22 replies to this topic

[Blue Eyes]

Good films have subtext. In the last part of this series on the subtext of various James Bond films, we took a look at the subtext 1963's From Russia With Love and before that we took a look at 1967's You Only Live Twice.

In the third part of this series we'll take a look at the subtext of 1995's GoldenEye.

James Bond Finds Himself
The Subtext Of GoldenEye
By John Cox


If GoldenEye had not been a huge success when it was released in the fall of 1995, the James Bond series would have ended then and there. After the disappointment of License to Kill and a six-year hiatus, the question facing MGM and the Bond empire was "Is James Bond still relevant?" Cleverly enough, the filmmakers decided to make a James Bond film that was specifically ABOUT James Bond's struggle to find his place in the modern world. Not since YOLT was a Bond film so blatantly symbolic and so psychologically interesting.

As if to erase the Dalton years, GoldenEye starts in 1986 (a year before The Living Daylights) and then jumps "Nine Years Later," presumably to 1995, as a Bond film always takes place "today." This time passage device (the only time it has been used in a Bond film) tells us right off the bat that this is a movie which puts character ahead of plot. In other words, it's ABOUT James Bond and not the global repercussions of some event that we see in the pre-titles sequence or opening scene. And what's 007 doing when we meet him nine years later? He's TURNING A CORNER. But the old Bond is still very much in evidence. He seduces a girl, wears a tux, drives the Aston Martin DB5, gambles in a casino, orders a martini "shaken not stirred," and smokes out a crime syndicate -- all this in the opening two scenes! He's also back in the personage of Pierce Brosnan, whom the public has associated with James Bond from the time he lost the role in 1986. (Hey, there's that year again.)

But after this nostalgic romp, Bond fails in his mission to stop the robbery of the Tiger helicopter, and we FADE OUT. Fade out? Is this the end of the movie? In a way, it is because now we begin the first postmodern James Bond film, a film in which James Bond is not the master of his universe. For the next hour, 007 is ridiculed for being a "sexist misogynist dinosaur," out of touch and irrelevant in the post Cold War world. Everyone Bond encounters in this film slams him in a similar way. Valentin asks him if he's "decided to join the 21st Century," Jack Wade makes fun of his "secret codes and passwords," Trevelyan suggests his martini intake is a means of escape, sexual harassment is even suggested in his treatment of Miss Moneypenny! In this modern world, M is more than just a woman, she's a mother! ("If I wanted sarcasm, I'd talk to my children," she tells Tanner.) Up to this point in the 33 year history of the James Bond series, the concept of motherhood has been as nonexistent as, well, children. As a rule, Bond conquers the girl, and we roll credits, fast. Any relationship beyond that short circuits the fantasy. How does Bond respond to all this? He doesn't.

Instead Bond embarks on a mission to defeat the cold warrior inside himself by going to the source: Russia, a former enemy now crippled (like Valentin Zukovsky). Here, the traditional Bond girls are split (as is everything in this film) into opposing halves. Natalya is a beauty with brains, and Xenia is pure danger with a kink for killing that's worthy of From Russia with Love. (For the first and only time in a Bond film, we get to see a woman achieve an orgasm. You've come a long way, baby.)

But it's in the graveyard of discarded Soviet statues (heavy symbolism, but, hey, it works) that Bond finally encounters the REAL enemy -- his shadow. Like Bond, Alec Trevelyan, agent 006, is trapped in a time warp. Like Bond, he's become both a myth (Janus) and a real man. But Trevelyan's problem is he still clings to the hatred and suspicion that created the Cold War while Bond just clings to the sex appeal. Their struggle makes up the last half of the film, and the shadow nature of their relationship is so obvious that there's hardly any need for metaphor. "James and I shared everything," says Trevelyan. The most telling moment comes in the end of the film when Bond kills Trevelyan, not "for England" but "for me." The cold warrior is dead. Mission accomplished. Welcome to the 21st Century, Mr. Bond.

[Bond's Lovechild #043]

thanx blue eyes... that was really inciteful.

i agree with zencat that it explores the subtext of the movie... these post-cold war themes are hidden behind the simple "bond on a dangerous mission" plot.

i think that in 20yrs time, when the cold war will be a forgotten era, that the 'hidden' subtext will become MORE HIDDEN... they only seem to stand out of the plot more because the cold war events are so recent.

