207 replies to this topic

[Messervy]

I'd prefer it if Bond didn't smoke. He might have done so in the Fleming novels, but smoking is one of the most disgusing habits there is.

Whereas killing people & destroying property is not, obviously...

I dont know what things are like overseas (though from what I've heard European countries are even worse) but here in Australia the anti-smoking lobby has done one hell of a job in completely changing the image of smoking. Smokers now are made to feel like dirty lepers forced to sneak outside to get a fix. Theres nothing remotely glamorous about the image of smoking anymore. I know as I do smoke. Even my local shopping mall has a smoking section outside in the carpark and even then you have to stand in this little glass cage so as not to pollute the carpark. Its insane. The days where James Bond can light up at a baccarat table in a glamorous casino are just gone. It just wouldnt work today. Everything Bond does, lifestyle-wise, is supposed to be the height of cool. And to most of the audience today, that is not smoking.

Spot-on!. It's indeed mostly due to the strength of the anti-smoking lobby. Good for them, since they managed to make their point and to get the vast majority of people on their side, so as eventually to have new laws enter into force. But hardly rational. Well, that's life! Nothing we can do about it, really. Bond won't smoke anymore.

What's next: anti-drinking habits lobby for health's sake, national regulation changes, and eventually Bond not drinking anymore? Anti-driving fast lobby for security's sake, national regulation changes and eventually Bond driving at 20 MPH?

[Messervy]

I don't agree with you.
Some say that smoking is not what defines a character. As I've said here before, I precisely think that it is. Bond smokes, drinks, drives fast, womanizes, etc. He's someone living life to the fullest extent possible, enjoying every bit of it because he knows it can stop any minute (him getting killed in the line of duty). So, in that particular case, yes, smoking is an integral part of the characterization.

It's not about the smoking as such, it's about what smoking implies:

Now, is it or isn't it about smoking? Really have to make our minds up about it, don't we.

not really taking care, burning the candle. In that sense, I kind of like one of Brosnan's lines in DAD: "They feast, like there's no tomorrow". Says it all, really. Bond is not about taking good care of yourself, eating vegetables and drinking carrot juice. Just read Thunderball to see what I mean...

I have read it a few times, but I think that's a bit beside the point here. Not smoking doesn't necessarily imply a tendency to vegetables and carrot juice. Likewise, a taste for such vegetarian delights surely doesn't exclude one from "feasting, like there's no tomorrow." Quite the contrary in my experience, but that's just me, each to their own and all that.

Obviously, you can get a non-smoking Bond and it will still be Bond. But the fact is, it will be an incomplete characterization of Bond.

It's surely a different characterisation. But given the fact that we've never really had a complete one to start with it doesn't bother me much. If it's still Bond it's good enough for me and several billion people around the globe.

Besides, "smoking is an addiction" doesn't work. It's not. It is an addiction only if you let it be. I know there's a lot of politically correctness about it, but the fact is that you can be a light smoker, enjoying it for what it is and nothing more. Currently, I smoke cigars. Yet it's not an addiction. I did smoke before and stopped for years, only to resume because I found the time and opportunity (with friends), and just felt like spending a nice moment.

That's all good and fine and it's obviously ok for you. Mainly because it's your business what smoking is to you, how often and where you enjoy it and how you justify it to yourself. Scientific findings and clinical evaluation however do in fact point to another direction (albeit with the limitation of a varying addictive potential with certain subjects and, obviously, the frequency one indulges), and I feel tempted to agree with those. If smoking to you is less addictive you may happen to be one of the lucky few subjects less inclined to fall for an addiction in general; difficult to say either way without testing substances beyond the legal sphere.

At any rate with Bond it's not occassional smoking every once in a while that's supposedly integral to the characterisation. It's the full blown habit, ranging from sixty-a-day in CR down to thirty-a-day in TMWTGG. As such the device does not imply enjoyment and relish but lack of restraint, severe stress and up to a point also gluttony.

In that sense, one can't say that an intelligence officer will be put under pressure because he won't be in a position to smoke. You have various ways to pressurize someone; the famous "MICE" (money, ideology, compromission, ego). Smoking clearly is irrelevant. Can you really envisage an intelligence officer's smoking habit turned into an exploitation scheme? What that would mean is that this guy would be so ill that it'd be a shame to even keep him in the Service anyhow.

Smoking's hardly irrelevant when, after thirty hours of questioning, the interrogators offer a cigarette. A smoker will be grateful for the gesture, no matter how experienced or hard-balls he fancies himself. Which is all that's really needed, a momentary dropping of the mental defences. It's a basic technique and the less target a subject provides the harder it is for the opposition.

