Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Do we read too much into certain Bond films?
I was watching Spectre again the other day while my wife was out shopping with a couple of her mates. When she got back it was on the torture scene. I remember she said afterwards that the "I love you" felt really forced when we saw it at the cinema, and when it came up again she said "do you not hate that bit?". She's not a Bond fan but really enjoyed the DC films up until this one, particularly Casino Royale which she liked the love story behind. She thought SP was a piss poor attempt at a love story in comparison. I explained that I didn't see it that way and that Madeline just thought she loved Bond because of her daddy issues, while Bond just saw her as a way out. And she said yeah but do you think the writers actually thought of that or is it just you.
And that got me thinking, do we over analyse the Bond films which we go in expecting to be "heavier"? I've always found TWINE to have lots of layers to it for example but given that it's got the same script writers as DAD, a lot of clunky dialogue, and that 90% of this forum seems to think the script was terrible, it's made me think that I'm just seeing stuff that isn't actually there. Same with SP, am I over analyzing it to justify a shoddy script? I certainly think TWINE and SP are more complex films than something like YOLT for example, but is that just because we go into the more arty/character driven Bond films expecting to find stuff to analyse? It's really got me thinking.
Are there any other Bond films that you lot think we might be reading a bit too much into? Or do you think it's all subjective and that there's no such thing as reading too much into a film, book, etc?
And that got me thinking, do we over analyse the Bond films which we go in expecting to be "heavier"? I've always found TWINE to have lots of layers to it for example but given that it's got the same script writers as DAD, a lot of clunky dialogue, and that 90% of this forum seems to think the script was terrible, it's made me think that I'm just seeing stuff that isn't actually there. Same with SP, am I over analyzing it to justify a shoddy script? I certainly think TWINE and SP are more complex films than something like YOLT for example, but is that just because we go into the more arty/character driven Bond films expecting to find stuff to analyse? It's really got me thinking.
Are there any other Bond films that you lot think we might be reading a bit too much into? Or do you think it's all subjective and that there's no such thing as reading too much into a film, book, etc?
^ 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
At any rate, that's an approach that implies an objective analysis of the film, but one could eschew all that and just let the film create thoughts and ideas in one's mind. That would imply taking a subjective approach; not really evaluating the film as the creation of the filmmakers but using it is a means to stimulate one's thoughts and emotions. I once attended a film class and a bunch of photos in a sequence were shown to the class. Some people raised their hands and interpreted the meaning behind the images, while I rolled my eyes because while their thoughts were in some way connected to the images, for me, the improvised and amateurish nature of the photos resulted in that there was no way of deciding whether those ideas were deliberate or coincidental. But as I say, that's just me, and if someone wants to let the art do whatever it must on the viewer, they can. It's no different than playing with a toy; it's just something to stimulate you.
So far, I've referred to ideas, messages, meanings within a film. That's the area where I think it's relatively easier to differentiate between deliberate and coincidental qualities. It's harder to do so when it comes to the juxtaposition of images and sounds, because they exist more within the territory of emotion than the territory of rationality; they deal more with feelings than concepts. But I do accept the manipulation of images and sounds is still a mysterious --even mystical-- process, so I don't hold the lack of conscious intention regarding that against the filmmakers. I once wrote a short script, and I found the process had "emergent properties"-- after writing a foundation of sorts, ideas, sights and even sounds started repeating themselves in different places, almost by sheer magic. Things just started tying together almost automatically. Such is the nature of the beast.
Anyway, I'm rambling, and this is just a primitive stab at this interesting subject, but I'm sure others can provide more elaborate thoughts.
Regarding Spectre, as far as I can tell and attempting to be objective, the film clearly deals with father issues through Blofeld, but when it comes to Madeleine, the film doesn't provide enough evidence to think Madeleine believes she loves Bond because of daddy issues.
