An Analysis Of Politically Incorrect Content In You Only Live Twice

Discussion

Diversity is how people around the world come together in harmonious unison, notwithstanding the differences in race, culture, ethnicity, gender, religious or political beliefs, sexual orientation or socio-economic status. The concept fosters acknowledgement and acceptance of differences, ensuring a nurturing environment for everyone (Banks 2015). It can be as simple as calling out people for what they are, and understanding them enough to embrace and celebrate the variety of dimensions existing in each individual. This acceptance calls for a certain extent of political correctness in habits and expression. Any stance that excludes, derogates or marginalizes a particular group who had been suffering social or political discrimination is considered politically incorrect. A politically correct statement or action avoids any such degrading abominations. Since films have an international forum, it should particularly avoid demonstrating any act or idea that might be deemed politically incorrect. This essay analyzes the politically incorrect and offensive elements in You Only Live Twice the 1967 production, the fifth in the Bond series starring Sean Connery.

Throughout the years, James Bond movies have acted as a representative of the glories of the West, mostly by condescending the East. Any novice viewer of the Bond series would be able to identify this chronic xenophobia (Burges 2015)not to mention the meticulous treatment of the woman figure in the films that cannot come out of the inherent misogyny. The hero is deliberately designed to depict an amoral man, efficient in executing the unethical plans. One must note the relationship between immoralities and, it is almost as if the most skilful man is one who has little regard for ethics and principles. Bond is unscrupulous in demeanor, merciless in killings and has a natural flair for violence (Hancox et al. 2013). The film is set in Japan and leaves no opportunity to farcify the culture, community and native practices of the country. Some of the politically incorrect blatancies are hard not to notice. For instance, when a character says “In Japan, men always come first, women come second”, Bond replies with his characteristic sexism “I just might return to here.” This is one of the many casually delivered grim offences that run poignantly throughout the film. Some issues relating to the cultural identity, history and specificity coincides with Japan’s appalling experiences of the Cold War. Some critics have argued that the Bond practices are symptoms of and contributors to divergent forms of jingoism, orientalism, class hierarchy, imperialism and sexism. There are also degrading instances of mass pornography. Moreover the film is candid in its defined delegation of the colonizer and the colonized. Japan is represented as an exotic land habituated by bikini girls and ludicrous men (notice the extremities in portrayal). The film, as a historical text, is a record of the West’s outlook of Japan and its otherworldly norms. It is interesting to consider that it was filmed three years after Japan’s first Olympic victory and two year before the second adventure, considering the axiom that more can be learnt about the culture of a country from its bad art than its good ones. Mono-dimensional historical classics or propagandistic thrillers of wartime characterized Hollywood’s take on Japan before the release of You Only Live Twice. Films like The Barbarians and the Geisha and The Teahouse of the August Moon were the most racial and ludicrous caricatures  of Japanese culture. YOLT makes no better exception in its biased representations of Oriental anachronisms and startling incongruities.  From ninjas clad in karate costumes used as defense force in modern day to rickshaw pullers on Tokyo streets, every take reinforces a cultural stereotype. Needless pointing out the Sean Connery’s atrocious attempts at authentic Japanese pronunciation; that belittles the language more than it points out the hero’s shortcomings. Distinguished literary critic Edward Said in his book Orientalism reveals how the research of eastern countries conducted by the western scholars has habitually patronized the east as a land of mysticism and unearthly possibilities (Kennedy 2014). This is a scholarly way of alienating a particular land, based on its different culture and ethnicities. Films like the Bond series makes unjustified used of this practice in their stereotyped portraiture of race and cultures that does not correspond with the west. The screenwriter of the film, Roald Dahl who had previously been a wartime pilot knew a bit too well about the recent uncomfortable past and included some of the details that are too reminiscent of the past horrors. In addition, it must be particularly noted that this talked about cultural stereotyping works both ways. This is nowhere more evident than in the scene where the Japanese secret service head Tiger Tanaka compliments Bond, appreciating his warm ‘sakky’: “For a European, you are exceptionally cultivated.” Comments like these violates the spirit of universal diversity and disrupts the general notions of political correctness. The most unpleasant of them all is the scene where Sean Connery dresses as a Japanese boy; an offensive parody of Japanese ethnicity. It was presumably a ruse for Bond to gain access to the island but the racial undertones in the stance are hard to miss (Funnel and Dodds 2016). Connery is made to dress in bizarre garments, with his eyes deliberately stretched sideward to give him the stereotypical Asian appearance. It is highly indicative of the inherent prejudice against the East; the people in the East are modelled on the preconceptions of Western bigotry. Depictions like these might harm the values and moral senses of eastern viewers, as they are bound to feel alienated and excluded from the top-notch Western codes of decorum. Moreover, categorizing Japanese the way the film does is downright politically incorrect. Novice and gullible viewers of the movie are most likely to form biased opinions of the land and the country, based on their interpretations of the film. This is highly regressive since it stands against everything preached by the values of diversity. It would not be entirely wrong to assert that films like this are the reasons why countries in the East are still perceived as otherworldly lands (Minkenberg 2013) inhabited by quirky people with eccentric habits and outlandish cultures. As far as political correctness is concerned, You Only Live Twice and whatever it represents is a far cry from it. All the adventures are at the cost of casualties imposed on Japan and its people, the recklessness with which Bond and company deals with it is detestable to say the least (Savoye 2013). The cold and unfeeling nature of the suave protagonist overbears the harm he causes to the people around him, whether they deserve it or not. In more disturbing terms, the hero takes sadistic delight in harming and killing people, the film attempts to justify that in unethical ways. The plot and characterization is designed in a way that it shifts the attentions from Bond’s knavery to the gripping effects and adrenaline- rushing adventures in the movie. Moreover, the infamous figure of James Bond embody everything that is good, exemplary and sophisticated about the West, and each of the series are set against Eastern backdrops, deliberately depicting a comparatively incompetent and socially backwards locale. It is derogatory and politically incorrect in every sense of the term.

