Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
OO7 as Antihero (and what some recent audiences fail to appreciate)
There is a particular thread of criticism that has prevailed, particularly through Daniel Craig's tenure as Bond, and I’d like to address it, give my feelings and hear your thoughts as a community.
It’s the issue of Bond not being a very nice chap, and how audiences are dealing with it.
I’m sure we can agree that the literary character qualifies on some level as an antihero, as he fits certain criteria: owning certain ‘villainous’ qualities such as misogyny, bigotry and cold-bloodedness, and lacking certain heroic traits such as honour and a sense of morality (eg the ends justifying the means), and perhaps even idealism (do we ever find out if he does what he does because he believes in it? Or is it just to avoid boredom?)
After 50 years of the character on our screens, I am glad that we can turn to the most recent film, Skyfall, and see these traits well expressed. His treatment of Severine and sangfroid at her passing is not an enviable characteristic, but it is characteristic of Bond. When viewers complain that the shower scene is “a bit rapey”, they are absolutely correct. The scene should make you feel uncomfortable, as should the barn scene in Goldfinger, and any of the slaps Connery dishes out. However out of step with civilised society Bond is, these are Bond’s ways.
Or at least they used to be.
Under Roger Moore’s tenure Bond became the quintessential English gentleman adventurer in the mould of Buchan’s Richard Hannay, and to some point an extension of Moore himself: a lovely chap whose upstanding we can all rightly admire, romping from one resort to the next. This is not who Bond is. Moore showed flashes of Bond’s brutality, but all too infrequently.
This in turn led to the sanitisation of Bond. Audiences turned on Dalton’s cigarette-smoking revenge killer, and lapped up a decade of Brosnan’s well-coiffed boy scout. The cigarette smoking was phased out with the misogyny and the sadism and Bond became another cardboard cut-out hero, but wearing the dinner jacket almost in parody of himself. Unfortunately for Brosnan, who has shown in 'the Matador' and 'the Tailor of Panama' that he is capable of more complicated personae, this led to a series of staid, formulaic run-throughs with requisite tie-straightenings sprinkled throughout.
In my view the productions starring Craig have done a wonderful job of returning us to the antihero we fell in love with in the first place. Bond gives his name upon arriving at the Casino Royale – he doesn’t care who knows who he is (as is his operational prerogative, he prefers to let the bad guys come to him), but this fault of transparency perpetually puts his colleagues in mortal danger. He is unmoved by Solange’s death, by Severine’s death, they were a means to an end. Slate’s death is often compared with the Bourne films, which is to miss the point – the Bourne films were presenting elements that are present in films like FRWL that had since been forgotten by Eon.
Antiheroes are interesting studies in human nature, and Craig gives us what Lazenby had attempted all those years ago: A killer who is capable of love, but the more he loves, the more he invites death, and the colder and more distant from humanity he becomes.
So to all those who dislike these dirty moments in Bond films, (a) I think that’s perhaps the point, (b) congratulations you are a human being, and (c) you don’t get to decide what the character of James Bond should be, that was the job of a man named Ian Fleming.
It’s the issue of Bond not being a very nice chap, and how audiences are dealing with it.
I’m sure we can agree that the literary character qualifies on some level as an antihero, as he fits certain criteria: owning certain ‘villainous’ qualities such as misogyny, bigotry and cold-bloodedness, and lacking certain heroic traits such as honour and a sense of morality (eg the ends justifying the means), and perhaps even idealism (do we ever find out if he does what he does because he believes in it? Or is it just to avoid boredom?)
After 50 years of the character on our screens, I am glad that we can turn to the most recent film, Skyfall, and see these traits well expressed. His treatment of Severine and sangfroid at her passing is not an enviable characteristic, but it is characteristic of Bond. When viewers complain that the shower scene is “a bit rapey”, they are absolutely correct. The scene should make you feel uncomfortable, as should the barn scene in Goldfinger, and any of the slaps Connery dishes out. However out of step with civilised society Bond is, these are Bond’s ways.
Or at least they used to be.