One can project onto a film depending on one's emotions and expectations regarding it; that's bias, and varies from person to person. I don't really see a general tendency to overanalyzing any given Bond film. Having said that, I'd wager Spectre is a good candidate for being a victim of overanalysis, because while it has plenty of script shortcomings, the fact it aims to be an "art film" obscures those flaws by inspiring the viewer to make an effort to read into the film.
Films are art, and it's the business of all art to make itself available to the consumption of the public who ultimately impact its legacy and form ideas about what it's about. So, in this way, it is the business of watching films to look into them, to see what feelings they give us and what they may or may not be trying to say. Some people will watch a European film from Italy or France and roll their eyes at what they see as "pretension" or completely fall asleep amidst the quite character drama, but others will be engaged by the movie's characters and the film's attempt to simulate real life human conflict in real time while trying to pick up on any messages being delivered consciously or unconsciously. Neither viewer is wrong for what they are doing, the movie and its contents simply hit them a different way as is the point of art.
I have a problem with those with a stick where the sun don't shine who obsessively comment about how one or another person look to much into things when their greatest shortcoming could in fact be their inability to engage the film before them in their own way without judging the experience of others. You can't tell someone they are seeing too much into a film, but nor should you say someone is seeing too little. It's a fine balance, but you have to respect perspective. Certain films will have things that speak to a certain person while those same elements will upset someone else or put them to sleep. Films are challenging, but that's what's amazing about the art form. We can have films with existential themes that deliver a message about what it means to be alive, films that are inherently more susceptible to inspection, but we can also have wacky, balls to the wall action films where the only thing to analyze deeply is a sucker punch the hero gives to the lead villain. And that variety of content is a beautiful thing with neither style taking precedent, as it's all subjective.
I don't want this thread to relegate into another SP deconstruction like 99% of the others, but as this argument was framed through the Bond series I feel there's a built-in need to comment on that front.
As with all films, Bond movies have a variety of approach and some will invite deeper looking while others won't. It's important to know this distinction because you can't rate different films with different approaches in the same way: just as you can't gauge comedies in the way you would a drama that plays by different rules, Bond films have the same delineation. I wouldn't consider myself to be overstepping to look deep into Young's films or OHMSS, for example, as I can see the planning that went into the films, the fine craft of the scenes, the measured use of film elements, etc. but I probably wouldn't find that part of myself so engaged in most of the Moore films or later Brosnan ones, as those movies don't feel as interested in the former. The film will often speak to you, and let you know if looking deeper into it is worth the effort.
Watching FRWL for example, I would be able to see the real quality of the elements on display and be more engaged to look deeper because I can see the cleverness or weight of its content coming through; the movie makes it known that inspecting it will lead to even richer findings. Watching DAD on the other hand, I think one is more likely to resign themselves from trying to look deeper to (try and) enjoy a movie that is quite clearly not built with much of an attention to cinematic craft or a layering of images or messages; it's there to distract and stimulate you. Sometimes Bond films hold more for us to enjoy, and sometimes they're just trying to be popcorn flicks and don't care about the artistry of it. In a series of 24 films, we've got a lot of both kinds, and that's part of what is fascinating about it. As all art is up to what hits and engages the viewer, I wouldn't begrudge anyone looking deeper into any of the films, even if I couldn't see anything worthwhile in that inspection myself.
