54 replies to this topic

[CasinoKiller]

Okay, now Ian Fleming never went particularly out of his way to develop James Bond as a character but through his novels, we got at the very least a general idea of what motivated this man to risk his life and spy and kill for Queen and Country on a regular basis-perpetually living the romanticized albeit dangerous life of a secret agent and denying himself the safety and security of an ordinary life with stable relationships. Fleming's Bond was clearly inflected by patriotic fervor during his youth, lying about his age to prematurely enter the defence services at 17. He clearly believed, as every British serviceman did, that he was fighting the good fight on behalf of her majesty. Its not hard to believe that the danger and excitement of intelligence work intrigued this young naval officer and led to his recruitment into the Secret Service as he sought to continue the 'good fight' on behalf of England, this time against the threat of the Communists, albeit now on a covert battleground. His willingness to kill for Queen and Country without remorse led to his earning a 00 number and tremendous respect in the Service and he continued to kill for the 'good fight', setting his finer feelings aside, because in the early days of the Cold War, the 'good fight' was indisputably worth fighting at any cost.

Which got me thinking...exactly what motivates the modern day James Bond portrayed by Daniel Craig? Because quite frankly, Craig's Bond simply isn't a product of WW2 OR the Cold War. True, the War on Terror may well be the 21st century equivalent of the 'good fight' but Craig's Bond doesn't exactly seem to be solely a champion of the West against terrorism. Patriotism clearly isn't a significant motivator for him, because Bond was willing to go against his country's economic interests in QOS by going against Greene's conspiracy. Bond also doesn't have the luxury his earlier incarnation had of seeing things only in black and white...because the world today is far greyer for everyone than it ever was during the Cold War, back when the 'Commies' were the enemy and things were pretty straight forward...if he does see things in black and white, he clearly cannot and does not always view England in the 'white'. So is Craig's Bond just a hired assassin working for the British government, who might turn against his employer when he so desires? Again, that does not seem to be the case. So the question is, who IS Craig's Bond exactly and what does motivate him to do what he does? What is his personal ideology and value system and if he doesn't have one of his own, which one has he appropriated?

[David Schofield]

Which got me thinking...exactly what motivates the modern day James Bond portrayed by Daniel Craig? Because quite frankly, Craig's Bond simply isn't a product of WW2 OR the Cold War. True, the War on Terror may well be the 21st century equivalent of the 'good fight' but Craig's Bond doesn't exactly seem to be solely a champion of the West against terrorism. Patriotism clearly isn't a significant motivator for him, because Bond was willing to go against his country's economic interests in QOS by going against Greene's conspiracy. Bond also doesn't have the luxury his earlier incarnation had of seeing things only in black and white...because the world today is far greyer for everyone than it ever was during the Cold War, back when the 'Commies' were the enemy and things were pretty straight forward...if he does see things in black and white, he clearly cannot and does not always view England in the 'white'. So is Craig's Bond just a hired assassin working for the British government, who might turn against his employer when he so desires? Again, that does not seem to be the case. So the question is, who IS Craig's Bond exactly and what does motivate him to do what he does? What is his personal ideology and value system and if he doesn't have one of his own, which one has he appropriated?

Well, that's just a case of EON's liberal Hollywood balls-ing up of the character, isn't it?

I suspect that most special forces men from the SBS or SAS - the type of outfit we are meant to believe Craig-Bond is supposed to have worked for - would doubtless just follow Government orders without the Craig-Bond emotional bollocks.

They have shaped their conscience to accept killing as fact. They would, I suggest, accept their orders in a similar clinical, unquestioning fashion.

Which is why Craig Bond is still a nonsense fantasy figure in much the same way as Roger Moore-Bond.

[sharpshooter]

I don’t really think it’s any different to Bond rejecting M’s orders to kill Pushkin in TLD. Or deciding not to kill Kara, for that matter. I don’t think these are emotional decisions; it’s just what he deems to be the right decision. If he just followed orders in these instances, he’d be a pawn being manipulated. And that’s a no-no.

Craig's Bond is rawer, but yes, he is still a fantasy figure. And still has the Bond ideologies. He does delve deeper into things, and seeks to execute the correct perpetrators.

As the *Casino Royale dossier explains, Bond is an individual. Always has been. “Bond thrives under structure yet finds subtle ways of rebelling against it. He is not self destructive, but he can be a challenge to his superiors.”

* http://www.sonypictu...ssier/index.php

[ChristopherZ22]

After re-reading Casino Royale, it seems to me that Daniel Craig's Bond goes through the same struggle that Fleming's Bond experienced. Fleming's Bond in Casino Royale must decide whether to kill for patriotic reasons or for revenge. He wants revenge for Vesper's death, but knows that killing for revenge rather than for patriotic reasons in immoral. He realizes that killing for patriotic reasons is moral. While I am re-reading Live and Let Die, it doesn't seem like Bond has chosen which path to take; whether to kill for revenge or for Queen and country.

Daniel Craig's Bond is faced with this same problem. I think Judi Dench's M is trying to get him to understand that he must not get emotionally attached to others, and that he should kill for Queen and country and not for revenge.

The similarity between Daniel Craig's Bond and Fleming's Bond is that they share this same struggle.

Dalton in Licence To Kill chooses revenge over patriotism. If Fleming's Bond chooses patriotism, than Licence To Kill is not like Fleming. As I am re-reading Fleming's novels, it seems like Bond will choose patriotism. It also seems like Daniel Craig at the end of Quantum of Solace has learned his lesson and has chosen patriotism.

