![\"James_Bond_Thunderball\"](\"https:\/\/sidewaysthoughts.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/07\/James_Bond_Thunderball.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Thunderball is Sir Connery’s fourth foray in my family’s Bond retrospective<\/a> and is notable as\u00a0the most financially successful Bond film to date<\/a>\u00a0when adjusted for inflation. \u00a0Bond once again does battle with S.P.E.C.T.R.E.,\u00a0preventing\u00a0nuclear\u00a0disaster through underwater fight scenes that netted\u00a0the only Visual or Special Effects Oscar received by a Bond film.<\/p>\n In the PR to support the film, Connery is quoted as saying “I find that fame tends to turn one from an actor and a human being into a piece of merchandise, a public institution.<\/em>” Perhaps Thunderball being the first Bond move to feature its own action figure<\/a> reinforced his perspective. I do, however, find it ironic that my daughter’s perspective on the role Connery plays is one where women are also treated as merchandise\u00a0and objects.<\/p>\n Connery was so against the\u00a0attention\u00a0from the film, he limited his PR campaign to only one interview<\/a> with Playboy magazine. \u00a0It is from this interview that Connery clarifies his perspectives on women, stating\u00a0“I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong about hitting a woman<\/em>” and “I think a man has to be slightly advanced, ahead of the woman.<\/em>” \u00a0I am unsure if these statements should be judged in retrospect, or if they are a reflection of the times when the movie was made.<\/p>\n The interaction between media and real life<\/a> is complex. \u00a0Movies are not reality, but they reflect current sentiment of the time and create idols who define what is acceptable for current and future generations. \u00a0Movies shape public opinion<\/a>, be it defining the norm or\u00a0portraying\u00a0the critique.<\/p>\n Bond has me considering the extent we treat the people in our lives, even ourselves, as\u00a0merchandise. \u00a0To what extent are we actors relating to other actors to achieve our own interests in our personal movies, or participants with each other in a meaningful life? \u00a0I continue to discover what the latter option looks like.<\/p>\n The former example depicted by Bond is clear. \u00a0If people are objects to be traded as commodities, it raises issues with authenticity where one’s word is their ‘Bond’. Connery sums up the situation best in his interview: “You can say something, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is so.<\/em>“<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"