Bond glamour in the age of Global economic wealth concentration

chrisisall

The 60's was a time not too far after WWII, and fairly prosperous. Seeing a gentleman agent in a sports car was not too far out there given the excesses of the period.
The 70's started out rather lean, and the energy crisis later on loomed, but there was still enough money flowing to make a Lotus sub seem feasible in the comic book reality of the day.
The 80's was a party, and Bond movies catered appropriately.
The 90's was smooth sailing, and Bond gave us big & crazy once more.
The new Millennium brought bigness and silly (DAD), and then a scaled-down version; SF amped up the glamour a few notches though.

And now, today, when we are seeing the death of physical stores, and the crap selection of the ones surviving, the cheap knock off garbage and the poorly made clothes and throw away furniture offered to us by chains employing virtual slaves in the so called 'Third World', isn't the excess in Bond movies reaching the near end of the general public's ability to accept?
If the Bond franchise continues the casual flirtation with the world of the 1%, does it risk losing the fandom of the 99?
Or, is Bond so securely linked to fantasy in such a way that it's impervious to economic relevance?

I guess my basic question is: In ten or twenty years when the rich achieve the feudal lord status that they are today constructing the political & economic means to target, will Bond still be driving a car that costs as much as a modest home or wearing suits that cost an average workers monthly pay...?

Or will Bond become small, somewhat indie under-the-radar films? Like Doctor No.
Full circle?

Matt S

Are you offended by Bond's excess? I always aspire to bigger and better things in life, so I will always hope Bond will continue to influence my aspirations. If Bond didn't have his extravagant lifestyle, there would be nothing admirable at all about the character because I sure don't aspire to be the person that Bond is. I don't admire Bond for killing people and sleeping with many women.

Even in Dr. No, Bond wore the best quality suits and a professional dive watch and drank the best champagne that few men could afford.

Barbel

Bond was created in the 1950s in an economically ravaged Britain (granted, Fleming was in Jamaica while actually writing!), financially struggling after WW2. Rationing was still in force, travel abroad beyond the means of most. The austerity of the current decade would have seemed unbelievable luxury.
Bond's indulgence in extravagant meals, exotic locations, etc, was part of the reason for his success back then and I'm sure it will continue to be in the future.

chrisisall

Barbel wrote:

The austerity of the current decade would have seemed unbelievable luxury.

Thanks for the reality check, B! ) -{
It's just that this austerity could turn to widespread borderline poverty to keep the 1% at their current level... they don't like to lose anything, and seeing our hero not losing anything either might make him less the hero in the eyes of future generations... possibly-? ?:)

AlphaOmegaSin

The Books were an escape from the every Day Life of the Post War World -{

chrisisall

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

The Books were an escape from the every Day Life of the Post War World -{

The books, yes. The movies even more so from everyday life & real world events of the day. I just wonder if when (if) we all work for a common low wage eking out a barely sustainable existence will the Bond films will be all that entertaining anymore?
This is clearly a dystopian question; if the world doesn't end up sucking this line of thought & query has no meaning...

Thunderpussy

There are usually two attitudes to wealth .....
1, look at that rich bast*rd, living off of the working classes.
And
2, He's successful, I must work harder to be more like him.

Is the world ill divided, obviously yes. ) but It's not the fault of the films or
Books. Bond lives in a glamorous world ( which I'll never know) and it's great
Fun to get a glimpse into it.

AlphaOmegaSin

I very much agree TP:) -{

cheld

The "Golden Age Of Hollywood" with big-budget productions like "Gone With The Wind", and Astaire & Rogers dancing around in tailcoats and glamour gowns, took place during the Great Depression. Even in the toughest times there is a market for escapist entertainment.

Bond is a government spy, yet people are able to separate the fictional character from the current controversies about government spying by GCHQ and NSA.

Thunderpussy

Even the cinemas of that era, were designed to look as expensive and as
Opulent as possible, to help people forget "reality" outside.

chrisisall

cheld wrote:

The "Golden Age Of Hollywood" with big-budget productions like "Gone With The Wind", and Astaire & Rogers dancing around in tailcoats and glamour gowns, took place during the Great Depression. Even in the toughest times there is a market for escapist entertainment.

Yes, there is that.
Then again, maybe Bond will battle more Corporate scum villains like Carver & Greene again!

Absolutely_Cart

While Craig's Bond, with his crisp Tom Ford suits and his designer sunglasses, obviously, doesn't represent the average person, it certainly represents the aspirations of the average person.

While 50 years ago, many people weren't quite aware of how little they had in comparison with wealthy people, nowadays its ubiquitous. Young kids like myself have grown up with a non-stop barrage of ads and internet pics/videos of celebrities living in luxury.

