The name “James Bond” does not immediately conjure visions of incompetence, physical lethargy and psychological frailty in the average filmgoer’s mind. Yet throughout the latest Bond film, Skyfall, agent 007 exhibits precisely those symptoms that would bar lesser men from field duty. But Bond has a reputation, and it is his reputation that compels M to return her best agent back to active duty (after a three month sojourn somewhere in Turkey, exploring the local customs, beverage and women) despite underwhelming test results.
Yet no villain is a match for this underprepared and undercooked Bond. For those who have not seen the film I don’t think I am revealing too much when I claim that Bond cannot die. (And that is the beauty of a film franchise but the bane of the contemplative film viewer.) The worst thing that can happen to Bond is the loss of a lover or close friend, usually by being immersed in gold dust or some such mysterious device, or in the case of Skyfall, through a quaint game of William Tell inspired marksmanship.
But NO amount of shooting, stabbing, poisoning, plunging into waterfalls, etc. can induce Bond into the grave.
So while rushing an unfit Bond back to service may seem like a mouth-watering prospect for many fans, for those who expect Bond to be tested to his limits will be quietly devastated. Critics of Bond films are seldom given oxygen in the world’s press. Indeed, most people want a Bond film to succeed as it indulges a certain type of fantasy and Bond himself has become a sort of dubious cultural icon over the years.
Bond has a licence to two of the most primitive instincts inherent in Man: to bed whomever he desires and to kill whomever he wants (popularizing the films among women has been one of the greatest marketing tricks of the twentieth century). While the latter is officially sanctioned by the government, the former is the subject of much gossip (M is clearly aware of it) but is treated broadly to Bond’s advantage or provides fodder for office repartee. Yet Bond seems to enjoy the higher moral ground when dealing with his enemies. Despite the nature of his work, Bond rarely (in the movies at least) has misgivings about his missions. In Ian Fleming’s book, ‘From Russia with Love’, Bond does ponder whether the ideology of communism may prove an effective alternative to capitalism, when his friend and ally convinces him to put his faith ‘in people’ and not in ideologies because ‘it is easier to fight for people than to fight for an ideology’. Despite this brief detour into Bond’s line of critical thinking, the book makes it clear that the Soviet system of governance is brutal and corrupt, and is clearly inferior to the Western one and leaves the reader in no doubt which side he or she ought to be cheering for. There is no serious challenge to Western morality and by extension to Bond’s work.
Yet here the Bond books and films depart considerably from reality. Any honest reader of world history will admit that morality has played little part in the West’s dealings with the rest of the world and in fact, in many conflicts it has played the role of the aggressor and acted contrary to international law.
The closest a Bond film came to addressing this was Quantum of Solace, which had a rogue CIA agent that supported, among other things, the immoral privatisation of the entire Bolivian water supply and the overthrow of unfriendly third world governments. However, this agent seemed to have little to do with American foreign policy and had apparently been taking matters into his own hands. The enemy was, in this case, a CIA agent who had been seduced from his loyalty by offers of financial gain. So the West’s moral authority remained intact; it was merely its citizens who occasionally depart from traditional Western values that cause the occasional predicament.
It appears that Bond has little or no ambition and is content to follow orders all his life. An interesting trajectory for the franchise to follow might be one where Bond decides to challenge the thinking of MI6 and refuses to obey orders on matters of certain British foreign policy. Yet that would turn Bond into a thinker, and Bond rarely ever reflects on the meaning and purpose of his work. He takes it for granted that there is a bipolar world and that he is on the side of good. Bond is also no rebel. In fact, if anything, he is quite the reactionary. In fashion, food, cars and women, his tastes are rather conventional. From a distance he could pass as a banker or lawyer. Until he opens his big mouth and tells the world his real name. Perhaps that is why we admire him: for his audacity. But there is no deed more audacious than to challenge your superiors.
Perhaps the Bond franchise could benefit from a little Byronic flavour infused into its eponymous hero.
9
I admire your power of critical thinking and the art of its uninhibited presentation. I would appreciate if you consider to scan “Life of Pi” with your insightful analytical skill.