Under Roger Moore’s tenure Bond became the quintessential English gentleman adventurer in the mould of Buchan’s Richard Hannay, and to some point an extension of Moore himself: a lovely chap whose upstanding we can all rightly admire, romping from one resort to the next. This is not who Bond is. Moore showed flashes of Bond’s brutality, but all too infrequently.
This in turn led to the sanitisation of Bond. Audiences turned on Dalton’s cigarette-smoking revenge killer, and lapped up a decade of Brosnan’s well-coiffed boy scout. The cigarette smoking was phased out with the misogyny and the sadism and Bond became another cardboard cut-out hero, but wearing the dinner jacket almost in parody of himself. Unfortunately for Brosnan, who has shown in 'the Matador' and 'the Tailor of Panama' that he is capable of more complicated personae, this led to a series of staid, formulaic run-throughs with requisite tie-straightenings sprinkled throughout.
In my view the productions starring Craig have done a wonderful job of returning us to the antihero we fell in love with in the first place. Bond gives his name upon arriving at the Casino Royale – he doesn’t care who knows who he is (as is his operational prerogative, he prefers to let the bad guys come to him), but this fault of transparency perpetually puts his colleagues in mortal danger. He is unmoved by Solange’s death, by Severine’s death, they were a means to an end. Slate’s death is often compared with the Bourne films, which is to miss the point – the Bourne films were presenting elements that are present in films like FRWL that had since been forgotten by Eon.
Antiheroes are interesting studies in human nature, and Craig gives us what Lazenby had attempted all those years ago: A killer who is capable of love, but the more he loves, the more he invites death, and the colder and more distant from humanity he becomes.
So to all those who dislike these dirty moments in Bond films, (a) I think that’s perhaps the point, (b) congratulations you are a human being, and (c) you don’t get to decide what the character of James Bond should be, that was the job of a man named Ian Fleming.
^ 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
Now, the world we live in is smaller and increasingly less black and white and having a hero who is morally ambiguous is not only far more interesting but fits well within the sort of world we live in today. There's an honesty and earnestness about the sort of character Bond is and the more flawed he is in conjunction with the heroic feats he pulls off just makes him all the more appealing and underpins why a character like him has survived a cinematic career for over 50 years.
I think the Craig era has done a decent job in making Bond less of the idealistic hero in terms of morality and I think they can go further with it without going overboard. As for the Severing shower scene, I refuse to accept that as rape or anything negative. This has been discussed to death already but I'll say this; Severin put out an invitation to Bond back at the casino. They're both consenting adults irrespective of wet her she was previously a prostitute and when Bond does show up on her yacht, not once does she resist or object to his advances; it's the complete opposite in fact. However, where a case can be made are a few instances in the Conner era but whatever, people today are ironically way too soft, uptight, prudish and hypocritical when it comes to sex.
People need to stop making a big deal about nothing or just go away and watch a pic at movie instead.
I think the shower scene in SF was for a lot of people just a bit weird/creepy, particularly after the discussion about her being a child sex worker. It was not that Bond sleeps with Severine that was weird - of course this is what we expect and are cheering for. We all know (apologies for the un-PC sexism in advance) that nothing is going to cheer her up and heal her psychologically like a night in the sack with Bond - he's basically doing his good deed for the day. It was just the way he arrives in her shower, starkers. We know he's irresistible to all women, but come on, half the fun of Bond is some kind of seduction scene. Any way, this particular scene has been discussed enough.
And even cold-blooded. Please. Fleming to a fault almost, takes pains to portray Bond as anything but cold-blooded. His failure to act, even gets him killed a couple of times, most notably in DN and TMWTGG.
@getafix has a handle on the Severine shower scene. The scene is simply off-putting. It wasn't well conceived. No-one is schocked that he would sleep with her, rather its the transition from revelations of sex-slavery to shower seduction that wasn't as smooth as it could have been. Compare with Fleming's DAF. Bond encounters a similar wounded bird ensnared by crime, in Tiffany Case. Fleming's Bond (the one with no honor of course) is decidedly hands off, until Miss Case warms to his charms, all on her very own. In fact it is qualities of honor and bravery and other good stuff, that ultimately draws her to him.
