Should 007 be a smoker?
Thundernuts
Harlow, Essex, England UKPosts: 57MI6 Agent
With the current attitude towards smoking (I'm told Daniel Craig doesn't in Casino Royale) What are your thoughts on the smoking Bonds?
For me, Bond is a Smoker. The scene in Dr No at the Casino Table where Connery snaps shut his lighter and delivers the immortal "Bond. James Bond..." line is total Bond.
I stand to be corrected on this, but I'm pretty certain that Lazenby smoked, Moore didn't, Dalton certainly did (And I thought it brave of him to re-introduce it to Bond's character in TLD) and Brosnan clearly hated it (The little "Filthy Habit" 'in' joke at the start of TND being evidence of this.)
So, is your idea of Bond as a smoker, or in this PC age, do movies really have a responsibility not to endorse tobacco by making Bond a non-smoker?
For me, Craig should be puffing about 60 Senior Service an hour in the Casino scenes alone..
*Lights blue touchpaper and retires*
For me, Bond is a Smoker. The scene in Dr No at the Casino Table where Connery snaps shut his lighter and delivers the immortal "Bond. James Bond..." line is total Bond.
I stand to be corrected on this, but I'm pretty certain that Lazenby smoked, Moore didn't, Dalton certainly did (And I thought it brave of him to re-introduce it to Bond's character in TLD) and Brosnan clearly hated it (The little "Filthy Habit" 'in' joke at the start of TND being evidence of this.)
So, is your idea of Bond as a smoker, or in this PC age, do movies really have a responsibility not to endorse tobacco by making Bond a non-smoker?
For me, Craig should be puffing about 60 Senior Service an hour in the Casino scenes alone..
*Lights blue touchpaper and retires*
Comments
2. Bond has some habits that make him more... complex (i'm not saying smoke, it will make you complex) clearly smoking isn't one of those, but it seems... different
3. Bond is an ex-comando, and for what i understand, military men tend to smoke
ii think it will give more tension in the game, and a relaxing pose in others scenes
i repeat: Do not Somke ... only if you're Bond
Sure Bond was a smoker in the novels, but smoking is dated, it wouldnt seem ok, for someone my age, or a younger audience to see him smoking, not because of the influence, but in this age it just seems odd.
Bond no longer represents the 40s, 50s, & 60s.
"Better make that two."
i saw him smoking also in "The Matador", thou he didn't smoke a whole one.
Also ratings have changed to include it.
"Better make that two."
This constant emphasis on making movies accountable for the idiocy of people is ridiculous. Now it's smoking. Next will be drinking, casual sex, driving too fast and watching television with the lights turned off.
People need to have accountability for their own actions and misdeeds and not be so ready to blame the influence of a movie. I have never had a vodka martini, shaken or stirred, and do not plan on having one just because I watch a Bond movie.
I would think that a man of action like James Bond (and the movie Bond sees much more action than the novels' Bond), in the 21st century, would need to be in very good shape to accomplish all that derring-do. Not to mention bedding Bond girls.
MBE
I agree that the stance that "smoking is bad but violence is OK" is contradictory and hypocritical, but so are a lot of things in the world. But to be fair, I think it's far more likely that junior will take up smoking because he's seen a movie hero do so. I'm not so sure he or she would take up killing. And Campbell is the director and Eon puts up the money, so they call the shots.
But what does that mean for us, the adult audience? The bottom line is that Bond without at least some violence is not Bond; Bond without smoking is still Bond. The smoking issue is a tempest in a teapot, as far as I'm concerned.
Yes smoking is more imitative than killing or sex and I undertsand that viewpoint but it's ludicrous for the director and producers to harp on about an adult Bond film they won't actually make adult. Moreover in CR's case they've been banging on about not just a certain level of typical Bond film violence but more violence than ever before which takes the contradictory hypocricy to new levels. It's also in one case rather sexualized violence which really shouldn't be seen by any one of the tender age likely to be induced into smoking because the "hero" lights up.
