The James Bond aesthetic
Apr. 5th, 2008 01:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fpbThe Stoic fallacy is said to be the belief that we can always and everywhere achieve the level of morality, intelligence , or insight, that we manage at our best. It occurred to me, watching a James Bond movie (I detest them, but tend to watch the most recent ones for the pleasure of watching Judy Dench), that the whole James Bond genre is based on a bizarre kind of physical version of the Stoic fallacy. I have not read any of the novels and don't intend to, and at any rate the points I intend to make are exclusively to do with the movies. But in the movies, it is an absolute law that everything always works, and works at its highest pitch of efficiency. In real life, anyone who relies on gadgets and guns as Bond does would have been long dead - the first time that his Aston Martin's engine started sputtering, or his Uzi jammed. And the same goes for that other machine that is the human body: Bond may be wounded from time to time, but he is never fatigued, feverish, suffering from indigestion, or just out of sorts. The same goes for his women, and even his enemies. His enemies rely on gadgetry at least as much as he does, and I do not remember a single time when their gadgets failed before he got his hands on them. As for the women, we all know what the James Bond world is like. When he happens to be on a Caribbean beach, it is Ursula Andress who rises from the waves - not the much more likely holiday-maker from Edgbaston or Connecticut. Nobody could possibly imagine him having bad sex, either. And even contraception seems to share the same uncanny magical power of total efficiency: if condoms broke on James Bond as often as they do in real life, he would have enough bastards to staff his own kindergarten branch of MI6.
Along with this goes a peculiarly narrow background. And I do not merely mean that Bond, his friends and his enemies all live in an atmosphere of limitless luxury, but that his luxury, and the apparently limitless free time he has between missions, do not seem to add up to the daily life of a real sophisticate. Bond flaunts his sophistication ("shaken, not stirred"), but real sophisticates know that many of the world's true delights, its best foods and drinks, furniture and accessories, come from places like small French farms or artisan shops in some small by-way of a large town. Bond is never, even by mistake, seen to taste a cottage-made Bavarian cheese or a little-known Sicilian wine. All his goods are branded. And along with this goes a most surprising lack of curiosity. Bond always knows what he likes and what he wants, but he never has to learn at all. Food lovers try new things, or exchange the details of unusual places and products found by chance. They extol their new finds to each other, and sometimes disagree about them. The mere pursuit of pleasure in taste becomes an adventure. We never witness this kind of enthusiasm or of curiosity in Bond. And yet we are meant to take his sophistication quite seriously. Whatever else the films may mock, when it comes to the aristocratic excellence of Bond's tastes, they are in dead earnest. It is, after all, another feature of that way of always functioning at the top of one's ability, that I pointed out as a central feature of the stories.
Shall I tell you where I think all this very peculiar world comes from? I think it is the aesthetics of advertising; and, more specifically, of TV advertising. Advertising had of course long been around, but it was with the onset of TV that it became more than a matter of individual luscious pictures and suggestions. Tv gives it a dimension in time; extends and deepens the sense of space and environment one can already get from well-designed magazine ads; and, above all, makes advertising a daily, ever-present dimension to life. Every three quarters of an hour spent watching the news, a movie, or Strictly come dancing, come with one quarter of an hour of two-minute spots. And it has been so for most if not all of all our lives. It is, after all, no coincidence that the Bond movie phenomenon began in 1962, after a decade in which TV had affirmed itself as the world's one true mass medium, beyond newspapers, magazines, cinema and radio.
The kind of human perfections shown in the Bond heroes, heroines and villains, are the kind of perfections presented in a two-minute ad. It is not only that the product that is advertised always works: it is the whole background that is error-free. The furniture is dustless, the colours bright, the house dog a beautiful Lassie, drink sparkles from cut glass, heat comes from beautiful open fires fed by handsome logs. There is no effort, no strain, but neither is there any curiosity or any of the keen, delighted exchange of experience and suggestions that is the substance of the conversation of people who really like food or drink, dress or cars or overseas travel. A name is mentioned, and that is enough: the guarantee of a finished experience.
