This post marks the end of this blog and the end of a fascinating study of fictional British hero James Bond. While the nature of this blog might still be a mystery after reading it, let me explain: This blog is a collection of writings all written by myself (M. Shaner) for one English class at California State University Northridge. This class was named Engl 312 Literature + Film, and the subject matter of the semester was character James Bond and his world. Our professor, Steven Wexler, had us put our major writing assignments on to a blog, and here it is! For education and novelty's sake, I'll leave them here. They are not to be used to break any rules at all, such as plagiarism (to take my writings and use it as your own). For private, or non-profit use, feel free to use my ideas and writing in any way as long as citation of my authorship is present. For public, or profitted use, I must be contacted (e-mail: mog19@aol.com) before use of my ideas and/or writing.
Thanks for visiting!
Sunday, August 30
Thursday, May 14
Globalization of the American Film Hero
It’s no secret that American film, namely Hollywood, had and continues to have a chokehold on the film industry. This gives America a sort of monopoly on film heroes. The most prominent American film hero has to be the American cowboy. The cowboy practically defines American culture, having such an integral part in its history as an agricultural society. The gritty idealization of the American cowboy has thus been engrained into American culture and therein film. It is this way that idealized cowboy values have defined a strong place in American film. Such values have been continued on in American film ever since. The effects of the American cowboy monopoly in film, in conjunction with globalization, have completely changed what is expected of a film today. If it’s not in America style, it likely won’t go international. Many film cultures have been forced to Americanize in this sense. I believe Britain’s film industry’s single major production exhibits this Americanization very well. This major production is the James Bond series. Americanization has made this series more politically correct, ending the gross misunderstandings of other cultures by the older Bond films. However, this is a change that I don’t appreciate. I do appreciate political correctness and realism, but I appreciated the interesting interpretations of other cultures in Bond flicks. Even if these interpretations are skewed, I believe we can understand this and simply enjoy them for vibrant fictional experiences.
The American cowboy made its place in film with the success of the American western film, headed by actor John Wayne. Wayne’s breakthrough role in the American western was the film Stagecoach (1939). “This revolutionary, influential film - a story of redemption - is considered a landmark quintessential film that elevated westerns from cheaply-made, low-grade, Saturday matinee "B" films to a serious adult genre” (Dirks). In other words, Stagecoach was the American western that started it all. In this film cowboy Ringo Kid escapes from prison to get revenge for being framed for his family’s murder (Dirks). Ringo personalizes justice, which contradicts social justice (in this case prison). This makes him an outlaw, but he is still considered a hero because he is only an outlaw by mistake (he was framed). Ringo is thus the more righteous one because he upholds true justice on the real criminals – those who murdered his family. The government (sheriff) is shown to be wrong and, contrary to it’s purpose of fulfilling justice, impedes justice. In this sense the film is very anarchistic – a hatred of structure and government. Further, this glorifies individual freedom and personal strength. American film has carried on these traditions ever since.
First Blood (1982), the first film of the Rambo series, has continued on the American western values even still today. In this movie Rambo, a Vietnam War veteran, has had trouble fitting back into the life of an ordinary American citizen. Tensions against Vietnam veterans caused Rambo to embrace a life as a drifter, where the movie takes place as he looks to reunite with an old war friend in a small mountain town. When Rambo enters the town, he is bullied by the local police for being a Vietnam veteran. While being bullied, Rambo has a flashback to Vietnam and retaliates against the police, sometimes with lethality (“Synopsis of First Blood”). Again we see an anti-government and pro-individual message. In this case, the government (police) is wrong for misunderstanding Vietnam veterans, and personal strength and freedom is used to overcome the government. These are the recurring values of the American western – individual justice and freedom. These values have continued to be major themes in the Rambo series to this day with the latest Rambo film, self-titled John Rambo (2008), coming out only a year ago. Rambo 5 has also been announced to be out by 2011.
Since the time of Stagecoach, American film has been growing immensely. And in the time of Rambo, Hollywood nearly had a chokehold on the film business. This chokehold is only stronger today. American films remain the major films that are distributed internationally. This is known as globalization – the process of a non-global phenomenon becoming a global one. In this case, culture is globalized. I believe this monopoly, in conjunction with globalization, has forced non-American films to cater to the American style and therein the American hero.
I believe the James Bond series, Britain’s only major film production still lasting, exhibits this globalization of the American hero well. To show this, I believe the James Bond series can be generalized into three chronological categories: realistic, idealistic, and Americanized. The realistic is found in the books; idealistic in the films; and Americanized in the later films, where James Bond is an action hero alike Ringo and Rambo.
The realistic stage (roughly 1953 to 1962) is found in the beginning of the whole series – in the books. It can be characterized as having more realistic characters and plotlines. Main protagonist James Bond, a British secret agent, is multi-dimensional. He offers perspectives on his job. At one point he even considers quitting. Being that he works for the British government, this is a message about many things including militant jobs, government jobs, and the British government. Further, other characters are also realistic. The women Bond has romance with – ‘Bond girls’ – usually have some incentive to want to be with Bond other than the superficial. Bond has bandaged wounds and helped a girl through depression, all while keeping a polite and considerate attitude around the women. Characters from other cultures also bring some insights. Character Tiger Tanaka, from You Only Live Twice (1964), is Japanese, and as much as Bond challenges his culture, he challenges right back. Each side seems to have a strong case, which lends to the realism that no one culture is inherently right.