But as usual they want their cake and to eat it too, they want to proclaim that the Bond film is for adults but want all those PG-13 and 12/12a $$$s. I more than understand that from a buiness point of view but it's still eminently mockable in it's hypocricy.
As for health concerns. Bond was told they were bad for his health back in 1965 in YOLT. This is not news. He didn't care. Probably because he doesn't expect to live long enough to die like Bogart, Mitchum etc or to die in that way. That's all part of the hedonism and fatalsim of his character and his author.
MBE
You make several good points, and personally, I would be fine with Bond smoking. But having been a smoker for a long, long time, I'd have trouble believing some of Bond's physical exertions on three packs a day (not to mention Craig would need to have a cigarette in his mouth every minute of the film). Chasing down bad guys, for instance. When I smoked, I was winded within a quarter mile. Now, of course, I'm capable of defeating any madman bent on world domination.
As an aside, I seem to recall watching 'Licence to Kill' at the cinema in 1989 that although Dalton's Bond used one of Q's cigarette pack detonators to blow out the villain's window (along with his plastic explosive toothpaste) I could swear that in the end credits that there was some kind of disclaimer saying that "Although Tobacco Products are used in this movie, Universal Artists does not endorse smoking" etc etc, or somesuch b*llocks.
As I no longer own a copy of this movie (Criminal, considering that I constantly defend Dalton to other Bond fans and think that the opening scenes in Gibraltar in TLD are right up there with any Bond opening sequence) can anyone confirm if that disclaimer was there, or is my memory playing tricks on me?
I don't know about a disclaimer by UA but LTK had a Surgeon General's warning in the U.S. because EON took product placement money for the cigarettes and thus were considered in effect an advertiser/seller of cigarettes and were required to have the warning by law.
MBE
Well that's all you need really, isn't it? Bond's style is aped by people (for proof look no further than this very site: there's a long series of articles on this forum on how to get the right Bond look): his murderous ways aren't- and if you show a glamorous character smoking, you're glamorising smoking: end of. And glamorising smoking in a film which kids which will watch is a no-no. Yeah, they might think assassinating enemies of the state in black and white teaser sequences with silenced automatic weapons looks cool too, but how many articles about imitating that are there on AJB?
I've seen at least one kid say he tried smoking because Bond did it on CBn and, frankly, that's proof enough not to show him smoking cigarettes anymore. Perhaps the character's damaged by that (if so, he's been ruined for the past eleven years), perhaps it's more believable that a super-fit action man wouldn't smoke, but either way these guys are in a position of responsibility not to show Bond smoking.
I wonder why people aren't up in arms about the movie not showing Bond taking drugs as he did in the novels?
But that statement in effect says that marketing and advertising don't and shouldn't work. And yet last time I looked it's a very large industry; if it were based on a false premise I'm not sure it would have survived this long.
They were in such a position of reponsibility when they took money as cigarette product placement in 1989 -- where were their ethics then? And where were thier ethics when Bond lit up a cigar in the last film or Falco lit a ciagarette?
I think Bond should be seen popping benzedrine or uppers -- why not? Isn't this supposed to be a return to a more realistic gritty non superhuman Bond? It would show he doesn't get all his energy from any super human strength or reps in the gym but sometimes rather what's at the bottom of a bottle of pills.
Actually there are quite a few discussions on what gun Bond should use and the merits of his weaponry and which one someone should buy.
Kids also drink and the films seem to have no problem glamorizing alcohol. In fact teenage drinking is more a problem now than cigarettes -- and leads to more early fatalities. That doesn't stop Bond from drinking -- nor does it stop Bond from have a Heinekin beer tie in when kids are more likely to drink beer more than down champagne or martinis. Where are the ethics and responsibility to impressionable children in that case?
Again, they've been pushing this entry as something more realistic and closer to the novels. I've heard the word gritty until I'm sick of it. They're pushing hard on some very non kid friendly violence and yet still hoping for a PG-13 and 12a and it's not because of any ethics and thinking it's OK for some 8 year old to watch Bond gets his testicals whacked but because they want that money and there aren't as many picketing group and media watchdogs complaining about violence or even drinking as there are about smoking.