Another feature of the James Bond universe is the moral and intellectual timidity of this mass murder fantasy. Bond is often said to be a Cold War fantasy, but if it is, it is a fantasy in which existing conditions suit everybody very well. The only fear it entertains is that the status quo should really be rudely shaken. Bond kills dozens if not hundreds of enemies in every movie, but he has never once dealt with a serious political or ethical problem. He has, as I pointed out, never had a child, bastard or legitimate; he has never fought an enemy who really represented one of the great dangers of the time. Indeed, he often seems on good terms - or at least, on terms of mutual understanding - with Soviet, Chinese or other enemy agents; most ridiculously, in Die Another Day, we see an all but heroic North Korean colonel. In James Bond's world, the existing powers, however much they may dislike each other, will always ultimately agree to collaborate to destroy any upstart, troubing alien growth.
This is only psychologically understandable, within that world of incurious, stable, branded elegance I described. The real escapism in James Bond is an escapism from troubling questions, difficult situations, change. The world suits us just fine as it is.
Along with this goes a peculiarly narrow background. And I do not merely mean that Bond, his friends and his enemies all live in an atmosphere of limitless luxury, but that his luxury, and the apparently limitless free time he has between missions, do not seem to add up to the daily life of a real sophisticate. Bond flaunts his sophistication ("shaken, not stirred"), but real sophisticates know that many of the world's true delights, its best foods and drinks, furniture and accessories, come from places like small French farms or artisan shops in some small by-way of a large town. Bond is never, even by mistake, seen to taste a cottage-made Bavarian cheese or a little-known Sicilian wine. All his goods are branded. And along with this goes a most surprising lack of curiosity. Bond always knows what he likes and what he wants, but he never has to learn at all. Food lovers try new things, or exchange the details of unusual places and products found by chance. They extol their new finds to each other, and sometimes disagree about them. The mere pursuit of pleasure in taste becomes an adventure. We never witness this kind of enthusiasm or of curiosity in Bond. And yet we are meant to take his sophistication quite seriously. Whatever else the films may mock, when it comes to the aristocratic excellence of Bond's tastes, they are in dead earnest. It is, after all, another feature of that way of always functioning at the top of one's ability, that I pointed out as a central feature of the stories.
Shall I tell you where I think all this very peculiar world comes from? I think it is the aesthetics of advertising; and, more specifically, of TV advertising. Advertising had of course long been around, but it was with the onset of TV that it became more than a matter of individual luscious pictures and suggestions. Tv gives it a dimension in time; extends and deepens the sense of space and environment one can already get from well-designed magazine ads; and, above all, makes advertising a daily, ever-present dimension to life. Every three quarters of an hour spent watching the news, a movie, or Strictly come dancing, come with one quarter of an hour of two-minute spots. And it has been so for most if not all of all our lives. It is, after all, no coincidence that the Bond movie phenomenon began in 1962, after a decade in which TV had affirmed itself as the world's one true mass medium, beyond newspapers, magazines, cinema and radio.
The kind of human perfections shown in the Bond heroes, heroines and villains, are the kind of perfections presented in a two-minute ad. It is not only that the product that is advertised always works: it is the whole background that is error-free. The furniture is dustless, the colours bright, the house dog a beautiful Lassie, drink sparkles from cut glass, heat comes from beautiful open fires fed by handsome logs. There is no effort, no strain, but neither is there any curiosity or any of the keen, delighted exchange of experience and suggestions that is the substance of the conversation of people who really like food or drink, dress or cars or overseas travel. A name is mentioned, and that is enough: the guarantee of a finished experience.
Another feature of the James Bond universe is the moral and intellectual timidity of this mass murder fantasy. Bond is often said to be a Cold War fantasy, but if it is, it is a fantasy in which existing conditions suit everybody very well. The only fear it entertains is that the status quo should really be rudely shaken. Bond kills dozens if not hundreds of enemies in every movie, but he has never once dealt with a serious political or ethical problem. He has, as I pointed out, never had a child, bastard or legitimate; he has never fought an enemy who really represented one of the great dangers of the time. Indeed, he often seems on good terms - or at least, on terms of mutual understanding - with Soviet, Chinese or other enemy agents; most ridiculously, in Die Another Day, we see an all but heroic North Korean colonel. In James Bond's world, the existing powers, however much they may dislike each other, will always ultimately agree to collaborate to destroy any upstart, troubing alien growth.
This is only psychologically understandable, within that world of incurious, stable, branded elegance I described. The real escapism in James Bond is an escapism from troubling questions, difficult situations, change. The world suits us just fine as it is.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: When are you calling "Now," Kimosabe?
Date: 2008-04-05 06:12 pm (UTC)Arghh - I would argue superheros with and expert
Date: 2008-04-05 11:08 pm (UTC)I'm no expert. I didn't know any superheroes went bad or made mistakes. Except for Captain America, who I honestly still don't know, I didn't know any died. It's counter-intuitive for me. What's the "Super" designation for if they're not bullet-proof?
