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
Lets not forget Bond's /Craig's invincibility. I take issue with this in two of his three films. CR and SF. Not so much CR but SF leaves me thinking: "Aw Come On!" No one could have survived that "take the bloody shot!" Hit in the upper torso by a high velocity copper jacketed bullet. Then fall like about two hundred feet into water and lives to talk about it. You kidding me?
Craig takes a lot of punishment (like Dalton) and he gets bruised and battered and bloody but none of Dalton's injuries were what one could call life threatening but Craig seems to cheat death a few times too many.
Plus, there's been more unrealistic survival scenarios than SF.
I think Bond's character is all about cheating death; it's just that the Craig ones are more direct. What did you think was too "invincible" in CR?
That being said, we have to suspend belief when watching Bond (and other films) it's just that it seems so much more obvious with Criag's death defying antics.
Well, the stuntman did...
Moving on to our next topic, I have two I'd like you to consider: :-B
M - Comparison of the character of M through all the Bond films (and compared to the novels, too)
Cinematography - A look at the role of the cinematographer in all the Bond films: the good, the bad, the ugly, the money spent well or misused, locations underused, our favorite and least favorite cinematographers, our favorite scenes strictly looking at the cinematography involved in those scenes (not favorites for other reasons).
Please let me know which you'd like to talk about next. If you have another suggestion for a topic, please let me know today or tomorrow at the latest as we will be moving on soon.
Personally, I'm in the mood to discuss cinematography. But I'd like to hear from you all about topics. Thanks!
Cheers!
:)>-
OKay, one vote for a discussion on M. :)
M or cinematography? Why are we thinking "OR" here? "The more the merrier" can apply to topics as well as people!
If more people would really like two topics at one time, please do let me know. It isn't something I've considered before. I think there always should be parameters and a main focus, hence one topic. Often one topic will lead to a natural digression within that topic.
But I'll consider two at one time if others think that is a great idea. But even so, that may be an exception. We shall see.
Pax :))
Let's talk about M.
I was hurriedly wanting to just put the peace sign emoticon in again.
Not the laughing face. Sorry! But I cannot change it till this glitch goes away (it comes and goes).
Although you may think of it as me laughing at myself because I do use the peace sign a lot ... :)>-
2 for cinematography
:)
M is fine with me. But others may vote during this time, too. I'd like to hear from a few more people.
I'll make the switch to the topic this evening. :)
You can have your say about anything you like concerning this character.
~ Do you feel the M from the novels has ever been accurately portrayed?
~ Do you have strong ideas about who in real life Fleming based M on?
~ Which actor who portrayed M is your favorite, and why?
~ Do you want to see more of M in a Bond film? How much does M matter, anyway? With Fiennes on board, it seems likely that the character will get more time on screen, continuing the broadening of the role brought on with Judi Dench's M in Goldeneye. After all he or she is the boss, but basically M could just give Bond his assignment, snap at Moneypenny, and then disappear for the rest of the film. Has this character grown in any actual importance?
To paraphrase from Michael Caine's Alfie: M: What's it all about? :>
Bond's boss, the mysteriously named "M", as in the Ian Fleming novels, continuation novels, and portrayed in the films by:
Bernard Lee (1962–1979)
Robert Brown (1983–1989)
Judi Dench (1995–2012)
Ralph Fiennes (2012–)
Feel free to jump in any time with any observations about this character, say whatever you'd like. But to start us off, I am going to share some background info about the character of M. I've taken a few different sources from the internet. Some of this may be familiar to you, some perhaps new tidbits. Here we go ~~ ~
B-)
* Who was M based on? Who influenced Fleming's writing of this character?
It is said that Fleming based much of M's character on Rear Admiral John Godfrey, who was Fleming's superior at the Naval Intelligence Division during the Second World War. After Fleming's death, Godfrey complained "He turned me into that unsavoury character, M."
