41 replies to this topic

[stamper]

It wasn't self defence anymore, he killed the guy when he was armless. Different from FYEO where Bond kills the guy on the cliff because he wants revenge.

[TheSaint]

Screw self defense. If I'm Bond, and this schmuck tried to kill me, I'm not going to expend any energy to save him. Besides, he was on the verge of ruining my tie.

[tambourineman]

^ Agreed!!

There was no reason for Connery to kill Dent in DN either, but if he didnt we'd lose one of the most classic Bond scenes. Bond isnt a boy scout, he's an assassin. He's not the good guy, he's just the guy on our side.

Why rescue someone who tried to kill you anyway. And if he did, what? He pulls the guy back onto the roof, shakes his hand and sends him on his way? Straight back to whoever sent him to kill Bond to tell them that Bond knew where he was and was coming for him? Thats not a very smart spy.

[d0uble0_7]

It relates to past Bond films, not CR. Don't tell me that Mr Moore or Sean didn't have good words after killing people

In the early days, Bond did at least give off the impression that his License to Kill was a personal pleasure with little quirks and smirks. Let us not forget, Bond is not intended to be a Goody-Two-Shoes, his purpose is to protect via his License to Kill. He's a spy. An assassin. Let us just be grateful he's on our side.

[baerrtt]

It relates to past Bond films, not CR. Don't tell me that Mr Moore or Sean didn't have good words after killing people

In the early days, Bond did at least give off the impression that his License to Kill was a personal pleasure with little quirks and smirks. Let us not forget, Bond is not intended to be a Goody-Two-Shoes, his purpose is to protect via his License to Kill. He's a spy. An assassin. Let us just be grateful he's on our side.

With Connery's Bond you got the impression that he enjoyed killing people (as said by the previous poster his quirks and smirks as it were), that he enjoyed inflicting cruelty. As Connery's portrayal is still used by many people as the gold standard that's probably the reason why, not just Greengrass or Matt Damon, that the character is viewed in villainous terms by many other people (John Le Carre for example). The problem I have with this is that from the climax of TMWTGG (Bond's verbal confrontation with Scaramanga at the dinner table) onwards all Bond films have moments in them (prior to CR) that challenge the perception that he isn't troubled by killing and enjoys it.

The Spy Who Loved Me- With grave seriousness and sensitivity makes it clear to XXX that killing her lover was in self defence and that he took no pleasure from it (Moore's facial expression sells this better than the dialogue IMO).
Mooraker- When Drax implores him to join in with the pheasant shoot, without humour in his face Moore quips to Drax's insistence that it's good sport 'Unless you're a pheasant'.
Fyeo- Making it clear to Melina that killing (especially when revenge is the motivation) won't make the pain of losing her parents go away. As Bond has presumably killed Blofeld in the PTS (and with LTK and to a lesser extent TWINE to come) he knows that avenging Tracey won't ease the pain of losing her entirely.
Octopussy- His angry reaction to Orlov's plans to murder innocents speaks for itself.
AVAK- Similarly his angry and weary reaction(s) to Zorin's insanity challenge the Greengrass belief that the character has no morality.
TLD/LTK- They can be grouped together because Dalton's portrayal was of a man basically tiring of the job and world he was in. From his admonishment of Saunders who complains about him not killing the sniper (Kara) to Saunders death in TLD. His reaction of what's been done to Della/Felix in LTK to the moment when he chooses friendship over his government and oath in order to avenge them (much to M's dismay).

I'm sure there are moments in the Brosnan era that continue this theme. Maybe ultimately this perception has fostered untiL CR because these moments weren't well written, directed or acted, but as fans we know that (from the examples above) that Bond ultimately is a more complex and contradictory character than Bourne.

[d0uble0_7]

Well put. With facts to boot!

Edited by d0uble0_7, 03 December 2007 - 05:56 PM.

[baerrtt]

Well put. With facts to boot!

Thank you. Greengrass's views are spouted by somebody who really hasn't watched all the movies properly (or read the books). The character's vices and flaws have (if sometimes not in detail) been shown equally to be repulsive as well as fun in the films, more than they've been given credit for IMO. To me, potentially, there is, despite what Greengrass says, a selfish aspect to Bourne's character that there isn't with Bond. Per the reveal in Ultimatum here's a man who basically made the choice to be what he is, yet frets when he naively realises they want him to kill without question . So he basically spends the movies/novels trying to get revenge (nothing noble about that) for what he chose initially to sign up for, an obsession that leads to one character's death (Marie/Maria I'm unsure of the character's name) and endangers countless others on his travels.

