James Bond and his vices...

I know we have many politically-correct warriors around here, but does anyone think Bond should return to indulging in sex, cigarettes, liquor, and gambling?

An argument cannot be made that these aspects of the character have been included in CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE, simply because he played a game of Texas Hold 'Em, fucked Vesper and Fields, and ordered a couple martinis. If that's what you consider indulgence, then you must be 13-years-old.

James Bond would be a lot more interesting today if he went against the grain and, say, lit up more than a few times in a film. From what I've read, many people attribute these vices to the time period in which Fleming wrote his novels. I strongly disagree. While smoking, drinking, gambling, and womanizing weren't as demonized in the 50s as they are today, these 'vices' played a major part in the characterization of James Bond. And, I feel that when these aspects are completely wiped away (as they've been in the recent films, whether you want to admit it or not), then we're left with a rather generic character who is called "James Bond" because of copyright and business matters. Today's Bond is really no different than Bourne, or any half-assed hero portrayed in rival franchises.

No one wants to argue about cigarettes? :|

I'm happy for James Bond to go back to drinking, smoking and fucking. Maybe not as far as Fleming took it, people just don't smoke that much anymore, but I'd say he's a bit too clean at the moment.

Like it or not, Bond has become a role model for impressionable teenagers (myself included, way back when), as he was for a generation of filmmakers. If he drinks and smokes and screws around indiscriminately, then he becomes no better than pale imitators like Matt Helm, who exaggerated just those characteristics. Meanwhile, the tobacco industy benifits from all the free advertising. :*sm*:

If James Bond demonstrates that it's not only uncool to smoke, but cool not to smoke, that sends a more positive message to the impressionable viewing public. I thought Timothy Dalton was betraying a weakness when he lit up in TLD, Sanchez looked sleazy dragging on a cigar in LTK, and Brosnan's puffing Delectatos didn't make a convert of me.

And Craig's drunken banter with Mathis en route to La Paz lacked the sophistication of his ordering Vespers in CR.

If you go back to the source material, yes, Bond smoked too much, but he always cut back when in training for a particulary tough incursion (read LALD, DN & TB). He enjoyed a good strong drink, but always regretted overindulging (MR). As for women, there was seldom more than one per book, so in that sense the post-Moore films have been remaining truer to the source. :study:

Times do change, and people do change with the times. Like Sherlock Holmes, Bond tends to overindulge when he's bored (eg: between missions) :*d*: , but in the films we're supposed to be seeing him at his best. Although Brosnan felt that the 'waiting for Paris' scene cried out for a smoldering cigarette along with his straight shots of Smirnoff, hadn't he just referred to smoking as a "filthy habit" while slugging a guard at the arms bazzar?

The way I see it, the only reason for Bond to even pretend to smoke is so he'll have an excuse to carry a lighter and - less common these days - a case (TSWLM & MR). Likewise, we never saw Scaramanga light up, and the reason was obvious.

So, in conclusion (finally!) I am not the least perturbed by 007 leaving one vice behind - he still has plenty of others to make up for it ("I am motivated by my duty, I am determined to avenge my beloved Vesper and by the way, I can't find the stationery...") :*e*:

Mr. Brown wrote:

No one wants to argue about cigarettes? :|

Personally, I don't miss them. I was never a chronic smoker but smoked socially...sometimes a joint or two in the girl's room...but when I found out I was preggers I dropped them both. If Bond smokes, it won't bother me, but I can see other groups kicking up a fuss and maybe rightfully so....

Don't mind Bond fucking left, right and centre though...been there, done that somewhat...no one ended up dead after though...

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Don't mind Bond fucking left, right and centre though...been there, done that somewhat...no one ended up dead after though...

(...yet).

I'd like Bond to return to these vices. But I have to point out that Bond in QOS was much more in line with Fleming's Bond then CR. I mean, if seven Vespers isn't included as indulging...

Mr. Brown wrote:

I know we have many politically-correct warriors around here, but does anyone think Bond should return to indulging in sex, cigarettes, liquor, and gambling?

An argument cannot be made that these aspects of the character have been included in CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE, simply because he played a game of Texas Hold 'Em, fucked Vesper and Fields, and ordered a couple martinis. If that's what you consider indulgence, then you must be 13-years-old.

James Bond would be a lot more interesting today if he went against the grain and, say, lit up more than a few times in a film. From what I've read, many people attribute these vices to the time period in which Fleming wrote his novels. I strongly disagree. While smoking, drinking, gambling, and womanizing weren't as demonized in the 50s as they are today, these 'vices' played a major part in the characterization of James Bond. And, I feel that when these aspects are completely wiped away (as they've been in the recent films, whether you want to admit it or not), then we're left with a rather generic character who is called "James Bond" because of copyright and business matters. Today's Bond is really no different than Bourne, or any half-assed hero portrayed in rival franchises.

