Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
How 'patriotic' should James Bond (and Bond 26 beyond) be?
I've noticed this is something that's been discussed in the PTS thread. Perhaps it's the wrong topic for there, but I think the discussion itself is interesting, especially in terms of how it relates to a) the original Fleming source material b) what we've seen from the films in the past, and c) how this aspect of the character/series will be handled going forward. I think having a separate thread will allow for more general discussion without going fundamentally off topic.
My argument is that James Bond is what you'd call a patriotic character, and several of the films themselves have leaned onto very 'British' iconography. That said Bond isn't necessarily jingoistic either, and in the novels is not blind to the flaws of his country. He's often very cynical in a quite subversive way too, especially when it comes to Britain's role in the Cold War. He's also a very contradictory character in terms of English identity - he hates tea but also claims it was the 'downfall of the British empire', he's described as an Englishman and yet he's Scottish/Swiss, and we even have that passage in MR where it's explicitly stated he looks out of place amongst the London elites of Blades (despite his legitimate fascination with the history of the club). His patriotism is, however, entwined with his sense of duty and is more in an oath to protect his country which a big part of what drives him.
Of course in terms of the films this was something touched upon particularly in SF - that sense of duty towards his country. I think it updated these general aspects of Fleming's material well, while also featuring British iconography (the Tennyson poem, the little miniature Union Jack bulldog etc) in ways that weren't wholly dissimilar to, say, the Union Jack parachute in TSWLM.
For me, it'll also be interesting seeing how this will gel with a younger Bond (it seems to me that many younger Brits today have more cynicism towards some of the UK's more traditional institutions). So, in terms of patriotism, British identity etc. what do we expect to see (or indeed want to see) from the future version of Bond, and the future movies in the series?
My argument is that James Bond is what you'd call a patriotic character, and several of the films themselves have leaned onto very 'British' iconography. That said Bond isn't necessarily jingoistic either, and in the novels is not blind to the flaws of his country. He's often very cynical in a quite subversive way too, especially when it comes to Britain's role in the Cold War. He's also a very contradictory character in terms of English identity - he hates tea but also claims it was the 'downfall of the British empire', he's described as an Englishman and yet he's Scottish/Swiss, and we even have that passage in MR where it's explicitly stated he looks out of place amongst the London elites of Blades (despite his legitimate fascination with the history of the club). His patriotism is, however, entwined with his sense of duty and is more in an oath to protect his country which a big part of what drives him.
Of course in terms of the films this was something touched upon particularly in SF - that sense of duty towards his country. I think it updated these general aspects of Fleming's material well, while also featuring British iconography (the Tennyson poem, the little miniature Union Jack bulldog etc) in ways that weren't wholly dissimilar to, say, the Union Jack parachute in TSWLM.
For me, it'll also be interesting seeing how this will gel with a younger Bond (it seems to me that many younger Brits today have more cynicism towards some of the UK's more traditional institutions). So, in terms of patriotism, British identity etc. what do we expect to see (or indeed want to see) from the future version of Bond, and the future movies in the series?
^ 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
But I don’t think he’s driven by a sense of patriotism to the U.K. He leaves it as often as possible, and we even see him retire to Jamaica, not the Cotswolds. And I think that’s something any of the screen Bonds would have done, the book one too.
I wouldn't necessarily say the Union Jack parachute in TSWLM is a gag as such. It's slightly tongue in cheek, but I'd say that the reaction to it at the time (audiences cheering and all that) was at least sincere, and they were going for that sort of response.
