Heroes and Violence and Lawlessness - and Bond?

[Dustin]

@dalton

If anything, he’s just a global version of a police officer, albeit one who tends to operate in more high class settings than your typical beat cop. He’s also, since Licence to Kill gone rogue more than anyone would care to see in the films, meaning that he’s been operating even outside of the very loose definition of the law that many claim him to be protected by.

The idea that he is a fantasy figure also makes it a bit more problematic as well. It glorifies the behavior even more than it would if he were a more realistic figure, making the lifestyle and actions appear to be glamorous even when they are not.

I think there is a significant difference between Bond and the police officer idea (even though Bond himself uses it as a BS cover with Honey).

Bond, I think, is not a bobby - he’s a dragon slayer and comes from the very oldest stories humans told themselves around the fires when something back in the dark cave started to stir. He is every bit as much a mythic figure as the monsters he’s out to fight.

Policemen, policewomen are not just historically a younger presence - their very idea is also modern: basically that humans make their own laws and see themselves to it they are respected. Police is the order we give ourselves, an entity that’s shaped after our ideas to protect us from each other, from the mob we can turn into at a whim.

Both Bond and the heroes of police flicks are characters that invite our identification. But the police officer is a real-world role model we might actually aspire to. There’s a code of conduct, there are laws, a whole assortment of demands society puts on the role of the police. Rightfully so, because in a civilised democracy police is the organ of the state that’s given the most powers to intrude on the lives and rights of the individual. This power must be fully accountable.

Bond in turn is a character we identify with for two hours - recently more like three - but, with the exception of a few people living in their own sphere, rarely aspire to emulate as a role model in the real world. We are fans, we share certain interests to different degrees. But for the most part we don’t slay dragons. And those who do tend to avoid the Bond connection. If somebody was in fact looking for a career with intelligence services they’d probably better keep mum about their Bond hobby because that’s likely to be the first dealbreaker.

Which illustrates why our depiction of the police in popular culture poses a problem for the real world: there are now countless pieces in newspapers where real world intelligence bosses state they are not looking for ‘the Bond type applicant’ - but pretty few where police chiefs refuse the fans of popular action fare as not fitting into the force.

In turn this poses further problems. When we depict police actions along the lines of ‘whatever it takes’, when we depict a ‘war on the streets’ then we’ll automatically reap applicants who are willing to do just that, whatever it takes. And lying to Internal Affairs and DAs seems really small fry in the greater scheme of things, that ongoing war these officers fight - and to an alarming extent with actual military grade weapons and tactics. What can we expect if we deck out police like infantry? What kind of policing would we expect from, say, special forces? Probably one with a certain amount of collateral damage.

Add to this the military esprit de corps and you can easily arrive at SS-style policing.

[secretagentfan]

Looking back only a few years, there was something so appealing about Jack Bauer on 24, fighting terrorist by, well, terrorizing the pure evil.

These days I can hardly digest those scenes and am ashamed at myself how easily I fell for the propaganda involved.

Even looking at BLUE BLOODS, a show I enjoy despite some misgivings, I detect a certain fondness for the Donnie Wahlberg character, being a loose canon regularly on the brink of breaking the law. Why? Because I was groomed by fictional cops for decades to not only justify law-breaking but even demanding it from those narratives.

That was wrong. I don’t want a real life cop to treat me that way when I rouse his suspicion. So why don‘t I have a problem with it when he roughens up a fictional character?

Because I always see myself as a good guy. Only… everybody sees themselves as the good guy. And here‘s the danger in keeping on portraying the mavericks as heroes. It‘s only a small step to cross over the line into fascism. „We are right, the others are wrong, and we will do what it takes to stop them.“

[mummyboy11]

We all know some characters in movies are evil or, being cops or other figures portraying justice and law, some are corrupt or dirty but it’s just fiction.

They’re works of fiction and must be seen as such. We must not censor or ban movies based on fear that what happens in the screen translates to real life. That’s…well, censorship and limiting creative freedom.

