Does being a James Bond fan mean you are a fan of violence?

chrisisall

Are we fans of a violent world?
When I was a kid I made a film titled "The Lathe Of Fury" which attempted to explore the idea that violence was preferable to boredom in the human psyche, but ended up being merely a dumb actioner.
Still, being a lifelong 007 aficionado, I have to question whether we as Bond fans are enablers of a more violent society, or whether we just like the anti-heroic conflict resolution inherent in the fiction in a harmless way.

Or, am I just thinking too much?

Le Samourai

A while back I wrote a piece for my blog entitled "A Martial Artist Who Hates Violence." It pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject: http://fitmonkeyhawaii.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/a-martial-artist-who-hates-violence/

chrisisall

Le Samourai wrote:

http://fitmonkeyhawaii.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/a-martial-artist-who-hates-violence/

Nice piece, sums it up precisely for me as well.
Total vegetarian?
I confess to eating dead fish.... 8-)

zaphod

Le Samourai wrote:

A while back I wrote a piece for my blog entitled "A Martial Artist Who Hates Violence." It pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject: http://fitmonkeyhawaii.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/a-martial-artist-who-hates-violence/

Very perceptive and bang on point as usual. I'm with you Brother. Have also noticed that as I get older my tolerance of Cinema violence decreases.

Le Samourai

chrisisall wrote:

Le Samourai wrote:

http://fitmonkeyhawaii.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/a-martial-artist-who-hates-violence/

Nice piece, sums it up precisely for me as well.
Total vegetarian?
I confess to eating dead fish.... 8-)

Since writing that piece, I've reverted to being something of a pescatarian, meaning I do eat fish occasionally, partially due to human weakness (I live in Hawaii, where awesome, delicious seafood is plentiful) and partially for health reasons, as heart disease runs in my family.

So I'm not the perfect vegetarian, but I embrace the maxim "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

chrisisall

Le Samourai wrote:

partially for health reasons, as heart disease runs in my family.

I thank the fish for my health too. I'm sorry for the killing of fish, but being a weak human, I can only avoid violence to a degree.
I basically grew up on Trek, Bond & Carradine's Kung Fu.
Baloney & a hard roll, foie gras, or roots.

The philosophical lessons, intolerance to evil madmen, and modified Buddhism were easier for me to swallow. )

chrisisall

zaphod wrote:

Have also noticed that as I get older my tolerance of Cinema violence decreases.

It depends for me. If I find it 'fantasy' based, I can deal. If it's ruthlessly realistic, there had better be a good dramatic reason for it, else it slips into the 'porn' category IMO.
Sadly, Slate's killing in QOS was a questionable moment for me in an otherwise great Bond film.
That's the bathroom break for me. 8-)

minigeff

Violence is only a part of what makes a bond film. With this in mind, I'd say 'No'.

Now if you don't mind, I'm off to sharpen the samurai sword and reload the ma deuce.

DEFIANT 74205

That depends. Does being a "fan" of violence mean that you'd get violent at every tiny provocation, or does it mean not objecting to the use of violence under certain circumstances?

I'm not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination. There are times when I believe violence is a necessary evil. But I certainly don't think violence is the answer for every situation.

Thunderpussy

I've never found the Bonds to be over violent, Full of action.
and excitement, But not full of violence.
I love the Saw movies, These would be far more violent than
any Bond film. Yet I can't (or at least find it hard to) watch any
movie with graphic "Realistic" violence. Hence I've only seen
"Harry Brown " Once. Brilliant film but too real for me.

Moore Than

Thunderpussy wrote:

I've never found the Bonds to be over violent, Full of action.
and excitement, But not full of violence.
I love the Saw movies, These would be far more violent than
any Bond film. Yet I can't (or at least find it hard to) watch any
movie with graphic "Realistic" violence. Hence I've only seen
"Harry Brown " Once. Brilliant film but too real for me.

I also can't (or at least find it hard to) watch graphic realistic violence. Overall, the Bond films have portrayed the violence exceptionally well. There are only two instances that I can think of where the violence was too graphic for my taste. In Casino Royale, when Bond strangles the life out of Obanno his legs flailing in the air. And the killing of Slate in Quantum of Solace, that is so graphic even Bond can't watch.

Le Samourai

Interestingly, I prefer screen violence to be more brutal and realistic. For example, I liked the aforementioned scenes in CR and QoS.

If this seems out of character for someone who does not like violence, allow me to try to explain. I take violence very seriously. Perhaps because of that, I find frivolous, "fun," and unrealistic film violence somewhat offensive, as it cleans up and prettifies the brutality too much. It may sound odd, but I feel violence needs to be respected for what it is, not made more palatable. If anything, it should be less palatable. Plus, because of my martial arts background, I find fight scenes that are too "nice" to be silly and unrealistic.

Don't get me wrong: I have no interest in nonstop gorefests such as the most recent Rambo film. I don't want to watch violent films, but I have no objection to films that contain violence. I find the perfect blend of gritty but non-exploitive violence that fits into a dramatic context can be found in the Craig Bonds, the Bourne series, and Michael Mann films, for example.

chrisisall

Le Samourai wrote:

I have no interest in nonstop gorefests such as the most recent Rambo film.

