The End of Bond? A long post on Spectre.

[MikeKardec]

There is an issue I see played out in both fiction and film in other works that might be in effect here: In the differences between the Superman vs fallible human Bond.

Some audiences, possibly an attribute of certain generations (though I doubt it's totally that clear cut), like greater proximity to their characters. They like to be closer to them to see more "human," vulnerable, intimate moments, they like their characters to be dynamic as opposed to static, people who can learn and grow. In the past a character who could learn and grow was sort of considered "weak." Those audiences wanted assurance, they wanted to know from the beginning that the hero was up to the challenge. I can remember one of the elderly film makers I mentioned above going on about how a character I had written needed to be cast with a "big" actor (meaning a large man) and ascribing the aspects of heroism to sort of an old American (1950s?) ideal of what a protagonist was like ... a man who convinced you from the first moment that he was capable of handling the situation. Typical of a younger generation, I wanted someone who was less obviously was the physical equal to the situation. Needless to say I had also written a story where the character got the opportunity to learn to be the man who could solve the problems the story through at him rather than just embodying them from the outset.

The same proximity effect is also visible in older versus newer films, I'm now think pre and post 1950 but there was a bit of this in the silent era too ... younger audiences have been willing to better tolerate a big close up. It's really a question of how emotionally intimate you want to be with your heroes. Oddly, films (not TV so much) seem to be pulling back a bit in recent years. That may be the effect of the "world market" (some cultures don't want to go as intimate as ours does) but I'm also beginning to feel that the Millennials aren't the same sort of intimacy junkies that X-ers and Boomers are ... they show a lot of indications that they don't like their values questioned and so may also be less inclined to tolerate a character who grows into being someone they would like rather than someone who just starts that way.

Regardless, there have always been people who preferred characters who were always utterly capable, never had any doubts and carried them through a story in a way that was more light and easy going. Not my style but that's what makes horse races.

Wasn't Bond's car in the books an early Bentley? That goes more with Chity Chity Bang Bang.

 

[AmateisGal]

Well now... I grew up in the spy craze of the 60's however, being poor NEVER saw a Bond film in the theatres. The first 007's I saw on the big screen were those wholly forgettable films starring Roger Snore in the 70's while stationed here and there. I felt they were awful, Marvel Comics were more believable than that drivel. I was never engaged. I've since gone back and seen just about every Bond film. I enjoyed the Connery films, even the later ones, a good bit, but was never a big fan until I saw Craig in "Casino Royale". I left the theatre thinking "whoa, so THIS is what it's supposed to be about!" Craig was the first Bond since Connery to make me feel, as I've said before, real fear. Moore, Dalton, Brosnan... I felt I could take them all in a "fair" fight. Connery and Craig in their primes... would make a grease smear out of me. Also, CR and "Skyfall" were, as far as I'm concerned, the two best Bond films ever made. In those films Bond was human, physically and emotionally vulnerable. I saw the latest and while it was enjoyable, about 20 minutes too long though, Bond was back to his old superhero ways. I never felt he was in any danger of failure or death. Still, there are only 5 or 6 other Bond films I'd rate above it. I think Bond was successfully "rebooted" and can be so again, BUT the right actor is key. As for Craig's last Bond film, I'd like to see him deal with "real life" for a while, having to come to grips with the events of the last 4 films and his current domestic situation. I still think Idris Elba would be a great Bond. Bond, 007 is like a costume sans mask that the right man, or woman, can wear and make us believe.

Worf

Wholeheartedly agree with you, Worf. Craig makes Bond real - just like Ian Fleming's character. When I first read "Casino Royale", I didn't like Bond - but boy, did I know he was a tough guy with a very complicated past that continued to haunt him. Craig brought the character back to life. Moore, IMO, was a very low point in the Bond movies. Bond was certainly never a dandy like Moore, IMO, portrayed him. I may have watched the Moore movies a few times with my Dad when they were on TV, but never really enjoyed them, certainly never enough to buy them on DVD (I have all the Craig Bond movies on DVD and have the first four Connery Bond movies on DVD).