I'd also say Bond doesn't always have a lot of love for his colleagues or superiors, so I don't think that's necessarily where his loyalty or sense of duty lies. In all versions he tends to respect M of course, but the Craig era often had Bond going against official orders to get the job done, there were characters like C who were outright villains, albeit members of MI6's elite, and even by NTTD Mallory's M seemed very much at fault for the Heracles programme. Even in the novels you had characters like Saunders or Head of Stations who were antagonistic twits whom Bond had little time for. Even in terms of morality he's not necessarily consistent (he dislikes killing in cold blood, which is very human, but accepts that killing and 'dirty work' is simply a part of his job). There were times in the books where he even disagreed with the jobs he was supposed to do, or at least had a cynicism towards it, but did it anyway (ie. killing for M in FYEO, calling prohibition the trigger of crime during the GF opening). It's more a thing of the novels perhaps, but it's not always a case where he has to save the world too, and often his missions are purely in the interests of the UK. I think there's a side of Bond that has that blunt instrument mentality, but I think there's also something deeper that drives him in this aspect - a sort of 'it's not a perfect country, but ultimately it's worth saving' mentality. Not dissimilar to, say, Batman's loyalty to Gotham City despite its corruption.
Yeah it's complicated. If it were an American film and it was the stars and stripes, it would be entirely sincere (unless it's Team America or something). But here, with the Union Jack, it's both sincere and slightly mocking of that kind of patriotism. Obviously a British spy wouldn't actually do that, so it's a gag on that level; but I think there is a gentle mocking of Bond being a British superhero too and those kinds of overt expressions of patriotism. Not in a nasty way at all, but this is when you'd see jokey things like union jack boxer shorts or waistcoats in the Goodies and stuff- it wasn't uncommon to laugh at this sort of thing.
But as I say, he's a soldier- he doesn't have to love his superiors to respect them and follow their orders, because of his sense of duty. In that way I'd say LTK got Bond more wrong than the Craig films did. No matter how much he argued with DenchM, he always had a strong sense of duty to her. QoS is probably the best example of this, where she thinks he's gone rogue but he's actually doing his job for her (in that film he's actually only 'rogue' for less than a minute, where he disarms all the MI6 guys in the hotel lift), and when she finally realises this it's much more satisfying than anything involving their relationship in LTK, and it feels like they've entirely understood Bond.
Well I think that morality contradiction is an 'ends justifies the means' thing: he knows what he does is unpleasant, but he also knows he's doing it for the right reasons. NTTD is kind of interesting, because there we see him working against M briefly (who is no longer his commanding officer, so the sense of duty has wained) because M has apparently done something not for the right reasons. Bond's morality easily overwhelms any sense of patriotism he may have, because he knows that HMG has done wrong.
I love this… Bond is the reluctant hero being called into battle one more time… I love how there’s a little tut, or something, when he dials Felix (after speaking with Mallory (“darling”)), to tell him that he’s “in”…. No sense of patriotism there, just his morality, like a tide, pulling him back to action…. James Bond can’t remain deaf to his moral compass….
I get what you mean. It's a tongue in cheek moment which the Bond film series tends to play. It's not a fully serious scenario (it's actually quite ridiculous when you think about it) but I think there's a sincerity there too in terms of the 'crowd cheering' reaction they were going for.
SF is the film which I guess used that sort of 'British' imagery in the most sincere way.
I'd agree about LTK and QOS in the sense that the latter depicts Bond going 'against orders' better.
I suppose it's worth saying though that even soldiers swear allegiance to the Crown/their country, and it's a big part of why (at least from my second hand experience) they get into that line of work. And beyond M Bond doesn't necessarily even always respect his superiors.
Ultimately it depends on which film version of Bond you're talking about, or if even if you're talking about the literary Bond as there can be some subtle differences. I do think Bond in all versions has a sense of morality though, as all heroes really should do fundamentally.
I suppose to me it's interesting just how much Bond justifies what he does through protecting his country, and often it'll be one of the main things to separate Bond from some of the villains. In TMWTGG he says he only kills for 'Queen and Country', and in SF there's little reason for him to go back to the Service apart from MI6 being bombed (it's worth noting I don't think he even goes back because of M really - it's clear he's a bit bitter towards her at this point in the movie). Scaramanaga isn't a million miles away from Bond, but he works for money and his ego, not for any higher purpose. Silva is basically a mirror image of Bond in some unsettling ways (neither are actually English, both were M's agents, both were sent on missions by her which went wrong/resulted in their injuries etc.) but while Silva becomes consumed by anarchy and a need for revenge, Bond ultimately does his duty for that higher purpose and one could say forgives M by the end of the film. There's of course the traditional way that villains tend to undermine Bond - ie. Travelyan calling him 'Her Majesty's Loyal terrier', with GE being another example of Bond having that fundamental sense of duty towards protecting his country that the villain doesn't have, even if they're otherwise similar. In that sense I think it's the case that a big part of Bond's morality and why he does his job is wrapped up in protecting his country.