I perfectly understand the people who don't like smoking, and who don't want Bond smoking. We all have different tastes and various things we like or not. But what, to me, is plain wrong is people saying "it's bad" per se.

As for smoking vs Intelligence Service. Well, I'd say that it's just not an issue. You get people who smoke, and people who don't. Same thing with Intelligence officers: some smoke, others don't. Trying to find some explanation as Deaver did on "I want to blend in so I don't smoke, but probably in other arenas I'll have to smoke because people there smoke" is nonesensical. Even if you don't smoke and want to enter a crowd where people smoke, the fact that you don't smoke is irrelevant. So I really don't get his point.

But, in the end, I'm sure we'll get a non-smoking Bond, because in those times of politically correctness that's what the majority seems to prefer. Oh, well, so be it.
There's no trouble with Bond killing people, destroying government property and wasting truckloads of material, as long as he doesn't smoke... strange times we're living in!

I don't think it's indeed about political correctness. Or medical or religious or whatever flavour of correctness currently is en vogue. It's simply common sense, nothing else; no use for misplaced lachrymosity here. Our society for the larger part has decided not to continue to poison itself with tobacco and that's it. In lieu, as we are humans and for the most part illogical beings, we poison ourselves and our descendants with junk food, defend our right to blow ourselves and the planet to smithereens and choke our remaining brain cells with mind-numbing so-called entertainment on all channels and throughout the Internet. Such is humanity.

I tried to reply inside your message, but the result is hardly readible, so here are my answers as bullet-points:

- ("Really have to make our minds up about it, don't we"): I think it's pretty clear as such. Smoking is part of what defines Bond, because of what it means for the character.

- ("Not smoking doesn't necessarily imply a tendency to vegetables and carrot juice. etc."): For Bond, it does. Maybe not for you nor for others, but Bond is not a real-life individual, he's a fictional character where everything ids pushed to the limit of what it can mean and imply. Again, I suggest re-reading Thunderball.

- ("If it's still Bond it's good enough for me"): Definitely. I won't lose sleep over Bond not smoking. It's just that I'd prefer it if he did. But no big deal, really.

- ("Mainly because it's your business what smoking is to you"): I could agree with you on principle. But, again, we're talking Bond here; not real-life individual. And as far as Bond is concerned, he's never been pushed to the point of breaking under the pressure for a cigarette (eventhough he's a huge smoker). That's what I meant.

- ("I don't think it's indeed about political correctness. etc."): I do think it's all about political correctness and how the anti-smoking lobyy managed to have new national legislations enter into force. Now everyone is convinced that smoking is so terrible that you should be banned from society if you do. Don't get me wrong: I love being able to go to the restaurant and not be assaulted by a tidal-wave of stinking smoke. I have no issue with those legilsations as such. I just find it too bad that we, as a society, reached such a point of intolerance as to not allow some liberty in fictions.

[The Shark]

I'd prefer it if Bond didn't smoke. He might have done so in the Fleming novels, but smoking is one of the most disgusing habits there is.

I could think of several more...

[Dustin]

I tried to reply inside your message, but the result is hardly readible, so here are my answers as bullet-points:

- ("Really have to make our minds up about it, don't we"): I think it's pretty clear as such. Smoking is part of what defines Bond, because of what it means for the character.

Well, on the one hand you argue smoking is integral to Bond's character, yet you admit we can have Bond not smoking and it's still Bond. I take an integral facet of a character to mean it's also indispensable; sorry, but it's either or for me. Either Bond Bond has to smoke to still remain Bond or not. I'd argue for the films it's evidently not necessary to have him smoking. (Btw: I wonder how many cigarettes/cigars Bond did smoke on screen; doubt somehow it adds up to sixty)

- ("Not smoking doesn't necessarily imply a tendency to vegetables and carrot juice. etc."): For Bond, it does. Maybe not for you nor for others, but Bond is not a real-life individual, he's a fictional character where everything ids pushed to the limit of what it can mean and imply. Again, I suggest re-reading Thunderball.

Oh, I shall certainly re-read Thunderball, rest assured. Only, I'm not exactly optimistic whether a re-read will let me arrive at the conclusions you did. In fact I tend to scepticism where the school of thought is concerned that an excercise just has to be repeated often enough to turn up with the desired results. After a certain number of iterations chances are you will not get a different result, not even with the 183rd innings. I've read Thunderball about a dozen times until today, most of these readings during my adult life. I suspect my reading of the book (and the other Bonds) won't change terribly much any more.