A whole lot of feminist criticism have backlashed upon the conspicuously misogynistic portrayal of the woman figures in all the Bond series. No matter the crises, the tumultuous state of affairs, Bond compulsively manages to jump into bed with one or more women, most of them characterized either as bimbos or as ruthless exploiters trained to bewitch influential men (Funnel 2015). Eminent film and feminist critic Laura Mulvey in her extensive work Visual and Other Pleasures elucidates how Hollywood films have habitually turned women into objects of the male gaze and pleasure through their consistent portrayals of women as enchanters and distractors (Mulvey 2014) of skillful male protagonists.  You Live Only Twice takes a progressive turn with women characters in the series, with a modern heroine who saves the hero’s life twice but falls back to the same chauvinistic pattern as she succumbs to Bond’s contagious charm. Despite the efficacy and skill of Aki that makes her so strikingly prominent, she has to report compulsively to her boss Tiger Tanaka, who is a concrete representation of the alpha male who is served by a woman as a mandatory social construct. The first, but certainly not the last racist remark of the series is noticed in TOLT  with Connery’s vile remark as he breaks away from a passionate kiss shared with Ling,: “ Why do Chinese girls taste different from all other girls?’’ The audience of the late 60s may not have been too concerned with politically offensive terms and the importance of diversity, at least that is the only explanation for something as outrageous as this escaping criticism. A modern film demonstrating such repulsive instance of misogyny and racism would be met with solemn opposition. It goes without saying that the film is blatantly unaccepting of ecological, social, sexual and political differences. The cited statement not only derogates a particular race that had been in an underprivileged position if the records of world history is taken into consideration, it also expresses toxic disdain towards the female gender. It rests with the socially aware individual to decide which is more perilous. The poster of the film illustrates a barely clad Sean Connery surrounded by Japanese women in Bikini, serving him copiously as a notorious Bond stares victoriously (and lecherously) into the camera. This propels one to spare a thought or two on the opulence of the western countries that draws much of its wealth and prosperity from exploiting the east. Some of the scenes in the film is also reminiscent of a second world country (Japan) that cannot be a par with the developed first world order like Britain and America. The entire spirit of the Bond series revolves around the power play of the West as they continue to raise the bars of adventurous endeavors and success without any paying any heed to the resources these missions continue to exploit. Mr. Bond who name has become synonymous with power and success is the very embodiment of arrogance, superfluity and violence. It is a matter of Hollywood’s brainwashing and the glee and glamour associated with it that very few people have had the insight to question the moral violations that has been circulating in the name of entertainment. Another notable aspect that can be taken as an example to cite diversity discouragement is the fact that the natives of Japan as seen in You Only Live Twice barely have a voice of their own. The viewers are informed of the cultures, traditions and ideologies of the country through the perceptions and experiences of the British protagonist. Gayatri Chakraborti Spivak, an erudite scholar of social studies has voiced valuable opinions in this context in her magnum opus Can the Subaltern Speak? She feels that the oppressed class is deliberately not granted a voice of their own so that the privileged class is acquitted of all charges for perpetuating the class-based distinctions over the years 9Spivak 2013). This closely what is observed in most of the Bond series that takes different locations as the background for their plots. YOLT makes no exception to the discriminatory rule and portrays a different culture in negative lights.

