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
I wonder if anyone has David Niven as their first Bond.
NOTE: We will do both topics, but first one is:
Why do you think Bond is still relevant? (or not)
Have at it, Originals and nonOriginals! B-)
I have seen a Connery movie in its release year at the cinema. Never Say Never Again.
Again, this is the "home" on this forum for Originals - but we want all members, nonOriginals also, to participate. Thanks. :)
;)
I must get ready for work; I shall return ... ;)
Think of it as visiting an Old Folks Home.
Title changed as per request. ;)
The Cold War, terrorism, corporal exploitation, ... in some sense, with the rising complexity in the nature of the evil, Bond grows even more essential.
Not an original, just wanted to give my two cents. :)
I find this to be a fascinating question, because Bond is relevant in so many ways, whether its in film, literature or culturally as an icon of a nation.
When you think of cinematic or literary archetypes, a lot of titles or types come to mind. You've got the gallant knight of medieval works, musketeers, swashbucklers, detectives, femme fatales, cowboys, lovable rogues and scores of other recognizable and iconic character types. Then, in amongst all those archetypes, is the spy. Some would say that outside of prostitution, spying is the oldest profession around, as, from the beginning of time, everyone was due to get into each other's business, and use secrecy and subterfuge in their interactions amongst each other.
Out of all these archetypes, the spy is one of the most unique, as it has a singular face to it that is instantly definable. With detectives, you could name scores of great characters like Sherlock Holmes (probably the "king" of the genre), Sam Spade or Phillip Marlowe, just as you could repeat the same exercise with lovable rogues, pirates and knights. But with characters like spies, there's really only one name that dominates the term. When someone says "spy," it's almost impossible-if you are a cultured individual-not to be struck with the image of a cruel man with crueler features slipping from shadow to shadow being the fly on the wall and killing-if necessary-without causing notice, in a sharp suit and getting away in a sharper car. They picture a man who dresses well, commands a room, and is familiar with the finer things in life, like the best foods and drinks on offer. He's a man all the boys try to be in style and class, and for many women, he is the dominant fantasy. Naturally, this person everyone thinks of is James Bond.
When it comes to just cinematic icons alone, Bond has always been in the top of the ranks since Dr. No carried into Goldfinger and Thunderball, after which point the character became the center of a phenomenon that hasn't exhausted itself yet, over 50 years on. But examining Bond as a cultural icon may provide the strongest data for why he is still around and still relevant to this day.
As we know, there was a time when Bond as a character was attached almost inseparably to the Cold War, and the fears of that period in our world history. From the 60s to the 80s we saw Bond face Russian foes over and over, whether it was the SMERSH of Fleming's books before the films came about or the likes of SPECTRE and its Russian allies, or Gogol and his. In that time, Russian intelligence, represented by the acronym of the KGB, became the ominous and powerful image it still remains in some ways today, but in that day especially, it painted a dangerous world of spying and double agents that fiction has latched on to ever since. For decades Bond was seen brushing shoulders with Russians and became identified more and more as a Cold War character, as that was the climate he was born into and the only one he and the audiences had known. However, when the late 80s came and the Berlin Wall fell, giving rise to the end of the Cold War, it was only inevitable that as the 90s came into life, Bond's own relevancy was questioned. Just how could a character who had seen such an existence over such a specific climate in the spy wars of the west vs. the Russians just move on past that conflict's end as if nothing had changed? At the time, it wasn't uncommon for commentators to think that with the Cold War's demise, so too came the demise of Fleming's character.
Thankfully of course, since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, we've seen just how versatile and relevant Bond can be, even outside the period that gave birth and significance to his character and his world. We've seen since the late 80s that Bond isn't a character who can only be used in that context of history. It's become more and more apparent over time that he is a man who can be used on the screen and on the page to challenge and question the values of our changing days in modern times, and can be used to face any of the threats that endanger our world as it develops further away from the 60s. And this is because Bond's relevancy as a character comes with the fact of who he is, what identity is attached to him. In a world that only increases in danger and technological advancement, spies are no doubt needed to cast the veil off the secrets a vile group are hoping to conceal to perpetuate their schemes.
Through films like GE, TND, CR, QoS, SF and SP that have risen to creation from the rubble of the Cold War in Bond's cinematic history, we've seen the series comment on the other threats that have faced the world and Bond's home nation outside of that tense period between the west and the Ruskies. TND examined the power of media, and how figures in press can manipulate the world populace with only headlines. CR showed the complications created by the funding of terrorism in a post-9/11 world. QoS explored the faux politics of our current time, with Greene representing the officials we see all the time who pretend to stand for progress, but in secret, scheme for their own interests. And in SF and SP, we've seen the power and danger of technology as our greatest enemies can be only a person with a keyboard, and how surveillance can be just as destructive to personal freedoms as it can be a great force of security.