The idealistic stage (roughly 1962 to 1989) is found in the beginning of the film series. It can be characterized as having more idealistic characters and plotlines. James Bond is so idealized that he is practically invincible. In any hand and gunfight he is never harmed beyond being quickly incapacitated, contrasted to him enduring knife and other wounds in the realistic stage. However, Bond blasts and karate chops through waves of enemies. Bond could be threatened by falling into a trap, but some beautiful girl never fails to save him. Bond is so invincible that the Bond girls fall immediately for him on just the superficial. Sometimes there would be only two lines of dialogue between Bond and a Bond girl and he’d be in bed with them. Further, the villains and other cultures are extreme stereotypes. Without fail, a Bond villain has some deformity – be it physical, cultural, or personality. For instance, the leader of SPECTRE, a villainous organization, is bald and has a large scar on his face. There is also a heavy dependence on stereotypes of voodoo and tarot cards in Live and Let Die (1973) to characterize the Caribbean black person. In this film, the audience is treated to wild jungle parties involving bizarre traditions, which is supposed to represent Caribbean culture. The main villains in this film also depend on tarot cards to make their decisions. These superstitious ways are contrasted to the modern technology of James Bond, and Bond’s success shows the superstitions, and therein Caribbean culture, to be silly and useless. It seems obvious that there is a heavy reliance on stereotypes here – the black person being pictured as non-modern and superstitious.
The Americanized stage (roughly 1989 to present) begins with the actor Pierce Brosnan’s Bond films. This is when the films began to deviate more from the books, the reason being that simply they had already filmed most of the books. It can be characterized as having more American western characters, plotline, and style. James Bond himself is almost never directly related to Britain anymore, instead indirectly being related to by his clothing and personality. There remains to be some stereotyping and idealizations of villains. Xenis Onatopp, a Russian femme fatale from Goldeneye (1995), for instance, kills her enemies during foreplay with her thighs. This is a Russian stereotype to be so cold as to kill someone during sex, or even equate killing and sex. However, some characters do capture some realism. 006, James Bond’s partner in Goldeneye, backstabs Bond to get revenge on the British government for his parents’ deaths (“Goldeneye”). 006 was not only a partner, but a friend to Bond. 006 is like Bond in many ways – handsome, physically fit, and with a like personality. Here we have a villain that is not a stereotype. Rather, he is picturesque of an American cowboy – a rebel against government. Well, Bond may kill the American cowboy in this film, but he feels the most for 006. In the end, Bond almost can’t kill 006 because of this. This shows some preference for the American cowboy. But Bond does end up killing 006, preferring government justice to the personal justice of the American cowboy. The situation is complicated, but I’m only speaking of the overt message here.
This preference for government justice has always been a theme in Bond, but we’re beginning to see Bond experimenting with personal justice more and more. In the idealistic stage Bond does everything for the mission, and never questions that mission or the government issuing it. However, in the Americanized stage we have 006 in Goldeneye challenging Bond’s government justice. This challenge is strongest in the latest Bond film Quantum of Solace (2008). In this film, Bond’s mission is to capture a man who indirectly caused the death of his lover, Vesper. Here we see a conflict between the mission and Bond’s revenge. This is seen throughout the movie and amplified by the Bond girl who joins Bond in seeking her own revenge for a separate incident. Ultimately in the end Bond overcomes his urge to enact revenge and kill the man, leaving him for interrogation (“Quantum Synopsis”). But, there is obvious tension for Bond in that decision; he truly wants to kill the man and fulfill his vengeance. This, I believe, is the influence of the American western. It is common for the American cowboy’s personal justice to be based on revenge, revenge that defies the government’s justice (the mission). And Bond considers this – justice based on revenge and defying government.
Now we can see a strong progression of American western influence in Bond films. First, in the Brosnan series Bond is torn between government justice (the mission) and personal justice in understanding 006’s pain. And second, in Quantum of Solace Bond actually considers personal justice over government justice. Further, even superficially, Rambo is an action hero and Bond is changed from a secret agent to an action hero beginning in the Brosnan series. That the American action Rambo series came out and grew before the Brosnan series of Bond began I think is no coincidence. I think there is apparent influence of Rambo and popular Rambo-like American films of the same time in the Bond series marked by the change in the Brosnan series.
This influence of the American western and globalization have had effects on the Bond series that aren’t even cultural, but rather political. The globalization of the American film hero would’ve caused conflict for Britain’s Bond series because it creates another standard of competition – global appeal. One major part of this global appeal is the fact that a movie has to appeal across vast cultures and ages to be globalized. Now, Bond has always had a great appeal because of the idealization of his militant job. This idealization allowed him to karate chop an enemy and incapacitate him without any of the dirty work. This gives the old Bond films an edge for appeal across ages, but it was still lacking an appeal across cultures. Cultures, as discussed in the idealized stage, were depicted in Bond films as extreme stereotypes. There is no doubt that there stereotypes would be upsetting to other cultures and hamper the series’ global appeal. So, beginning in the Brosnan series I have noted that already more characters, notably the villains, are more realistic. The same global appeal tactics were continued on since then. There is nothing seriously deformed about the villains’ appearance or culture in Quantum of Solace, only that he is just plain evil. So, the American standard of political correctness for global appeal is seen here to have influenced the Bond series. Not only is it an influence, but it is almost forced upon the Bond series in order to compete with the thriving American film industry. Bond would have to adapt to global appeal to stand a chance to the money earning that America’s international film does. This way, Britain can also get in on the international film industry. But the point here is that Bond cannot remain idealized and still be a success.