[Stuart]

Nice thread topic.

I don't think that Fleming's Bond was completely without vengeance. He left the Robber to die in the shark tank in LALD and verbally expressed a desire to meet any member of Smersh during his briefing with M. Clearly he wished to bring to book those involved with the force that was an enemy of the U.K. and the West.

With regard to Craig-Bond, I would agree with the notion that the producers have PC'ed the character up a bit. Subtle and sometimes not so subtle stabs at capitalism are evident. The 'we have to fight the f^&*ing evil corporation' vibe has streamed through cinema at least since Alien, if not before.

Fleming's Bond did not kill without remorse. He often reflected on the need to sometimes kill in cold blood and his distaste for it. Hence Sir Roger's summation of the character, 'He doesn't like to kill but is pleased that he does it well'.

Perhaps Craig-Bond is patriotic and is simply doing the job he understands best. Adrenaline, good food, and fine hotels are a not unappreciated perk. Can you see a retired member of the SBS trudging to work Monday through Friday and sitting in an office?

Edit:

Quote from the Sony site on Bond's motivation:

"Most importantly, Bond is deeply loyal to institutions. After his parents death, Bond embraced his British and Scotish roots. His concept of his nationality is a large part of his identity. This is reflected in some of his social attitudes, which seem to embrace a British identity of the not too distant past. When pressed, Bond seems to identify with the notion of helping to protect the realm, of serving the monarchand the ideals embodied in the mythic notion of St. George.

While the world is far from black and white to James Bond, he does tend to see it in stark terms of chaos and order, tradition and change. Bond has chosen to identify with order and tradition."

Edited by Stuart, 23 December 2010 - 10:18 PM.

[jaguar007]

Don't forget Bond's view of revenge in Fleming's YOLT. When Bond discovered Shatterhand was really Blofeld, he decided not to reveal it because he knew they would invade and capture Blofeld, and he wanted to kill Blofeld himself.

[Safari Suit]

Blimey. War on Christmas making you especially testy?

[Loomis]

I believe if Haggis or others like him could truly get their wish, Bond would be a black, gay Muslim. They absolutely hate Bond and have been hating him for nearly 50 years.

Personally, I think Bond should be like a slightly suaver and better-dressed version of Pastor Terry Jones, or maybe a male Sarah Palin without quite as much piercing intellect or as extensive a knowledge of other cultures. Yep, that'd be about right.

[Dustin]

I believe if Haggis or others like him could truly get their wish, Bond would be a black, gay Muslim. They absolutely hate Bond and have been hating him for nearly 50 years.

Personally, I think Bond should be like a slightly suaver and better-dressed version of Pastor Terry Jones, or maybe a male Sarah Palin without quite as much piercing intellect or as extensive a knowledge of other cultures. Yep, that'd be about right.

What do you mean, a male Palin???

[Stephen Spotswood]

Actually Fleming's Bond joined either right before or during WWII, which would make it His Majesty's Secret Service, although starting with with first book, Casino Royale (1953), there was a Queen (1953-).

[jaguar007]

A lot of this "balls-ing up of the character" has come from Paul Haggis to be sure. Because, as you said, at the end of the day, Craig's Bond is no more realistic and balanced and nuanced than his predecessors. He's still a "nonsense fantasy figure in much the same way as Roger Moore-Bond" was; only difference is he's been made more palatable, somewhat, by left-leaning, committed liberals such as Paul Haggis. I believe if Haggis or others like him could truly get their wish, Bond would be a black, gay Muslim. They absolutely hate Bond and have been hating him for nearly 50 years.

I'm curious, what about Bond in CR and QoS makes him left leaning? I just don't see it (and no, I am not one of the people who negged you)

[The Shark]

A lot of this "balls-ing up of the character" has come from Paul Haggis to be sure. Because, as you said, at the end of the day, Craig's Bond is no more realistic and balanced and nuanced than his predecessors. He's still a "nonsense fantasy figure in much the same way as Roger Moore-Bond" was; only difference is he's been made more palatable, somewhat, by left-leaning, committed liberals such as Paul Haggis. I believe if Haggis or others like him could truly get their wish, Bond would be a black, gay Muslim. They absolutely hate Bond and have been hating him for nearly 50 years.

I'm curious, what about Bond in CR and QoS makes him left leaning? I just don't see it (and no, I am not one of the people who negged you)

Bond's dialogue with Felix in the bar's a perfect example.

"Felix. You know, I was just wondering what South America would look like if nobody gave a damn about coke or communism. It's always impressed me the way you boys have carved this place up."

"I'll take that as a compliment coming from a Brit."

"Are you sure you're playing with the right side?"

"Regimes change once a week down here. Medrano'll be no dirtier than the next guy."

"Oh, you see, that's what I like about U.S. intelligence. You'll lie down with anybody."

"Including you, brother. Including you."

[Matt_13]

That's a bit much GS, and before you start bitching about how no one respects your point of view take a step back and see how aggressively you put down individuals who support a liberal base.