I totally understand the ghetto fabulous trend. Your whole life you've been struggling to pay your bills whilst being stepped on by arrogant people with more money than you. One day, you want to roll up in a Corvette smoking a $100 cigar. It's human nature.

As long as we're discontent financially, we'll continue to want to compensate.

chrisisall

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

As long as we're discontent financially, we'll continue to want to compensate.

Great analysis Cart, but I think as long as we, the little people, can have small tastes of the great life (the occasional trip to Disneyland, the odd PPK airsoft gun, the nice hotel stay in a foreign land like Canada or California) we stay more or less content. But as the earnings go down for the masses (despite college degrees), and the profits for the 1% keep climbing, these transitory and decreasingly common moments of satisfaction will not placate as they did before.

M 'n' M

It's a good question.

As a number of posts have already said, poverty / depression can sometimes lead to an "increased" desire for escapism. That goes back through the centuries - think of all the great cathedrals, mosques etc that were built by people in absolute poverty.

Maybe the question, though, is whether we can all still enjoy Bond's excess without an increasing level of guilt. No doubt the critics will sharpen their knives and write bitter pieces about Bond being out of touch on their ipads while drinking a chilled white wine. So, Bond may become a guilty pleasure -but he'll always be more popular than journalists

Charmed & Dangerous

Guilt is a funny thing though (just ask the Catholics). The great majority of us, who are neither wealthy nor poor, feel guilty looking at disadvantaged people - but not looking at a Bond film. And let's face it, Bond films don't conspicuously or ostentatiously display wealth like, say, the Wolf of Wall Street. The wealth in Bond films is much more discreet.

Thunderpussy

Bond is a fantasy, which I love :x but I also love the Die Hard films, with officer
John Mcclane. Now he's a very " working class hero" , even the cars and their
Extensive modifications in the Fast and Furious films would be beyond, most
People's budget. .
We all like to "live" through our heroes. -{

AlphaOmegaSin

Like everyone else has said, it's about Escapism {[]

chrisisall

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

it's about Escapism {[]

You sound like an inmate. :v

AlphaOmegaSin

I hope you don't find the Tunnel that I've been digging for the last ten Years )

Thunderpussy

To misquote Oscar Wilde,
" we're all in the gutter but some of us are reaching for the stars !"

chrisisall

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

I hope you don't find the Tunnel that I've been digging for the last ten Years )

Ooops...

AlphaOmegaSin

) )

Thunderpussy

" Good luck !"

CmdrAtticus

chrisisall wrote:

The 60's was a time not too far after WWII, and fairly prosperous. Seeing a gentleman agent in a sports car was not too far out there given the excesses of the period.
The 70's started out rather lean, and the energy crisis later on loomed, but there was still enough money flowing to make a Lotus sub seem feasible in the comic book reality of the day.
The 80's was a party, and Bond movies catered appropriately.
The 90's was smooth sailing, and Bond gave us big & crazy once more.
The new Millennium brought bigness and silly (DAD), and then a scaled-down version; SF amped up the glamour a few notches though.

And now, today, when we are seeing the death of physical stores, and the crap selection of the ones surviving, the cheap knock off garbage and the poorly made clothes and throw away furniture offered to us by chains employing virtual slaves in the so called 'Third World', isn't the excess in Bond movies reaching the near end of the general public's ability to accept?
If the Bond franchise continues the casual flirtation with the world of the 1%, does it risk losing the fandom of the 99?
Or, is Bond so securely linked to fantasy in such a way that it's impervious to economic relevance?

I guess my basic question is: In ten or twenty years when the rich achieve the feudal lord status that they are today constructing the political & economic means to target, will Bond still be driving a car that costs as much as a modest home or wearing suits that cost an average workers monthly pay...?

Or will Bond become small, somewhat indie under-the-radar films? Like Doctor No.
Full circle?

Interesting question. However, despite the upward spiral of the wealthy slowly getting everyone's marbles and leaving only enough behind for the rest to survive on, I don't think this tactic will last that long, because of the internet and the media. Now that so much of the world knows what they're up to (as well as everyone else - we lost our privacy a long time ago) and there is such a push towards increasing education and global awareness everywhere, the feudal lords (I call them that because I think they achieved that status already) are going to start to see that they can't keep up this game for much longer. Sure we'll still see economic and political and social injustices for the remainder of our lifetime, but unless we get that giant meteor or the Yellowstone volcano blows up, I think the masses will eventually bring enough pressures to bear on the feudal lords that they'll be forced to boost up the rest of us towards a more balanced system. What keeps that from happening sooner is that they still have most of the gold and whoever has that is who makes the rules.