It's actually one of the things I thought was missing from NTTD and might have added a bit more to the film/Bond's reasoning of going back. I understand it's a bit difficult given the type of film they wanted to make. It's a much more personal film in many ways, and obviously the main plot involves a world threat rather than something like SF which is simply about MI6 being compromised (which I think is a bit more interesting in how it tests Bond as a character/his morality).
It's funny you bring up TMWTGG, as I think it's the only film where Bond's moral compass is off. Not only does he go around torturing women, trying to sleep with them in a rather sleazy way, and making them listen to him shagging other women; but his whole job in that film is purely industrial espionage- to steal a private citizen's (who is a murderer, granted) product which he is trying to market, and to take it for HM Govt. The film doesn't deal with that of course because it's not very self-aware, but it's a slightly grubby story.
Yes, it's a great scene between Bond and Scaramanga. It's a shame that it happens to be in such a weird Bond movie, haha!
Obviously we've had variations on that kind of confrontation (again, Travelyan and Bond in GE, Silva and Bond in SF) in which Bond's loyalty to his country is questioned by the villain. For me, I'd like to see this side of Bond explored in the next one, and it might not be out of the realm of plausibility given what other franchises have done recently. They could even adapt some ideas from TMWTGG. You could have a Scaramanga-esque assassin who may be killing off, say, corrupt agents or government officials for money. You could contrast that with Bond being shown at some point in the film having to assassinate someone who, while perhaps has committed some sort of wrong against MI6, is in some way seen as sympathetic by the audience (I dunno, maybe this person has sold off MI6 secrets in order to provide money for their family or something). Then when you have that Bond/villain confrontation about loyalty to His Majesty etc. there'd be much more conflict for Bond in the sense that his duty towards MI6 isn't necessarily for a fundamental good. So he'd have to negotiate how his sense of loyalty to his country works alongside his sense of morality.
I just think there should be a confrontation between Bond and Max Denbigh in the third act, with Denbigh confronting Bond about his loyalty.
I think another thing that brought this up were the Brosnan Bond films:
And to think that he's dealing with a corrupt MI6 agent (I also assume that Trevelyan's British).
And yes one the best 007-villain dynamics is the bad guy insulting the UK or the British Empire and getting a rise out of Bond. Who eventually stops up the works on the latest caper.
Bom appetit!
James Bond Will Return...
But sometimes you need a litle bit of help of a friend..
I like this. Bond's patriotism doesn't need to be overt. Whether he prefers living elsewhere or not, I like to think being English means something to him and is worth defending.
And I think it's actually intrinsic to British patriotism as a whole: often self deprecating and ironic. It's not all encompassing.
I think it’ll be interesting seeing how MI6/Britain is depicted in Bond 26. In the novels and early films I know people have noticed that Britain is depicted as much more of an influential world power (at least in Secret Service terms) than it would have realistically been at the time (when Fleming wrote these novels in the 50s the UK was still on WW2 rationing policies, parts of London were still noticeably damaged from the Blitz, and The Empire was on its decline). By the Craig era we get a British Government that knows it’s doing dodgy deals with the Americans/shadowy organisations (QOS), and SF is about a changing world where Bond/M’s effectiveness is put into question. In SP we get C implementing radical changes to MI6 for malicious purposes, and in NTTD the Heracles project is of course an MI6 project.
I think that concept of ‘the threat from within’ is here to stay in Bond. Not to say we’ll necessarily see the same exact story ideas, but it’s a good concept for showing us Bond’s higher loyalties.
I'm an American and I think we lean into that more because we're a much newer country and feel the need to shore up people's loyalties with that, the pledge of allegiance and what have you when you have a lot of people who don't have blood ties to the land.
