Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
James Bond - an extremly dull, uniteresting man?!
Whereas arguably everyone in this forum would like to be like James Bond, I recently found that in Ian Flemings eyes this means we wish to be an "extremely dull, uniteresting man"!
Questioned about why he chose the name of "James Bond" for his character Fleming said this:
"When I wrote the first one in 1953, I wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened; I wanted him to be a blunt instrument...when I was casting around for a name for my protagonist I thought by God, (James Bond) is the dullest name I ever heard."
Wow! I mean we're getting shivers down our spines upon only hearing the catch phrase "The name's Bond, James Bond" - and Fleming intended this to be a dull person's name?!
And where did Fleming go wrong when he originally wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man?! It is true that Fleming's Bond is not as suave or such a charmer by far as he is in the films. And the so much beloved one-liners also have their origin on the silver screen rather than Flemings novels. but still Fleming himself must have known interesting people beyond imagination, if his Bond seemed such dull to him!
If Fleming got to read this forum he would probably think "what losers!" ;-)
Above citation: Hellman, Geoffrey T. (21 April 1962). "Bond's Creator". Talk of the Town. The New Yorker. p. 32. Retrieved 9 September 2011.
Questioned about why he chose the name of "James Bond" for his character Fleming said this:
"When I wrote the first one in 1953, I wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened; I wanted him to be a blunt instrument...when I was casting around for a name for my protagonist I thought by God, (James Bond) is the dullest name I ever heard."
Wow! I mean we're getting shivers down our spines upon only hearing the catch phrase "The name's Bond, James Bond" - and Fleming intended this to be a dull person's name?!
And where did Fleming go wrong when he originally wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man?! It is true that Fleming's Bond is not as suave or such a charmer by far as he is in the films. And the so much beloved one-liners also have their origin on the silver screen rather than Flemings novels. but still Fleming himself must have known interesting people beyond imagination, if his Bond seemed such dull to him!
If Fleming got to read this forum he would probably think "what losers!" ;-)
Above citation: Hellman, Geoffrey T. (21 April 1962). "Bond's Creator". Talk of the Town. The New Yorker. p. 32. Retrieved 9 September 2011.
^ 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 don't think James Bond is a dull character - far from it, but his name alone is quite dull. Would millions of people flock to see an ordinary romantic film about a young typical teenager called James Bond ? I think 007's success is the character itself, not the name... the name got cool because it belong to such a cool character.
But the point is not the name: rather than that it is astonishing, that Fleming wanted the man himself to be an extremely dull charakter to fit that name!
I think book bond actually was a pretty dull character, he was a normal bloke with exotic tastes. He just had exciting things happen to him. But film bond isn't dull at all.
That said, you need someone who isn't dull to play the character on film.
Film Bond being dull is out of the question!
But your thought about book Bond is interesting. Only I never felt like this when I read the books. But as I started reading the books after having watched the films I always imagined the literary Bond being as cool as Connery. I must read one of the books again under this perspective and see if he really seems dull.
Maybe someone who read the books first before watching the movies could relate to this. Would be interested in their experience!
If your thesis is correct I imagine that whereas moviegoers think "what a cool guy, want to be like him" people who only knew the books must have thougt: "There's nothing special 'bout that bloke, I could be in his shoes - if only I had the luck of all this stuff happening to me!"
That makes me remeber something Ursula Andress said about Connery: she said in front of the camera he was amazing and charismatic and everything - but as soon as the camera was turned off, he was completely dull! :-?
I'm not really suprised at that to be honest. I suspect he isn't a particularly fun or likeable character in real life but he can "pretend". I remember a friend saying he used to get drunk and people wouldn't dare go near him if he was hungover. Not sure if that was true though.
I can imagine that real life Connery was pretty close to the literary ruthless and moody Bond, while his on screen performance defined Bond's image of the suave and charming spy.
