Political Incorrectness in Films

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. It discusses the xenophobia, misogyny, and cultural stereotypes portrayed in the film, and how it violates the spirit of universal diversity and disrupts the general notions of political correctness. The essay also highlights the importance of social awareness and how films like this would not run as successfully as it did sixty years back.

Running Head: POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS IN FILMS
Political Incorrectness in Films
Name of Student
Name of University
Author note

1
POLIITICAL INCORECTNESS IN FILMS
Introduction
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.
Discussion
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

2
POLIITICAL INCORECTNESS IN FILMS
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

3
POLIITICAL INCORECTNESS IN FILMS
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

4
POLIITICAL INCORECTNESS IN 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

5
POLIITICAL INCORECTNESS IN FILMS
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

6
POLIITICAL INCORECTNESS IN FILMS
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.

7
POLIITICAL INCORECTNESS IN FILMS

8
POLIITICAL INCORECTNESS IN FILMS
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.

9
POLIITICAL INCORECTNESS IN FILMS
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’.