But I do think the Craig era was starting to beat people over the head that the U.K. and Mi6 is full of bad actors who do questionable things. Its okay to have a few films where the Heroes and Villains aren't mixed up.
It's kind of a fundamental issue with films about spies which appeal to large audiences: they can't be actually chasing after villains working on behalf of actual real other countries as you're risking alienating those audiences and/or starting diplomatic incidents(!), plus I think audiences don't really want too much in the way of dangerous real world issues in their popcorn entertainment. So they kind of have to go after gangsters of some fashion, but that doesn't quite bring in enough of the spy themes of doublecrossing and elite agents and spycraft and all that, so a lot of the time you need rogue agents from the 'good' side, as that doesn't scare the horses too much. See basically all of the M:I films.
Depends on how it’s done. I think even in Fleming’s books the idea of evils from within and M doing questionable things is there (ie. We get the likes of Vesper who’s effectively a mole, Hugo Drax who’s infiltrated higher British society, Miss Taro in Dr. No). I think the morality of what MI6 do in the Craig era is straightforward/in the precedent of Bond - ie. Bond and M know getting into bed with Green in QOS is a very bad idea, C is unambiguously a villain, and even Heracles is treated as a sort of Frankenstein’s monster of technology that should never have gone ahead.
I think it’s a theme that’ll stay just because on the whole I think more people are a bit more sceptical about our political leaders in real life. It also creates more conflict for Bond.
I suppose you're right. But in the bond movies specifically, the first 20 movies or so, there isn't a lot of double crossers and traitors, and if there is, they're usually the baddies turning good.
I think this might have more to do with the very different conceptions of M in the late 80s and mid 2000s. Robert Brown's M was little more than a fussy bureaucrat, one with almost no personal relationship to Dalton's Bond. And as a bureaucrat his judgment was clearly fallible, since in TLD he was duped into ordering Bond to kill an innocent man. Bond disobeyed his orders then, just as he disobeyed them earlier in the film and disobeyed them in the next film. During that period M was little more than a starchy foil for Bond to one-up, an embodiment of stick-in-the-mud officialdom. Starting with GE and Dench's hiring, M's relationship with Bond began to deepen and take on a maternal subtext, and this was taken to fruition in the Craig era. But earlier on, as shown in TLD and some of the earlier films, Bond was quite capable of putting aside his orders if he thought the higher-ups were mistaken. In Fleming there's a somewhat comparable situation in YOLT, when he goes against protocol by refusing to inform M and the authorities that he's found Blofeld, because he wants private revenge.
Regarding the question of patriotism, in the novel GF Bond says "I'll give you one last aphorism for your book, Goldfinger: Never go a bear of England." I think that sort of remark, and the pre-credits of TSWLM, remain the right way to go. Audiences are uncomfortable with outright jingoism, but are quite happy to enjoy a fleeting moment of national pride, like audiences in any country. Since these films have to make a lot of money overseas, they can hardly be nostalgic for the empire, but they can play up the qualities of Britishness and Englishness that make foreign tourists flock to the UK and give the country whatever soft power it still has.
And with an ethos to complete a mission in spite of the bureaucrats at times.
I'd love to see Bond take on bureaucracy. Other than that, I hope that any patriotism in Bond isn't turned too political. Nothing about Brexit and such. I doubt that any Bond story could benefit from that.
And Bond should be triggered by the villain insulting the UK.
One-upmanship. Brutal sarcasm. Resolve to finish what was started.
So I think simply put, Bond's patriotism comes from the fact that he sees the UK as right and trusts it so: he sees the UK as a country protecting the world, and deals with the less pleasant stuff, or the stuff he disagrees with, because he sees M as the controller of the protection, and the protection as good. If Bond truly though bureaucrats had taken over the service, he'd resign I think, or at least be a lot more reckless.
Even Saunders (or Sender) isn't too much of a bureaucrat. He's an agent dedicated to rules of the field, and he's tight with those rules. Bond doesn't see much wrong with him individually in the story (the reprimands are fair: Bond's getting drunk and fancying girls over the job, and they aren't friends and even so he should report the discretion), he's just angry about the work that has to be done.