On the topic of SP, I think it is one of the films I've mentioned that begs inspection from me, as it's a film that stimulates me and is up my alley (I feel the need to address this as one of its fans). But more than that, it is frequently visible to me that Mendes and the crew put thinking behind a lot of the content to warrant an inspection: just as I feel moved to inspect the art, the art itself pays me back by earning that deeper look. The movie is well-crafted in the fashion that its messages and images are constantly presented and called back to such that a relationship is created between them that connect across the whole film in a way that is perceivable. The opening text after the gun barrel already conveys a message of the dead from the past being alive, a message that leads right into a Day of the Dead parade for a Mexican culture who truly believe their dead relatives are back with them on that day; already the movie connects image and idea to one core "theme." Bond is visually represented as a "messenger of death" to blend in during this PTS, a fitting symbol that carries through the film as his role as a killer is questioned, as is his soul. The script doubly serves the "dead are alive" theme with Bond and Blofeld's rivalry, the latter a part of the former's past coming back but always thought dead. There's the past coming back in the form of Mr. White, who, along with Madeleine, are used to create an interesting statement on mourning and morality as we see both Bond and Madeleine, two characters with distinct opinions and views, deal with the aftermath of White's life and death and the decisions he made. More images and ideas string together, like eyes/surveillance or ghosts/SPECTRE, and the film is given a vintage style with overtly dated style and locations to serve that idea of confronting the past.
I could go on, but to me the general impression I get when watching SP, as I did when I watched the even more well-crafted SF, is that images and messages were being placed in the film to get a reaction from me, or to tie into another aspect of the movie. It's no accident that a statue that looks exactly like the one in Percy Shelley's "Ozymandias" is on Silva's island, for example, right after he'd mocked Bond for the fall of his native empire; the intention of the commentary is clear, and it wouldn't do to ignore its meaning. I also don't think it's an accident that Berenice plays Severine like a dragon in the casino scene only for the movie to later name her boat after the "chimera," a beast with dragon-like traits. Furthermore, I don't think it's an accident that the definition of "chimera" outside its mythological ties is to describe something that is hoped for but that is an illusion and impossible to achieve, much like the escape Severine herself hopes she can experience from her situation. As with SP, the content of SF is overtly layering itself and saying something that connects to other messages or motifs in the rest of the film.
As @mattjoes said, films will often have connectors between the meanings or images they contain, to make impact of them through repetition. SF works well because Bond and M are often called "past it," making the reading of the Tennyson poem a big deal; the film reinforces the message it delivers. In the same token, SP has more impact to me when Bond's past comes back to bite him because I've already seen the movie present and address that theme in earlier scenes, along with a lot of other layering.
The films invite me to go deeper with them, as I perceive it to be worth it judging from the effort I see the director and their team putting in. The implication is that the effort of inspection will be paid off. And this doesn't seem to be an accident to me, as Mendes is a big nut for this kind of layered filmmaking and he has a wide range of knowledge on the kinds of art, poetry, literature and music references he is pulling from in accordance with his writers, crew and actors who come together to service those ideas. That is just one example, but from my subjective view I find myself stimulated by the Craig films especially because I see how the movies are constantly calling back to each other and how each individual film plays with cinematography and writing to make their own statements; again, the movies warrant my time and energy spent in inspecting them.
Not every Bond film has to say something, though I think a movie can only be helped when it is created with intent and passion behind it that we as the audience can see. The scripts don't have to slave themselves to existential questions or get overly artsy, but just having characters that represent a certain idea that fits into the rest of the film is interesting, and it's always great to see a film play with the language of its craft or the language of the script itself to make particular statements. GF isn't going out of its way to have a heavy message, but the image of that female statue being beheaded tells us everything we need to know in a visual sense about the respect Oddjob and Goldfinger pay to the feminine image. The framing of the action and the visuals being framed quietly reinforce a character or idea in the film.
People could find themselves motivated to looking deeper in the Moore or Brosnan films as I do with the early Connery, OHMSS or Dalton and Craig, and that's what's interesting about the series and the role of films as art in general. We are all engaged by different characters, ideas, images and themes, so our experience and enjoyment of a Bond film will always differ based on what is on offer. For some the sheer bizarre image of Jaws in TSWLM is already worth the price of admission, regardless of what purpose the characters serves, and for others a well shot and choreographed action sequence in the most popcorn of all Bond flicks is just as stimulating to experience and observe as the themes and images of a more minutely crafted story would be. We all come at things differently, and get from the art what the art gives to us.