But you see the issue - Bond isn't a character who grows or changes. The latest Bond series is being set up to do that - Casino Royale's "new 007" character actually looked mortal. There was a shadow of doubt he'd survive. Bond gets tortured, and bleeds, and Vesper hurt him - a far cry from my Goldfinger hero. This Bond wasn't always having fun. The bad guys didn't die neatly in industrial laser accidents or shark-tanks. It was more interesting. More real. But not necessarily more fun.
I'll assert again that a good story isn't always deep, and Bond is a comic book hero. Uber-Evil is always around to fight - Specter and terrorists and drug dealers never go away. They just assume a new identity, same as the Batman's foes.
And Bond isn't a mundane murderer. He is as special as someone with a radioactive spider-bite. Bond is "007" and that "00" is a "License to Kill". He's not a murderer - he's Commander Bond, a soldier. He doesn't kill his enemies, he kills for Britain. He is a special soldier who fights off the declared battlefield in wars that are not about gaining territory and don't follow the Geneva Convention Rules.
It's not unusual to have heroes kill people and not suffer over it. Did Luke angst about all the soldiers he killed on the Death Star? Did Princess Leia have nightmares about the torture she went through there? Guilt and shame are not part of a child's fantasy world. Their question is, "who gets the bad guy?" Bond's answer is, "Me." Bond has the inevitable comic rematch with the baddies. Bond's enemies may look more human, but they're just as comical when they're Specter or Russia or terrorists or drug dealers. No one is unaware they're the bad guy - they're bad and loving it. Every single one of them, from Q who builds the exploding pen to Fatima Blush who dies from it, is as shallow as Bond.
Austin Powers is the definitive dissertation of the Bond-hero. He puts all the silliness - from "modern" culture to family life, motivations, and dead extras - out for examination. That's the fun of it - no judgments. I can still enjoy Bond and Austin and Napoleon Solo and Mr Steed (and David Niven).
I wish you didn't take this so seriously - it's like getting bent out of shape over Mary Sue. She brings a lot of pleasure to a lot of people. She has a purpose and deserves to live. (Not in every story, but enough to be courteous to her when we pass.)
Re: Arghh - I would argue superheros with and expert
Date: 2008-04-06 07:28 am (UTC)http://www.fictionalley.org/authors/fabio_p_barbieri/MSAH01a.html
http://www.fictionalley.org/authors/fabio_p_barbieri/TSOTB01a.html
But seriously: I do not take James Bond "seriously" to the extent that I would fight about its merits. The "seriousness" you perceive is somewhat different. I know that it is, in effect, cheap entertainment. What interests me is, one, what is it that leads people to pay money to see the movies, and, two, why this particular kind of entertainment has appeared at this time in the history of our culture. Take, by way of comparison, an ordinary bout of flu. To you, it would be a petty nuisance to be got through in a few days. But to a research physician specializing in influenza, it might well be of very great interest; not on account of its actual impact in ordinary lives, which might be small enough, but because it might have great impact in his/her research. That is my position with respect to the James Bond movies. They are an interesting phenomenon, not so much by themselves, as for how they fit into a bigger picture.
In particular, I am interested in the cumulative effect of the sort of media communication that we do not notice - the steady flow of (say) newspaper articles and editorials, advertising, soap operas, quiz shows, etc. etc. That is why I found the connection between TV advertising and James Bond movies of particular interest: it was, to me, symptomatic of the way that a certain kind of communication, that may seem irrelevant in itself and to wash over the reader/listener/spectator without leaving traces, may, in the long run, have a vast effect on the culture.
Mention of superheroes complicates matters. To compare them to James Bond movies alone is unfair; it would be more to the point to compare them to the whole field of spy movies - including undoubted masterpieces such as many Hitchcock movies and The Third Man. Of course, most of them are negligible. But the best of them - work by the likes of Jack Kirby, Alan Moore, Steve Gerber - even Frank Miller before he went insane - are works of genius, works of art comparable to the best in any other field. And what is more, I have worked in that field myself, so I am defensive about them. Let me put it this way: I take Jack Kirby seriously - the Bond movies not remotely as much.
I would, however, beg you not to get scared merely because I get intense about something. It does not actually mean that I am going to jump all over you. And there might even be some interesting discussion to be done somewhere in there.