To start, I fail to see anything liberal about Craig's Bond or the world of the films he inhabits. Is it because he's less of a misogynist than most of his predecessors? Is it because he's not killing 500 guys with a machine gun and smiling afterwards? Is it the fact that there's a genuine sense of emotion in these films that make Craig's Bond come across as more of a human being rather than the male chauvinistic prick that the right often takes pleasure in soaking in along with their beers? See how annoying such callous generalization is? I mean honestly, you slam the left but what does the right really have to offer that isn't on display in these films? Bond still drinks too much, kills people, and fights for his country like he always has. I also fail to see anything that resembles anti-capitalism in these movies. Le Chiffre and Green were members of a clandestine terrorist organization that has operatives serving within corporations around the world (undetected, therefore the corporations themselves are not to be viewed as evil). Bond, despite being a hired gun, has always had a sense of morality, something that can be seen in that very conversation with Felix in the bar. He has his own set of beliefs on what is right and what is wrong, and politics don't effect him. Christ what is up with you guys? There is no slant to any of the Bond films. They're fun espionage jaunts that offer escapist fun.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

I think the cinematic incarnation of Bond always leaned slightly to the left. In the vast majority of films, he battles megalomaniacal wealthy capitalists intent on cornering one market or another - Dr. No, Goldfinger, Kananga/Mr. Big, Scaramnaga, Stromberg, Drax, Zorin, Whitaker, Sanchez, Carver, Elektra, Graves. Even Spectre is essentially a capitalist organization - it carries out terror for profit rather than any political ideology.

It's really only in For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy that Bond takes on communists, and even in those films, it's indirectly.

Edited by Rufus Ffolkes, 26 January 2011 - 04:54 PM.

[DR76]

I think the cinematic incarnation of Bond always leaned slightly to the left. In the vast majority of films, he battles megalomaniacal wealthy capitalists intent on cornering one market or another - Dr. No, Goldfinger, Kananga/Mr. Big, Scaramnaga, Stromberg, Drax, Zorin, Whitaker, Sanchez, Carver, Elektra, Graves. Even Spectre is essentially a capitalist organization - it carries out terror for profit rather than any political ideology.

If this is true, then it would explain why I'm a lot more tolerant of the movies than I am of the novels.

[Liparus]

Okay, now Ian Fleming never went particularly out of his way to develop James Bond as a character but through his novels, we got at the very least a general idea of what motivated this man to risk his life and spy and kill for Queen and Country on a regular basis-perpetually living the romanticized albeit dangerous life of a secret agent and denying himself the safety and security of an ordinary life with stable relationships. Fleming's Bond was clearly inflected by patriotic fervor during his youth, lying about his age to prematurely enter the defence services at 17. He clearly believed, as every British serviceman did, that he was fighting the good fight on behalf of her majesty. Its not hard to believe that the danger and excitement of intelligence work intrigued this young naval officer and led to his recruitment into the Secret Service as he sought to continue the 'good fight' on behalf of England, this time against the threat of the Communists, albeit now on a covert battleground. His willingness to kill for Queen and Country without remorse led to his earning a 00 number and tremendous respect in the Service and he continued to kill for the 'good fight', setting his finer feelings aside, because in the early days of the Cold War, the 'good fight' was indisputably worth fighting at any cost.

Which got me thinking...exactly what motivates the modern day James Bond portrayed by Daniel Craig? Because quite frankly, Craig's Bond simply isn't a product of WW2 OR the Cold War. True, the War on Terror may well be the 21st century equivalent of the 'good fight' but Craig's Bond doesn't exactly seem to be solely a champion of the West against terrorism. Patriotism clearly isn't a significant motivator for him, because Bond was willing to go against his country's economic interests in QOS by going against Greene's conspiracy. Bond also doesn't have the luxury his earlier incarnation had of seeing things only in black and white...because the world today is far greyer for everyone than it ever was during the Cold War, back when the 'Commies' were the enemy and things were pretty straight forward...if he does see things in black and white, he clearly cannot and does not always view England in the 'white'. So is Craig's Bond just a hired assassin working for the British government, who might turn against his employer when he so desires? Again, that does not seem to be the case. So the question is, who IS Craig's Bond exactly and what does motivate him to do what he does? What is his personal ideology and value system and if he doesn't have one of his own, which one has he appropriated?

Very good post !
The New Age Bond's motivation ? None. He's just a killer who likes his job. That's the problem. He's not a new Jason Bourne. He's a new Hitman.

[The Shark]

I think the cinematic incarnation of Bond always leaned slightly to the left. In the vast majority of films, he battles megalomaniacal wealthy capitalists intent on cornering one market or another - Dr. No, Goldfinger, Kananga/Mr. Big, Scaramnaga, Stromberg, Drax, Zorin, Whitaker, Sanchez, Carver, Elektra, Graves. Even Spectre is essentially a capitalist organization - it carries out terror for profit rather than any political ideology.

I'd say that's more of a result of Cubby and Harry wanting an apolitical franchise, hoping that eventually Bond could show in the Soviet Union and Red China. Despite Bond often going after tycoons, drug lord and industrialists, he's still very much an imperialist character. But the humour and gross exaggeration of Bond's hegemony helps to provide a balance, and subversively mocks the character. I think even Fleming achieved that on some level.

However, Bond is merely following his orders in all of those examples. It's not as if he's destroying their capitalist empires out of his own ideology; merely serving his country's best interests.

That's why the conversation in the Bolivian bar is a rarity in the series. A moment where Bond actually resembles an ideologue more than a pragmatic civil servant.

[Binyamin]

I recently began reading John D. MacDonald's "Travis McGee" adventure series. (Stay with me.) One interesting way that he describes the Bond-like McGee is "a knight in rusted armor."

That, to me, is Bond's motivation. He has cynicism and world-weariness, but somewhere within he still believes in the basic concept of right and wrong. He has seen truly evil men, and truly good women, and he believes there IS a difference, though the border may sometimes be grey.

