I really liked Kingsman: Secret Service. It was the surprise hit of 2014, cunningly hidden amongst the post-Oscars dross. So when the trailer for Kingsman 2 was released I sent it to my friends, and talked about how I was looking forward to seeing it.
I saw it yesterday. It has a lot to recommend it. It's funny, and surprisingly moving in places. But I don't care. And I don't care for the following reason: the Glastonbury set-piece.
Let me explain what happens in that scene. Eggsy (Taron Egerton) and Whiskey (Pedro Pascal) are tracking ex-Kingsman recruit, Charlie (Edward Holcroft). They believe he is up to no good (which is fair enough - he is up to no good). They decide to follow him by using a tracking device on his girlfriend, Clara (Poppy Delevingne). The tracking device will give them full audio-visual access to Charlie. Now, this in itself involves a suspension of disbelief - unless Charlie takes Clara to all his bad-guy meetings, it seems unlikely that they'll get the information that they want, but ok. I'll buy it.
The problem is this: the tracker has to be implanted "within Clara's mucus membranes" for it to wind up where they need it. Which means that they need to insert it into her vagina.
Let's leave aside the logic that says that a tracking device inside a person will give everyone else full audio-visual access to plot.
The following scenes run thus: Eggsy is a little grossed out by his potential assignment. Eggsy and Whiskey compete with each other to work out which of them will complete this task. Eggsy "wins", and winds up in Clara's bed getting ready to do the deed. He has a crisis of conscience ("Hurrah", I thought, "they're not going to go ahead with this genuinely awful plotline") and makes an escape. Except the issue, as Eggsy sees it, is not that what he is about to do will make him an actual sex offender, but that his girlfriend may be annoyed that he is getting up to sexual shenanigans with another woman. She is. He proceeds anyways.
So, what the audience then sees is a protracted shot of Clara in her lingerie, while a fully clothed Eggsy reaches into her knickers to finger a tracker into her. Then he bids a hasty retreat.
I went online after the film to work out what the explanation was for that scene. The closest I have found is an interview with Taron Egerton saying: “It’s what Matthew [Vaughn] does, it’s his signature thing. He likes to do something that shocks. In Kick-Ass it was Chloe Grace Moretz saying the C-word, in Kingsman 1 it was the bum shot of the Swedish princess, and in this one it’s the thing. And, you know, it’s not to everyone’s tastes, but it certainly gets people talking. All it is is explicitly showing what Bond alludes to and says in a double entendre kind of way.”
In case you're not entirely sure what the issue is, here are some things for you to mull over:
- Putting a foreign object into someone's body without their consent is assault. When you put something into a woman's vagina, that is sexual assault by penetration. It comes with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
- Clara believed that Eggsy was interested in her. Eggsy acted as if he was interested in Clara. Eggsy was not interested in Clara as another other than a means to an end. That end was work-related and no consideration was given to Clara.
- Clara consented to sex. She brought Eggsy back to her bed for sex. She did not consent for him to put something inside her. So although there was an expectation of sexual activity, it wasn't that. If you are under any illusion otherwise, consider the following scenario: if Clara had found out what Eggsy had done, do you think she'd be alright with it? Answer: no.
- Eggsy is portrayed throughout this film as honourable. He is "the good guy". This is not an honourable action.
- There is no further reference to this event. No come-uppance. No issue with what has happened. No one even queries it.
- Matthew Vaughn does like to shock. Fine. But the two examples given in the quote above are not on par with this. Hit-Girl chooses to swear in Kick-Ass. Princess Tilde chooses to offer Eggsy anal sex in Kingsman. Both of those characters have choice and agency over their actions. Clara does not.
- The Bond comparison. Bond has a lot of sex. With consenting women. If there is any legal dispute about his sexual encounters, he's not right either.
- "And, you know, it's not to everyone's tastes..." No, Taron. Sex offending isn't to everyone's tastes. You're right.
And that is why I didn't enjoy Kingman 2. I'm not interested in discussing the merits of a film that promotes sexual assault for laughs.
I hadn't considered that scene in that light. However, to play devil's advocate for a moment, if Eggsy had planted the tracker, say, in her hair, would that count as (non sexual) assault? He has, after all, done something to her that she didn't consent to and that involved physical touching. If that is the case, then any program/film where someone tracks another person without their consent is equally morally suspect (albeit without a sexual element). If it isn't the same, why not?
ReplyDeleteAs for the Bond analogy, I think there is an equivalency. Bond often sleeps with a woman he knows to be a 'baddy', or linked to a baddy in some way. He does so with the express intent of getting information or access to someone or simply to piss the baddy off and cause him to reveal himself or make a mistake. Bond is not interested in the woman he sleeps with as a person in and of herself, but simply as a means to an end. The consent the woman gives is not to these motives, just as the consent Clara gives in Kingsman 2 is not to Eggsy's true motives.
Interesting questions, Phil, and I have been pondering them. Legally, assault is counted as any time a person is touched by another without consent. Even if that gesture was intended as friendly or non-threatening. The constant surveillance issue is one that I have queried in the Spider-Man review and the Moonlight review. And there is an ongoing morality issue about how easy it is to track someone 24/7 via phones etc.
DeleteI posit the following, however. Physical touch (external) can be done accidentally - you can bump into someone in the street, you can touch someone without intending to. The same can not be said of sexual assault. It may just be the difference between "in" and "on".
I'm not sure I know my Bond films well enough to comment, but certainly the latter ones (Brosnan and Craig), the women seem to know who Bond is, and what Bond is. No one seems to be under the illusion that it's anything more than sex. Do they?
And if Bond is as you see him, he's not alright either. But no one seems to think Bond is a decent bloke. And the films don't seem to portray him as a decent bloke. Whereas, Eggsy is shown to be decent, honourable, with morals. And then...this.