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
--
"A hero. Not the hero we deserved, but the hero we needed. Nothing less than a Knight... "
"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now so we'll hunt him because he can take it because he's not a hero he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector a Dark Knight."
--
***Cue Zimmer's kick 'a' score***
I've never seen Bond as the character that Mendes has tried to portray. Those lofty Knight like attributes I reserve for others. Bond is not that type of character in my view. He's not that clean. Not that pure.
I didn't have a problem with all that high mindedness for a patriotic 50th anniversary film, but I look forward with keen interest to a reassessment of approach.
@bondjames, there's plenty of heroes those kinds of traits support, they are around for a reason after all. I think Bond and Batman are impure definitions of knights in different ways, the former being a lustful killer and the latter being a vigilante that vaporizes the bones of his enemies in fights, but both ascribe to some notions of the title. I see this especially with Bond, as there's just more there to support it. He's an Englishmen mounted as a trained killer to hit the battlefield to protect the realm ruled over by his queen. The very obvious overtones of archaic Britishness reflect the royal past of the nation and its connection to horse sat knights.
In many ways the stakes for Bond in the present day wouldn't be too different from what they would be in the medieval period if he were really a knight. SF is essentially the modern day equivalent of a brave knight of the realm running to protect his queen (could be seen as M) as a dangerous enemy cavalry (Silva and his boys) busts their way into their kingdom through Trojan horse tactics to wreak havoc. Knights are very glorified in a symbolic sense and in mythology, but make no mistake, they hacked and slashed to do what must be done to keep their lords and lasses safe, doing what few others could do to sacrifice everything for the survival of their land. The first line of defense, the warriors on foot, trained and ready to face death via and because of their principles. This is very much Bond for me. Even when he's lying with a woman and she gives him a peck goodbye as he's called off to another mission, I feel a symbolic connection is there of a lady giving a piece of her self to a knight as he heads off to battle.
I don't see these elements as being fundamental to Bond. He is a trained killer and MI6 spy. A hard drinker, a womanizer, and a man who enjoys the finer things in life knowing he could be killed at any point. He is a man doing his job, nothing more and nothing less. If he survives, one day he will be a pensioner after he retires. That's enough for me.
It is these relatively new backstory elements (right down to the Wayne Manor style mansion with Alfred like Kincaide and its burning to the ground which reminded me uncomfortably of Batman Begins) which I find a little unnecessary.
Again, it was ok as a one off experiment for the anniversary film but I hope that's where it stops with this character.
@Legionnaire, exemplary stuff. You're not a frequent post here, but every time you do choose to share something it's some of the most articulate and well framed arguments I've read on the internet, period. It's also nice that you see some of the same things I do in these films, but are able to take it a step further with your personal knowledge of the real history behind the fabled knights of glorified myth. It's further a joy to see someone who quite refreshingly thinks Mendes can tell a good story (we seem to be a minority these days). While I see Bond as more of a messenger of death in SP, right down to his disguise in the PTS, and feel his use is more as a priest-like man who sinful people confess to (as White and Madeleine do), I do see the knight overtones there as well. Because SF and SP are so London based, the movies really do become about Bond protecting his kingdom. We see him globe-hopping all around in most films since the 60s, so it's nice to get two films that really root him in his adopted home and give him the symbolism of a knight to connect the vintage and modern themes in the film to the history of a knight and Bond's role as a contemporary offshoot of that. The patriotic feelings of SF and SP only continue to drive the point home, especially the former, which is one long series of nationalistic tributes.
@bondjames, fair points, well argued. I guess I've just never really considered Batman in that way, despite one of his most famous monikers featuring the title of knight. His overtones in character feel more like a feudal ninja to me, in a way, as that feeds directly into his origin and his use of superstition, fear and stealth to get his enemies off balance. The image of a knight feels more apparent with Bond to me, as his nationality connects to the archaic and royal sense of the term knight, whereas Batman has America as his home, which obviously lacks that lineage. One area where I think Batman does feel knight like is his background, though. Just as a noble would be christened a knight, Bruce is very much the noble of Gotham, and in a way, if he were alive in a medieval period in the same circumstances, he could fit the role of a warrior quite well. In a nice spin on the expectation of a knight, however, he chooses to fight from the shadows and prefers to hide his acts rather than go into the light.