Bond works perfectly when his character and his traits are overlaid over these more modern day concerns. It could even be argued that Bond has only gotten more relevant as modernity chugs along, and that is all down to Bond being a classic traditionalist caught in an ever-increasing age of advancement that is steadily moving past his values and the world he was born into. Bond becomes even more powerful and relevant as a character when his traditional ideals and values clash with the ever-changing tenets of the modern age, where less focus is placed on face to face conflict, and much more on indirect warfare with drones or computer systems. Bond is such a fascinating character to watch in SF and SP because those films are so heavily focused on those who are manipulating the advancements of the age, and those technological and modern tools contrast heavily with a man like Bond who favors looking his enemies in the eye, and likes being on the front lines with just his gun and his wits. SF is perhaps the best example of just how different and separated Bond has become from our age, as the film represents so well where we're at now, and questions the role men like Bond have in a world where so little of our conflicts are fought with tangible human beings as militaristic duties are outsourced to man-controlled drones.
So, as a cultural hero, Bond is the rusty cog in the machine that finds itself hard-tasked to work within the entire mechanism. His personal tenets collide so heavily with the way his world is moving that he often feels like a lone ranger braving the prairies in his lonesome, doing the best he can to face a world that holds little respect for his antiquated ways.
As a great contrarian, Bond has and still remains a cultural icon of Britain, representing in his character a suitably "British" sensibility of keeping to a stiff upper lip and calm demeanor through chaos, sporting a stubborn determination to never give up best exemplified by the image of a bulldog, and carrying a gentlemanly disposition in his dress and even in his interactions with his greatest of enemies. The truth is that, for all the spy characters out there, none of them are Bond. None of them command a room like him, none of them face danger with his brass set of cojones and biting unflappability, and none of them can dare to enjoy a five-star dinner with accompanying wines with their enemy before facing them to the death. When people say "nobody does it like him" in relation to Bond, there are absolutely on the money.
Bond is a rare character with a perfect mix of class, traditionalism, style, eloquence, danger, brutality and mystery that still remains a figure of great wonderment to the public to this day. Most interesting is that it seems like the more we know of Bond, the more he perplexes us. He remains a fascinating character because we can't exactly pin down just what drove him to be the man he is. Did he rise to his position of service in an effort to find a new identity after he had been orphaned? Was he simply motivated to serve by a world he saw as cruel, where a select set of men were needed to do what others could not for their nation, and make the fierce and fast calls that could change relations between nations at the drop of a hat? At times, it's hard to know just what drives Bond, but that's what his greatest appeal is. For as much of an impenetrable, deeply-shelled man as he is, we still keep our faith with him and count on him to do what no other agent could. In a world of increasing danger, with rampant terrorism, sabotage through hacking and a fresh set of faceless enemies rising up to disrupt the nations of the world, it's hard not to hope in our heart of hearts that people like Bond are out there to keep us safe. People who are able to meet the death-dealers and sadistic schemers of our day with a steely gaze and ready resources, delivering the cold words of, "I dare you" in the face of certain death.
For all these reasons and more, Bond is and always will be a relevant character, because the man he is always contrasts compellingly against our world, no matter how much it progresses or regresses from his dreams for it. No matter how hard it gets, it's nice to know that Bond will always be out there standing up for us and guarding the realm, as stubborn as the bulldog M gifted him in her will.
He is the first spy who made that job cool and glamouros and is franchise which reunites the whole family giving something different to everyone:Romance, action, twists, eye candy and great gadgets
Cheers, my Bond brother. :)>-
I think one of the reasons that Bond remains a fascinating character is because of the contradictions inherent in him. He's a sinner on the side of the saints, a killer whose main interests lie in enjoying life.
One day? Been there, done that: Wore a space suit in Moonraker, drove a Moon buggy in Diamonds Are Forever.
Great points, @BeatlesSansEarmuffs. I'll add "half monk, half hitman" for good measure. ;)
I agree with what all of you are saying. There are a lot of very good, insightful comments above. I appreciate the quality of posts on this thread - all along, since its inception - and right now you are bringing it: the good stuff. Keep it coming!
A few mentions, but honestly every sentence written on this topic so far is worth taking note of.
@BeatlesSansEarmuffs, good point about EON changing things with the times, keeping Bond fresh and relevant in that way.
@Szonana and @jake24, a big YES. It really is a franchise that unites the whole family. Love of James Bond gets passed down from generation to generation within families, not just the broad popular culture. It added real glamour to the mix from the start (the globe trotting aspect alone is enticing and part of Bond's appeal).
@chrisisall, yes "rugged individualism" covers a lot of ground and is a big part of Bond's appeal. That is appreciated universally, surely.
@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7... First, thank you for all of that. Second, I sincerely hope you write a book on Bond some day (even if just your essays). Not kidding. I will be first to buy it. Third, this little gem of yours: When people say "nobody does it like him" in relation to Bond, there are absolutely on the money. All you said is spot on; this one sentence simply says a lot. It's true, in so many ways.