My personal opinions about this however is that I kind of appreciated the idealized Bond more than this global Bond. I fell in love with Bond because of the interesting interpretations, relations, and contrasts of other cultures, even if they are very skewed. The bizarre characters and locales in Bond films always created a vibrant, interesting fictional experience for me. The global Bond has been, like unrealistic depictions, similarly skewed by globalization. Bond is no longer a historic figure, capturing a time and place. Bond is Rambo with some new mission. To me, this makes Bond more of a clone or copy rather than a unique independent hero, which loses some of his original appeal.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for equality and realism and the acceptance of all people. Surely the idealized Bond that I loved is not acceptable with the standards today, right? Yes, but I believe humans are more capable than such a paternal thought makes them out to be, and do not need to be told that stereotyping is unrealistic and wrong. Most people I think would agree that the depictions of culture in older Bond films are very unrealistic, and yet the success of the Bond series tells me that these people still enjoyed the films. After all, we don’t see many people, if any, committing any racist acts because of unrealistic racial depictions in Bond films. It seems apparent then that your average person is understanding enough to not take Bond seriously.
Am I too idealistic to expect this? Perhaps the stereotypes in Bond films affect culture in a more subtle way than I perceive here. I will not deny the possibility of this.
Regardless of the affection I show for the older Bond films, the new Bond films are not something I hate. I really enjoyed Rambo, and so do I enjoy the new Bond-Rambo. These American western influenced films can still be interesting, unique, and creative. I will continue to watch future Bond films. All I am saying here is that the older Bond films have an appeal that is not so offensive, and may be enjoyed for their own unique fictional experiences.
Concluding, the globalization of the American film hero has come a long way. Because of Stagecoach, the American western has thrived. And because of the Rambo series, American western themes are still carried on today. When globalization came into play, creating a global film industry, America’s stranglehold on international film influenced other cultures film industries. The Bond series is one excellent example of this. I broke down this series into three chronological categories: realistic, idealistic, and Americanized. The realistic is found in the books; idealistic in the films; and Americanized in the later films, where James Bond is an action hero alike Ringo and Rambo. American western values can be seen to have a slow but lasting impact on the Bond films noticeably starting with the Brosnan series, when America’s monopoly on the film industry was set in stone. This marked cultural changes in the Bond films, notably the understanding of justice. American western justice (personal justice) contrasts and threatens British governmental justice (the mission), as seen in Bond films today. While I do reminisce about how I enjoyed the older Bond films, I have nothing against the new Bond films. In fact, I enjoy them a lot. My only point being that older Bond films are not so offensive, and could be enjoyed for their own unique fictional experiences.
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. Stagecoach 1939. Filmsite. URL = [http://www.filmsite.org/stagec.html]. Accessed May 12, 2009.
Synopsis for First Blood. The Internet Movie Database. No author, only “contributors”: Top contributors listed screen names: stp43 and cemetery_gates. URL = [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083944/synopsis]. Accessed May 12, 2009.
Goldeneye. Wikipedia. No author. URL = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldeneye]. Accessed May 12, 2009.
Release dates for films double-checked using: The Internet Movie Database. URL = [http://www.imdb.com/]. Accessed May 12, 2009.
Monday, April 20
Neoliberalism: V for Vendetta
Neoliberalism, as David Harvey sees it in his book "A Brief History of Neoliberalism": the suppression of a people by the privileged (upper class) in the name of freedom. When I consider this topic, one movie comes to mind that represents both neoliberalism and present times. That movie is 'V for Vendetta.' In this movie, set in the near future, a totalitarian government assumes control of Britain to end recent terrorism. Little to the people's knowledge, this new government was responsible for that terrorism. Immediately the intentions of this government are known when the audience is treated to the government's founder taking a shower in his beautiful home. Using the facade of freedom, this privileged group forces their control of Britain for one thing - money. This, I believe is a great representation of neoliberalism. In Harvey's book he even further discusses how many wars may have been purposefully maintained to threaten the people's freedom, to instill a deep fear and hence dependence on government leadership. Under this dependence, the government's freedoms are thus justified and suppression of the people is accepted. This dependence is exactly what the government in 'V for Vendetta' seeks out in order to apply their greedy control. This idea is clearly compared to the suppression of the American people by the animated threat of the middle-east.
Tuesday, March 24
Bond Girls in 'From Russia With Love,' the video game
Check out this special feature from the James Bond video game 'From Russia With Love.' The Bond girl actresses seem to embrace their parts, be them damsel in distress or femme fatale. I think this reinforces the idea that Bond reflects society rather than imposing on it. That someone enjoys playing the villain lends credit to the realism of those characters.