Bond fights for what he believes is right in the world -- he has a personal code of honor, like a knight of old. He may not be "nice," but at his core he is "good."

[Dustin]

Bond's dialogue with Felix in the bar's a perfect example.

"Felix. You know, I was just wondering what South America would look like if nobody gave a damn about coke or communism. It's always impressed me the way you boys have carved this place up."

"I'll take that as a compliment coming from a Brit."

"Are you sure you're playing with the right side?"

"Regimes change once a week down here. Medrano'll be no dirtier than the next guy."

"Oh, you see, that's what I like about U.S. intelligence. You'll lie down with anybody."

"Including you, brother. Including you."

But that's a perfectly sober reflection there. Just because it doesn't agree with right-wing ideology and a couple of their current nutters can't stomach it doesn't make Bond an ideologue. I'm not even sure Bond or Fleming would have identified the like of them as conservatives back in the day. I think in the books there are a few lines with a similar inclination, and not just about the US either.

[Grackles]

Oh boy, this is an excellent thread. Rebooting the franchise has always posed a few challenges. In the former film series (DR. NO through DIE ANOTHER DAY) there was no progression or overall character development for Bond. They just a made a new movie every two years. But starting out what is essentially a new continuity raises all of these questions. The new James Bond has a definate beginning, and things like his motivations have to be addressed.

That's one area where CASINO ROYALE (which I do count as a good Bond film overall) misses the mark. They also bungle Vesper, but I'm more concerned with Bond. Why does he fight this fight? We get a little smattering of that in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but not much.

So, is Bond a pinko now? I think there is an arguement to all this "leftist" stuff. I think GS is going too far with it, but I do think it's been creeping in, and I point the finger at Paul Haggis. Though I hear Joshua Zetumer may have been involved in the politicizing of QOS.

Let's remember that Paul Haggis wrote and directed the film CRASH, which is probably the most repugnant example of self-important, guilty white liberal garbage that I've ever seen. That film is so over-the-top, ridiculous, and absurdly pleased with itself. It's a joke. And I'm not even a conservative. A center-left aspiring Hollywood actor who's two favorite films are ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST and CHINATOWN; two films with could be argued as having a leftist slant. QUANTUM OF SOLACE has a number of shades of CHINATOWN.

Before I get off on a tangent, I'm all for left-leaning films. Some of them are a bit pretentious and some are good. But they have their place among Hollywood output. But it's very unsexy for Bond to be PC. Bond is a male fantasy. One that women can and do enjoy, too. At the end of the day, I think, it's all for ****s and grins. Fleming wrote these books for adult men and women to read in or on planes, trains, and automobiles. It's pulp literature. It's for fun. But these self-important dweebs like Paul Haggis just can't seem to swallow that joke. No, they gotta be all srs.

Now, back to motivations. I do think it may be a lost cause to have Daniel Craig's Bond to be that rich of a character. It's really more of a post-war (Dubya Dubya Two) English character that wouldn't be acceptable to some people. But I think it can be done. I'm more concerned with Bond's manner than I am about his motives. To be honest, I'd prefer they tone down the "soul-searching" thing. It's okay once in a while, but it's not what Bond is really about, nor does it play to the strengths of the creative talent pool that EON has assembled. They're just not good enough to do some deep, dramatic story any justice. Or the character, for that matter.

I sorta see Bond as a man who joined for patriotism, and stayed with the service after WWII because he'd rather be at war than at peace. Bond hates sitting around London. It makes him depressed. He's always jumping out his chair when that phone rings. I think focusing on that element may be enough. It's an action/adventure film, not a character study.

Edited by Grackles, 01 February 2011 - 12:09 AM.

[Iroquois]

"But now he would attack the arm that held the whip and the gun. The business of espionage could be left to the white collar boys. They could spy, and catch the spies. He would go after the threat behind the spies, the threat that made them spy."-Casino Royale

"Arms were getting to the Castro rebels in Cuba from all neighbouring territories. They had been coming principally from Miami and the Gulf of Mexico, but when the US coastguards had seized two big shipments, the Castro supporters had turned to Jamaica and the Bahamas as possible bases, and Bond had been sent out from London to put a stop to it. He hadn't wanted to do the job. If anything, his sympathies were with the rebels...Bond had found out about the two big cabin cruisers and rather than make arrests when they were about to sail, thus causing an incident, he had chosen a very dark night and crept up the boats in a police launch. From the deck of the unlighted launch he had tossed a thermite bomb through an open port on each of them...Bad luck on the insurance companies, but there were no casualties and he had achieved quickly and neatly what M had told him to do."- Quantum of Solace

"Our politicians may be a feather pated bunch, and I expect yours are too. All politicians are. But there's nothing wrong with the British people." Bond to tiger- You Only Live twice.

Of course, these were just Fleming references I sought after off the top of my head. I know there are plenty more (especially Bond and Mathis' conversation about Good and Evil, which is what a lot of QOS bases itself on to the point of which it briefly adapts the conversation) but it'll take me hours to find them all.

All in all, I don't think Bond has ever had a political agenda, he's just got his own moral principles. What Bond says in QOS is exactly the sort of observation Fleming's Bond would have made. I've always seen Bond as someone who fights for his own idea of right and wrong but within a system that enables him to do so. He'll subtly rebel against the system if it goes against what Bond sees as right:

"(Bond's) colleagues at the Ministry will allow that he performed (his duties) with outstanding bravery and distinction, although occasionally, through an impetuous strain in his nature, with a streak of the foolhardy that brought him in conflict with higher authority." M's obituary-YOLT.