And some are just able to see that the Emperor wears no clothes. Just as some prefer to kid themselves as being of deeper insight than others.
In your case it's rather obvious. You're so much full of yourself that it's no wonder you're such a fan of Mendes' take on Bond.
The smugness with which you concede to yourself that you are using more brain when watching a movie than @thelivingroyale wife actually says it all. The effrontery to open your essay by stating it in written words just adds to the picture.
I went a long way towards arguing that there is no supremacy when it comes to film viewing, that's literally the whole point of the post. @thelivingroyale's wife doesn't see what I do in SP, and that's perfectly fine, as she isn't engaged with what I feel engaged with. A recent example for me outside of Bond is Blade Runner, where I didn't see a good deal of what a lot of its ardent fans do when they see it, and no matter how much I inspected the film I just couldn't see what they did. It didn't speak to me as I'd hoped, but that's all down to perspective and what hits us.
There's no attempt to appear "deeper" or as if I'm "using more brain" than others in my post (it would aid you if you actually read it). In his opening post @thelivingroyale asked if he was looking too deep into SP, a film he underscored as an example, and I responded with MY perspective, not anyone else's, to argue that the film spoke to me in a way that wasn't unlike his. In doing so, I never stated that those who didn't enjoy the film or who didn't read the same messages are idiots or not smart enough to understand the film.
Your goal to constantly start conflict where there is none, and your tendency to speak for the point of view of others no matter how clearly they make their opinions known, is worrying.
No, I didn't read your post beyond opening. As I've stated before your habit to fire a zillion words at whatever topic that comes your way it's not to my liking. I simply don't think that your word count justifies the content so I'm not willing to spend that much time. Sure you understand.
But you're opening actually says it all and I'm not sure how you can get behind that statement in your further remarks. Of course opinions that are formed with one's brain in on mode are more worth than those that not.
I don't really have any problem with people reading into films and making connections that perhaps the makers of the film didn't intend. In fact, I welcome it. It's wonderful to read what people come up with, and sometimes they are quite compelling. When you really love a particular film, it's very easy to immerse yourself in that world, and when you see something that doesn't fit and breaks your immersion, it's natural to looks for explanations. However, the problems do come in, for me, when one acts like those subtleties one has parsed out over 100 viewings was obvious to the theatre going public on opening weekend. People simply don't read into things to that degree, and the fact that we are to assume the directors writers and producers are asking that of them is in itself ludicrous. For me, in order to appreciate craft, you have to be sure that it is craft at work, and not merely a string of coincidences that the filmmakers never picked up on. I think some people assume that because film is a medium that invites interpretation and different perspectives, that any and all perspectives are equally viable. In reality, if the director wanted a certain message to be communicated to the public, they would have signposted it more clearly. Why anyone would watch a film looking for any other interpretation besides what they think it is the director wants to communicate is completely beyond me.
You can't expect me to take you seriously here, can you, @noSolaceleft? You have formed this unverified version of my beliefs from one sentence, but instead of reading the entire post to read my entire thoughts, opinions and arguments, you're just going to lazily assume through your confirmation bias what you please? You won't get too far in debate with that attitude, which makes it ironic that you spend so much time on a discussion forum. It'd be like doing a research paper but only sourcing articles that you read the first sentence of to back up your claims. "Why do you believe this," your instructor would say, to which you'd respond with, "Well, the first sentence said so and all the rest didn't really matter."
You can mewl about post-count all you want no matter how tired an excuse it is, but you can't credibility enter a discussion with such a lazy mindset that you are going to judge everyone's opinions without actually reading the content of their thoughts. You can continue to do so if you please, but by no means expect to be taken seriously.
