“Shocking, positively shocking”. As the opening credits of the third James Bond film, Guy Hamilton’s Goldfinger (1964), begin to roll and the vibrant tones of Shirley Bassey rise, the audience is left with Bond’s wry comment almost hanging in the air. After sneaking into a semi-military drugs plant; planting an explosive and casually retiring to a bar to watch his handiwork from a safer distance, Bond dispatches an assassin sent to eliminate him, by electrocuting him in a bath. It is then that Bond delivers his immortal tagline just one mark of the now familiar ingredients of the phenomenal Bond series.

In this essay I will be examining Ian Fleming’s ‘James Bond’, more specifically the film Goldfinger to analyse the representation of masculinity. I will be discussing how this representation acts as a commodity or selling point, a positive attribute for the film.

Goldfinger is today one of the most well known films in the world and one of the most popular for Bond fans everywhere. Many people consider Goldfinger to be the definitive Bond film and as a result the perfect example of a film in which to analyse James

The Fetishism of commodity is made up of spectacle and significance. That is, the “sign value” as Baudrillard puts it, itself made out of highly connotative associations, stimulating desire that can be realised as market-driven demand. Its “significance” is not the significance of production or its meaning in economic terms.

Some topics in this essay:
James Bond, Victor Seidler, Ian Fleming’s, Bond Agent, Avengers” Bond’s, Buck-Moss Marx’s, Shirley Bassey, Marx Mulvey, Car World”, PPK Schwarzenegger, james bond, bond films, bond series, aston martin, consumerist culture, bond film, james bond films, social status, bond formula, culture easy, pussy galore, james bond formula, easy fall thinking, culture easy fall, consumerist culture easy,