Homoeroticism in Skyfall?

Seen as anti-heroic in the 60s, described as such by his director in the 90s ... but you're saying that this is the wrong franchise in which to explore notions of anti-heroism, Tiff. Eh, whatever.

tiffanywint wrote:

Fleming wrote Bond as heroic. That is plain as day. If Bond isn't a hero, then there are no heroes.

:suspect:

Fleming's Bond is fairly archetypal anti-hero.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Seen as anti-heroic in the 60s, described as such by his director in the 90s ... but you're saying that this is the wrong franchise in which to explore notions of anti-heroism, Tiff. Eh, whatever.

"seen as anti-hero in the '60s" by anyone that matters? Film-goers weened on '50s notions of squeaky-clean heroes? Did Young or Fleming brand him as anti-hero?

Do we care what a revisionist '90s, post-Cubby director might think, and even if we do, does it do any more than cause us to pause briefly? Conventional notions of Bond as hero, rooted in Fleming and the films of Terrence Young are suddenly invalidated?

Here's a list of what wiki at least considers film anti-heroes. Some of these selections might be debatable but there is a notable name missing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_antiheroes

I would say Faith from Buffy The Vampire Slayer (for those familiar with this TV series) is a classic anti-hero and she is nothing like Bond in terms of her motivations and purpose. Angel I notice doesn't make the list and not surprisingly. Even though he is a real bad-ass and originally comes from a bad place, ultimately his motivations and purpose much like-Bond are heroic.

Interestingly, the Byronic hero Pechorin from Mikhail Lermontov's A HERO OF OUR TIME and his exploits are referenced in Fleming's FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

Forgot the slash.

Whoops.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Sharky understand. Fleming Bond is hero. NuBond is no hero. NuBond is puny human.

Sharky no understand but Sharky more likely being flip. ;)

Fleming Bond I think is obvious hero. People get confused because by necessity and duty he must kill, but also has human moments of doubt and reflection. And he likes to seduce girls. But so what, what hetero-hyper male doesn't. However in the books he's quite chivalrous. He's not the carouser we see in the films.

Film Bond derived from Fleming Bond, is also clearly hero. Terrence Young saw to that.

Nu-Bond is also hero which is hardly surprising. The filmmakers are constricted by the reality of Fleming's creation and the precedent of 20 films derived from Fleming's heroic Bond. Nu-Bond doesn't challenge Bond's heroic nature in any meaningful way. Nu-Bond rather plays with themes of self-doubt and uncertainty in the first two films, but those themes are firmly routed in Fleming's Casino Royale. But in the book, while Bond recovers from the trauma of the violent assault he was subjected to in Le Chiffre's chair and from the treachery of Vesper, Bond has a period of self-doubt where he muses about not being able to tell the villains from the heroes. But Fleming has Mathis positioned bedside to guide Bond out of his delusory self-recriminations and reaffirm his heroic status and purpose. (Oddly, Forster and Haggis in QoS, completely invert Mathis' speech from the book). Fleming has Bond refreshed and back to operational status as he sets off in on his next heroic adventure in pursuit of bringing down the evil organization of Mr. Big.

In SF, Bond as hero is fully realized. He's beyond his old personal issues. But now he has new issues. We find him betrayed and rightly so, after M goes anti-hero on him, but his heroic nature surfaces when he sees his country needs him and he snaps out of his all too human lethargy. In fact, I can defer to Babs here; this passage lifted from our friends at the HMSS Weblog

"Barbara Broccoli.... did an interview published last week at AIN’T IT COOL NEWS. This was her take on Bond: “He’s a classical hero, but he’s very human.”"

Yes! Babs has Bond nailed. Bond of course is very human. He has moments of both doubt and failure but this hardly detracts from his heroic nature. Fleming's Bond screams hero. From book to book he engages the most vile villainy in a spirit of selfless sacrifice, without regard for his own safety. He is prepared to die for the greater good. Classic heroism. His attitudes towards women are routinely chivalrous, protective. Witness Solitaire, Tiffany Case, Honey Ryder. Yes Bond kills, but big deal. So do heroic soldiers in battle. Would any of us hesitate to kill someone that threatened our life or that of our loved ones? Ideally no, but realistically we might very well waver, despite wanting to act, because we are afraid. We can't all be heroes to Bond's degree. We can be heroic in other less dramatic ways, but it's characters like Bond that occupy this grand heroic stage where innocent lives hang in the balance, and one's own life must be placed at risk, for the greater good.

