Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Bond Glamour in the age of Global Economic Wealth Concentration?
chrisisall
Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
The 60's was a time not too far after WWII, and fairly prosperous. Seeing a gentleman agent in a sports car was not too far out there given the excesses of the period.
The 70's started out rather lean, and the energy crisis later on loomed, but there was still enough money flowing to make a Lotus sub seem feasible in the comic book reality of the day.
The 80's was a party, and Bond movies catered appropriately.
The 90's was smooth sailing, and Bond gave us big & crazy once more.
The new Millennium brought bigness and silly (DAD), and then a scaled-down version; SF amped up the glamour a few notches though.
And now, today, when we are seeing the death of physical stores, and the crap selection of the ones surviving, the cheap knock off garbage and the poorly made clothes and throw away furniture offered to us by chains employing virtual slaves in the so called 'Third World', isn't the excess in Bond movies reaching the near end of the general public's ability to accept?
If the Bond franchise continues the casual flirtation with the world of the 1%, does it risk losing the fandom of the 99?
Or, is Bond so securely linked to fantasy in such a way that it's impervious to economic relevance?
I guess my basic question is: In ten or twenty years when the rich achieve the feudal lord status that they are today constructing the political & economic means to target, will Bond still be driving a car that costs as much as a modest home or wearing suits that cost an average workers monthly pay...?
Or will Bond become small, somewhat indie under-the-radar films? Like Doctor No.
Full circle?
Thoughts?
The 70's started out rather lean, and the energy crisis later on loomed, but there was still enough money flowing to make a Lotus sub seem feasible in the comic book reality of the day.
The 80's was a party, and Bond movies catered appropriately.
The 90's was smooth sailing, and Bond gave us big & crazy once more.
The new Millennium brought bigness and silly (DAD), and then a scaled-down version; SF amped up the glamour a few notches though.
And now, today, when we are seeing the death of physical stores, and the crap selection of the ones surviving, the cheap knock off garbage and the poorly made clothes and throw away furniture offered to us by chains employing virtual slaves in the so called 'Third World', isn't the excess in Bond movies reaching the near end of the general public's ability to accept?
If the Bond franchise continues the casual flirtation with the world of the 1%, does it risk losing the fandom of the 99?
Or, is Bond so securely linked to fantasy in such a way that it's impervious to economic relevance?
I guess my basic question is: In ten or twenty years when the rich achieve the feudal lord status that they are today constructing the political & economic means to target, will Bond still be driving a car that costs as much as a modest home or wearing suits that cost an average workers monthly pay...?
Or will Bond become small, somewhat indie under-the-radar films? Like Doctor No.
Full circle?
Thoughts?
^ 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
In the Books as well as the films, it's a fantasy after all.
I’d say yes, for two reasons.
- There will always be a demand for escapism with a snobbish, elite attitude such as Bond. A bit like watching a travel documentary when you want to be entertained & aren’t actively looking for a place to holiday - who wants to see the local everyman destinations that are perfectly within reach? No, you want to see far-flung exotic beaches and luxurious colonial villa’s where you can dine by the Caribbean, so to speak.
- Secondly, although the gap between the ridiculously wealthy and the other 99% is widening more and more, Bond is seen as a normal man who is on ‘the inside’ of this world. An orphan who was forced into the upper-middle classes of British society.
He is an ordinary hero in extraordinary circumstances who affords himself luxuries to dull the ache of his dour existence, to dampen the voices of the souls he’s killed. He doesn’t feel like one the elite – he despises them, in a way.
Mi6, was all old public school and full of snobs. :))
:D
Bond movies have also been about glamour (not least, in the female department). Even relatively down to earth FRWL appears glamorous to me today - in its cinematography, the music, the clothing & not least, the locations (I know it's different strokes for different folks, but to me Istanbul has always been exotic and glamorous, and I want Bond to continue visiting these type of locales - that's why I'm not a big fan of US based locations - we have enough tv shows to see that). Glamour normally is associated with unattainable wealth.
So Bond movies have always embraced the 1% in a way and been just out of reach of the common man/woman. When they get too realistic/unglamorous (LTK) they seem not to register too well with the public.
As was said earlier, it's acceptable to us movie going plebs to have a hero who hobnobs with the 1% because Bond is not of that world really - he just gets entangled in it. As Vesper Lynd so famously said in CR: "... by the cut of your suit, you went to Oxford or wherever. Naturally you think human beings dress like that. But you wear it with such disdain, my guess is you didn't come from money, and your school friends never let you forget it. Which means that you were at that school by the grace of someone else's charity: hence that chip on your shoulder."
Now, will Bond movies change to mirror the external financial circumstances of the majority of the viewing public? I'm not so sure. Ironically, Bond became most fantastical in the mid to late 70's, an era when the world was still reeling from two oil shocks and people were not doing so well. The movies then came somewhat back down to earth with a thud in the most overblown era of the recent past (the greed is good Reagan sunny in America 80's). So he hasn't really followed/mimicked what's happened in the external world.
However, he has undoubtedly, at least since the 70's, followed what the public wanted (or what the public has shown it wants via recent box office success) rather than setting the trends. Hence the blaxploitation era, the kung fu era, the Jaws (literally, with the name of a character) era, the Star Wars era, the gritty Die Hard/Lethal Weapon/Miami Vice era, the Austin Powers/XXX era (late 90's/early 00's), the remade Bourne era (replete with beefcake hero and many pensive/soul searching looks in the mirror) and finally, the Dark Knight era. I wonder what will be next? The Marvel/Frozen/Divergent era? Heaven forbid!
So essentially, as long as the public (no matter how dire their financial circumstances) continues to want its heroes to be larger than life (no sign of that dying down any time soon), idolizes the wealthy no matter how they earn their wealth (Kardashians/Paris Hilton anyone?), continues to lap up popcorn extravagance cloaked (pun intended) with skin deep depth (Marvel), then Bond will follow.
Just like my favourite dear departed lieutenant Columbo, I forgive Bond for mixing with the wealthy, arrogant and snobby (Blofeld, Mr. White, Quantum, SPECTRE, Elliot Carver etc.) because his ambition is actually to bring them down. Unlike Columbo, he just dresses and plays the part while at it.
At the end of the day, he's just a regular working class stiff, like you and me. The only difference is he does it for Queen and Country. Best said by 006 in GE, "For England, James!"
He doesn't enjoy being a part of it all, it is cathartic.
Lifestyle ! :D
What you've done there is confuse Bond with John McClane.
Mea culpa.
Bond is indeed quite worldly & polished - a gentleman and scholar among stiffs.
He does, interestingly though, have similar relationship issues, inner demons, rule flouting technique, disrespect for authority, wry humour/wit, world weariness, & villain killing capability as McClane, and also seems to come up against his fair share of Euro-T villains.
In fact, I'll say we're certainly closer to McClane with this latest interpretation/incarnation in comparison with the super refined/suave Connery/Moore period.
Perhaps in SP he can finally start to re-exhibit the cultural discrimination that we've become accustomed to over the years - I'd expect to see some of the customary discernment about champagne at least.
Can you blame him? :D
No other drink offers the same Spectr(e)um :> of flavours and textures within the same family as Single Malt Whisky!