Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

James Bond at 70: In 1953, Ian Fleming, a British WWII planner and supervisor for commandos, published a brief espionage novel, Casino Royale, and thus 007 was born
Law and Liberty ^ | 4/16/2023 | Titus Techera

Posted on 04/16/2023 5:12:31 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Seventy years ago, in 1953, Ian Fleming, a British WWII planner and supervisor for commandos, published a brief espionage novel, Casino Royale, and thus James Bond was born. The book allowed Fleming to reimagine British imperial greatness and continue in fiction his command over manly men willing and able to kill and die for a cause, for the thrill of the fight, and for pride. He could speak for civilized society’s necessary assassins.

By the use of his imagination, Fleming became far more successful and important than he had ever been in public service. He ended up orchestrating one of Britain’s most successful cultural exports. Bond was in the mid-20th century what Harry Potter has been in the 21st century. But instead of a bespectacled nerd, ideal for the world wrought by selective colleges and Silicon Valley, audiences fell in love with a cold-blooded killer who seemed able and eager to refuse all the compromises the rest of us feel we have to make.

This image of manliness became more popular still, extending as far as mass-media could reach, nine years later, in 1962, when Dr. No appeared, starring Sean Connery as James Bond. All told, Fleming published twelve novels and two short-story collections, with another two novels published posthumously; these gave rise to 26 movies over the last 60 years; and these in turn led to countless imitations and new Bond stories penned by other writers, forever advertising the man of mystery, who combines love of beauty with a curiosity about the ugliest deeds imaginable.

Bond as Hero of the Empire

The novel-film combination also made for an unusual kind of stardom, leading four actors to fame: Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig, while maintaining the Bond glamour and spreading throughout the world, for generations, an ideal of manliness. I can’t think of anything that quite compares with it, because it’s still recognizable worldwide as British class presumption freed from its moral restraints or the silly eccentricities and melancholy bred by a stifling class system. Liberated, Bond is the sublime perfume of imperialism, the more popular the more people decry colonialism. As was once said of the British Empire, with its wars and diplomacy, so with Bond and espionage: The sun never sets on his adventures.

Bond, however, did not define martial prowess like the working class action heroes of the 80s and he was not a gym bro like the atomized middleclass men of our time. Connery had been a Mr. Universe bodybuilding contestant, but he’s worlds away from Arnold—his distinguished manners are supposed to conceal his power. Instead of brutality, he defined elegance for men, from the sharp suits to the frivolous witticisms, and especially his success with women.

After all, the great ideological struggle post-WWII was not against communism abroad, but at home against feminism. Men loved Bond because they knew they were losing. Indeed, feminism has won and Bond is now an exemplar of toxic masculinity, probably in need of therapy. Bond was a man’s man and this is not something our elites accept in pop culture—accordingly, the franchise has finally killed him in No Time to Die, a funny title for the pandemic years.

According to the pieties of our times, Bond is now beginning to face censorship for being, as was said of Byron, “mad, bad, and dangerous to know.” The novels are being reprinted for the 70th anniversary of Casino Royale, but now without unkind references to black people.

Perhaps the sensitivity readers—the bleeding consciences of our corporate PR—think other races less important; perhaps it’s an unfolding process of civil rights for fictional characters. Meanwhile, women must still feel the shock of Fleming’s decadent Romanticism, infamous for phrases like “the sweet tang of rape.” Intersectionality is hierarchical, after all, and it’s not yet fully structured in our entertainment.

Sophistication and Daring

For my part, I’m confident Bond will be severely censored and I expect the change to come with the next series of films, when we will have a politically correct 007. Perhaps his mission will be to execute the politically incorrect. He will be a good “ally,” no doubt. Nowadays, this is what passes for a sophisticated view of art—didacticism, it used to be called, and it was despised as moralistic. Works of art used to be judged by how they reveal human nature, not simply by advancing an ideology.

So this may be our last public occasion to think about Bond’s strange success. To some extent, he resembles us. As Kingsley Amis put it in the James Bond Dossier, a volume I highly recommend to fans, Fleming grounded his fantasies in the realities of our commercial society with very realistic notes about products, among other things. Mostly, these were Fleming’s own tastes, and fiction has given him a remarkable influence over the new and prospering mid-century middle-class society. Sophisticated consumerism, one might call it, which may be an ideal in our society—the command to enjoy luxury.

The best image we have of it is James Bond, because he’s part of our modern world, but he is aware of its dark side, too—espionage, not just elections.

