33 replies to this topic

[LadySylvia]

I have a question. If Bond went through all that trouble to turn Miss Taro over to the authorities, why didn't he do the same for Professor Dent? Why did he bother to kill the professor after the latter had ran out of bullets? With Dent alive, the British authorities and Bond could have learned more about Dr. No, the latter's operation and perhaps . . . SPECTRE.

Edited by LadySylvia, 04 September 2007 - 05:35 AM.

[David Schofield]

Probably for the same reason Craig-Bond knocks off Dryden, if you think about it.

Sure, the British Government probably do sanction "kills" in real life when there is no option, but not against harmless men, with potential info, such as Dryden and Dent.

Answer: it's only a movie. And it both cases it makes Bond look ruthlessly cool.

[dinovelvet]

I have a question. If Bond went through all that trouble to turn Miss Taro over to the authorities, why didn't he do the same for Professor Dent? Why did he bother to kill the professor after the latter had ran out of bullets? With Dent alive, the British authorities and Bond could have learned more about Dr. No, the latter's operation and perhaps . . . SPECTRE.

Bond already saw that nobody is going to talk about Dr.No - the chauffeur who swallows cyanide, and the photographer girl who risked getting her arm broken - maybe Bond assumed Dent would clam up too. Anyway, at that point, Bond had all he needed; with or without information from Dent, he knew Crab Key was the place to go to get to the bottom of what was going on.

[Judo chop]

This...

It's only a movie. And it both cases it makes Bond look ruthlessly cool.

plus this...

Bond already saw that nobody is going to talk about Dr.No - the chauffeur who swallows cyanide, and the photographer girl who risked getting her arm broken - maybe Bond assumed Dent would clam up too. Anyway, at that point, Bond had all he needed; with or without information from Dent, he knew Crab Key was the place to go to get to the bottom of what was going on.

...plus the fact that he just watched Dent unload all six into Bond's pillow effigy. Naturally a killer like Bond would be more than a little miffed at the threat.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Bond already saw that nobody is going to talk about Dr.No - the chauffeur who swallows cyanide, and the photographer girl who risked getting her arm broken - maybe Bond assumed Dent would clam up too.

That's always been my assumption as well.

[LadySylvia]

Probably for the same reason Craig-Bond knocks off Dryden, if you think about it.

Sure, the British Government probably do sanction "kills" in real life when there is no option, but not against harmless men, with potential info, such as Dryden and Dent.

Answer: it's only a movie. And it both cases it makes Bond look ruthlessly cool.

Why on earth would anyone consider committing cold blooded murder . . . "ruthlessly cool"?

Bond already saw that nobody is going to talk about Dr.No - the chauffeur who swallows cyanide, and the photographer girl who risked getting her arm broken - maybe Bond assumed Dent would clam up too.

Then why would Bond bother to arrange for Miss Taro's arrest?

Edited by LadySylvia, 04 September 2007 - 05:55 PM.

[Judo chop]

Why on earth would anyone consider committing cold blooded murder . . . "ruthlessly cool"?

You should really investigate a career in psychology, Lady Sylvia. You have a relentless interest in knowing why others think the way they do. You might as well get paid for it.

Then why would Bond bother to arrange for Miss Taro's arrest?

Bond's view of women is different from his view of men. Connery's Bond does not make a habit of killing women. (Unless I am mistaken, TWINE was the first female kill for Bond.) Dent is a different creature in Bond's eyes. Perhaps if Dent had not already made an attempt at Bond's life, Bond may have found some mercy for the man. But, as I already pointed out, Dent was all about, and in very cowardly fashion, picking off Bond first while he slept. You can read in the vengeance factor. It comes down to: Bond wants to kill Dent and has the license to do so.

Which is why some, including me, find the scene to be "ruthlessly cool". In case you are confused by this, I'll just remind you that it's not a documentary we're watching. And it's not a reflection of how I view reality. It's a movie (which was also pointed out above). And to many, though perhaps not you, the ruthlessness of Bond (a fictional character) is one of his most attractive traits.

Let me know if that response satisfies some of your curiosities.

[LadySylvia]

Why on earth would anyone consider committing cold blooded murder . . . "ruthlessly cool"?

You should really investigate a career in psychology, Lady Sylvia. You have a relentless interest in knowing why others think the way they do. You might as well get paid for it.