I need to see SPECTRE again to really make up my mind about the film. There are always far more nuances to it when you watch it the second (and third and fourth) times. You don't see that much with the older films.

 

[AmateisGal]

That may be the effect of the "world market" (some cultures don't want to go as intimate as ours does) but I'm also beginning to feel that the Millennials aren't the same sort of intimacy junkies that X-ers and Boomers are ... they show a lot of indications that they don't like their values questioned and so may also be less inclined to tolerate a character who grows into being someone they would like rather than someone who just starts that way.

I actually see evidence of Millennials wanting the intimacy stuff and actually craving it. I have a 15-year-old daughter so have had to learn a bit of "teen speak" when it comes to stuff. Have you heard of the term "shipping"? This is used a lot in various fandoms when they combine two characters' names because they want them to be together. As an example: the characters of Sherlock Holmes (the BBC production with B. Cumberbatch) and Molly is called Sherlolly. (ridiculous, I know). But the different fandoms do this with all of their shows, i.e. ship characters they want to be together. There's even one for John Watson and Sherlock Holmes called "JohnLock."

Also: there are really elaborate theories on Tumblr accounts that go deep into characters' motivations and backgrounds to try and understand why they are the way they are. It is absolutely mindboggling. They delve into these characters from every angle, and the stuff they come up with is incredible.

I think you may be right on Millennials not wanting to have their values questioned. But don't get me started on that topic or I'll be on a rant forever.

Here's an example of this elaborate theories (or whatever they call it) from the movie Captain America: (sorry, can't post the image because my image is awaiting approval, so here's a link)
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/138556126013650897/

 

[MikeKardec]

I actually see evidence of Millennials wanting the intimacy stuff and actually craving it.

I think you may be right on Millennials not wanting to have their values questioned. But don't get me started on that topic or I'll be on a rant forever.

Umm, I think I spoke too quickly or not completely enough. I completely agree with you. I should have said something like: they want to pick and choose where they commit versus where they hang back from the story material. It's more complicated than the simple "not TOO close, please" of generations older than ours and it's not the obsession that our group has had with going in ever closer and deeper.

Fandom is really interesting and really scary (sort of) because of the depth of imagination put into it and because of how much ownership fans then take of a writer's or actor's work. You can become so successful the fans end up being unwilling to tolerate anything you do because it violates their fantasies!

On the subject of Millennials and their brittle sense of the world, there's a great and kind of philosophical study of the roots of some of it called Kindly Inquisitors: The new attacks on free thought by Jonathan Rauch. He's a reporter so it's a pretty easy and quick read. I do some charity work with really bright kids and it's good to have a few "think about this" arguments ready to hand when they start telling you the way the world ought to be ... and you know they are right, but you also don't think it's appropriate that pressure be used to force people to change. I always get stuck in that I agree with your goals but not your methods bit.

Thanks for the link!

 

[AmateisGal]

Umm, I think I spoke too quickly or not completely enough. I completely agree with you. I should have said something like: they want to pick and choose where they commit versus where they hang back from the story material. It's more complicated than the simple "not TOO close, please" of generations older than ours and it's not the obsession that our group has had with going in ever closer and deeper.

Fandom is really interesting and really scary (sort of) because of the depth of imagination put into it and because of how much ownership fans then take of a writer's or actor's work. You can become so successful the fans end up being unwilling to tolerate anything you do because it violates their fantasies!

On the subject of Millennials and their brittle sense of the world, there's a great and kind of philosophical study of the roots of some of it called Kindly Inquisitors: The new attacks on free thought by Jonathan Rauch. He's a reporter so it's a pretty easy and quick read. I do some charity work with really bright kids and it's good to have a few "think about this" arguments ready to hand when they start telling you the way the world ought to be ... and you know they are right, but you also don't think it's appropriate that pressure be used to force people to change. I always get stuck in that I agree with your goals but not your methods bit.

Thanks for the link!

Sounds like we're on the same page.

Yes, fandoms can definitely be a bit scary! I've seen some artwork done by people from Supernatural and Sherlock fandoms that really goes too far. There's loving something and enjoying it and then there's obsessing over it and changing the writer's intent and story to suit your own fantasies. Fan fiction has really gotten popular, too, which can be a) flattering to a writer/creator that their work is so beloved that people devote so much time to it or b) insulting because someone is using your work and your ideas without your permission.