I've been saying for years that there's really nothing left for Bond to rebel against other than heterosexuality. Liberal film critics have for years been openly pining for a gay or black Bond. In 2012 it's just not politically correct for Bond to be seen enjoying smoking, hitting a woman, having a cavalier attitude towards sex with a woman, being seen as racially insensitive to minorities, getting drunk, etc.......I simply don't see EON getting away with putting Fleming's Bond up on the big screen in 2012 unless it is a period piece set in the 50's.

Some people will argue that Craig's Bond is the closest thing to Fleming's Bond that exists, but I think they're confusing a rougher, more raw portrayal of the character (as opposed to Brosnan or Moore) with being authentically Fleming. I don't think Barbara or Michael have the courage to scale down the series and do a set of films fixed in the time period in which Fleming wrote them. I think if anyone wants to get a truer sense of Fleming's Bond they'll probably need to watch MAD MEN.

I'm not sure what the problem with Bond hitting a woman is. No one ever said you have to like James Bond or what he does. No one ever said you have to imitate James Bond and his actions. He's a fucking literary/film character, for fuck's sake--not a goddamn role model. A womanizing, cigarette-smoking, gambling, hard-ass is such a more interesting character than a wannabe tough guy who has political correctness written all over him.

Mr. Brown wrote:

No one ever said you have to like James Bond or what he does.

True ... but it helps when it comes to 'rooting for the hero', maybe?

In the context of the times, Connery/Lazenby/Moore's Bond being 'rough' with women is fitting ... I'd really rather not see Craig do it, though.

Call me a wuss if you like :face: .

Blunt Instrument wrote:

In the context of the times, Connery/Lazenby/Moore's Bond being 'rough' with women is fitting ... I'd really rather not see Craig do it, though.

I don't mind Craig's Bond getting in a bare-knuckle brawl with a female who's obviously dangerous enough with weopons of some sort. Or to make her talk, such as Moore's Bond slapping Andrea. Again, context is everything. It's not like Bond has ever said "hey bitch, come over here and bring me a beer,' and then slaps her to put her in her place.

I think you have to be looking through purely anti-Craig/anti-EON glasses to suggest that Bond's vices have been completely tossed aside in the Craig era. In CASINO ROYALE, at least, there is an attempt to emphasize his hedonistic streak (sans cigs, of course), and it comes across more strongly than it does, say, in the Dalton films. (QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a different matter, and is the least Bondian Bond movie ever made.)

I miss the cigs for purely aesthetic reasons (in real life, I hate 'em). Cigarette smoke looks great on camera, and cigarettes are a nice prop for actors to fool around with.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

In the context of the times, Connery/Lazenby/Moore's Bond being 'rough' with women is fitting ... I'd really rather not see Craig do it, though.

I don't mind Craig's Bond getting in a bare-knuckle brawl with a female who's obviously dangerous enough with weopons of some sort. Or to make her talk, such as Moore's Bond slapping Andrea. Again, context is everything. It's not like Bond has ever said "hey bitch, come over here and bring me a beer,' and then slaps her to put her in her place.

Yes, Bond being in-character is key.

Certainly wouldn't make sense for him to start beating women for the fun of it. Moore's Bond in TMWTGG is a perfect reference. Or some of Connery's earlier Bond films.

Harmsway wrote:

I think you have to be looking through purely anti-Craig/anti-EON glasses to suggest that Bond's vices have been completely tossed aside in the Craig era.

Why would anyone be looking at Bond through the pro-EON glasses? They've done nothing good for this franchise since 1997 (or perhaps earlier), except for figuring out ways to make more money.

Do you like James Bond catering to 16-year-olds?

Quote :

In CASINO ROYALE, at least, there is an attempt to emphasize his hedonistic streak...

Their "attempt" wasn't good enough.

I always thought that Bond's vices and his playboy lifestyle were something of a release. And I think the direction the Craig films are taking is the right direction to introduce that.

When I read the novels, Bond always strikes me as a man who indulges in an extravagant lifestyle as a means of escaping his very violent reality. He kills, and then he variously gambles, drinks, womanisers and smokes (or all four) to forget that. It's a way of balancing the character out.

The problem with the Brosnan films was that Brosnan's Bond was an extraordinary man who occasionally did ordinary things. And to me, that's not what Bond is about. Bond is an ordinary man who is capable of doing the extraordinary when and if need be. In this respect, I think Craig is getting it right, and the films are paving the way for the introduction of his vices (though the script is likely to refer to it as a "coping mechanism", followed by psychobabble).

