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
A quick Google search brings up the definition of an anti-hero as being:
a central character in a story, film, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes.
This is quite a vague definition as many hero's in literature have flaws and "un-heroric" weaknesses, however the question we need to ask is "is Bond MORE good or MORE bad" in what he does and who he works for. He's shown to be working for the "good" side, he prevents major criminal acts taking place (London being destroyed in MR, Blofeld releasing his virus in OHMSS, Le-Chiffe continuing to fund criminal operations in CR) and DOESN'T take a lot of credit.
Bond is definitely a "shady" character in that he gets mixed up with death and acts which, under different circumstances, would be considered as "criminal" (government ordered assassinations), however to me he promotes MORE good than bad because of his achievement in stopping a full on villain at the end of each story. Personally I'd say Bond is more "reluctant hero" than "anti-hero".
I agree with @4EverBonded, that an anti-hero doesn't have to be a villain. They can actually be very ordinary. The wikipedia definition seems quite comprehensive and reflects how the term applies to different types of anti-hero: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihero
Yes, an anti-hero can be very ordinary, much like a hero. The key for me is that I would probably classify a hero as an individual who acts for the greater good, while an anti-hero would act in their own interests. While Bond is relatively introspective and known to shun authority, a defining trait is his unyielding service to Queen and Country and that is why I'd always define him as heroic. Flawed and drifting towards the dark side, but essentially a hero.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihero
an·ti·he·ro
noun \ˈan-tē-ˌhē-(ˌ)rō, ˈan-ˌtī-, -ˌhir-(ˌ)ō\
: a main character in a book, play, movie, etc., who does not have the usual good qualities that are expected in a hero
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antihero
Well, I'll keep this brief as I am no expert on the anti-hero but I would have thought that James Bond was not so much an anti-hero as that is a more recent phenomenon (since the 1960s or so) but despite that not your typical run-of-the-mill hero either. We have authority for this fact (for the literary Bond anyhow) from the horse's mouth so to speak - Ian Fleming himself. Fleming said in his 1958 BBC Radio conversation with Raymond Chandler that he never really saw James Bond as a hero - he was instead intended to be a blunt instrument wielded by a government department and an ordinary man to whom extraordinary things happened. So no, Bond was not an anti-hero but he has become a hero almost by default by dint of the phenomenally successful film series the character has appeared in over the last fifty two years, although ironically his creator Ian Fleming did not really intend for him to be likable or appear heroic. Just read the last chapter of The Spy Who Loved Me (1962) for further proof of this in the literary Bond.
Well, he's done a lot of slapping women around, loving a leaving, killing and maiming over the years, so not sure he's a straight down the line hero either.
I think one thing that's being missed is that he is in part at least a product of the Cold War - an era famed for its moral ambiguity and endless shades of grey, where 'right and wrong' often seemed to blur to such an extent that no one really knew any more what was the morally right thing to do. The American invasion of Vietnam is a classic example - supposedly a moral act, but one that ultimately came to be seen as corrupt, racist, imperialistic and wrong.
I think the Cold War background has been forgotten/lost in the movies, for obvious reasons. It was very evident to me during the Brosnan years how that ambiguity disappeared and Bond as a consequence became very 2 dimensional. It was the Bourne series' ability to recapture some of this ambiguity, in the wake of 9/11 and Guantanamo Bay that made those first 3 Bourne films so much more engaging than anything EON was doing at the time. At his most reassuring, screen Bond brings moral certainty to a morally ambiguous world (think Sir Rog), but (I defer to the Fleming experts) the reality is that everyone is damaged and/or corrupted in the world that Bond occupies.
DC's Bond has come off the back of Bourne and the whole War on Terror thing, enabling the series to reinject some of the old morally ambiguous tension that used to underpin the series.