You can continue this witch hunt and obsession with exposing the "real me" all you want, but I've been on this forum for a long time and those who count know what kind of person I am, as well as my thoughts (they actually read what I say, for starters). You could start to form the same good impressions and make a nice home here, but behavior like this only gets in the way of that because people don't respect those who blindly seek conflict and negativity everywhere they go. Your ultimate goal to seemingly prove that I go to bed every night twisting my non-existent mustache while saying," Yes, my brain is larger than all those plebeians, yes, I am the very smartest!" is puzzling at best. Perhaps I should be flattered (?) that you seem so obsessed with my every personal and private thought, but I'm not one for the spotlight and have started to find it creepy. There are far better and less trivial things to obsess over than me, poor chap...like writing a spy novel. ;)
We are huge fans of this series, as evidenced by our membership and participation on this forum, so it goes without saying that we would try to find importance and meaning in the films. How we do that reflects and mirrors our own sensibilities, emotional disposition and personalities. There are certain elements and certain portrayals that really speak to me personally, just as I've noticed that there are other elements which speak to others which I can't stand.
I've noticed that a lot of our love for these films (and film in general) is emotional as @mattjoes noted. We can say that we are analyzing, but if one thinks about it a lot of it is subjective and subconscious connection first. Then we try to rationalize that impression by discussion and appeal to logic.
Having said that, is all film analysis essentially subjective? I'm not so sure. There are definitely certain agreed to norms which resonate more with viewers. This is why I look for consensus generally and don't knock the prevailing opinion, whether it be out in the general public and also within this forum. If the majority of viewers and forum members think something is bad, then that is a reflection of the product in my view. Sure they could be wrong if one really delves into it, but the simple fact is it wasn't as obvious to most. That's where execution comes in. Finesse. Emphasis in the right quantities. Balance. It's like playing a musical instrument. Many can attempt to deliver the same performance but some just do it better.
Coming back to the Madeleine example, as I've said before, I think that was very poorly handled in the film. Not only was I not convinced by the acting, but the manner in which the film makers chose to illustrate and convince us of that 'love' wasn't effective in my view. Now, that's just me. I've seen others say it was perfectly convincing, and that's their right. We all don't like the same things. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and our emotional reactions (including our ways of 'loving') are different. So of course we won't all agree on this. Still, they could have handled it better imho.
It's funny, but when I read this part of your excellent post my mind immediately went back to SP's hanging photos. I'm not sure about others, but I shook my head in the theatre at that scene.
Well, I have read your post and nothing I see their cushions ( or clarifies ) your opening. Maybe you could point out which lines in your post actually do this?
@noSolaceleft, nice to see you did your homework, yet somehow have still not seen the point I was making with clarity.
The opening paragraph that seemed to offend you so much outlined a few examples of people who watch films. Some people only watch films as "background noise" and don't really care about looking deeper. There isn't anything wrong with this (with you I feel this disclaimer is needed), it's just to say that there is a good number of super casual film fans who simply turn on a film and lose themselves in it, or who don't like watching films period. The next group are those whose lives are really impacted by film, and they eat everything up like it's food (I'm in this category). Watching movies isn't mild entertainment to this group, it's a real event and something that enriches their lives and because of that they really inspect the movies they watch when they feel they are warranted. The last group I named are those who may or may not have a serious interest in film, but who will watch a film and not see what others do because the material doesn't speak to them in that way and they have their own tastes. As with the first group there's nothing wrong with that, I just pointed it out to show that as art film hits everyone differently and any film will produce an infinite number of positive or negative reactions. All of us are sometime in this last group no matter if we're in the first or second, because there will be movies we see that many will see content in that we don't due to our tastes, expectations, and interest in inspection. If a movie doesn't speak to us, it doesn't speak to us, but neither group, those that see something and those that don't, are wrong (obviously). The key word being subjectivity.