Mr. Brown wrote:

Do you like James Bond catering to 16-year-olds?

If that's your way of asking "Do you like CASINO ROYALE?," then the answer is yes.

I'm all for Bond re-discovering his womanizing, drinking, smoking ways. It all works within the context of his being a deadly secret agent, who indulges his expensive tastes and vices, but never to the point of losing focus of the mission.

Bond's womanizing comes naturally too him. Women understandably take immediate notice of him, and he plays that to advantage, in pursuit of both the mission and to indulge his appetites. He needs to be smoking and drinking too. A guy like Bond might think about cutting back in his 50's, but while he's in his deadly dangerous prime, Bond lives for the moment and the mission.

The only concession I would make to the modern context, is that Bond would have to pick his smoking spots. He can't be lighting up everywhere as Sean could in the 60's. He'd just look like an asshole, but with the magic of film, the scenarios could be contrived - smoking rooms in casinos for example, or really anywhere he couldn't be policed by No Smoking Signs. He could light up in any villain lair too. Who cares what the villain thinks. Bond does like to provoke the villains. The YOLT cigarette gun could come in handy again.

But Babs Eon gets it all wrong. We get Bond noticeably tipsy droning on and moping about Vesper whilst boring the crap out of poor Mathis. And his womanizing is all off. Fields. Gag.Help me find some stationary! What happened to help get something off your chest? Fields was an homage to Bibi I guess, but this time he didn't order her an ice-cream. Actually maybe he did. Hard to tell.

And then when the smoky, sultry Olga comes along, he's got no time. Burnt out from his 10 minutes with Fields I guess, plus he had to get back to Mommy M. Oedipus? :scratch: Nu-Bond can be very confusing.

AMC Hornet wrote:

Like it or not, Bond has become a role model for impressionable teenagers

Better that kids fuck, drink, and smoke than listen to Justin Bieber and wear jeans tight enough to destroy their masculinity.

Long live Bond and his vices.

Damn right. So what if he mows his way through booze, women and cigarettes? Like Brown said, he's a literary character, you don't have to like him. Problem is, Broccoli and co. have realized they can make more money out of Bond by turning him into some kind of PC role model, out to please the masses.

Quote :

When I read the novels, Bond always strikes me as a man who indulges in an extravagant lifestyle as a means of escaping his very violent reality. He kills, and then he variously gambles, drinks, womanisers and smokes (or all four) to forget that. It's a way of balancing the character out.

It's not a release. When you live with a job where you can be dead tomorrow, why live for when you're sixty? Bond was, to an extent, autobiographical, and Fleming's good old 'I shall use my time' quote should be a critical philosophical statement to consider when defining the Bond character.

Bond lives in the moment. This does not mean he should be some reckless idiot. It does mean he should be someone who knows the dangers of drink, smoke, sex, and nutritionally questionable food in the long term and takes the calculated risk to partake because - hell - he enjoys it. Bond can still smoke in a 21st century world where it is bordering on taboo or socially unacceptable. In fact if anything he should. Not only does it make a more clear statement about the character, his values etc without a single line, it can quite easily be underlined as an undesirable trait. You can talk about it being an undesirable influence on the young 'uns, but just because Bond smokes in the 21st century doesn't mean everyone in his world does or has to. If you are really that concerned about it you could easily have M, Bond girls and countless other characters call him out on it.

I don't accept the argument touted by many that a man of Bond's position in a special forces capacity wouldn't smoke etc in this day and age. Or rather, I don't accept it as relevant. Fleming made it fairly clear Bond shouldn't have eaten/lived the way he did given his occupation way back in Thunderball - but did that in anyway deter Bond from doing so? No.

Vesper wrote:

Bond was, to an extent, autobiographical, and Fleming's good old 'I shall use my time' quote should be a critical philosophical statement to consider when defining the Bond character.

Bit of a digression, but that quote actually originates from Jack London

Here's the full text, from an interview with the San Fransisco Bulletin published on December 2, 1916:

Quote :

I would rather be ashes than dust! I would rather that my spark should burn out in a brilliant blaze than it should be stifled by dry-rot. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time.

Clearly Fleming liked it and was a fan of London, so he used it as Bond's credo.

My position on this issue is well documented, but yes. Bond should be smoking, drinking, fucking and also taking drugs -- Fleming writes him as taking benzedrine often and we've never seen that once. Also, he should be fucking like Bond F***S -- rather hard and roughly. Craig is an actor whose face looks like a man who lives hard and dangerously, who has seen some shit and done some shit, but he's written to be the soft-hearted emo Bond for some reason or another (except the violent murders from time to time -- he's dynamic in action scenes).

