Mulvey also suggests the pleasure of looking. The first is scopophilia which is the pleasure of looking. Bond girls are purely on screen to look good and to make James Bond look good. This is because the Bond films are male heterosexual fantasy narratives. As James Chapman states that, Bond girl’s female characterizations in the films are really less of characters in their own right than fantasy conscriptions of femininity that is appealing to a predominantly male viewer. Many feminists would argue that Bond girls are there to be admired and looked at by Bond and the male audience; this can be argued to be there sole function.

Mulvey suggested that the typical audience member gains a sense of narcissistic pleasure from identifying with the film’s protagonist, and following fascination with their filmic counterpart i.e. Bond girls. Who are represented as objects, images with visual and erotic impact, which Mulvey termed their “to-be-looked-at-ness”. As I have stated before the male audience identifies with the male protagonist, Bond therefore giving the male audience an active role in viewing Bond girl’s subject and gaining pleasure from doing so. When the audience look at Pussy Galore or Jill Masterson they look; in Mulvey’s term in a Voyeuristic or Fetishistic gaze. This is because Bond girls are viewed as virtuous and beautiful and as excessively sexual beings.

The second pleasure of looking, is the fact that scopophilia is also sexual as it’s using another person as an object of sexual stimulation through sight. In Freudian terms this would mean that audiences and Bond receive pleasure by looking at another person (mainly female) as an erotic object and to form an identification process known as ego libido.

They way Bond girls are used as an object of sexual stimulation through sight signifies that the film is structured around to moments of narrative and spectacle. Firstly Bond is the active male and Bond girls are the passive female in need of receiving.

They way that the audience and Bond feel sexual stimulation through the spectacle of Bond girls is because the male spectator in the audience as Mulvey explains, fixes his gaze on James Bond. Because he is the protagonist and he is the one who is looking at the Bond girl. This satisfies ego formation and satisfy libido. The first look of Bond girls is the moment of recognition/misrecognition in front of the mirror. The second look confirms women as sexual objects.

With this we can ultimately judge that Bond girls have only two functions the first to be erotic objects for the characters within the screen story, and as erotic objects for the spectator within the auditorium with a shifting tension between the looks on either side of the screen.

When a Bond girl removes her clothes such as at the beginning of the film in the strip club Bond joins one of the prostitutes in the bath tub; it is purely for the sexual gaze of both the hero in the narrative and the spectator in the cinema. Many would argue that the infamous “barn scene” is one of the most controversial scenes in the 007 film franchise. This is because Pussy Galore and Bond are in a barn, physically fighting while Bond try’s to rape Galore and she is fighting back as she is a lesbian and therefore she is not consenting to sex with Bond. However Bond gets his way after literally forcing himself on top of Galore and then the scene ends.

This is a horrific scene of semi-rape it says much about Fleming, as he has once been quoted to say “all women love semi-rape”. Bond is asserting his masculinity over Galore, many would argue that it is the male producers excuse for Bond to use his penis. Also the scene is a surprise as we are led to believe that Galore is in fact a lesbian who try’s to fight off Bond, yet he forcefully has sex with her this is normally known as rape! But if it’s Bond asserting his masculinity in this way then its “ok” - that is the message that the scene is sending the viewer mainly because the film is made my males for a male audience.

Critics argue that Bond films are male heterosexual fantasy narratives. The Bond girls therefore have specific functions. There are 3 quintessential Bond girls.
Firstly the venerable women who are probably virgins and are very naïve this would probably be Honey Ryder (Dr No, 1962, Terence Young), as she innocently looked for shells.
Second are the villainesses who are very glamorous and no matter how evil they are even if they try to kill Bond eventually they will fall for him; as they are so seduced by his charms. An example of this Bond girl would be Pussy Galore as she was Goldfinger’s aid and also a lesbian but of course Bond had his way with her towards the end of the film.
Finally the third type of Bond girls are what many critics call Bond’s trophy women. These girls are a reward for Bond as he has just defeated the bad guy and saved the world; he then sails off into the sunset with this trophy Bond girl.

To conclude I feel that Bond girls are negatively portrayed due to patriarchal film form in the film Goldfinger. This leads to Bond girls having one sole function; merely an erotic object for the spectator within the auditorium.