54 replies to this topic

[jaguar007]

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.

Thats right, Stella Rimington was the head of MI5 and Remington Steele was James Bond

I also think part of the reason was not to be PC, but to show that Bond's world had changed since 1989 but Bond was still Bond, hence the "sexist, misogynistic dinosaur" line.

[smudge76]

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.

Thats right, Stella Rimington was the head of MI5 and Remington Steele was James Bond

I also think part of the reason was not to be PC, but to show that Bond's world had changed since 1989 but Bond was still Bond, hence the "sexist, misogynistic dinosaur" line.

Bang on there with your observation. They even said at the time that world had changed but they wanted to show 007 had'nt and one ways to do that was follow the British Security Services lead and have a female M. I just think a certain someone has a serious gripe at certain issues and is making certain things up in there head that having nothing to do with 007.

[Jim]

Thread's getting a bit personal on a number of levels, from a number of sources. Please refrain.

[Loomis]

Have you seen CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER? If so, is it an "America-bashing" film in your book, or does it get a pass because its portrait of corruption within the CIA and the American government doesn't come from the mouth of a British character?

[Messervy]

Look i did not want to say it but i will, your views seem to be based around the USA.

Yes they are. And? So?

If you have a gripe with your goverment your on the wrong forum.

I have a gripe with writers who try to push their politics onto the audience through the guise of mainstream entertainment. Paul Haggis' words, spoken through the character of James Bond, about the CIA were not an accident. Daniel Craig didn't improvise this line: "Oh, you see, that's what I like about U.S. intelligence. You'll lie down with anybody."

It didn't really offend me all that much in the theater because I've come to expect that sort of America-bashing from people like Paul Haggis. To be shocked that that line was in there would be like watching HARDBALL on MSNBC and being shocked to find out that Chris Matthews doesn't like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann. ***HOWEVER***, the line does comes up for discussion again because this thread is discussing a new Bond, a new way of thinking, a new way of writing the character, and it's very difficult to try and separate the character from the writer these days. It's not like I started the thread.

To suggest that Haggis and Feirstein are not somehow "New Age" would be ridiculous. Feirstein wrote a book called REAL MEN EAT QUICHE, satirizing the modern man and stereotypes of masculinity. To think that their ideas don't somehow mold, shape, or find their way into the movies they write would be unreasonable. If you want to see the type of guy Bond could become left to the devices of writers such as Paul Haggis, you need read no further than this link: http://www.newyorker...currentPage=all

Sorry to interrupt, but I fail to understand the connection with your link. What does Scientology or gay marriage have to do with all this?!
And anyway, is it all really down to Haggis' views? I mean, it's not like Haggis is the only one having a say on Bond, on the plot and on the lines. I'm a llittle confused. Don't you think you might be trying to find reasons for your angst in wrong directions?

[Iroquois]

I think people are forgetting the fact that Bond is testing Leiter in this scene to see if he can help him take down Greene, it's a bit of banter not unlike that seen in the Fleming novels, albeit not as playful as Bond and Leiter's relationship is still developing. Bond is winding him up so that Leiter can show his true colours ('You see Felix, I don't think you're as cynical as you make yourself out to be'), and Felix, THE CIA AGENT, does the right thing and gets promoted as a result.

In my opinion, the political world isn't seen as black and white these days, the general public knows about a lot of nasty things that all our governments have done. The Bond movies have now rightly acknowledged this and in doing so have given us back the series' maturity and relevancy that is very present during the novels. Bond is merely commenting on a well known issue to wind Felix up.

As I showed you before, Bond has always hated the politics behind his job, and to some extent he hates the world of espionage. There's this really annoying misconception that Bond is just this blunt instrument symbolising government supremacy, when really the stories are about a modern day fantasy hero archetype, who uses his skills as a secret agent to do what he thinks is right, even though (being a spy and all) he has to do some horrible things in the process. In fact, the man's always in conflict about being a spy, but it's the only job that gives him something of a chance to do what he thinks is right. Plus he's addicted to the action and adrenaline, so he probably couldn't live any other way (as we see in novels such as Moonraker).

The thing is that QOS was placing our beloved character into the world of today, much like Goldeneye did, and showing us how he (and indeed, M and Felix) are still relevant in spite of their somewhat fantastical qualities. After all, we have to actually have some reason to root for these characters during the film, and indeed in the future, and QOS lets them prove themselves by putting them into a corrupt world (which is ALWAYS seen in spy movies anyway, it's the complex nature of the business).

I don't see how there can be a worry about how the James Bond character is going to be affected by the times, because as QOS and Goldeneye have shown us; he's still the same character we all know and love. Babs has said consistently something along the lines of 'No matter how unstable the world gets, Bond will always come through for us'.

