James Bond as a study in postmodernism

Aziz_Fekkesh

Ok not really sure where I'm going with this but bear with me.

I'll start by posting a link explaining kind of what postmodernism is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

I'd like to argue that there have always been elements of a postmodern nature throughout the series, whether it be to toot its own horn or throw in a reference every once in a while. OHMSS is clearly trying to tie itself in with the previous five films and therefore has lots of wink and nudge moments (titles, Bond's office, whistling GF, "other fella", etc.). TSWLM and TLD, for their part, are both trying to recapture either an escapist or more down to earth approach while remaining for the most part original and not referencing the past films (besides Tracy). But these films (FYEO as well) aren't really mentioning past films so much as trying to emulate a certain style, which is a tactic that postmodernism does.

With GE, we get a film that is painfully aware that it's supposed to be a Bond film (coming off of a six-year gap) and every conceivable trope is there, being shoved in our faces. Now we come to the last decade of films, and every one of them is riffing on the past: DAD is a celebration film with a reference to every previous film, CR is a reinvention of Bond (complete with the DB5, gambling, origin of martini, origin of his introduction, story of the first novel, etc.), QoS is full of homages to GF and TSWLM, and SF acts a tribute to 50 years of the character (not as obvious as DAD but very much about the past of the series as of its main character).

I guess I'm rambling here but my main point is that the series is constantly trying to tie itself together and most of the films follow a "formula" by trying to relate the current film to a past one. What are the forum's opinions on this? References are fine time to time, but does the series need a gold--err--oily girl (or something to that effect) in every film?

Volante

Not exactly sure how references to previous films within a series of films is post modernism. I think because it is a series the 'emulating a style'/references isn't as significant with regards to post modernism. But that was an interesting read.

In answer to your question, no I don't think there should be a golden or oily girl in every film. References are all well and good, but there's a point where it's too much (DAD, oily girl).

chrisisall

Interesting.
IMO, the majority of what can be described as postmodern is simply "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
A minority of it is actually a reaction to assumed understanding.
Regarding the topic, LTK was truly postmodern, and was widely trashed for it.

0013

An intertext doesn't make a book or a movie postmodern itself. Is like saying that Don Quixote is postmodern because quotes the Amadis the Gaula.
Austin Powers is closer to be postmodern than any movie of Bond with a reference to a previous one.

echo

I'd argue that winking references to previous Bond films is limited to OHMSS and DAF ("My God, you just killed James Bond!") until the explosion in the '90s' films ("sexist, misogynist dinosaur," et al). The Tracy references are different--an attempt at maintaining character continuity.

chrisisall

I *hate* winking... :-q

thelordflasheart

I agree with all above who said that a lot of the "references" are simply sticking to the formula. The few times that references are there for references sake they can be good (SF, GE) or awkward and forced (OHMSS, DAD).

I liked the references in SF as they were mostly very subtle, and I loved the references in GE as they signified that "classic" Bond was back (after the 6 year gap and the atypical LTK). However, what was good in GE became box-ticking in the rest of Brosnan's films. I can't blame the makers of the films too much; after LTK's poor box office and then the gap I understand why they wanted to make sure they gave the audience a "Bond film" for a few films just to re-establish the brand...as I said in another thread younger people today don't realize that a lot of us thought that the series was over after LTK and there was a HUGE amount riding on GE. As inconceivable as it sounds now many people thought Bond's time had passed.

chrisisall

thelordflasheart wrote:

As inconceivable as it sounds now many people thought Bond's time had passed.

Yep! And GE absolutely FREAKED me!

Baltimore_007

Goldeneye did indeed reinvigorate the series after a six year absence, and it was a huge success, but still pleased that Brosnan got the job and did very well, rather than have Dalton back where he just may have embarrassed himself by that stage as I think his Bond time had passed by then

You'll invariably notice that past Bond references are more prominent in the anniversary releases, Die Another Day being chief suspect, although I didn't quite catch so many this time around for the latest release. May be due another watch of course

Aziz_Fekkesh

Very interesting how SP goes for even MORE homages and references. In regards to my OP, I think SP is by far the most self aware and "postmodern" (whatever that means) Bond film yet. I think it would be a serious mistake to continue going on in this vein, in addition to the personal issues and trying to tie everything together. B25 should just be Bond going after and destroying SPECTRE and Blofeld once and for all. Cubby knew that Bond didn't need Blofeld to survive and thrive and that was 1981.