- ("If it's still Bond it's good enough for me"): Definitely. I won't lose sleep over Bond not smoking. It's just that I'd prefer it if he did. But no big deal, really.

Indeed, same here.

- ("Mainly because it's your business what smoking is to you"): I could agree with you on principle. But, again, we're talking Bond here; not real-life individual. And as far as Bond is concerned, he's never been pushed to the point of breaking under the pressure for a cigarette (eventhough he's a huge smoker). That's what I meant.

I believe the point here is the actual importance we ascribe to smoking for Bond's character. As far as I understand your argument you see Bond as a pleasure smoker who relishes his tobacco in much the same way he relishes the sight of a beautiful female body. Which is understandable but in my reading mixes cause and effect here.

While relish is certainly a facet too in Bond's habit, it's surprisingly rare that the reader sees Bond really enjoying his fags. Bond lights up countless times in the books, but the ritual seems to have a somewhat different essence for him than mere pleasure (at least IMO). It's a device that keeps Bond going, his senses alert and receptive, his nerves tense and reactive; yet it's also a push-button for relaxation and recreation.

The conclusion is in my opinion not that Bond is a smoker who smokes because he enjoys it so terribly much and chances are he won't have to face the effects. I see a character that is frequently on the edge, operating on the very limits of his physical, emotional and mental resources. To be able to do so Bond uses cigarettes, but the cigarettes are not the main trait of his character. His ability to push himself to the limit (and often beyond) is. That's a difference, and a major one, I'd argue.

- ("I don't think it's indeed about political correctness. etc."): I do think it's all about political correctness and how the anti-smoking lobyy managed to have new national legislations enter into force. Now everyone is convinced that smoking is so terrible that you should be banned from society if you do. Don't get me wrong: I love being able to go to the restaurant and not be assaulted by a tidal-wave of stinking smoke. I have no issue with those legilsations as such. I just find it too bad that we, as a society, reached such a point of intolerance as to not allow some liberty in fictions.

Oh, that's a bit trite, isn't it? Whenever something doesn't agree with our stomachs we fetch the bogeyman "political correctness" from the cupboard. Truth be told, I loath that term by now, must be political correctness that makes it pop up everywhere.

Why not just admit it's simple progress? Even though mankind in general isn't apt to learn all that much from experience, it still does happen once in a while. At times the amount of stupidity and the amount of knowledge increase, thank goodness. The findings about tobacco and smoking are what contributed to the change about the perception of smoking, no secret and evil conspiracy against the poor tobacco industry and its hords of addicts. The world has just moved on, that's all.

Perhaps we should bear in mind that since Bond's first appearence on the pages more than half a century has passed. It's just to be expected some minor and some major opinions and facts may have changed with the passage of time, isn't it? I remember Bond wondering about the unusual (to him) number of female drivers in New York in LALD. That notion to me illustrates how much time has really passed since then.

[Messervy]

I tried to reply inside your message, but the result is hardly readible, so here are my answers as bullet-points:

- ("Really have to make our minds up about it, don't we"): I think it's pretty clear as such. Smoking is part of what defines Bond, because of what it means for the character.

Well, on the one hand you argue smoking is integral to Bond's character, yet you admit we can have Bond not smoking and it's still Bond. I take an integral facet of a character to mean it's also indispensable; sorry, but it's either or for me. Either Bond Bond has to smoke to still remain Bond or not. I'd argue for the films it's evidently not necessary to have him smoking. (Btw: I wonder how many cigarettes/cigars Bond did smoke on screen; doubt somehow it adds up to sixty)

My point is that smoking is indeed an integral part of the characterization of Bond. I then said that we can have Bond not smoking, only that would mean a less complete characterization of Bond. I don't see any incoherence here.

- ("I don't think it's indeed about political correctness. etc."): I do think it's all about political correctness and how the anti-smoking lobyy managed to have new national legislations enter into force. Now everyone is convinced that smoking is so terrible that you should be banned from society if you do. Don't get me wrong: I love being able to go to the restaurant and not be assaulted by a tidal-wave of stinking smoke. I have no issue with those legilsations as such. I just find it too bad that we, as a society, reached such a point of intolerance as to not allow some liberty in fictions.

Oh, that's a bit trite, isn't it? Whenever something doesn't agree with our stomachs we fetch the bogeyman "political correctness" from the cupboard. Truth be told, I loath that term by now, must be political correctness that makes it pop up everywhere.