And if you think the rather lightheated Bond-Pussy movie scene even remotely resembles rape, then you don't know much about rape.
I do agree though that there is a difference between an anti hero and just a plain unlikeable character. Bond is an example of an anti hero done right. He sometimes does questionable stuff and can be pretty cold blooded and sexist but he always has charm and likeability, and he's a good person really. He's caring and he tries to do the right thing.
I think a recent example of an anti hero not done right is the new Doctor Who, who I'm pretty disappointed in. They've tried to make him an anti hero so now he's cold blooded and he kills people and all the rest of it. That's fine, in fact I think it's a good thing (I thought David Tennant and Matt Smith were a bit too light hearted and wimpy at times). But then he's also a grumpy old dickhead. He's mean, inconsiderate, uncaring and hypocritical. He's cold blooded and he does dark stuff (in the first episode of the new series he chucked someone off a roof, sending them falling and impaling them on a church spire) which is cool, but unlike Bond, I don't think he has the likeability to balance it out and make me root for him.
The anti-hero is motivated by selfish intent. Any good he might do is only incidental to looking out for his own hide.
Bond on the other hand exhibits the characteristics of the noble warrior. Bond continually puts himself ahead of others. He is willing to sacrifice for the greater good. He is ready to die for others on numerous occasions in Fleming's books. He has code. He has morality. He has sense of both duty and honor. He is loyal.
Just beause he womanizes and indulges other vices such as booze, tobacco and gambling just makes him human. Just like the rest of us who like to indulge our indulgences.
In fact given his dangerous line of work, facing imminent death, he is understandably more inclined to live a little large. Time may not be on his side.
Fleming did reference Bond as anti-hero occasionally, but understand Fleming lived vicariously through Bond. Fleming like any self aware non-delusional human being, is only too aware of his own shortcomings. Fleming had a degree of healthy humility. He understandably did not want Bond to be romanticized. In fact he dedicated an entire book (or half a book) TSWLM, warning impressionable women about getting mixed up with characters like Bond.
The true hero does not see himself as heroic. That is left for others.The actual hero is only too aware of his own foibles.
Thus Fleming, in true heroic fashion, did not romanticize Bond as hero.
Surely also the anti-hero is somehow detached from the establishment, whereas Bond puts his life on the line defending it.
Edit: I said 'backgammon' but meant 'bridge', sorry
And yet all this we're dealing with a series where the leading actor has been 45, 54 and 58 with his leading ladies being 22, 24 and 30 respectively.
Clearly, this is ultimately a non issue.
Fleming was alcoholic himself, at least towards the end it seems he was.
So call him anti-hero if you want, free world, as he's no boyscout. He frequents brothels too occasionally. But there is no denying his heroic qualities, never mind actions. The anti-hero is only ever a reluctant hero. Bond on the other hand, is motivated by heroic qualities such as honor, duty, morality.
re pussy in the barn.There is nothing even remotely resembling rape going on with Pussy in the barn. An understanding of the male female mating ritual is required I guess. Ergo, Bond and Pussy were flirting since the moment they first met on the plane..
In the barn Bond did what guys do when they see their opportunity with a woman they have been openly and reciprocally flirting with. He attempted to kiss her as conclusion to a friendly fight. His pressing down was consistent with the fighting that they had engaged in. Her initial resistance is also consistent with the fighting. Its also consistent with a natural female tendency to not appear to be too eager. This is the male female dance.
However unlike an actual rape victim, Pussy succumbed and fully engaged the moment. Their seduction ritual had come full circle. They live happily ever after, ie she helps Bond save the gold and put the bastard GF away.
Why does this even need explaining? Its all so obvious. Movie audiences have been enjoying the scene for 50 years.