But I don't think we'll ever get that Bond under present circumstances. Bond has to change a few things before it can.

1) It has to become escapist entertainment for adults. Bond needs to be the Batman/Superman/Ben 10 etc. etc. "unrealistic action/adventure hero" for people in their late-twenties to early forties -- ie, Bond's age range. As long as it remains a teenage focused franchise (which it has been ever since the N64 GoldenEye game became the most profitable Bond anything in ages), Bond cannot be Bond, really. It's strange but we now have Batman films for adults while Bond is regressing into being for 14-21 year olds who play Call of Duty on Xbox. Not that there's anything wrong with that demographic, but so much escapist entertainment is already for them.

2) It has to either ditch the contemporary setting, or stop giving a fuck about being socially acceptable. Now, if a man with the brass balls worthy of Fleming where in charge of EON, maybe option 2 there would be viable. But Babs clearly wants Bond to be accepted, mainstream, popular, fuck even critically acclaimed bless her insanity. So Bond has to be a socially acceptable, socially conscious hero. Sure he's still gonna do some "bad" things, to be "cool", but he's toned down. Now, if you wanted to keep the franchise acceptable but return Bond to his glory, than the other option is to MAKE IT A PERIOD PIECE, because then Bond's attitudes become acceptable within his setting.

Everyone knows I've been arguing the period route for years. It's the only way Fleming's creation makes sense, and MAD MEN has been showing people love that era for years now so you can't say it's not marketable.

It boggles my mind that we can have three-to-four different interpretations of Sherlock Holmes running around at any given time (it further boggles that the big Hollywood one is period and the quiet canon-minded one is contemporary) but Bond is shackled and restrained by what two people at EON think he should be. Even IFP can't do a proper Bond -- the Benson novels felt like spin-offs and merchandise to promote the Bronson films, DMC felt like a post-CR "Flemingesque" exercise subtly designed to undermine Fleming's Bond and of course CB's Bond fits Babs' modernized, PC, bland Bond just fine.

The fact is that Bond's vices, and more importantly what those vices say about his attitudes on life, are what sets him apart from the other action heroes. It's what makes him different from Bourne, Hawke, McClane, Callahan, etc. etc. etc.

Fuck, RDJ smokes a pipe and drops dope as Holmes in multi-million dollar Hollywood explosionfests and Daniel Craig can't light one simple fag??

If Bond will be visiting Turkey (or whatever Asian country it will double), I want to see him enjoy some shisha at a club with a bevy of exotic beauties surrounding him and his host. Not sure if that would pass the censors though.

Quote :

It's strange but we now have Batman films for adults while Bond is regressing into being for 14-21 year olds who play Call of Duty on Xbox. Not that there's anything wrong with that demographic, but so much escapist entertainment is already for them.

My stance on this is pretty well documented two, but I'd say no. I can't think of a single franchise out there right now, that doesn't pander to the 13-21, American, male demographic - knowingly or unknowingly. Everybody older (or even younger) than that cutoff point has to compromise, or just dumb themselves down for those 2 n a half hours. It's not just the movies, either. There's an entire culture out there (mostly online) that revolves around all this teenage junk. Ain't It Cool, CinemaBlend, Rotten Tomatoes, Hero Complex, EW etc. It's all part of the same dumbed down, democratisation of movies. The STAR WARS generation running the show, pulling the strings. A corporate check mate by a generation of producers and Hollywood execs that unlike the old movie tycoons of the 20s and 30s (Louis B. Mayer, David O. Selznick), they don't love cinema. They love gloss, glamour, prestige and dollars but any romantic idea of the magic of the medium is long gone. They're cynical C***S, basically. Harvey Weinstein being the worst.

It's funny you mention the magic of the medium. I went to a screening of CINEMA PARADISO on Friday and it got me thinking that even the boring romantic comedies of the 40s/50s had a certain kind of magic that the glossy, cookie cutter shitfests of today completely lack.

To some extent it's a product of the age we're in - "The Age Of Not Believing", to quote a great Sherman Brothers song. We're so damn cynical, faithless, undereducated and superficial a culture, that it's no surprise we produce and consume such crap. Being sincere and wearing your heart on your sleeve is looked down upon. That's why WAR HORSE didn't win any awards, and the shallow smugfest that's THE ARTIST won most of 'em.

It also doesn't help that stuff attempting to capture that magic of cinema (HUGO being the prime example here) does so in a boring, lecturing way, treating it as a museum piece rather than a fresh, relevant, alive art form that's constantly changing.