Why not just admit it's simple progress? Even though mankind in general isn't apt to learn all that much from experience, it still does happen once in a while. At times the amount of stupidity and the amount of knowledge increase, thank goodness. The findings about tobacco and smoking are what contributed to the change about the perception of smoking, no secret and evil conspiracy against the poor tobacco industry and its hords of addicts. The world has just moved on, that's all.

It's not that I don't agree with the tobacco ban. I said in my message that I pretty much adhere to it. Hence, my using "politically correct" has nothing to do with criticizing something that I would happen not to like. And I never said there was a secret conspiracy. I said there have been intense lobbying from various anti-smoking groups. This is fine by me: they have an agenda to put forward, they managed to get it approved, good for them. Please don't read any "Da Vinci Code" secret groups into my point.

What I'm saying is that I do think that this "smoking is a nasty habit" phrase amounts to political correctness. It's nothing to do with a so-called "progress". Please! If governments were going for real health progress, they would ban alcohol, sweets, and the like. I don't want to engage in political talk here, that's not this Forum mission, but I really don't think we can say that governments banned smoking only out of concern for the citizens' health. And most of the people who actually quit smoking do it out of finance issues, or because they don't want to be socially blacklisted, not really because they would happen to have suddenly realized it might be bad for their lungs.

My point is that the recent reversal of public opinion on smoking (smoking was cool in the 60's, now it's seen as bad habit) is now turning into intolerent political correctness in the sense that you now inevitably get those kind of lame remarks everytime you mention smoking, and eyebrow-raising from people around you if you dare say you enjoy a good smoke.

[Dustin]

Well, evidently we will just have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid. But thanks all the same for the discussion, most worthwhile.

[Jim]

Smokers smell really weird.

[Messervy]

Well, evidently we will just have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid. But thanks all the same for the discussion, most worthwhile.

"You can't win them all!"
Yep, I guess we won't agree on everything. Maybe it's due to different cultural backgrounds, or simply different personal views.
Although, to a certain extent, we do share some points.

In the end, what really matters is to get a new Bond on screen...
What the hell they're waiting for! Give us Bond now! I want Bond! I'd kill to get my Bond (... what, me, an addict?)

Smokers smell really weird.

that's why shower was invented

[Dustin]

Soon, soon...

[The Shark]

Why not just admit it's simple progress?

To what end, may I ask? To me, it's a corollary of a sanctimonious state, feeling the need need to protect us from ourselves - slowly eroding our civil liberties in the process. In this case, freedom to harm and pleasure ourselves, claiming our own responsibility, rather than having to hand it over to someone else.

Sadly, not all progress is for the better.

Sorry - rant over.

[Dustin]

I do in fact entirely agree with you, Shark. It sure is impairing on civil liberties what Western states impose on smokers. But there are several implications connected to the topic:
-Is it indeed a civil right to damage one's own health?
-Is society morally forced to help those in need, regardless if they inflicted the damage to their health themselves?
-Is a state's cause not to protect it's people from harm?
-Must some citizen (if we answer the first question affirmative) who is willfully harming his own health not be prevented from harming that of others?

And so on, it's truly a complex problem that I think has been handled rather considerate, given the implications and potential consequences.

[The Shark]

And so on, it's truly a complex problem that I think has been handled rather considerate, given the implications and potential consequences.

Indeed, there's too many gray areas. I don't pretend to know the full ins and outs of the system, but I from what I gather - here are my standings:

-Is it indeed a civil right to damage one's own health?

If one is an independent, cognis mentis adult, then yes - it's his freedom (and responsibility) to indulge these vices, however harmful to his health they may be in the long run.

-Is society morally forced to help those in need, regardless if they inflicted the damage to their health themselves?

No one should be forced by the state to do good. Otherwise what you get is an artificial, rote mechanism replacing genuine altruism. It is up to individuals and religious denominations to help. Society, in other words.

-Is a state's cause not to protect it's people from harm?

This one's tough.

I'd say within a limit. Could you cite some concrete examples - regarding smoking?

-Must some citizen (if we answer the first question affirmative) who is willfully harming his own health not be prevented from harming that of others?

He should. But it depends largely on intent. If he's going out of his way to harm others, or cause distress, then he should be punished. But if he's simply socıalısing or keeping to himself, then it's up to everyone else to tolerate this person.

Even then, we've only hit the tip of the iceberg.

[Dustin]

I'll pick that up again, just have to see to some other business at the moment.