I found the violence in "Rambo" to be for the most part entirely disgusting, and quite a step up from the cartoon nonsense in the second & third instalments. I don't want to 'get off' on that kind of violence, and Stallone did an admirable job of conveying the horror of war. When he disembowelled the leader of the province at the end I did not cheer. It was a cold end to a monster.

Regarding Bond, I don't want cartoon violence either, but it's not 'war' being depicted, so I don't need details in my face. That an adversary is dispatched is enough, move on. Slate's death was too "Rambo" for me.

But, mileage varies.

James Suzuki

I think another factor is how the characters act with the violence, if they feel remorse and the "it had to be done" feeling I feel it is better to watch then a character laughing and smiling after killing someone. That's why I didn't really like the Silva\Bond game with the Scotch and Severine it left a bad taste in my mouth.

Silhouette Man

I don't think James Bond films are violent per se, but I do think that there may be a vicarious element to why some peoiple watch violent films, including Bond. The Bonds have become noticably more violent since about AVTAK onwards, IMHO. SAW 1-5, now that's violence from what I've heard (never seen any of them!). I think it really just depends on your character and your mentality - how gullible and easily led you are to copycat violent acts you see in films/computer games. See A Clockwork Orange (a classic, though, IMHO) for further details on the vicaruious nature of big screen violence and copycat trends!

minigeff

I remember someone lending me 'hostel' to watch......

I did watch it all the way through, but I can't say I enjoyed any of it.

The issue with Horror films these days is instead of relying on suspense and implied situations, we now rely on actually seeing the gory stuff take place in order to make it gruesome and more popular. Then the 'keeping up with the jones' tactic starts and before you know it we get to see pretty much everything going on.

I'm not a fan of violence in films if that's all the plot rotates around. Hostel, the saw films, the Texas chainsaw massacre remake, bambi, the human bloody centipede?! it's like it's violence for violence's sake.

But that's what the studios seem to go in for these days; the shock tactics.

Whether its Kim kardashian getting married or divorced, someone shagging in the big brother house, a gratuitously gory horror film, a 'leaked' sex tape of some 'celebrity', a drugs overdose, a DUI in Beverly Hills, or shaving all your hair off, all that these celebs seem to do is try and out shock each other and the world. You might say its the 'cheaper' side of the entertainment business.

Sorry, had a bit of a rant there.

So back to the thread topic, I think when we see violence in a Bond film, it's usually there for a reason. In fact I can't think of a moment when violence has been used when it didn't have to be. You might say Zorin gunning down his loyal men, or Sanchez gunning down Truman Lodge, or Bond kicking Loques car off the cliff, or Onatopp gunning down the severnaya workers are all violent, but in all those cases, it's done to show how ruthless or psychotic these characters can be.

Does violence dominate the agenda in the Bond films? I don't think so, no.

And in reflection of that, I don't think the majority of Bond fans will be a fan of violence.

Silhouette Man

minigeff wrote:

I remember someone lending me 'hostel' to watch......

I did watch it all the way through, but I can't say I enjoyed any of it.

The issue with Horror films these days is instead of relying on suspense and implied situations, we now rely on actually seeing the gory stuff take place in order to make it gruesome and more popular. Then the 'keeping up with the jones' tactic starts and before you know it we get to see pretty much everything going on.

I'm not a fan of violence in films if that's all the plot rotates around. Hostel, the saw films, the Texas chainsaw massacre remake, bambi, the human bloody centipede?! it's like it's violence for violence's sake.

But that's what the studios seem to go in for these days; the shock tactics.

Whether its Kim kardashian getting married or divorced, someone shagging in the big brother house, a gratuitously gory horror film, a 'leaked' sex tape of some 'celebrity', a drugs overdose, a DUI in Beverly Hills, or shaving all your hair off, all that these celebs seem to do is try and out shock each other and the world. You might say its the 'cheaper' side of the entertainment business.

Sorry, had a bit of a rant there.

So back to the thread topic, I think when we see violence in a Bond film, it's usually there for a reason. In fact I can't think of a moment when violence has been used when it didn't have to be. You might say Zorin gunning down his loyal men, or Sanchez gunning down Truman Lodge, or Bond kicking Loques car off the cliff, or Onatopp gunning down the severnaya workers are all violent, but in all those cases, it's done to show how ruthless or psychotic these characters can be.

Does violence dominate the agenda in the Bond films? I don't think so, no.

And in reflection of that, I don't think the majority of Bond fans will be a fan of violence.

minigeff, me old mugger, I think that you've hit the nail through the head there (if you'll pardon the pun!).

I hate horror films, though I'm interested in serial killer films, which are an off-shoot of crime/procdural and horror fiction, really. Bond films are indeed becoming more violent, but they have a long way to go to beat the horror genre and I for one hope that they never get anywhere near there!

I mean, look at TMWTGG, zero violence almost and Bond only has one kill: Francisco Scaramanga himself!