Other possible inspirations include Lieutenant Colonel Sir Claude Dansey, deputy head of MI6 and head of the wartime Z network, who achieved different interpretations of his character from those who knew him: Malcolm Muggeridge thought him "the only professional in MI6", whilst Hugh Trevor-Roper considered Dansey to be "an utter shit, corrupt, incompetent, but with a certain low cunning".
A further inspiration for M was Maxwell Knight, head of MI5, who signed his memos as "M" and whom Fleming knew well. The tradition of the head of MI6 signing their name with a single letter came from Mansfield Smith-Cumming, who would sign his initial "C" with green ink.
Undoubtedly, there may have been other influences as well.
* M in the Fleming novels
Fleming's third Bond novel, Moonraker, establishes M's initials as "M**** M*******" and his first name is subsequently revealed to be Miles. In the final novel of the series, The Man with the Golden Gun, M's full identity is revealed as Vice Admiral Sir Miles Messervy KCMG. Messervy had been appointed to head of MI6 after his predecessor had been assassinated at his desk.
A naval theme runs throughout Fleming's description of M and his surroundings, and his character was described by journalist and Bond scholar Ben Macintyre as "every inch the naval martinet". Macintyre also notes that in his study of Fleming's work, Kingsley Amis outlined the way Fleming had described M's voice, being: angry (three times); brutal, cold (seven times); curt, dry (five times); gruff (seven times); stern, testy (five times).
Over the course of twelve novels and two collections of short stories, Fleming provided a number of details relating to M's background and character. In On Her Majesty's Secret Service it is revealed that M's pay as head of the Secret Service is £6,500 a year, (£115,244 in 2014 pounds) £1,500 of which comes from retired naval pay. Although his pay is good for the 1950s and 1960s, it is never explained how M received or can afford his membership at Blades, an upscale private club for gentlemen he frequents in London to gamble and dine. Blades has a restricted membership of only 200 gentlemen and all must be able to show £100,000 (£1,772,987 in 2014 pounds) in cash or gilt-edged securities. Kingsley Amis noted in his study, The James Bond Dossier, that on M's salary his membership of the club would have been puzzling. As a personal favour to M, the staff at Blades keeps a supply of cheap red wine from Algeria on hand but does not include it on the wine list. M refers to it as "Infuriator" and tends only to drink it in moderate quantities unless he is in a very bad mood.
*M in the continuation novels
In the first post-Fleming book, Colonel Sun, M is kidnapped from Quarterdeck, his home, and Bond goes to great lengths to rescue him. The later continuation books, written by John Gardner, retain Sir Miles Messervy as M, who protects Bond from the new, less aggressive climate in the Secret Service, saying that at some point Britain will need "a blunt instrument". In Gardner's final novel, COLD, M is kidnapped and rescued by Bond and finishes the book by retiring from MI6. Continuation Bond author Raymond Benson's 1998 novel The Facts of Death continued Messervy's retirement, where he still resides in Quarterdeck. The book also introduces a new M, Barbara Mawdsley.
~ ~ ~
That's all for today. A look at M as described in the novels, with speculation as to Fleming's influences as he wrote the character. Any additional info you may have is very welcome! As are all your comments. You can delve right into discussing your favorite film Ms, or M in any of the books. I just wanted to get us some background as we spend the next week discussing this steady supporting character in the world of James Bond: M.
Cheers!
Robert Brown didn't make much of an impression on me -- EXCEPT for his reaction to Dalton/Bond's attempted resignation in LTK. "...not a country club" indeed! Brown definitely rose to the challenge with that one!
Judi Dench's M always struck me as being more appropriate for Brosnan's Bond than for Craig's. Their first conversation in GE provided a perfect intro for both interpretations of their respective characters: Brosnan's Bond had a "boyish charm" and Dench was the impatient mother to his irrepressible child. Craig never seemed to have need of the mother figure that Dench's M was intent on being. She definitely got to be too constant a presence in her last few films, eagerly using frequent flyer miles to show up wherever in the world Bond might be this week. By the time of her swan song in Skyfall I appreciated her talent, but was happy to see a new actor in the role of M.