[elizabeth]

Whether he lights up a smoke or not, he will look nothing like this:

[Dustin]

And so on, it's truly a complex problem that I think has been handled rather considerate, given the implications and potential consequences.

Indeed, there's too many gray areas. I don't pretend to know the full ins and outs of the system, but I from what I gather - here are my standings:

-Is it indeed a civil right to damage one's own health?

If one is an independent, cognis mentis adult, then yes - it's his freedom (and responsibility) to indulge these vices, however harmful to his health they may be in the long run.

Phew, difficult! By that assumption we should not indeed ban any kind of vice (provided it affects only the person in question). Meaning Heroin, Crack, Prozac, Meth and a hundred others would have to have a place in our supermarkets.

-Is society morally forced to help those in need, regardless if they inflicted the damage to their health themselves?

No one should be forced by the state to do good. Otherwise what you get is an artificial, rote mechanism replacing genuine altruism. It is up to individuals and religious denominations to help. Society, in other words.

That's what I mean here. If we think it's everybody's own business, whether one wants to blow away one's brains with substances (and I do suspect it may be) we quickly arrive at a point where the cat drags in something that's uncomfortably resembling the chap we've just given free rein to do however he pleases with his health. We can't very well leave the guy to the cat, can we?

-Is a state's cause not to protect it's people from harm?

This one's tough.

I'd say within a limit. Could you cite some concrete examples - regarding smoking?

Well, regarding smoking there are really only the basic facts everybody already is familiar with in some form or other, cancer, HTN, CVD and so on, nothing new here.

But take firearms as another example. Most civilised states claim they are are responsible for the physical integrity of their citizens and as a result ban most firearms in private hands (let's ignore the obvious exceptions for the sake of the argument here). Astonishingly, for the most part they succeed in protecting their people, despite cutting back their right to defend themselves with whatever means necessary.

This is clearly a case of the potential harm for the majority outweighing the potential advantage for the individual.

Which probably brings us to the heart of the matter here. For the ban of smoking in many public places and the pressure on smokers in general has indeed two motives. One is the obvious: to protect the individual from ing-up one's own life. The other side of the medal is that society is of course not acting solely out of humanitarian motives in the case of smoking. For the follow-up costs of continued tobacco consume would in the long run eventually pile up to a sum that could not be spread onto the state's people without impairing on their well-being. So it's basically the majory defending their own economic interests against those of the minority.

-Must some citizen (if we answer the first question affirmative) who is willfully harming his own health not be prevented from harming that of others?

He should. But it depends largely on intent. If he's going out of his way to harm others, or cause distress, then he should be punished. But if he's simply socıalısing or keeping to himself, then it's up to everyone else to tolerate this person.

Even then, we've only hit the tip of the iceberg.

Definitely. It's a most controverse topic that's been discussed for decades without a satisfying solution. It will probably keep us company until either smoking has disappeared from the public entirely or the industry developed vitamin cigarettes that also cure adiposis and tv-induced debility.

[The Shark]

And so on, it's truly a complex problem that I think has been handled rather considerate, given the implications and potential consequences.

Indeed, there's too many gray areas. I don't pretend to know the full ins and outs of the system, but I from what I gather - here are my standings:

-Is it indeed a civil right to damage one's own health?

If one is an independent, cognis mentis adult, then yes - it's his freedom (and responsibility) to indulge these vices, however harmful to his health they may be in the long run.

Phew, difficult! By that assumption we should not indeed ban any kind of vice (provided it affects only the person in question). Meaning Heroin, Crack, Prozac, Meth and a hundred others would have to have a place in our supermarkets.

I'm all for the legalisation of Marijuana, but the others are certainly a different ballgame. Whether or not I'd want them in local supermarkets is another story! Pharmacies, perhaps.

I may be a libertarian, but I'm not an anarchist. I'm not asking for elderly cucumber pørn from 6pm onwards on ITV, every working day - because I can!

-Is society morally forced to help those in need, regardless if they inflicted the damage to their health themselves?

No one should be forced by the state to do good. Otherwise what you get is an artificial, rote mechanism replacing genuine altruism. It is up to individuals and religious denominations to help. Society, in other words.

That's what I mean here. If we think it's everybody's own business, whether one wants to blow away one's brains with substances (and I do suspect it may be) we quickly arrive at a point where the cat drags in something that's uncomfortably resembling the chap we've just given free rein to do however he pleases with his health. We can't very well leave the guy to the cat, can we?

If we have any moral scruples, of course not. What I'm trying to do, is simply separate society, from the bloated institution that currently is our state.

