But even in the world of ancient Egypt, there was consensus on some basic tenets of existence/human anthropology, which existed alongside generational disagreements.
What is different today is that there is no longer consensus on the basics–what it means to be human; what it means to be a member of a nation state; what, if any, order can be discovered/discerned from examination of the physical world.
Whatever our disagreements, in this community we all subscribe to dalton’s thesis that a James Bond movie must include James Bond. But in the world at large, there is no longer agreement on statements along the lines of “To be x means you/it are y.”
Unfortunately, the world does not follow our example.
And thank you for the Cole Porter. It is always appreciated, and never wrong.
This is spot on. Earlier in my career I worked on multiculturalism and discrimination for a number of years. Hate-groups (e.g., Stormfront), used to have hand out flyers, put up posters on telephone polls and engage in other in-person activities to recruit people. Over the last 30 years it has become so very easy for these people to find one another. It has also enabled these groups to more easily recruit socially isolated individuals who are looking for some sense of community even if they are not pre-disposed to discriminatory views. It is even easier for what we might call the decaffeinated version of these groups (i.e., not out-hateful organizations but those who like to dabble in the tropes and play to intolerance).
Exactly. These new connections have frayed/destroyed the societal consensus that once undergirded society.
People who once isolated/were isolated by dint of their views have found community, thereby, ending their isolation. And they are a force to be reckoned with, since while possibly not a majority, they are a significant minority, and capable of being united with other minorities (who will find a way to excuse their more outré beliefs, while bonding over some shared principles) in order to form a working majority.
Sometimes an opposition coalition forms to oppose them, but having won, the coalition then has the difficult task of finding common ground other than stopping those whom they oppose. Failing to do so, they sink into disarray, and are unable to lead–making the opposition look like a more competent alternative.
I’ve watched that first part of the new show now. I’m in two minds; I liked the general atmosphere, that classic 40s vibe of the old The Whistler serial. This might be even better in b/w as the title sequence shows. But I’m not convinced by the animation or the actual character design. Most look like cheaply produced 70s/80s cartoons.
As for turning Oswald into Oswalda: yes, they gave her two hideously creepy sons and a bit of a cabaret act that conspicuously had the air of a drag show.
But still, so what? You could have had that same story with the traditional Penguin. So he decides to spice up his penguin-themed wardrobe with a little drag, no big deal.
EDIT: I take back the part about the animation. It may not be outstanding but it’s fitting the bill for the purpose. But the character concepts are not my cup.
My “thesis”, as much as I’m intellectually capable of developing such a thing, on it goes a bit further than that. As far as I’m concerned, the only thing that is needed for something to be a “James Bond film” is James Bond himself. The rest of it is completely irrelevant.
This new Q-centered project is a natural outgrowth out of a large section of the fandom’s idea that a “James Bond film” must include more than James Bond. I’ve seen it argued that it can’t be a Bond film without Q and Moneypenny. That it can’t be a Bond film without a title song, or that it can’t be one without this small part of the formula or that part of the formula. And with enough of the fandom putting far too much emphasis on these, quite honestly, inconsequential pieces of the puzzle, the only natural conclusion to that was eventually EON and IFP would decide that they are just as important, if not moreso, than Bond himself. Hence where we are now. Bond is dead, the rest of the Double-oh section is getting not just one, but at least three novels, which are the marquee product coming out of IFP right now, devoted to them, and now Q is set to take over from them as the star of the IFP universe.
EDIT:
And, more on topic, saw that the new Batman series debuted on Amazon today. And the world kept spinning. Thank goodness, I was worried there for a moment.
I was one of those who thought a Bond film needs Moneypenny, Q, M and a title song.
But now I actually agree with you - and the less elements of earlier times the better. Really refresh this thing. Make something which has not been done for the umpteenth time, only for critics and fans to spot the references.
My pardon for misrepresenting. In my brain, I knew the Dalton Thesis states that the only thing necessary is the presence of James Bond, but somehow in my writing and reviewing, the thought got scrambled. Thank you for the correction.
Beckett proved with “Breath” that the needed elements for a play are minimal, so too with James Bond movies. In fact, a minimalist Bond might be both fun and aesthetically pleasing. Something along the lines of Hitchcock’s British films.
Dipped into Severance yesterday, love it. Strikes me that this is yet another iteration of the theme The Prisoner approached back in 1967, our growing alienation with our own lives. Goes to show how ahead of its time that old show was, and how influential it still is.
We find traces of The Prisoner from Wild Palms to Wayward Pines, from Lost to Silo - and the theme is seemingly turning ever more relevant with each new interpretation.
I enjoyed it, actually a lot more than I thought I would, but I’m confused where they’re going with it. Season 1 was about the two main characters accepting the throne - Theo James’ character very grudgingly at first - and they have fully taken on their roles by the end…so aren’t they done?
My thoughts exactly. I liked that it was comparatively restrained - for a Guy Ritchie project - and dipped into the über-violence just that bit to show how creepy and perverted our times are. I even disliked how the protagonist accepted his own adaptation of this creed in the end - but it’s only logical and consequential for this set of characters in this kind of story. It’s finished.
I wonder if the second season can be anything more than an extended Barbour commercial.
+ shows. I love Tehran - but I adore Slow Horses. And the books, in their own fashion, are just as entertaining.