By going big and fantastical again, too.
And by not reflecting the zeitgeist with the same mirror (quitting the service, going rogue) so many times in a row.
I also wonder if we take the current zeitgeist into account whether being critical of the institutions is really of interest for mass audiences. Seems like all they care about is the right now, money in their pocket, not thinking about future consequences.
In that respect Bond would just accept his mission and plow through.
I agree with secretagentfan here.
I think the more serious you approach these issues, such as the institutions Bond servers no longer being something to be trusted or believed in, the more you create the problems for the films yourself. Which is something the Craig era overdid to the point where it made the character uninteresting in my opinion.
And I think Bond films pre-reboot have already offered solutions to such issues. Such as making Bond politcally neutral, making the villains (most of the time) outlandish and going for the fantastical.
The Craig era did something different, which was to focus the stories on Bond himself, on his emotional state, on his personal life. But as I said, this is exactly the opposite from what orignally made Bond so appealing. I want Bond to be a selfless hero, and a bit of a mystery. A hero that the world needs. But the Craig era goes in reverse and asks the question âis the life of a 00 agent right for him?ââ
As Roger Moore once said during an interview for TSWLM. People have enough problems in the world, so Bond should be a place of escapism. To not think about these issues. And honestly I think the current team of producers have been overthinking these issues way too much. From what I generally gather from movie audiences recently of all ages (not just for Bond, but for other franchises as well) is that they often wish the movies would be less of a reflection of the current zeitgeist and more of an escapism. And I fully agree here. I donât want Bond to be more like me, I want to be more like him (in some ways).
So yes the best solution to this is, as secretagentfan points out, to go big and fantastical again. Itâs the perfect way to escape these issues. Make the villains outlandish, make the narratives something timeless, make Bond a fantasy rather than a reflection of the real world.
I know it probably wonât happen, but if the next film will be another TSWLM or MR, or even going smaller scale like TMWTGG, I personally would be all for it. I would be over the moon if we can have something as outlandish and fun like that again.
I guess it all depends on how one perceives, and responds to, the idea of âzeitgeist.â If the current zeitgeist is defined by gloom and fear, maybe the goal of escapist fare like James Bond should be not to stare into the looking glass, but to walk through it. We donât need a dose of reality; we need the antidote.
The 60s were a time of social unrest, political assassinations, armed conflict in southeast Asia and generational and racial divides, while the Bond films were about hat-tossing henchmen, volcano lairs and a âsecret agentâ who flew around in jetpacks and miniature helicopters. Yes, the threat of imminent nuclear armageddon crossed over from reality to film, but in the films the threat is always averted and, with Bond on the job, we know it always will be.
I feel like every time they try to make Bond ârelatableâ or grounded in a world that sucks as much as our own, all it does it take something away from us; it never adds anything. I agree weâre past the point of believing that England â or any country â can do no wrong, but the classic Bonds were never really about geopolitics. When youâre fighting a guy whoâs trying to rain death down from a space satellite or irradiate the gold in Fort Knox, the skullduggery of international relations and the dirty world of real-life espionage are irrelevant.
Iâm not even sure audiences WANT to âidentify withâ James Bond, but if they do, itâs not in the sense of âI can relate to that guy; he lives in the same world I doâ but rather âThat guy is more awesome than anyone real; I wish I could be more like him.â Anyway, I donât care how many glum faces the actor can pull, if they want to portray Bond as an object of pity, maybe they could start by not putting him in suits and cars that cost more money than Iâll ever see in my life. Boo-hoo, my life is terrible, pass the caviar, would you? And make it quick, I need to pick up my new Omega Seamaster in a half hour.
Valid points altogether.
In Eonâs defence one might add how, back in the days of the hollow volcano spectacle and the submersible Lotus, fans often complained about Bondâs comic hero nature - and the feuilleton used it as excuse to ridicule or ignore the films. I donât know how often Iâve heard the phrase ââŚ,back to FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVEâ after 1979, but that has always been a gravity well in the Bond-verse for better or worse - at least from THUNDERBALL onwards.