 

[MikeKardec]

Oh Yeah. You are so right. You have to be VERY productive and kind of bullet proof popular when the fan fic starts. If you don't stay ahead of it creatively and productively it will eat you alive. It's one of the odder signs that someone has "made it." But you really can't let down your guard or rest on your laurels once it starts.

 

[GHT]

I hated Bond for years; for me, the franchise lost its way big time when they lost Connery.

For me, Bond was always a character conjured up in my head, from reading Fleming's books. Connery put flesh on that imagined image. Bond should have been retired/killed off or forgotten after the mid sixties. Flemings books are all dated around the immediate post-war era. The subsequent 'Bonds' could easily have been made as a franchise in their own right, without reference to 007, much the way Indiana Jones was. It would have immortalised a character that now has become something of an anachronism. If Bond is for you, enjoy, but for me, he's still the secret agent, dreamt up by Fleming, that comes to life of the printed page.

 

[Fading Fast]

For me, Bond was always a character conjured up in my head, from reading Fleming's books. Connery put flesh on that imagined image. Bond should have been retired/killed off or forgotten after the mid sixties. Flemings books are all dated around the immediate post-war era. The subsequent 'Bonds' could easily have been made as a franchise in their own right, without reference to 007, much the way Indiana Jones was. It would have immortalised a character that now has become something of an anachronism. If Bond is for you, enjoy, but for me, he's still the secret agent, dreamt up by Fleming, that comes to life of the printed page.

Have you read the new Bond novel "Trigger Mortis" by Anthony Horowitz? It's set back in the '50s and incorporates a small amount of origin Fleming material that he had written for a never developed Bond TV show. I wrote a short review of it over in the "What are you reading" thread if you care. Or are you a hard-core purist and only read the original Fleming novels?

 

[Fading Fast]

And re the Millennials and their touchiness: It is real as can be seen in the current dust up at colleges and in the op/ed political world over "trigger warnings" and "micro-aggressions." My guess is it combines two things, one very old - the absolute confidence of youth in its ideology and one newer, the emotionally indulgent, "your feeling are very important" child-rearing philosophy that took hold over the last several decades that would only add fuel to the fire of the over-confidence of youthful ideology.

 

[MikeKardec]

For me, Bond was always a character conjured up in my head, from reading Fleming's books.

When dealing with written material this is very important. Though it doesn't superficially seem like it, everybody experiences prose really differently. We believe we have "read the same book" as other people but much of the time that combination of author/reader imagination has created something different, a different experience for each different person. Of course the best writers are the ones who create a uniformity of experience across a whole range of readers, but it needn't be a uniformity of story detail, I think a lot of time it's a uniformity of entertainment value.

The work of a lot of the post war writers, especially those who came out of the magazine fiction business, had a great economy of language. They wrote so lean and mean, and with such transparent style, that it was like a mine line jolt from the "code" of the printed page into your unconscious, a creative partnership between writer and reader. It's a beautiful symbiosis that I think some of the heavier literature lacks. Those authors are so busy saying "look at me and how brilliant I am" they never really engage the audience.

While I don't remember Fleming having a background in anything like the pulps, he did have that style-free style. Bond was what you, the reader, made him. It's why he captured the imagination and it's why the books (which have not been maturing with the times like the movies have) are still so popular ... or so goes my theory of this morning.

The Bond books are often quite classic in structure: the hero goes to the ends of the earth to save the world or his tribe (England) from a terrifying monster. I sometimes wonder of some of the weirdness of the Bond movies wasn't because of the differences between the early and late Cold War. Bond was being written by Fleming about a world that was just getting used to Cold War realities ... many of the Bond movies were reacting to a world where the reality of the Cold War had settled into a Same "Stuff" Different Day mentality. The threat was more and more purely "the Soviets" as opposed to "post war chaos" and those Soviets were getting older and more boring and obviously playing by a set of rules which were sometimes incomprehensible to the west (and visa versa, I'm sure) but they were RULES.