Conclusion

Considering the outpour of social awareness that has propelled mass awareness regarding political, social and economic issues, a film like You Only Live Twice would not run as successfully as it did sixty years back. Even if certain section of the society is entertained by the impressive visuals and the gripping story-line, there is very little chances for a film to escape opposition if it is this explicit in political incorrectness and lack of diversity. The reason why all these issues were not properly looked into back in the 60s is because the audience then were chiefly focused in cinema as a form of entertainment. The modern day sees film as a representative of social and cultural backgrounds and hence, any political offence against any culture or community is not tolerated.

References:

Acland, C.R., 2018. Youth, Murder, Spectacle: The Cultural Politics Of”” Youth In Crisis””. Routledge.

Banks, J.A., 2015. Cultural diversity and education. Routledge.

Bhambra, G.K., 2014. Postcolonial and decolonial dialogues. Postcolonial studies, 17(2), pp.115-121.

Burgess, S., 2015. Gender and Sexuality Politics in the James Bond Film Series: Cultural Origins of Gay Inclusion in the US Military. Polity, 47(2), pp.225-248.

Funnell, L. and Dodds, K., 2016. Geographies, Genders and Geopolitics of James Bond. Springer.

Funnell, L., 2015. For his eyes only?: Thoughts on female scholarship and fandom of the Bond franchise. Fan Phenomena: James Bond, pp.86-94.

Kennedy, V., 2013. Edward Said: A critical introduction. John Wiley & Sons.

Laucht, C., 2013. Britannia rules the atom: The James Bond phenomenon and postwar British nuclear culture. The Journal of Popular Culture, 46(2), pp.358-377.

Mangan, J.A., 2013. The cultural bond: sport, empire, society. Routledge.

McAnally, H.M., Robertson, L.A., Strasburger, V.C. and Hancox, R.J., 2013. Bond, James Bond: a review of 46 years of violence in films. JAMA pediatrics, 167(2), pp.195-196.

Minkenberg, M., 2013. The European radical right and xenophobia in West and East: trends, patterns and challenges. RIGHT-WING IN EUROPE, p.9.

Mulvey, L., Pleasure, V. and Narrative Cinema, S., 2014. vol. 16, no. 3, Autumn 1975. available at, accessed, 2, pp.6-18.

Savoye, D.F., 2013. The Signs of James Bond: Semiotic Explorations in the World of 007. McFarland.

Spivak, Gayatri. The Spivak Reader: Selected Works of Gayati Chakravorty Spivak. Routledge, 2013.

Wennberg, R., 2015. Ideological Incorrectness beyond ‘Political Religion’.