| |
|
There's a new Bond movie out, which I haven't seen--I haven't seen a Bond movie in years, actually--but the hoopla has got my wheels grinding.
A sort of postmodern take on Bond that's been floating around for a couple of years (a shiny nickel to whomever can tell me who originated it) posits the idea that there is no "James Bond" as such--or rather, that "James Bond" is a codename that has been used by a series of agents throughout the years: or even that "James Bond" is a meme, an artificial psychiatric construct implanted into a succession of operatives--in Grant Morrison terms, a para-personality--which explains why Bond is always essentially the same character.
It's a neat idea: for one thing, it puts Bond on the same footing as "M" or "Q", as a role, rather than an actual person--we are never meant to believe that Judi Dench as M is supposed to the same person as Bernard Lee. It reconciles the film continuity, even explaining Lazenby's quip that "This never happened to the other fellow." And on a deeper level, it explains the deep psychological damage apparent from Bond's actions and interactions.
And on a practical level, it opens up all kinds of story possibilities: if anyone can be "James Bond"...
The film franchise will never adopt the idea, of course, because the films are a deeply conservative and formulaic exercise--and if they did, I fear it would be in a shallow, stupid way, relying on the shock value of "Look! James Bond is black (or whatever)!" as a hook but building Yet Another Typical Bond Movie around it.
But what do you think of the "theory" in itself? Fleming, of course, rolls over in his millionaire's grave every time someone mentions it, but what's you're take? An interesting re-imagining? A continuity freak/fanboy exercise on a par with John Byrne's GENERATIONS books? Overreaching? Seeing depth that simply isn't there? Tryting to make the guilty pleasure of a Bond movie respectable for intellectuals? |
|
|