Bond chose his path as well but the difference is defies his orders (LTK,TLD ETC) time and time again because, sometimes, it's the right thing to do. The character who risks his life to save someone who has threatened to kill him (XXX in TSWLM), who destroys the Atac in FYEO to ensure neither side has it in the end. IMO he is a much more nobler character than Bourne ever was.

[plankattack]

[ To me, potentially, there is, despite what Greengrass says, a selfish aspect to Bourne's character that there isn't with Bond. Per the reveal in Ultimatum here's a man who basically made the choice to be what he is, yet frets when he naively realises they want him to kill without question

Again, it's the difference between a character in a series (Bond), and a character in one story arc (Bourne). Bournes 1-3 are all about the central character's travails - a selfishness, if you will. Bond as a character in the novels and films has grown as a character in that the stories are about others as well as himself. So right there, comparisons between Bourne and Bond become difficult.

Except in the films' flashbacks (and I've not read the Ludlum novels so excuse my ignorance here), we have no sense of Bourne doing his job - just his reaction to what is, when you strip away the amnesia and the guilt, quite simply a change of heart about what he does.

Still if you're Greengrass, one man's duty is another man's act of imperialist aggression.

Edited by plankattack, 03 December 2007 - 09:08 PM.

[J.C.D'Arc]

I have read with interest and approval all the posts here. This is what I like about this particular James Bond bulletin board: people who know how to think and express themselves write here and it usually doesn't get personal or turn into a flame war.

I have only this to add:

James Bond was a character created by a man who was employed by one of his government's intelligence organs. As such, yes, he is an establishment kind of guy. But Bond is not just an unthinking, "my-country-right-or-wrong" type--neither in the books nor the movies. It seems that he has his doubts, but he continues to work for his service because it represents a nation that adheres to democratic, republican principles. James Bond was created in the early Fifties.

Jason Bourne was created by a former New York stage actor, producer, stage manager and so on. He was created in the very late Seventies or 1980. He is more the product of the post-Viet Nam, post-Watergate "you-sure-as-hell-can't-trust-the-government" attitude which had become more prevalent since the mid- or late-Sixties.

Jason Bourne's conceptual father is the Joseph Turner character of Sydney Pollack's movie Three Days of the Condor, rather than James Bond. In fact, the main difference between The Bourne Identity (the book) and Three Days of the Condor is the introduction of amnesia to the main character. In both cases they are men fighting against the establishment, not fighting to uphold it.

Whether you enjoy Ludlum's writing style or not, Bourne's amnesia is much more credible in the book, when you realize that "Bourne" is the cover identity of a man who has grown tired of war and killing, but can't let himself off the hook just yet and agrees to assume the "Bourne identity." In fact, Jason Bourne/David Webb in the book is no longer an assasin, but rather a stalking-horse for the CIA to flush out Carlos the Jackal. That's the whole point: he has a hard time connecting with his past after getting amnesia because all the clues to his real identity have been erased. And part of the reason he gets the amnesia is that he has been under so much pressure convincingly posing as someone he is not, for years on end.

In the two movies I've seen (the first two), it seems that Bourne has amnesia because he has a guilty conscience about being an assasin. As such, the writers and producers of the Bourne series of movies have fundamentally changed the character from the one in the books. (But it's only right, the writers and producers of the Bond movies have changed that character from the one in the books as well.)

In any case, Bourne/Webb is a man going through an identity crisis. In contrast, Bond has a firm grasp of who he is.

[Loomis]

lt's interesting if you think of James Bond and Jason Bourne.
They're superficially very similar characters.
They're cut from the same cloth.
They're characters that originated in Cold War books -
the lan Fleming novels and the Robert Ludlum novels novels of the Cold War.
They were both spies.

True enough.

But on film Jason Bourne is a very different character from James Bond.

But is his point of reference the Bourne and Bond from their respective literary sources? Or filmic interpretations?

James Bond embodies a value system. He's an insider. He loves the secrecy of it. He loves being a secret agent.

Does he? Certainly, he enjoys aspects of the job but "love" is too strong a word. He actively dislikes part of his work but does it anyway because he is a professional. In the novels, internally, Bond does not feel part of the establishment - he feels like an outsider getting a glimpse behind the curtain of people and events. The film Bond fluctuates but they don't revel per se in the job.

He kills without remorse or regret.
ln fact, often he rather enjoys it and finds it humorous.