[Xenobia]

One of the great things that struck me about Goldeneye is that it does start in 1986, and Bond fails in that mission. Surely, Bond and Trevelyan were supposed to destroy something -- what's destroyed, what's stopped? The only thing that happens is 006 is killed, and that was not part of the plan. Failure number one Mr. Bond.

Just like Bond -- Brosnan failed in 1986. He set out to be Bond but then unseen forces -- traitors close to him (in Brosnan's case NBC), caused the mission (the role) to fail. And trust me -- Brosnan did not count on that.

Now it is nine years later. Both Brosnan and Bond are older and wiser.

The MI6 is changing: there is a woman M, and, as Tanner so nicely points out, she is "The Evil Queen of Numbers." The Intelligence sector isn't what it used to be. Human to human contact is replaced by satelites and evalutations of possible scenarios. Wade (the CIA) rely on those satelites and evaluations. The MI6 appears to be heading in that same direction.

Meantime, Eon Productions is coming off a lawsuit that has kept them out of a the public eye for a very long time. Filmgoers aren't what they used to be. Special Effects must be extraordinary. The heroes can't just blow something up, tell a joke, and bed the girl, there must be something else to them -- but what that something is the movie audiences aren't telling.

In GE Bond is forced to deal with the past and defeat it. I don't think he needed to radically change: as September 11th has proven to all of us, satelites and evaluations tell us nothing. What Bond had to do is accept that while the rules may not have changed, the people have. In the information agents no longer follow orders blindly -- they know that who they kill might be a simple pawn, what they destroy might mean nothing at all in the grand scheme of things, and the country they kill for might be bigger killers than the other side.

And so 007 faces 006. Bond knows England's history isn't pretty -- neither is his. But he has to believe that what he does in the moment he does it, is the right thing to do. He must also believe not only in the lesser of two evils, but in himself -- the one thing he knows damn sure is good.

When Bond kills for himself and not for England, it is because Trevalyan represents the way Bond could have gone, had he been drummed out by the evil queen of numbers, had he let his on personal disgust of certain moments in English history (and trust me, Bond is not proud of all that England has done) cloud his view of bigger picture.

He kills for himself because he knows that someone else will come up with someone like Goldeneye and he will have to do this all over again at some point. He kills for himself because he knows at the end of the day he and Alec mean nothing to England, but England, his service to his country, means something to him, and he will not have someone defile that for him.

And then there is the man who became Bond. Brosnan was charged with saving the series, and not in a small way, MGM itself. He had the shadow of four men hovering over him, four giants of men who brought so much to the myth of Bond. These men are not easily forgotten. And let's not forget he is working for the folks who let him go all those many years ago. And yet he took the role.

He took the role for himself, to prove that he could do it. He took the role for all of us who waited those nine years for him. He took the role and relied on the good that he knew: the skills within himself to make this role his own. He took the best from the past, (as Bond does) and brought it into the 21st, not changing completely, or at all even, but merely shifting, trying new gear on a new day.

At the end of Goldeneye Bond has defeated Trevalyan. He has faced down his shadow, what he could have been and overcame it, moved on. At the end of Goldeneye, Brosnan has faced down the shadow of losing the role once, of what could have been, and overcame that to make the role his own and to give to audiences of the day what they wanted.

As much as I might joke I want to, we can't forget those nine years: Dalton was Bond and Trevalyan did exist in Russia doing God knows what to God knows who. But just as Brosnan faced down Dalton's ghost and won, Bond faced Trevalyan and won.

But both Bond and Brosnan know the victory is short and hollow: there are other ghosts, other shadows that will come out on a sunny day. And what audiences love about these men is knowing that Bond will win again, and Brosnan will be the conduit that makes it happen.

