© Pierre Maré,
2004 - 2007
Offbeat 128
I saw the new Bond movie, the other day. It’s about his seventh or eighth incarnation, as far as I know. There was Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and now Daniel Craig. David Niven played the character in the first version of ‘Casino Royale’, There were a couple of television actors as well. The actual number of Bonds depends on whether you are a purist or not.
Of all the Bonds, I enjoyed the remake of ‘Casino Royale’ the most. There were a number of radical departures. For a start Craig’s Bond is a rough-hewn character, the sort of person you can immediately believe to be capable of killing. In the second place, unlike the other Bonds, he bleeds in a very noticeable way.
The movie has been called a ‘reboot’, but to my mind it is more of a deconstruction, a look at what makes Bond what he should be.
A lot has been spoken about mental evolution. The general idea is that technological evolution and physical evolution has outstripped the evolution of our minds. It’s an easy idea to understand. Although we have not yet lost our aggressive tendencies, we sit with our fingers on the triggers of incredibly complex atomic, biological and chemical weapons.
Yet deconstruction of our heroes points to the possibility that we may be evolving, at least in our acceptance of force as a valid measure of an individual’s worth.
The tendency has been most visible in comics. In ‘Arkham Asylum’, British writer Grant Morrison portrayed Batman as the sum of his neuroses. Frank Miller also recast Batman, but as an aging, unfulfilled vigilante in ‘The Dark Knight Returns’. The same Grant Morrison who deconstructed Batman, went on to have a disaffected Dan Dare join a band of guerillas in ‘Dare the Future’. And then there was the beating and death of Superman at the hands of Doomsday.
And then there is the questioning of the behaviour of armed forces who are supposed to be liberators, yet show up in the media as the sort of thing that is better suited to a prison than a medal.
Much is made of current events, yet it is humanity’s cultural aspects that us about the workings of the mind.
Heroes have been important, yet now we see a refusal to accept them at face value. In seeking out their neuroses and flaws, fictional or otherwise, we reject the values they represent. Perhaps, it is even possible to say that we are seeking to understand the flaws in the system.
When icons such as Dan Dare, Superman and Batman are portrayed as less than superhuman, when James Bond is given a thuggish look and manner, it is safe to say that idealism is on the wane. And if idealism is on the wane, then its logical substitutes are realism or cynicism. Heroes don’t do well in a questioning climate.
The recognition that nothing is as simple as it seems obviously has to lead to thought, and this in its turn is an encouraging sign of or precursor to mental evolution.
Yet there are still hurdles and setbacks.
Religious fundamentalism, currently very much in evidence, in democracy and other political systems leads to power in the hands of unthinking, unfeeling men who see large scale homicide as a job description, not an evil.
Blind acceptance of old beliefs does leave much room for incorporation of newer realities.
And even the questioning and criticism that leads to questioning of current reality can be nothing more than the incessant griping and nagging of the disaffected, and devoid of any positive outlook or result.
I will be interested to see what becomes of Bond. The current depiction of the character leaves room for questioning of his motives. How will he stand up to the questioning of moral ambiguity that is the flavour of the day.
The point is that many are beginning to question. And questions, although they may lead to more questions, also lead to understanding. If Bond can’t be entirely heroic in his killing sprees, can those leaders who determine out fates with violence and policing of thoughts and beliefs be seen as heroic as well?
Back to the archive • Previous • Next • Home
