33 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

ie. How do you feel about them?

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.

You have

[MHazard]

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.

I generally agree with the above post. Too many times in the movies killing people and being shot at appear to be fun. The Bond in the novels clearly finds neither fun-although he does enjoy the element of danger in his assignments. I think the question is were the killings of Dent and Dryden, casual murder? If so, meaning committed for no good reason, then the Bond of the novels wouldn't do them. If there's a good reason why both need to die, then the Bond of the novels would do it as well as possible but would probably have some compunctions over it while drinking a double bourbon (reference to ch. 1 of GF). I think you could argue that neither is casual murder. Dent tried to kill him, may have back up coming and tying him up and calling the cops might be unrealistic. Dryden is an ordered assasination. I have some problems with it because a British agent in a friendly country with diplomatic relations with Britain probably deserves to be arrested, not shot, it makes Bond the same as a Smersh agent-death to spies. The moral responsibility for that would of course be M's, but I don't see the retired admiral of the novels ordering it. But I'm much more disturbed by the "hey isn't killing funny?" tone of certain movies than I am by either scene.

[00Twelve]

I think Bond would go through with the tough, cold kills if he were assigned to do it. That is, the literary Bond/any of the Bonds who attempt to emulate the literary Bond. Specifically, I buy the Dryden kill because I believe he was assigned to assassinate him in order to receive his 00 number. I don't think the literary Bond would have refused to do that any sooner than Craig's did. Also, with the rebooted Bond, I think we're getting him to the point that he's at by the time we know him in the novels. I think maybe by mid-literary career, he would have found something alternative to do rather than just shoot him, but in his hot-blooded early time, he's a little more apt to do it. Nobody has to agree with that, it's just the way I happen to see it.

[LadySylvia]

I think Bond would go through with the tough, cold kills if he were assigned to do it. That is, the literary Bond/any of the Bonds who attempt to emulate the literary Bond. Specifically, I buy the Dryden kill because I believe he was assigned to assassinate him in order to receive his 00 number. I don't think the literary Bond would have refused to do that any sooner than Craig's did. Also, with the rebooted Bond, I think we're getting him to the point that he's at by the time we know him in the novels. I think maybe by mid-literary career, he would have found something alternative to do rather than just shoot him, but in his hot-blooded early time, he's a little more apt to do it. Nobody has to agree with that, it's just the way I happen to see it.

Oh, I see that as well. Bond's decision to kill Le Chiffre after the loss of MI-6's money and Vesper's decision not to stake him for the extra five million seem to hint Bond's "hot-bloodedness" very well.