FOR YOUR EYES 1

For Your Eyes Only: Spectatorship and the Male Gaze in the James Bond Film Series

Timothy J. Burke

University of South Florida

11 December 2006
 FOR YOUR EYES 2

In November 2006, EON Productions released the 21st film in Ian Fleming’s

James Bond 007 series. Titled Casino Royale, the film was based on Fleming’s first Bond

novel of the same name, written in 1953 and introducing the world to the British secret

agent. The film version featured a significant shift in the franchise, introducing a new

actor to the Bond role for the first time since 1995. British actor Daniel Craig took the

reins from Pierce Brosnan, an actor considered to have revitalized the franchise.1

Critics immediately noted a shift in tone and story. “Bond Turns Feminist,”

screamed a headline of Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.2 “A love story of depth and reality,”

Craig defines the film. Depth? Reality? Love (as opposed to female objectification)?

These terms, when applied to the Bond franchise, seemed to indicate not a shift but a

revolution. “We see more of Craig’s flesh than his conquests’ […] his toned and rippling

musculature glistening in the tropical sunshine.”3

How did films audiences respond to this new, non-misogynistic Bond?

Enthusiastically, it would seem. In only four weeks, Casino Royale made back its $150

million budget, spending three of those as the U.S. #1 film.4

Is Casino Royale such a severe shift in the franchise portrayal of secret agent

James Bond? While the critics almost unanimously say so, a careful inspection of the 20

previous Bond films suggests otherwise. This essay seeks to examine the slow

progression of the representation of James Bond, 007 on film through the interrogation of

1
Clint O’Connor, “Odds-on Bond Moviemakers return to first book for a new 007 in
'Casino Royale',” Cleveland Plain Dealer, 17 November 2006, p. 30.
2
Mark Egan, “Bond Turns Feminist,” Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 8 November 2006, p.
21.
3
Sukhdev Sandhu, “The Best Bond for Decades,” Daily Telegraph (London), 17
November 2006, p. 29.
4
“Top 10 Movies,” Washington Post, 11 December 2006, sec. Style, p.C07.
 FOR YOUR EYES 3

Bond’s portrayal via ruminations on the nature of the masculine gaze and the overall

presence of the eye throughout the film series. This discussion will lead to conclusions

that Casino Royale is indeed a very different Bond film in regards to gaze, but that this

change is the result of a gradual redefining of the Bond character’s masculinity. The

application of ideas about spectatorship will carry through the film series chronologically

in order to see the progression of perspective in both the camera’s eye and the main

characters’. Specifically, the camera’s gaze upon Bond himself as representation of a

masculine ideal, the camera’s gaze as a function of that of the Bond character, and

Bond’s onscreen ocular interaction with other characters will be discussed.

“Woman” developed as a cultural and social category (located as an object of the

dominating male gaze) through the course of the late modern era.5 Feminist theorists have

consistently characterized the male gaze, or specifically, the female role in the male gaze,

as incorporating the motifs of voyeurism, objectification (female functions for male only

as object of sadistic spectatorial possession), fetishism, and scopophilia.6

The end of the modern era conveniently coincides with the era of film this essay

begins to consider. Dr. No, the first film of the Bond Franchise, was released in 1962.

Fleming had been publishing novels in the series for ten years by this point, and the

attention given to 007’s first appearance on celluloid was remarkable. Starring Scotsman

5
Elizabeth Ann Kaplan, Looking For the Other: Feminism, Film, & the Imperial Gaze
(London: Routledge, 1997), 4.
6
Edward Snow, “Theorizing the Male Gaze: Some Problems,” Representations 25
(1989): 30.
 FOR YOUR EYES 4

Sean Connery, Dr. No was a film with a protagonist simultaneously “natty, naughty and

nifty,” as described by contemporary critics.7

Connery’s Bond in Dr. No is a violent man, defining his identity through the dual

roles of brutality toward his enemies and seduction of the film’s several female

characters. It’s worth noting that the previously cited critic also referred to the film as

“escapist bunk” and “not even art,” despite having enjoyed the adventure.

Dr. No introduces a spectatorial storytelling approach that would be continued

through most of the Connery era of Bond films. While the Bond character – through his

one-liner comical asides – seems fully aware of the presence of the camera’s eye, the

film’s viewer experiences the narrative almost entirely through the eyes of Bond himself.

In essence, this is a dramatic tool, designed to build tension and speculation over the

nature of the enemy figures that would become the series antagonists. Even as the

camera’s eye became more panoptical/omniscient, clever directorial approaches masked

identifying characteristics of the antagonists.