[dogmanstar]

Spot on, Iroquois! That scene is my favorite in QoS for exactly the reason you say: It seems like the Bond/Leiter banter of the books. (I love Felix downing the beer calmly while the world is crashing down around him. Perfectly well done.)

The films would be awful bland, methinks, if Bond or Leiter or M or the bad guy, had to agree with my worldview. It's where the rubber hits the road that makes for the drama!

[Rufus Ffolkes]

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'm not a fan of Haggis - I loathed Crash and thought the Quantum and Royale scripts were hugely overrated - but I think it's a bit unfair to lay the blame solely at his feet. This is the guy who created Walker: Texas Ranger, after all, and I've never heard anyone accuse that show of being leftist. If there's an agenda at play, it's coming from the top down. The new "sensitive" Bond is the creation of Broccoli and Wilson - it's their vision, or one they've adopted.

And that's what worries me about Bond 23. I want to see a Bond who actually enjoys himself - who takes pleasure in a fast cars and beautiful women (or vice-versa), and who journeys to picturesque locales that people might actually want to visit (not Azerbaijan or Haiti).

What I don't want to see is Bond exploring his feelings or pondering what it's all about. And I fear that may be exactly what we get with Mendes at the helm.

[Mr. Blofeld]

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.

Oh... what a nutjob; it's the custom in that nation!

As for apologizing, we deserve to; America has gotten so much wrong over the years that it's a wonder the whole "exeptionalism" falsehood ever caught on.

I know we have more conservatives on here than Gravity; why don't they come to his defense? Not brave enough to back the party line?

[dogmanstar]

I really can't fault Haggis, Barbara, Michael Wilson or anyone for the way Bond has been portrayed in film lately. Fleming wrote about a hired hand who sometimes hated his job (the beginning of GF; beginning of OHMSS) and who totally fell apart when his wife was killed. He's emotionally fragile enough to be brainwashed. He almost married Tiffany Case, for goodness' sake! She was a wreck. I can totally see Fleming's Bond showing emotion over Elektra's kidnapping. Maybe Connery's Bond wouldn't have been touched emotionally; I daresay, Fleming's would.

[Matt_13]

I really can't fault Haggis, Barbara, Michael Wilson or anyone for the way Bond has been portrayed in film lately. Fleming wrote about a hired hand who sometimes hated his job (the beginning of GF; beginning of OHMSS) and who totally fell apart when his wife was killed. He's emotionally fragile enough to be brainwashed. He almost married Tiffany Case, for goodness' sake! She was a wreck. I can totally see Fleming's Bond showing emotion over Elektra's kidnapping. Maybe Connery's Bond wouldn't have been touched emotionally; I daresay, Fleming's would.

Boom. Thank you.

Grav...your flag waving is hilarious and a little disheartening, especially for a member of a Bond fan site. Take it down a notch.

Spoiler

Actually, that's good advice for many of the conservative loons you no doubt adore, but I digress.

It's James Bond. I haven't seen anything apolitical, bpolitical, or even cpolitical in any of the films. I remember Bond forming an alliance with a Russian agent in TSWLM, yet you haven't said a word about how unpatriotic that is, especially during height of the Cold War. Odd because that sort of plot point should be right in your conservative wheelhouse (Bond working with the Ruskies? COMMIE!). I fail to see where you're getting these political motivations from considering the Bond pictures are pulp fantasies. Just because Bond isn't toting a machine gun killing 4000 guys while a naked blond straddles a Harley in the background as she's sprayed with water gushing out of a fire hydrant that was hit by an exploding F-22 that was shot out of the sky by an RPG launched by a white dude in a black turtleneck and sunglasses who was hit by a stray bullet from that very machine gun Bond was cradling as he worked his way through the clip and prepared to make love to another blond who was lying naked across the hood of a red Ferrari that was just a few feet away from the worlds largest Budweiser factory that was offering free beer and McCain/Palin bumper stickers doesn't mean that James Bond is a leftist. Get it together. Compassion is not a sign of weakness. Anger is.

Spoiler

Which by the way seems to fuel conservative ideology and has me worried for the safety of those of us who don't agree with their shallow political viewpoints. The volatile rhetoric spewed on the right is staggering, violent, and frightening. I do wish someone would come for your guns. Maybe then we could feel safe.

As I said, this is Bond. This discussion of political motivation doesn't belong here. As such, I believe the thread should be shut down. This discussion is over.

