Terrorism and James Bond
highhopes
Posts: 1,358MI6 Agent
According to the producers, one of the reasons for the reboot and more serious tone of CR was to reflect contemporary reality. I'm wondering how far AJB members feel Eon should go with that reality. Should Eon ignore the dominant source of terrorism today -- Middle Eastern extremism -- much as the films by and large ignored Communism, Bond's nemesis in the novels? Do they use an apolitical SPECTRE-like organization as a stand-in, or should they risk political incorrectness and it tackle it head on?
I raise this question because of another thread in which LeChiffre's value as a villain is debated. Some found him weaker than other Bond enemies. I think that one of the reasons for this is we were never shown the result of his handiwork: a terrorist attack financed through LeChiffre. But in order to show a terrorist attack, I think you would almost have to identify the terrorist and the reason for the action. That might not be politically palatable in some quarters.
So what do you think?
I raise this question because of another thread in which LeChiffre's value as a villain is debated. Some found him weaker than other Bond enemies. I think that one of the reasons for this is we were never shown the result of his handiwork: a terrorist attack financed through LeChiffre. But in order to show a terrorist attack, I think you would almost have to identify the terrorist and the reason for the action. That might not be politically palatable in some quarters.
So what do you think?
Comments
Mind you, Spectre weren't terrorists in that sense either, they were after the money primarily, not some Al Quaida plot. But they seemed more ideological thanks to their otherwordly heads eg No, Klebb, Blofeld.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Just think about it---James Bond, by his very existence, along with his scantily-clad female companions and decadent, infidel-Western ways---is already enough to anger these lunatics. I'm franky sick of being Politically Correct in order to placate that particular crowd. They already hate us for who we are and how we live; it's not like we're going to actually change that by making our Bond villains only about money.
Of course, this won't happen, so everyone can relax. But I think it ought to.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
No it won't happen, but you do have a problem where Craig's gritty Bond doesn't have any real villains to get stuck into, they're all a bit anaemic.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
We it was bit like that with "True Lies"
Roger Moore 1927-2017
My own feeling is that if terrorism is going to be Bond's nemesis -- and it only seems logical that it should be -- I think Eon is going to have to bite the bullet at some point and stop being politically correct about it.
Some of you may have read and been a bit outraged at the Sunday Times review in which the writer suggested it was racist to have Bond rampage through an African embassy. What if the people at the embassy had been white, he asked? I thought the writer was being silly. But the review did get me to thinking: if the producers were reluctant to portray a fictional Middle Eastern embassy for fear of stereotyping people of that region as terrorists, what did they think picking a fictional African embassy would do to the image of people of that region? I guess they would argue that no one really associates Africans with terrorism, so it didn't hurt. But it also doesn't ring true. It's like watching a film in which the bad guys are essentially Nazis, but played by Pacific Islanders.
I don't think it would have stereotyped Middle Eastern people to have the events of CR reference a fictional Middle Eastern country. I think most people recognize the difference between everyday Muslims and fanatics like OBL, just as they understand the difference between an everyday Christian and those who murder doctors who perform abortions, for example. Granted, some will not -- but these are people who are already beyond common sense. Do we really have to consider the film's effect on them?
Like some of you, I wish Eon would simply recognize today's reality and not try to disguise that reality with unconvincing substitutes.
I do think that for Bond they may take the bones of the situation and move it into a more politically correct setting, perhaps the pursuance of Arlington Road type terrorists or some sort of terror cell in Eastern Europe with a likeness to ETA.
I haven't seen that; thanks for the tip, Night. I think I may have read something about it a while back. Is it a series?
That's a very good point, Hillary, about the risk of dating the series. But I think FRWL still stands up even though the Soviet Union no longer exists (although the recent spy poisoning seems awfully Klebb-like). As much as I love seeing Bond more rooted in reality, I think the filmmakers have a problem if they can't do the same with the villains. A more realistic Bond going after fantastical villains would seem to clash.