Then why would Bond bother to arrange for Miss Taro's arrest?

Bond's view of women is different from his view of men. Connery's Bond does not make a habit of killing women. (Unless I am mistaken, TWINE was the first female kill for Bond.) Dent is a different creature in Bond's eyes. Perhaps if Dent had not already made an attempt at Bond's life, Bond may have found some mercy for the man. But, as I already pointed out, Dent was all about, and in very cowardly fashion, picking off Bond first while he slept. You can read in the vengeance factor. It comes down to: Bond wants to kill Dent and has the license to do so.

Which is why some, including me, find the scene to be "ruthlessly cool". In case you are confused by this, I'll just remind you that it's not a documentary we're watching. And it's not a reflection of how I view reality. It's a movie (which was also pointed out above). And to many, though perhaps not you, the ruthlessness of Bond (a fictional character) is one of his most attractive traits.

Let me know if that response satisfies some of your curiosities.

Sorry. Nice try, but I'm not exactly convinced. And I just don't find Bond's murder of Dent to be "cool". It was an interesting scene, but . . .cool? I don't think so.

[Judo chop]

Why on earth would anyone consider committing cold blooded murder . . . "ruthlessly cool"?

You should really investigate a career in psychology, Lady Sylvia. You have a relentless interest in knowing why others think the way they do. You might as well get paid for it.

Then why would Bond bother to arrange for Miss Taro's arrest?

Bond's view of women is different from his view of men. Connery's Bond does not make a habit of killing women. (Unless I am mistaken, TWINE was the first female kill for Bond.) Dent is a different creature in Bond's eyes. Perhaps if Dent had not already made an attempt at Bond's life, Bond may have found some mercy for the man. But, as I already pointed out, Dent was all about, and in very cowardly fashion, picking off Bond first while he slept. You can read in the vengeance factor. It comes down to: Bond wants to kill Dent and has the license to do so.

Which is why some, including me, find the scene to be "ruthlessly cool". In case you are confused by this, I'll just remind you that it's not a documentary we're watching. And it's not a reflection of how I view reality. It's a movie (which was also pointed out above). And to many, though perhaps not you, the ruthlessness of Bond (a fictional character) is one of his most attractive traits.

Let me know if that response satisfies some of your curiosities.

Sorry. Nice try, but I'm not exactly convinced. And I just don't find Bond's murder of Dent to be "cool". It was an interesting scene, but . . .cool? I don't think so.

"Well, you can't win 'em all."

- Sean Connery, Thunderball

[Atomic Agent]

Sorry. Nice try, but I'm not exactly convinced. And I just don't find Bond's murder of Dent to be "cool". It was an interesting scene, but . . .cool? I don't think so.
[/quote]


While actually killing someone in cold blood may not be "cool", in reality, it is one of the best, and most defining, scenes in the entire franchise (in my opinion). It establishes Bond as a character. People like action and adventure, and in the world of film, both of those things eventually involve someone getting knocked off. In the book "The Art of Bond", someone (I don't remember who at the moment) discusses that scene and ends with "We all love that Bond." I have to agree. Bond is a killer. That's what he does. You don't have to think its cool. But there is plenty of fiction out there that doesn't involve killing, if you don't.

"Murder" is a strong word, too. Dent had already attempted to actually murder Bond twice with Bond present, and once before that with the spider (which Bond could only assume at the time). Sounds like good old fashioned self defense to me.

[LadySylvia]

"Murder" is a strong word, too. Dent had already attempted to actually murder Bond twice with Bond present, and once before that with the spider (which Bond could only assume at the time). Sounds like good old fashioned self defense to me.

Actually, I don't think "murder" is too strong a word to describe how Dent had died. It is exactly what Bond did . . . commit murder. Yes, Dent tried to murder Bond. But when Bond finally shot Dent, he was not trying to defend himself. Nor was Dent in any position to harm Bond after he had used up his bullets, or defend himself.

Edited by LadySylvia, 04 September 2007 - 08:29 PM.