Besides, guys like Jack Bauer, 007, the Lethal Weapon characters…they do exist already! Less glamour, less gadgets or refine methods, but they do.

Movies and TV simply transform and sugar-coat them based on western society values and refine them to provide an escapism for 2h or 40 minutes.

That’s why people love Lethal Weapon, 007, 24, Beverly Hills Cop…heck! We cheer for bank and casino robbers if we sympathize with their story. That doesn’t make us bad…it’s human nature to be curious and sometimes feel fascinated about the perverse, illegal or naughty eventhough we know the fundamentals are wrong. And this last thing is the important element: consciousness and responsability.

[Dustin]

@secretagentfan

Because I always see myself as a good guy. Only… everybody sees themselves as the good guy.

This may not be the problem from a narrative point of view. I think our characters ought to have that internal compass as everybody has it. But the solution can’t be to unwaveringly trust and follow it - otherwise a great number of villains, real and fictional, could just point to their deep religious conviction of doing the right thing…and would walk free.

As Bukowski said - did he? - the trouble with the world is that intelligent people are full of doubts while the others are full of confidence.

We expect from the hero(es) of a film, book, whatever to do the right thing. But our narratives largely fail to represent how difficult it is to decide what’s right in real life. Necessarily, since our stories are condensed and tend to avoid the different shades of grey in favour of the clear picture. But, as Line of Duty for example shows, this is not a law of nature.

[secretagentfan]

@mummyboy11

They’re works of fiction and must be seen as such.

But works of fiction shape the viewer‘s perception of reality. Sometimes more, sometimes less, and often subconsciously.

That’s why one really has to be careful in how to depict those heroes who represent moral and state authority.

This is not about censorship. It’s about evolving. The same applies to the depiction of sexuality or race. We can’t repeat familiar patterns, we have to constantly question and change the depiction. Otherwise we put ideas in people’s minds which further dangerous stereotypes.

[MrKiddWint]

@secretagentfan

But he clearly suffers from the violence inflicted on him and by him. So that aspect already takes away from the glorification.

I think that aspect is key. Showing the bad consequences of violent behavior helps de-glorify it.

@Dustin

Both Bond and the heroes of police flicks are characters that invite our identification.

I would add that for me the identification is with both the character and the methods they employ to achieve their ends. In fact, as I have posted before, my identification may be stronger with the situations a character faces and how they respond, than with any psychological traits/backstory they may possess.

@Dustin

What can we expect if we deck out police like infantry?

I do not know about Europe, but in America there is a severe problem of local law enforcement being supplied with and using military equipment and vehicles.

@secretagentfan

And here‘s the danger in keeping on portraying the mavericks as heroes.

In American culture at least (I am not sure how the issue plays out across Western Civilization), the maverick is loved because he re-writes the rules, which are always understood to be repressive of the authentic self–hence the hyper-individualism of American society.

@Dustin

But our narratives largely fail to represent how difficult it is to decide what’s right in real life.

Because that can be pretty boring. “Hamlet” anyone? LOL.

@secretagentfan

But works of fiction shape the viewer‘s perception of reality…We can’t repeat familiar patterns, we have to constantly question and change the depiction. Otherwise we put ideas in people’s minds which further dangerous stereotypes.

With the advent of the notion of “l’art pour l’art” in the early 19th century, European culture began to move away from the idea that art should/could have any moral or didactic function. Such an idea would have made no sense to Euripides, Shakespeare, or artists outside of Europe. Chinua Achebe wrote that no such notion existed with regard to African art, and others pointed out how 'l’art pour l’art" facilitated the commodification of art works.

[Dustin]

@MrKiddWint

I do not know about Europe, but in America there is a severe problem of local law enforcement being supplied with and using military equipment and vehicles.

Not so much a problem here since we’re just not sitting on huge numbers of military surplus gear.

Some of the weapons and equipment, especially body protection, had to be adapted to lessons learned from more recent events involving assault rifles. Interestingly, they were largely bought legally as ‘converted’ arms (for collectors) and then reconverted following YouTube instruction videos. The contraband was actually the ammunition, stuff that’s also easier to smuggle than the weapons.

