Connotations of the [Biggest Spoiler]

A thought that occurred to me when watching the film derived from what I considered the most fascinating story element: that M had sanctioned Heracles...

...So could it be said that M was the death of Bond? Or that MI6 was. Or perhaps, the bigger picture, that Queen and Country were? As I said when I first shared some thoughts about the film on here, this particular story element isn't nearly explored as much as it should to be effective-- from multiple perspectives. I initially highlighted that the political ramifications would have given M much more to do in a way we hadn’t seen before. Alas we end up with a rehash of Spectre’s (mis)use of the ’Scooby Gang'. I digress.

The very idea that M/MI6 was the death of Bond is curious. Bond’s known for his almost unflinching loyalty to Britain but perhaps it’s also that patriotism that becomes Bond’s own downfall. Thematically or narratively it isn’t mined in NTTD - at least from memory, I’ve only seen it once - but I think there is something there that at least Daniel Kleinman detected too. His title sequence is crafted around much of Bond’s iconography, from Walthers and DB5s, but also, for example, crumbling statues holding Union Jack shields, suggesting a sense of nationalism that is breaking down (and last time Kleinman employed similar imagery was when addressing the fall of the Soviet Union during the GoldenEye titles sequence). In reality, there is a sense of political and cultural disenfranchisement in the West, arguably from entitled SJWs who don’t know any better, and it’s evident in actions such as defacing statues of national heroes (i.e. Churchill).

Is this a political stance/idea compatible with James Bond? Fleming often explored the theme of Good v Evil... but Good always triumphed, and 007 himself never died.

Is the very idea of 007’s love of country being his absolute downfall part of the James Bond mythos? I can’t recall if Fleming addressed this at all.

What could it mean where the institution of Britain’s national security - MI6 - is behind the death of Her Majesty’s national hero,  culturally, cinematically and politically? For M/MI6 to surreptitiously champion such a program when there was that very clear line between Good v Evil feels like a statement. It was common for Fleming to indulge in political/geopolitical/social commentary but is this a message to send out to audiences? Is a statement being made? And does it belong in a Bond movie?

Alternatively, there’s something positively cynical about the idea that M, though metaphorically, would have, or has killed, Bond himself. And that rings true. But perhaps it’s because it never had happened in the way it has here. The closest might be in Skyfall’s PTS. Or perhaps in Fleming’s opening chapters of TMWTGG.

I’m curious to know your thoughts, good folk of BAB-- it’s the thought about NTTD I keep returning to.

Great post and very interesting observations.

The problem IMO is that Bond's death is fundamentally painted as him sacrificing himself so that Madeline and The Bond-Baby may live, rather than a particular need for him to give his life for Queen and Country (given the cruise missiles were going to destroy the nanobots anyway).

In a sense M is indirectly responsible given he sanctioned Heracles, but I don't feel like the movie really pushed that element. Indeed, after Bond is blown up we simply see M having a drink with the Scooby Gang in London, exhibiting little personal remorse or indeed suffering any repercussions for sanctioning what basically amounts to an illegal WMD program.

To be honest, I don't think that the filmmakers really put that much thought into this. I don't get the sense they were exploring any deeper themes about the nature of patriotism or what have you, in the way they did with Skyfall. NTTD had a rushed script, change of directors etc. Production was an absolute mess. All Babs and Craig were adamant about was that Bond had to die at the end, ergo whatever contrivances and conveniences needed to take place took place.

The only subtext I get is "white males are dumb lol, gurl powah!" but that's no cleverer than an average Netflix special.

CJB wrote:

The problem IMO is that Bond's death is fundamentally painted as him sacrificing himself so that Madeline and The Bond-Baby may live, rather than a particular need for him to give his life for Queen and Country (given the cruise missiles were going to destroy the nanobots anyway).

Great point. The bigger picture is sidelined so to bring focus to the more personal angle. Which, in terms of Craig’s Bond character arc over the five films, demonstrates a lack of growth from CR (“One bomb maker! Hardly the bigger picture!”)

CJB wrote:

In a sense M is indirectly responsible given he sanctioned Heracles, but I don't feel like the movie really pushed that element. Indeed, after Bond is blown up we simply see M having a drink with the Scooby Gang in London, exhibiting little personal remorse or indeed suffering any repercussions for sanctioning what basically amounts to an illegal WMD program...

