Skip to comments.James Bond: heroic spy or womanizing killer?
Posted on 11/26/2012 8:06:12 PM PST by ReformationFan
Yes, there are far more pressing matters in the world than the escapades of the fictional 007, but, hey, if the Vatican's official newspaper can devote five articles to the latest James Bond flick, I don't feel too guilty devoting one measly column to it.
I've always had an aversion to the James Bond character, and I suppose it has more to do with the fact that he's a glorified womanizing/fornicating spy who will kill at the drop of a hat versus a chaste spy who will "merely injure" at the drop of a hat.
To me, the Bond movies' villains are only slightly less moral than the supposed protagonist: Bond...James Bond. Thus, I feel no sympathy for 007; I don't root for him. I don't care if he gets hurt. I know he's not going to die at the end; there is, after all, too much money invested in the Bond franchise for that to happen.
I haven't seen all the Bond movies; only four (I think) in their entirety, including the latest, Skyfall, plus scenes from a couple of others. Mostly forgettable for me. But L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's official newspaper, loves Skyfall.
If anyone thinks the Vatican newspaper is still a staid broadsheet that publishes only religious news and harsh papal edicts, consider this ... it ran not one but five articles about the new James Bond film.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
it is the best song from a-ha i’ve run across so far.
Gotcha. My bad...
A real spy, as opposed to a fictional creation such as James Bond, does not attract attention to him/her self and his/her activities. That should include such things as not complicating their objectives with such things as extraneous sexual activities. So, unless it absolutely mission essential, a chaste spy would be preferred by real professionals rather than someone of "Bond's" ilk...
1. Bond is not a spy, he does not work for MI6. There over 13 references in the novels to Bond working at the Ministry of Defence, MI6 is part Foreign Affairs not MoD. Therefore Bond could never have worked for MI6.
2. Bond is not a killer, yes he is licenced to kill, but in the novels he did not kill that often. Like Fleming, he disliked killing in cold blood.
3. Bond is not a womanizer per se. Yes he is a "warm blooded heterosexual man", but ithe novels he never manipulated woman except for only one time in Thunderball.
The Bond of the books has a conscience. He doesn't enjoy his vodka martinis as much as pound them in an effort to anesthetize himself. His frequent showers suggest, at least to this reader, an attempt to cleanse his guilt a la Lady Macbeth.
I had high hopes for the re-boot with Daniel Craig. I naively believed we'd get faithful adaptions of Fleming's excellent novellas. Silly me.
I didn’t know that, (#1) I wonder why they made him MI6 in the movies.
Fleming got me to read in 1964. Voracious ever since.
The problem is the Bond personna was all about one man daring to confront evil, daring to fight corruption, daring to twart mad men and any goal of world wide domination.
Which is fine when you live in fantasy land, the reality is this, Bond should be addressing realty.
Make the next Bond movie about him removing a Manchurian candidate from Washington DC. About him finding real documentation of an usurper, the facts of who was behind him all along, the adventure of Bond fighting Acorn Agents.
This is realty, give Bond the ultimate mission much like going after SPECTRE or Dr. No.
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.