Iâm not sure itâs possible to ignore the zeitgeist altogether. After all, itâs what made the Craig films not merely possible but wildly successful in their own right. So Eon must have done something right, even if we agree this cannot be the way forward any more.
As you point out, @David_M, the best bet might be to come up with a depiction that embraces the bizarre and surreal fantasy elements. Bond is a faerie tale for adults, so give him evil witches, ogres, dragons to slay and enchanted castles to take in the dead hours between the shadow and the soul.
Absolutely agreed.
The whole discussion about âHow can Bond still be relevant in these days?â should immediately be redirected to the political crises of the previous eras.
Starting with âDr.Noâ on release during the Cuba Crisis one does not conclude that they should have made the film more grim or less offensive, without a world ending missile threat.
The film succeeded nevertheless or maybe even because of the way it was. And for the following year the Cold War theme obviously was not considered too dangerous or sensitive either.
It is impossible to say, I guess, whether it really was the zeitgeist which the Craig era captured so well that audiences would only have responded to that style and tone.
One could argue that Bond himself is the draw. And if a movie like DAD can be wildly successful a year after 9/11 audiences apparently just wanted to see 007.
Just occurs to me: The first time Iâve seen actual Bond-related promo stuff outside the toy department - not aimed at kids* - was that Wilkinson Protector thingy for GOLDENEYE. Since 1995 the amount of consumer goods has seemingly increased with each film, to the point where people could buy almost every item of clothing or accessories for NO TIME TO DIE.
Perhaps thatâs been the real draw, we get served an incredibly expensive and visually impressive 2.5 hrs commercial - and can order the featured bling right from out our theatre seats. The actual âstoryâ is no more important than it used to be for an MTV music video. With about as much depth and intellectual challenge.
*Other than the Seiko watches, but watches have always been their own thing.
This. At this point, I donât think itâs about ârelevanceâ or âzeitgeistâ or any of that. Those are things to consider when presenting a new creation (if there is such a thing any more), but Bond at this point is too massive a brand to be dependent on passing fads. Yes, the Craig era did boffo box office with a more âgroundedâ approach, but it did so on the heels of the Brosnan era, which also raked in huge sums with approaches sometimes so outlandish they made Rogerâs films look like cinema verite.
Eon may do a lot of hand-wringing off screen and on about whether Bond is relevant, but from a commercial standpoint â which lets face it is far and away their primary concern â Iâd say the series is zeitgeist-proof, fashion proof and if Iâm being honest, quality-proof. People go to see a Bond movie because it has James Bond in it, not because of what the plotâs about and whether it successfully addresses the concerns of the day. Like Batman or Spider-Man, the name alone will sell most of the tickets. To the extent Eon worries about zeitgeist at all, itâs in the commercial sense: if Steven Seagal movies are all the rage, theyâll go violent and revenge-y like LTK; since âTrue Liesâ was a big deal, we got GE; when Bourne was a hit, we got CR. âLoganâ was praised, so we got NTTD. Itâs rarely about âissues of the dayâ and more about âwhatâs selling this yearâ? If theyâd hit the reboot button six or so years ago, weâd have gotten a return to OTT plots and action because the MCU was hitting on all cylinders. Right now the reason weâre probably seeing no movement is because, at the moment, thereâs no clear formula for success out their for Eon to emulate. When we see something working in a big way, weâll know the next Bond is on the way.
Not certain if this is true. It started before most of us were able to notice. At the top of the Bondmania in the 1960s, they printed the 007 logo on almost everything, be it shoes, rubber bands or perfume.
Oh yes, and there used to be dress shirts (out of polyester) and house slippers (probably out of some plastic with leather-print on it) and and and.
But that was at the 60s craze and most of that cheap junk was trashed by the next Easter. I really donât remember anything - outside that Seiko - that was aimed at the general public during the 70s and 80s. Okay, the books - but apart from that Bond was largely aimed at kids, the DB5, the Lotus/helicopter/Moonraker shuttle.