Bond even fusses over the morality of killing in cold blood. Hardly the concern of the anti-hero. But ultimately Bond does what needs to be done. In Golden Gun, Bond blows a pineapple off a startled girl's head, but Fleming takes pains to explain the girl was never in danger. He protects his protagonist's honorable nature. And this was Fleming's last book. Bond's heroic nature, despite occasional periods of human weakness, is preserved from start to finish, and its been consistently reflected in the films, even the new films.

Where I take Mendes to task and nu-Bond in general, is the pre-occupation with Bond's human side, never mind other agendas that seem to briefly appear in the films. But this is more a matter of personal preference. I'm not going to argue with big box-office. To each his own, but as fate would have it, the spy-adventure gods, presumably as a reward for my loyalty all these years, and for stoicly enduring the drama of nu-Bond, have fortuitously dumped the Designing-Bond-Film-Festival right on my doorstep. So as offset to the drama of SF, I can watch all of the classic Bonds in their big-screen grandeur, anytime I want for 13 weeks. No less than 4 GF screenings!!!, right through until January.

But back to SF.Once the betrayed, very-human Bond (Babs), returns from his sojourn, he seems to be back to his old-self. This is nice to see. We've been promised this development for a hell of a long time. But wait, As The Bond Turns is not done. Now it's M that is lost.

But I don't think Mendes does a very good job of presenting the M drama. M is suddenly a study in contradictions. She's both reckless and incompetent and then again a sympathetic character, because afterall it's M. You can only screw with her so much. I find her arc to be rather contrived and unconvincing. It's not horrible mind-you. Mendes isn't a hack but I don't think SF is half as clever as it thinks it is. But it might be clever enough to win an Oscar. I of course dutifully defer to the Academy

After all, they did give the Best Picture prize to Eastwood's classic depiction of anti-hero in Unforgiven.

I see your Babs and raise you Micky G:

"There are plenty of imitators, but Bond really is the first one that was an anti-hero" -- Michael Wilson.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/story/2012-02-01/james-bond-skyfall-sneak-peek-daniel-craig/52907080/1

It is constantly difficult to tell when Babs and Michael are talking sincerely about Bond and when they are trying to basically push tickets. In this case and a few others, both of them morph the brand to any narrative they want to fit. Bond an anti-hero? Sure. Why not. Bond a vegetarian? In this modern day of organics, of course he can be, as long as the Bond image jives with the societal narrative.

Python wrote:

Ian Fleming wrote:

Bond is not a hero, nor is he depicted as being very likeable or admirable. He’s not a bad man, but he is ruthless and self-indulgent.

Yes no true hero calls himself a hero. The true hero is only too aware of his own foibles. It's left to others to heap praise. Fleming lives vicariously thru Bond. I would expect nothing less. Bond is indeed ruthless. He needs to be. It's not a bad thing in his profession. Self indulgent. Aren't we all to some extent?

Fleming was a very interesting sort. He had some great quotes. Some quite bizarre, but most ring true in some respects.

I've always liked this one.

“Just as, at least in one religion, accidia is the first of the cardinal sins, so bordom, and particularly the incredible circumstance of waking up bored, was the only vice Bond utterly condemned.”
― From Russia With Love

Impressive. Most of us are very vulnerable to "accidia." Acquinas writes extensively of it's soul destroying capabilties. It attests to a man's character to be able to recognize and condemn this vice so harshly.

[quote="Largo's Shark"]I see your Babs and raise you Micky G:

"There are plenty of imitators, but Bond really is the first one that was an anti-hero" -- Michael Wilson.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/story/2012-02-01/james-bond-skyfall-sneak-peek-daniel-craig/52907080/1[/quote]

I think I win that one. We know who wears the pants. I think MGW struggles to stay relevant.

tiffanywint wrote:

We know who wears the pants. I think MGW struggles to stay relevant.

