12 replies to this topic

[CasinoKiller]

Since in recent years, there's been a lot more focus on the idea of Bond being an assassin, and since a lot is spoken about his 'license to kill' in general, I was curious to take a count of how many times, in the Fleming canon, was Bond actually sent out by M with explicit orders to kill someone i.e. how many 'assassination missions' did Bond actually undertake (or was said to undertake) in the Fleming canon?

 

Here's what I've come up with, based on my memory of all the stories.

 

-The first two assassination jobs Bond undertook (presumably during WW2) which earned him his 00 number, as recounted in Casino Royale. The first was a Japanese cipher clerk whom Bond killed with a sniper rifle in New York; the second was a Norwegian double agent in Stockholm whom Bond stabbed to death in his sleep.

 

-This is rather ambiguous, but in Live and Let Die, we are told that Bond was ordered by M to destroy Mr; Big's organization and possibly 'Mr. Big himself'. Are we to assume that M ordered Bond to kill Mr. Big? Or was he referring to simply destroying Mr. Big's organization and thus neutralizing (i.e. 'destroying') him as a threat?

 

-For Your Eyes Only of course. Granted, its an unofficial mission, but verbal subterfuge aside, its pretty unambiguous to everyone concerned that this is an assassination mission.

 

-The Living Daylights, possibly the most notable example, where Bond is ordered to kill 'Trigger'. Also probably the only time in the canon (that we know off) that Bond ends up NOT executing the target.

 

-Not sure if You Only Live Twice counts, since M didn't order Bond to kill anyone (Bond in fact, wasn't even a 00 at that point of time). However, Tiger Tanaka instead orders Bond to kill Shatterhand (alias Blofeld) and in agreeing to do so, Bond was technically fulfilling the mission M gave him.

 

-The Man with the Golden Gun of course, where Bond is reinstated into the Service pretty much so that he could take down Scaramanga.

 

Any other examples that elude me?

 

 

[Dustin]

None that I could think of right now. Though one might argue the idea to 'destroy Mr Big's outfit' by default must include taking the man out himself. The means to achieve this - a limpet mine and scuba gear - already indicate serious bloodshed. By extension we may assume Bond's mission in DAF, putting a stop to the diamond smuggling, also already includes some form of finality for the people concerned with it. In fact Bond goes out of his way to the source to seal that end of the pipeline. Still, it's odd that he outright lies to M about the two hitmen aboard the QE II, they would certainly not look out of place in the 'other fatalities' section of his report. So I can only assume he considers the QE II as British territory and thus isn't allowed to operate there, not even in extension of self-defence...

Fleming himself wasn't always clear about the detailed nature of the 00-section, at times it looks more like the 'department of odd ends with a tendency for violent outbursts'. Amis already commented that a licence-to-kill and 'carte blanche' do not seem to go well together if one considers the implications.

[CasinoKiller]

Most of the time, Double O's go on missions in particularly dangerous circumstances, and chances are that its more than likely that they will kill somewhere along the way. I'm not sure that's the same thing as being ordered to specifically eliminate a target. Bond at one point in LALD muses about his mission to destroy Mr. Big's organization and 'if possible, Mr. Big himself' (don't have the exact words). To my mind, that indicates that the latter is a specific directive to terminate a particular target...as opposed to just killing someone who came in the way of fulfilling an objective.

 

You're right about the precise nature of the 00 Section never being properly explained, either in the novels or the films for that matter. In common sense terms, an agent having a 'license to kill' indicates that the agent has the authority to kill during a mission, at his/her discretion, without fear of facing disciplinary action/prosecution. However, on occasion, Fleming suggests that the 00 Section is basically the assassination section of the Service. For instance, in Moonraker (the first novel to show Bond in his office and actually shed some light on the Section), it is said that the 00 agents are the only agents in the Service who may, at any time, be 'ordered to kill'. That implies that 00 agents are basically assassins (or at least, undertake assassination missions on occasion). In Goldfinger, Bond muses that if M finds out that Goldfinger killed him, he'd assign 008 to the mission and grant 008 'license to kill'...again suggesting a specific assassination mission. Yet, in the same book, the license to kill is mentioned as being based on the discretion of the agent.

 

The movies tend to suggest that killing is a pretty major part of Bond's job (far more than the books do). Yet, in a great number of missions (in the films and in the books), Bond has pretty non-lethal objectives. Picking up a Russian defector, investigating a diamond smuggling operation, or beating an enemy agent at the poker table are hardly assassination missions (even though Bond does kill people in the course of those assignments...but killing is not his objective).