The first couple paragraphs outline these above points with everything but a neon sign attached to them:
Films are art, and it's the business of all art to make itself available to the consumption of the public who ultimately impact its legacy and form ideas about what it's about. So, in this way, it is the business of watching films to look into them, to see what feelings they give us and what they may or may not be trying to say. Some people will watch a European film from Italy or France and roll their eyes at what they see as "pretension" or completely fall asleep amidst the quite character drama, but others will be engaged by the movie's characters and the film's attempt to simulate real life human conflict in real time while trying to pick up on any messages being delivered consciously or unconsciously. Neither viewer is wrong for what they are doing, the movie and its contents simply hit them a different way as is the point of art.
I outlined here the basic situation of many people having a different reaction to the same film due to their different tastes, but neither viewpoint being dominant. As with every subjective act, there's no supremacy in watching a particular film as the art sparks opinion itself, and you either find yourself engaged by the film or not. As I said earlier for an example, I can't see a lot of the stuff my friends see in Blade Runner, but the discussion is interesting because I am seeing the perspective of those the film invited to look deeper at particular elements of the story and characters because their interests motivated them to do so. I'm no dumber for not sharing their opinions just as I'm no smarter for perceiving things in another film my friends may not see anything in at all. Again, the key word being subjectivity.
I have a problem with those with a stick where the sun don't shine who obsessively comment about how one or another person look to much into things when their greatest shortcoming could in fact be their inability to engage the film before them in their own way without judging the experience of others. You can't tell someone they are seeing too much into a film, but nor should you say someone is seeing too little. It's a fine balance, but you have to respect perspective. Certain films will have things that speak to a certain person while those same elements will upset someone else or put them to sleep. Films are challenging, but that's what's amazing about the art form. We can have films with existential themes that deliver a message about what it means to be alive, films that are inherently more susceptible to inspection, but we can also have wacky, balls to the wall action films where the only thing to analyze deeply is a sucker punch the hero gives to the lead villain. And that variety of content is a beautiful thing with neither style taking precedent, as it's all subjective.
The same point is supported again, but this time I also touched on the act of inspection and how those who look deep in a film and those who don't see what others do are on an equal standing. In the same fashion, those who look deeper and those who don't shouldn't be chastised intellectually or otherwise because the impetus is placed on the film to make them care about its content. If the film doesn't the person has no reason to take the time and energy to inspect a film deeper, or the genre doesn't fit their interests. I'm more likely to devote my time to noirs than musicals, for example, as the former is closer to my interests and the kinds of content I like to see in films.
As I was also quick to state to end the paragraph, there are films that don't invite you to look deeper because they are simply trying to be popcorn flicks that help you escape for a while, so an inspection can sometimes be futile or unnecessary for some. As with the variety of film viewers, every type of movie from the deepest existential drama to the wackiest comedy or action film have their place and people get out of each what they do. There is no supremacy. Again, the concept of subjectivity peeks its head out.
This same opinion stands when looking at Bond films...
People could find themselves motivated to looking deeper in the Moore or Brosnan films as I do with the early Connery, OHMSS or Dalton and Craig, and that's what's interesting about the series and the role of films as art in general. We are all engaged by different characters, ideas, images and themes, so our experience and enjoyment of a Bond film will always differ based on what is on offer. For some the sheer bizarre image of Jaws in TSWLM is already worth the price of admission, regardless of what purpose the characters serves, and for others a well shot and choreographed action sequence in the most popcorn of all Bond flicks is just as stimulating to experience and observe as the themes and images of a more minutely crafted story would be. We all come at things differently, and get from the art what the art gives to us.
As with all films, our 24 Bond films are different and will engage people differently such that what engages me won't others or one era will invite someone to devote their time to studying it while another will bore them completely. In the same token, to some viewers an action sequence is just as fascinating to take in as any dramatic one, which is why I finished the post by saying, "We all come at things differently." We get from the art what we ultimately see in that art, without any opinion becoming the prevailing one.