James Bond: A Changing Figure of Sexual Equality
Sexual equality is and has been a giant issue, and James Bond, the spy fiction character, is notorious for being called a male chauvinist. Even M, the character that gives orders to Bond, calls him one in one movie. It has not even been one hundred years yet since women got the right to vote in America, the “land of the free,” so it seems important to discuss the value, or danger, of a hero like James Bond on sexual equality. The very idea of playing with gender is a major theme in any Bond work, with all of the relations with the “Bond girls.” I propose that the character of James Bond was at his worst of female degradation in the beginning, in the books. Though I do say this, I propose further that Bond really wasn’t so bad, and maybe at his best very progressive, especially in context of the time – the 1950s. And since then, Bond has really grown with the times, turning out today in the movies as, I would say, actually a liberator of women.
Here are Bond’s thoughts when Vesper is kidnapped in the book Casino Royale:
“This was just what he had been afraid of. These blithering women who thought they could do a man’s work. Why the hell couldn’t they stay at home and mind their pots and pans and stick to their frocks and gossip and leave men’s work to the men. And now for this to happen to him, just when the job had come off so beautifully: for Vesper to … get herself snatched and probably held to ransom like some bloody heroine in a strip cartoon. Silly Bitch” (Amis 39).
It would seem that immediately Bond has a strong and degrading stance towards women as he implies that women can’t do a “man’s work.” Interestingly, Benson says, “James Bond’s attitude toward women is not a degrading one–it is a protective one (which many women might find just as chauvinistic)” (Benson 74). I agree with Benson here. Though Bond’s thoughts seem extreme to us looking back on him today with our sense of “political correctness,” I see nothing degrading about women. Bond thinks nothing like ‘women are lesser than men,’ or ‘men are more capable.’ He only thinks that women are different – that they have different strengths. Men do better men’s work, and women do better women’s work. Though this may not be a message of sexual equality, it is definitely not a degrading message.
Further, Bond’s anti-equality message in the books does not even seem chauvinist. Let us use a common understanding of chauvinism: basically, a prejudice – holding an statement, or belief without reason. In this case, Vesper has given Bond a reason to think that she is incompetent for the job: she was kidnapped – the most lethal mistake for a spy. Because of this, we can’t label Bond a chauvinist just for this instance. We would need to look at many more factors of the time period to see if Bond is accurately portraying women, or simply a chauvinist.
Remembering the time, Benson says, “the feminist movement in the fifties was a far cry from what it is today” (Benson 74). Today still with all of sexual equality progress we still have so many lingering traditional values that keep women in the household and minding “their pots and pans,” as James puts it. When we go back to the time of Bond, which we know were drastically worse for sexual equality, it seems that Ian Fleming was merely reflecting the times instead of trying to establish for himself that women and men are different. That was simply common thought in the past. As I stated in my introduction, it was only one hundred years ago that women could vote in America, and two hundred ago that women were a man’s property. Bond closes that gap only further, being produced in the 1950s.
Amis writes: “For however much amateur lip-curling toward women in general Bond may go in for, he never uses an individual woman unkindly, never hits one, seldom so much as raises his voice … Like many men who rather fancy the idea of themselves playing it cool and tough with the ladies, Bond is gentle and considerate when it comes down to cases” (Amis 41). Amis is sure right in saying this; Bond has fixed wounds, helped cope through difficult times, and fallen deeply in love with some of the Bond girls. This further reinforces that Bond is no chauvinist. He treats these women absolutely amazingly – a woman’s fantasy man. Who wouldn’t love that? So, Bond’s success seems to be a very positive thing in this sense.
A big part of the allure of the Bond books is the literal sex too. There is an instant attraction between Bond and the Bond girls, and it usually leads to the bed. This promiscuity has been viewed by some as an objectification of women because they never play a bigger role in the works. But I say that really this is sexual equality. The Bond girls reciprocate Bond’s interest in lust. Historically, women have always been forced into the passive, non-aggressive position. But here we see Ian Fleming pushing the limits of the traditional female by making them more aggressive in the Bond books. The traditional notion is that if a woman loves a man as an object, she’s a whore, but Bond treats his women with absolute respect, as discussed above. This is surely a progressive step for equality.
The Bond movies take this ideology even further. Much less emphasis is put on the chit-chat and more on the lust and action. Naturally, much of Bond’s thoughts had to be cut from the movies to make their playtime desirable. In turn, much of Bond’s chauvinism is never realized in the movies. This idea of objectification I’m talking about is thus amplified, as the movies are more dependent upon the actions of the characters. Much more time is put into the romance scenes, and like visually exciting things. This is why Bond’s progressivism in sexual equality shines in the movies. Here we have two things. One, Bond’s chauvinism is cut down heavily because of the film medium. And two, the sexual equality that is brought about by the reciprocated objectification between Bond and the women is amplified. As times changed, Bond followed them into the age of films, and incurred a major change. Seemingly, this Bond in the films is only a sexual liberator of women, and nothing worse.
Winder says: “For all the discussion of how sexy the women are in Bond films, in practice they are not” (Winder 220). In other words, the Bond girls portray an unrealistic standard of beauty. Simply, I agree. But I think this lends an even closer sexual equality. As unrealistic as the fantasy man Bond is, the Bond girls parallel him in their unrealism.
Concluding, Bond is not a dangerous hero. At his worst, Bond does not uphold sexual equality, which is just a historical reality – sexual equality has not always existed. And at his best, Bond is a sexual liberator for women. Today, he opens up the horizon of women’s sexual experience to lust, while they were historically not allowed to it. He and his women are unrealistic fantasies, while still keeping an incredibly progressive aura that promotes exploration and adventure for both sexes.