That statement has never been more true than it is today. Quite frankly, I've been a bit shocked at how much creative input EON has allowed Daniel Craig to have in terms of storyline conditions and directors. Craig practically hired both Mendes and Bardem, which is quite interesting when you consider that Craig was already receiving $17 million just for his acting services alone. Craig seems to be the man Babs leans on now. I can just imagine the conversation Craig and Wilson have had:

Wilson: Am I being fired?
Craig: No. This is retirement planning. You've had a good run, Michael Go out with dignity.


By the way, has this been discussed and I missed it, but according to IMDB's quote page, Mallory refers to M as Eleanor in their first scene. Anyone catch that?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

We know who wears the pants. I think MGW struggles to stay relevant.

That statement has never been more true than it is today. Quite frankly, I've been a bit shocked at how much creative input EON has allowed Daniel Craig to have in terms of storyline conditions and directors. Craig practically hired both Mendes and Bardem, which is quite interesting when you consider that Craig was already receiving $17 million just for his acting services alone. Craig seems to be the man Babs leans on now. I can just imagine the conversation Craig and Wilson have had:

Wilson: Am I being fired?
Craig: No. This is retirement planning. You've had a good run, Michael Go out with dignity.


By the way, has this been discussed and I missed it, but according to IMDB's quote page, Mallory refers to M as Eleanor in their first scene. Anyone catch that?

Very good Grav! Your SF IQ is impressive. You can geek out on the dialogue already!

M's last name I believe is Rigby. Too bad about her husband. Poor old bloke expired some time in the last 6 years.(I caught that) We hardly knew ya. He was just the lump on the other side of the bed in CR. Might have been in the other room too, when Eleanor was doing her cold-cream routine in Quantum.

I've scheduled my second viewing for next week (Twilight and Bella Vamp will just have to wait ) I hope the SF audience is less vigil-like this time. I may have to guffaw loudly when Bond drops one of his many little witticisms.

tiffanywint wrote:

Python wrote:

Ian Fleming wrote:

Bond is not a hero, nor is he depicted as being very likeable or admirable. He’s not a bad man, but he is ruthless and self-indulgent.

Yes no true hero calls himself a hero. The true hero is only too aware of his own foibles. It's left to others to heap praise.

So, Fleming flatly saying that Bond is not a hero doesn't count for you, why? Because it goes against what your view? What is wrong with the idea of Bond being an anti-hero anyway?

He is heroic. He is not a "hero". He is doing his job. Hr is a protagonist in a thriller, he fights the good fight against evil (read: non British). He is closer to Eastwood than Wayne however on the hero/anti-hero spectrum.

You want evidence that Bond is a hero in Skyfall? He comes back to save MI6. He didnt have to do that.

tiffanywint wrote:

I've scheduled my second viewing for next week (Twilight and Bella Vamp will just have to wait )

I had no idea you were actually a teenage girl/frustrated middle-aged housewife, Tiff. ;)

Also, if we want to talk about a Bond film that argues that "Bond is not a hero" -- let's talk QOS shall we?

A film that is so against everything Fleming stood for that it reeks of disgust for Bond, for Great Britain, and for everyone with the misfortune to be born in a country that makes money instead of begging for it.

Jack Wade wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Fleming wrote Bond as heroic. That is plain as day. If Bond isn't a hero, then there are no heroes.

