12 replies to this topic

[Lounge Lizard]

Just wondering out loud: yesterday, Casino Royale scribe Paul Haggis has won two Academy Awards for Crash, a film that could be described as a Stanley Kramerist 'message movie'. Haggis's screenplay for the earlier Million Dollar Baby was also, shall we say, politically 'aware'. We can therefore safely assume that Haggis is part of the community of well-meaning Hollywood liberals who pride themselves on being politically engaged, the community of which George Clooney is now more or less crown-prince. Political awareness is something that Haggis has in common with new Bond star Daniel Craig, who said as recently as the Munich press junkets that he likes to invest himself in stuff that is of 'political import'. Considering his stance on firearms etc., I think we can assume that his agenda resembles that of the Hollywood liberals.

So, what was it then that attracted Haggis and Craig to Casino Royale, the re-invention of that Cold War dinosaur James Bond, in the first place? Was it just the money? Or was it the possibility for a more critical subtext, a more 'liberal' stance towards Bond? Let's face it: we can deduce from the Stax and El Mayimbe script reviews, that the plot is as labyrinthine and ambiguous as Syriana's. MI6 is portrayed in the screenplay as a shady group of government officials, using 'secret murder squads', spilling tax money into 'poker games' of bluff, popping up in remote locales with 'CSI teams' and willing to make deals with people like Le Chiffre. Bond is the 'blunt instrument' of the British who fights the actual War on Terror. He

[Publius]

I don't think CR will be that political. No more than TND had a rabid anti-corporate media agenda or DAD was an over-simplified neo-conservative feel-good romp. You can't escape politics altogether in movies dealing with government espionage, twisted industrialists and business leaders, shadowy crime networks, and warped ideological masterminds bent on radical social change. But when they are treated in as lighthearted and/or caricatured a fashion as has been the case in Bond movies, it's easy to overlook.

Besides, left-wing distrust of state military/police versus right-wing nationalism is such a mindnumbingly infantile strawman portrayal that I don't much take it seriously when the "debate" is depicted as such. Conveniently leaves out both traditional conservative/classical liberal distrust of the state and leftist infatuation with it. It's that very laziness that has Clint Eastwood, an avowed libertarian, being categorized by certain media outlets as a "Commie" of all things.

We need more movies that glorify minarchism and objectivism to counter all this other propaganda and maybe give alternative schools of thought some equal footing in public opinion. I've heard The Incredibles came close to doing just that, surprisingly enough.

[spynovelfan]

Way over my head! But interesting. Would I take it that you're on the right, broadly, LL?

I suppose I'm a liberal, broadly, but I don't like the idea of what you've outlined Haggis might do at all. It's what Bourne has done, I suppose, following in the tradition of stuff like THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR (altough it's not quite as radical as that - yet, anyway). And that's great, because Bourne is clearly a spin on Bond. It's pretending to be Bond in the real world (isn't of course, but that's the idea), and it does have all those liberal fears about state security and conspiracies. Which I love, but not because of the politics: I just like getting spooked that everything's not what it seems and we live in a fascist state. Bourne, ENEMY OF THE STATE, the MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE remake, TAILOR OF PANAMA, etc, all offer twists on Bond, if you like: if the good guys were bad (or some of the good guys, anyway). And that's cool for non-Bond films. But for a Bond film? No. That doesn't work. Apart from just needlessly screwing with the character, it means you can't have Bourne and all the others. They are a *reaction* to Bond. Bond can't be a reaction to itself or the series dies. Bond has to lead, and to do so it necessarily has to be a little generic. It has to be everything the genre offers and triple it; all the Bond clone films of the 60s and more so; the Bourne films but more so. Until it becomes fantastic and wonderful and entertains almost everybody in the world for a couple of hours. Except for a handful of liberals who go off and make Bourne films and the like.

Sorry - about as coherent as I can get at this moment.

Two more thoughts: Miranda Frost was MI6. And Fleming was making a point about Burgess, Maclean et al. But Fleming was almost completely apolitical. He was friends with fascists and campaigned against the Nazis - because his friends did. He wasn't really interested in politics much, and he said in his Playboy interview that Bond wasn't, either. He also deliberately changed SMERSH to SPECTRE to stop being nasty to those mean Russians, so we could get some peace in the world - about as liberal a reaction as one can imagine at that time.

