It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ 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
One should note however, that in that chapter of CR Bond is expressing his doubts about the extremity of ideological differences between the west and the reds--and by the end of the novel, Bond understands the use of terror in the Soviet system and commits himself to fighting against it, having repudiated most of his earlier thoughts. Bond's moment of relativism is forever replaced by a consistent faith in Britain, and his patriotism is given a clear justification. The British do nothing morally wrong, while the Soviets can do nothing good.
Keep in mind though that in the previous novel Bond gave a very spirited defense of Britain (more defiant than anything in the films), and what Bond tells M in TMWTGG is clearly Soviet boilerplate rather than a reflection of whatever issues Bond might have with Britain's decline. I think the brainwashing in TMWTGG was accomplished less by the Soviets preying on Bond's cynicism than by the gift of Bond's amnesiac state and the supposed sophistication of Communist brainwashing technqiues, as portrayed in media like The Manchurian Candidate (which quite likely influenced TMWTGG).
As long as Bond's character isn't greatly filled in or developed by it, a minor character arc wouldn't be a problem. In CR Bond undergoes a slight one by realizing why he really needs to fight the Soviets. And in the subsequent novels Bond's increasing disease with killing in cold blood could also be seen as sort of character arc. In both instances these changes in the character make him more heroic but don't radically alter his character or make it garder to identify with him.
I think Bond’s opinion of the Soviets in that way you’re describing becomes more apparent in later novels rather than the end of CR itself, even if it’s heavily implied in the context of the novel alone he goes back (although maybe I haven’t read it in a while, and even then from what I remember it’s not a case where he believes Britain does no wrong in later books, and he acknowledges he works in what is essentially a dirty game, even if he believes Britain is more on the virtuous side). Regardless though it’s not a crisis of self I can imagine the cinematic Bonds having even temporarily in quite that way.
It’s more the personal stuff Bond mentions that reminds me a bit of CR. “I don't suppose you understand what I mean, sir. You've been making war against someone or other all your life. You're doing so at this moment. And for most of my adult life you've used me as a tool. Fortunately that's all over now." I don’t think you can brainwash someone who hasn’t already had that thought.
I think Bond’s opinion in the films is more unwavering about his patriotism and duty, especially when confronted about it directly by the villains.
It really depends on the specifics. I can imagine if they reboot Bond and make it clear it’s a ‘year 2’ situation with him as 007, I’m sure he could be given a character arc where he might even become more the Bond we know throughout the film (in a way the Craig films never did - he was always very much James Bond throughout).
That's also because Bond never directly fought against ideologically motivated foes in the films. Spectre conveniently replaced Smersh onscreen. But CR does get quite outright about Bond's realization of the terror in the Soviet system: "Suddenly Mathis's words came back to him: 'What about SMERSH? I don't like the idea of these chaps running around France killing anyone they feel has been a traitor to their precious political system.'...How soon Mathis had been proved right and how soon his own little sophistries had been exploded in his face!...Without SMERSH, without this cold weapon of death and revenge, the MWD would be just another bunch of civil servant spies...SMERSH was the spur. Be faithful, spy well, or you die...It was the same with the whole Russian machine. Fear was the impulse...But now he would attack the arm that held the whip and the gun."
I could be wrong, but I don't think Bond ever has real qualms about Britain's moral standing; he's only bothered by its decline in power. He might think that espionage is a dirty business, but Britain never does anything really dirty. If it did, we'd be in a LeCarre book instead of a Fleming one.
Bond knows he is a tool used by secret service, but only under the magic of extreme Soviet brainwashing would he think that was a bad thing. Bond likes being an instrument of the secret service. As the narrator says, "Bond had accused M of using him as a tool. Naturally. Every officer in the Service was a tool for one secret purpose or another." I don't think Bond in his normal state resents that or fails to realize it. He likes being a 00 and wouldn't want to be anything else.
That could work, and "year two" would work better than the "rookie Bond" script that Brocolli wisely rejected prior to TLD. I think Bond's glamor and fantasy appeal are reduced if we see too much of how he became what he is. To my mind this was one of the weaknesses of Horowitz's Forever and a Day.
commies, with their civil rights and marijuana.
If only Britain grew some balls, and such.
Bond movies are unlimited. That's way a "not very complex character" works better. They can make all the movies they want.
And of course the Soviets are softened and even made into minor allies by the Moore era. So yes, the films are less interested in ideology in this way and makes Bond's sense of duty more an outright good vs evil thing. Which would make him often pretty steadfast in his loyalties, but it's there.
I suppose when Bond's loyalty to country is really emphasised in the films it's in relation to specific villains. Alec Travelyan and Silva are presented as sort of twisted, dark reflections of Bond, and it's always Bond's loyalty to country which puts him on the side of good. Travelyan outright says in GE that he knows Bond would never have joined him. Silva and Bond's paths in SF are noticeably similar, with M's decisions being the major component of their injuries and failed missions, and as a result both make the decision to go off grid. It's plausible Bond could have ended up as a rogue similar to Silva if not for his decision to return when MI6 is attacked (ie. answer the call of duty). It's not a million miles from the CR example we're talking about - Bond has a sort of internal crisis but ultimately returns to MI6. We of course don't get Bond's inner thoughts when he's drinking heavily in Turkey (as you said Bond's internal thoughts are a major difference in Fleming), but I always found it interesting that the film didn't decide to have Bond more openly question the nature of his work as he does in CR. It's framed more as him being jaded and the physical/mental impact of SF's mission going wrong. The film is ultimately about him overcoming this, and it's due to how fixed his sense of duty is.
Fair enough. Like I said haven't read it in a while.
I don't think it's in a Le Carre kind of way, it's just that Bond acknowledging that espionage is a dirty business means he's not blind to the realities of his work or what MI6 often has to do.
Well, Bond certainly has his issues with job on occasion, particularly when it comes to 'dirty work' as he calls it. Even if he lives for the adventure and has a genuine loyalty to country there are indications he can become jaded with it.
Personally, I think the reason the M/Bond scene in TMWTGG works so well is because we have seen Bond go through things like his existential crisis in CR, as well as his cynicism. It's still shocking seeing Bond act this way and try to kill M, but there's much more of a sense to me that the Soviets 'got him' under particular circumstances rather than it coming down to magic Russian hypnosis. I think if it truly came out of nowhere and Bond didn't have any of those facets to him in Fleming the idea would be ridiculous and hokey (it arguably is in concept, much like the idea of Bond getting amnesia from a bump on the head in YOLT. Similar to this example I think it's the context and how Fleming writes it that makes it interesting and impactful).
It's actually a reason I'm not a huge fan of Horowitz's With A Mind To Kill. I think Fleming was wise not to outright show us Bond getting brainwashed or the process used to do this. When we see the magic Soviet brainwashing stuff there's this sense, at least to me, that's it's complete bulls*it.
Yes, I think something is taken away from Bond when he's not depicted as the competent professional that he is. It's why I've got no interest in a Bond origin story and don't believe CR gave us that.
Childish.
Accurate.