Which brings us to Ralph Fiennes. It seems like he an Craig complement each other nicely...I just hope he doesn't show up all over the world chasing after Bond the way Dench did. I understand that when you've got an actor of his (and her) caliber you really need to take advantage of their talents...but isn't there some way Fiennes can show off his abilities without leaving London?
I like Bernard Lee as M, and I feel he did fine with quite limited screen time.
When I think of M, I think of him and Judi's portryal. Robert Brown was okay, just not particularly memorable for me (but then he was not in the role very long).
My favorite M is Judi Dench. But it is easy for that appreciation because:
a) She had far more lines than Lee, thereby giving us a fuller characterization and was given an increasingly stronger role in the story.
b) She is a very talented actress and I think she did a stellar job with portraying M, not the least of which was in Skyfall.
I like Bernard Lee's portrayal because it is succinct, dour at times, strict, grumpy at times, a tad bit of humor - and he was able to portray someone with a position of power and also the weight of stress on his shoulders a bit, all within what was a small amount of time on screen. I like his chemistry with all of the actors. He was a steady compass in Bond's world. We came to expect him to be there, along with Moneypenny and Q. It felt right.
I enjoy Judi Dench's portrayal the best, first because of the force of her personality (her intelligence and wit shine through) and her acting chops. I like her M because the role was expanded in a good way, and most especially the beginning introduction of her in Goldeneye. That intro was sparkling, very well written. Her entire role in Goldeneye is very fine and she and Brosnan has great chemistry. I enjoy her M best in Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, and Skyfall. She was okay in DAD, also. However, I do feel that she had fine chemistry with Daniel Craig, too. I never minded her being in the films more, her role expanded. That was interesting for me and made for great scenes with her and Bond (both Bonds).
I simply felt annoyance with the script at times when she would do something I felt was patently stupid (TWINE) or just not valid for her character (going to Bond's location in QOS). Many people felt keenly the "mothering" aspect of her character; I really did not. A story, especially on screen, needs conflict. Her position was one of conflict as well as support for Bond and in the Brosnan and Craig years the role of M was expanded, and therefore we naturally had more conflict between them. Skyfall, as Judi's final film, was excellent and a great way to round out her M's story.
There are some scenes with Judi's M that I will always remember. I can easily think of two scenes I love with her and Craig, both in Skyfall: When Bond breaks into her home, looking worse for wear and letting her know that he is back (great dialog and acting by both), and another definitely being Judi's reading of Tennyson in the government chambers as Bond runs to try to prevent Silva's attack. Judi and Pierce had a sublime introduction and wonderful chemistry, but I also feel she had very fine chemistry with Daniel Craig. We were very fortunate indeed to have had Judi Dench's M for that many years.
Now we are moving into the Ralph Fiennes era. I do believe we will learn more about his background; perhaps in a variety of ways. It could be with M meeting up with old enemies or old friends, it could be in a brief flashback, or just exposition as he opens up a bit in a private conversation. But this new M is seemingly a multi-faceted character - and being played by a very good and renown actor, I doubt he comes cheaply - so I do not expect in any way for his role to go back to being the smaller, somewhat curt boss handing Bond his assignment. I'm fine with that. I want the films to grow. If they all followed the exact same template, the series would have died by now.
This new M can have plenty to do in London, as you put it Beatles, and if he ventures afield I hope the powers that be at least make it be reasonable to the story. Bernard Lee's M would show up in "temporary or well hidden" digs in the older Bond film (Egypt; submarine, etc.) which was rather amusing. With the Craig films more grounded in realism, I don't expect M to pop out of a tent in the desert, smoking a pipe ... but I want a better reason for him to be in the field, not just "checking" on Bond, or following a misguided emotion that may lead him to being kidnapped (oh, I get annoyed at a few things in TWINE). The writing is so important. They have a fine actor in the role, taking over from another fine actor. They have given him a slight background story already, and I am as curious as anyone to see what Bond 24 will give us with M. It could be great, good, or oh no ... but I am thinking it should be at least good. We shall see!