Perhaps the most memorable scene from

Dr. No, and certainly the most reflective of the

camera substituting for Bond’s male gaze, is the

emergence of Ursula Andress’ character Honey

Ryder from the Carribean. The slow, deliberate

Figure One. Scene from Dr. No
scene casts back to Connery’s Bond, his eyes fixed in what can only be described as the

objectifying male gaze. (His actions with Ryder later would accent this point, if it were

7
Bosley Crowther, “The Screen: Dr. No, Mystery Spoof: Film is First Made of Ian
Fleming Novels,” New York Times (30 May 1963), p. 15.
 FOR YOUR EYES 5

somehow missed by the viewer. The fact that Andress’ speaking and singing voices were

dubbed over in post-production are additional indications to her role being solely visual.)

Dr. No was followed by 1963’s From Russia With Love. This film continued the

primary themes of viewing women through the

male/objectifying gaze and maintaining

spectatorship of the antagonists through that of

the protagonist. Additionally, From Russia With

Love introduced the voyeuristic theme of the

Figure Two. Bond conducting surveillance
in From Russia With Love.
“spyglass” or use of specific devices for

maintaining surveillance. Through the series, these devices range from telescopes to

binoculars to the iconic sniper rifle scope. From Russia With Love utilizes the

characteristic submarine periscope to accomplish

the scopic goal.

As stated earlier, the women in From

Russia With Love are seen through the camera’s

Figure Three. “Cleavage-centric” eye in an objectified manner. This film set a

shot typical of From Russia With
Love.
specific trend (one that, as will be seen, carried over

to several films) of introducing female characters through their chest – focusing even

more closely on the characters’ cleavage. This obsession becomes comical to a degree,

and New York Times reviewer Bosley Crowther could only call it “ludicrous” despite

lauding the “voluptuous” and “luscious” appearance of the women in the film.8

8
Bosley Crowther, “James Bond Travels the Orient Express,” New York Times, 9 April
1964, p. 25.
 FOR YOUR EYES 6

Goldfinger, the series’ third film, was the first to be directed by Guy Hamilton.

Despite the presence of a new director’s eye, the film’s spectatorial gaze remained in the

theme of the previous two films. Primarily, Bond’s masculinity is captured through his

violent manhandling of enemies, solving conflict with his fists (or, occasionally, his gun;

see previous research into Freudian analysis of the

gun’s presence in early films9) rather than his

wits. When he’s not throwing a “bad guy” over a

ledge or into a fiery oven, he’s seducing (or being

seduced by) “Bond Girls” like the not-so-cleverly

named Pussy Galore. Figure Four. Representative scene of

Connery’s Bond exercising physical
superiority in Goldfinger.
Goldfinger continues to advance the

Voyeuristic gaze theme through Bond’s investigations of the title-named antagonist. Of

course, in true Bond fashion, he manages to incorporate the misogyny of classic Bond

while doing it – most clearly seen in the scene captured by Figure Five.

In general, the opening trilogy of Bond

films set the tone for the series: James Bond is a

man who is doing the watching, but is never

watched – save the women who desire him. It

Figure Five. Bond, binoculars, and would seem that a film series that reflected the
breasts: a synopsis of Goldfinger.

9
Louis Birner, “The James Bond Phenomenon,” Journal of Contemporary
Psychotherapy 1 (1968): 13-18.
 FOR YOUR EYES 7

masculine gaze so fervently would be popular among men only, but that was far from the

case. Schoolgirls across England belonged to a “James Bond Fan Club” that was,

essentially, a euphemistically-named “Sean Connery Fan Club.”10

Thunderball began the first shift in the series’ tone, one slightly away from a gaze

of appreciating violence and one toward appreciation of the female body. Thunderball’s

plot focuses less on Bond’s “licence to kill” repeated throughout the previous three films

and instead places the character in situations that endanger either himself (man-eating

sharks) or the world (nuclear warheads). Even the

film’s poster art reflects this less-violent Bond:

surrounded by four bikini-clad women, a cartoon

James (in swim trunks and smoking jacket!) holds

a snorkel where his Walther PPK might have

Figure Six. Bond watches Fiona Volpe
been.
walk away – for about fifteen seconds.

“Bond Girls” Domino and Fiona earn not only screen time but extended

sequences where the camera’s eye focuses on

Bond’s (which is, in turn, focused upon them).

The 1965 version of masculinity, it can be

presumed, was one of “female appreciation.” The

film’s trailer draws special distinction between

“ravishing readheads,” “buxom blondes,” and

Figure Seven. “Bronzed Brunette” from
Thunderball. Not to be confused with
“Golden Blonde” from Goldfinger. “bronzed brunettes.”