...To be honest, I don't think that the filmmakers really put that much thought into this. I don't get the sense they were exploring any deeper themes about the nature of patriotism or what have you

Quite. It could have been a defining factor for Fiennes' M who, I recall when he discussed Mallory around SF’s release, was an enigmatic, complex character. To see how Bond and this perhaps morally bankrupt M navigate this assignment is a gold mine for drama, and a chance to explore that facet of Bond’s character.

CJB wrote:

All Babs and Craig were adamant about was that Bond had to die at the end, ergo whatever contrivances and conveniences needed to take place took place.

Such egos!

I’d wager Purvis and Wade would have liked to have gone down the path of exploring M’s involvement more deeply - they consistently conjure up interesting threats/schemes for Bond to tackle - but were curtailed by Craig and Babs.  It’s a shame, and very odd, because I think this would have been rich territory for both the Bond fan as well as satisfy what Babs is so intent in exploring within the casing of a 007 film: personal stakes, character and drama, thematics.

CJB wrote:

The only subtext I get is "white males are dumb lol, gurl powah!" but that's no cleverer than an average Netflix special.

They could've done much more with M's sanctioning of Heracles etc. I suspect you're right re P&W given they did try and add an extra dimension to M in TWINE, for example.

They’ve been doing it every film since, really. Perhaps at the behest of Eon, hence the forced nature of M’s scenes in the latter half of CR, QOS and the latter half of DAD. But they found a way to genuinely involve M in the NTTD narrative, beyond a personal grievance, that felt fresh, and Fiennes could have been the person to effectively carry the weight of it. But they wasted the opportunity, for, as you say, the focus being on the smallest possible stakes.



But I am still curious about the implication that M, or Britain, was the death of James Bond.

MKKBB wrote:

Is the very idea of 007’s love of country being his absolute downfall part of the James Bond mythos? I can’t recall if Fleming addressed this at all.

Very interesting thoughts here, MKBB, that need to be mused over further. I agree with you that it isn’t really explored, and I agree with CJB that the sacrifice at the end seems aimed at his family rather than Queen and Country.

I will say, to the above quote, that I as of now think no Fleming never did — however, the only thing I can think of (maybe) in the same orbit is how Bond’s loyalty to M in the novels transposed 1=1 his loyalty to Britain, and how Fleming has Bond’s relationship with M slightly soured around about the time we get to the beginning of DN — Fleming explores that line through the kickoff of TMWTGG but even then Fleming uses a very patriotic ending to ‘park’ the Bond world.

Bond/M relationship in SPECTRE was intended by Mendes to be something quite different, as indicated here: https://collider.com/ralph-fiennes-m-villain-spectre-james-bond-comments/

trevanian wrote:

Bond/M relationship in SPECTRE was intended by Mendes to be something quite different, as indicated here: https://collider.com/ralph-fiennes-m-villain-spectre-james-bond-comments/

Yuck.

Not only does it screw with M as a character, but think about the message it sends when the head of British intelligence is the bad guy in a Bond film. Just when you thought they couldn't get any more bolshie.

[quote="CJB" when the head of British intelligence is the bad guy [/quote]

If it were the case, I wouldn't have a LeCarre in the world.

Well played.

Bond’s death didn’t bother me that much.
Lynch’s character was not bad, but I don’t consider her to be good looking enough to be a Bond Girl. Should’ve got a hotter actress or just given most of her lines and screen time to Paloma (the single hottest natural looking beauty since Izabella Scorupco).

I thought the film was going to explore The Garden of Death from YOLT but then that sort of faded away. I really believe they were going to reveal Rami’s character as Doctor No but then backed off at the last moment. I also think Lynch’s character was going to be a lesbian but since they already outed Q they backed off.

Good to see you back, Grav 2.0.

The Garden of Death is something that was long overdue for cinematic Bond, but this crapfest sure as hell didn't deserve it and, worst of all, they did fuck all with it anyway.

He Who Dares, Wins wrote:

Should’ve got a hotter actress or just given most of her lines and screen time to Paloma (the single hottest natural looking beauty since Izabella Scorupco).

Shame there was No Time for Armass.