[MHazard]

I think the question isn't why he shot Dent but why he didn't shoot Ms. Taro. The answer to that is obvious, he'd slept with her and though he was willing to turn her over to the authorities, there was no way he was going to kill her as she was not a threat. Now he does arrange for Fiona Kelly to get shot after he sleeps with her in TB, but she is actively trying to kill him at the time. Dent had tried to shoot him and I think him shooting him is understandable. Who was gonna question Dent anyway, the Colonial Governor, doubtful.

[Atomic Agent]

"Murder" is a strong word, too. Dent had already attempted to actually murder Bond twice with Bond present, and once before that with the spider (which Bond could only assume at the time). Sounds like good old fashioned self defense to me.

Actually, I don't think "murder" is too strong a word to describe how Dent had died. It is exactly what Bond did . . . commit murder. Yes, Dent tried to murder Bond. But when Bond finally shot Dent, he was not trying to defend himself. Nor was Dent in any position to harm Bond after he had used up his bullets, or defend himself.

I see your point. But this is the movie we're talking about, right? The franchise might not have gone as long as it did if the scene played like this:

"You've had your six. ...But there could be another magazine, or pistol, in your pocket. Nevermind that. Now stay put while I get to a phone, call the police, wait for them to show up while I make sure you don't try to kill me again. Did I mention I have friends waiting for me to go to Crab Key? Bah!...They can wait."

If you want to call it murder, that's fine, I suppose. (If someone had made numerous attempts on my life, I would think of it as a preemptive strike, which is self defense). But the cold-blooded kill is what earned Bond the '00' number. Dent is not the only character Bond has killed off while not being in the middle of a fight.

[Major Tallon]

I do, alas, want to call it murder. Dent had an empty gun, and, while he might have had another weapon or a lurking accomplice, there's no reason to believe that Bond suspected either. Instead, he apparently felt he had no further use for Dent and simply shot him in cold blood. This is contrary to the way the Bond of the novels ever behaved, and it doesn't make much sense in the context of the film, either. Having summoned the police to arrest Miss Taro, there's no reason Bond couldn't have arranged for the police to set up a trap for Dent.

There's also no reason for Bond not to have wanted Dent interrogated by the police. Sure, Doctor No's minions had displayed a fanatical unwillingness to talk, but a lengthy interrogation might have broken that, and the police could have played Dent and Miss Taro off against each other or, in the course of questioning, have gleaned additional details about the object of their investigation. Killing Dent closed that door and gained Bond nothing.

Fleming's Bond had a definite moral compass. In this sequence from Doctor No, Connery's Bond had lost his way.

[LadySylvia]

I see your point. But this is the movie we're talking about, right? The franchise might not have gone as long as it did if the scene played like this:

What does DR. NO being a movie have to do with anything? There are plenty of movies that are open in declaring an action murder. Why should Bond's killing of Dent be considered something else or brushed aside, because it's part of a movie?

Hey, Bond murdered Dent in cold-blood, just as Dent tried to kill him in cold blood. That's it. Why drum up excuses for what seemed to be very obvious?

Bond's view of women is different from his view of men. Connery's Bond does not make a habit of killing women. (Unless I am mistaken, TWINE was the first female kill for Bond.) Dent is a different creature in Bond's eyes. Perhaps if Dent had not already made an attempt at Bond's life, Bond may have found some mercy for the man. But, as I already pointed out, Dent was all about, and in very cowardly fashion, picking off Bond first while he slept. You can read in the vengeance factor. It comes down to: Bond wants to kill Dent and has the license to do so.

Bond does not have a license to randomly kill someone. He has to show good judgment and have a damn good reason for that kill. Now, when Dent was actually trying to kill him, Bond had a reason. But Dent had used up his bullets. He no longer had any means to kill Bond. Nor was he in any position to defend himself. And Bond shot him several times in cold blood. I just don't see a reason why I should excuse his actions and view it as something "ruthlessly cool", just because it's a scene from a movie.

[Professor Dent]

If anyone can help shed some light on this one, I'd appreciate it as well.

[Double-0-7]

Feeling a little uncomfortable about this subject, Professor?

[Turn]

I see your point. But this is the movie we're talking about, right? The franchise might not have gone as long as it did if the scene played like this:

What does DR. NO being a movie have to do with anything? There are plenty of movies that are open in declaring an action murder. Why should Bond's killing of Dent be considered something else or brushed aside, because it's part of a movie?