However, you are suggesting that this person's intent is not one of short-term pleasure (as with most smokers), but as a means to an end - literally. That fails the criteria I gave above (cognis mentis) - so no, those around him have a moral obligation to seek medical or psychiatric help.

Which probably brings us to the heart of the matter here. For the ban of smoking in many public places and the pressure on smokers in general has indeed two motives. One is the obvious: to protect the individual from ing-up one's own life. The other side of the medal is that society is of course not acting solely out of humanitarian motives in the case of smoking. For the follow-up costs of continued tobacco consume would in the long run eventually pile up to a sum that could not be spread onto the state's people without impairing on their well-being. So it's basically the majory defending their own economic interests against those of the minority.

In short, no. I have no need for a state that seeks to protect individuals from themselves. But then, this really is a domino effect thing, isn't it? It relies on the NHS remaining as it is, and the public being tied umbilically to each other, vis-a-vis the state. In my ideal scenario, both of those would be changed drastically into a more efficient, less costly, and over-bloated system. Perhaps more akin to the Singapore model, which is private, but with government subsidies given to hospitals, polyclinics, and lower income patients.

-Must some citizen (if we answer the first question affirmative) who is willfully harming his own health not be prevented from harming that of others?

He should. But it depends largely on intent. If he's going out of his way to harm others, or cause distress, then he should be punished. But if he's simply socıalısing or keeping to himself, then it's up to everyone else to tolerate this person.

Even then, we've only hit the tip of the iceberg.

Definitely. It's a most controverse topic that's been discussed for decades without a satisfying solution. It will probably keep us company until either smoking has disappeared from the public entirely or the industry developed vitamin cigarettes that also cure adiposis and tv-induced debility.

... Or the public sector anti-smoking legislation is finally dismantled, and the familiar canard of 'tolerance' applies equally to usage of tobacco.

[SecretAgent007]

Let him smoke. Bond is all about vises and imperfections. I don't think Bond smoking on screen is any more absurd than finding all of these places to wear a tux or even a suit for that matter. Look how people dress down today (it's very sad to me).

Incidentally, cigarettes did not always stink as they do today. Some of them actually smelled kind of nice. I believe there is a thread on here or on AJB where someone had Flemings/Bonds blend reproduced as best they could and they had a nice aroma. I believe this same person actually also had a supply of custom Morlands from the 50's (although I wouldn't smoke them) When the novels took off, Morlands marketed (in the shop) Flemings blend and the 3 gold (Commander) bands on the paper.

[Loomis]

(Btw: I wonder how many cigarettes/cigars Bond did smoke on screen; doubt somehow it adds up to sixty)

It's an excellent question. In order for a smoking Bond to be "Fleming's Bond", wouldn't he have to be seen putting away, what was it? Seventy cigarettes a day or something like that?

Who was the heaviest-smoking celluloid Bond? Connery? Lazenby? Dalton? Let's say for the sake of argument it was Lazenby, but it doesn't really matter: Fleming's Bond would have considered him an absolute lightweight, barely a smoker at all - no more than a schoolboy trying his first experimental cigarettes and trying hard not to cough.

The celluloid Bond has never, in fact, been a proper, dyed-in-the-wool confirmed smoker. How often do we see him spark up during or immediately after times of stress (of which there are more than plenty in the films), after sex (ditto), or, well, at any time at all, really? The only two times I can think of off the top of my head (although there are probably a few more) are: at the casino at the beginning of DR. NO and while driving in the OHMSS PTS.

While relish is certainly a facet too in Bond's habit, it's surprisingly rare that the reader sees Bond really enjoying his fags. Bond lights up countless times in the books, but the ritual seems to have a somewhat different essence for him than mere pleasure (at least IMO). It's a device that keeps Bond going, his senses alert and receptive, his nerves tense and reactive; yet it's also a push-button for relaxation and recreation.

Well, what you're describing is the life of a smoker. I have plenty of personal experience of this (by contrast, I suspect that most people posting on this thread and calling for Bond to smoke again have never touched a fag in their lives). Smokers do indeed light up countless times but actual, conscious enjoyment rarely comes into it. Most cigarettes are just smoked out of duty, so to speak (or rather, smoked automatically and purely in order to replenish the body's flagging nicotine levels), and are mostly a pain in the .