[jaguar007]

Just because Bond isn't toting a machine gun killing 4000 guys while a naked blond straddles a Harley in the background as she's sprayed with water gushing out of a fire hydrant that was hit by an exploding F-22 that was shot out of the sky by an RPG launched by a white dude in a black turtleneck and sunglasses who was hit by a stray bullet from that very machine gun Bond was cradling as he worked his way through the clip and prepared to make love to another blond who was lying naked across the hood of a red Ferrari that was just a few feet away from the worlds largest Budweiser factory that was offering free beer and McCain/Palin bumper stickers

I think you just discovered the pre title sequence for Bond 23

[CasinoKiller]

I'd lost track of this thread for a while and I was staggered to see the sheer intensity of the political debate I seem to have inadvertently sparked off (as enlightening as it is) by starting this thread.

That said, I think someone mentioned something about the Bond films having become left-leaning since 1995; quite frankly I don't seem to see anything remotely left-leaning in them. Since when has gender equality (represented by M, the Samantha Bond Moneypenny, and other more assertive female characters) become a 'leftist' agenda? It would be pretty ironic if it was one considering that one of the most prominent and extreme right-wing politicians (or caricature of one, take your pic) is a certain WOMAN named Sarah Palin!
Also I didn't find anything leftist about Bond's conversation with Alec Trewelyn, where, in response to Alec calling him 'Her Majesties Loyal terrier' and wondering why they 'toppled all those dictators', he simply stated "It was the job we were chosen for". Nor was there anything leftist about Bond being tortured by a bunch of sadistic North Korean soldiers. Hell, in Casino Royale we had Bond shooting up an embassy in Africa, and M referring to either the African authorities or to the British officials who wish to appease them as "these b@$tards". Nothing leftist there either. QOS is essentially the first ever Bond movie which might be considered to have a leftist tint if you choose to interpret it that way.

Coming back to the original topic, I feel that the explanation someone gave about Bond being a professional using his skills to do what he knows best (and have a bit of fun along the way) seems to be the best one with regards to his immediate motivation (though it still doesn't address the question of his political ideology or leanings, if any)

[Dustin]

QOS is essentially the first ever Bond movie which might be considered to have a leftist tint if you choose to interpret it that way.

Even QOS clearly indicated White was about to be tortured, a thought that would ordinarily give howling Bushistas a terrible stiffness.

Perhaps that's why they wail so much about the Bond - Leiter exchange? Interrupted steaming fantasies?

Agree with the rest.

Edited by Dustin, 09 February 2011 - 11:32 AM.

[smudge76]

I'd lost track of this thread for a while and I was staggered to see the sheer intensity of the political debate I seem to have inadvertently sparked off (as enlightening as it is) by starting this thread.

That said, I think someone mentioned something about the Bond films having become left-leaning since 1995; quite frankly I don't seem to see anything remotely left-leaning in them. Since when has gender equality (represented by M, the Samantha Bond Moneypenny, and other more assertive female characters) become a 'leftist' agenda? It would be pretty ironic if it was one considering that one of the most prominent and extreme right-wing politicians (or caricature of one, take your pic) is a certain WOMAN named Sarah Palin!
Also I didn't find anything leftist about Bond's conversation with Alec Trewelyn, where, in response to Alec calling him 'Her Majesties Loyal terrier' and wondering why they 'toppled all those dictators', he simply stated "It was the job we were chosen for". Nor was there anything leftist about Bond being tortured by a bunch of sadistic North Korean soldiers. Hell, in Casino Royale we had Bond shooting up an embassy in Africa, and M referring to either the African authorities or to the British officials who wish to appease them as "these b@$tards". Nothing leftist there either. QOS is essentially the first ever Bond movie which might be considered to have a leftist tint if you choose to interpret it that way.

Coming back to the original topic, I feel that the explanation someone gave about Bond being a professional using his skills to do what he knows best (and have a bit of fun along the way) seems to be the best one with regards to his immediate motivation (though it still doesn't address the question of his political ideology or leanings, if any)

Apart from the slight political thing started by another poster this is a good thread. You hit nail on head in ref to his motivation been he has always served in forces so it was a natural progression for bloke really either that or private sector a situation that many ex servicemen find themselves in and always have done because the skills many learn are not suited to life as a civilian. His political leanings is a little hard to understand but i would gather that he is able to think outside box and realise that even though as a nation we can do some bad things at times we have a lot more good intentions than many countries. He was and still is prepared to lay life down in name of Queen and Country so he has to strongly believe in this fine insituation we have in this Country.

[Iroquois]

Well, interestingly enough QOS is about exploring Bond's motivations, which is something that the films haven't really done in such detail before.

