As a lifelong Bond obsessive (who wrote their college thesis on Bond) I was very happy to see you covering one of the films! As always I appreciate the discussion points you bring up. Bond is often discussed in a dismissive light or without any consideration of the series artistry so I find it refreshing when anyone takes a serious and nuanced approach to discussing 007.
I would suggest that seeing the original 20 film series or at least more of them gives a deeper context to Bond himself over time. There's also much more nuance and texture in the Bond film formula elements than most people would have you think. The films have a slightly different concept and rendering of Bond but the core is the same as Fleming's creation in the Literary Bond. Where he can seem cold there's a buried humanity and a sense of being the ultimate outsider. Fleming was a big Raymond Chandler fan and there's a sense of Philip Marlowe tarnished knight tradition in the book Bond. Bond retains his humanity and is extremely opinionated but is forever distanced from the outside world living with the baggage of being a "licenced trouble shooter".
The films kept the classic adventure flavor Fleming was inspired by in his writing but tweaked things a bit to add more humor and get his sense of fun and danger across in a more accessible way. This is at its purest in the first two films of the series before Goldfinger set the lighter formula idea in everyone's heads. The first three films are the core of the series and only certain films afterwards feature a more direct Fleming type approach. This is why On Her Majesty's Secret Service is such an outlier as it is essentially a direct adaptation of Fleming's Bond. There wouldn't be this much Fleming in the films again until the 1980's films began focusing directly on literary materials culminating in the sublime but short-lived Timothy Dalton era. Dalton is the purest rendering of the literary character onscreen but with a sense of the film Bond to not alienate the film audience.
If you follow along with the series you can see how they tried different approaches while trying to keep up with the popular culture of the time. The Roger Moore era sees several tonal shifts and Moore brilliantly developed the gentleman adventurer knight inherent in the character. The key is the original films never lost sight of the core identity of the character or the series. Goldeneye is the transitional film and was a make or break point coming after a six year hiatus and being the first post-Cold War series entry. It avoids the pitfalls of trying to reinvent the wheel and instead goes for a slightly self aware deconstruction of the traditional Bond film formula. That factor combined with the sense of real espionage worked in amidst some incredible style is what makes the film work. If this is your entry point to the series though it could give you a feeling of a slight hollowness. That's why I'd again suggest at least looking at some of the earlier films to get more of a sense of Bond's character and the world of Bond which blends adventure fantasy elements into reality.
The rest of the Brosnan era shows the series trying to find its footing but always snapping back to the traditional style. After this point they threw everything out the window including (I'd argue) the character himself. The biggest issue is that the key creative team members departed or passed away over time and most damaging was losing the original producer and primary writer after Licence to Kill.
Goldeneye deconstructs Bond in a postmodern sense for the mid 90's but it certainly wasn't the first time elements of Bond as a character were questioned by the story, the film's approach or even by Bond himself in self-reflection or disgust. Bond is far more human in the novels and the best moments in the films find ways to weave that sense of humanity into the adventurous witty escapism.
As for the villains frequently being disabled, scarred or having some sort of physical unique aspect to them it's been a subject of discussion for years. Fleming was heavily inspired by classical pulp fiction and the early days of spy fiction. Most of these featured larger than life villains with some kind of unique appearance of disability in some fashion. I've never felt that Fleming's characters or their film versions are meant to be demeaning to people with disabilities, but I can certainly understand why people might feel that way. As a counter argument I would offer up that Fleming did at least have a positive disabled character in the novels as Bond's best friend and ally Felix Leiter was nearly killed in the novel Live and Let Die. Through the rest of the novels, Leiter learned to live with his disability and forced change of career while also growing immensely as a character. This is one aspect I would love to see in the films someday.
Oh shoot...I didn't intend to leave a massive comment. You can't tell I'm a die hard Bond fan can you...
You'll likely enjoy the Bourne films but I would note outside of The Bourne Identity taking the basic concept of the first novel they are completely different from the Ludlum books which are much darker and incredibly complex.
This is all such fantastic context and definitely makes all of it all the more compelling. Thank you so much for taking the time to not only read but respond so fully! One thing I wanted to really get across here is that I was bringing a perspective to the film that was based on a stereotypical idea of the franchise and clearly needs further deconstruction. We can have these ideas about a genre without actually engaging with them, just as a product of oversaturation of parody or replica of that genre in other media. I do think there are certainly elements of my reasoning (Kissinger et al) that personally still make me uncomfortable with the concept of the character, but I am open to deconstructing those views further. Probably will start getting deeper into the genre with Bourne though because that sounds much more up my alley. Thank you again!
It’s a pleasure! You certainly succeeded in having a closer look than 99% of the usual stuff that passes for Bond articles!
I think Bond is unique in ways. There are the more grounded direct espionage Bonds but those still have the dash of adventure escapism which separates the character’s world from the completely realistic style of LeCarre for example.
Outside of Bond, my favorite and I think the best spy film ever made is THE IPCRESS FILE. It vividly details the dour daily life of an agent who must always move through a bureaucratic world filled with paranoia.
If you love Michael Caine and very British dry humor it’s a must! They followed it with two sequels which did the “change directors and and approaches” idea decades before Mission Impossible.