Well maybe they can dance around the subject and come up with some sort of satisfying euphemism (sp?). But I think they're going to have to show a terrorist attack someday, just like they had to show those space capsules being snatched by SPECTRE. But I hope they can work something out a that, like LavaBubble says, keeps the bones of it, but keeps the source vague (I wouldn't like PETA -- that's all we need is for Bond to go after animal nuts. Not that they are not dangerous, of course).
But maybe Bond doesn't need some larger than life arch-enemy. I myself thought LeChiffre was a terrific villain. I just didn't really buy African terrorists.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I've said on this board a few times before that I'm not a big fan of the over the top, super base dwelling villians. I enjoy seeing Bond do battle with more realistic foes (Though LeChiffre isnt one of my favorites ;)sorry HH). Bond dealing with more relative and normal villians is certainly more appealing in my eyes.
That said, when it comes to a terrorism plot I think film makers would need to really watch how closely they set up enemies to resemble those in real life.
Bond battling terrorism that too closely mirrors world events could be construed as trivializing what had happened in the past. Let's remember Bond is pure fantasy.
The reality is a lot of people died in 9/11 and I'm not so sure James Bond running around and preventing a similar tragedy from occurring would be in good taste. If I were a firefighter, police officer or even a member of the general populous who gave everything they had -physically and mentally on that horrific day to save the victims of that terrorist attack I certainly would not want to see a Bond film taking a fantasy run at the same type of criminal activity. I wouldn't want to see a fictional character preventing a historical act of terrorism from occurring when all we were capable of doing here in the real world was reacting to it. Be it the towers or the subway bombings.
My summary to my long winded arguement I guess would be that Bond going to battle with terrorism would possibly be okay. But as a film producer you had better make darn sure it didnt belittle or trivialize any of the efforts of the good folks that have had their lives affected by it. Is that possible? I dont know.
...great thought provoking topic though HH
I don't think they would ever copy an event that has already happened, they would have to invent something else that had not happened. Although I am not sure how this would even work. I was imagining what it would be like if for example they encorporated a "24" style plot into a bond film. I just can't see it coming out as well. As much as I love both bond and 24, I think they both work in their own way. Also I think if they did go to the topic of islamic terrorism, they would be trying to hard to prove that all muslims are not "bad". We have already had "United 93" and "World trade center" and I believe there has been another on that topic. I thought United 93 was terrible, it was like one of those cheap documentary films. Just making money on recent events. Have not seen the others yet.
I think they "usually" do such a good job of making up villains they don't need to be based on real people or real groups or atleast not exactly. Usually I like things to be as realistic as possible but with bond I never seem to mind.
That's another excellent point, Smoke, and one that I had not considered. A too realistic portrayal of terrorism, one snatched too close to the headlines, might indeed lend itself to the charge that Bond was cashing in on tragedy.
That's why I'm going to have to check out this Sleeper Cell that Nightshooter and OO6 praise so highly. I'd like to see how they handle the issue.
There was also the reference to 9/11 and the airline stock shorting. Which is why, while they were at it, they might have placed the camp visited by LeChiffre somewhere in say, Afghanistan, or Ikharizatstan (I made that up, but people would get the idea). The bomber himself still could have been in Madagascar. Perhaps he might have bombed the embassy of Great Britain or some other Western country there.
(Then again, upon further reflection, the African camp may not really have been meant as a terrorist camp, but rather a group of cutthroats fighting a legitimate government. But then I don't know why the leader had to be able to access the money anywhere in the world.)
I wouldn't want Eon to put too fine a point on the issue of Arab terror. I think that certainly a SPECTRE-like organization that offers logistical and financial support to terror organizations around the world for its own ends might work. I could see them even spawning domestic terror: for example, taking a weak-minded individual (ala Timothy McVeigh) and indoctrinating him to commit those types of acts.