I never understood this idea of Bond as a pawn who blindly follows orders, I agree with Binyamin about Bond being more of a 'knight in rusted armour'. I think that sums him up perfectly.

Edited by Iroquois, 01 February 2011 - 10:05 PM.

[Kreivi von Glödä]

Bond fights for what he believes is right in the world -- he has a personal code of honor, like a knight of old. He may not be "nice," but at his core he is "good."

You stole words from my mouth. I've been really annoyed by comments made by some people who claim that Bond has become some "left-wing liberal" in the latest 2 films. Patriotism does not mean blind obediance and blindness to flaws within government. In QoS, Bond is rightly disgusted when he sees that his superiors and allies who he feels should know better are willing to get in league with the bad guys despite the obvious consequences.

Edited by Kreivi von Glödä, 06 February 2011 - 10:56 AM.

[Loomis]

I've never seen "right-wing" films such as RAMBO or ROCKY IV.

Really? You're missing out. The Rocky and Rambo franchises contain some very good, fun movies that are, in their own way, very Bondian.

Oh, and to be critical of the United States is not necessarily to be anti-American, or even unpatriotic (I believe Michael Moore considers himself a patriot).

[Dustin]

Well, I think The Shark has already responded to your question in much the same way I would have, however, it must be made clear that I don't think Bond as a character has become "left-leaning", but the films, as a whole, have become more left-leaning since 1995, and certainly more left-leaning with Haggis writing them. And by "left-leaning" I don't mean just politically, but socially (which sometimes go hand-in-hand). Can you imagine Sean Connery's Bond crying over an image of Elektra, touching the computer screen and wiping away her tears?

In what way is this "left-leaning"? It's a way to express emotion. Is that "left-leaning"? Per se? I wouldn't say so. It's a gesture that's decidedly "film-ish" (for nobody would do it in reality) and perhaps not very good at getting its point across. But it's legitimate "acting" and not in any way left-right.

What's next? Bond shops at Whole Foods and uses recyclable shopping bags?

Bond doesn't shop all too often in the films IIRC. So any kind of shopping bag would be a novelty IMO.

The need for Bond to have his *feelings* explored...to deconstruct the man and understand why he kills and why he lives the way he lives his life...it's all very much a product of a very liberal social conscious that emanates from the Hollywood writers, whether it's Bruce Feirstein or Paul Haggis (and I happen to like Feirstein and some of what he did for Bond).

What makes that a liberal idea? I believe even Mickey Spillane gave Mike Hammer some kind of pretext to kill off the baddies. I don't think this is really something new or even very much surprising. People want to follow the adventures of a hero, not those of a brain-dead killing machine that's in effect just a terrorist on the "right" side.

I like a lot of left-leaning films; my favorite "lefty" film, and my favorite film of all time, is DANCES WITH WOLVES. I also like AVATAR, THE DARK KNIGHT and PLANET OF THE APES. I've never seen "right-wing" films such as RAMBO or ROCKY IV.

I see absolutely no indication to brand either of these films as "left" or "right". They tell certain storylines that could be viewed either way. RAMBO, the series that would probably be some right-wing loony's idea of tea-party-pørn, initially is a story that is highly sceptical of either side.

But there's no mistaking that parts of Quanturd of Solace felt like Haggis lecturing the audience on how bad America is or how bad it's foreign policy is; Greg Beamm is clearly George W. Bush in the script, and Haggis is using the Bond series to score some political points that he must not have gotten across in THE VALLEY OF ELAH, FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS, or LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, where he's not missed an opportunity to let us know what a failure America is or has been, and I don't like it.

Ok, so you don't like it. But I don't think there is lecturing involved here. For most of the audience apparently agreed with these views before they even sat down to see QOS. It's mirroring here. Most of the Western world in fact is not too fond of what happend since the Bushista clan took the bridge on your ship. Even that hysteric crowd that is now domineering headlines and news channels because it's literally unbelievable that a country is throwing away it's sanity so easily used to hate Bush at the end. Why should any work of entertainment claim it was different? Just to soothe the sensibilities of those that have voted for the Cheney junta?

Mind you, all that need not not worry you, it's your country. But you also shouldn't be surprised that not everybody joins in on the chant either. Bond films are not intended to lick any country's boots.

I come to watch the Bond films to escape reality; I want two hours of unbridled excess; action, beautiful women, stunts galore, humorous repartee, travel to exotic locations, interesting villains, ingenious plots...not to be lectured down to by somebody who seems to have missed his vocation as an Anti-American Political Science Professor at Berkley. If you think I'm making this up, please find me one "pro-American" movie that Haggis has written, directed or produced? Even his Oscar winning film, CRASH (which I thought was good) is essentially about how racist and intolerant the United States is.

You know, after a while, it just gets tiresome to hear people from Hollywood dissing on the United States. We *get it*. I never use to despise Hollywood until this past decade; now I can't stand it and won't even watch any awards show; not one.

And you know, after a while it just gets tiresome to hear this constant cissy whining about how the evil leftist Hollwood is spoiling all your fun. It's particularly boring when it comes in a snivelling manner combined with hurt "pride" and claims of "honour" that must be "restored" (to restore something you must have had it in some form in the first place).

This is not aimed at you personally, GS! But this American clash of (sub)culture is gradually taking over the discussion and really spoiling the fun for others. You may not have noticed it, but Americans do not make up the entire audience of the Bonds.