Military grade weapons are conceived for a very different role than civilian policing. A shot fired usually has greater velocity and penetration and can harm for a considerable distance even after travelling through a target. In military use that’s exactly what you want. In civilian surroundings it’s asking for trouble, all the more when that ‘war mindset’ kicks in and shooters don’t control their own trigger finger any more.

[dalton]

@Dustin

I think there is a significant difference between Bond and the police officer idea (even though Bond himself uses it as a BS cover with Honey).

There is a difference, of course, but at the end of the day, he is a law enforcement entity given his power by the government. If anything, he’s more problematic in that he’s not accountable to anyone. He commits crimes left and right, yet there’s no real oversight of what he does, but rather, there’s an implicit condoning of his behavior by the government figures in the films. It’s all a glorification of the outlaw (which Bond has been in most of the post-Cubby films, as he’s gone rogue in just about all of these films, which puts him at odds with the idea that he’s operating under some kind of code of law that allows for his actions) that needs to change.

And while it’s not exactly the same thing, but I think it falls under the larger umbrella of what we’re discussing, the treatment of the women in these films MUST change. The way that the Severine and Lucia characters are treated in the recent films is beyond deplorable and, for a film franchise that prides itself with moving with the times, they are woefully reminiscent of the 60s films and, in the case of Severine it’s far worse than what we saw in the 60s.

@secretagentfan

That’s why one really has to be careful in how to depict those heroes who represent moral and state authority.

That’s exactly the point I’ve been making. Bond represents the state’s authority. Just because he doesn’t walk a beat, so to speak, he does operate as a law enforcement officer for the state, and does some absolutely horrific things in service of that goal. EON really needs to think about how they want to portray Bond moving forward after No Time To Die. The violence will obviously always be a part of the films, as it should be. It’s a violent world that Bond inhabits, but they really should show the consequences of the violence more than they do. That’s part of why Casino Royale is as good as it is. We see the reaction to the violence. We see how it affects Vesper, and Bond actually showing a bit of humanity to that. We see it in the torture sequence, especially when Bond is brought around to thinking that Vesper’s life is in danger, as well as when Solange is killed and Bond realizes that he brought that upon her.

[cgebby]

And Bond seems to have taken those lessons to heart by the time he counsels Camille in QoS. Once you’ve killed the perpetrators of evil, their victims are still dead. Batman has wrestled with this. Thor talked about it in Endgame. It doesn’t change the past. And if you still have a desire for vengeance, then what? Your violence will only cause more violence in subsequent generations.

Basically, violence only gives a temporary adrenaline rush to the individual, and probably fleeting at that, but causes the same destructive urges in many others until they’re in a Hatfield/McCoy destructive loop.

“Before you set out on revenge, you must first dig two graves.”

[Dustin]

Interestingly perhaps the literary Bond isn’t a big example of vengeful rage: at the end of Casino Royale he feels ashamed for having been hoodwinked by Vesper’s betrayal (if anything, M and other capital letters of government ought to kick themselves) and decides to hunt down Smersh from now on. But he never displays anything but professional detachment during his missions against the Russians and hardly comes across as the zealous revenger.

The one adventure where he‘s actually out for his personal vendetta, keeping his own service and his ally ignorant of Blofeld’s hideout, sees him finally having his revenge - but without any sense of satisfaction at all. He loses the memory not just of killing Blofeld but of everything before he dropped into the sea. And it’s actually not clear if it is ever restored since Tracy isn’t even mentioned in the last book. The entire episode might as well never happened.

[sharpshooter]

@cgebby

And Bond seems to have taken those lessons to heart by the time he counsels Camille in QoS. Once you’ve killed the perpetrators of evil, their victims are still dead. Batman has wrestled with this. Thor talked about it in Endgame. It doesn’t change the past. And if you still have a desire for vengeance, then what? Your violence will only cause more violence in subsequent generations.

As said by Moore’s Bond in For Your Eyes Only:

“The Chinese have a saying. Before setting off on revenge, you first dig two graves.”