You can't look at art with absolutes, as anything with an opinion attached to it is inherently filled with subjectivity and bias based on our own life experiences, tastes, interests and histories with the art form in question. How you thought I was arguing anything different while constantly making a case for subjectivity is absolutely lost on me. Nobody in their right mind would argue for one opinion to reign supreme regarding anything in the art world, be it books, films, music or anything else, because with art there are no absolutes. The entire point of art is to create something that can impact everyone in a different way and provide a wide range of meaning and impressions, without any one opinion being belittled by another and none of those viewpoints being the supreme conclusion on that piece of art.
It's quite ironic that the person who thinks I write too much essentially made me explain to him twice the points that were already made in the original post. This has been a strange day...
You'll commonly find that I don't go seeking this kind of thing, @Birdleson, so I don't cause what you perceive with intention. I don't know how else to explain an outcome where, after making a piece that advocated for subjectivity and a respect of all views relating to art, I'm somehow called egotistical and full of myself for apparently thinking that my opinions are better than everyone else's. Now, I'd be a hypocrite to call any opinion based on me a wrong one, but do you see how quickly the wrong impressions spark in peoples' minds regardless of anything substantial supporting it?
I think what you describe is partially down to the forum climate, where there always has to be some negative force pulling everyone else down now, regardless of how trivial the argument or circumstances. I talk all the time about how I miss the less heated days, where people calmed down and didn't have a freak out if you wrote a lot on a subject and you didn't see people implicating that you were this definite, bad thing without actually reading your post to find out for sure what you were arguing. Perhaps I'm nostalgic, but new faces haven't exactly laid out the welcome mat or a sense of respectability for old or fresh members on this forum.
Really he said nothing offensive, but it seemed to spark-off nosolaceleft, unfortunately.
Onto the topic: I think it’s unavoidable that fans will read too much into their favourite subjects.
I'm with you on this one. After all, Bond is entertainment first. Fleming wrote entertaining page-turners, just as much as any of the Bond films are entertaining action flicks. The books are tight thrillers, and the movies are set out that way as well.
So yes, I do think we read too much into the films. Of course there are plenty of elements to be discussed (always!). After all, Bond films touch upon certain themes, and each film is a part of the time it was made in. Still, with a 130 minute playtime, there can't be too many layers to add. Maybe the dialogue or scenes sometimes are set up that way – intentionally or not.
It is fun, for sure. Some take umbrage to people thinking about a film, but it harms literally nobody. And that's our whole role here as forum members, to talk of the content in movies. As humans we're slaves to meaning and we look for it in movies as we do in everything else.
As a phenomenon, there's more to Bond than him just being a "cool action hero." And that's why he's been going strong for 55 years. There's nothing wrong with analyzing the films (and books and paratexts) to grapple with how and why Bond taps into our psyche.
You should start it, @Birdleson. I keep a head canon of a lot and would love to hear how other people connect the films as well.
I think it's also important to stress the kind of detail and thought Fleming put into his own writing. He'd present images or ideas and call back to them throughout the book, to create meaning defined by that repetition. He was an extremely visual writer, for how he made it so easy to see his world and characters come alive, and how he structured his stories around repeating images and ideas.
I think the Bond films can often be the same way, where there's just a little extra in there beyond the usual fare at times, images or messages to give the movie an additional identity. QoS could just as easily be a story about forgiveness outside of its relation to the spy genre, just as SF could be one of endurance and moving on past failure. Not all Bond films need these as essential parts of their structure, but I think that the more there is in a movie to tangibly connect to, the more impact it will have with an audience in some cases. But even still, those who want to escape with the film or inspect it deeper are in the position to do so at any point depending on their goals and motivations.
Movies always be escapism, fun enjoyment and teacher is also part of that. It made why Roger Moore era is my favorite Bond era too.
Some things have 2-3 meanings. I see Bond who losing people in maintitle of Casino Royale reference to Alec / 006 and Bond who fight himself trow years with reference to room fight of Tomorrow Never Dies.
Oh my god! Now that's a cover that really evokes the feeling and the atmosphere of the book. Wow!
By bringing Jung to the table I again would say this is certainly seeing too much in it.
