Is James Bond a cold-blooded killer or not?

Silhouette Man

In CR novel, Bond kills two men in cold blood, but in FRWL he dislikes the thought of killing Krilenku and leaves the job to Kerim Bey. In TMWTGG he seems to be incapable of killing Francisco Scaramanga, almost giving the character the "last rites"! You can see the dichotomy his character. Plus, he kills The Robber ruthlessly in LALD as revenge for Felix Leiter.

As always, I'd really love to read your thoughts on this one!

always shaken

IS Bond a cold blooded killer?
well i would suppose in his proffesion ,he would have to be
kill or be killed .if that what it takes to get the job done he has to do it
after all the goverment have gone to vast expense to ensure that he can do that
is a AFO (police) a cold blooded killer or a soldier ,to kill in cold blood ie as opposed
to killing in the heat of rage wich i would say most of us would do if push come to shove,
But to be involved in a situation where another person has lost their life ( as in my case while on duty)
is not as glamerous as the films make it out,It never leaves you ,Blood goes a very long way in ground coverage
its messy im sure there are plenty of Bondites out ther who will back me up (ex army ,police )
but a death is a bloody nightmare, its not something most of us would wish to deal with in a lifetime
Perhaps Bond wakes up in the night ,we will never know ,but someone has to do it
so yes Bond would have to be a cold blooded killer ,sorry if i went on

Le Samourai

I don't think Bond is cold-blooded in the strict sense of the phrase. He tries to be, but it doesn't always work. Consider, for example, his efforts at rationalization when brooding about killing a Mexican thug in the novel GF. The killing bothers him, so he tries to convince himself that it shouldn't. A truly cold-blooded person wouldn't bother with the rationalizing.

There's also the paradox of Bond being willing to engage in cold-blooded killing for a hot-blooded reason: revenge. My guess is there are differences in his attitudes regarding killing in the line of duty versus killing for personal reasons.

As a point of comparison, Matt Helm in Don Hamilton's novels (nothing like the movies!) is very cold-blooded.

ChromeJob

Le Samourai wrote:

I don't think Bond is cold-blooded in the strict sense of the phrase. He tries to be, but it doesn't always work. Consider, for example, his efforts at rationalization when brooding about killing a Mexican thug in the novel GF. The killing bothers him, so he tries to convince himself that it shouldn't. A truly cold-blooded person wouldn't bother with the rationalizing.

There's also the paradox of Bond being willing to engage in cold-blooded killing for a hot-blooded reason: revenge. My guess is there are differences in his attitudes regarding killing in the line of duty versus killing for personal reasons....

Thank you. Was about to recommend GF chapter 1. I believe in the LALD documentary, Roger Moore recalls that from his reading all the books and decided to make that his core value in playing Bond. Pity that we didn't see that when he's threatening Rosie Carver with a gun after their love picnic. 8-) Also ... Moore may not've recalled how Bond resolves and compartmentalizes his malais with some bourbon and reminder that it's his job, dammit, and then bumps into DuPont.

DEFIANT 74205

I think that he can be a cold blooded killer where necessary, but he has a deep dislike for killing in cold blood. Is that a contradiction in terms? Perhaps. He knows that it's his job to kill, and sometimes that requires killing "in cold blood", but he doesn't have to like it. In The Spy Who Loved Me he couldn't kill the two thugs while they had their hands full, and tells Vivien that he has never been able to kill in cold blood.

He is someone that has to rationalise his killing. But at the end of the day, if that reason is simply that the person he killed "had to die" because they were evil, then he would be more than prepared to kill them in cold blood.

ChromeJob wrote:

Was about to recommend GF chapter 1.

Indeed. "It was his job to be as cool about death as a surgeon. If it happened, it happened. Regret was unprofessional".

superado

Le Samourai wrote:

I don't think Bond is cold-blooded in the strict sense of the phrase. He tries to be, but it doesn't always work. Consider, for example, his efforts at rationalization when brooding about killing a Mexican thug in the novel GF. The killing bothers him, so he tries to convince himself that it shouldn't. A truly cold-blooded person wouldn't bother with the rationalizing.

There's also the paradox of Bond being willing to engage in cold-blooded killing for a hot-blooded reason: revenge. My guess is there are differences in his attitudes regarding killing in the line of duty versus killing for personal reasons.

As a point of comparison, Matt Helm in Don Hamilton's novels (nothing like the movies!) is very cold-blooded.

I agree, not cold-blooded in the strictest sense and I think when he did kill, he did so with the mindset of a soldier, e.g., killing is bad but it is sometimes tactically necessary. He experienced remorse and rationalization after the fact as mentioned above in GF, but did less of that when killing for revenge (emotional motivation) or in the heat of action, like with TeeHee in LALD.

I'm enjoying Ken Follet's "Eye of the Needle" again (this time via audiobook) and Faber, the title character, is cold-blooded in his attitude while performing a murder, thinking for example, "you saw my face."