I don't think Bond has ever been a full on anti-hero, but he does embrace some of the anti-hero elements. He is quite detached from society - he has no family links etc. No real friends or seeming social life or escape from his work, apart from the ultimately empty distractions of broken/lost women and drink. He's emotionally remote, perhaps disfunctional. I am not an expert on the novels, but enough has been said by others on here to suggest that he is sometimes unhappy, even sickened, by what he does. Although he knows he's taking out the bad guys, killing is not without its effect on him - DC has probably been better at conveying this than any one else. As a result, there are signs of internal torment. Yes, he's killing bad guys, but killing any one takes its toll and is arguably 'wrong' - part of what makes him a morally ambiguous figure.
Just quoting this bit from Wikipedia:
Strikes me that DC's Bond has at various times touched on the ennui, angst, and alienation stuff. And like the American anti-hero, Bond's response is to throw himself into perpetual motion - using constant movement as a way of avoiding facing any of his demons or the ultimate emptiness of himself and what he does.
This can all be said, particularly of Craig's Bond, although I don't think EON would ever allow the character to flip over into full on anti-hero. I imagine that's what Tarantino wanted to do with his never realised CR concept. Interesting, but ultimately it would lead to the death of the series. Brosnan's TTOP performance is a great indication of where that line could take you.
Without doubt. But as we're discussing hero vs. anti-hero, which are two catch-all terms encompassing varying degrees of 'heroics', I think he's firmly on the hero side, despite his more morally ambiguous behaviour. I think that's why people warm to him, he's a rogue, but his loyalty and unyielding service to the crown elevate him in status.
May be he embraces elements of both the classic hero and the anti-hero. The screen Bonds who have embraced this - Connery, Dalton and Craig - have almost certainly delivered the more nuanced and complex performances. Although not necessarily the most entertaining (a wink in Sir Rog's direction).
Traditional heroes are not very interesting/appealing to modern audiences. I can't think of many/any in recent cinematic history. The hybrid hero/anti-hero is the almost the norm these days. Our culture is infused with this type of character. Clint Eastwood's man with no name, Batman, etc.
Fleming made very clear that Bond was not a hero. Certainly not a white knight in shining armour. In fact, he made that very clear at the end of "The Spy Who Loved Me". I'll give the excerpt here :
""This underground war I was talking about, this crime battle that's always going on - whether it's being fought between cops and robbers or between spies and counterspies. This is a private battle between two trained armies, one fighting on the side of law and what his own country think is right, and one belonging to the enemies of these things. But in the higher ranks of these forces, among the toughest of the professionals, there's a deadly quality in the persons involved which is common to both - to both friends and enemies. The top gangsters, the top FBI operatives, the top spies and the top counterspies are cold-hearted, cold-blooded, ruthless, tough killers, Miss Michel. Yes, even the "friends" as opposed to the "enemies". They have to be. They wouldn't survive if they weren't. Do you get me ? So the message I want to leave with you, my dear - and I talked with Washington and I've learned something about Commander Bond's outstanding record in his particular line of business - is this. Keep away from all these men. They are not for you, whether they're called James Bond or Sluggsy Moran. Both these men, and others like them, belong to a private jungle into which you've strayed for a few hours and from which you've escaped.So don't go and get sweet dreams about the one or nightmares from the other. They're just different people from th likes of you - a different species. Like hawks and doves, if you'll pardon the comparison. Get me ?"
True, Bond is not as cold-hearted as Captain Stonor says, but still, his employment is murder. All right, he's doing it for Queen and Country, but he's no different than his opposite number in the KGB for the methods employed..
Yes...but I was talking about an antihero I found interesting. The Punisher is too obviously Don Pendleton's Executioner done up in superhero drag for me to find him much more than a weak copy of an interesting character. As the SubMariner is actually Marvel's VERY FIRST character (his appearance in Motion Picture Funnies Weekly actually predating the release of Marvel Comics #1) ...he's clearly a far more original conception than Frank Castle, and far more multidimensional.
Exactly, I was referring to the last chapter of TSWLM in my post above and I concur in your analysis, @Gerard.