The Severine scene is off-putting in the way that Bond was portrayed. He seems (operative word being seems), somewhat predatory and insensitve to her revelations of being a sex-slave. I say seems, because we know he isn't a cad. He has plenty of honorable and heroic moments in the film. The scene rather reflects on the schizophrenic and uneven nature of the filmamaking. The most guilty party being Mendes. His Bond is all over the map. But Mendes was trying to use the Bond palate to create some character-driven dramatic masterpiece.
Fleming's Bond as we saw in DAF, was hands-off Tiffany Case because of her rape history. She eventually came to him. Craig's Bond is not as chivalrous.
Personally I wouldn't make a move on a woman like Severine either. I think most guys of honorable intentions, would be inclined to take the Fleming Tiffany Case approach, until such time as it was apparent that she really "wanted it" and in a genuine way, "as opposed to an "I think I have to" way, to keep this guy.
The Severine scene would have worked much better (a little Bond filmaking lesson for Mendes here. No charge) if it had been presented thusly.
We know she is ready to sleep with him. She literally has the table set.
Bond could have arrived, quickly sized up the scene and done the chivalrous thing, which would have been to wait for her to emerge from the shower. He knows he's in like flint anyway, there is no rush.
She emerges with towel or nighty or something. A little gasp, when she sees him.
Fan boys and girls move to the edge of their seat.
Witty seductive repartee follows. They come together, and we have another great Bond love moment.
Simple. Everyone's happy including Severine. :x For Bond, all in a days work.
This is still kind of cheesy. In an ideal world he bides his time as Flemings Bond did with Tiffany, but this is filmmaking. Things have to move a little faster.
The problem though is Mendes. The whole tone of this movie is wildly uneven.
Oddly as a film, it all manages to hang together, despite being a big jumbled mess.
But the movie truly is the sum of its parts. IMHO of course.
If there is one thing worse than someone who has never read any Fleming it's someone who only has the most superficial knowledge of Fleming trying to speak on topics such as this.
That might be right, but we don't know for sure..
Oh really? I did'nt know that. :)
Second this sooo much! When I read the OP I was afraid I had to do some lengthy typing on my IPad (which indeed is not one of my strong suits).
Thanks a lot @timmer! I mean it!!
... and surely the only thing worse than that is someone who has read Fleming and holds a different opinion.
Also if (and that's a big if) you have really read your Fleming you might as well read the last two or three pages of CR. You will find just about everything about Bonds motivation you need to know.
Very interesting, particularly on how Mendes has managed to make a huge commercial hit out of what I agree is at heart a 'wildly uneven' and 'jumbled mess'. I guess he has gone for the broad brush-strokes, impressionistic approach, capturing overall mood and themes and for many people that really worked well.
I get the sense with the Severine shower scene (as with quite a lot of other parts of the film - particularly those bits involving Severine) that there is material that has been cut and the whole thing has been really drastically edited. I always had the sense from first watching the film that Mendes was not keen on Marlohe's performance and cut a lot of her out. When you boil it down, she really only has one proper scene in the whole film - the casino.
And yet worse than even that is someone who insinuates they have read Fleming yet chooses to draw these conclusions:
The last page of MR tells you all you need to know about the character of James Bond. Possibly the most poignant moment Fleming wrote.
This is a man who is alone, who can never have a normal life, never have a wife waiting for him at home, never spend some carefree spade and bucket days with his children on the beach.
A man who has sacrificed any hope of normality and part of his soul to do some awful things to protect the rest of us and for me that is an honourable and heroic thing - how many of us would choose a lonely existence in the shadows with the threat of death our only true companion in the service of our country?
To say Bond is cold blooded and lacking honour and morality is to miss the point by Chris Waddle penalty proportions.
Yes he inhabits and dangerous and dirty world so sometimes has to do bad things. But for every cold killing such as the Robber he commits you can point to half a dozen examples (not wanting to shoot Trigger, ruling out slotting Scaramanga in the back of the head) where he shows distaste with his job.
'James Bond didn't like killing. When he had to do it he did it as well as he knew how and then forgot about it'
Who said that? Some bloke called Fleming I think but I may be mistaken.
Yes,but you also happen to think SF has a fine story.
And to that I say, ho hum, and so what?