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
Interesting discussion. Presumably the above applies when the serial killer is, what might be termed "self-employed", and therefore free to pick and choose. But suppose the serial killer was given the option of becoming employed, but where he is given targets rather than choosing his own. I would have thought such a person would be interested in such a job. Question - if he took the job, would that mean he ceased to be a serial killer?
Perhaps suggesting Bond to be a serial killer is too much for those who regard their government as being on the side of angels, and therefore government agents can do no wrong.
So, how would members regard Red Grant? Was he a serial killer when he lived in Ireland? Was he still a serial killer after being employed by the Russians/SPECTRE?
OK, if it helps crystallise the debate, what if the sniper was an SS sniper? Still a war hero?
Who's laughing at the serial killer idea now?
Yes, these "friends in London" Bond is said to have in Fleming's Casino Royale - as Kingsley Amis said they're very hard to believe in, especially as they're never ever mentioned again. James Bond is a rather solitary individual!
Yes, I'd quite forgot about him - a serial killer who went into a SMERSH executioner's role to kill for a state - a job he did with great relish!
An early model for John Gardner's ex-actor psycho and serial killer with a theatrical bent, David Dragonpol!
Bill Tanner is a friend of Bond, so that's one. And Bond also has mistresses, Grant for instane is utterly indifferent towards women.
Secondly, Bond is a spy with a license to kill. Look at how he was ordered to kill Kara in LTK. If he was a serial killer he would have done so without hesitation but he didn't. Bond isn't blood thirsty. He's paid to kill certain criminals only or kills in self defence. I think some people need to pay closer attention to the details of what's being conveyed in the movies and the novels and put them into context instead of surmising a rather lazy and simplistic overview for the sake of trying to submit a "controversial" idea.
Yes, but it has got people talking and he does say he's a murderer in Skyfall - he confirms it as his employment in the word game scene. For Silva read Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. And I do know my Bond - see The Bondologist Blog here:
http://www.thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/
Yes, but if state-sponsored killing were really murder, it would be illegal, meaning Bond could/would be prosecuted for his killing. As murder is illegal, he must have the sanction of the state - a licence to kill, in effect - otherwise he's just a typical murderer. Do you see the grey area, the dichotomy in all of this, here at all? Also in the FYEO short story Bond thinks "This is murder and he didn't want any part in it" or lines to that effect regarding the assassination of von Hammerstein.
You misunderestimate me (to use a Bushism). I'm all for James Bond - why do you think I'm posting here - see my blog if you are in any doubt. It's a theory about Bond. It is inaccurate, but there may be a very small splint of truth in it. Fleming paid reference to the Russian hired killers who get the death-watch beetle in their soul - who get the bug when they kill their third or fourth person - this too has happened to Bond. If he were a real character he'd have had a nervous breakdown and been put into a nerve hospital years ago (see TMWTGG novel etc.)
I know you know your Bond. Not all murderers are serial killers. In fact, a great number of criminals, even psychotic ones, are not serial killers. A serial killer is a very specific kind of murderer. A terrorist is not a serial killer, a mobster is not a serial killer, a war criminal is not a serial killer. It could be argued that they are very close to serial killers, but the contexts and motivations are different.
I'm sure it's a hoot and a half, but I have other things that need reading. I may just end of reading Fleming only Bond books for the most part anyway, though I want to give Boyd a chance.
Yes, and I'm trying to write an article on Never Send Flowers that links it back with Fleming due for publication on The Bondologist Blog.
I assume from your post above that you are an American.
I wish I shared your belief that your government kills to keep you safe. Although I struggle to see how killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis keeps you safe. But I guess that if you believe that the Iraqi people are bad guys then killing them is fine.
Agree that the killing of innocent civilians is never justified. I believe the Iraq War to have been conducted in contravention of international law but it is also true that the regime of Saddam brutalised many of the Iraqi people and those in neighbouring Iran and Kuwait too. Saddam was a brutal dictator and I'm sure the rope put around his neck could not have been put to better use than removing this madman from this mortal coil. Surely a serial/mass killer if ever there were one...
A rational government through the employ of their intelligence services, perpetually need to be aware of any such threats that may destabilise regions within a country, an entire country or even worse spreading outwards through to continents, with an eventual ripple effect to other shores.
Unfortunately with such lunatics either brainwashing or terrorising their way into power, the world is at risk of becoming a more turbulent place with far reaching consequences that need to be prevented before they surmount to a regrettable state, which involves a conscious decision, leading to a war.
To describe a covert operative with the order to kill, as a “serial killer” is not appropriate; they are sent to complete a mission, which can mean removing another human being (If this is the correct use of the description for someone so consumed with committing evil on a world effecting level), from further interaction with the rest of the human race.
It can only be described as necessary because, unforgivably they could not be reasoned or negotiated with and have no desire to stop the destruction they regrettably have the power to unleash.
James Bond, the romanticised portrayal of suave secret agent is unquestionably “A good man, doing something to prevent evil from happening”; killing for him, would not be some perverted action, that could be associated with the warped mind of an individual, who could only be described as a psychopathic sociopath.
The same as the people of this world who have accepted what is inevitably the true price for working within the intelligence and security services.
They understand that once every avenue of prevention has been explored, then the final and most severe course of action is the only choice to impede the advancement of a maniac dictator or extremist group.
If there is an alternative, then no doubt it would be pursued, otherwise a sanction is the process of elimination for such people.
The 007 films and others in its genre are as relevant today as they were in the past; time is perpetually moving forward, but history has shown a nasty habit of bringing about individuals who will unforgivably decide to cause conflict in this world.
There are already too many serial killers in crime fiction (it really hurts the genre IMO), I am not so sure I want to see this plague in a Bond movie. I am all happy with Red Grant in the novels, because his psychosis was used subtly.
This little scene is possibly an unique scene in the franchise, though, in other movies he would rather face a wall to prevent him from going out of the parking in TND for instance, the writers don't want any longer to show Bond facing such issues ! (and well there's also the innocent tourist he "kills" in TLD, when he drives through them - but here it's a blooper).
I don't think we'll see again Bond having to stop a chase/escape because he could kill someone during it - it makes the topic of people actually dying too "real" ! There's an Alain Delon car chase scene (done by Remy Julienne) in which he tells people to go out of the road during it, that ends when he has to stop inches from a little boy in shock in the middle of the street. Such details are rare in action movies IMO but it makes it so "real" (relatively).