If they want to keep Bond from influencing the kiddies then get a 15 or R rating and keep them out of the the theater.
MBE
RJJB said that marketing and advertising doesn't work? I suppose that RJJB doesn't like bagels and lox because he doesn't mention it in his post.
Ultimately, EON can do whatever they want with their character (and they boldy have!) and I guess that kudos is due to them for taking a responsible stance against the promotion of smoking, whether or not that is their ultimate motivation. On an artistic level, however, should the fundamental traits of a character be changed just because it has achieved a high level of popularity among children? Should Bond be actively promoted as a role model for children at all? I guess, "yes," because the money says so.
The avoidance of risque sex scenes was tollerable when the novels were first adapted, but where will the PC'ing, worry over Bond's influencing factor, etc. end? The intentional monogamy in TLD for the sake of AIDs prevention is a good example of how ludicrous these things get, yet in that same film we see Dalton puffing away to his heart's content.
I do hope that they can carve the film into a PG-rating, as I really don't want to see the films rely on sex and violence to be considered 'good'. There's alot for younger audiences to enjoy in Bond, but there's nothing that makes sense about cutting out the smoking this late in the game.
i must have missed the "Smoke Like Bond" essays
exactly! {[]
a high percentaje of people that i know, or at least people who is in a range or 14-15 years (even 12) is socially drinker and smoker... why? beats me, probably for the movies, but perhaps is more for the getting girls/boys or stuff like that.
If you want to smoke, go ahead... if you don't, kudos for you, but please, i hope this kind of choice be based in something important and no be some tv or movie reflex. But there are some other things that shows people even worst stuff.
Bond drinks, Bond has sex, Bond smokes, Bond have fast car chases... but is Bond, is not the same that... let's say all those mtv's kinda hip-hop videos....
in that case, why don't let Bond to at least light one cigarrete, or try but be stopped by an important event. i'm not askin the 70 cigarretes a day.
Anyhow, for what i understand, i don't se people leaving the theatres, making web sites or making voodo to EON because Bond doesn't somke. If people choose to not se this movie for that... i don't know what to think
(man, those people surely know how to take a disscution...when i grow up, i want to be half as them)
So you're saying that because they did a questionable thing before they should never do anything reasonabley well-intended again? And LTK was a 15 as I remember- they tried to keep the 'kids out of the theaters' just as you ask for.
As for Bond smoking a cigar- it is a little different. Cigars aren't as easy to get hold of, aren't as addictive and just don't kill as many people. As for showing a supporting character smoking- it really isn't the same thing as having your square-jawed hero smoking.
But the whole 'where were their ethics then?' question is just a side issue. Say I punched a little girl in the face yesterday- does that mean I may as well hit another one today? After all, if I didn't have ethics yesterday I may as well forget about them today.
Bit late for that- the brand's established. LTK had a 15 rating but I'm willing to bet plenty of kids under that age have seen it because they like Bond.
It's called extrapolation and reading between the lines. It's quite simple really.
Is Bond having a smoke really that fundemental? To my memory I think we've seen Bond smoke cigarettes in less than half of the movies made- and then it's rarely more than one a movie. I keep hearing that the movie Bond is such a different animal to the book Bond, so what have these occasional cigartettes told us about his character so far? How are they so fundemental? They're as fundemental as his facial scar, comma of black hair and benzedrine use: they help to understand the book character but take them away from the film Bond and no-one worries. This worry all appears to come from the fact Connery looked cool having a puff. Well, he looked cool in those sixties suits too, but I don't think they'd look right in 2006.
Because there have to essays on it to prove it happens? You're not following what I'm saying.