Hey, Bond murdered Dent in cold-blood, just as Dent tried to kill him in cold blood. That's it. Why drum up excuses for what seemed to be very obvious?

Bond's view of women is different from his view of men. Connery's Bond does not make a habit of killing women. (Unless I am mistaken, TWINE was the first female kill for Bond.) Dent is a different creature in Bond's eyes. Perhaps if Dent had not already made an attempt at Bond's life, Bond may have found some mercy for the man. But, as I already pointed out, Dent was all about, and in very cowardly fashion, picking off Bond first while he slept. You can read in the vengeance factor. It comes down to: Bond wants to kill Dent and has the license to do so.

Bond does not have a license to randomly kill someone. He has to show good judgment and have a damn good reason for that kill. Now, when Dent was actually trying to kill him, Bond had a reason. But Dent had used up his bullets. He no longer had any means to kill Bond. Nor was he in any position to defend himself. And Bond shot him several times in cold blood. I just don't see a reason why I should excuse his actions and view it as something "ruthlessly cool", just because it's a scene from a movie.

Do yourself a favor and watch the trailer for Dr. No. It explains that Bond has a "a license to kill where he chooses, when he chooses, whom he chooses." It established this character, ushering in a new hero or anti-hero. You didn't see John Wayne or Humphrey Bogart doing that.

There are no moral reprecussions, no murder charges, just somebody getting on with his job the way he sees fit. M is not standing over Bond after every mission, going over whom he should have done in and whom he shouldn't have. It's something people weren't used to and it was designed to shake people up.

[Major Tallon]

[/quote]
Do yourself a favor and watch the trailer for Dr. No. It explains that Bond has a "a license to kill where he chooses, when he chooses, whom he chooses." It established this character, ushering in a new hero or anti-hero. You didn't see John Wayne or Humphrey Bogart doing that.

There are no moral reprecussions, no murder charges, just somebody getting on with his job the way he sees fit. M is not standing over Bond after every mission, going over whom he should have done in and whom he shouldn't have. It's something people weren't used to and it was designed to shake people up.
[/quote]

That's the trailer, and I grant you it's striking, but it's certainly not the way Bond is written. There's an interesting question as to what the "Licence (or "Licence") to Kill" really means. At a minimum, it doesn't supercede the homicide laws of any country in which Bond operates. Let's say Bond had gunned down Mr. Big in the heart of New York. Would the NYPD simply have said, "Well that's all right then. The British have given this guy a license to kill"? Would any country take such an attitude? Of course not.

The "license to kill" implies that Bond can be sent on dangerous missions where it may be necessary to use lethal force. In Fleming's Casino Royale, Bond may have to confront Le Chiffre's armed bodyguards. I don't find anything in the books that would allow him to "Kill where, when, or whom he chooses." He may have lattitude to use force on a mission, but it's not unlimited. We wouldn't care so much about the character if he were merely a thug in a dinner jacket. And if he does kill somebody, he'd better get out of there fast before the local constabulary start to investigate, or he'll discover that there are authorities besides M who've got the authority to revoke his license.

[Turn]

I'm not sure why some of you think there's some honor or morality clause that goes along with the license to kill.

The Dent death scene was necessary to establish this new type of screen character, plain and simple. You never saw John Wayne or Humphrey Bogart do that in films. Bond did what he did, then moved on with his job of stopping the villain and saving the world, or in this case at least averting a possible war.

But let me throw this one out: what if Dent hadn't really shot six or Bond was bluffing. Then where would he have been? A stretch, yes, but so is worrying that there is some sort of limits to what he should be allowed to do. It's all made up.

Why is this particular scene in Dr. No taken to task when Bond's sending Sandor to his death from a great height right after using a woman's body to shield him from a bullet is probably worse? Or when he shoots Stromberg more than once in cold blood? Couldn't Bond have just left him there knowing Atlantis was going to be torpedoed anyway?

The way I see it, it's a movie. I don't think about how moral a fictional character is supposed to be.

[LadySylvia]

Why is this particular scene in Dr. No taken to task when Bond's sending Sandor to his death from a great height right after using a woman's body to shield him from a bullet is probably worse? Or when he shoots Stromberg more than once in cold blood? Couldn't Bond have just left him there knowing Atlantis was going to be torpedoed anyway?

