There's an elegant plenitude from whenceforth that originated (Raffles, Gentleman Thug, Viz Comics)The once delightful, and sadly fallen, Viz Comics introduced "Raffles, Gentleman Thug" some time ago, a 19th Century nobleman who behaves as a 21st century thug but, because of his education, with disconcertingly erudite expression. It is a comedic response to the rather peculiar Raffles stories of Hornung, where a spin bowler and gentleman pursues a second life as a burglar. This has also inspired the title of this post, where, as many have before, I attempt to put together a whole figure of Bond from the many pieces of fabric and stitching that are available to us.
Fleming's own Bond spans a dozen novels and short stories, but there are six other 'authorised' authors, twenty-five movies (two 'unofficial') and many other contributions, including video games, radio plays and comic strips. If there ever was a canon here, beyond the name, gender and occupation of this character, it has long been corroded by over-aggressive veneering!
Most, however, experience Bond through the big screen and, with the inheritance of the mantle by Daniel Craig, the big screen is bigger, pouts more and has taken a turn into a more visceral and less romantic incarnation of Bond. For many, Connery is the only Bond but the dialogue, trite and vapid when originally written, now seems overly serious and (seen through today's lens) as cringe-inducing as a Benny Hill sketch involving avian creatures of the species Cyanistes caeruleus. Roger Moore's tenure was all gadgets and glam and, because he was selected late for the role, it quickly heads into farce as a man who is increasingly obviously older than 00 retirement age (45) zimmerframes his way from jungle to vagina, pausing occasionally to quip or arthritically blow something up. (Let us skim over Lazenby as if I had wanted to see Roy Castle kill Kojak, I would have hired another movie.) Dalton was let down by dodgy scripts, which is a shame as he brought a passion and intensity to Bond that had been sorely lacking. Brosnan reignited the franchise with grand set pieces, some actual humour in the middle of the Carry On banter, and the ability to convey the fact that the job hurt him as much as it hurt anyone else. Brosnan's Bond was regularly genuinely uncomfortable and felt loss.
Of course, this is Bond, so regrets and loves only last until the next naked woman slam dances her way onto a digital wrap-around screen and Maurice Binder drops some more acid. But with the new cinematic Bond, much more was lost, even though it brought Bond back to be much closer to the original vision - a cruel and damaged man, with cold eyes, who was not much more than the cipher that he had adopted as his second identity. Craig's Bond is, without a doubt, the most coldly insane of the lot. In every movie, his ability to move away from the outcomes of his actions places him into a new and rather nasty little box - that of the state-sponsored psychopath. Bond is not a weapon of justice but more an instrument of terror and, in these dark times, this is the sanction that is invoked when the Empire trembles.
I had avoided the film "Skyfall" because I had read some reports of a sex scene that, as reported, would be very unpleasant for me, due to implied lack of consent/sexual violence. A good friend and I discussed it, after he had seen it, and he suggested that, while he understood why someone could interpret it that way, I would perhaps see it differently. On viewing it, yes, I agree with him. It is typical Bondian exploitation of women but it is not the overriding of consent that I had been led to believe. Tasteful? No. Necessary? No. Contemporary? No. But rape? After some thought, I believe that the answer is still no. However, it did make me think about Bond's misogyny and why I feel now is that, with Craig, we have moved far beyond the casual sexism and disposability of earlier Bonds, because Bond is now a complete misanthrope. He has substituted a loathing for everyone in the place of his disrespect for women. He no longer has no concern at all for anything that is not of direct benefit to himself. His reaction to the destruction of millions of pounds worth of someone else's property? "I never liked the place." A truly Bondian quip but, in the presence of so much casual ignorance of death and implications, a more revealing statement. "This is not relevant to my interests."
Bond has always functioned as Nemesis, a retributive agent for those guilty of hubris (where hubris here is defined as being arrogant enough to conduct crimes against the Empire), but in many respects he has maintained his humanity. As the Craig Bonds have progressed, he has become less human, tossing an old friend into a dumpster in "Quantum of Solace", failing to react to the death of colleagues, showing no response to a crime (death by suffocation) that outraged him in Goldfinger. In "Skyfall", he is so numb, so unfeeling and so divorced from humanity that one of his biggest reactions is to the fact that someone sold his flat. Even the humour of Q Branch has been reduced to the simplest of mechanisms - the perfect gun for the perfect killer. Nemesis is always less terrifying when you believe that only the guilty will be punished but Bond's disregard for collateral damage raises the fear levels and this, ultimately, draws us back to the notion of Bond as terrorist. Bond is as frightening as anything else you can put on the playing field, because he doesn't care and he doesn't stop. With nothing left to lose, he is unbribeable and unstoppable.
The ending of Skyfall sets us up for a return to an older style of Bond. I'm not keen on the current Bond, the thug, the bully. I cannot believe that I would rather have bad 'dad' jokes and insane props back but I suspect I would like some escapism in my big screen movies and, with Craig's Bond, all I see is the way of things played out with a well-dressed villain, backed by the state, and deployed like a tornado in the general direction of the bad guys.
Is Dexter Fletcher available?
1 comment:
OK, I haven't seen the two most recent Craig films. The first one though impressed me - not just for the return to Bond as sociopath, but because in a massive departure from recent Bond films there was no Mr Big controlling everything. Everyone was a middleman - except for the two army guys who were fighting some pissant bush war in Africa that no one in the West bar middlemen and foreign service operatives had even heard of, let alone cared about.
It was nice to have a change from the increasingly implausible villains (Robert Carlyle, sheesh) in Bond films.
Not sure I'll see the most recent two films though, found the first one interesting but confronting.
Post a Comment