Works Cited
Benson, Raymond. James Bond Bedside Companion. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company,
1984.
Amis, Kingsley. The James Bond Dossier. New York: The New American Library of World
Literature, 1965.
Winder, Simon. The Man Who Saved Britain. Picadour, 2006.
Here are Bond’s thoughts when Vesper is kidnapped in the book Casino Royale:
“This was just what he had been afraid of. These blithering women who thought they could do a man’s work. Why the hell couldn’t they stay at home and mind their pots and pans and stick to their frocks and gossip and leave men’s work to the men. And now for this to happen to him, just when the job had come off so beautifully: for Vesper to … get herself snatched and probably held to ransom like some bloody heroine in a strip cartoon. Silly Bitch” (Amis 39).
It would seem that immediately Bond has a strong and degrading stance towards women as he implies that women can’t do a “man’s work.” Interestingly, Benson says, “James Bond’s attitude toward women is not a degrading one–it is a protective one (which many women might find just as chauvinistic)” (Benson 74). I agree with Benson here. Though Bond’s thoughts seem extreme to us looking back on him today with our sense of “political correctness,” I see nothing degrading about women. Bond thinks nothing like ‘women are lesser than men,’ or ‘men are more capable.’ He only thinks that women are different – that they have different strengths. Men do better men’s work, and women do better women’s work. Though this may not be a message of sexual equality, it is definitely not a degrading message.
Further, Bond’s anti-equality message in the books does not even seem chauvinist. Let us use a common understanding of chauvinism: basically, a prejudice – holding an statement, or belief without reason. In this case, Vesper has given Bond a reason to think that she is incompetent for the job: she was kidnapped – the most lethal mistake for a spy. Because of this, we can’t label Bond a chauvinist just for this instance. We would need to look at many more factors of the time period to see if Bond is accurately portraying women, or simply a chauvinist.
Remembering the time, Benson says, “the feminist movement in the fifties was a far cry from what it is today” (Benson 74). Today still with all of sexual equality progress we still have so many lingering traditional values that keep women in the household and minding “their pots and pans,” as James puts it. When we go back to the time of Bond, which we know were drastically worse for sexual equality, it seems that Ian Fleming was merely reflecting the times instead of trying to establish for himself that women and men are different. That was simply common thought in the past. As I stated in my introduction, it was only one hundred years ago that women could vote in America, and two hundred ago that women were a man’s property. Bond closes that gap only further, being produced in the 1950s.
Amis writes: “For however much amateur lip-curling toward women in general Bond may go in for, he never uses an individual woman unkindly, never hits one, seldom so much as raises his voice … Like many men who rather fancy the idea of themselves playing it cool and tough with the ladies, Bond is gentle and considerate when it comes down to cases” (Amis 41). Amis is sure right in saying this; Bond has fixed wounds, helped cope through difficult times, and fallen deeply in love with some of the Bond girls. This further reinforces that Bond is no chauvinist. He treats these women absolutely amazingly – a woman’s fantasy man. Who wouldn’t love that? So, Bond’s success seems to be a very positive thing in this sense.
A big part of the allure of the Bond books is the literal sex too. There is an instant attraction between Bond and the Bond girls, and it usually leads to the bed. This promiscuity has been viewed by some as an objectification of women because they never play a bigger role in the works. But I say that really this is sexual equality. The Bond girls reciprocate Bond’s interest in lust. Historically, women have always been forced into the passive, non-aggressive position. But here we see Ian Fleming pushing the limits of the traditional female by making them more aggressive in the Bond books. The traditional notion is that if a woman loves a man as an object, she’s a whore, but Bond treats his women with absolute respect, as discussed above. This is surely a progressive step for equality.
The Bond movies take this ideology even further. Much less emphasis is put on the chit-chat and more on the lust and action. Naturally, much of Bond’s thoughts had to be cut from the movies to make their playtime desirable. In turn, much of Bond’s chauvinism is never realized in the movies. This idea of objectification I’m talking about is thus amplified, as the movies are more dependent upon the actions of the characters. Much more time is put into the romance scenes, and like visually exciting things. This is why Bond’s progressivism in sexual equality shines in the movies. Here we have two things. One, Bond’s chauvinism is cut down heavily because of the film medium. And two, the sexual equality that is brought about by the reciprocated objectification between Bond and the women is amplified. As times changed, Bond followed them into the age of films, and incurred a major change. Seemingly, this Bond in the films is only a sexual liberator of women, and nothing worse.
Winder says: “For all the discussion of how sexy the women are in Bond films, in practice they are not” (Winder 220). In other words, the Bond girls portray an unrealistic standard of beauty. Simply, I agree. But I think this lends an even closer sexual equality. As unrealistic as the fantasy man Bond is, the Bond girls parallel him in their unrealism.
Concluding, Bond is not a dangerous hero. At his worst, Bond does not uphold sexual equality, which is just a historical reality – sexual equality has not always existed. And at his best, Bond is a sexual liberator for women. Today, he opens up the horizon of women’s sexual experience to lust, while they were historically not allowed to it. He and his women are unrealistic fantasies, while still keeping an incredibly progressive aura that promotes exploration and adventure for both sexes.