:suspect:

Fleming's Bond is fairly archetypal anti-hero.

really?
he works for the establishment, believes in his countrys professed values and follows orders, so he's no anti hero
:suspect:

Python wrote:

Ian Fleming wrote:

Bond is not a hero, nor is he depicted as being very likeable or admirable. He’s not a bad man, but he is ruthless and self-indulgent.

artists are always over analysing and second guessing themselves

if he wasn't likeable or admirable no one would read the books

Seve wrote:

Python wrote:

Ian Fleming wrote:

Bond is not a hero, nor is he depicted as being very likeable or admirable. He’s not a bad man, but he is ruthless and self-indulgent.

artists are always over analysing and second guessing themselves

if he wasn't likeable or admirable no one would read the books

People read the books for the same reason Fleming wrote them; wish fulfillment. Bond eats, drinks, and F***S with impunity and still remains a sharp and dangerous secret agent. We don't look up to Bond, we want to be in his place. Fleming counters this wish fulfillment with some significant character flaws, namely his inability to maintain significant relationships outside of short affairs and Bond's tendency to break down when there isn't an assignment.

Bond is an anti-hero. He's heroic only because he fights on our side, not because of his character or moral fiber. It just so happens that anti-heros are very popular in society over the past 60 years.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

He is heroic. He is not a "hero". He is doing his job. Hr is a protagonist in a thriller, he fights the good fight against evil (read: non British). He is closer to Eastwood than Wayne however on the hero/anti-hero spectrum.

You want evidence that Bond is a hero in Skyfall? He comes back to save MI6. He didnt have to do that.

This is about right. Kinda of what I was trying to say. Bond is not hero per se, but who really is? The truly heroic would never brand themselves as such anyway. I don't think anyone is really a slam dunk hero. One guys hero might be another guys fool. It's a somewhat subjective label. Suffice to say, Bond has plenty of selfless heroic moments, but he screws up a lot too and can be real hard on himself. Book-Bond I am talking about.

He's no Errol Flynn type hero, but that type of fictional hero is not realistic. It's fantasy. Babs has got a grip on it I think, by pointing out that Bond is quite human, something Bond himself is only too aware of as well. Babs is down with her Fleming I think.

I think the distinction that Armond is making vis a vis SF and latest Dark Knight is that Bond can still be heroic despite the issues he might have with M's "betrayal."

Bond's bravery and heroic moments are celebrated moreso in SF, than the Bat's best moments in TDKR. At least that's why I think Armond prefers and actually likes SF. Armond seems to lament the nihilism which he considers too prevalent in TDKR. I'm not sure the distinction is that profound though. I was pretty much down with the Bat in the TDKR. I didn't find TDKR too terribly cheerless or nihilistic. I'm not terribly Bat knowledgeable though (other than the Adam West series which I love) but I was OK with the Bat in the latest offering. I wasn't as bothered as Armond.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

I've scheduled my second viewing for next week (Twilight and Bella Vamp will just have to wait )

I had no idea you were actually a teenage girl/frustrated middle-aged housewife, Tiff. ;)

Good one! I am out of the loop though. I saw the trailer on TV. When did Bella become a vamp?! :affraid: Skip a couple of movies, and all hell breaks loose. And she's got a baby too! Tell me she had the baby before she became a vamp. Even Twilight has to make some sense. I may wait for this one to come to dvd. I'm too far behind. I'll take in more SF showings instead. At least I can make sense of SF, sort of

Sorry, can't help ... I have no idea what's going on with Bella The Ever-Whiny, Sparkleboy and Shirtless Wolfboy. Can't abide Twilight.

Tubes wrote:

Seve wrote:

Python wrote:

Ian Fleming wrote:

Bond is not a hero, nor is he depicted as being very likeable or admirable. He’s not a bad man, but he is ruthless and self-indulgent.

artists are always over analysing and second guessing themselves

if he wasn't likeable or admirable no one would read the books

People read the books for the same reason Fleming wrote them; wish fulfillment. Bond eats, drinks, and F***S with impunity and still remains a sharp and dangerous secret agent. We don't look up to Bond, we want to be in his place. Fleming counters this wish fulfillment with some significant character flaws, namely his inability to maintain significant relationships outside of short affairs and Bond's tendency to break down when there isn't an assignment.

Bond is an anti-hero. He's heroic only because he fights on our side, not because of his character or moral fiber. It just so happens that anti-heros are very popular in society over the past 60 years.

There's far more to Bond's character than that. He's tough, courageous, loyal, intelligent, resourceful, skilled in the manly arts and he's tasteful. And he's basically patriotic, which appeals to some.