Heavy smokers (like Fleming's Bond) get to the stage where they are unable to complete the most basic mental or physical task without first lighting up - even changing the TV channel, let alone making a phone call. They smoke when bored, when excited, when stressed, when relaxed, when tired, when alert.... in fact, they smoke all the time and at every possible opportunity (except when restricted by things like workplace and transport smoking bans, the company they happen to be in, and, of course, the amount of money that they have available to spend on cigarettes). Don't believe me? Well, if you're a heavy smoker yourself you'll know that what I'm saying is true - if not, think of any heavy smokers you know and ask yourself whether they'll happily go for hours or days without fagging if no restrictions are placed on their smoking, or whether they'll be grabbing every opportunity for a drag (regardless of their mood or whatever activities they're involved in).

For Daniel Craig's Bond to be Fleming's Bond (or indeed to be believable as any kind of heavy, confirmed smoker), we would need to see him with a cigarette on literally every single occasion where it would be possible for a cigarette to be smoked. And then we would need to see him light another immediately afterwards. We'd also need to see him gagging for it at any time he was unable to smoke.

[Dustin]

(Btw: I wonder how many cigarettes/cigars Bond did smoke on screen; doubt somehow it adds up to sixty)

It's an excellent question. In order for a smoking Bond to be "Fleming's Bond", wouldn't he have to be seen putting away, what was it? Seventy cigarettes a day or something like that?

Who was the heaviest-smoking celluloid Bond? Connery? Lazenby? Dalton? Let's say for the sake of argument it was Lazenby, but it doesn't really matter: Fleming's Bond would have considered him an absolute lightweight, barely a smoker at all - no more than a schoolboy trying his first experimental cigarettes and trying hard not to cough.

The celluloid Bond has never, in fact, been a proper, dyed-in-the-wool confirmed smoker. How often do we see him spark up during or immediately after times of stress (of which there are more than plenty in the films), after sex (ditto), or, well, at any time at all, really? The only two times I can think of off the top of my head (although there are probably a few more) are: at the casino at the beginning of DR. NO and while driving in the OHMSS PTS.

While relish is certainly a facet too in Bond's habit, it's surprisingly rare that the reader sees Bond really enjoying his fags. Bond lights up countless times in the books, but the ritual seems to have a somewhat different essence for him than mere pleasure (at least IMO). It's a device that keeps Bond going, his senses alert and receptive, his nerves tense and reactive; yet it's also a push-button for relaxation and recreation.

Well, what you're describing is the life of a smoker. I have plenty of personal experience of this (by contrast, I suspect that most people posting on this thread and calling for Bond to smoke again have never touched a fag in their lives). Smokers do indeed light up countless times but actual, conscious enjoyment rarely comes into it. Most cigarettes are just smoked out of duty, so to speak (or rather, smoked automatically and purely in order to replenish the body's flagging nicotine levels), and are mostly a pain in the .

Heavy smokers (like Fleming's Bond) get to the stage where they are unable to complete the most basic mental or physical task without first lighting up - even changing the TV channel, let alone making a phone call. They smoke when bored, when excited, when stressed, when relaxed, when tired, when alert.... in fact, they smoke all the time and at every possible opportunity (except when restricted by things like workplace and transport smoking bans, the company they happen to be in, and, of course, the amount of money that they have available to spend on cigarettes). Don't believe me? Well, if you're a heavy smoker yourself you'll know that what I'm saying is true - if not, think of any heavy smokers you know and ask yourself whether they'll happily go for hours or days without fagging if no restrictions are placed on their smoking, or whether they'll be grabbing every opportunity for a drag (regardless of their mood or whatever activities they're involved in).

I know how it feels, only too well. Actually I discovered Bond before I started smoking myself, and his example has greatly influenced me in many way in my adult life, probably including the fags - although I won't claim I wouldn't have started smoking anyway without ever reading a single line of Fleming. They really used to be different times, those 70s + 80s.

For Daniel Craig's Bond to be Fleming's Bond (or indeed to be believable as any kind of heavy, confirmed smoker), we would need to see him with a cigarette on literally every single occasion where it would be possible for a cigarette to be smoked. And then we would need to see him light another immediately afterwards. We'd also need to see him gagging for it at any time he was unable to smoke.

I suppose Fleming's Bond is barely portrayable in a modern film without coming across as a parody. Even the films of the era hardly ever show a character smoking as much as Bond does in the books. There could be well-neigh not a single frame of Bond without a cigarette, and in effect it would damage most of the dramatic potential of the ritual. Where certain scenes could profit from the emphasis the entire film would just drown in the empty gestures of smoking. It wouldn't have worked back then and surely wouldn't do in our day and age.