I like that the characters in Bond's world have continued: M, Q, Moneypenny, Tanner, Leiter.
So let's hear from some more of you. Please share your thoughts on the character of M.
Cheers! B-)
Brown was a slightly different M but not necessarily better or worse IMO. I find Brown to be a likeable M too. Sadly he got out with the one film in which he accepted Bond's resignation, which leaves many with the impression that he and Bond had a more hostile relationship going. I think that's wrong. These M types tend to be warmed up to Bond in some films and more strict in others. My favourite Brown performance is OP, my least favourite LTK.
Then comes Judy Dench, a polarising M. Some hate the simple fact of a female M, some hate her constant motherly lecturing of Bond, but then many also adore this M. I'm in the latter group. Lee and Brown were fine actors, Dench is a superb actress. It shows. They gave her much more to do in each film compared to Lee and Brown. I'm not saying that what they gave her to do always pleased me. I can tell you right now that TWINE holds up as my least favourite M bit ever. Not because Dench didn't pull it off, but because "M" stood for "MacGuyver" in that film, and that's never a good thing. Surely they did that again, a bit, in SF but at least I feel they did it countless times better. Her personal connection in TWINE is more random, less integral to the villain's plot. But in SF, she takes central focus.
Of course we must first settle another issue. Did Judy Dench play the same M or did she play two different M's? My initial response is that the Brosnan-M and the Craig-M, though played by the same actress, are essentially two different M's. However, besides the obvious physical similarities, I'd say the M persona is somewhat the same too. The difference is that the Brosnan-M understood that she was dealing with a seasoned spy, an agent whose most formative years she had missed. Thus, she could at best try to lecture him out of some isolated, incidental "mistakes". The Craig-M was more Bond's mother. She gave him 00-status, she was there when he committed his very first deed outside the guide book (shooting up an embassy), she felt his talents closer to home (literally at one instance), she herself learned to accept that his volatile actions often induced great results and was never a display of anything other than the purest loyalty to the British empire.
It also helps that Craig and Dench worked splendidly together, but so did Brosnan and Dench. My favourite Dench role remains to this day GE. Those lines were written by a genius. When I first saw that scene, after all those years of the more rigid, old school male M, my eyes opened up as if I was experiencing a caffeine rush. My least favourite, as mentioned previously, is TWINE.
Kudos to Fiennes. My confidence peaks high. We have a great actor with a new and by all means powerful introduction as M. For the first time, the replacement of M was part of the plot, not a necessity after the passing of an actor. Mallory starts off as someone we think we mustn't like, but slowly gains our respect on three occasions: the hearing, the shoot-out after the hearing and the trail of breadcrumbs scene. And since SF set him up in the 'old' offices, I wonder if that's the path we're going to take...
I'm confused about the modern M's. One the one hand, I'd prefer to go back to simpler times, when M didn't have to throw him or herself in the field all the time. Just give Bond his mission from behind the desk and see you next film. On the other hand, the folks at EON have realised that M can be a multidimensional character, complementary to Bond. We saw a lot of Dench in CR and what we saw rocked. I even like what they did with her in QOS. There's something exceptionally efficient about her. I'm not just talking about her confrontation with Bond in the hotel. Think of the smaller scenes. Mitchell's apartment, how she talks to the Americans about Greene, restricting Bond's movements from behind her bathroom mirror... I'd feel pretty safe knowing that this woman leads British intelligence! Perhaps Mallory can be taken back to Fleming. I'd like that. Subtle things like calling Bond "James" when the mission is more like a personal thing for M (think about the novel MR for example). Would they have the guts to go for the glass shield moment from the novel TMWTGG? We'll see. But like I said, I'm confusing myself. Part of me wants things simpler next time: Bond, mission, good luck. The other part of me finds Ralf Fiennes too fine an actor to 'just' stuff away behind a desk. Man, whatever they do with him, I think we haven't seen our last great M performance yet. ;-)
Of course with me being an admirer of Judi's portrayal of M, I'm going to say that I agree with your assessment in general ... but more than just basic agreement, I think you brought up good examples and good questions. I'd like to discuss my take on the new direction of M a bit ...
