It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I never saw typical heroic traits in any of the Bond incarnations. I don't think Craig's Bond stands out in that sense.
Bond is a version of the archetypal hero, the warrior who is called into action to battle forces of evil and then return home victorious. OHMSS is the one film that breaks from the mold.
If you read Campbell and Jung, you might find he is more conventional than you realize.
Isn't Jung considered a quack at this point?
That's the way I see him, too. And that's the reason I find him appealing.
Maybe you are mistaking him for Freud.
A hero has some morality and idealism to himself. Bond hardly shares any ideology or has specific morals he sticks with. He's also not a patriot. He does what he does mostly for excitement but when he does it, he's motivated by his duty like any other professional. Sure, he is a good guy, but he's not necessarily a conventional hero.
Same here.
Perfect answer.
We are on about the bloke who lied about his age to fight for his country in WW2, risked ruining his diplomatic mission to stick up for the Britain when Tiger was slagging it off, used a union jack parachute to escape the Russians, agreed that they would do it "for England" when going into battle with his mate and talked to Silva about his "pathetic love of country" aren't we?
I agree that Bond is unique and isn't really a straightforward hero or anti hero. I also think that his motivation changes depending on what sort of angle the people writing him want to take (sometimes it's excitement, hints that he'd be bored by a normal life, other times it seems he's wearily resigned himself to being a spy, with a normal life being an unrealistic fantasy). But no matter what he's always a patriot, and I think even the more world weary versions of Bond originally started on that path because of a sort of romantic desire to defend his country. The difference between them mostly comes down to if he's disillusioned with it or not. There's escapist Bond, loving life, getting the job done for queen and country, and there's disillusioned Bond, who signed up for similarly patriotic reasons but at this point is mostly soldiering on because it's the only life he knows. But in both cases he started on that path because of his patriotism. It's always there and is one of the key parts of the character imo.
I think a story where his patriotism is really challenged/questioned could be interesting. He sees something he isn't supposed to (or maybe he is but can't stomach it) and actually turns against his government/country for moral reasons. I did think that was what Boyle's big idea could have been, Bond turning traitor. As a one off to end the Craig era I think it could have been cool to see. I know some people will say it goes against the character but I think that sort of blind patriotism should always be questioned. Nothing wrong with loving your country don't get me wrong but you should never put that patriotism above your basic sense of human decency, and I think it'd be interesting to see a story where MI6 ask Bond to do that. Because really it's quite lucky that all his missions have had him up against proper villains isn't it. He works for the British government, every mission he's sent on is in their interest, and they're not always the good guys.
In a traditional archetypal sense, the hero doesn't need morality or patriotism or idealism. He can, but he doesn't have to. All he needs is a call to action and an ability to use his skills to overcome the enemy and complete his mission. Heroes come in various forms, and Bond's main form is as "warrior." He fights battles. He wins those battles. And he saves the day. When Bond manages to keep a nuclear weapon from detonating, I don't know what else to call that but "heroic." Furthermore, he demonstrates mastery and skill that few can: flying planes and helicopters, jumping from buildings, climbing towers and cliffs, surfing large waves, base jumping, etc, I don't know what else to call that, either, but "heroic."
Here's what Anthony Horowitz said on the topic: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3670793/James-Bond-the-spy-who-changed-me.html
Very interesting points and most of them are summed up greatly.
There's a lot I agree with, but there's also that one thing about his patriotism that doesn't really stand with what defines him as a person/character. The conversation with Silva where he mentioned his "pathetic love for his country" was obviously sheer amount of sarcasm, and the "For England" notion we constantly hear in GoldenEye is nothing short of lip service. I think Bond went head to head with Alec mostly because the latter was going to create a global unrest, and he had to do what he was supposed to do to stop it. The parachute scene in TSWLM was also in the similar sense of defining him as one Britain's iconic gladiators. A patriot, however, I wouldn't call him one. He's more of a exterminator in the government's backdoor. Enforcer would be a better term, in fact.
That doesn't mean Bond doesn't love his country. He does. But, unlike patriots who wave the Union Jack flag and sing its chores, Bond isn't the sort of man to rub it in one's face. He's more of a realist when it comes to those things.
As for why he lied about his age to join the navy, it's more than likely he was driven by the excitement and his desire to escape the harsh reality of where London was at the brink of war (I'm talking about the Fleming character here). Lest we forget a lot of youngsters at the time joined the armed forces out of obligation, and some have believed they had something to prove themselves to a lot of people that they were capable. Bond could very well be one of those.
All in all, some of Bond's actions do align with that of a hero's in the wider landscape, but he still isn't a hero when it comes to him as a character because he isn't driven by an ideology. He's not a crusader. But, he isn't just a mindless triggerman, either. Neutral Good is how I'd define him when it comes to the ultimate label.
What an utter ignorant comment. Both of these comments, actually. Calling Jung and Freud quacks? Really? How retrograde and uninformed.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-freud-still-matters-when-he-was-wrong-about-almost-1055800815
James Bond in all his incarnations is absolutely an archetypal hero at this point in time. In the tradition of the flawed hero, here using the methods of the anti-hero and even the villains themselves. Regardless, he's clearly a hero. Some kind of hero, as was said.
Separately, I think there's a misunderstanding of duty expressed here. And patriotism. Witness James Bond from the start (good example, Thunderball) acting for Queen and Country IN SPITE OF the bureaucrats muddying up the response to a villain's plot. It's built into the books and the film formula. Even more so with Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall, and Spectre.
Let alone morality. Recognizing his womanizing and vices and acts of killing, his actions have a solid morality. Where he wavered in Casino Royale in a confused state over whether or not Le Chiffre was a a villain, that establishing story crystallized the nature of evil to him. What plays out in each mission is a morality tale of good versus evil, plain and simple. That's the result of Fleming's experiences in World War II and timeless storytelling.
Not to rub against your feathers, mate, and this really is the wrong thread for this, but that article is utter tripe. And I say this as a psychoanalyst.
He lost me at this: "The primary trouble with Freud is that, while his ideas appear intriguing and even common sensical, there’s very little empirical evidence to back them up. Modern psychology has produced very little to substantiate many of his claims"
1)There is no modern psychology, except for an americanised pragmatic school of thought that is no better that parlour tricks for dummies;
2)Psychoanalysis is not to be taken - never was - as an exact science. Do you really claim that all schools of though conjured since the 6th century BC are invalid because there are no empirical evidence to back them up?
I could go on, but this is not the time or space. Freud is valid now as he ever was. Jung is interesting and his archetypes are alive and well in this brave new world. Someone who says otherwise must be better informed than the guy who wrote that article.
Great. Another Never Say Never Again.
Makes one think: maybe Bond 25 will be called Wristslasher.
Merry Christmas everyone!
In more mature, modern fiction, the ideas of good and evil do get mixed up, as Bond describes. A perfect example of this is the Star Wars saga, and the role of Darth Vader / Anakin Skywalker. Even Han Solo, while not a pure villain, is not exactly a pure hero, either.
All that said, I am comforted to know that the "story arc" in the DC era will continue and end with Bond 25. DC's era has been the one in which Jungian ideas come to the fore. Campbell started this, when in the PTS, we see Bond's reflection in a mirror, during his first kill. From that point forward, in all four films, mirrors are powerful symbols (especially in SF and SP). They reflect the "duality" that exists in each of us, the anima and animus, the real self and the shadow self. Bond is grappling with this in Fleming's first novel. DC's Bond is grappling with it, too.
There is a terrific line, spoken by drunk Madeleine in the hotel room: "There are two of you. Two Jameses." Indeed.