[Leon]

Bond and the Double 0 Section in general are indeed used as assassins, though it is also important to note that in the books Fleming makes clear that for most of the time 00 agents are doing office work. The majority of their jobs overseas or 'in the field' tend to be investigations. The whole reason James Bond is so unique is that, in the books at least, he more often than not tends to get himself so entangled in problems which always turn out to be bigger than originally thought that he is forced to sort it out by himself (more or less) and that usually results in a climactic fight with the chief villain. Bond often is the guy who, purely for the sake of exciting storys, winds up face to face with all these major criminals of various sorts.

While the 00 rank is specific to the fictional 'licence to kill', murder is certainly a minor part of the job and Bond tends to be a special case who gets into a lot more trouble than he is supposed to. Going by Fleming's original storys at least the film-makers, in a true effort to go back to the meat and potatoes of the character, should really be delving more into the whole mystery/intrigue and investigation aspect in writing the new films. They have made quite a big deal out of the licence to kill and all the nasty fighting and killing. Not really complaining about that but I feel it is underusing Daniel Craig quite badly. He's been great for sure, but he's so much better than a steely, angry muscle-head who runs around all the time fights and kills people. The real interesting stuff with Bond is the investigating of mysterious goings on, uncovering the bigger picture and ending up forced into the situation of dismantling and or blowing up the villians operation with plenty of intelligent and quick thinking.

FRWL is my favourite example of this - book and film. I'd love to see a new film where Bond is sent wherever it may be to investigate something a bit out of the ordinary and mysterious. Meets with someone like a Head of Section (a la Kerim Bey) - a good character who is on Bond's side and loyal, none of these endless double crosses they're obsessed with now. The big problems and action can be unravelled/revealed more slowly and intelligently.

[CasinoKiller]

You probably are right about Bond being the one Double O who tends to get into more trouble and kill more people than any other agent. The Quantum of Solace film is a good example...Bond is sent on a mission to investigate Quantum but ends up killing a lot of people, much to M's consternation. Then there's also the opening mission in Casino Royale, where, in M's own words "You were supposed to question him...not to KILL him!"

 

The Craig films in particular seem to highlight Bond's killing...I suppose in an effort to bring the character close to the Jason Bourne archetype

[Revelator]

This brings up an interesting issue--Bond and Fleming's increasing unease with assassination. In CR Bond is clearly established as an assassin, yet we do not see him on another assassination mission until FYEO. And after that, only TLD and TMWTGG. What gives?

 

In CR Bond is basically fine with being a cold-blooded killer, though in conversation with Vesper he goes out of his way to divest being a 00 of any glamor. Yet by the time of From Russia With Love, Bond and Fleming have developed a great distaste for cold-blooded murder--"Bond had never killed in cold blood" writes Fleming, contradicting his own books!

 

In FYEO, Bond undertakes M's private mission of revenge (which even a staunch Bond-fan like Kingsley Amis found distasteful) after being told of Von Hammerstein's crimes, yet when it comes time to pull the trigger, Bond's nerves begin to fail him. It's only when Von Hammerstein reminds Bond of his cruelty (by shooting a bird) that Bond can bring himself to try assassinating him. In TLD Bond's decay as a 00 proceeds further--he cannot even bring himself to kill Trigger (and unlike the movie, Bond knows she's a professional killer)! Despite being reborn in TMWTGG, Bond's unease with cold-blooded killing reaches its zenith: presented with the ideal opportunity to kill Scaramanga, he cannot bring himself to shoot him in the back. And when Bond finally has Scaramanga at his mercy, he ludicrously, intentionally delays the execution and even allows the thoroughly immoral Scaramanga a prayer break!

 

It's clear: James Bond has become uncomfortable with being a 00. His job is to kill in cold blood, yet he can no longer so. This fact has eluded the educated idiots who tell us that Fleming's Bond is a murderous sociopath. In FRWL Fleming tells us the following:

 

Executioners have a short 'life.' They get tired of their work. The soul sickens of it. After ten, twenty, a hundred death rattles, the human being, however sub-human he may be, acquires, perhaps by a process of osmosis with death itself, a germ of death which enters his body and eats into him like a canker. Melancholy and drink take him, and a dreadful lassitude which which brings a glaze to his eyes and slows up movements and destroys accuracy. When the employer sees these signs he has no alternative but to execute the executioner and find another one.

 

If Bond worked for the Soviets, they would have executed him. If I were M, I would fire him.

Edited by Revelator, 06 November 2013 - 12:00 AM.

[Double Naught spy]

Good for you CasinoKiller!

 

I for one am tired of this whole notion that 007 is merely a psychopathic killer convinced into joining MI6 merely because his parents died in a mountain-climbing accident, and who's suaveness and debonair-ness are nothing more than a Dexter-like "mask" to cover his true nature/identity.  Thank you for pointing out how few times 007 was used as mindless "weapon" to be pointed at the 'bad guy' as if he was somehow the mirror-image of Red Grant. 

