Is *your* Bond a hero, or an anti-hero?

chrisisall

I chose to put this here instead of 'movies' or 'literature' because I didn't want to limit it to one or the other, rather to get a general idea of who Bond is to you.

I enjoyed Fleming & Amis, as well as virtually all of the movies, and MY Bond, after digesting all of it, is not so much a hero, as a man whose unique skill set & career path has forced him into a position where he sometimes makes choices of action that are heroic in nature, yet the man himself is deeply flawed and self doubting. In short, my Bond is a human man, wjth a sometimes inhuman, inhumane job to carry out. And very much like a career criminal, he is compelled to do what he does best even sometimes to the detriment of his own self image.

So that's MY Bond... is that yours? Or is yours a straight up good guy fighting the good fight?
Or something darker than what I've painted here?
Degrees in between?

Just curious.

minigeff

My favourite type of Bond is a bit like Dalton in LTK, good at his job, but ultimately doesn't really give a crap about something unless it's beneficial towards his goal.

Silhouette Man

An anti-hero I think - that's the way Ian Fleming originally envisioned him, after all!

JADE66

Bond is a hero, not because he wants to be but because he has to be. Fleming describes Bond as patriotic and courageous but he is also a deeply flawed human being. This, in the novels at least, is what makes him so accessible as a character. But when he has to he can call on his tremendous reserves of courage and strength. Witness his battle with the giant squid in Dr. No(novel). And no matter how terrifying or seemingly unstoppable the villain Bond will always see the job through. Because he knows the job needs to be done. Because he's a hero. Because he's Bond.

chrisisall

JADE66 wrote:

no matter how terrifying or seemingly unstoppable the villain Bond will always see the job through. Because he knows the job needs to be done. Because he's a hero. Because he's Bond.

You are his PR man, ? )
Seriously though, I think the best heroes are made, not born.
Bond is a version of us all who, given the training & incentive, could see it through to the end no matter the cost. Like Luke Skywalker or Judge Dredd (two ends of the spectrum here), he fights the (mostly) good fight. -{

Napoleon Plural

Yeah, he's Bond, he's brilliant.

End of CR: girl dead, nice old Venetian building in the drink, villain walks off with all the cash! Brilliant.
QoS: Intern drowned in oil, tortured ally dead in skip, someone else gets to kill the bad guy, top ranks of Quantum not addressed (in another movie perhaps? A prequel with Fassbinder once the Craig era is over? With Zoe Wanamaker as M)
Skyfall: Well, that went well didn't it! Imagine if Bond had been in charge of the Olympics ceremony.

Bond is the bloke who keeps on getting promoted despite his ****-ups, when everyone feels the fallout.

minigeff

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Bond is the bloke who keeps on getting promoted despite his ****-ups, when everyone feels the fallout.

He should go into politics in that case.

Muston

I see Bond as very much an anti-hero. Which Dalton played best and can be summed up in The Living Daylights when he tells the other agent "Tell M what you want. If he fires me I'll thank him for it!" :007)

chrisisall

Muston wrote:

I see Bond as very much an anti-hero. Which Dalton played best and can be summed up in The Living Daylights when he tells the other agent "Tell M want you want. If he fires me I'll thank him for it!" :007)

One of my favourite lines in the entire series. -{

ausbondfan

I think he should be a hero but a lot of people think otherwise.

I have a dark look and I act and my photographer asked me who inspired me to get into acting and I said George Lazenby. She asked who he was so I told her he was Bond and the story about how he got the role.

She said I had the dark look that a James Bond type character would have so she obviously thinks Bond is a dark character

If you take looks into account

Connery looked like a villain

Lazenby looked like a hero

Moore looked like a hero

Dalton looked like a villain

Brosnan looked like a hero

Craig looks like a villain

I think even the directors are unsure as to how Bond should look )

chrisisall

Welcome. And cool *look* commentary.

ausbondfan

chrisisall wrote:

Welcome. And cool *look* commentary.

Thanks,

I'm sure it's open to interpretation about who looks like a hero or an anti hero but in my opinion it's 3-3 in the eyes of the casting agents.

chrisisall

minigeff wrote:

My favourite type of Bond is a bit like Dalton in LTK, good at his job, but ultimately doesn't really give a crap about something unless it's beneficial towards his goal.

Very succinct.

IMO, you should not want to BE Bond. If you do, you are not reading or watching a proper, Fleming-Bond story.
*takes cover from potential Moore fan attacks*

zaphod

chrisisall wrote:

minigeff wrote:

My favourite type of Bond is a bit like Dalton in LTK, good at his job, but ultimately doesn't really give a crap about something unless it's beneficial towards his goal.

Very succinct.

IMO, you should not want to BE Bond. If you do, you are not reading or watching a proper, Fleming-Bond story.
*takes cover from potential Moore fan attacks*

Unusually I really disagree with you on this one. For me he is a hero albeit a flawed one and I think the aspirational component is an important factor. otherwise how do we identify with him, and why root for him. For me the aspirational element has been missing since the reboot. Now whether this makes it more or less Flemingesque is debatable. I feel that Bond has to be more than just a 'blunt instrument ' to be of interest at all.

Napoleon Plural

I always wanted to identify with him, I mean his witty one-liners for a start, his coolness under fire. He seemed like the usual charismatic leading man in that regard.

That waned with Brosnan simply because the jokes he got given were rubbish, even more so with Craig because he's a different kind of actor. An interesting persona, but you don't want to be him really, maybe that's just as well however.

chrisisall

zaphod wrote:

For me he is a hero albeit a flawed one and I think the aspirational component is an important factor. otherwise how do we identify with him, and why root for him.