The thing is that Kingsley Amis was spot on when he assessed the value of these devices - smoke, drink and food - for the reader. It's enormously easy to feel just that little bit closer to Bond when we light up and inhale a little bit of deadly poison from our favourite brand, sip on a stiff double Bourbon (I think more often mentioned than the famous vodka martini) and enjoy some excellent food. It's in these moments we can catch a glimpse of Bond's world and be a tiny little bit like him. Medical advancement has impaired on some of these delights and they turned out a good deal less harmless than we originally thought. Consequently the perception of such habits has changed and will probably continue to do so.

But I think it's necessary to keep in mind the sequence of events here. First smoking came under suspicion of inducing all kinds of diseases. That was already in Fleming's lifetime and he was aware of its impact on his (and his creation's) health. Then smoking gradually became a less and less socially accepted habit other producers of consumer goods didn't want to be identified with. Only then Bond stopped smoking in the films entirely (if we forget DAD's cigar, which is more of a phallus symbol than an actual means of tobacco consumption). It wasn't some devious secret agenda of EON to smash the balls of some poor US tobacco giants and those of the male smokers around the globe. It simply was a question of what kind of image the producers of luxury goods wanted to be identified with. Smoking isn't high on their list any more and most likely will never be again. In effect it's been our views and expectations and convictions, the average of the sum of these, that lead to Bond quitting fags.

Edited by Dustin, 09 September 2011 - 04:33 PM.

[robertcampbell]

Agreed.I missed seeing the gunmetal cigarette case.And please no built in camera like in "MNRKER"!.The distinctive Morlands Specials with 3 gold bands is one of the iconic trademarks in the Fleming books.

[Captain Tightpants]

I dont know what things are like overseas (though from what I've heard European countries are even worse) but here in Australia the anti-smoking lobby has done one hell of a job in completely changing the image of smoking. Smokers now are made to feel like dirty lepers forced to sneak outside to get a fix. Theres nothing remotely glamorous about the image of smoking anymore. I know as I do smoke. Even my local shopping mall has a smoking section outside in the carpark and even then you have to stand in this little glass cage so as not to pollute the carpark. Its insane. The days where James Bond can light up at a baccarat table in a glamorous casino are just gone. It just wouldnt work today. Everything Bond does, lifestyle-wise, is supposed to be the height of cool. And to most of the audience today, that is not smoking.

If only they were that good at certain other things ...

[stamper]

Great thread. I want Bond to smoke, both cigarettes and people too.

[S K Y F A L L]

I think it would only happen if it was a homage to DN's casino scene IMO. Cigarette smoking is done from the films to make them more family friendly and more suitable for children.

[Gothamite]

I agree 100% with Dustin.

Not that I wouldn't like to see Bond smoke, but it's hardly a surprise. Also, I'd like to point out that comparing Bond's smoking, drinking and gambling to his murderous occupation is ridiculous. People recreate their heroes in the day-to-day ways (such as smoking, drinking, gambling or eating scrambled eggs on toast with black coffee). Maybe if they're really dedicated they'll take skiing lessons or go skydiving.

People don't go killing people after seeing James Bond do it. And if they do, they're just crazy. It's not the same thing.

[Iceskater101]

Bond should smoke a cigar, cigars are sexy kind of lol.

[seawolfnyy]

Bond should smoke a cigar, cigars are sexy kind of lol.

Agreed. Cigars are sexy. As an aside, I'm not a smoker at all, but I'm not gonna tell others not to. I think you need to live your life and I'm not against Bond or anyone smoking.

[Iceskater101]

I have no idea why they are sexy, they just are.

[Judo chop]

Unless we’re talking period piece, I don’t want James Bond to smoke cigarettes. Bond’s vices are grounded in sophistication, and there is nothing sophisticated about a cigarette. (There wasn’t ‘back then’ either, but I would agree to it in a period piece for authenticity’s sake alone.)

To quote one of the few great character summaries from the Pierce Brosnan era, Bond “take(s) pleasure in great beauty”, and, IMO, this “beauty” he’s talking about also relates to his dietary habits. Yes, Bond drinks heavily, in part to numb the pain of his losses, but that doesn’t mean he’ll be pounding down a 12’er of Busch Light through a funnel and 1-1/2” tubing. Bond should have top-shelf tastes.

Incidentally, I’m not sure how I feel about Bond’s response to Q’s analysis of the painting from the SF trailer. Here he is portrayed as a passionless, unsophisticated brute, decidedly oblivious to beauty. I suspect there are other contexts within the scene to consider. Likewise, he could merely be in a grumpy mood after having been shot. Could be that the painting just sucks, too.