-- Xenobia

[Xenobia]

zencat (28 May, 2002 07:51 p.m.):

Double-Oh-Zero (28 May, 2002 01:31 a.m.):
Well, zencat, I thoroughly enjoyed that article, like usual. I had always thought that the movie's subtext was more like James Bond finding redemption at the beginning of the the movie for killing Alec, then killing the "cold warrior" at the end, although I guess that I've been proved wrong, unless I read your or Xen's analysis wrong. Anyway, great job zencat, and Xen. I can't wait for Goldfinger.

I wouldn't say that you've been "proven wrong", Double-Oh-Zero. I don't think there ever any right or wrong opinion when interpreting a work of art. If you see it, then it's there (for you -- and probably for others as well). Who's to say what's right or wrong -- frequently even the artist won't know. That's what art is all about I think.

I think Zencat is right what what art is all about. To add to that, I think good art is all about not having one right answer to "What does this mean" but several answers that keep all the lovers of that particular work talking for years to come.

What do you know -- I've stumbled on a reason why Bond has been around for forty years -- and while it will be around forty years from now.

-- Xenobia

[zencat]

Victor Zokas (26 May, 2002 01:09 p.m.):
Very entertaining as always. But isn't a part of this actually the text rather than the subtext.

All the element in the script about Bond being a dinosaur was the scriptwriters attempt (very successful) to face head on the criticisms that Bond was out of date and would not be relevant or popular in the 1990s. In facing this head on it is being up front about recognising that people may have thought this going into GE. So if it is such an integral part of the plot then surely this isn't subtext, in the way that you were saying that YOLT was about Bond's trip to Hell and subsequent rebirth (which clearly isn't obviously being flagged as being an integral part of the plot)?

You're right, GE is a case where the subtext almost becomes text. People do "speak the subtext" in this film. But make no mistake, the plot of GE, the text, is still very much a straightforward James Bond on a dangerous mission. Bond is dispatched to Russia to deal with the missing GoldenEye, smoke out the mysterious Janus, and find the missing Tiger helicopter. M does not say, "007, I'm sending you on a psychological journey of self-discovery which will allow you to find your place in the 21st century...now get on your way!" It's still Bond on a mission. Bond does not say to Alec, "You are my shadow self and if I defeat you I will be free." He says, "Hello Alec." GE doesn't use subtext to create atmosphere or deep meaning like the other films; it uses subext to make a point. Bond IS relevant. It's important that the audience key into this theme, so the screenwriters make it pop with lines like, "You're a dinosaur." In fact, I think one of the reasons the excellent Michael France GE draft was not used was because the subtext was not made obvious enough.

But you've helped me make my overall point, Victor Zokas. The subext of GE is obvious. That's why I include it in this series. Because unlike YOLT, FRWL (and the upcoming GOLFINGER) I don't think ANYONE can say this subtextual idea, or theme, is not an integral part of GE experience. And if you can accept it in one James Bond film, well...

[Victor Zokas]

Very entertaining as always. But isn't a part of this actually the text rather than the subtext.

All the element in the script about Bond being a dinosaur was the scriptwriters attempt (very successful) to face head on the criticisms that Bond was out of date and would not be relevant or popular in the 1990s. In facing this head on it is being up front about recognising that people may have thought this going into GE. So if it is such an integral part of the plot then surely this isn't subtext, in the way that you were saying that YOLT was about Bond's trip to Hell and subsequent rebirth (which clearly isn't obviously being flagged as being an integral part of the plot)?

[Mister Asterix]

Excellent article as always Mr. Cox.

I have always seen Trevelyan as representing another way out for Bond. How can this 'relect of the Cold War' join 21st Century, well here is his alter-ego with the temptation of a better-life by using the power gain from his position during the Cold War and joining the dark side (to borrow a term from another movie series).

General Koskov (27 May, 2002 12:32 a.m.):(edited)
...but You Only Live Twice was to [cuss] ed around with to have the same subtext (though, as Jim points out, the 'rebirth' theme is present in The Man with the Golden Gun book, instead).

Actually, I think the subtext is one of the few things that made it from Fleming's novel into You Only Live Twice. I would say the novel YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE was also about 'the afterlife' with Tiger Tanaka serving as St. Peter. Tiger gives Bond a final task, before Bond can spend a life in heaven he must face a great daemon. When Bond enters the devil's castle of death, this daemon surprisingly changes into his daemon (in the form of Blofeld). After he defeats this daemon he then may start his new life in heaven where he is finally at peace, happy, and has none of the worries of the old life in the real world. Jim's THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN subtext of 'rebirth' follows perfectly as Bond returns from heaven.

