Geopolitics in Bond Films and the growing discord between creative and commercial Bond souls

j_w_pepper

STLCards3 wrote: »

Herr_Stockmann wrote: »

STLCards3 wrote: »

Is this a more volatile political climate than the 60's or 70's? Even the Cold War 80s'? Not sure about that. Bond avoided it back then and COULD now.

If this is the case on the surface, the series was nonetheless politicized enough and was based on the bipolar status quo of the Cold War. Although the KGB was not portrayed as a direct enemy of MI6, Russia remained a country Bond had to spy on, while Maoist China was a more or less direct threat in YOLT. Personally, I wouldn't say that the political climate is more volatile than it was the 60s, however it seems to me more complex from the point of view of the commercial exploitation of a work of fiction.

During the Cold War, the series was not released in countries that appeared to contradict the interests of the British secret services. From this point of view, it was easier to represent these nations which were naturally the object of espionage operations. If the Bond films avoided making these countries threats, they still represented them as actors in the world of espionage, potential opponents or political antagonists. The end of this bipolarization and the opening of new commercial markets changed the situation.

Although naive or simplified, geopolitics remained a subject discussed and always seemed to me at the heart of the identity of what was the franchise, both literary and cinematographic. In my opinion, this goes beyond a simple question of opposition between a certain realism and a grandiloquence, the two coexisted in the past. Although more representative of certain realities (terrorism, hacking) the Craig era does little to depict geopolitics, unlike what was the case with Connery, Dalton or Brosnan.

Bond avoided direct conflict in this regard with the exception of a few circumstances. There will always be politicalness in films about government agencies. It is impossible to avoid completely. Early Bond did not need Russia to be THE enemy to be successful. My sole point was that Bond could be successful either way. in the standpoint of quality and entetianment.

Yes - avoiding the commercial fallout of offending nations in an overtly political film IS a legitimate concern for a picture worldwide aims. Could it be done? Maybe. Depends on how it would play out and who the "villain" is.

Then again, I don't think that in the first twenty-some years of the franchise anybody seriously considered the chances of releasing the movies in "the East Bloc" (Warsaw Pact/COMECON countries) nor in China, when deciding on the scripts. Still the Soviets get a relatively good deal in comparison with the novels. Basically every villain from there is a renegade opposed to the official line of the Politburo. Much of it is only to be understood with the background of the Cold War, but the antagonists are not the same as in the Cold War. General Gogol, for instance, is a much better pal to MI6 than the CIA in QOS.

STLCards3

j_w_pepper wrote: »

STLCards3 wrote: »

Herr_Stockmann wrote: »

STLCards3 wrote: »

Is this a more volatile political climate than the 60's or 70's? Even the Cold War 80s'? Not sure about that. Bond avoided it back then and COULD now.

If this is the case on the surface, the series was nonetheless politicized enough and was based on the bipolar status quo of the Cold War. Although the KGB was not portrayed as a direct enemy of MI6, Russia remained a country Bond had to spy on, while Maoist China was a more or less direct threat in YOLT. Personally, I wouldn't say that the political climate is more volatile than it was the 60s, however it seems to me more complex from the point of view of the commercial exploitation of a work of fiction.

During the Cold War, the series was not released in countries that appeared to contradict the interests of the British secret services. From this point of view, it was easier to represent these nations which were naturally the object of espionage operations. If the Bond films avoided making these countries threats, they still represented them as actors in the world of espionage, potential opponents or political antagonists. The end of this bipolarization and the opening of new commercial markets changed the situation.

Although naive or simplified, geopolitics remained a subject discussed and always seemed to me at the heart of the identity of what was the franchise, both literary and cinematographic. In my opinion, this goes beyond a simple question of opposition between a certain realism and a grandiloquence, the two coexisted in the past. Although more representative of certain realities (terrorism, hacking) the Craig era does little to depict geopolitics, unlike what was the case with Connery, Dalton or Brosnan.

Bond avoided direct conflict in this regard with the exception of a few circumstances. There will always be politicalness in films about government agencies. It is impossible to avoid completely. Early Bond did not need Russia to be THE enemy to be successful. My sole point was that Bond could be successful either way. in the standpoint of quality and entetianment.

Yes - avoiding the commercial fallout of offending nations in an overtly political film IS a legitimate concern for a picture worldwide aims. Could it be done? Maybe. Depends on how it would play out and who the "villain" is.

Then again, I don't think that in the first twenty-some years of the franchise anybody seriously considered the chances of releasing the movies in "the East Bloc" (Warsaw Pact/COMECON countries) nor in China, when deciding on the scripts. Still the Soviets get a relatively good deal in comparison with the novels. Basically every villain from there is a renegade opposed to the official line of the Politburo. Much of it is only to be understood with the background of the Cold War, but the antagonists are not the same as in the Cold War. General Gogol, for instance, is a much better pal to MI6 than the CIA in QOS.

Yes - the novels were certainly more anti-red.