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
Aside from Bond's spiritual rebirth in YOLT, I don't find much in the way of Jungian psychology in the books, and I've read most of them. I don't doubt that Fleming was interested in psychoanalysis, it was all the rage in the early 20th century and it was all nonsense that's been debunked by actual science (evolutionary psychology, neuroscience etc,), but I don't see the Bond character as dualistic at all. He likes shooting, fighting, women, and gambling, typical traits associated with soldiers and spies. In one of the books he's amused when he's booked on a flight on Friday the 13th and doesn't care that it's seen as unlucky. He likes the danger because it makes him feel alive. It's not a job. The job is just a means, the action is the end.
I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to gimmicks and action sequences because they are just aesthetic aspects of the movie. What I don't like is fundamentally altering Bond himself the way Skyfall does. Giving him Christ-like qualities (three days in a room and then he re-emerges as a different person, I mean, really?) and a family castle was a distortion of the character, and Mendez admitted to doing it because he liked The Dark Knight so much. Never mind that two movies earlier Bond was described as not coming from money. To me, Bond was never more unrecognizable than he was in Skyfall, not even as a pink tie-wearing lounge lizard in DAF. They took Bond and turned him into a tortured superhero and to me that was a far greater attack on the character than any of DAF, MR's or DAD's action gimmicks.
Fleming contacted Jung and actually translated one of Jung's lectures (on Perecelsus). The lecture focused on the topic of alchemy. Admittedly, I don't remember the specifics of that lecture, but Jung was deeply interested in the topic of alchemy and its relationship to psychoanalysis and the concept of individuation. It's the process of the individual to exist, outside of one's "other selves." It's a process of refinement. Hence, the alchemy.
It is noteworthy that Fleming took an interest in this topic. How/why/to what extent this came into his creation of Bond is open to considerable debate. But I have no doubt that it was tapped into in DC;s era, most notably SF. The entire word association session was 100% Jungian.
And to think, Fukunaga came on board very late in the game. If there's one impressive thing about NTTD, it's the direction.
If you understand this, then why not the idea that there's no reboot? That cr is his first mission and all stories, also the ones to come, fall in between cr and nttd. Then his death just works in the film.
I find the points about sf and the mansion and Sp and the sudden inexplicable position of the 00 section (department?) far worse atrocities.
That's specifically putting all the films in one place. And of course there are a few mismatches. Those are part of the artistic license and there are already plenty of those around. He doesn't need to retire after dad, we can have plenty of films before his retirement. Or in between skyfall and sp. Or between qos and sf. They're all sagas, not exact tellings.
Fair enough. For me it works, as pesonally that's they way I've always seen the films. It explains why Bond wasn't hellbent on revenge after Tracy's death, but does drop a random bald guy in a wheelchair down a chimney a couple of films later after visiting her grave.
I feel like someone (on here?) rearranged all the movies end to end, so you'd start with CR and QoS and then move on to DN, FRWL, etc. Maybe put FYEO after OHMSS. Disgruntled Bond movies like TLD and SF would come later in the run. And end it with NTTD.
SP is the problem. SP is always the problem.
I remember watching TSWLM recently and it really jumped at me how bad the one effect is of Stromberg’s boat popping out of the Liparus. It’s clearly a toy boat with dolls landing in someone’s bathtub, like something out of DANGER 5. So this narrative that Bond films weren’t “tainted” by bad f/x work until CGI came along is kinda silly to me.
CR and QOS are one era of Craig's Bond. SF is a standalone, and SP & NTTD another era. IMO. Works for me.
Then only his first era is good...
Why SP Should Not Have Been Made. At all.
(You can now look forward to a minimum of 3 posts per day from BSE on this topic, repeating myself over & over & over again...)
I'm thinking now that SP really isn't as good as I used to think... I still like it, but it's sinking in my ranking. It was just that I walked into the theatre reluctantly... I was anticipating another time-waster like SF. My expectations were exceedingly low.
I once had a very, very low opinion of Moonraker. Nowadays I think it's an amusing little piece of fluff. It's nowhere near one of my favorites...but at least I don't see it as a personal affront to the very idea of James Bond 007. I hope you can someday accept SF and NTTD in a similar fashion.
SP is the reason why NTTD has been designed as a culmination of Craig Bond's arc. Don't see any problems in that.
Yes indeed, it's wonderful fun.
I can't hate any Bond film: none of them are bad.
Because Roger Moore’s “HAH” elicits that.
Two of the crappiest big-budget movies I've ever seen? Not just Bond? Sorry, no. Too many GOOD movies out there to waste time trying to find a quantum of solace in the bottom of a gold-pressed latinum garbage can. ;)
THANK YOU!
All the Craig films are a big soup of Jungian ideas and imagery, it's everywhere. It's shocking how much that's everywhere. He literally is the modern man in search of a soul. Of course, "No Time to Die" is full of it too. Sometime I want to chart it or write about it or make a video about it.
Making Bond a relatable feel-good idiot in SF & NTTD just doesn't do it for me. Sorry.
Quite funny considering it's the same thing Fleming does in the books. "Casino Royale" is full of these allusions to Bond as a divine-figure who sealed his heart away, and is looking for anything to get him out of it.
That's the basis of the character — what keeps him alive is the same thing that pushes him away from everyone. "Live and Let Die" has this idea too, the dueling Undertaker or Doctor wind (what's Madeleine Swann's profession?).