It's interesting to note that just as a good deal of literature (over the course of history) has moved from stories of External Threats to stories of Internal Conflict (almost certainly reflecting a lack of external threats in the world of our authors) so have the Bonds. Though they travel all over the world and deal with all sorts of exotic people and places, the more recent movies have had an aspect of Bond fixing problems that have sprung up within British Intelligence. It's almost like he's working for MI-5. Some of this may be PC, some may be the franchise feeling the loss of the world shattering existential threat of the Cold War, I'm not sure.

Or, as I said above, at least that's what I seem to be thinking about this morning.

 

[AmateisGal]

When dealing with written material this is very important. Though it doesn't superficially seem like it, everybody experiences prose really differently. We believe we have "read the same book" as other people but much of the time that combination of author/reader imagination has created something different, a different experience for each different person. Of course the best writers are the ones who create a uniformity of experience across a whole range of readers, but it needn't be a uniformity of story detail, I think a lot of time it's a uniformity of entertainment value.

The work of a lot of the post war writers, especially those who came out of the magazine fiction business, had a great economy of language. They wrote so lean and mean, and with such transparent style, that it was like a mine line jolt from the "code" of the printed page into your unconscious, a creative partnership between writer and reader. It's a beautiful symbiosis that I think some of the heavier literature lacks. Those authors are so busy saying "look at me and how brilliant I am" they never really engage the audience.

While I don't remember Fleming having a background in anything like the pulps, he did have that style-free style. Bond was what you, the reader, made him. It's why he captured the imagination and it's why the books (which have not been maturing with the times like the movies have) are still so popular ... or so goes my theory of this morning.

The Bond books are often quite classic in structure: the hero goes to the ends of the earth to save the world or his tribe (England) from a terrifying monster. I sometimes wonder of some of the weirdness of the Bond movies wasn't because of the differences between the early and late Cold War. Bond was being written by Fleming about a world that was just getting used to Cold War realities ... many of the Bond movies were reacting to a world where the reality of the Cold War had settled into a Same "Stuff" Different Day mentality. The threat was more and more purely "the Soviets" as opposed to "post war chaos" and those Soviets were getting older and more boring and obviously playing by a set of rules which were sometimes incomprehensible to the west (and visa versa, I'm sure) but they were RULES.

It's interesting to note that just as a good deal of literature (over the course of history) has moved from stories of External Threats to stories of Internal Conflict (almost certainly reflecting a lack of external threats in the world of our authors) so have the Bonds. Though they travel all over the world and deal with all sorts of exotic people and places, the more recent movies have had an aspect of Bond fixing problems that have sprung up within British Intelligence. It's almost like he's working for MI-5. Some of this may be PC, some may be the franchise feeling the loss of the world shattering existential threat of the Cold War, I'm not sure.

Or, as I said above, at least that's what I seem to be thinking about this morning.

I love reading your insights into this, MIke, especially about Fleming's writing and the author/reader relationship. Very astute observations. I recently read a review of a book where the reviewer (from NPR) said this: "... a master class in best lines; a shining, rare example of that most unforgiving and brutal writer’s advice: All you have to do is write the best sentence you’ve ever written. Then 10,000 more of the best. Then find a way to string them together into the story of something.”

What the reviewer missed, IMO, is that you can have all the beautifully crafted sentences you want in a novel, but if you are not telling a STORY and making your readers care about that story and its characters, what have you got? A bunch of beautifully crafted sentences and not much else. Fleming, as you said, engages the reader with both the character of Bond and the story of Bond - whether he's fighting SPECTRE or what have you.

On a related note, we do have a writers' thread in the Reading Room section of the forum. Not sure if you've stopped by there or not.

 

[AmateisGal]

And re the Millennials and their touchiness: It is real as can be seen in the current dust up at colleges and in the op/ed political world over "trigger warnings" and "micro-aggressions." My guess is it combines two things, one very old - the absolute confidence of youth in its ideology and one newer, the emotionally indulgent, "your feeling are very important" child-rearing philosophy that took hold over the last several decades that would only add fuel to the fire of the over-confidence of youthful ideology.