Works Cited
Benson, Raymond. James Bond Bedside Companion. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company,
1984.
Amis, Kingsley. The James Bond Dossier. New York: The New American Library of World
Literature, 1965.
Winder, Simon. The Man Who Saved Britain. Picadour, 2006.
Wednesday, March 18
Annotated Bibliography
Here is a list I have compiled of professional books that might aid anyone studying the James Bond works. These particular books have been selected for their insights, creativity, and richness that sets them apart from general "coffee table" books and leisure materials.
1. For Your Eyes Only: Ian Fleming and James Bond by Ben Macintyre.
This book offers an in-depth look at Cold War spy fictions, and Ian Fleming himself. By examining the life relationships of Fleming, Macintyre draws connections between Fleming’s real world and the Bond fiction.
2. James Bond and Philosophy (Popular Culture and Philosophy series) by James South and Jacob Held.
This book offers a perspective on Bond from the study of philosophy – the hard logic behind Bond. By looking at the reasoning behind Bond’s controversial attitude, Bond characters are explained and criticized.
3. James Bond in the 21st Century: Why We Still Need 007 (Smart Pop series) by Sarah Zettel and Glenn Yeffeth.
This book discusses some more fun matters like the best Bond, villains, and Bond girls. Though, still it contains some stronger material such as Bond’s place in the modern world, sexism, and why we love Bond.
4. James Bond Encyclopedia by John Cork and Collin Stutz.
This book is exactly what it claims to be – an encyclopedia. It contains mounds of information about Bond, and Bond history. While not the greatest book for source material, it would be great for a fact-checker.
5. Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films (Cinema and Society series) by James Chapman
Offers cultural perspectives on James Bond throughout the centuries the works have lived.
6. The Politics of James Bond: From Fleming's Novels to the Big Screen by Jeremy Black.
Offers political, and cultural, perspectives on the contrast of Bond novels and films.
7. The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader by Cristoph Lindner.
Has perspectives on popular culture topics, such as lesbianism and feminisim in the female characters in Bond works, and the newer films (Brosman series) attachment to technology.
1. For Your Eyes Only: Ian Fleming and James Bond by Ben Macintyre.
This book offers an in-depth look at Cold War spy fictions, and Ian Fleming himself. By examining the life relationships of Fleming, Macintyre draws connections between Fleming’s real world and the Bond fiction.
2. James Bond and Philosophy (Popular Culture and Philosophy series) by James South and Jacob Held.
This book offers a perspective on Bond from the study of philosophy – the hard logic behind Bond. By looking at the reasoning behind Bond’s controversial attitude, Bond characters are explained and criticized.
3. James Bond in the 21st Century: Why We Still Need 007 (Smart Pop series) by Sarah Zettel and Glenn Yeffeth.
This book discusses some more fun matters like the best Bond, villains, and Bond girls. Though, still it contains some stronger material such as Bond’s place in the modern world, sexism, and why we love Bond.
4. James Bond Encyclopedia by John Cork and Collin Stutz.
This book is exactly what it claims to be – an encyclopedia. It contains mounds of information about Bond, and Bond history. While not the greatest book for source material, it would be great for a fact-checker.
5. Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films (Cinema and Society series) by James Chapman
Offers cultural perspectives on James Bond throughout the centuries the works have lived.
6. The Politics of James Bond: From Fleming's Novels to the Big Screen by Jeremy Black.
Offers political, and cultural, perspectives on the contrast of Bond novels and films.
7. The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader by Cristoph Lindner.
Has perspectives on popular culture topics, such as lesbianism and feminisim in the female characters in Bond works, and the newer films (Brosman series) attachment to technology.
Saturday, February 21
Cold War Bond, my student-group discussion
My contributions to my student group discussion of "Cold War Bond" were diverse. I helped organize, create, and present. There really wasn't an aspect that I wasn't involved in. But, I'm not trying to brag. All of the group members were really involved; we tried to create a balance of effort, and I believe we succeeded.
For organization, I sent out and responded to e-mails. I had stern suggestions for the inclusion of all the members in the project, such as we all should come to class with at least one discussion topic.
For creativity, I prepared three different discussion topics. In the end, we didn't get to discuss any of my prepared topics. However, I was prepared if we couldn't get a discussion moving.
One such topic I'll go over here. I wanted to talk about differences between the book and film of "From Russia With Love." I found an interesting discrepancy. In the film Bond is saved at the end by Tania. Tania knocks the gun from the villain's hands, giving Bond freedom to incapacitate her. But, in the book Bond goes to meet the villain alone. He fights with the villain one-on-one and is injured in the process. Because of this, in the movie Tania seems to have a more personal interest in Bond, opening up to him more quickly. While in the book, Tania is more cold and mission oriented and mysterious. What could account for this difference? I was thinking it could be the peace talks between USA and Russia during the 60s, just before the film came out. During the time the book was written, the Cold War was very much alive, which could account for the coldness of Tania. But the film came out after the peace talks, so I figure it influenced the Tania character to be warmer towards Bond and more personal.
And, finally, for presentation. I kept the discussion moving by asking questions, and responding to questions and statements. One of my notable questions was "Is Bond propaganda?," this being a reference to the Cold War propaganda.