He is not a rogue agent out for revenge as for some reason a lot of people think, that idea stemmed from M's concerns, not Bond himself. The point of QOS was to build the relationship between Bond and M and explain what motivates Bond to go out on all these adventures while keeping Bond as engaging as he was in CR. This is all accomplished within this film by placing the audience in M's shoes and having them judge Bond's actions throughout the film; Did he kill that guy out of revenge or because he had no other choice? It keeps you entertained and captivated in Bond as a character throughout without being uncharacteristically indulgent, and maintaining Bond's character development as a detached, focused secret agent. He consistently brushes the topic of Vesper aside whenever she is brought up and focuses on the mission at hand. There is one scene in which we catch him looking at her picture, but he is quick to brush it all aside when Mathis starts a conversation with him. I mean, what happens in CR is one of the motivating forces for the character in the rest of the novel series so it can't just not be dealt with when there are a lot of loose ends left at the end of the film version of CR, but in QOS it is brilliantly underplayed. When Bond hands over the man who betrayed Vesper to MI6 rather than killing him, and says 'I never left' at the end of the film, both we and M re-assess his actions throughout the film and realise that it was all necessary to do the right thing.

So what is his motivation? Well he says it plain and simply "I'm motivated by my duty", it's just that at that point in the film we don't know whether to trust him.

Take the events from the sink hole onwards, Bond discovers Greene's plot to create a draught and upon leaving the place sees the effect it's having on the innocent locals. It's an important scene, but people tend to mock it as a 'Babel rip-off' when in fact it's a moment that enforces Bond's motivation to take down Quantum as it's clearly wrong what they are doing. When he gets back to the hotel and confronts M, he expresses his disappointment in the fact that no-one is doing anything about it because of a deal with Greene, displaying his sense of morality that we see a lot of in Fleming. He also shows M that he's been uncovering a scheme rather than just hunting down the people responsible for Vesper's death. It is around this time that she starts regaining her trust in him "Find out where he's going, he's on to something" "He's my agent, and I trust him".

Here's an interview with Craig to support this:



A 'blunt instrument' would have to just let himself get arrested by MI6, a 'blunt instrument' would not tender his resignation to M in order to continue hunting down Blofeld as seen in the film version of OHMSS. James Bond has never been a blunt instrument, and he still isn't.

All in all, what motivates the new age Bond is exactly the same as what has motivated every other interpretation of Bond: his duty to do what he thinks is right.

Edited by Iroquois, 09 February 2011 - 02:46 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Agreed; Bond is usually the most moral character in the room, when it comes to both the books and films -- why else would he feel so strongly about killing criminals when the job allows him to?

I'm not saying capital punishment is moral; just that, when Bond finds a way to exercise his licence to kill in the course of his assignment, he takes it, and usually at just the right moment to justify his actions... and they are usually justified.

[Kreivi von Glödä]

All in all, what motivates the new age Bond is exactly the same as what has motivated every other interpretation of Bond: his duty to do what he thinks is right.

Well said!

[Messervy]

Well, interestingly enough QOS is about exploring Bond's motivations, which is something that the films haven't really done in such detail before.

He is not a rogue agent out for revenge as for some reason a lot of people think, that idea stemmed from M's concerns, not Bond himself. The point of QOS was to build the relationship between Bond and M and explain what motivates Bond to go out on all these adventures while keeping Bond as engaging as he was in CR. This is all accomplished within this film by placing the audience in M's shoes and having them judge Bond's actions throughout the film; Did he kill that guy out of revenge or because he had no other choice? It keeps you entertained and captivated in Bond as a character throughout without being uncharacteristically indulgent, and maintaining Bond's character development as a detached, focused secret agent. He consistently brushes the topic of Vesper aside whenever she is brought up and focuses on the mission at hand. There is one scene in which we catch him looking at her picture, but he is quick to brush it all aside when Mathis starts a conversation with him. I mean, what happens in CR is one of the motivating forces for the character in the rest of the novel series so it can't just not be dealt with when there are a lot of loose ends left at the end of the film version of CR, but in QOS it is brilliantly underplayed. When Bond hands over the man who betrayed Vesper to MI6 rather than killing him, and says 'I never left' at the end of the film, both we and M re-assess his actions throughout the film and realise that it was all necessary to do the right thing.

So what is his motivation? Well he says it plain and simply "I'm motivated by my duty", it's just that at that point in the film we don't know whether to trust him.