Bond went around the world to exotic locations for their beauty and mystery, before tourism became a bourgeois bohemian habit: Experiencing various cultures with consumerist humility. A virtual travel agent with millions of grateful clients! However, Bond was bold and demanding, especially in his vices, drinking and smoking only the best, and chasing after glamorous women. This may come as an insult to career women. Or they may indulge the fantasy of glamour themselves.

As for our own social media FantasyLand, not even the era of Instagram models and influencers has managed to create anything like Bond—perhaps art really is more impressive than life and the fans were right to prefer fiction to fact. Maybe the problem is the softness of our times. Consider Fleming’s description of Bond’s nature in Casino Royale: “Then he slept, and with the warmth and humour of his eyes extinguished, his features relapsed into a taciturn mask, ironical, brutal, and cold.” Who would talk that way today? It would be a PR nightmare.

This begins to show us why Bond is so interesting to men. Fleming knew, in a way none of our writers know today, that at the origin of all modern things we find the greatest man of mystery, brutal and comic, elegant and wise, Machiavelli. Fleming’s description of Bond’s mind in Casino Royale is taken straight out of The Prince, chapter 25: “Bond saw luck as a woman, to be softly wooed or brutally ravaged, never pandered to or pursued.” Bond tries to master fortune—this makes him attractive and also intolerable to the moralistic.

Gambling, admittedly, has lost its decadent aristocratic charm. It has been relegated to an addiction and taken under therapeutic control. We only gamble in the stock markets, where it’s not personal. But we still need Bond’s Machiavellian sangfroid and daring, because the entire economy turns out to be as capricious as Machiavelli said fortune was, however computerized and rationalist our economic and financial systems. We need Bond precisely because he’s bold where we’re cautious, and we know it.

On the other hand, like Bond, we’re all food critics nowadays. We are not satisfied with anything modest, we want the excellent or at least the extreme of variety, what used to be called exotic or ethnic food before that became politically incorrect—call it “food imperialism.” But Bond wasn’t afraid to state his opinions—we tend to hide behind screens when we give bad reviews. He didn’t look for bargains or good things on the cheap, he was proudly disdainful of price—after all, he paid with gambling winnings or the riches of his defeated enemies. All these pleasures came with his dangerous daring, his knowledge that he would die sooner rather than later, which required full concentration on his mission and his circumstances, on the present, rather than planning for a distant, if prosperous retirement. Precisely because we do not live like Bond, we need to understand the difference—we might appreciate the ways in which Bond’s pleasures and agony reveal our way of life in miniature, and what we need to defend it.

Toxic masculinity is manliness when we’re afraid of it and also think we don’t know what to do with it. The best image we have of it is James Bond, because he’s part of our modern world, but he is aware of its dark side, too—espionage, not just elections. We need him to let us know how to think about danger and why we need to face danger to become men. Even women might need Bond to learn how to judge men, but that’s a story for another time.


Titus Techera is the Executive Director of the American Cinema Foundation and hosts the ACF podcasts. He is a contributor to Modern Age, National Review Online, and University Bookman


TOPICS: Books/Literature; Society; TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: 007; casinoroyale; ianfleming; jamesbond
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: Angelino97

I have it, and most all others.


21 posted on 04/16/2023 9:18:11 PM PDT by entropy12 (Food is most popular anxiety drug, exercise is the least popular.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Angelino97

Yeah like Pussy Galore the female flight leader for Goldfinger would be a no-no today.


22 posted on 04/16/2023 9:20:15 PM PDT by entropy12 (Food is most popular anxiety drug, exercise is the least popular.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Angelino97
I believe Diamonds are Forever has 2 gay characters ( Villains both) who are always a couple: Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd.

In one scene, they are shown holding hands. In another, Kidd comments that diamond smuggler Tiffany Case is very attractive "for a lady".



Also in the Novel, From Russia with Love, The Villainess, Rosa Klebb was portrayed as a lesbian. She tried to seduce the bond girl, Tatiana Romanova in one scene.


23 posted on 04/16/2023 9:21:42 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Look out for Miss Lotte Lenya ...


24 posted on 04/16/2023 9:24:21 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sjmjax
Would be interesting to see how much the movies diverge from the original novels.