Peppermill

I don't think Bond is a cold-blooded killer. He does kill during his adventures but most often the victim dies during a fight or a 'you or me' shoot-out. There are some scenes in the novels in which 007 has a chance to kill an unarmed foe, but didn't until said foe would use a hidden weapon that often injures Bond as well (for instance DAF and TMWTGG)

Napoleon Plural

Bond started off as a cold-blooded killer in CR (though those aspects are only dealt with in hindsight or retrospectively, they are recalled by him). Fleming seemed to fetishise his cruelty a bit. I think as the character went on and became more popular, Fleming toned that down a bit and made him a bit more matinee idol, perhaps hoping he'd appeal more to movie makers. Added to which, you want your hero to be killing because there's some personal interest involved, like he's nailing the bad guys, not because he's just following orders.

Lazenbyfan

The way I've always read him is that he has a job and he does it without remorse or regret. The mission comes first.

I don't know if that makes him cold-blooded or not, but it does make him a professional killer if need be.

Napoleon Plural

Of course, it was written only a few years after the end of World War II when national consciption meant anyone sort of might be a killer once they donned the karky.

Yet then again, to murder as a civilian meant the death penalty. A strangely paradoxical attitude in a way, though of course it made sense.

0073

In Hidebrand Rarity Bond thinks to him self, that while he has dispatched men without much thought or remorse, he never kills an animal that he has no intention to eat. Not counting all the members of the scorpion fish family and large moray eels. Or something along the lines.
So that would make him a killer without a doubt, but the way he has misgivings about his mission in the For your eyes only, short story that is, I wouldn't go as far as calling him cold blooded. But it isn't much of stretch of an imagination to see that he thinks some men as disposable enemies.

Charmed & Dangerous

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Of course, it was written only a few years after the end of World War II when national consciption meant anyone sort of might be a killer once they donned the karky.

You're right. Don't forget that Bond, like millions of men, was in the military during the war, and was trained to "despatch" the enemy without remorse, for King & Country. Although the war had ended when Fleming wrote the books, his motivation was still 'duty', and England's enemies were just not as obvious as before. So I don't think it makes Bond a cold-blooded killer, just more professional by dint of his earlier armed service.

chrisisall

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Bond started off as a cold-blooded killer in CR (though those aspects are only dealt with in hindsight or retrospectively, they are recalled by him). Fleming seemed to fetishise his cruelty a bit. I think as the character went on and became more popular, Fleming toned that down a bit and made him a bit more matinee idol, perhaps hoping he'd appeal more to movie makers.

Excellent point Mr. Plural. I'd go so far as to say Fleming himself set the stage for the wild inconsistency in Bond's character seen in the motion pictures. Yet the 'evolution' in the novels is an element I find fascinating, and the 'cinematic inconsistency' is an element that has ensured the movie franchise’s longevity IMO.

Great comments by all here, BTW!

boundlessrogue

Bond being a cold blooded killer raises an interesting question of perspective. I grew up watching Bond movies, I've read a few of the books, and have mulled over this question for years. The best I can come up with is that it's a matter of perspective. We're usually told the story from his point of view, so naturally he's the one we sympathize with. If the story were told from the point of view of the henchman who takes three shots to the chest while working as a security guard on the villain's base we might think otherwise.

I recently wrote a novel exploring that idea.
http://www.amazon.com/Cannon-Fodder-Secret-Lives-Henchmen/dp/0988669803

Shameless self promotion out of the way I would say he comes off more cold blooded in the books than in the movies.

Silhouette Man

boundlessrogue wrote:

Bond being a cold blooded killer raises an interesting question of perspective. I grew up watching Bond movies, I've read a few of the books, and have mulled over this question for years. The best I can come up with is that it's a matter of perspective. We're usually told the story from his point of view, so naturally he's the one we sympathize with. If the story were told from the point of view of the henchman who takes three shots to the chest while working as a security guard on the villain's base we might think otherwise.

I recently wrote a novel exploring that idea.
http://www.amazon.com/Cannon-Fodder-Secret-Lives-Henchmen/dp/0988669803

Shameless self promotion out of the way I would say he comes off more cold blooded in the books than in the movies.

Welcome to AJB, boundlessrogue and thanks for the link to your new novel - I must say I'll have to get myself a copy of that!

perdogg

Silhouette Man wrote:

In CR novel, Bond kills two men in cold blood, but in FRWL he dislikes the thought of killing Krilenku and leaves the job to Kerim Bey. In TMWTGG he seems to be incapable of killing Francisco Scaramanga, almost giving the character the "last rites"! You can see the dichotomy his character. Plus, he kills The Robber ruthlessly in LALD as revenge for Felix Leiter.

As always, I'd really love to read your thoughts on this one!

Bond is a'killer', but not a 'murderer' as suggested by Tim Dalton in "Everything or Nothing".

Also, you have to remember that Bond has to justify to himself killing Gonzales and Von Hammerstein in FYEO.

AlphaOmegaSin

Bond has a just Cause to kill Blofeld in YOLT.