Nobody (that Iâm aware of) bought a champagne or a vodka or a suit because they featured in a Bond film. With Brosnan the Brioni suits and the other stuff started gaining traction. And my impression is with Craig that trend became even more of a thing.
I agree with changing the narrative devices used to engage the zeitgeist, but a mirror is going to reflect what is in the world.
If audiences do not trust something, how much interest are they going to have in its positive depiction? Authenticity is a prominent concept in contemporary society for a reason.
The movies were not politically neutral (which was what allowed Bond to act as if he were neutral). Bond agreed with the status quo (as did the majority of his audience), and acted as its agentâthat is why he could rape Pussy Galore in GF, and nobody batted an eye.
This general agreement between narrative ground/protagonist/viewer allowed the films to be fantastical in incident, thereby, providing escap(ism) from an underlying/unifying consensus culture. DAF is the film where this synergy begins to unravel (as ChrissBond notes, in DAF Connery Bond feels disconnected, and he is. The world has changed, and he is trying to navigate it).
Bond was anything but selfless in the early movies. He pursued the finer things in life and was rewarded. He also went after women in a fashion that is captured by a recent post-U.S. election meme: âYour body, my choice.â Bondâs work for empire was well compensated.
Can society agree on what the antidote is? I do not think it can. So if Bond is to embody the antidoteâon a continuum from realistic to fantasticalâagreement must first be secured on what that antidote consists of (as well as what it is trying to cure).
Audiences like to identify with their screen protagonists and their stories. Or so a record-setting box office weekend for WICKED would seem to indicate.
Also WICKED and BARBIE, and we will see about MOANA 2.
That would be great. But those elements are built from aggregates drawn from reality.
As people went to a Marvel movie because it was a Marvel movie? Bond, at least, has the advantage of not saturating the market.
Both of those conditions are part of the zeitgeist. The spirit of the times can be discerned from what makes money during said times.
Wasnât aware of these, great find. Okay, that renders my argument somewhat moot; canât aim much more for the adult demographic than with a Rolex - although I suspect Rolex didnât yet go as far as printing the 007 logo on their dial, like Omega would fifty years laterâŚ
I believe/fear that audiences don´t even care anymore about their distrust in institutions - they just are focused on how they themselves are doing right now, not looking ahead or back. So, whether Bond is questioning institutions or affirming them - it doesnât matter to audiences. I could even imagine that questioning his job at this point would feel old hat and unimportant, really creating a feeling of irrelevance for Bond after all.
The solution, I think, can only lie in renewed and unashamed focus on Bond as pure fiction. Instead of trying to reboot him (again) as the traumatized person he surely would be in real life the next era should rather accept that he is mere pulp fiction. A Secret Agent for His Majesty fighting a severe threat to the whole world, traveling luxuriously, surviving constant danger and saving us all.
He actually did all that during the Craig era, too, sure. But the contrast between that fantasy and the supposed realism of his character, at least for me, always was too big to really lean into the consequences of his traumatized soul.
So, just give up the pretense and embrace the un-realism of it all.
Quite frankly, I don´t believe anyone, even after the Craig era, considers Bond to be a really interesting character with many dimensions. And the hero with the weight of the world on his shoulders had already been a clichÊ before the Craig era. Nothing new to see here.
Hasn´t the antidote to fear and trouble always been escapism, in entertainment and also real life? Curing us from thinking about our problems and threats all the time, allowing a respite for some fleeting moments (two hours in the case of Bond)?
In general I would agree. And I certainly, as a kid and teenager wanted to identify with Bond - until I grew up and only wanted to identify with someone always being able to improvise in order to get out of danger and succeed.