The way I see it, it's a movie. I don't think about how moral a fictional character is supposed to be.

I'm supposed to accept that it's okay to kill someone in cold blood when it's not necessary, because it's the act of a fictional character? Especially if that fictional character is the main protagonist? Gee, I could have sworn that the moral compass of a fictional character was an important part of his or her personality makeup. So, I'm supposed to make excuses for the actions of villains like Le Chiffre or Goldfinger, because they are fictional characters and not view their actions as evil?

Edited by LadySylvia, 05 September 2007 - 03:05 AM.

[Byron]

[quote name='Turn' date='5 September 2007 - 02:41' post='769231']
I'm not sure why some of you think there's some honor or morality clause that goes along with the license to kill.

I totally agree with your point. I think Bond's "best judgment" not morality or honor is linked to the licence to kill. That is not to say that Bond doesn't have certain morals or honor but as a fictional character he is not tied down to other people's definitions of these things (eg Ladysylvia's).

Regarding the purpose of the kill, i've always thought that Bond was also sending a message that he meant business to the person/s behind Dent.

[MHazard]

If one wants to have moral scruples, it seems to me the killing of the Station Chief in the PTS of CR is far more disturbing. It's a very cool scene, but clearly cold blooded murder and where's the moral compass there? What's the difference between Bond killing a double agent in a country with which the British have diplomatic relations and Smersh killing a so-called traitor to the Motherland. Killing Dent makes far more sense as he'd just shot six shots into what he thought was Bond. Bond didn't know that Dent or anyone was definitely coming, or if anyone was coming after him. He also didn't know if Dent had any weapons. He had to remove the threat and move on.

I understand Major Tallon's concern, however. If anyone has any doubt as to Fleming's literary Bond's take on killing, check out The Living Daylights and the first chapter of GF. The literary Bond will kill, but takes no pleasure in it, but will do it when necessary. The killing in CR is supposed to be analogous I assume to one of the two hits, Japanese cypher expert and double agent referred to in CR. I can't come up with a literary equivalent to the Dent killing, but I suspect there may be one. There's no question Bond can't expect legal immunity from killing in another country, but certainly he does do so, if necessary. After all, lets not forget, the man carries a gun under his shoulder almost constantly. It's not there because he likes the way it makes his suit jackets hang.

[LadySylvia]

If one wants to have moral scruples, it seems to me the killing of the Station Chief in the PTS of CR is far more disturbing. It's a very cool scene, but clearly cold blooded murder and where's the moral compass there?

I don't consider it to be a cool scene. I don't see how cold-blooded murder could be considered "cool". I suspect that MI6 had assigned Bond to kill Drayden. But I believe that it was an act of murder committed by Bond and sanctioned by the Agency. And instead of being punished, Bond is rewarded with a promotion to the Double-0 Section. Why didn't MI6 simply try to arrest Drayden?

Edited by LadySylvia, 05 September 2007 - 03:26 PM.

[Judo chop]

I don't consider it to be a cool scene. I don't see how cold-blooded murder could be considered "cool".

Then what do you consider all of Bond's "cold-blooded murders" to be? (Dryden, Dent, Locke, Drax, Stromberg, etc...)

What adjective would you use? Are you repulsed by Bond's actions in these cases? Are you amused by them? Are you completely indifferent to them, as if it were the same as watching Bond feed coins into a vending machine for a bag 'o chips?

We're all curious to know, Lady Sylvia. Since it's morally reprehensible to find these actions to be 'cool' or glamorous in any way, how should we feel about them?

ie. How do you feel about them?

[RiverBank]

(Sorry for being late to the party)

Bond is out of time and can't wait for Dent to be picked up. The next line after the killing is from Leiter at the harbor: "Better late than never".

Restraining Dent while Bond returns to the harbor is unreliable and may result in an escape and warning Dr. No that Bond isn't dead yet. Shoot Dent, clean up the room, and dump the body over the cliff on the way back to the harbor. Keep the bad guys guessing for awhile longer.

Charles

[LadySylvia]

(Sorry for being late to the party)

Bond is out of time and can't wait for Dent to be picked up. The next line after the killing is from Leiter at the harbor: "Better late than never".