Obviously Greengrass is basing this on the movies (and is ignorant of litBond).
I guess Bond is a trained assassin like David Webb was. Webb had little regret when he offed dictators and oil barons.
The humour is interesting. The best Bond quips bubble up dryly to relieve Bond's (and our) tension. It is a misreading to think that he is enjoying killing.

He's an imperialist,

No, no, no, no. He's patriotic. Big difference. Here's a thing. In Bond world, 007 travels to other countries, has alliances with natives of those countries, explores and revels in the culture and women of those countries. He is outward looking.

What does Bourne do? While in other countries is obsessed with only what his nation's intelligence service is doing, spends time only in his nation's institutions, and spends time exploring his past. The allies serve to expound on Bourne and his operations. We do not go into their worlds. Bourne is inward looking.

Now, this is not a criticism of Bourne. The nature of the stories (the movies rewrite from more expansive Ludlum novels) dictate that. But the Bond worldview is much larger and expansive and exploratory. The Bourne worldview is all about Bourne. Sure, he goes to many locations but the story is, by necessity, all about Bourne and the intelligence services of his nation.

he's a misogynist.

Well, sexist arguably (although the defence to that is Bond's attitude was normal for the time). But misogyny (as in "How many women does it take to change a lightbulb? None, let the bitch cook in the dark") - hatred of women - no.

He worships at the altar oftechnology - he's always got a gadget or some gun that comes out of a turret on the end of his car some way whereby technology will rescue him.

I can see that in some films. But generally, for Bond, technology is a tool. He doesn't worship it (Q will attest to that!). He merely uses it, in the field, in a throwaway manner. Often inverting in the intended use (exploding Lotus, fingerprint scanner, DAD ejector seat). Bourne, of course, needs that grid. 50% of narrative drive of a Bourne movie would be lost if an EMP explosion happened.

ln the end he protects authority and he has no doubts.

Well no, he protects authority but does have doubts.
And Bourne, of course, just wants to be left alone. If he'd been left alone in Goa with Marie, he wouldn't be trying to shut down the illegal CIA operations. He'd be living the highlife on their proceeds, ignoring their continuing injustice. The only time Bourne fights for anything is if it interferes with his lotus eating. Bourne's world is personal and isolationist.

But Bourne is a different character. Bourne is an outsider. He's on the run from authority.
He's subversive of authority. He doesn't trust them at all.
He doesn't want to kill at any cost. He would rather not kill.
He's absolutely not a misogynist.

He's a man wracked with doubt and confusion desperately searching for an answer.
And that's what makes him contemporay and youthful.

Yup, so he's quite like Bond. Yes, and Bourne is great and his adventures are wonderful. And Greengrass and Damon are a terrific team. The Bourne films are fantastic entertainment and put together are an exquisite spy saga.
But while Bourne may be overtly more contemporary (how well will they age?), Bond is certainly more classic.

And that's why, in the end, l think that the Bourne character the Bourne franchise, speaks to today. Today's world, today's problems, tomorrow's problems in a way that Bond cannot ever do.

Well, this is the nub. Bond is the benchmark. Bond is so relevant today (culturally and arguably in content), that all up-and-comers have to put him down to get media attention. Note Greengrass isn't comparing Bourne to Ethan Hunt (in some ways a more direct comparison). Or Jack Ryan. Copy is gleaned only by Bond bashing.

Bourne won't be around tomorrow, slyly and wittily commenting on global realpolitik in 5 years time. Bond will. Bourne's box office is a significantly smaller fraction than Bond's (we won't even begin to compare the profitability of the first 3 Bonds with the first 3 Bournes!). That Bond 21 outperforms Bourne 3 is phenomenal in the industry. No matter the domestic (US) gross of Bourne, Bond outstrips Bourne nearly 2 to 1 globally. I know we shouldn't measure a film by box office but this does go to relevance.

I know Greengrass was just opining something for a commentary and did not expect to be taken to task on every line. And he is a fine, fine director and writer who has done some powerful work. I'm a big fan. But I get Bond-bashed by Bourne all the time and have equipped myself with return fire.

Very well put, ACE.

[Safari Suit]

I find all this imperialism etc. vs subversive etc. stuff a bit adolescent.

Edited by Safari Suit, 18 December 2007 - 08:45 PM.

[LadySylvia]

I find all this imperialism etc. vs subversive etc. stuff a bit adolescent.

Hear, hear! Just a lot of publicity nonsense on Universal's part.