Silhouette Man

perdogg wrote:

Silhouette Man wrote:

In CR novel, Bond kills two men in cold blood, but in FRWL he dislikes the thought of killing Krilenku and leaves the job to Kerim Bey. In TMWTGG he seems to be incapable of killing Francisco Scaramanga, almost giving the character the "last rites"! You can see the dichotomy his character. Plus, he kills The Robber ruthlessly in LALD as revenge for Felix Leiter.

As always, I'd really love to read your thoughts on this one!

Bond is a'killer', but not a 'murderer' as suggested by Tim Dalton in "Everything or Nothing".

Also, you have to remember that Bond has to justify to himself killing Gonzales and Von Hammerstein in FYEO.

Yes, if you read the thread reply I gave in the "If a non-OO agent killed someone would they be arrested" thread here on AJB - you will see that I gave just that as part of my reply.

boundlessrogue

Thank you for the warm welcome and support!

Silhouette Man wrote:

boundlessrogue wrote:

Bond being a cold blooded killer raises an interesting question of perspective. I grew up watching Bond movies, I've read a few of the books, and have mulled over this question for years. The best I can come up with is that it's a matter of perspective. We're usually told the story from his point of view, so naturally he's the one we sympathize with. If the story were told from the point of view of the henchman who takes three shots to the chest while working as a security guard on the villain's base we might think otherwise.

I recently wrote a novel exploring that idea.
http://www.amazon.com/Cannon-Fodder-Secret-Lives-Henchmen/dp/0988669803

Shameless self promotion out of the way I would say he comes off more cold blooded in the books than in the movies.

Welcome to AJB, boundlessrogue and thanks for the link to your new novel - I must say I'll have to get myself a copy of that!

boundlessrogue

I would agree with that. The books, especially earlier ones, depict him as more cold-blooded. There's much more of a moral ambiguity to the books, I think. They would tone that down more for the movie going audiences to gain wider appeal. Though even if you look at some of the earlier movies he's still got more of a edge to him. Then again, another thing is it depended on who played him too. But I'd never really thought about how the toning down coinciding with the rise in popularity. Makes a lot of sense, though.

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Bond started off as a cold-blooded killer in CR (though those aspects are only dealt with in hindsight or retrospectively, they are recalled by him). Fleming seemed to fetishise his cruelty a bit. I think as the character went on and became more popular, Fleming toned that down a bit and made him a bit more matinee idol, perhaps hoping he'd appeal more to movie makers. Added to which, you want your hero to be killing because there's some personal interest involved, like he's nailing the bad guys, not because he's just following orders.

Silhouette Man

boundlessrogue wrote:

I would agree with that. The books, especially earlier ones, depict him as more cold-blooded. There's much more of a moral ambiguity to the books, I think. They would tone that down more for the movie going audiences to gain wider appeal. Though even if you look at some of the earlier movies he's still got more of a edge to him. Then again, another thing is it depended on who played him too. But I'd never really thought about how the toning down coinciding with the rise in popularity. Makes a lot of sense, though.

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Bond started off as a cold-blooded killer in CR (though those aspects are only dealt with in hindsight or retrospectively, they are recalled by him). Fleming seemed to fetishise his cruelty a bit. I think as the character went on and became more popular, Fleming toned that down a bit and made him a bit more matinee idol, perhaps hoping he'd appeal more to movie makers. Added to which, you want your hero to be killing because there's some personal interest involved, like he's nailing the bad guys, not because he's just following orders.

Yes, I remember a TV guide article here in the UK from 1999 on the premiere of Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) on terrestrial TV that referred to the fact that the movies made Fleming's original blunt instrument and lethal assassin into a star secret agent character who threw one-liners out of the side of his mouth as played by Sean Connery. So the films certainly brought about a change - just look at the less violent films like The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) where James Bond only kills one person - Francisco Scaramanga.

chrisno1

Bond really only kills Scaramanga in TMWTGG ?
Wow, I never knew. But thinking of it - yes, you are right, SM.
I'd like to point out (again!) that he doesn't directly kill anybody in AVTAK - his actions influence people's deaths but never once does 007 deliver a shot, punch etc that directly kills anyone. The baddies' deaths are almost down to bad luck.
That aside, I'm agree with most of the postings above. Fleming's Bond isn't a cold blooded killer in the sense of the expression but he has killed in cold blood. He is able to kill when the moment deserves it, be it an assassination mission (flashbacks, CR), an illegal revenge killing (FYEO), a fight to the death (YOLT and others), escape (LALD, OHMSS) or rescue (DAF). What he doesn't do, for instance, is torture any one, nor does he kill simply because he can.
Also, the post mentioning TMWTGG is quite correct, Bond puts himself in danger by his inability to pull the trigger face-to-face, he's much better shooting at the faceless crowd on the train. His confrontaion with the Mexican in GF haunts him, and Scaramanga's death is having the same premature effect.
In comparison, Gardner's Bond and Benson's Bond share an ability to almost shoot on sight. People are dying all over the place. It makes Bond less believable and the stories a little preposterous - a bit like the Pierce Brosnan Bond's.