We need not aspire to be a character to root for him. We can see in Bond many noble qualities even though he kills & drinks & tranquilizes... he can survive many things ordinary people cannot, and there is always redemption in some of his deeds, leading to a possible recovery to a full life post the 00 section.
If I want a full on hero, there's always Ethan Hunt.
Bond should be darker, more on the edge, just a few ethical steps removed from those he fights.

chrisisall

Napoleon Plural wrote:

I always wanted to identify with him, I mean his witty one-liners for a start, his coolness under fire. He seemed like the usual charismatic leading man in that regard.

But that started with Goldfinger, and lasted all the way up to AVTAK. As a kid I thought Bond was cool, but I hardly ever considered DN or FRWL in with those. In fact, I kinda disliked them because Bond wasn't hero-y enough. Now I see just how the character had to be diluted for public consumption, and why (until recently) Dalton was not a hit with audiences.

zaphod

chrisisall wrote:

zaphod wrote:

For me he is a hero albeit a flawed one and I think the aspirational component is an important factor. otherwise how do we identify with him, and why root for him.

We need not aspire to be a character to root for him. We can see in Bond many noble qualities even though he kills & drinks & tranquilizes... he can survive many things ordinary people cannot, and there is always redemption in some of his deeds, leading to a possible recovery to a full life post the 00 section.
If I want a full on hero, there's always Ethan Hunt.
Bond should be darker, more on the edge, just a few ethical steps removed from those he fights.

I think you hit upon something important re being Noble. I can't get with Ethan Hunt as a hero because despite seeing the movies I know nothing about him, or what motivates him. Perhaps it's more about being an attractive or charismatic character that attracts me to Bond. I think he is more complex than Fleming acknowledged and for me neither Ethan Hunt or Daniels Bond are charismatic or attractive. There is a sense that Flemings Bond is a rather dull character in some respects, but with enough redeeming qualities to draw you to him. it's a really delicate and nuanced balance somewhere between hero and anti hero.

Silhouette Man

Harry Palmer was always cited as an anti-hero when compared with the James Bond character from the films, but I think that it could equally be said that the Bond of the Fleming books was also an early anti-hero of sorts - reference Fleming saying that he never intended Bond to be a hero or even a very likeable person in any way, shape or form. Fleming said he was an ordinary man to whom extraordinary things happened and that he was called "his hero", but he did not view him as such, although he added that it would help him in the writing of Bond's adventures if he did in fact view him as such.

chrisisall

zaphod wrote:

There is a sense that Flemings Bond is a rather dull character in some respects, but with enough redeeming qualities to draw you to him. it's a really delicate and nuanced balance somewhere between hero and anti hero.

Hence my pick of Timothy Dalton for the quintessential Bond in the movies. -{

chrisisall

Silhouette Man wrote:

Fleming said he was an ordinary man to whom extraordinary things happened and that he was called "his hero", but he did not view him as such, although he added that it would help him in the writing of Bond's adventures if he did in fact view him as such.

An ordinary man? Tell that to Blofeld, Mr. Fleming, not to us. )
IMO, Fleming was being modest and somewhat diversionary concerning Bond, who was after all, a darker fantasy extension of his own persona.

Napoleon Plural

It's a puzzle, and shows how fans are drawn in from different angles, when we assume we're all the same.

The way Richard Burton was in The Wild Geese is a good example of how Bond could be if you don't want to be him. I like his character, root for him, but don't get that soaring surge of wanting to be him that I get with Errol Flynn as Robin Hood. There isn't that, I dunno, reflected narcissism there.

But I don't think that Dalton or Craig really are as good as Burton at doing that. And possibly because both men seem rather prickly and guarded about themselves and their private lives, or keen to make it clear that it's just an acting role. Guess Connery was the same in many ways, but he really gave it all in most of his Bond films...

zaphod

chrisisall wrote:

zaphod wrote:

There is a sense that Flemings Bond is a rather dull character in some respects, but with enough redeeming qualities to draw you to him. it's a really delicate and nuanced balance somewhere between hero and anti hero.

Hence my pick of Timothy Dalton for the quintessential Bond in the movies. -{

Mine as well. I feel that Daniel could give us a sense of that but chooses not to.

Silhouette Man

chrisisall wrote:

Silhouette Man wrote:

Fleming said he was an ordinary man to whom extraordinary things happened and that he was called "his hero", but he did not view him as such, although he added that it would help him in the writing of Bond's adventures if he did in fact view him as such.

An ordinary man? Tell that to Blofeld, Mr. Fleming, not to us. )
IMO, Fleming was being modest and somewhat diversionary concerning Bond, who was after all, a darker fantasy extension of his own persona.

Well, maybe my paraphrasing of Fleming's dictum is incorrect - I will check my facts on this one!

But as Amis points out in The James Bond Dossier maybe we too could do the extrordinary feats that James Bond accomplishes if we were as fit and trained as much as he does in the novels and short stories - I think that this was what I was getting at there! Fleming's Bond was a blunt instrument, after all.

chrisisall

Silhouette Man wrote:

Fleming's Bond was a blunt instrument, after all.

Or was Fleming just describing him that way for an interview? If he were truly 'blunt', would he have such qualms about his job or his humanity? Would he not instead be more like Grant, fine with whatever comes, not needing to self-medicate to ease his troubled soul? Is this not what draws us to him as a character?
Just askin'.