So if you have issues with Hollywood and their writers, ok. Complain to them! Ask them why your beloved country isn't any longer depicted as it was in the fifties.

And for the purposes of everyone's edumication: I did not vote for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain or Sarah Palin in 2000, 2004, or 2008. I am *APOLITICAL*. That means I won't be voting for either a Democrat or a Republican come 2012.

That's nonsense. You are easily more political than 70 % of your fellow Americans. Because you don't vote.

Actually, my comments were right on point. I said the post would get no less than a -5 rating and it has a -8 rating right now. Clearly I was on to something. This post will also get a negative rating, and I predict it'll have a -10 rating within a month, if even that long.

And I'm not putting down a "liberal base". Who doesn't want clean air or clean water? Who doesn't want respect and dignity for all people? Who doesn't want peace? Those aren't left/right issues. I just refuse to think I'm a bad person because people like Michael Moore (talk about consuming an inordinate amount of natural resources: food, air, health care) or Paul Haggis tell me I am, or that the country I live in is the biggest terrorist state in the history of mankind, and then turns around and praises Cuba or Iraq. I'm not stuck on stupid. But I refuse to have my entertainment choices held hostage by directors and writers trying to cram their social agenda into my viewing time one way or another, and that's what Paul Haggis tries to do.

I'm not bothering with this entire "vote-up-down-sideways" rubbish. But I suspect people are just tired of that American Civil War that is fought now via Bond film proxy.

The "liberal", "tolerant" point of view (which is what Paul Haggis claims to represent) is really only interested in "diversity" and "different points of view" when they are differing shades of agreement. If you disagree with people such as Haggis you are racist, intolerant, prejudiced, and bigoted.

I do not think you are either of the above just because you disagree with Haggis. But on the other hand you'll have to concede that a racist, a bigot, an intolerant, prejudiced, dumb would also not agree with Haggis. It should thus not surprise you to be mistaken for such.

Again, make no mistake, if people like Haggis got their way, they'd rip apart everything about Bond that makes Bond special and successful. Enjoy the 50th anniversary of 007 in 2012, because I guarantee you that in 2062, Bond won't look or feel anything like the Craig, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Connery or Brosnan eras. They'll be unrecognizable...sacrificed on the altar of political correctness, diversity, and tolerance, all in an effort to make a couple of third-world countries and their people feel good about themselves.

It does not make any difference who is getting his way with Bond, he won't be anything like those eras because chances are fifty years will change the entire wold drastically. If Bond is to stay relevant he will have to go with the times. And I do not care at all if Bond is changed to make third-world countries "feel good about themselves", for right now I'm pissed because of this whining from a first-world country feeling bad about itself and blaming Bond for it.

Edited by Dustin, 06 February 2011 - 07:59 PM.

[smudge76]

I'm curious, what about Bond in CR and QoS makes him left leaning? I just don't see it (and no, I am not one of the people who negged you)

Sorry. I hadn't viewed this thread in a few weeks and didn't know you'd replied to me.

Well, I think The Shark has already responded to your question in much the same way I would have, however, it must be made clear that I don't think Bond as a character has become "left-leaning", but the films, as a whole, have become more left-leaning since 1995, and certainly more left-leaning with Haggis writing them. And by "left-leaning" I don't mean just politically, but socially (which sometimes go hand-in-hand). Can you imagine Sean Connery's Bond crying over an image of Elektra, touching the computer screen and wiping away her tears?

What's next? Bond shops at Whole Foods and uses recyclable shopping bags?

The need for Bond to have his *feelings* explored...to deconstruct the man and understand why he kills and why he lives the way he lives his life...it's all very much a product of a very liberal social conscious that emanates from the Hollywood writers, whether it's Bruce Feirstein or Paul Haggis (and I happen to like Feirstein and some of what he did for Bond).

I like a lot of left-leaning films; my favorite "lefty" film, and my favorite film of all time, is DANCES WITH WOLVES. I also like AVATAR, THE DARK KNIGHT and PLANET OF THE APES. I've never seen "right-wing" films such as RAMBO or ROCKY IV.

But there's no mistaking that parts of Quanturd of Solace felt like Haggis lecturing the audience on how bad America is or how bad it's foreign policy is; Greg Beamm is clearly George W. Bush in the script, and Haggis is using the Bond series to score some political points that he must not have gotten across in THE VALLEY OF ELAH, FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS, or LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, where he's not missed an opportunity to let us know what a failure America is or has been, and I don't like it.

I come to watch the Bond films to escape reality; I want two hours of unbridled excess; action, beautiful women, stunts galore, humorous repartee, travel to exotic locations, interesting villains, ingenious plots...not to be lectured down to by somebody who seems to have missed his vocation as an Anti-American Political Science Professor at Berkley. If you think I'm making this up, please find me one "pro-American" movie that Haggis has written, directed or produced? Even his Oscar winning film, CRASH (which I thought was good) is essentially about how racist and intolerant the United States is.

You know, after a while, it just gets tiresome to hear people from Hollywood dissing on the United States. We *get it*. I never use to despise Hollywood until this past decade; now I can't stand it and won't even watch any awards show; not one.

And for the purposes of everyone's edumication: I did not vote for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain or Sarah Palin in 2000, 2004, or 2008. I am *APOLITICAL*. That means I won't be voting for either a Democrat or a Republican come 2012.