 

I dealt with this nonsense back in college when my "Oh, so smartly tenured" Sociology professor tried to impress the class by revealing his "insightful" theory that  'James Bond is really nothing more than a psychopathic killer.'    And if that weren't bad enough, recently the "master thespian" himself - Matt Damon (while promoting his own "failed" Jason Bourne" franchise.  Sorry, if it wasn't "failed" there would be no reason to replace him with Hawkeye from The Avengers!)  parroted the same, tired tripe. 

 

Thank you CasinoKIller - you've come up with a thread that anyone can reference to refute those defamatory "theories" of our beloved 007.  As pointed out in  yours and the following posts - 007 is more than some "mere killing machine."  

Edited by Double Naught spy, 06 November 2013 - 12:27 AM.

[CasinoKiller]

This brings up an interesting issue--Bond and Fleming's increasing unease with assassination. In CR Bond is clearly established as an assassin, yet we do not see him on another assassination mission until FYEO. And after that, only TLD and TMWTGG. What gives?

 

In CR Bond is basically fine with being a cold-blooded killer, though in conversation with Vesper he goes out of his way to divest being a 00 of any glamor. Yet by the time of From Russia With Love, Bond and Fleming have developed a great distaste for cold-blooded murder--"Bond had never killed in cold blood" writes Fleming, contradicting his own books!

 

In FYEO, Bond undertakes M's private mission of revenge (which even a staunch Bond-fan like Kingsley Amis found distasteful) after being told of Von Hammerstein's crimes, yet when it comes time to pull the trigger, Bond's nerves begin to fail him. It's only when Von Hammerstein reminds Bond of his cruelty (by shooting a bird) that Bond can bring himself to try assassinating him. In TLD Bond's decay as a 00 proceeds further--he cannot even bring himself to kill Trigger (and unlike the movie, Bond knows she's a professional killer)! Despite being reborn in TMWTGG, Bond's unease with cold-blooded killing reaches its zenith: presented with the ideal opportunity to kill Scaramanga, he cannot bring himself to shoot him in the back. And when Bond finally has Scaramanga at his mercy, he ludicrously, intentionally delays the execution and even allows the thoroughly immoral Scaramanga a prayer break!

 

It's clear: James Bond has become uncomfortable with being a 00. His job is to kill in cold blood, yet he can no longer so. This fact has eluded the educated idiots who tell us that Fleming's Bond is a murderous sociopath. In FRWL Fleming tells us the following:

 

Executioners have a short 'life.' They get tired of their work. The soul sickens of it. After ten, twenty, a hundred death rattles, the human being, however sub-human he may be, acquires, perhaps by a process of osmosis with death itself, a germ of death which enters his body and eats into him like a canker. Melancholy and drink take him, and a dreadful lassitude which which brings a glaze to his eyes and slows up movements and destroys accuracy. When the employer sees these signs he has no alternative but to execute the executioner and find another one.

 

If Bond worked for the Soviets, they would have executed him. If I were M, I would fire him.

 

I don't think Bond is ever 'fine' with being an assassin in the books. At best, he accepts that its a necessary evil which he must perform for the greater good...at worst, his conscience overwhelms him and he finds excuses NOT to kill.

 

The very first time we ever hear of Bond as a killer in the Fleming canon, is in the hospital scene in Casino Royale...where Bond, weary of his life as a spy, recounts the two assassinations that earned him his 00 number (one of the kills was particularly unpleasant and clearly bothers him to the day) as examples of why he's tired of the grey morality of his profession. In Goldfinger, the novel begins with Bond being haunted by the killing of a Mexican drug-dealer in self-defense. Though he tells himself that 'Regret is unprofessional', he does spent an awful lot of time ruminating over the death of his victim. And, as you rightly pointed out, by the time of The Man with the Golden Gun, Bond can't even bring himself to kill in cold blood anymore, even when his life is at stake!

 

The only times Bond has 'enjoyed' killing (though I'm not sure if that's really the appropriate word) is as an act of vengeance, or moral outrage against a particularly reprehensible foe.

 

Now the movies, granted, have a LOT more killing (which makes sense, given the more action-oriented nature of the films), but we seldom get to see Bond's own views about killing (again, given that these are 'action films', the protagonist spending substantial screen-time ruminating over his lethal actions would be totally at odds with the semi-massacres he causes every other scene!) But what little we do get to hear about Movie-Bond's attitudes do allay fears that he's some kind of sociopath - in TMWDGG, Bond differentiates himself from Scaramanga by stating that "The men I kill are killers themselves". In TND, when an assassin (can't recall his name) tells Bond he's just a professional on a job, Bond kills him and says "Me too". And in CR, Bond accepts that killing is taking a toll on his soul, stoic-ness aside...