10
Stephen Watts, “Screen Scene Along the Thames: James Bond Bonanza,” New York
Times, 10 November 1963, p. X9.
 FOR YOUR EYES 8

In 1969, the series took a significant turn. Citing Connery’s salary demands, EON

Productions chose a new actor to portray Bond. Australian George Lazenby got the call

for On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. MGM took advantage of the change in its

promotions, calling the series “new” and “different.” Most notably, the Bond character

discovers what can only be considered his first “true love,” a woman he finds more use

for than career advancement and sexual pleasure. Indeed, Bond in the end marries the

character of Tracy Draco, though she is to meet a tragic finale – as is Lazenby’s tenure as

007.

Certainly, the camera reflects Bond as clever and charismatic compared to

Connery’s obtuse and almost lecherous approach.

Of course, the audience still gets to know Draco

as having both “class AND style.” Our first

introduction to her, as is Bond tradition, reveals Figure Eight. Tracy Draco in On Her
Majesty’s Secret Service. The
her to have an additional quality or two. definition of class AND style.

It’s an easy argument to make that the film On Her Majesty’s Secret Service was

the start of a new era in the camera’s presentation of 007 stories. After all, it was a) a new

actor playing Bond and b) the height of the socially conscious era. These arguments

would hold more credibility if EON hadn’t turned around and in 1971 recast Connery in

the absurdly misogynistic Diamonds Are Forever. From Jill St. John’s “Tiffany Case” to

tag-teach henchwomen “Bambi” and “Thumper,” Diamonds Are Forever is almost an

anachronism in restoring the notion that it’s James Bond’s world and everyone else just

exists within it. The previously-established theme of Bond as man by his physical
 FOR YOUR EYES 9

dominance returns as well, with Diamonds Are Forever being a film heavily based in

hand-to-hand combat.

Of course, the protagonist must once again deal with a chesty, breathy “Bond

Girl” – this time it’s Lana Wood in the role of

“Plenty O’Toole.” The casino scene in which

Bond meets O’Toole is a workshop in examining

the male gaze. Wood’s ample busom draws first

Figure Nine. Bond meets Plenty O’Toole.
the camera’s (via director Guy Hamilton)’s eye, Her eyes, sir, are up a bit further.

then the viewer’s, and finally Bond’s (see Figure Nine). The male viewer captures Bond

sneaking the same peek they did, and in the process finds what almost may be called a

“bond”ing moment.

Diamonds Are Forever would prove to be the last of Connery’s appearances as

Bond (save the 1983 non-canonical performance in Never Say Never Again). For the next

twelve years, Briton Roger Moore would be associated with the role. Moore’s first

appearance as 007 would come in 1973’s Live and Let Die, which, while yet another Guy

Hamilton film, set wit and confidence as Bond’s primary qualities and downplaying the

aspects of violence and physical dominance.

Diamonds Are Forever is also noteworthy for its presence of a powerful female

figure. Tarot-card reading Solitaire (played by Jane Seymour) presents an angle of the

supernatural that even Bond can’t begin to touch, and she plays a key role in helping him

accomplish his mission. Yet the most memorable scenes glorify the ability of Bond not to

track down and kill the enemy, but to escape them. The Louisiana bayou speedboat
 FOR YOUR EYES 10

chase, which somewhat resembles an episode of

The Dukes of Hazzard, reflects this new

perspective on the “male condition.”

The next several films continue a similar

theme. Moore finds himself dealing with Figure Ten. Bond jumps a sheriff’s
deputy (assumed not to be Rosco P.
Contrane) in Live or Let Die.
increasingly dangerous situations, and is forced to

demonstrate his mastery of technology and dominance over nature to escape them.

Perhaps the most reflective of the Moore-era films of a slow change in the spectatorial

nature of Bond and his portrayal is 1983’s Octopussy. Legendary New York Times

reviewer Vincent Canby described the film as “incomprehensible,” but “better than

most,” and certainly one scene stands out as particularly chaotic: the battle scene in

which the title character’s East German circus of athletic women runs rampant through a

palace. Clearly, it’s the director’s intention to portray these women as holding their own

in terms of physical ability. However, the portrayal is comedic if taken seriously, as the

actresses demonstrate little physical training in combat technique and, in typical Bond

film fashion, are scantily-clad.

1987 found yet another new James Bond, filling the aging Moore’s position with

actor Timothy Dalton. The camera’s eye in The Living Daylights found Timothy Dalton

representing the masculine role as even less

violent as Moore’s – and one ready to rely on

technology for self-protection. The film is

particularly centered around the previously-

Figure Eleven. Dalton’s Bond follows
his target through the scope.
 FOR YOUR EYES 11

established surveillance theme, and Bond views the world often through the eyes of a

rifle scope. So, too, does his female companion, a master sniper and cellist.