Grackles wrote:

So, is Bond a pinko now? I think there is an arguement to all this "leftist" stuff. I think GS is going too far with it, but I do think it's been creeping in, and I point the finger at Paul Haggis. Though I hear Joshua Zetumer may have been involved in the politicizing of QOS.

Let's remember that Paul Haggis wrote and directed the film CRASH, which is probably the most repugnant example of self-important, guilty white liberal garbage that I've ever seen. That film is so over-the-top, ridiculous, and absurdly pleased with itself. It's a joke. And I'm not even a conservative. A center-left aspiring Hollywood actor who's two favorite films are ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST and CHINATOWN; two films with could be argued as having a leftist slant. QUANTUM OF SOLACE has a number of shades of CHINATOWN.

I don't recall suggesting that Bond was a commie "pinko". I have suggested that his universe has become more left-leaning since 1995, and that's for a variety of reasons.

I'm gonna give you a thumbs up on the "guilty white liberal garbage" comment. That's Paul Haggis in a nutshell, but that's also what Paul Haggis would have done to the series if he'd been allowed more creative control and another opportunity to "deconstruct" Bond.

Matt_13 wrote:

That's a bit much GS, and before you start bitching about how no one respects your point of view take a step back and see how aggressively you put down individuals who support a liberal base.

Actually, my comments were right on point. I said the post would get no less than a -5 rating and it has a -8 rating right now. Clearly I was on to something. This post will also get a negative rating, and I predict it'll have a -10 rating within a month, if even that long.

And I'm not putting down a "liberal base". Who doesn't want clean air or clean water? Who doesn't want respect and dignity for all people? Who doesn't want peace? Those aren't left/right issues. I just refuse to think I'm a bad person because people like Michael Moore (talk about consuming an inordinate amount of natural resources: food, air, health care) or Paul Haggis tell me I am, or that the country I live in is the biggest terrorist state in the history of mankind, and then turns around and praises Cuba or Iraq. I'm not stuck on stupid. But I refuse to have my entertainment choices held hostage by directors and writers trying to cram their social agenda into my viewing time one way or another, and that's what Paul Haggis tries to do.

The "liberal", "tolerant" point of view (which is what Paul Haggis claims to represent) is really only interested in "diversity" and "different points of view" when they are differing shades of agreement. If you disagree with people such as Haggis you are racist, intolerant, prejudiced, and bigoted.

Again, make no mistake, if people like Haggis got their way, they'd rip apart everything about Bond that makes Bond special and successful. Enjoy the 50th anniversary of 007 in 2012, because I guarantee you that in 2062, Bond won't look or feel anything like the Craig, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Connery or Brosnan eras. They'll be unrecognizable...sacrificed on the altar of political correctness, diversity, and tolerance, all in an effort to make a couple of third-world countries and their people feel good about themselves.

Bond films are fiction end of. Your reading to much into it to be honest. He is not a real person so if the producers want him to say something like 'Delta are not as good as hereford' then they can because bond is a fictional British spy so why would it be unusual for him to make comments that are not always complementary about our allies. I do and i have worked with some best soldiers america has to offer. You need to calm down a little and stop labeling people as racist over a few comments made in a film. I make it simple for you Bond 007 is a British spy if he was an american spy i could slightly understand the comments.

What motivates Bond today well he is an ex servicemen using the skills he has to earn a living like many ex brit soldiers today. Craigs Bond is an ex SBS operator a natural progression i suppose either that or private sector. However no matter what i think its knowledge he is still doing whats right for his country, and i am speaking as an ex soldier myself, with no toher skills than what army gave me and that leaves me with little options on civvy street.So its either do what your good at and still serve your country or end up in jail like many lads i know.

[smudge76]

Bond films are fiction end of. Your reading to much into it to be honest. He is not a real person so if the producers want him to say something like 'Delta are not as good as hereford' then they can because bond is a fictional British spy so why would it be unusual for him to make comments that are not always complementary about our allies. I do and i have worked with some best soldiers america has to offer. You need to calm down a little and stop labeling people as racist over a few comments made in a film. I make it simple for you Bond 007 is a British spy if he was an american spy i could slightly understand the comments.

I'll make it simple for you: I have no idea what you're talking about. I never called anyone a "racist", and I'm not "reading to much into it". Bond is both a pop-culture icon and, at times, a social trends bellwether. That's why the original poster asked: "What motivates the NEW AGE James Bond?". Not THE OLD AGE James Bond, but the NEW AGE.

The NEW AGE James Bond is supposed to not smoke, not drink, wear a condom, feel bad about killing bad people, take orders from a woman, restrain himself from "sexually harassing" Moneypenny, and feel guilty about living in a country where the poorest among them live like royalty compared to third world -holes like Angola and Egypt. That's the NEW AGE, politically correct Bond. That *IS* the danger of what Bond could become if some of this insidious social engineering that some progressives and liberals advocate gets their way into the Bond series.

You said if you disagree with Haggis your labeled a racist. I like Bond but he does not set trends in my life because i live in real world and understand the difference. Your reading to much into this and getting heated up over it, just calm down thats all and enjoy the films.If you do not like Haggis maybe its best you do not watch any bond films in the future. That way you not get so stressed. Plus i have never heard any ref to Bond feeling guilty about living in uk compared to Angola,Egypt etc. You are been slightly paranoid just don't watch the bond films.

[jaguar007]

The NEW AGE James Bond is supposed to not smoke, not drink, wear a condom, feel bad about killing bad people, take orders from a woman, restrain himself from "sexually harassing" Moneypenny, and feel guilty about living in a country where the poorest among them live like royalty compared to third world -holes like Angola and Egypt.