And @Thunderfinger - good point about nothing new in last few decades. Bond will endure as a real part of our culture. Oh, and this thread is the Older Fans Home (you misspelled the middle word in your description). Like fine wine, we mature in the best Bondian ways here. ;)
More please, everyone ~ :>
Gee, I wonder why I feel an affinity for Fleming's character...?
But, that has always been the case, as it is with James.
:))
I’ve owed you all this, my final review of the Fleming novels, for a few months now. Maybe I’ve just had too many other things on my plate to get to this…or maybe I’ve been putting it off for a variety of reasons. At base, I think I’ve been putting it off because I really like Ian Fleming’s writing…but this, the final Bond novel written by the ailing Ian Fleming, really isn’t very good. Fleming himself wasn’t very happy with the work, but his editors insisted it was of sufficient quality to merit publication. I suspect they were reticent to see the 007 gravy train come to the end of the line. At any rate, the book saw print, although Fleming himself didn’t live to do the final polish on the manuscript.
The novel begins very promisingly, with a missing-believed-dead (after the events of YOLT the novel) man who claims to be James Bond showing up in England demanding an audience with his boss, M. He is positively identified as the missing Bond…but something about him isn’t quite right. After passing through the human guardians of the gate, Bond is granted his audience with his superior -- and the brainwashed 00 agent promptly attempts to assassinate M! The assassination is foiled, Bond is subjected to a thorough mental scrubbing -- and as penance for his misdeeds, is assigned to kill the nearly legendary Francisco (“Pistols”) Scaramanga, aka “The Man With The Golden Gun.”
This segment and the following dossier on Scaramanga, which the reader is privileged to read “over M’s shoulder,” are fully up to Fleming’s standards. Much of what follows is not. Too much of it, in fact, is copied from earlier novels: Scaramanga meets Bond at a home of ill repute in Jamaica & decides to hire him as his assistant (as did Goldfinger in the novel of that name,) Scarmanga shows off his marksmanship by shooting a couple of innocent birds (see the similar scene in Live And Let Die,) Bond finds Felix Leiter and his one-time secretary Mary Goodnight also, coincidentally, involved in the case. Scaramanga requires Bond’s help during a “hood’s convention” (see also Goldfinger) at a hotel-under-construction…following which, Bond is subjected to an excursion on a railroad train in which everybody acts like cowboys with Bond as the targeted redskin, not unlike a similar sequence in Diamonds Are Forever. Not to put too fine of a point on it: Fleming seems to be without any original ideas for this novel, so instead he is reduced to mining past works for material that can be reused. Scaramango is even known to have destroyed a British agent by shooting both his knees, then forcing him to crawl across the floor to kiss his foot in a manner that would have done “Red” Grant proud. The recounting of this particular past episode is particularly clumsily done: Scaramanga’s dossier, read by M at the beginning of the novel, states only that he “is responsible…for the maiming and subsequent retirement from the SS, of 098, Area Inspection Officer, by bullet wounds in both knees.” It is only much later in the book that the reader learns the full story, as Bond confronts the wounded Scaramanga: “You put a shot through both of his knees and both of his elbows. Then you made him crawl and kiss your boots. You were foolish enough to boast about it to your friends in Cuba. It got back to us.” My friends, I’m sorry to have to say it, but this is weak writing. It wastes a potentially powerful episode fruitlessly. The comic strip adaptation of TMWTGG makes much better use of the same episode by having the Bond-on-the-mend from early in the tale meet up with the ruined 098 in the hospital. The shattered agent is persuaded to tell Bond his story, and his sad tale gives the still-recovering Bond the necessary determination to take on Scaramanga -- in the newspaper comic strip adaptation. I feel this to be a far superior use of the same material. Clearly, Fleming is not giving us his best work in this, his final novel.
The final few chapters, in fact, don’t even read like Fleming at all. Fleming’s endings often seem to be slap-dash affairs, as if he can’t be done with the book fast enough. This time around, the last few chapters take their good time at wrapping up all the loose ends of the tale. Bond is offered a knighthood for his services to queen and country, but turns it down because he’ll always think of himself as a Scottish peasant...with a license to kill and a new girl in his bed at the end of every adventure. It’s almost as if Fleming (or most likely, his editors) felt the need to straighten up his toys and put them safely back in the box for someone else to use them now that he’s done with them. James Bond will return, even though his creator is no longer able to continue his adventures. The King is dead; long live the King.
Anyway, Bond is just as relevant an adventure hero as he's ever been. Whether or not he was relevant to the real world wasnt part of his appeal in the 60s, and I don't find it an interesting question for the films to ask now.
If this wasn't the case, historians would be out of a job because their birth in our contemporary times would disqualify them from writing about anything predating the 20th century, and certainly anything in ancient times.