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
Robot? No, it is universally a given that within a supervisor/ subordinate relationship there will be some instances of conflict
Now, to what extent they decide to lean into that will be interesting.
In terms of le Carré, it's the playing of the actors in the Beeb's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy that I'm talking about. The only two characters that openly lose their temper whilst on the job are Peter Guillam, who is considered damaged goods, never having recovered from having his spy network betrayed, and Percy Alleline, who is a boss out-of-his-depth who is panicking; everyone is false smiles and polite on the surface, just waiting to stick a dagger in the back of a colleague. It's very English, and I'd like to see a bit more of that.
There’s definitely a bit more conspicuous tension and drama in more modern Bond/M scenes. It’s a personal preference what one thinks of this as you hinted. I do understand the repeated use of the word ‘trust’ in CR and QOS in tandem with a bit of odd dialogue during the scene in M’s flat (the ‘half monk half hitman’ stuff) can be a bit funny. But that aside I think it’s a solid Bond/M relationship. I actually would have preferred something with more of that sense of drama in that TLD scene. The overall conflict is good, but Brown’s M comes off just a bit too cold for me. And not in the usual gruff M way, but in a way that gives the impression that Bond isn’t in fact his best agent but just any other ordinary operative. Neither the direction nor Brown’s performance give much of an impression he’s conflicted but ultimately resolved to go through with the assassination, which would have been more interesting to see conveyed rather than simply in a brief line. I think you’re right about Brown’s M being more an obstacle.
I suppose what separates all versions of M from some of those Le Carre characters is that they are more blunt, straightforward, and capable figures. There are even instances where M can be openly odds with their own superiors, in turn either siding with Bond or using him to prove a hunch they have about a particular situation. Not to say M can’t be cunning or try to manipulate situations (ie. Fleming’s M basically sends Bond on a mission to snap him out of his PTSD, and obviously in SF she outright lies to him about his test results, but in pretty much all these cases lying to Bond comes from trusting he can do the job). None of the Ms seem like back slapping, shark-toothed operators, and I suspect it’s a major reason why Bond respects them.
Well, for others it’s an enjoyable, essential part of the characters dynamic.
Lee's M in the 70s films, most notably TMWTGG or DAF, actively seems to despise Bond and I think it actually gets a bit grating at times. There's the quick flash where he suggests to take a holiday, but from then on it's just griping. He also has the single worst M moment if you ask me in MR, where he actually seems to think Bond, this professional secret agent who has saved the world several times, is lying to him like a schoolboy about the lab in Venice(!). Although Lee himself tries to pop a flash in occasionally, the writing isn't really behind it and I could actually have done with some of the warmth which Dench's M obviously feels towards Bond and displays (look at the phone chat at the end of CR).
She is different, but she is literally playing a different character. And M is a very senior civil servant in charge of giving orders to assassins: I don't want her to be cuddly.
It's a very fine line to tread: M should be professional and somewhat distant, but also they're a movie character so we want to see a little humanity in there.
It doesn’t always have to be conflict between M and Bond necessarily, or Bond going rogue. In TND we get conflict between M and the Admiral for instance, and the stakes are raised by M butting heads with him/trying to convince the Foreign Secretary to send Bond out to investigate. We even get some subtle tension between Bond and M when the latter brings up Paris/tells him to effectively seduce her. There’s so much to keep the film interesting. I just think it’d be a shame (and rather a stupid creative decision) to simply have a ‘straightforward’ Bond/M briefing, whatever that is, without any sort of underlying drama.
Can you imagine Connery saying "definitely the same desk" to Bernard Lees M and grumpily stomping off, be honest?
Oh you mean NO TIME TO DIE?
And my criteria for watching Bond films isn't to think that they've got to stick to what Connery did, no. Otherwise I'd just watch the Connery films forever and nothing else, but I like all of them and embrace their differences.
I kinda can actually! If he’d starred in OHMSS he’d have basically had to do something like that (at least the storming out grumpily part),
Connery’s Bond could be snarky or bitter towards M regardless.
Yes, that's fair enough, le Carré's MI6 is a nasty, petty place beset by infighting and interdepartmental squabbles, Bond is more about countering an external threat. I'd still like to try an M who is perhaps more like Alec Guinness's George Smiley in demeanor. Again, though, personal preference.
Yeah, much more like what you’d expect in a corporation than the Secret Service!
If they went for an older male M they could do something a bit different - perhaps an M who is on the surface quite a harmless looking old man (perhaps he even plays this up, acting ‘dumb’ in front of superiors he doesn’t trust - ie. The Admiral in TND or the various ministers in the older films - all while having his own hunches about certain things and manipulating the situation to get the better of them) but in front of Bond he’s actually quite a tough, capable, and trustworthy figure. I think you’d have to be careful such an M doesn’t come off as too duplicitous, especially with Bond, but it could be quite a nice and even subtly comical take on the character. Can sort of imagine Sylvester McCoy as such an M, but I think he’s a touch too old now.
Ah, so not the same thing then. ;)
Not the same, but not dissimilar either. Like I said though, I can definitely see Connery doing that scene. And he never had a Mallory/was put in that same situation where he was no longer a 00 and had to confront M about something horrific his old boss had done.
But like I said, it’s not a part of NTTD I like particularly 🤷
In the end, M had no authority over him, and, if it wasn't for M's recklessness, Bond would still be in Jamaica.
James Bond was a free agent and he rubbed his old boss's nose in it.
And considering the nature of M's screw up, Bond's antagonistic stance was very much warranted.
Every scene has some conflict. If not, it’s a waste of words, pages, film, and time . Conflict, to whatever degree (doesn’t have to be a shouting match), helps propel the story.
Without conflict, a scene becomes an exposition dump, like the scene between M and Bond in YOLT (saved by the unique setting).
Screenwriters take to heart that in every scene, one character wants one thing, the other character wants another. It will always works better if the needs are at odds in some way…But that’s not the only way to create conflict…. Some examples:
DN: conflict arises with that “damn beretta” and a bigger conflict between the two men (obviously Bond wanted to keep his old gun and disregarded M’s warnings about it).
FRWL: a small moment where it shows Bond’s fooling about (the hat toss and his next trick), doesn’t impress M. Bond is put back in his place with one cold stare from Daddy . As @talos7 stated, a superior and underling will always have an under current of conflict, especially conflict of status (know your place).
And shortly thereafter, Bond matter-of-factly states that this is “some sort of trap”, and M pats him down with “well, obviously it’s a trap”….
GF: M smacks his boy’s wrist for sleeping with Goldfinger’s girlfriend, and Bond claps back about not knowing what all of this is about.
TB: “well, now that we’re all here…” Later M is in more conflict with Captain Pritchard and pats his boy Bond on the head…
The writers know what they’re doing and there (usually) is conflict (save for scenes like the aforementioned YOLT, and there’s a clear difference between the interesting combativeness in DN or GF or TB or the stare down in FRWL compared with the exposition dump of YOLT)….
EDIT: sometimes, on the rare occasion, a writer has to resign him or herself to a scene where they can’t find conflict and need to just do the exposition dump. And we’re told to camouflage it, make it fast (and clear), and move on.
But, rule of thumb: find the conflict first (and 99/100 it is there); if not, and the info needs to be given to the audience: hide it well, make it quick and clear. Get out fast and move on.
That’s why this is a difficult craft; writers massage in the conflict and obstacles in every scene, building it, propelling the story in a forward trajectory until we reach the final climax, and then the resolution (which usually is just that, and is the only scene, or small sequence, that often doesn’t need conflict. But prior to the resolution, the more obstacles and conflicts that every scene contains, the harder a protagonist has, the better the script/film).
So one may not leave the cinema and express a happiness that there was conflict with M, because oftentimes you only pick up all of this on an unconscious level in the first few viewings. But that’s often a part of what makes a viewing experience all the more enjoyable (conflict/obstacles and overcoming the various ones a protagonist will run into in every scene, or, what’s the point of that scene if it was absent this all important and delicious ingredient??)
Feel free to pick holes in what (or in the case of some here, every single thing) I say, but he really does know what he's talking about.
It's a good point about YOLT: I've seen that film many times and off the top of my head can't recall a single thing about that scene once Bond has sat down.
@CrabKey i wrote about conflict because that was what was being discussed. And;
I actually enjoy discussing why conflict’s necessary in each scene of every film. I actually enjoy it. That’s all. Why you’re taking it as an affront or an insult is confusing to me.
I love every aspect of scriptwriting, and that’s why I went into detail. Had nothing to do with you, and everything I love about the anatomy of a screenplay. Since the discussion was conflict or not, that’s why I jumped in.
So settle down, please. I didn’t write what I wrote to (excuse the original typo— didn’t mean to make this post so sexy) elicit that kind of response. And I didn’t write that post to rile you up.
Please, give it a rest.
Thank you Peter, those are some nice examples. I particularly like the FRWL example where Bond is showing off and gets cowed by a look. That’s another film I haven’t seen in a while.