I don't know what recent BOnd movies you have been watching, but that is not the Bond I have seen in the last couple films. No, he does not smoke and yes he takes his orders from a woman, but he drinks (in fact QoS is the first time we see BOnd actually drunk, he kills people and he certainly has sex (we will never know about a condom or not). The last two movies have not had a Moneypenny for him to sexually harass so that is a moot point. I also never got the feeling he feels guilty about living in England (the hotel change scene in QoS proves he does not feel guilty about having a higher class of living).

[Dustin]

I also never got the feeling he feels guilty about living in England (the hotel change scene in QoS proves he does not feel guilty about having a higher class of living).

The point here being that Gravity's Silhouette feels guilty about living in the USA and finds it convenient to put the blame on the last Bond films, that's all there is to it.

[Loomis]

The NEW AGE James Bond is supposed to not smoke

When was the last time we saw Bond with a fag in his mouth? LTK, wasn't it? Prior to Dalton, I believe the last occasion was in OHMSS. Or maybe DAF - I forget. In any case, not smoking is hardly a hallmark of the "NEW AGE" James Bond, considering that he barely touched cigarettes in the 1970s and 1980s.

not drink

In that case, he didn't get the memo. Bond hits the booze in every single film.

wear a condom

Again, someone obviously failed to inform 007.

feel bad about killing bad people

How often does he do this, exactly? I can't think of a single example.

take orders from a woman

Dreadful. Wouldn't happen in America, I'm sure. Actually, I suspect that Eon decided to have a female M for the Brosnan era partly for the sake of freshness and not just "political correctness".

restrain himself from "sexually harassing" Moneypenny

But note that Brosnan's Bond doesn't refrain from it. Anyway, Moneypenny's no longer in the films.

and feel guilty about living in a country where the poorest among them live like royalty compared to third world -holes like Angola and Egypt.

Again, where's the evidence that he has these guilty feelings? In QUANTUM OF SOLACE, it isn't even implied that he feels all that much for the peasants' plight (although even if he did it would hardly make him the limpwristed, self-hating urban liberal you seem to think he's become) - he just wants to get the mission done and give the Quantum lads what for.

(Personally, I think what motivates the New Age Bond - or at least the Bond portrayed by Craig - is more or less just selfish thrillseeking, a love of adventure and action, and a need to be in the eye of the storm. He likes violence and danger, and enjoys bringing it on. He's not particularly patriotic, or an especially nice guy. Neither is he much of a thinker. He just knows what he likes and what he's good at, and finds that working as a blunt instrument for the British government meets his needs. And that's about it.)

It's also seen in the way President Obama goes around to different countries and bows down before their leaders (which is a violation of established State protocol), and apologizes to them for being, er, uh, a great country.

Examples, please. I honestly have no idea which occasions you're referring to here.

[smudge76]

I don't know what recent BOnd movies you have been watching, but that is not the Bond I have seen in the last couple films. No, he does not smoke and yes he takes his orders from a woman, but he drinks (in fact QoS is the first time we see BOnd actually drunk, he kills people and he certainly has sex (we will never know about a condom or not). The last two movies have not had a Moneypenny for him to sexually harass so that is a moot point. I also never got the feeling he feels guilty about living in England (the hotel change scene in QoS proves he does not feel guilty about having a higher class of living).

Reread what I wrote in this thread. I said the "New Age" Bond started back in 1995 and has gotten worse (in some respects) under Haggis. There was absolutely a change in the sexual dynamics back in 1995. What was once considered witty banter between two adults (Moneypenny and Bond) now had to be codified as potential "sexual harassment" and explained to the audience that it was wrong (wink, wink). Remember Moneypenny tells Bond 'this sort of behavior could be construed as sexual harassment'.

You know I love Dench and think she's the best M ever, but she's also put in the film because the writers wanted to see a female bossing Bond around, hence the now infamous line "sexist, misogynistic dinosaur". The line was put into place to help the liberal writers assuage their guilt over having Bond continue to be the sort of immature man-child that he'd been in the previous 16 films. Also, I said the New Age Bond is *SUPPOSED* to feel bad about living in London instead of some filthy, third-world shame-hole like Chelsea or Liverpool Botswana or Nicaragua. That comment doesn't mean that Bond himself feels guilty about living in the West, but merely a reflection that some writers/directors/activists like Haggis or Michael Moore *do*, deep down inside, feel some sort of weird liberal-white-male-guilt and they transpose it onto the projects that they work on. It's also seen in the way President Obama goes around to different countries and bows down before their leaders (which is a violation of established State protocol), and apologizes to them for being, er, uh, a great country.

Clearly Haggis tried to squeeze in a political point or two into a series that has mostly been apolitical most of its life. I don't think that's cool.

Ha ha the reason Judi Dench got role of M has nothing to do with having a women order him about but much more to do with the fact that at that time the real life boss of MI5 was a woman. Not sure what your going on about but i am just an ex dumb paratrooper. What has the president of the USA got to do with 007.Look i did not want to say it but i will, your views seem to be based around the USA.Bond is a British spy, fleming based him around British war heroes a few like Duane Hudson,Fitzory McClean,Dazel Job to name a few. If you have a gripe with your goverment your on the wrong forum. Nothing wrong with the Daniel Craig bond films nor the Brosnan ones (except the invisible car in DAD).JAMES BOND 007 BRITAINS FINEST (even if he is RN)