[Lounge Lizard]

To answer your question, spynovelfan: I guess I'm broadly on the right on many issues, but I guess that has an entirely different meaning in the Netherlands as it does in the US. 'Liberal' is about as right-wing as it gets here (and that is liberal in the sense of 'traditional conservative/classical liberal distrust of the state', as Publius puts it), if one discounts the many new right-wing 'populist parties' that are neither liberal nor libertarian. Or fascist, for that matter. And I'll freely admit that one of the best Dutch politicians is a Socıalıst.

I don't think CR will be that political. No more than TND had a rabid anti-corporate media agenda or DAD was an over-simplified neo-conservative feel-good romp. You can't escape politics altogether in movies dealing with government espionage, twisted industrialists and business leaders, shadowy crime networks, and warped ideological masterminds bent on radical social change. But when they are treated in as lighthearted and/or caricatured a fashion as has been the case in Bond movies, it's easy to overlook.

Besides, left-wing distrust of state military/police versus right-wing nationalism is such a mindnumbingly infantile strawman portrayal that I don't much take it seriously when the "debate" is depicted as such. Conveniently leaves out both traditional conservative/classical liberal distrust of the state and leftist infatuation with it. It's that very laziness that has Clint Eastwood, an avowed libertarian, being categorized by certain media outlets as a "Commie" of all things.

Points taken, Publius- I agree I overly simplified my points, and therefore have narrowed down the possibilities to respond. The story arc of CR will probably lend itself for many interpretations.

As for Hollywood movies made by self-declared liberals: many of them seem, in the end, rather safely pick-and-choose in their attitudes; they have been ever since the 1970s, and that's why they're so hard to pin down. As you say, the need to pin movies down in this way may just be the problem. As one who hasn't seen The Incredibles, how did that movie promote an alternative viewpoint?

Anyway, I'm curious whether CR will continue the tradition of Bond movies treating politics in a lighthearted fashion (which I hope it will be), or whether it will avoid caricature and show Bond's actions in a harsher light- in which case it may end up a hybrid of many different attitudes.

Edited by Lounge Lizard, 06 March 2006 - 09:21 PM.

[Publius]

Points taken, Publius- I agree I overly simplified my points, and therefore have narrowed down the possibilities to respond. The story arc of CR will probably lend itself for many interpretations.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I was accusing Hollywood and popular media of "dumbing things down." You were entirely correct in your characterization of politics in entertainment.

As for Hollywood movies made by self-declared liberals: many of them seem, in the end, rather safely pick-and-choose in their attitudes; they have been ever since the 1970s, and that's why they're so hard to pin down. As you say, the need to pin movies down in this way may just be the problem. As one who hasn't seen The Incredibles, how did that movie promote an alternative viewpoint?

Haven't seen it myself, but I've heard from quite a few people that there's some subtle libertarian propaganda.

And I agree wholeheartedly about Hollywood movies being very pick-and-choose. Rarely much complexity in political thought, and when there is, much is still left to be desired, at least for me.

Anyway, I'm curious whether CR will continue the tradition of Bond movies treating politics in a lighthearted fashion (which I hope it will be), or whether it will avoid caricature and show Bond's actions in a harsher light- in which case it may end up a hybrid of many different attitudes.

Although I am itching to see Bond take on some contemporary political issues (various brands of terrorism, to be specific), I too would rather see politics be hazy in his world. I can't imagine Bond being a passionate Tory or anything like that. Aside from his decidedly capitalist lifestyle, I haven't the foggiest idea what he thinks about such matters. My guess is he wouldn't even give a damn, within certain bounds.

So, I do hope Haggis and subsequent Bond writers are smart enough to avoid instilling agendas in their work. I should think they are, as they mostly always have been in this series, and will continue to be, particularly with Sony now breathing down their necks. I don't even expect another scene like the Thatcher one we saw in FYEO. Wouldn't mesh well with Craig's Bond, I think.

Edited by Publius, 06 March 2006 - 11:30 PM.