Furthermore, The Living Daylights featured very little stereotypical male gaze.

Maryam D’Abo (in the role of Kara Milovy) finds herself neither overtly addressed by

the camera’s eye or by Bond himself (save for the aforementioned surveillance). Bond

eschews his usual hotel suite, opting to give his companion her own room. A

contemporary review even goes so far as to call Dalton’s Bond “chaste.”11

Dalton only lasted two films; the moderately successful Daylights and the flop

Licence to Kill. The Bond role would, in 1995, be picked up by Pierce Brosnan, the

producer’s original choice to replace Moore (but who was, at the time, contracted to TV’s

Remington Steele). Once again, the camera’s

perspective on modern masculinity changed.

Certainly, the reliance on tools of the digital age

still had its role, but Brosnan’s Bond was suave

Figure Twelve. The modern man as
half-smile.
and cool. Masculinity, as reflected into the camera

by Brosnan, meant smirking a lot.

1995’s Goldeneye began a new age for women as seen by both the camera and by

the Bond character. The Moore and Dalton eras afforded women occasional advantages

in out-smarting male foes, but Brosnan’s Bond found himself face-to-face with women

whose physical strength and combat ability matched (or nearly matched) his. Initially,

this ability was matched with sex as found in Famke Janssen’s portrayal of Xenia

Onatopp in Goldeneye, but the full presence of the male eye seeing the female body as

11
Janet Maslin, “Living Daylights with the New Bond,” New York Times, 31 July 1987,
p. C3.
 FOR YOUR EYES 12

“ass-kicking” before “sex object” would be realized in 1997’s Tomorrow Never Dies,

which pits Bond against, and eventually together

with, Chinese agent Wai Lin (played by

Malaysian martial-arts star Michelle Yeoh).

Unlike the combat scenes in Octopussy, Yeoh’s

Figure Thirteen. Yeoh’s Wai Lin
exhibition of skills is authentic and lends a reflecting authenticity in ass-kicking.

degree of agency to the character never before seen in a “Bond Girl.” The traditional

male Bond gaze doesn’t accompany Lin’s presence on screen, and save for an intimate

(and utterly un-Bond like) shower scene, Yeoh is barely acknowledged as an object of

desire at all.

As for Bronsan advancing the male ideal

of masculinity, he continues to react to the

camera’s eye with an essence of cool. We see

more of the characteristic Bond smirk and an

Figure Fourteen. Masculinity as increased reliance on the technology provided by

being pleased with himself.
the ever-present “Q,” who simply rolls his eyes at

Bond’s being so pleased with himself. “Grow up, 007,” admonishes Desmond Llewelyn’s

character.

Critics recognized the loss of the final vestiges of misogyny in Brosnan’s Bond.

“Women were taken seriously […] women were Bond’s equals,” explained Glenn

Yeffeth, Bond essayist.12

12
Christy Lemire, “New Bond, Different Enemies,” Los Angeles Times, 15 November
2006, D2.
 FOR YOUR EYES 13

Brosnan retired from the role after 2002’s Die Another Day, and the worldwide

search for a Bond to perform in the 21st film of the series culminated in the selection of

British actor Daniel Craig, one that drew considerable criticism from the world

community. “A blond Bond?” asked critics.13 As the studio did with Lazenby’s only film,

MGM promoted the 2006 release Casino Royale as “a very different Bond film.” It

would be, in comic book parlance, a “reboot,” or a film that ignores the bulk of the series’

previous work insofar as continuity is concerned. Casino Royale, based on Fleming’s first

Bond novel, would explain the origins of Bond’s position in Her Majesty’s Secret

Service, and show a “very different side of Bond.”14

Director Martin Campbell, working from

the experience of redefining Brosnan’s Bond in

1995, approached his direction of the camera’s

eye in a vastly different manner to a handful of

degrees. Primarily, Casino Royale is the first film Figure Fifteen. Bond in Casino
Royale wearing revealing tight shirt.
to overtly cast the camera’s gaze upon the actor

playing Bond as a physical sex object. Craig is seen repeatedly without his shirt, the

camera lingering on his chiseled muscles whether he’s emerging from the ocean (in a

scene clearly designed to replicate that featuring Andress in Dr. No), kissing his

emotional partner on the beach, or being tortured in a graphic scene lifted from Fleming’s

novel. Even when clothed, Bond wears outfits that draw attention to his sculpted body.