For organization, I sent out and responded to e-mails. I had stern suggestions for the inclusion of all the members in the project, such as we all should come to class with at least one discussion topic.
For creativity, I prepared three different discussion topics. In the end, we didn't get to discuss any of my prepared topics. However, I was prepared if we couldn't get a discussion moving.
One such topic I'll go over here. I wanted to talk about differences between the book and film of "From Russia With Love." I found an interesting discrepancy. In the film Bond is saved at the end by Tania. Tania knocks the gun from the villain's hands, giving Bond freedom to incapacitate her. But, in the book Bond goes to meet the villain alone. He fights with the villain one-on-one and is injured in the process. Because of this, in the movie Tania seems to have a more personal interest in Bond, opening up to him more quickly. While in the book, Tania is more cold and mission oriented and mysterious. What could account for this difference? I was thinking it could be the peace talks between USA and Russia during the 60s, just before the film came out. During the time the book was written, the Cold War was very much alive, which could account for the coldness of Tania. But the film came out after the peace talks, so I figure it influenced the Tania character to be warmer towards Bond and more personal.
And, finally, for presentation. I kept the discussion moving by asking questions, and responding to questions and statements. One of my notable questions was "Is Bond propaganda?," this being a reference to the Cold War propaganda.
Tuesday, February 10
James Bond, British Gentleman at your service
Bond embodies the success of the idealized British “gentleman” in the modern world. Bond fights to uphold the Victorian values that were so idealized in the conception of a gentleman. This is a response to the extreme and abrupt loss of power Britain felt in the 1950s. It is a clinging to something familiar – the past. The methods that Bond accomplishes this image are complexly incorporated with key racial and national figures at the time, notably Russia and Jamaica. Regardless of the importance these historical figures play, the essence of what Fleming’s Bond is – the idealized gentleman – I believe wouldn’t have been any different written today. The continuation of the Bond series and its success today both show that, at least the western world, still seeks an ideal character to look up to – a familiar, historic personality.
Black says, “Skill at gambling and knowledge of how to behave at a casino were seen by Fleming as attributes of a gentleman that were important to Bond’s success” (Black 4). This shows that the Bond character was first conceived by Fleming to be a sort of idealized gentleman. Bond indulges in the “finer” things, and is adept at all of them with unbridled grace. He even introduces his own impressive drink in Casino Royale. This is important because, if Bond succeeds, it reinforces the gentlemanly behaviors that are idealized in British culture.
The book Casino Royal in particular is a test for the gentleman Bond. Bond is put up against a villain employed by Russia, and is told to beat him at casino games. This sort of gentlemanly battling shows obvious nationality tensions between the rivaling spies from Britain and Russia. Ultimately, Bond wins for Britain in this duel of sorts. This is symbolic as Britain’s beating a growing world power during the Cold War, where Britain’s world power had rapidly diminished.
Baron says, “Altogether, seventeen British colonies in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Carribbean became independent between 1960 and 1961” (Baron 138). This shows the rapid loss of Britain’s empire at the time. Bond serves as the image to reclaim the empire of Britain symbolically.
Casino Royale can definitely be seen as Britain’s response to the Cold War in this way. Even if the Russians are gaining in world power, Britain still has the personality that maintains its imperialistic importance, or replaces it. This is the message behind Casino Royale. The rival Russian spy is made out to be the villain, and Bond beats him in a gentlemanly duel. This shows that idealistic British ideals – the personality behind Bond – dominate anything that threatens them.
It’s interesting that this success against Russia is a team effort in Casino Royale. Bond relies on the United States’ CIA to supply him with more funds to battle the rival spy a second time. Fleming draws a political connection between Britain and the United States here. “In all cases, [Bond’s] villain’s conspiracy constitutes a threat to the peace and security of the “Free World,” usually as represented by Britain or the United States” (Bennett 17). The “Free World” embodied here by Britain and USA align themselves against the communist Cold War Russia. This marks Britain as still having powerful world ties regardless of its own powers. This, again, is based on the personality, or the ideals, of Bond and Britain. Through strength of personality, Bond and Britain overcome the threat to tradition that is communism. The symbolism of freedom and the USA as a “good guy” helps to reinforce Britain’s reasons for resisting communism.
We have seen so much political polarity above, it’s hard to think that the times haven’t affected Bond. Well, I agree with this. But, I still don’t think that Bond would change much if Fleming wrote about him today. The key political events that mark Casino Royale have been recurring ever since then. Whenever anything related to communism surfaces, immediately the Cold War and Russia are looked towards.
Obama’s presidency marked a large change in motivation for USA towards a more socialist perspective. While this is not necessarily communist, it has often been related to by the media. This shows how much, at least for Americans, think in terms of ideals – having only one good and one evil. Perhaps one day much of the world will think differently, but at least not much has changed in thought since the days of Bond. People are still clinging to traditional ideals and history.
Even if times are changing and the USA is becoming more socialistic, which I’m saying hypothetically, people still cling to this idealistic historical “Bond.” Many historical black and white extremities are the most popular in the USA. For example, romance novels portrayal the ideal relationship between the traditional American roles of male and female. Most critics read these and laugh at how unrealistic these characters are, while business still booms in romantic novels. What does this say about humans, or at least Americans? We really want the familiar to work out – the historical depiction of happiness, the nuclear family and such.