[Major Tallon]

The idea that Bond was an assassin evolved unexpectedly slowly in the novels.  In Casino Royale, the Double-0 number meant only that the agent "had to kill a chap in the course of some job" (Chapter 20).  In LALD, Mr. Big said much the same thing:  "You have had to kill a man in the course of some assignment" (Chapter 7).  It was in Moonraker that Fleming set out that the duties of a Double-0 agent "included assassination" and that the man "might be ordered to kill" (Chapter 1).  Again, in FRWL, Fleming wrote that "The double 0 numerals signify an agent who has killed and who is privileged to kill on active service" (Chapter 6).  As I see it, the concept of the Double-0 progressed from being only a reflection of what the agent had done, to being a designator of what he might in certain circumstances be ordered to do.  I find no instance when Bond, prior to FYEO, actually set out on a mission to kill anyone, and even then it was on a matter of private "rough justice."  Indeed, in the rather strange briefing given by M in LALD, he never reallly ordered Bond to do anything at all, other than to "Take it away" when Bond said that he'd like to meet Mr. Big.  The popular phrase "License to Kill" did not, so far as I can tell, turn up until Goldfinger. 

 

As for Bond's reluctance to kill, a topic presented by Revelator, the concluding chapter of DAF is instructive.  Bond acknowledged that he had not been ordered to kill, but that circumstances had made it necessary.  "Not that he had wanted to kill these people. . . . And of the seven, he had killed five - not because he wanted to but because somebody had to."  As he aimed the Bofors gun at the escaping helicopter, the "movement of [Bond's] hand was reluctant.  Now it would be certain death.  He was going to have to do it again" (Chapter 25). 

 

An assassin, then?  I suppose, but not only that.  A killer?  Yes, but not one without conscience.  Conflicted?  That's what makes Bond interesting.

[Dustin]

One probably also has to consider the circumstances under which Bond appears on the stage: the two killings 'earning' him 00-status were both during WWII, when Bond was actually in a role similar to a soldier's. And when, to complete a mission or avoid capture - and certain torture and death - ANY agent, regardless how important or minor, could find himself in a situation that called for him killing an opponent. And these opponents could privately be nice chaps and perhaps wonderful and precious human beings, were it not for the war - he'd have to kill them regardless.

The concept of the 00 seems to be: 'you've been there before, might as well do it again'. Of course the two initial missions would have been stuff for the 00-section, so either it wasn't in operation during the war, or every once in a while the Service decides to just ask around 'Anyone for a nice sniper job?' and then sends those passing the long range test on an follow-up involving extreme carving.

This is all the more interesting as several of Bond's missions would actually not call for an assassin. The CR affair sees Bond in Royale because he happens to be the Service's best card player. Trouble with Le Chiffre's gunmen is an option but not actively pursued. It's much the same with nearly all other assignments, an element of danger makes it seem advisable to send someone with experience and the necessary skills. But it's mostly assumed what slaughter there happens to be should be done under the 'self-defence' header. Even the mission to kill the opposition's deadliest executioner Scaramanga - a task with odds definitely towards a vicious and brutal outcome - finds Bond basically with the strategy to locate Scaramanga and provoke him to a duel, with Bond just hoping to beat the man to the draw. A real 00 agent worth his office beside the loo would not waste a single thought on such madness. After finding Scaramanga on Jamaica he'd order a rifle from Goodnight, arrange for delivery to the hotel and hit Scaramanga during his trampoline workout. Or just shoot him in the back, as Bond ponders during the drive to the Thunderbird Hotel. Fact is: Bond is never really at ease with his actual work, actively seeks excuses for not doing his job right away and indeed seems to need the danger of a self-defence situation to 'work' (read: kill) reliably. Even after the deed is done Bond (or Fleming for him?) looks for absolution. The unfortunate SPECTRE thug who comes face-to-face with the murderous Rolex (an idea for a special edition, the Rolex Facesmasher ™ ) around Bond's fist just so happens to be responsible for the grisly death of another SPECTRE thug. Rough justice indeed...

[AMC Hornet]

TMWTGG = Hamlet (hesitating while waiting for the right moment).

LTK = Othello (sowing seeds of distrust and paranoia).

Am I the only one to notice this?

[glidrose]

TMWTGG = Hamlet (hesitating while waiting for the right moment).
LTK = Othello (sowing seeds of distrust and paranoia).
Am I the only one to notice this?

Nope:

http://tvtropes.org/...m/LicenceToKill

http://books.google....ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA


Tho' your TMWTGG analogy holds true only with the novel and even then reeks of plot contrivance.

LTK also has a Hamlet component.

[AMC Hornet]

As for assassination, M does order Bond to interrogate Patrice "and terminate him for Ronson."