13
Ibid.
14
Ong Sor Fern, “A Winning Hand,” Straits Times (Singapore), 15 November 2006, sec.
Life Movies.
 FOR YOUR EYES 14

Furthermore -- and by all accounts the

most revolutionary change in the series when it

comes to considering gaze -- the majority of the

film is viewed not through the camera’s eye as

Figure Sixteen. Bond emerges from substitute for Bond’s eye (as in the early films) or
the ocean, and the camera watches the
entire way.
as a panoptic/omniscient eye (as in the middle

period films) but through the eye of Vesper Lynd, the treasury representative played by

French actress Eva Green. Lynd’s role in the film is to maintain surveillance on Bond,

and specifically his management of the treasury funds allotted to him in the course of a

high-stakes poker game. Thus the primary observation of gaze in Casino Royale is not

that of Bond observing an enemy or a female conquest-in-waiting but of Bond himself

BEING OBSERVED. In fact, throughout even the closing scenes of the film, it is

reflected that the Vesper Lynd character maintains agency over her outcome (even to the

end, as it turns out).

Additionally, the relationship between Bond and Lynd is represented not as of a

physical nature but of an emotional one, to a degree not seen since On Her Majesty’s

Secret Service. Lynd, while not being the physical equal seen in previous films, is a Bond

first: an intellectual equal, one capable of keeping one step ahead throughout their

interactions. Bond fully hands himself over to Lynd, tendering his resignation and

preparing to spend the rest of his life with her before the tragic events of Casino Royale’s

final scene.
 FOR YOUR EYES 15

Conclusions

As demonstrated, Casino Royale is a significantly different film in regards to the

spectatorial eye of the camera and of the characters in front of it. However, it is not, as

has been suggested, a revolution. The nature of the masculine gaze and its reflection into

the camera has been slowly changing since the beginning of the series – from the

“ruthless, misogynistic, happy to kill, licence to kill” Connery Bond to the “heartless but

tongue-in-cheek” Moore Bond.15

The films reflect the observations made by Norm Denzin in The Cinematic

Society that films increasingly rely on a voyeuristic gaze, and while it can be argued any

spy film will rely heavily on a tone of surveillance, the Bond films utilize this theme

consistently. The popularity of the Bond series and of other spy films like The Bourne

Identity further reflect Denzin’s observations. Of course, Denzin was speaking of

surveillance less literally, but the connections are hard to ignore.

Casino Royale is noteworthy specifically for its turning of this voyeuristic nature

by which a key player turns the eye toward another insofar as Bond is turned from subject

to object – and object of a feminine gaze, at that. Is this an aesthetic choice? Was this a

decision mandated by marketing in order to attract a new, female audience to the Bond

series? Either or both are plausible answers. In any case, the future of research can

identify a more specific taxonomy for the progression of how the camera captures a given

era’s representation of ideals in gender roles.

15
Christy Lemire, “New Bond, Different Enemies,” Los Angeles Times, 15 November
2006, D2.
 FOR YOUR EYES 16

Works Cited

“Top 10 Movies.” Washington Post, 11 December 2006, sec. Style, p.C07.

Birner, Louis. “The James Bond Phenomenon.” Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy

1 (1968): 13-18.

Christy Lemire. “New Bond, Different Enemies.” Los Angeles Times, 15 November

2006, D2.

Crowther, Bosley. “James Bond Travels the Orient Express.” New York Times, 9 April

1964, p. 25.

Crowther, Bosley. “The Screen: Dr. No, Mystery Spoof: Film is First Made of Ian

Fleming Novels.” New York Times, 30 May 1963, p. 15.

Denzin, Norm. The Cinematic Society: The Voyeur’s Gaze. London: Sage Publications,

1995.

Egan, Mark. “Bond Turns Feminist.” Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 8 November 2006, p.

21.

Fern, Ong. “A Winning Hand.” Straits Times (Singapore), 15 November 2006, sec. Life

Movies.

Kaplan, Elizabeth. Looking For the Other: Feminism, Film, & the Imperial Gaze

London: Routledge, 1997.

Maslin, Janet. “Living Daylights with the New Bond.” New York Times, 31 July 1987, p.

C3.

O’Connor, Clint. “Odds-on Bond Moviemakers return to first book for a new 007 in

'Casino Royale.'” Cleveland Plain Dealer, 17 November 2006, p. 30.

 FOR YOUR EYES 17

Sandhu, Sukhdev. “The Best Bond for Decades.” Daily Telegraph (London), 17

November 2006, p. 29.

Snow, Edward. “Theorizing the Male Gaze: Some Problems.” Representations 25 (1989):

30.

Watts, Stephen. “James Bond Bonanza.” New York Times, 10 November 1963, p. X9.