Three come pretty close. From Russia with Love, Thunderball, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service are pretty close. The rest aren't anywhere near close. Many borrow titles only (Quantum of Solace, Octopussy, The World is Not Enough - title was borrowed from the Bond Coat of Arms in OHMSS, Spectre, A view to a Kill, The Spy Who Loved Me, The Living Daylights). Some plot devices are borrowed. The Faberge Egg in Octopussy was borrowed from The Property of a Lady. Being towed behind a boat over coral in the movie For Your Eyes Only was borrowed from Live and Let Die. The woman seeking revenge at the beginning of the FYEO was borrowed from the short story of the same name.

25 posted on 04/16/2023 9:27:21 PM PDT by IYAS9YAS (There are two kinds of people: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

They are fun escapist movies.

My favorites from each Bond actor are From Russia With Love (Sean Connery), On Your Majesty’s Secret Service (George Lazenby), The Spy Who Loved Me (Roger Moore), The Living Daylights (Timothy Dalton), Tomorrow Never Dies (Pierce Bronsan), and Casino Royale (Daniel Craig).


26 posted on 04/16/2023 9:32:08 PM PDT by moviefan8 (Cowboying is an art without an audience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mark

1953 ... great year! The Corvette was born, James Bond was born and Ziggy was born!

Z


27 posted on 04/17/2023 12:45:19 AM PDT by zigmeisterxiv ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The book OPJB tells the story.
Churchill and probably FDR knew of the attack on Pearl Harbour before it happened.


28 posted on 04/17/2023 2:46:50 AM PDT by GranTorino (Bloody Lips Save Ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sjmjax
Started that very project a couple of weeks ago. I'm just about finished with Live and Let Die, the second in the series. Such books could not be written today, the blatantly non-politically correct depictions would land the author in jail.
29 posted on 04/17/2023 3:01:11 AM PDT by abb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Bond!


30 posted on 04/17/2023 3:11:03 AM PDT by dennisw (This)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

James Bond, further proof the 50s-70s were a great period of time.


31 posted on 04/17/2023 5:36:42 AM PDT by Jolla ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb
Such books could not be written today, the blatantly non-politically correct depictions would land the author in jail.

I believe you’re correct. Truly shocking to realize how powerful and inescapable “political correctness” or “wokism” has become in Western culture.

32 posted on 04/17/2023 7:08:48 AM PDT by sjmjax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sjmjax

Project Gutenberg has the complete original manuscript. Check out Ch 5.

https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/flemingi-liveandletdie/flemingi-liveandletdie-00-h.html


33 posted on 04/17/2023 7:27:44 AM PDT by abb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dalberg-Acton

I thought he wanted Cary Grant.


34 posted on 04/17/2023 9:19:50 AM PDT by coalminersson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Angelino97

The Broccolis own the rights to Ian Fleming and the character, except for Thunderball. And not the first farcical Casino Royale. Nor Never Say never which is based on Thunderball.

The Broccolis ignore the ones they didn’t have a right to and they number theirs to the exclusion of the others. For instance: they are referring to the next Bond flick as 26. But there will have been 28 including Never and the first Casino when the next movie is released.

How can a Bind movie starring Connery (Never) not be counted as a Bond film?

(I don’t include the TV drama with Barry Nelson as Bind and Peter Lorre, in the first Casino Royale in the mid 50s)


35 posted on 04/17/2023 9:28:05 AM PDT by coalminersson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dalberg-Acton

Wouldn’t be likely to notice in a crowd or remember.

Except in D.C. now days the place is infested with them and not many on the take.


36 posted on 04/17/2023 10:20:15 AM PDT by Vaduz (....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: coalminersson
I think the Broccolis own half the James Bond film & TV rights, the other half is owned by the studio.

The Ian Fleming Estate owns the literary rights. They keep cashing in by licensing new novels. I've only read three non-Fleming Bond books: Colonel Sun, James Bond: An Autobiography, and, I think it was License Renewed (which was pretty bad).

The studio that co-owns the rights with the Broccolis eventually bought the rights to Casino Royale and whatever they didn't yet own of Thunderball/Never Say Never Again, so all the rights are under one roof now.

37 posted on 04/17/2023 10:46:07 AM PDT by Angelino97
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

James Bond meets Pussy Galore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-_1NS9kKR4


38 posted on 04/17/2023 7:14:09 PM PDT by minnesota_bound (Need more money to buy everything now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Angelino97

Thanx Which studio is that? MGM?


39 posted on 04/18/2023 9:25:18 AM PDT by coalminersson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: coalminersson
It used to be United Artists. Which merged into MGM/UA. Wiki says that MGM is currently producing the Bond films, though my searches come up with various claims as to who now owns MGM.
40 posted on 04/18/2023 10:08:12 AM PDT by Angelino97
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson