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
He has a license for that though.
So he's not an antihero because he works for the government? Has the character lost his edge? Is James Bond now like your father?
Again, I can very much see why Broccoli got annoyed at the claim 'Bond isn't a hero'. It's actually a fundamental quality to the character.
Out of interest, does Fleming really address why he does what he does much? I can't remember there being much of it, not much sort of moral indignation- he seems to fall into a slump when he's not on a mission so there is some element of a selfish side to it I think. Even patriotism doesn't seem to come up much: I remember Christopher Wood writing him thinking about 'the country that he loved' and that didn't feel right for Bond.
He often hates the baddies but it feels like usually for personal reasons or revenge, because he doesn't like them.
I'm not saying he doesn't do it because he's on the side of right, but I just wonder if Fleming addressed it much, I haven't read them all in years.
Yeah he's completely a hero.
My father doesn't work for the government.
I hope he doesn't have a licence to kill either.
;;)
I mean, is Bond just an old-fashioned gentleman now?
I suppose a slight difference between Fleming's Bond and any movie version is that the literary character is much more prone to cynicism in a way that's subversive. He's very prone to boredom when not on a mission, and in CR begins to question Britain's fighting of the Cold War and what it stands for. Privately, he's very cynical about MI6 and some of the missions he's sent on, but ultimately will do his job. It's actually kind of easy to see how he could be brainwashed in TMWTGG by the Russians. The film Bond is much more unwavering in his sense of duty and his belief in it, even in the Craig films when he becomes jaded and decides to retire (they wisely frame this in CR '06 and SF as being for personal reasons of course, rather than Bond having an existential crisis over Britain's role in the world). It's often a thing that the film villains mock Bond for his devotion to Monarch and Country. It's actually a big reason why I don't think the brainwashing plot can be easily adapted for a film. I'm not sure I can see any film version of Bond we've had fully believing anti UK propaganda, even when conditioned in that way!
I suppose with both the film and book versions of the character he ultimately fulfils his duty no matter what and shows a selflessness in doing so. I can't remember any specific quotes from the books that delve into that though.
Out of interest, do you think that would be something worth exploring? Not the brainwashing, but the cynicism and existentialism?
I came across this interesting exchange between Bond and M in TLD workprint that sort of hints at those ideas [skip to 3:50]:
Yeah, it's more a sense of higher duty (and of course his love of adventure) rather than superficial jingoism.
I like that line from M. Very interesting!
I certainly think there's room and precedent to explore Bond's cynicism, yes. It's there in TLD. You also get a whiff of it in CR and SF (although again, him leaving MI6 or going off grid is more for personal reasons, and SF makes a point of him going back in the name of duty). It just depends on what exactly they want to do. I personally like the idea of M sending Bond on a mission to assassinate someone 'off the books' due to something personal/vendetta driven, and Bond getting annoyed at having to do this/this causing some conflict in the wider story (so not dissimilar to TLD, but with the added layer of M's involvement). Or perhaps Bond is conflicted about a certain mission/realises what MI6 are asking him to do isn't the right thing and has to take matters into his own hands (again, that's not dissimilar to what we've seen in certain films anyway, but it's broad enough to do a lot with the basic idea).
I will say though that ultimately books and films are different mediums, and with the novels we get much more of Bond's internal thoughts and much longer passages of dialogue at times. He can have much more thoughtful reflections and his uncertainties/contradictions are a bit more drawn out. I can't see a film version of Bond saying something outright such as "If I'd been alive fifty years ago, the brand of Conservatism we have today would have been damn near called Communism and we should have been told to go and fight that." I suspect it'd be a bit too outrightly political anyway. But yes, ultimately they can do something with Bond's cynicism and it could result in a great film.
Indiana Jones? That's absurd. Even Jason Bourne makes no sense. Catwoman I'll give them that, but I think she could be considered a hero, at least in some iterations.
Is Jack Reacher an antihero but not James Bond?
Indiana Jones is a thief/rogue hehe
Yeah I've been going off Brown's M, he's a bit too snippy and aggressive all the time, there's no sense of the warmth Lee showed. Although I know he had less opportunity- but that line is a good example of that, feels like it's played as M slightly sneering at Bond where Bond's more conversational reaction suggests it wasn't written that way.
I don't know enough about Jack Reacher to judge. As in very little. But Bond is definitely not a antihero.
He's ex-military, goes off grid and has his own sense of justice. I guess that makes him an antihero even though he is heroic.
If he's heroic, then he's not an antihero. Is he cowardly, drunk, motivated solely by greed? Is he particularly dumb? Weak? Incompetent? Ugly? Jealous? Pathetic? A bad lover? These traits, taken alone, would not be enough to qualify him as an antihero. But together, they would.
Right? Boys and toys... ;) Or should I say, their (anti - or not) heroes.
Nonetheless, a relevant discussion, even if only because someone at an Amazon meeting raised the subject.
“ The man with no name” and , from “ Unforgiven”, William Munny .
On the other hand, Harry Callahan and Josey Wales are not; both appear to be good men compelled to employ at times questionable actions by circumstances and adversaries