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.
Saturday, February 21
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)