In CR it is quite obvious Bond is styled along the hero of the Byron persuasion while in the later novels he's getting more and more like John Buchans Hannay ( meaning less tough and professional), probably because Fleming wanted his hero to be more likable.
The films have far outshone the novels in contemporary culture, imho.
Absolutely! I would even go so far to say that without the movies no one would even remember the novels these days.
You come off as passive agressive, rude and arrogant.
https://www.reddit.com/r/flicks/comments/3na5tf/do_you_believe_thats_possible_to_look_too_deeply/?st=j9c5obip&sh=9e799854
One user in particular suggested three basic guidelines for looking into any film, and what the content of the analysis must carry:
1.) Clarity: The analysis helps illuminate something about the film's meaning/themes. For example, the analysis of the cat in "Gone Girl" helps illuminate a lot of the film's ideas about social perception with a "character" whose perception is neutral to the events.
2.) Coherence: The analysis is consistent with everything else in the film. An incoherent analysis might say a film says it is anti war when it otherwise blatantly calls for war (a simplistic example, I admit).
3.) Salience: The analysis can be found to help the film as a whole, rather than just being insular.
That really hits it on the head for me, where the analysis one makes must have some connection to the film itself that is organic and not out of nowhere, and that has some relevance to a discussion about that film that is backed up with evidence (as all claims should be). Some movies may be more illusive than others are at giving one an idea of what a director may be trying to say, but I think it becomes easy to tell who is genuinely having a connection to a film and arguing for its content in a way that is backed up by the movie itself, and someone who is just randomly stringing words together whose content have nothing really to do with the film itself.
For instance, one could get more mileage out of arguing for SF being a film partially about the old world versus the new/modern, as that impression is backed up by the content addressed in the film, whereas calling the film anti-spy doesn't match up with the evidence laid out in the film as strong as the former defense. Not to say that the latter defense should be chastised, as that was their viewpoint and what they took from the film, but a debate could easily be had about the validity of that claim and what in the movie truly supports it.
EDIT:
Here's another link where some are debating pretentious films vs. artsy films:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.114678-The-difference-between-an-artistic-movie-and-a-pretentious-movie
I know this discussion has been had before regarding more recent Bond films, especially QoS and SF and SP, which have been said to have certain "artsy" touches to them. It's often debated in these cases whether these artsy elements work for Bond, or if by using them the movies become something they weren't intended to be.
I've personally not had an issue with this, as the artsy elements never overtake the film in question and more often than not present interesting content. The opera scene in QoS is played in a different way than other Bond films would execute it, for instance, where sound is cut off while Bond is pursued, but that so-called "artsy" touch adds an atmosphere and weight to the scene that makes those influences more than welcome to me.
I'd say the same for SF and SP too, where the intention to layer images and themes at various points in each are an interesting study in how patterns can be laid around a film that connect to a core idea. The mythology of SF, the references to old and new tech, of old ways being the best, and how the film reinforces that battle between the archaic and the flashy and modern, just as SP reinforces the imagery of ghosts, death, surveillance and the past coming back with SPECTRE, images of a Day of the Dead parade, a focus on eyes and yes...a lot of death. The Rome meeting of SP could be said to have an artsy effect like the opera scene of QoS too, only in this case I again think that the atmosphere created by the scene is a strength and I like how the sound design (the whispers, coughs and shuffling of the members) create a sense of unease.
So in the same token, I guess we could use this topic about looking into Bond films to address if these artsy elements have a place, and if they feel relevant to Bond's role as a popcorn pop culture icon since "artsy" elements almost beg inspection? Part of why some films are dug into deeper could be in reaction to the very presence of these artsy elements, so I think it does have some relevance. It could be an interesting discussion, as artsy elements could be argued to have existed in this series as early as OHMSS, which has a very different feel from the films before and after it that is more in line with the Craig era's approach to Bond films in certain ways.