When Connery introduced himself to Sylvia Trench for the first time, it wasn't the name that sounded cool it was all in Connery's cool swagger and execution delivering the line. The name mattered not it was all about the man behind the name.
So Fleming saw a book about birds on his Coffee table and the rest is history, It's good in a way that the author had a sensible name otherwise we could of ended up with something like Johnathan Greenpants or something
Point being, James Bond seems almost ideal both from the very beginning to present day, I wouldn't change it for anything, it's fits perfectly with all the actors who have presented themselves throughout the series
AT THE TIME it sounded a very "dull" name. Its a simple name, kind of like John Smith and not one you'd associate with herorism. Now it's a name everyone knows but that wasn't the case in 1952/53. The only reason it sounds cool to us now is because we've all grown up with it.
Unless you were born before 1953. ;)
I've seen Connery (older version!) in interviews and he comes across as a MOG
Miserable old git!
I think Sean Connery was a *genius*. If you watch him as James Bond - perhaps Goldfinger is the best example - he totally nails the toughness, the charm, the humour of the cinematic James Bond. If he wasn't like that in real life - and I've seen him in other films where he isn't charming or amusing - then I think he was a genius to create this amazing film hero. I really do think he was a genius to create such a powerful and appealing hero. What he did lasts to this day, what he created, - you can't overestimate what he did.
I think deep within Sean Connery there is a bit (how big, who knows!) of James Bond FOR REAL. He managed to bring it out on the big screen and he created the film legend that is James Bond. There are lots of very talented actors that could never achieve what Connery did as James Bond - that confidence, charm, toughness. To combine all those elements was a stroke of genius.
@DC007, you have outlined this perfectly. The character is what made the name popular, not vice versa. This is the case for many instances. But to be honest, while some may find the Fleming Bond of CR to be dull, I do find him interesting. I used CR as an example because it is a truly classic espionage novel, and bloody well done. To get back on point, the old school espionage tactics of the 40s and 50s intrigue me beyond belief, and I prefer Fleming's Bond adventures that are less action, more intellect. I still have to read all the Fleming but CR and LALD, but it is easy to see a sad shift from CR to LALD in the prose Fleming had going. More action was in place instead of the great spy moments of CR where quiet trade craft was utilized. LALD wasn't an action fest, I know, but it is quite the shock reading CR and then LALD not too long after. The two are so utterly different to me in style. I can't wait for the likes of FRWL, DN, TB, YOLT, and OHMSS. They all seem like brilliant adventures, and less racism is always a plus.
Thank God for that!
The literary Bond is charming and classy but in the films, like in many cinematic representations, it all becomes exaggerated.
I find the literary Bond much more interesting than the relatively one dimensional cinematic chap.
"But Fleming had to put it in there somewhere when he heard about the effect on the skull and bones. Today something like that would get simply cut"
This is a real shame. You'd think modern readers and viewers have the attention span of 10 year olds going by the many horribly too fast paced films and books in this contemporary world.
Think it's more of a streamlining thing today. Lots of books in stores are real doorstops, huge ungainly tomes that speak 'epic' just by their looks. But half of it is stale or uninteresting wordcount, only there for the looks. What these books seldom have is a sense for the unconventional and intriguing, just what Fleming was so fond of. He could digress a lot and you didn't realize or mind it, that's how good he was at the game. And his novels are still on the short side. Today they'd ask him to double the wordcount or forget it. And to leave out the things that didn't drive the plot. Technically that's spot on. Creatively it's bankruptcy.
As an aside, I personally cannot fathom all of the "Oh, James...!" sighed and whispered we have heard thru the many films be any other name. It is indelibly Bond for me. And I like it that way.
This is what really saddens me. Why must it be the case?! This would certainly be atleast part of the reason why we don't get Bond novels as good as they used to be. I really find it disappointing and frustrating. Must everything relate to the plot?! I would have enjoyed new film and literature alot more 60 years ago. It's just too bad this wasn't my generation. Now days so much just seems so creatively redundant.