Oh boy. Yes. It's getting RIDICULOUS. I work at a university and there are times I don't even want to express my opinion.

 

[Fading Fast]

Oh boy. Yes. It's getting RIDICULOUS. I work at a university and there are times I don't even want to express my opinion.

I don't work in the university world, but your comment seems to confirm some of the things I've been reading. As an outsider to that world today, but as someone who went to university in the '80s, it seemed, at least back then, that universities took great pride in the free exchange of ideas, of everyone challenging everyone else's ideas, etc. That felt like a defining feature of universities and as if they were the defenders of the ideal.

 

[Harp]

.... it seemed, at least back then, that universities took great pride in the free exchange of ideas, of everyone challenging everyone else's ideas, etc. That felt like a defining feature of universities and as if they were the defenders of the ideal.

Oh boy. Yes. It's getting RIDICULOUS. I work at a university and there are times I don't even want to express my opinion.

After the Army, I considered Columbia and moving to the big apple but enrolled at the University of Illinois-Chicago where the GI Bill went a bit further,
and wish I could return to those days- Today's campus intolerance certainly seems a far cry from yesterday.

Allan Bloom's The Closing of The American Mind was timely and prophetic.

 

[MikeKardec]

Luckily, the issue of campus sensitivities and such is getting a great deal of attention from a fair number of people who still believe in freedom and openness. Many of the academics who may have gotten the current issues started have been bitten by their on-time pets. They are now rethinking their stance ... well, it seems that way and I hope it's true. I doubt we can say that the beast is going back in it's box but it may be that it will be silent for a few more years after this.

What the reviewer missed, IMO, is that you can have all the beautifully crafted sentences you want in a novel, but if you are not telling a STORY and making your readers care about that story and its characters, what have you got? A bunch of beautifully crafted sentences and not much else. Fleming, as you said, engages the reader with both the character of Bond and the story of Bond - whether he's fighting SPECTRE or what have you.

I've always likened your all too "beautifully crafted sentences" to the show-offiness of some directors, moving the camera, cutting this way and that, going out of the way to flash a lot of obvious craft at the audience. When I worked in film I LOVED doing my version of that, it was so much fun. As a writer of prose I feel the same way about creating beautiful sentences, it's addicting. but I have to always make myself STOP. It's actually a turn off, it takes the audience out of the story, it breaks the forth wall, makes them aware of the proscenium ... it winks at the reader or the viewer like the bad old Bond. The reading experience is often so much better when the writer just gets out of the way and ... like you said ... lets the story through. I tell myself that daily: if I can just get out of the way I'll be doing my job! As they say: simple is HARD.

There is a place for overt stylization or the cute little wink but it is rare, rare, rare and the writer/director who does it had best know what they are up to!

 

[AmateisGal]

I don't work in the university world, but your comment seems to confirm some of the things I've been reading. As an outsider to that world today, but as someone who went to university in the '80s, it seemed, at least back then, that universities took great pride in the free exchange of ideas, of everyone challenging everyone else's ideas, etc. That felt like a defining feature of universities and as if they were the defenders of the ideal.

After the Army, I considered Columbia and moving to the big apple but enrolled at the University of Illinois-Chicago where the GI Bill went a bit further,
and wish I could return to those days- Today's campus intolerance certainly seems a far cry from yesterday.

Allan Bloom's The Closing of The American Mind was timely and prophetic.

Let's just say that when I first started working here, I did not let them know about my faith or my political views. I've been here over 2 years now and I'm to the point where I don't care anymore. If they know, they know. If there are consequences to them knowing that, believe you me, I will speak up. What is ironic is that there is this huge push against bullying - yet what they are engaging in is a form of bullying in itself. They don't see it that way, though.

Luckily, the issue of campus sensitivities and such is getting a great deal of attention from a fair number of people who still believe in freedom and openness. Many of the academics who may have gotten the current issues started have been bitten by their on-time pets. They are now rethinking their stance ... well, it seems that way and I hope it's true. I doubt we can say that the beast is going back in it's box but it may be that it will be silent for a few more years after this.

This is 100% right.