[zencat]

Mister Asterix (27 May, 2002 02:40 p.m.):
Actually, I think the subtext is one of the few things that made it from Fleming's novel into You Only Live Twice. I would say the novel YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE was also about 'the afterlife' with Tiger Tanaka serving as St. Peter. Tiger gives Bond a final task, before Bond can spend a life in heaven he must face a great daemon. When Bond enters the devil's castle of death, this daemon surprisingly changes into his daemon (in the form of Blofeld). After he defeats this daemon he then may start his new life in heaven where he is finally at peace, happy, and has none of the worries of the old life in the real world. Jim's THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN subtext of 'rebirth' follows perfectly as Bond returns from heaven.

Hey, this is fascinating, Mr. A! I knew the subtext of FRWL came from the book, but I didn't think it was so with YOLT -- but I guess I've never really looked that closely. (It's harder for me to read subtext in books; I'm a real creature of cinema.) But, being a novelist himself, I'm sure Dahl picked up on it. Fascinating. Thanks for the insight.

[Xenobia]

I just realized I never thanked Zencat for this wonderful analysis. Forgive me Zen...this was truly wonderful. I can't count how many times I have watched GE and only know am beginning to see the subtext that you are pointing out.

Thank you for doing all of us fans that great favour.

-- Xenobia

[Rolex]

Zencats writings are entertaining and that folks is what the Bond films are all about ENTERTAINMENT and not about hidden meanings /agendas.

[rafterman]

another good piece zencat....

[General Koskov]

Wonderful article! Not as 'revealing' as You Only Live Twice's subtext, but just as interesting.

Perhaps the second time I watched GoldenEye (it was my first Bond film--I saw it on TV in '97) I realised: This is not the usual procedure, when I saw Bond being taken away by French seamen and the Tiger being flown away into the sunset...

I like it, though, very good film. The 'Ladies First' and 'Experience of Love' are horrible music, though.

[Blue Eyes]

Blue Eyes (26 May, 2002 12:19 p.m.):
Alec Trevelyan, agent 006, is trapped in a time warp ... But Trevelyan's problem is he still clings to the hatred and suspicion that created the Cold War

I gave this point some further thought. And I'd venture far enough to say that Trevelyan is placed further back in time than Bond. Bond does realise the Cold War is over and he has adjusted to some degree. He's living in the 90's but with a love for a past era. And that's something that Trevelyan doesn't have.

For starters, he starts up his crime syndicate in Russia. Yes, they are rife there but he's gone back to his roots. He's also gone in to the enemies land (or former enemies land).

He travels around in an armoured train. It's Russian and it was used during the Cold War.

But I think the biggest visual element that highlights the semi-modernisation of Bond and the "still fuming about the 40's" Trevelyan is the Omega Seamaster. In Cuba Trevelyan takes back his sleave to reveal an Omega Seamaster, but an older version compared to Bonds.

[zencat]

Xenobia (27 May, 2002 07:34 a.m.):
I just realized I never thanked Zencat for this wonderful analysis. Forgive me Zen...this was truly wonderful. I can't count how many times I have watched GE and only know am beginning to see the subtext that you are pointing out.

Thank you for doing all of us fans that great favour.

-- Xenobia

Thank you Xen. That's very nice of you to say. And I think your own excellent post above makes a terrific counter-piece to my article. Xen and Zen strike again!

[Jim]

Encore une cracking piece Zenkers (apologies: don't know the French for "cracking piece". Vanessa Paradis, mayhap?).

I remember reading a review of GoldenEye in (I think) The Observer or The Guardian or one of our otherwise fine broadsheet papers which are traditionally sniffy about the James Bond films, which concluded in the manner of "At last, to accompany the licence to kill, James Bond acquires subtext". Says a lot, that the subtext had to be text before they spotted it.