By this analysis, Bond almost comes across as inhuman, or even superhuman: not succumbing to human emotion. But in my view, this is not dull, but quite interesting: to be able to rid one self of any psychological pain or moralizing for the sake of duty. I think this sums up the whole appeal of Bond. Bond is myth in a sense, of a person who can transcend the weight of human emotion and feeling, and as a result become someone supercool, who can just get on with his business with skipping a beat.
As far as the name, while it is ordinary, it is still bold and direct. James Bond: there is something strong about the sounding of it: like Jack Bower.
But that analysis is just plainly wrong. I' ve not had a chance to read Eco's book on Bond, but judging by this quote I can only guess it concerns itself with the filmic character, not the person Fleming invented and whose inner monologue he described in great detail.
Bond does know moments of doubt; plenty of. He does meditate on truth and justice, on the nature of his calling and the consequences of his duty. For evidence just take CR, just read FYEO, just take a look at GF's first part (not just the thoughts in a double bourbon on the death of a Mexican, also the night duty at HQ and the reminiscences of a different life Bond might have had, had he become a golf pro). Further evidence provide the thoughts about Tracy, both prior to his attempt to rescue her and after his proposal. YOLT and the various themes of duty, failure, mysticism is practically self-evident.
Bond's uniqueness isn't that he knows no doubts and has no qualms. It's the fact that he has both and manages to overcome them in the face not of duty, that's too short and too knee-jerk an answer; in the face of evil and his calling. To claim otherwise would grossly misread both Fleming and his creation. I sincerely hope this isn't Eco analysing the literary character?
I edited down the Ecco quote above, which read: "From that moment on, Bond does not meditate upon truth and justice, upon life and death, <b>except in rare moments of boredom, usually in the bar of an airport, but always in the form of a casual daydream, never allowing himself to be affected by doubt."</b>
I read this as, while Bond does at times reflect on 'moments of doubt,' he does not fall deep enough into it to compromise his sense of duty. Bond has removed himself enough from that psychology so that it does not affect his work. I think this sense of transcendance of the character out of constant internal turmoil as it affects decisions, does embody the essense and appeal of the Bond character.
Here is a link to that passage:
<url>https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/download/attachments/82486953/eWriting_eco_narrativeStructures.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1328107382000</url>;
I suppose that answers my concerns about Eco's judgement. I can agree with this version much more readily. I'd only add that these rare or not so rare moments - that evidently are without consequence - still pose an important element in Bond, setting him apart from a lot of other heroes.
You're welcome!
Indeed...those moments show a human element of the character, but they are also important, because Bond shows a true strength of character by being able to carry himself without those thoughts having an overriding influence.
Just my thoughts. The very existence of these ideas shows the character goes beyond a flat and ultimately boring hero, too unscrupulous, too firm and too super-human to invite identification. By mixing in the odd element of pseudo-weakness the fact Bond keeps calm and carries on becomes even more impressive.
I think the character Fleming envisioned would be a dull individual. Face it he was damned good at his job but he would not be a charasmatic individual. I've known folks who people love to flock to and run after. Men and women want to be their friends. (Joe Namath and many pro atheleths seem to have cornered the market on this. Most come from humble beginnings but they seem to have a way about themselves. )
A civil servant who spies, and kills would not want to be the type of guy who would carry such magnetism and attract attention to themselves. Bond would have very few friends and chefs, hotel managers, restaurant maitre 'd's would love the business but tolerate his "lack of charm."
If you were a woman and met him you might find him exciting, charming and interesting. If you were a man, probably just relatively interesting. Well, atleast I would. He would shed light on a few topics that I'm not particularly educated in.
Regarding the Eco essay, I don't agree that Bond becomes quite as much a machine following CR as Eco claims. Of course Fleming doesn't dwell on the psychology either. I wish there was slightly more. This is partly why I love Pearson's Bond biography.