As a lifelong Bond obsessive (who wrote their college thesis on Bond) I was very happy to see you covering one of the films! As always I appreciate the discussion points you bring up. Bond is often discussed in a dismissive light or without any consideration of the series artistry so I find it refreshing when anyone takes a serious and nuanced approach to discussing 007.
I would suggest that seeing the original 20 film series or at least more of them gives a deeper context to Bond himself over time. There's also much more nuance and texture in the Bond film formula elements than most people would have you think. The films have a slightly different concept and rendering of Bond but the core is the same as Fleming's creation in the Literary Bond. Where he can seem cold there's a buried humanity and a sense of being the ultimate outsider. Fleming was a big Raymond Chandler fan and there's a sense of Philip Marlowe tarnished knight tradition in the book Bond. Bond retains his humanity and is extremely opinionated but is forever distanced from the outside world living with the baggage of being a "licenced trouble shooter".
The films kept the classic adventure flavor Fleming was inspired by in his writing but tweaked things a bit to add more humor and get his sense of fun and danger across in a more accessible way. This is at its purest in the first two films of the series before Goldfinger set the lighter formula idea in everyone's heads. The first three films are the core of the series and only certain films afterwards feature a more direct Fleming type approach. This is why On Her Majesty's Secret Service is such an outlier as it is essentially a direct adaptation of Fleming's Bond. There wouldn't be this much Fleming in the films again until the 1980's films began focusing directly on literary materials culminating in the sublime but short-lived Timothy Dalton era. Dalton is the purest rendering of the literary character onscreen but with a sense of the film Bond to not alienate the film audience.
If you follow along with the series you can see how they tried different approaches while trying to keep up with the popular culture of the time. The Roger Moore era sees several tonal shifts and Moore brilliantly developed the gentleman adventurer knight inherent in the character. The key is the original films never lost sight of the core identity of the character or the series. Goldeneye is the transitional film and was a make or break point coming after a six year hiatus and being the first post-Cold War series entry. It avoids the pitfalls of trying to reinvent the wheel and instead goes for a slightly self aware deconstruction of the traditional Bond film formula. That factor combined with the sense of real espionage worked in amidst some incredible style is what makes the film work. If this is your entry point to the series though it could give you a feeling of a slight hollowness. That's why I'd again suggest at least looking at some of the earlier films to get more of a sense of Bond's character and the world of Bond which blends adventure fantasy elements into reality.
The rest of the Brosnan era shows the series trying to find its footing but always snapping back to the traditional style. After this point they threw everything out the window including (I'd argue) the character himself. The biggest issue is that the key creative team members departed or passed away over time and most damaging was losing the original producer and primary writer after Licence to Kill.
Goldeneye deconstructs Bond in a postmodern sense for the mid 90's but it certainly wasn't the first time elements of Bond as a character were questioned by the story, the film's approach or even by Bond himself in self-reflection or disgust. Bond is far more human in the novels and the best moments in the films find ways to weave that sense of humanity into the adventurous witty escapism.
As for the villains frequently being disabled, scarred or having some sort of physical unique aspect to them it's been a subject of discussion for years. Fleming was heavily inspired by classical pulp fiction and the early days of spy fiction. Most of these featured larger than life villains with some kind of unique appearance of disability in some fashion. I've never felt that Fleming's characters or their film versions are meant to be demeaning to people with disabilities, but I can certainly understand why people might feel that way. As a counter argument I would offer up that Fleming did at least have a positive disabled character in the novels as Bond's best friend and ally Felix Leiter was nearly killed in the novel Live and Let Die. Through the rest of the novels, Leiter learned to live with his disability and forced change of career while also growing immensely as a character. This is one aspect I would love to see in the films someday.
Oh shoot...I didn't intend to leave a massive comment. You can't tell I'm a die hard Bond fan can you...
You'll likely enjoy the Bourne films but I would note outside of The Bourne Identity taking the basic concept of the first novel they are completely different from the Ludlum books which are much darker and incredibly complex.
This is all such fantastic context and definitely makes all of it all the more compelling. Thank you so much for taking the time to not only read but respond so fully! One thing I wanted to really get across here is that I was bringing a perspective to the film that was based on a stereotypical idea of the franchise and clearly needs further deconstruction. We can have these ideas about a genre without actually engaging with them, just as a product of oversaturation of parody or replica of that genre in other media. I do think there are certainly elements of my reasoning (Kissinger et al) that personally still make me uncomfortable with the concept of the character, but I am open to deconstructing those views further. Probably will start getting deeper into the genre with Bourne though because that sounds much more up my alley. Thank you again!
It’s a pleasure! You certainly succeeded in having a closer look than 99% of the usual stuff that passes for Bond articles!
I think Bond is unique in ways. There are the more grounded direct espionage Bonds but those still have the dash of adventure escapism which separates the character’s world from the completely realistic style of LeCarre for example.
Outside of Bond, my favorite and I think the best spy film ever made is THE IPCRESS FILE. It vividly details the dour daily life of an agent who must always move through a bureaucratic world filled with paranoia.
I'll check it out! Thank you
If you love Michael Caine and very British dry humor it’s a must! They followed it with two sequels which did the “change directors and and approaches” idea decades before Mission Impossible.