Xenkers; interesting diversion in re: PeeBee, but query which came first; the decision to restart the series or the casting of an actor as James Bond. I'll accept that the subtext was made even more explicit (and a rather mean spirited joke at TeeDee's expense) on PeeBee's casting.

[zencat]

Jim (27 May, 2002 06:28 p.m.):
Xenkers; interesting diversion in re: PeeBee, but query which came first; the decision to restart the series or the casting of an actor as James Bond. I'll accept that the subtext was made even more explicit (and a rather mean spirited joke at TeeDee's expense) on PeeBee's casting.

I do know that the orginal Michael France draft of GE was written with TeeDee in mind. But I believe the script was rewriten as part of the overall decision to make GE a restart movie and I'm sure with a "new Bond" in mind. I'm not sure at what point of this process PeeBee was brought in. It's a good question.

[Xenobia]

zencat (27 May, 2002 06:39 p.m.):

Jim (27 May, 2002 06:28 p.m.):
Xenkers; interesting diversion in re: PeeBee, but query which came first; the decision to restart the series or the casting of an actor as James Bond. I'll accept that the subtext was made even more explicit (and a rather mean spirited joke at TeeDee's expense) on PeeBee's casting.

I do know that the orginal Michael France draft of GE was written with TeeDee in mind. But I believe the script was rewriten as part of the overall decision to make GE a restart movie and I'm sure with a "new Bond" in mind. I'm not sure at what point of this process PeeBee was brought in. It's a good question.

I suppose the question of when it became clear that TD would not be doing GE will remain a great myth in the Bond canon. I know he officially told Cubby Brocoli he was not interested while filming "Scarlett" so that had to be 1993. Brosnan was not announced for GE until 1994.

Now in that year, I think it was a given that PB would take over, so perhaps a new draft of the script was written. I'd be curious to see what the original GE looked like against the one that came out once PB was a lock. Was a new subtext added to the story, to take advantage of the unique situation? Perhaps.

As for you Zencat...you and I and Blofeld's Cat need to pick a movie and discuss it together -- Xzencat-squared!

-- Xenobia

[General Koskov]

Does this subtext find its way in to Garder's book? I ask because From Russia With Love's sex-subtext was in the book; but You Only Live Twice was to [cuss] ed around with to have the same subtext (though, as Jim points out, the 'rebirth' theme is present in The Man with the Golden Gun book, instead).

[Double-Oh-Zero]

Well, zencat, I thoroughly enjoyed that article, like usual. I had always thought that the movie's subtext was more like James Bond finding redemption at the beginning of the the movie for killing Alec, then killing the "cold warrior" at the end, although I guess that I've been proved wrong, unless I read your or Xen's analysis wrong. Anyway, great job zencat, and Xen. I can't wait for Goldfinger.

[Max Zorin]

Thats true. Both characters are "antiques"; I think the difference is that Bond realises that and subsequently defeats Trevelyan...which I think was covered by the brilliant Mr. Cox.

Well, this was a rather pointless post. Makes one wonder why I don't just erase it now, hmm? Oh well. At any rate, I think I'll leave the subtexting to Mr. Cox, who's a helluva lot better at it than I am.

[General Koskov]

So where is the famous early draught of GoldenEye that everyone talks about? I know MI6 had the early PTS for GoldenEye on their site (it was reported here), so where's the rest?

[zencat]

Double-Oh-Zero (28 May, 2002 01:31 a.m.):
Well, zencat, I thoroughly enjoyed that article, like usual. I had always thought that the movie's subtext was more like James Bond finding redemption at the beginning of the the movie for killing Alec, then killing the "cold warrior" at the end, although I guess that I've been proved wrong, unless I read your or Xen's analysis wrong. Anyway, great job zencat, and Xen. I can't wait for Goldfinger.

I wouldn't say that you've been "proven wrong", Double-Oh-Zero. I don't think there ever any right or wrong opinion when interpreting a work of art. If you see it, then it's there (for you -- and probably for others as well). Who's to say what's right or wrong -- frequently even the artist won't know. That's what art is all about I think.

[Victor Zokas]

Very fair point Zencat. I also find subtext of 006 as 007's alter ego also fairly obvious, as it was with Scaramanga. Although that doesn't stop either encounter being entertaining.