But David_M still points at a very valid development: I also donât think that at least after CR people did not feel the urge to identify with Bond anymore. They rather enjoyed him pummeling his way through obstacles as an effective blunt instrument. Maybe there was identification or the idea of a vicarious participation during some sequences. But who really wanted to be the hurt loner who felt betrayed, was betrayed, never really got what he wished for and finally had to sacrifice himself for something he could never experience?
As for the success of WICKED I donât think one can learn anything else from it but that a) the musical is so beloved that it would have brought in tons of fans at any time and/or b) that escapism (even if WICKED ruminates on racism and disinformation, it still has a reaffirming fantasy/fairy tale surface which does not necessarily make people think) is always the sure antidote.
I was reading recently about the making of the first STAR WARS movie (not the prequel, really the first film) and how it succeeded especially after all the horrors society had went through in the preceding years of the 70´s. And I guess this is absolutely correct.
BARBIE definitely had a similar effect because people were starved for a wide appeal escapist comedy - and the huge brand awareness helped to bring in even more people. Also, while it had a feminist ideology at its core, it did not really go too far with it so men could laugh at Ken because once again you could enjoy all of it without necessarily having to think too much about the underlying criticism of male dominant behavior (letâs call it the âThatâs not me, anywayâ-effect).
Agreed, who can say what âsocietyâ wants? But isnât it always nice to experience a film that isnât obsessed with the question? One that isnât the result of consensus, focus groups, surveys, committees and financial analyses of prior hits? Did anyone know Goldfinger, or Jaws or Star Wars, were going to resonate as they did before they were released? I think in the simplest terms the antidote to gloom is joy and the antidote to headlines is fantasy. Beyond that, we just get into details.
Also, Iâm not sure we can take for granted that âsocietyâ is even a thing, anymore.
Letâs face it, people were already thoroughly disillusioned with their governments and disgusted with real-life intelligence work in the 1970s â which gave us movies like 3 Days Of the Condor â but Bond doubled down on the fantasy to the delight of moviegoers and Eonâs accountants. Iâm not a Brit so I donât know for sure what the cheering was about when Bondâs parachute unfurled to reveal the Union Jack in TSWLM, but Iâm guessing it wasnât so much a sincere, stand up and salute, âRule Britanniaâ thing as a light-hearted exercise in post-irony. Ha ha, of course thatâs what Bond would have on his parachute, heâs the quintessential English hero! We can cheer for him and laugh at him at the same time. He lives in a universe where Englandâs motives are unquestioned and itâs perfectly fine â indeed, preferred â that itâs not the same universe we live in.
I would also argue that in the absence of patriotism, in the face of one M who manipulates and lies to him followed by another who commits and conceals war crimes, living in a world where the good guys and bad guys are indistinguishable, weâre left to wonder why exactly Craigâs Bond continues to stay on the government payroll. My personal conclusion is that heâs a killer first and foremost: itâs the one thing heâs good at and the one thing he enjoys. If he wasnât a double-oh, heâd still be killing people anyway, but this way he escapes prosecution and gets paid, besides. Win-win. The only other crumbs weâre offered in the way of motive is that he has Mommy issues and does violence to win the approval of a stern mother figure, who intentionally withholds said approval to keep him on the hook. It becomes a series about an abusive relationship, at least until Dame Judi bows out, after which Iâve got nothing left but âthis is best way to get my kills in without jail time.â All things considered, I still prefer the patriotism angle over the âsociopathâ or âdamaged psycheâ ones, even if we have to lean into cartoon territory to make it work.
Not sure if they care or not. But I think it is part of their psyche when they are engaging the world, including watching movies.
Need to leave trauma Bond behind (linking below again to an an article about the trauma plot from The New Yorker).
In that time, trauma celebration was at its peak, e.g., X-Men and other comic book heroes.
Why is it so beloved? I would argue that it is because people identify with and respond deeply to its story and characters.
Agreed. Why I am not a fan of the Orphan Trilogy films.
Definitely. Maybe what is needed is something small, say a movie about âa relatively simple smuggling matter.â Great films always know the right approach.