Restraining Dent while Bond returns to the harbor is unreliable and may result in an escape and warning Dr. No that Bond isn't dead yet. Shoot Dent, clean up the room, and dump the body over the cliff on the way back to the harbor. Keep the bad guys guessing for awhile longer.

Charles

If Miss Taro can be arrested by the British authorities, why not Professor Dent? Because she's a woman? C'mon! What makes you so certain that Dent would have escaped? Bond didn't even bothered to question Dent. He just shot him.

And Bond was right to shoot Dent, because Dr. No would have no suspicions about whether Bond was dead or alive? Huh?

ie. How do you feel about them?

I think that Bond committed murder. I have no problems with the so-called "good guy" doing something wrong. I have a problem with his or her actions being viewed as excusable.

Edited by LadySylvia, 13 September 2007 - 04:51 AM.

[RiverBank]

(Sorry for being late to the party)

Bond is out of time and can't wait for Dent to be picked up. The next line after the killing is from Leiter at the harbor: "Better late than never".

Restraining Dent while Bond returns to the harbor is unreliable and may result in an escape and warning Dr. No that Bond isn't dead yet. Shoot Dent, clean up the room, and dump the body over the cliff on the way back to the harbor. Keep the bad guys guessing for awhile longer.

Charles

If Miss Taro can be arrested by the British authorities, why not Professor Dent? Because she's a woman? C'mon! What makes you so certain that Dent would have escaped? Bond didn't even bothered to question Dent. He just shot him.

And Bond was right to shoot Dent, because Dr. No would have no suspicions about whether Bond was dead or alive? Huh?

Bond is not out of time when he has Taro arrested. He can wait for them to arrive. Having the cops wait with him after Taro will scare Dent away. By the time Dent arrives, Bond doesn't have time to wait for the police. Leaving him behind is too risky. Questioning Dent is irrelevant to the question of propriety. The mission is more important to Bond than keeping a known murderer alive.

[avl]

ie. How do you feel about them?

I think that Bond committed murder. I have no problems with the so-called "good guy" doing something wrong. I have a problem with his or her actions being viewed as excusable.

Bond has a license to kill - ie he is employed to kill, without compunction. And does so throughout the films. Usually this is watered down - not much cold blooded killing from Roger - but not always. And Dent is the prime example of this, Bond as anti-hero, right at the start of the franchise.

[Major Tallon]

ie. How do you feel about them?

I think that Bond committed murder. I have no problems with the so-called "good guy" doing something wrong. I have a problem with his or her actions being viewed as excusable.

Bond has a license to kill - ie he is employed to kill, without compunction. And does so throughout the films. Usually this is watered down - not much cold blooded killing from Roger - but not always. And Dent is the prime example of this, Bond as anti-hero, right at the start of the franchise.

That is, I suppose, one of the primary differences between the Bond of the films and the Bond of the books. Movie Bond doesn't display much of a conscience, and the way in which Bond kills Professor Dent pales in comparison to the way he kills Sandor, dropping him off a roof and following this with a sarcastic quip.

Fleming's character is more conflicted. As Kingsley Amis pointed out, Bond, although he operates in a deadly world, is "relatively responsible -- never killing wantonly; never, or hardly ever, in cold blood; hesitating (almost fatally) to dispatch Scaramanga, probably the most efficient one-man death-dealer in the world. Now and then he even struggles with his conscience over the morality of the whole thing." Leaving Amis aside for a moment, I think the most extreme example of this occurs in Chapter 19 of Doctor No when, having disposed of the good doctor, Bond has to rationalize like mad before killing three henchmen who are blocking his escape. Still, as Amis pointed out, all this "couldn't establish him as a man of peace. On my computation, he shoots, throttles, stabs, buries in guano, causes to be blown out of the broken window of a high-flying aircraft, or in some other way directly encompasses the deaths of thirty-eight-and-a-half bad men; he and a barracuda share responsibility for a thirty-ninth."

Amis concludes that, although it would be interesting to have a character so conflicted about his work that he can't go on doing it, that isn't the character Fleming created. "On the other hand, Bond can't go on blazing away with never a second thought. Most of us would shrink from identifying with a mere terrorist . . ."

My conclusion is that, although Bond's job is one that involves violence, and on occasion even assassination, casual murder should be beneath him.

Edited by Major Tallon, 13 September 2007 - 12:58 PM.