Where does M go from here?
I think "balance" is a key word for Bond films and it is risky, not easy to get the right balance. Not for humor in Bond films. Not for how much screen time to give supporting characters either. The new Bond film always wants to be different from the previous one and it yearns to be exciting, fun, and make its own mark. It is tempting, perhaps naturally, to want to "top" the last film. And then things can become like Moonraker or DAD. Too overblown, too over the top.
We have a meatier role in M now (since 1995 to present) and with Fiennes I can see them expanding it, yes. However, do I want M involved far too much with the predicaments and solutions that Bond grapples with? No. I still want Bond to be Bond- a highly intelligent, creative, and clever man who can think on his feet, change directions, find a way out of a nearly impossible situation, and complete his mission, not merely survive. I do not mind Q and M and Moneypenny supporting him to a certain extent. I like these actors that we currently have quite a lot, and I do want to see more of each of them in the films. Yet I don't want the balance to go too far with those supporting characters taking up too much time in the field, so to speak, which is Bond's global arena. Some scenes, though, yes. But it all depends ...
So what will the story do? Will they (EON, Mendes, writers; all the combined powers that be) get it right, this balance? The story should serve Bond, not just the director or the popular masses' clamor - and to me, that means the excitement and pleasure we get when watching a fine Bond film is true to that particular story. It is not too outlandish. It is not too grim. It is not like other action films or revenge films. A great Bond film takes us on a journey that is intriguing, exciting, and ultimately satisfying. In the Craig era the films are definitely grounded in reality far more than any other decade, more even that Sean's or Dalton's. That is a good thing, and Craig has also had an arc to his character that has shown his growth as an agent. I believe it is time to lighten up the overall atmosphere of Craig's tenure and give us something slightly different - but not hugely different. I still want Bond to feel, to be unsettled at times, to be fully realized and not overly glib or never make a mistake.
The story, the humor, the interweaving of the supporting characters ... that all takes balance. At the moment, I am glad Logan is not the only writer. And I am still looking forward very optimistically to Bond 24.
With Gareth Mallory, there is so much we can enjoy. Great back story, fine actor, all of those ingredients. Like a fine wine, though, I want this (the new M's role) to be sipped ... given out in small enough doses over the next few films. I want to enjoy watching him unfold more, be involved more, but all serving a good story.
That's my take on the direction of M, where it is now. B-)
To put it succinctly, how big a role do you prefer M to have (and why)? B-)
a) M to be a minor role, the man who is Bond's superior and who gives him his assignments with only perhaps other minor interactions with him, but enough time to show the camaraderie or conflict between them ... (similar in screen time to the Connery/Moore films)
or
b) M to have a stronger supporting role, more dialog and interaction with Bond during the story, not just at the beginning (perhaps as much screen time as Bond would have with Leiter when Leiter is an ongoing ally throughout the film, a la QOS) ...
or
c) M to have a much more involved role and a good deal of screen time, with M at times being more a part of the story, more involved with Bond throughout the film (a la M in Skyfall - or perhaps not quite that central to the story, but more screen time and interaction with Bond than option b) ...
What do you think - which would you prefer?
Unfortunately, I'm still under the impression that we're going to get options B or C when it comes to B24. I'm hoping not, and going off of the vibe the ending to SF gives, I hope it returns to something more traditional and straight-forward, much like the Connery or Moore films. Again, M showing up here and there doesn't hurt anybody, but I don't want him having massive amounts of screentime, either.