Getting back to Bond being relevant in the time being, I think it more depends on how well whoever owns the franchise maintains its integrity and quality and keeps it up to date than where Bond fits economically in his world. Most people who don't own or live with wealth actually wish they could, despite disliking so many who do. In fact, they don't dislike them in general - they only dislike the ones who don't give back to society or who mistreat those below them. Bond will never be disliked for having expensive tastes and material things because he sacrifices his own life (and physical/emotional health) to protect the innocent masses and I think the audience will always feel he deserves whatever brief luxuries he can indulge in, because his sacrifices could cause him to be killed at any moment.

Matt S

CmdrAtticus wrote:

In fact, they don't dislike them in general - they only dislike the ones who don't give back to society or who mistreat those below them.

I don't think that's entirely true, at least I don't get the impression that it is. Many people dislike the 1% and never give any exceptions when they talk about the rich. James Bond lives like people I know in the top 5%, and I get the impression that people who dislike the top 1% also dislike people down to the top 5% because they are still quite wealthy. However, I like the top 1% because I work for a non-profit organisation that is largely supported by donations from some of New York's wealthiest people.

superado

This thread should be in the memorabilia forum, because I resent how I can't afford the same things that a limited few AJB members can afford to drive or wear on their wrists )

But seriously speaking, I don't think there would be many people walking out of a Bond movie in bitter resentment over haves and have nots. Yes, the Occupy movement was definitely a sign of widespread frustration over failed or imbalanced personal finance just as it might be another iteration of the civil rights movement. However, just as Barbel said how the "austerity of the current decade would have seemed unbelievable luxury (to earlier generations)... " I think society at large is enjoying enough of today's luxuries to soften the blows of economic inequalities. Just go to Disneyland and observe how that company has made access to its park more affordable for a lot more people than before...on the freeway, take note at how many more average people are driving fancy cars and a trip at the mall will show how more people from all walks of life have access to smart phones and tablets, thanks in large part to clever financing schemes (which is what crashed the market in 2008). Maybe ignorance is truly bliss and most people are too busy enjoying their perceived slice of the pie to pay attention to the true state of their economic standing.

chrisisall

CmdrAtticus wrote:

Most people who don't own or live with wealth actually wish they could, despite disliking so many who do. In fact, they don't dislike them in general - they only dislike the ones who don't give back to society or who mistreat those below them. Bond will never be disliked for having expensive tastes and material things because he sacrifices his own life (and physical/emotional health) to protect the innocent masses and I think the audience will always feel he deserves whatever brief luxuries he can indulge in, because his sacrifices could cause him to be killed at any moment.

Great point, and I feel, the ultimate answer to my original question. Thanks.
And no, I never resented wealthy people in any way before this whole 'sponge action' a few of the deviates have initiated. Before they'd bought our governments wholesale, the 1% paid a fair amount of taxes and really DID give back to the societies that enabled their fantastic riches. Now, they give back at their discretion, and the fattest cats merely scratch at society's soft flesh for war profits...

chrisisall

superado wrote:

Maybe ignorance is truly bliss

I want to be re-inserted...

Blackleiter

chrisisall wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

Most people who don't own or live with wealth actually wish they could, despite disliking so many who do. In fact, they don't dislike them in general - they only dislike the ones who don't give back to society or who mistreat those below them. Bond will never be disliked for having expensive tastes and material things because he sacrifices his own life (and physical/emotional health) to protect the innocent masses and I think the audience will always feel he deserves whatever brief luxuries he can indulge in, because his sacrifices could cause him to be killed at any moment.

Great point, and I feel, the ultimate answer to my original question. Thanks.
And no, I never resented wealthy people in any way before this whole 'sponge action' a few of the deviates have initiated. Before they'd bought our governments wholesale, the 1% paid a fair amount of taxes and really DID give back to the societies that enabled their fantastic riches. Now, they give back at their discretion, and the fattest cats merely scratch at society's soft flesh for war profits...

Well-said! -{

Absolutely_Cart

Interestingly enough, Bond tends to value duty and country over massive wealth. He'd rather work a difficult salary job as a spy then be a millionaire. That said, he still lives pretty lavish and takes pride in his leisure.

Bond is more representative of the 5% than the 1%. Bond is not the CEO of Haliburton. He's the Joneses.

I honestly feel this thread is moreso a political one than a James Bond one, as purely political threads are often not allowed in many forums. But I think everyone in this discussion is being civil about it so it's all good.

chrisisall

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I honestly feel this thread is moreso a political one than a James Bond one

What? ) A discussion of the world situation and how it does or might affect the reception of future films that involve a version of our real world are (or should be) entirely non-political.
And anyway, the comments my question generated have been excellent, and I thank you all! Very cool. {[]