Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
At Home with the Bonds [Article Discussion]
While I enjoyed reading the article posted by Mr. Williams, I must stir the pot a bit and say that there is a point or two that I did not agree with. (Nothing serious, just a discussion).
"When we consider Bond is associated with the cutting edge of technology, that he is thought of as a man who is of his time, it is surprising that this does not translate to the design of his home." writes Mr. Williams, and while he goes on to say that, at the point of Dr. No, he indeed was not a cutting-edge gadget-laden man, I would throw out there the idea that Bond never has been, and (hopefully) never will be a cutting-edge man. While the films have evolved from each one to the next, and have always been a bit ahead of their time, MI6 and Bond are always with the times, not necessarily leaps and bounds ahead of it.
There is something more to each plot than simply 'Good versus Evil', and I'll get around to what I think that has to do with the set designs in a bit. Rather, I submit to you that in the Fleming world of Bond, there never was a "good" side, as much as there never was an "evil" side. Rather, it was simply a matter of two distinctly opposite ideologies which were perpetually pitted against on another. More specifically, these ideologies could be labeled as 'Tradition' (perceived as 'good') versus 'Change' (perceived as 'Evil'). MI6 represents a stable, conservative organisation, which fights everyday to keep the world of tomorrow spinning exactly as it is today. There are always these psychopathic megalomaniacs who keep coming along with their own ideas of how to change the world to make it a "better" place (through their eyes), but MI6, M, Bond, and all those associated with that side will have nothing to do with it.
So as far as what this means to set design: The "bad guys" always have, and are surrounded by very progressive, modern, sometimes avant garde Architecture, and the "good guys" are always surrounded by very conservative, classical, and traditional Architecture. (One of my favorite case-in-points being the small mantel and fireplace behind M in his wood-paneled office, onboard a nuclear submarine, in the beginning of YOLT). Even in a state-of-the-art military vehicle, M must still surround himself with the comforts of his traditional office.
To this end, I would say that I will always picture Bond's home as seen in Dr.No, and personally, I never want to see it any differently. Bond is a "blunt instrument", a tool which carries out the ideals of MI6, and in order to be such a successful agent, Bond must share those same sentiments.
Just to put all of this rambling into perspective for whoever reads this, I am a graduate student of Architecture (currently doing a semester of study in Italy, and was greatly excited about the opportunity to be so close to London, that I'll be going up there in a couple weeks to take in the Ken Adam BAFTA tribute, but I digress...) and actually for my undergraduate thesis, I did a semester-long study of the Architecture of James Bond, and gave a full 1.5 hour presentation at the end, the barest cliff notes of which make up my response above.
If anybody would care to see the slideshow I presented (mostly full of nice pictures, very light on the words), I'd be happy to supply them with a link. I still endeavor to get my notes from said presentation into a real printable thesis book, but that'll be a while yet, unless somebody here knows a good editor/publisher...?
Chris
"When we consider Bond is associated with the cutting edge of technology, that he is thought of as a man who is of his time, it is surprising that this does not translate to the design of his home." writes Mr. Williams, and while he goes on to say that, at the point of Dr. No, he indeed was not a cutting-edge gadget-laden man, I would throw out there the idea that Bond never has been, and (hopefully) never will be a cutting-edge man. While the films have evolved from each one to the next, and have always been a bit ahead of their time, MI6 and Bond are always with the times, not necessarily leaps and bounds ahead of it.
There is something more to each plot than simply 'Good versus Evil', and I'll get around to what I think that has to do with the set designs in a bit. Rather, I submit to you that in the Fleming world of Bond, there never was a "good" side, as much as there never was an "evil" side. Rather, it was simply a matter of two distinctly opposite ideologies which were perpetually pitted against on another. More specifically, these ideologies could be labeled as 'Tradition' (perceived as 'good') versus 'Change' (perceived as 'Evil'). MI6 represents a stable, conservative organisation, which fights everyday to keep the world of tomorrow spinning exactly as it is today. There are always these psychopathic megalomaniacs who keep coming along with their own ideas of how to change the world to make it a "better" place (through their eyes), but MI6, M, Bond, and all those associated with that side will have nothing to do with it.
So as far as what this means to set design: The "bad guys" always have, and are surrounded by very progressive, modern, sometimes avant garde Architecture, and the "good guys" are always surrounded by very conservative, classical, and traditional Architecture. (One of my favorite case-in-points being the small mantel and fireplace behind M in his wood-paneled office, onboard a nuclear submarine, in the beginning of YOLT). Even in a state-of-the-art military vehicle, M must still surround himself with the comforts of his traditional office.
To this end, I would say that I will always picture Bond's home as seen in Dr.No, and personally, I never want to see it any differently. Bond is a "blunt instrument", a tool which carries out the ideals of MI6, and in order to be such a successful agent, Bond must share those same sentiments.
Just to put all of this rambling into perspective for whoever reads this, I am a graduate student of Architecture (currently doing a semester of study in Italy, and was greatly excited about the opportunity to be so close to London, that I'll be going up there in a couple weeks to take in the Ken Adam BAFTA tribute, but I digress...) and actually for my undergraduate thesis, I did a semester-long study of the Architecture of James Bond, and gave a full 1.5 hour presentation at the end, the barest cliff notes of which make up my response above.
If anybody would care to see the slideshow I presented (mostly full of nice pictures, very light on the words), I'd be happy to supply them with a link. I still endeavor to get my notes from said presentation into a real printable thesis book, but that'll be a while yet, unless somebody here knows a good editor/publisher...?
Chris
^ 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
I will comment more on it later but I'm very interested in seeing your slides!
Now, I'm not sure that I can agree that progressive change = megalomaniac evil or good = unchanging traditionalism, but I do concede that these architectural and design motifs are expressed in the series. However, not exclusively. Look at Drax's laboratory or Stromberg's dining room.
Anyway, an interesting point.
To the second point, about Drax and Stromberg's uber-traditional surroundings, it's actually a point which strengthens my argument, when viewed in a certain way. In the beginning of Moonraker, when Bond and Drax are still on public, polite terms, we do of course see his splendid ornate chateau, but I submit that this is nothing more than a front, a false facade, intended to through anybody off his trail. By the end, when we see Drax's true colors flying, we seem him in a Mondrian-inspired rocket control center, and of course, the space station. Think of just the incident where Bond sneaks into the Venice chemical lab as the probes are readied, and brings back M and the Minister of Defence the following day. The room has been gutted and entirely redone, with Drax's false facade up in it's gold-leafed splendor to throw off any possible scent.
The similar is true with Stromberg.
Nick, thanks for your message. You can get the slideshow of my presentation here:
https://ilocker.bsu.edu/users/ckharrison/WORLD_SHARED/Designing Double-O Seven/
click on 007.pdf
Admittedly, some of the slides won't mean much without my notes, which I'd be willing to email.
I would hasten to point out that I was not trying to make such a philosophical point when writing the article. I was merely trying to suggest that it would be cool to see Bond's place again and trying to imagine what it might be like, considering what we know of his character. It wasn't supposed to be a philosophical essay or anything.
I do agree that it would be something cool to see (especially Craig's) Bond's flat sometime soon. Perhaps I could do a fun little design project on the side...