I was simply viewing my Bond comparison to knights in the context of Mendes, as both SF and SP are so rooted in London as a place our hero needs to protect that he naturally feels very knight-like. Add in all the patriotic imagery, the notions of Bond serving a "realm," the script's allusions to Arthurian legend through Bond's own "death" in cold water in Turkey, the name of Mallory as his new "king" and references to mythological beasts knights would slay (such as Severine's "Chimera" and how she herself is built as a dragon in the casino scene) and I just sensed a through-line of what those films were trying to say about Bond. It is an interesting examination of Bond for me, and one that felt right when I saw the dots being connected. As I stated above, it was refreshing to have SF and SP really work as London Bond films that took the time to really make our hero feel rooted in them. We see him globe-trotting all the time, but for two movies we get to see him pause in his adopted land and witness the kind of "kingdom" he fights for every time he's abroad facing all the death and danger.
I don't think either Bond or Batman are 100% knights all over, I just feel a greater emphasis on that in the character of the former, not only from a cultural and historical perspective, but also from a sense of character.
It makes some sense I suppose but is also the kind of thing you can project onto a wide range of movie heroes.
Clearly Mendes was profoundly 'influenced' (I think that's the polite way of putting it) by Nolan's TDK, but has Mendes explicitly stated he intended SF to have some chivalrous, knightly Arthurian element. Not sure I fully buy it personally, although I'm happy to be proven wrong.
SF for me is an interesting movie and clearly Mendes put a lot of thought and love into it. I want to like it but the end product just doesn't work for me. Seems I feel the same way about SF that a lot of people now feel about SP.
I'd have to listen to the commentary again to see if Mendes confirms anything. I just comment on the kinds of things I see because of the subjectivity of art, and what I feel backs up the idea of Bond being represented as a knight in these films. Mendes has a great intellect and can use theme beautifully, so I don't think such an overriding presence of various elements are accidental.
However where some, like yourself, may have seen this is as part of the Bond mystique, I saw it as an insertion of elements where none were required or called for. As a 50th anniversary entry, all of this patriotism and allusion to the Middle Ages was perhaps apropos. However, to me the Batman-like aspirations were too evident and again, unnecessary. Moreover, they arguably boxed Mendes in when he returned, where he was forced to try to create some even further resonance in his 2nd kick at the can which fell flat for many.
Ultimately from where I'm sitting, James Bond is a trained loyal killer in her Majesty's employ. He's the best at what he does, but I don't see him in the same heroic sense that I view Batman. The genres are different and the goals for the characters should also be different. When they cross over one must be careful, lest the lines get blurred & the essence of the character is lost.
It's not all about references from recent films we're familiar with or even just Arthurian legend.
Spot on Brady ,my old matey...
@Legionnaire, you do often add an important context to things, as with the above, in addition to your views on Bond, so I think you sell yourself short. I always learn something every time you post, and that is something to be proud of.
One other point, even though real life events/threats are not overtly referenced, the themes of London under threat, the enemy within, individual heroism, the essence of Britishness etc etc show a movie very much in touch with modern issues.
SF has not dated at all re these themes and, if anything, its worth re-watching considering our situation re home grown terror ("our enenemies are no longer known to us, they do not exist on a map, they are not nations, they are individuals...do you see a uniform? a flag? no") and the most recent attacks on London and on our way of life.
Its just a great film and, if it was released this year, would have just as much resonance (may be more) with movie fans.
I doubt it. The horrific tube bombings occurred in 2005, and just seven years later, Bond was enduring the same thing in SF. Granted, not terribly recent, but still a major, impactful event.
I'm sure that's entirely false. Not from the UK myself, but I'd be shocked if there wasn't a single person from the UK who watched SF and didn't recall the terrorist attacks to some degree.
I found the bombs in the tube waggon in Sherlock way more troubling.
Still doesn't negate the fact that it was a terrorist attack on a London tube station.
A 7 years difference and something happening in the same year is very different, however. The films released in the year after 9/11 experienced similar censorship, as they do in the event of major attacks on particular ground. I think the attacks of early 2017 would have to have some effect on a Bond film releasing in the same year that depicted similar things.
I'd hope it wouldn't, but again, we're in the world of mass censorship now. Can't risk offending anyone.
It is different, but the impact isn't taken away. Again, I'm sure there are plenty of people from the UK who saw SF and had that scene invoke some feelings and memories from the 2005 attack. Hell, I still see movies that prominently feature NYC and 9/11 seems to cross my mind each time.
Of course, but a film coming so long after an event like that wouldn't force a studio to alter a film, just like they don't change New York set films now to avoid 9/11 imagery. The time has passed for censorship of art to be impacted in that way, which is about one to three years after an event happens while it's all still fresh. Over time, people are able to settle back and visions aren't affected any longer.