 

[AmateisGal]

I've always likened your all too "beautifully crafted sentences" to the show-offiness of some directors, moving the camera, cutting this way and that, going out of the way to flash a lot of obvious craft at the audience. When I worked in film I LOVED doing my version of that, it was so much fun. As a writer of prose I feel the same way about creating beautiful sentences, it's addicting. but I have to always make myself STOP. It's actually a turn off, it takes the audience out of the story, it breaks the forth wall, makes them aware of the proscenium ... it winks at the reader or the viewer like the bad old Bond. The reading experience is often so much better when the writer just gets out of the way and ... like you said ... lets the story through. I tell myself that daily: if I can just get out of the way I'll be doing my job! As they say: simple is HARD.

There is a place for overt stylization or the cute little wink but it is rare, rare, rare and the writer/director who does it had best know what they are up to!

I always want to be a writer who writes beautifully crafted sentences - I'm envious of those who can. But then like you, I have to remember that it's about the story, not the writing.

Though to be honest, if the writing is really bad, it can jar me out of the story, too.

 

[Fading Fast]

Let's just say that when I first started working here, I did not let them know about my faith or my political views. I've been here over 2 years now and I'm to the point where I don't care anymore. If they know, they know. If there are consequences to them knowing that, believe you me, I will speak up. What is ironic is that there is this huge push against bullying - yet what they are engaging in is a form of bullying in itself. They don't see it that way, though....

It certainly sounds like bullying to me. I'm still so stunned as debating ideas - all ideas - was a core foundation of a university eduction. It wasn't a nice to have, it sat at the foundation of the institution. Did an occasional teacher only pay it lip service - sure, but they still let any idea be heard. Would a student shut another one down - rarely tried and a professor would never let that happen. I'm shocked that what seemed a core tenant of our education philosophy is seemingly under assault and, based on what I read in the papers, losing a lot of ground. I never would have thought that possible in only thirty years.

 

[GHT]

are you a hard-core purist and only read the original Fleming novels?

Perish the thought, John Gardner's: "Licence Renewed," was an absolute riveting read, so too was a small précis that he wrote about the conflict within himself at producing a 'Flemingesque," kind of style.

It's interesting to note that just as a good deal of literature (over the course of history) has moved from stories of External Threats to stories of Internal Conflict (almost certainly reflecting a lack of external threats in the world of our authors) so have the Bonds. Though they travel all over the world and deal with all sorts of exotic people and places, the more recent movies have had an aspect of Bond fixing problems that have sprung up within British Intelligence. It's almost like he's working for MI-5. Some of this may be PC, some may be the franchise feeling the loss of the world shattering existential threat of the Cold War, I'm not sure.

That is what I was trying to present, only I lack the writing skills to present it as eloquently as that. Fleming's Bond is of an era, whereas the screen Bond fluently absorbs each new world invention, like the internet, mobile technology and every conceivable digital gizmo like he swallowed the instructions down, with his mother's breast milk.

I always want to be a writer who writes beautifully crafted sentences - I'm envious of those who can. But then like you, I have to remember that it's about the story, not the writing. Though to be honest, if the writing is really bad, it can jar me out of the story, too.

That, more or less, is my sentiment too.

A life in management has left little time for perfecting the craft of writing, but hopefully, my English teacher's best efforts were not altogether wasted. Management means attending meetings, which means prepared speeches, plans and budgets. Modesty forbids reproducing the compliments, but more than one director (vice president) has sent me a complimentary memo on a speech that defined the company's agenda.

AmateisGal, I would have loved to be able to write with the sort of flare that others here have, but time constraints prevented it, however, there is one talent that I have always been amazed that I can do, quite well, modestly speaking. As a foil to the pressures of work, my wife and I are accomplished ballroom dancers. Wherever we go, outside the sphere of the world of dancing, we end up being the cabaret. The time spent with my wife learning, rehearsing and presenting dance routines has been far more rewarding than any speech made. She's an incredible woman. How lucky am I?

 

[MikeKardec]

She's an incredible woman. How lucky am I?

From an over 50 bachelor: Very lucky! My parents were always very expressive of how much they appreciated one and other, it's a beautiful thing.