In conclusion, Bond represents the rise of Britain in the modern world. He represents the ideal British values, and tries to give them an important role in the modern world. Bond is placed at a great crossing point between global politics, notably between USA and Russia in Casino Royale, that aligns Britain with strong, traditional values. While times are rapidly changing, people still cling to an ideal reality, or something familiar. So, it seems the core of the Bond character would be retained today if Fleming had wrote it. Bond is a universal figure of the success of tradition, which is something that will never go away.
Works Cited
Baron, Cynthia. "Dr. No: Bonding Britishness to Racial Sovereignty." The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader. Ed. Christoph Lindner. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2003. 135-50.
Bennett, Tony, and Janet Woollacott. "The Moments of Bond." The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader. Ed. Christoph Lindner.Manchester: Manchester UP, 2003. 13-33.
Black, Jeremy. The Politics of James Bond: From Fleming's Novels to the Big Screen. Westport: Praeger, 2001.
Black says, “Skill at gambling and knowledge of how to behave at a casino were seen by Fleming as attributes of a gentleman that were important to Bond’s success” (Black 4). This shows that the Bond character was first conceived by Fleming to be a sort of idealized gentleman. Bond indulges in the “finer” things, and is adept at all of them with unbridled grace. He even introduces his own impressive drink in Casino Royale. This is important because, if Bond succeeds, it reinforces the gentlemanly behaviors that are idealized in British culture.
The book Casino Royal in particular is a test for the gentleman Bond. Bond is put up against a villain employed by Russia, and is told to beat him at casino games. This sort of gentlemanly battling shows obvious nationality tensions between the rivaling spies from Britain and Russia. Ultimately, Bond wins for Britain in this duel of sorts. This is symbolic as Britain’s beating a growing world power during the Cold War, where Britain’s world power had rapidly diminished.
Baron says, “Altogether, seventeen British colonies in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Carribbean became independent between 1960 and 1961” (Baron 138). This shows the rapid loss of Britain’s empire at the time. Bond serves as the image to reclaim the empire of Britain symbolically.
Casino Royale can definitely be seen as Britain’s response to the Cold War in this way. Even if the Russians are gaining in world power, Britain still has the personality that maintains its imperialistic importance, or replaces it. This is the message behind Casino Royale. The rival Russian spy is made out to be the villain, and Bond beats him in a gentlemanly duel. This shows that idealistic British ideals – the personality behind Bond – dominate anything that threatens them.
It’s interesting that this success against Russia is a team effort in Casino Royale. Bond relies on the United States’ CIA to supply him with more funds to battle the rival spy a second time. Fleming draws a political connection between Britain and the United States here. “In all cases, [Bond’s] villain’s conspiracy constitutes a threat to the peace and security of the “Free World,” usually as represented by Britain or the United States” (Bennett 17). The “Free World” embodied here by Britain and USA align themselves against the communist Cold War Russia. This marks Britain as still having powerful world ties regardless of its own powers. This, again, is based on the personality, or the ideals, of Bond and Britain. Through strength of personality, Bond and Britain overcome the threat to tradition that is communism. The symbolism of freedom and the USA as a “good guy” helps to reinforce Britain’s reasons for resisting communism.
We have seen so much political polarity above, it’s hard to think that the times haven’t affected Bond. Well, I agree with this. But, I still don’t think that Bond would change much if Fleming wrote about him today. The key political events that mark Casino Royale have been recurring ever since then. Whenever anything related to communism surfaces, immediately the Cold War and Russia are looked towards.
Obama’s presidency marked a large change in motivation for USA towards a more socialist perspective. While this is not necessarily communist, it has often been related to by the media. This shows how much, at least for Americans, think in terms of ideals – having only one good and one evil. Perhaps one day much of the world will think differently, but at least not much has changed in thought since the days of Bond. People are still clinging to traditional ideals and history.
Even if times are changing and the USA is becoming more socialistic, which I’m saying hypothetically, people still cling to this idealistic historical “Bond.” Many historical black and white extremities are the most popular in the USA. For example, romance novels portrayal the ideal relationship between the traditional American roles of male and female. Most critics read these and laugh at how unrealistic these characters are, while business still booms in romantic novels. What does this say about humans, or at least Americans? We really want the familiar to work out – the historical depiction of happiness, the nuclear family and such.
In conclusion, Bond represents the rise of Britain in the modern world. He represents the ideal British values, and tries to give them an important role in the modern world. Bond is placed at a great crossing point between global politics, notably between USA and Russia in Casino Royale, that aligns Britain with strong, traditional values. While times are rapidly changing, people still cling to an ideal reality, or something familiar. So, it seems the core of the Bond character would be retained today if Fleming had wrote it. Bond is a universal figure of the success of tradition, which is something that will never go away.
Works Cited
Baron, Cynthia. "Dr. No: Bonding Britishness to Racial Sovereignty." The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader. Ed. Christoph Lindner. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2003. 135-50.
Bennett, Tony, and Janet Woollacott. "The Moments of Bond." The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader. Ed. Christoph Lindner.Manchester: Manchester UP, 2003. 13-33.
Black, Jeremy. The Politics of James Bond: From Fleming's Novels to the Big Screen. Westport: Praeger, 2001.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