That's kind of what I was trying to say before: smoking isn't that crucial to Bond's character in the movies. It's hard to put across his neglect for his health without him puffing in every frame. In the books, Fleming could simply say Bond smoked 60 Morelands a day. In the movies, you'd have to show it. So I don't think it really matters whether he smokes or not in the films.
Hero? I thought Bond was suppossed to be someone we loved to hate and hated to love? A man who sometimes did questionable and ugly things? At least this new incarnation. That's what the lead actor, producers and director have been saying they want to do with the character in CR.
Craig also said in the Parade interview he couldn't even smoke a cigar anymore because of the kids so that's gone for Bond too.
It's more like you punched her in the face ysterday got on your soap box about how it was bad yet continued to kick her in the knees and jab her in the kidneys today. They're still glamorizing drinking (again-- as big a problem or bigger toiday with kids than smoking), violence and sex to children so the high horse of new found ethics is more than a tad wobbly.
It was PG-13 (that means any age is allowed in even with an adult, it's just a warning) in the U.S. and it was only a 15 in the UK because a head exploded. They were still marketing the film to the underage set, worse they were taking product placement money to show Bond smoking cigarettes.
The bit about rebranding -- that's part of the debate. It's a bit late for all the sanctimony -- worse it's inconsistent. It's cherry picking about the one issue that's likely to get the media watchdogs after you full force -- it has arse all to do with ethics or any broader concerns about damaging the psyches of or influencing bad habits in impressionable children.
MBE
But...it's really hard to argue that Bond not smoking somehow diminishes the character in a significant way. Fleming is probably rolling over in his grave that an aspect of his character's "edge" has been removed, but as we all know, the cinematic Bond lost his hard edge decades ago. Moore's cigars -- especially the one on the hang glider -- were really quite absurd.
As to the point about alcohol...like it or not, vodka martinis and shaken not stirred have become part of the casual fan's Bond lexicon, so I would argue that alcohol is core to the essence of the character.
All other things being equal, as a so-called "traditionalist" I would prefer Bond smoking cigarettes. However, this is a pretty minor issue for me.
There are relevant levels of extrapolation, you know. Within the context of RJJB's post, I don't see any intentional dismissal of the marketing and advertising industry. Your extrapolation is what I call "quite a stretch."
By your argument about the persuading force of Bond films being akin to the disciplines of marketing and advertising, kids as a direct result are having more unprotected, serial sex than they would have had otherwise. Also, as MBE argued, kids are becoming alchoholics at an earlier age as another direct effect of the Bond films (some scientists claim that certain people are genetically predisposed to become alcoholics, and, and emulating Bond films can actually be the catalyst for that).
And to return to this thread's subject, yes, as a direct carry-over from the novels, cigarette smoking was a fundamental trait of the cinematic Bond, which really ceased with Moore's reign due in part to disassociate him from Connery. It was only with Brosnan when smoking was banned to make an emphatic statement against it. Nonetheless, smoking was consciously established as an essential character element, just as the tuxedo, vodka martinis and Walther PPK. In fact, the producers went through the trouble of replicating the basic qualities of Bond's smoking paraphernalia, to the point of having these items refinished in gunmetal, between films.
Bond’s smoking even became a hackneyed plot device in YOLT, with both Osato and Tanaka chiding Bond for his habit (and even despite the absence of the US Surgeon General’s warnings, they were already aware of the unhealthy side effects of smoking, yet, Bond was still smoking. Smoking was indeed firmly established as a cinematic Bond trait, though it was merely alterred, just as his background is now being altered to accommodate a female M, and to incorporate the SAS into his roots; yet those changes IMO are minor compared to the smoking.
With the rash of firearm related violence among youth nowadays, why not ban indiscriminate killings on Bond films altogether? At least smoking (if at all), would lead to a less violent death.
I was the son of two chain-smoking parents, and spent my youth sticking my head out the back window of the family station wagon, gulping for fresh air...and so I've never had a single cigarette---peer pressure be damned. I was never one to run with the 'in' crowd; if I'd stupidly started smoking, I'd merely have been an outcast with another bad habit.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM