Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Should James Bond be a modern man?
In Goldfinger there's a scene where Bond says that drinking a Dom Perignon with the wrong temperature is like "listening to Beatles without earmuffs". This was at a time where the Beatles frenzy was at a high. James Bond didn't care, and therein laid his success: He didn't move with the times. He was classic and timeless. The self-assured character didn't really change for the next 40 years or so. His character was defined.
Then came the reboots, and today the character James Bond has evovled into something else: More human and unstable with flaws. Just like many other heroes these days. In SF the audience even has to learn about his troubled childhood/past. Guess every hero nowadays has to have one. Bond also have to wear an earpiece. No more going at it alone on a mission. No, he takes direct orders from his metaphorical mother.
But again... there are also hints of the old. Bond sneaking into Severine's shower is something that borders sexual assault, much like Connery back in the days tackled Pussy Galore in the barn.
So my question is fairly simple: Should the filmmakers continue down this path for Bond 24? Making James Bond a "man of his times"? Or should they go back (actually continuing forward) by giving us the classic Bond who doesn't necessarily reflect our times?
Then came the reboots, and today the character James Bond has evovled into something else: More human and unstable with flaws. Just like many other heroes these days. In SF the audience even has to learn about his troubled childhood/past. Guess every hero nowadays has to have one. Bond also have to wear an earpiece. No more going at it alone on a mission. No, he takes direct orders from his metaphorical mother.
But again... there are also hints of the old. Bond sneaking into Severine's shower is something that borders sexual assault, much like Connery back in the days tackled Pussy Galore in the barn.
So my question is fairly simple: Should the filmmakers continue down this path for Bond 24? Making James Bond a "man of his times"? Or should they go back (actually continuing forward) by giving us the classic Bond who doesn't necessarily reflect our times?
^ 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
In which certain ways?
He is kinda old fashioned and relys on the past (hence the DB5 or the Q scene) and when all else fails he gets M out of the modern world into the/his past.
The razor in Skyfall is a metaphor for that.
I like the way they go right now, using more Fleming elements, a (imo) more interesting character but with many classical elements that made the franchise so famous.
Besides, it's hardly modern for Bond to be flawed since he was "flawed and vulnerable" in the books before Connery even knew what a suit was.
Now I don't want Bond to get total PC and abandon his roots, but that does not mean he can't move with the times (which imo he in a way always did).
And the Beatles quote always was a bit odd to me btw. I don't need to hear a comment of Craigs Bond regarding the current music scene ;-)
The only time I saw Bond getting angry in SF was when his car got blown up. Where did he show signs of being afraid?
But I understand what you are saying. Thank you for mentioning this. It hadn't occurred to me. I was referring to the movies only.
But there was more in Skyfall, too, beyond him being angry. He got tired, he was sometimes unsure of himself, he enjoyed a wry inward smile on occasion. He's still a driven, heroic character, but because it all doesn't come easier with the self assured nonsense of a person who has never failed, I find he's become much easier to root for in the latest movies, as well as being much easier to relate to.
Fair enough. In my book (no pun intended) he just always been that flawed and vulnerable before the movies and since reading the books, found the movie to lack that quality (which is not meant as negative as it sounds).
But if I ignore the books (and therefor Bond's roots) and say the troubled hero with a dramatic past is modern, then yes I enjoy it right now. Should Bond 24 again be working in Bonds past? Imo No. Should we once again see Bond hit rock bottom? Imo No. But he still should stay the human being they created with the reboot imo.
At least as long as Craig is Bond.
I am open for yet another interpretation of Bond after Craig. At the moment however, I love the direction they took with Craig.
I would imagine for some people Craig is playing that so understated they don't pick up on it, but I think anyone who has ever been in combat does see it; they have seen those looks before. I just think it is a wonderful, nuanced performance.
That said, one of the things I enjoy about the Craig films is they seem to have struck a nice balance between tradition and innovation in those films, particularly in this last one.
As for the character of Bond himself, Craig is doing a marvelous job in conveying the character in such a way that even though he's bringing new dimensions and facets, it still feels very familiar. In short, Craig is adding depth and a nuanced performance to a character that a lesser actor could easily convey as either seeming antiquated or pastiche to the audience.
Craig's Bond is still fantasy and that's something Bond will always be but the level of fantasy is scaled down a bit to a more believable interpretation where, the genre in which Bond belongs requires a level of credibility to suit the harsh and unpredictable times we live in today. However, that's not to say the Bond movies are and should be joyless, bleak and gritty pictures. Far from. The Bond movies are still fun, exciting and pure escapism but it has a more realistic approach in it's overall execution, that rids itself of the cartoon-like stigma that the series had acquired particularly during the Moore and Brosnan eras. I feel and enjoy Craig's approach as a man who kills, who sheds blood, who fails, who shows his determination, making his triumphs all the more satisfying.
Hm, not sure I really want my Bond in the real world, its oh so boring here Margo!
Well to be fair, Craig did work on writing the script for QoS but that was for obvious reasons. I think even though the script is the foundation for any movie, the actor is still obviously critical in how the performance from the writing on the page is interpreted in front of the camera. As I mentioned, a lesser actor can change the dynamic of the overall movie. Lazenby is an example of this. OHMSS is a great movie, it's probably my favorite Bond movie and although I don't attack Lazenby's acting ability as much as other people (I didn't think he was THAT bad) it's still evident that his lack of acting experience showed and had a more accomplished actor taken on the role at the time, the result would have been different.
But first a little background. When I first saw the Bond films (Connery's on TV) I was a 12 year old, scrawny, nerdy kid. I was picked on and every time that I tried to play sports (the easiest way to try to get "in" with other boys) I failed spectacularly. As someone mentioned in another thread as a 12 year old you feel powerless enough already, and that can be even more so depending on your place in the social hierarchy.
So at that time of my life a hero that was completely infallible, was AWESOME at everything he did - even things he tried for the first time! - who knew everything about everything, who was always composed, and who could get any girl just by looking at her...well, that was the ultimate dream and wish fulfillment. Really, it was only one step away from Fonzie in Happy Days who would literally snap his fingers and every girl in the room would come running.
But then I got older and gained life experience.
I realized that trying to talk to girls like Bond did made them think I was a weird, creepy loser. I would get frustrated trying to do things that I didn't master the first time that I tried them. And I found that talking about things with a level of expertise made me sound pretentious and arrogant rather than cool and smart. So I felt a little "cheated" about these kind of role models in my life (Bond, Fonzie, Captain Kirk).
So as I gained life experience I found that the key was effort. If you have to make a bit of effort at something then it's earned, which makes it more satisfying. I feel the same way about characters in films. If Moore raises an eyebrow at a girl and she falls into his arms it's meaningless. But if Bond has to flirt with her, earn her admiration, and ends up with her later then it's more meaningful. If Bond beats up a dozen henchmen effortlessly it's meaningless. If Bond is bruised and bloody (say, at the end of LTK or after the stairwell fight in CR) then it makes his victory even more impressive.
Which doesn't negate the wish fulfillment aspect of Bond. Does anyone really think that the construction site chase in CR or the SF PTS tearing the train apart are too "real"? We're still seeing Bond do incredible feats, it's just that this is a Bond who draws upon inner resources, strength of will, training, and modern day military fitness to do these things. If he expresses a bit of doubt, or emotions, does that negate that he's exceptionally cool or manly? Of course not. Someone said in another thread that Craig's Bond isn't macho or manly because he shows emotions and has doubts. Seriously? To me it makes him even MORE manly because he pushes past those things to achieve his objectives. If someone thinks that Craig's Bond is "emo" and not a man then they have a radically different idea of "emo" than what it really is. And I dare them to meet Craig's Bond in a dark alley and tell them that he isn't macho and is a "Mother's boy" ;-)
Look, I get that we all have bad times in our adult lives that make us like the idea of a super hero instead of a hero. But I feel that a hero can still be a human being and still be a wish fulfillment figure. In fact, even more so than a superhero.
Great post! Thank you! :-)