Take the events from the sink hole onwards, Bond discovers Greene's plot to create a draught and upon leaving the place sees the effect it's having on the innocent locals. It's an important scene, but people tend to mock it as a 'Babel rip-off' when in fact it's a moment that enforces Bond's motivation to take down Quantum as it's clearly wrong what they are doing. When he gets back to the hotel and confronts M, he expresses his disappointment in the fact that no-one is doing anything about it because of a deal with Greene, displaying his sense of morality that we see a lot of in Fleming. He also shows M that he's been uncovering a scheme rather than just hunting down the people responsible for Vesper's death. It is around this time that she starts regaining her trust in him "Find out where he's going, he's on to something" "He's my agent, and I trust him".

Here's an interview with Craig to support this:



A 'blunt instrument' would have to just let himself get arrested by MI6, a 'blunt instrument' would not tender his resignation to M in order to continue hunting down Blofeld as seen in the film version of OHMSS. James Bond has never been a blunt instrument, and he still isn't.

All in all, what motivates the new age Bond is exactly the same as what has motivated every other interpretation of Bond: his duty to do what he thinks is right.

Very well said indeed. For Queen and Country!
I do like the way you formulate the views around QoS, which has been so criticised for some supposed lack of plot/sense, when actually it's loaded with genuine glimpses into Bond's soul.

[Jim]

In the posturing that Bond is being driven leftist, which I really do not follow but appreciate that the stance (truly believed or not) gives some an outlet for their typing skills, from what exactly has he been driven? To keep the series alive, he fluctuates as popular political thought fluctuates. There's a difference between trying to be politically correct and trying to be politically accurate, or at least politically contemporary; little harm in that, surely?

[James Bond Jr]

Each incarnation of Bond seems motivated by the same things. Duty, honor, morality and (most definitive) a quest for comfort and pleasure.

Each version of Bond is a cold killer who doesn't think about death too much. He is tempted by revenge, but more inclined to taking orders. Is a romantic and expert womanizer and caters to his vices of fancy cars, clothes, gambling and drinking, as Bond knows how to use these to his advantage on missions. I think the only thing that changes is his manner of doing these things.

Fleming made him more flat, militant and world-weary (like himself). Sean Connery/Terence Young made him flamboyant, smooth and swashbuckling. George made him calm, daring and sort of bemused with his lifestyle. Roger played him as high spirited, fun-loving and almost anti-rugged. Timothy played him intense, no nonsense and sort of rebellious. Pierce played him as sort of an graceful, emotionally-bothered but optimistic servant. And finally, Craig plays him as a more grim man who is trying to get his job done despite the world's convoluted politics and "grayness".

I think Craig-era Bond's main motivation is getting the job done. He faces distractions like falling in love, being betrayed, increasingly physical dangers, political B.S. and his own inner demons. Which makes him unique from all of the previous Bonds. But he will eventually make the right choices and defines what Bond means to me. He'll save the girls worth saving, he'll please M and he'll kill the bad guys. All with a Bond-sense of pleasure in doing it.

[TheREAL008]

From IGN:

http://movies.ign.co...6/746474p1.html


"Craig gives a nuanced, fully realized portrayal. He is not just standing around in a tux, smirking and tossing off one-liners while judo-chopping some dime-a-dozen henchmen. Craig's 007 is a finely tuned machine who is absolutely believable as someone who could clear a room, and as a cold, hardened man who has buried his heart as far away from harm as possible. Fleming would be proud."


To say that some people are overthinking the neo-Bond is an understatement at best. James Bond has never been about left or right winged politics or agendas of any kind, shape, or even form. James Bond is the guardian of the United Kingdom, even if he realizes it or not. A professional who does his job for king and country. Enough said!

[Mr. Blofeld]

James Bond is the guardian of the United Kingdom, even if he realizes it or not.

So... he's the Doctor, then?

[Matt_13]

From IGN:

http://movies.ign.co...6/746474p1.html


"Craig gives a nuanced, fully realized portrayal. He is not just standing around in a tux, smirking and tossing off one-liners while judo-chopping some dime-a-dozen henchmen. Craig's 007 is a finely tuned machine who is absolutely believable as someone who could clear a room, and as a cold, hardened man who has buried his heart as far away from harm as possible. Fleming would be proud."


To say that some people are overthinking the neo-Bond is an understatement at best. James Bond has never been about left or right winged politics or agendas of any kind, shape, or even form. James Bond is the guardian of the United Kingdom, even if he realizes it or not. A professional who does his job for king and country. Enough said!

This.

This is a volatile thread (which I admit I did not help). Bond is a fictional character who stands first and foremost for fun. Let's leave it at that.

[TheREAL008]

I'd also want people to notice that you can't compare Daniel's portrayal of Bond to any previous actor because this is basically a new era which is still uncharted territory. But regardless, Bond has always been motivated by duty to his country.