[TerminalLon3some]

Bond never struck me as the political type. I think publius is right, Bond for the most part wouldn't give a damn...he does his job and that's about it. So I have no desire to see Bond become political in this next film. Bond usually see's things in black and white, good and bad, and he will view the enemy as evil and that's about it.


Take 'er easy
-matt

[krypt]

Interesting topic.

With Bond being somewhat new to MI6, will he be a recent vet of military action?

Where do you think he will have seen action?

Any chance that some of his comrades were killed in a war that the PM is now being criticized for and being accused of "fixing" intel to justify it?

[Pussfeller]

Bond never struck me as the political type. I think publius is right, Bond for the most part wouldn't give a damn...he does his job and that's about it. So I have no desire to see Bond become political in this next film. Bond usually see's things in black and white, good and bad, and he will view the enemy as evil and that's about it.


Take 'er easy
-matt

I would argue that not only is Bond not political, but he isn't even moral, strictly speaking. He views conflicts not so much as a question of "good and evil" as "good and bad". He hates his enemies on a personal, visceral level. He isn't an ideological warrior, but a hired thug with a thin veneer of snobbery. That's why I always found Bond to be an interesting character. He's the ultimate pawn. He does his job, and does it with style and skill, but it's never more than a game for him. He just wants to win.

So I think politics should always be a part of the background of the series, but Bond should never have a personal connection to any of the issues. He's just trying to do the job and save his own .

[TerminalLon3some]

Good point Pussfeller.


Take 'er easy
-matt

Edited by TerminalLon3some, 08 March 2006 - 07:19 AM.

[stone cold]

LL .. awesome post.

Completely too out of my depth to discuss further - but i think you've probably hit the nail on the head: I sense there will be less clear cut edges in this one and a strong Traffic/Syrianna/Munich feel of warring states..almost paramilitary national security agencies all caught up in this constantly unfolding global situation. I think it will be a good backdrop to reinstill that danger in Bond. A real-world danger I think. This works with some of the more awquard (?)plot shifts in the book too, because the lines cross all over the place.. I'm thinking of Bonds description of good and evil in the book, and the interventions by SMERSH ( I wonder who they will replace this organisation with in the film? ).. which actually more realistically fit into real world ambiguities more so than the mega villain / world destroying masterminds of later Bonds. I'm excited by the return of this dangerous global context to Bond - because it heightens all of the tenets of Bond, and Bond himself.

Bond is sort of apolitical in that he is a coldhearted instrument of the state.. but he is his own man, and very pro-British. I mean you do not get into Mi6 or anywhere unless you are almost fanatical about national security -but Bond is sort of classically English as well as a nationalist basically, and i think in earlier books he was painted as quite conservative.. but now he seems quite out-there.. like a playa! a bad boy. Spies ideally should be cold cyphers, protean .. but Bond has this cool sensualist gentleman aspect to him too which is his eternal appeal i guess. I wonder how they update this... i dont think they need too. Brosnan still loved the good things in life moments after he was double tapping some hood in the skull with a silenced gun...pure technique, totally ruthless... awesome.
A government agent but wherever he can be..selfish. I think CR will see some kick backs to that approach ( Bond's comeuppance ) ..or maybe an affirmation of it. Or maybe we will see Bond go from head-down military guy to a undercover spy starting to realise he can live the good life! i kind of hope not..

Edited by stone cold, 08 March 2006 - 04:33 PM.

[Orion]

isn't political awareness why they've made terrorists Bond's main adversary, something touched on in Die Another Day
("While you were away the world changed" Bond's encarciratian went over 9-11)

[Stax]

There are no "secret murder squads" run by MI6. That was a tabloid headline (in the film) that takes Bond's shooting of the bomber out of context.

[sir_hilary_bray]

I would like to point out that I recently learned that Kiefer Sutherland, his father, and his grandfather all have left views. I was surprised to learn this, considering what his character does in practically every episode of the show "24." I also heard that in an interview with one of his co-stars that the viewer is not necessarily suppossed to agree with everything this agent does each week. With that being said, maybe the approach they are taking is that Bond struggles with many "gray" issues that are not necessarily black or white. I tend to fall into the moderate conservative territory. Very conservative on some issues, and sometimes liberal on others. I would hope that liberal hollywood can just make an entertaining movie and not try to lecture the audience from their "lofty" perch.