“No Time To Die” marks the 25th entry to the James Bond franchise, and its delay to October allows some time for reflection of the media property of James Bond that has existed for sixty-eight years. The franchise spans comics, films, books and video games. Covering all media, James Bond has been a cultural touchstone.
When picturing Bond, audiences are drawn to the most prominent portrayals: Sean Connery and Daniel Craig, respectively. Craig has captured the essence of Bond in film. Nowhere is this clearer than in his role in 2006 “Casino Royale.”
Craig’s Bond is a killer with a sense of charm. His ability to navigate two different personalities is at the core of Bond, an extension and representation of British strength and character during the Cold War, as presented in Ian Fleming’s original works.
Created in 1953, the novel “Casino Royale” sees the original introduction of Bond as an intelligent, quiet and forceful killer that filled pulp novels globally. Bond seemed no different than a Philip Marlowe or Parker as he was dispatched on a myriad of cases in search of the respective villain of their pieces. In this way, Bond has a general appeal, in that he is a pulp hero.
However, Bond differentiates himself from the competition with the international-political themes that create the text. “The Living Daylights” a short story by Bond creator Ian Fleming, follows Bond to West Berlin where he must stop a sniper from shooting an ally scientist. Similarly, “Moonraker” follows Bond as he investigates a privatized space program and an enigmatic millionaire.
This international intrigue made Bond a pop culture icon. Bond was so popular that John F. Kennedy said “From Russia with Love” was one of his top ten favorite books.
Though, with the death of Ian Fleming, Bond seemed to lose some sense of relevance. The films tapered off into comedy which is easily traced from “Live and Let Die” to “View to a Kill.” Bond quickly faded out in the Timothy Dalton Era, before a dramatic resurgence with “GoldenEye.”
Creating a legacy both on and off the big screen, “GoldenEye” revitalized the Bond brand. This happened again with “Casino Royale” in 2006, where Craig changed the face of Bond yet again to great success.
Why Bond sticks around is a certain pulp-heroism to the character. Like detective stories and crime novels, espionage is a staple of modern fiction. So much so that Bond has inspired Bond-like films in “Mission Impossible,” “Atomic Blonde” and even “Indiana Jones.” Though Indiana Jones is charismatic, Bond should be considered the contrary.
Bond is meant to be a misogynist. The nature of his character is not ideal and is not meant to be copied. Bond is meant as a hyperbolic masculinity that should be questioned and challenged.
<iframe width="926" height="521" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tEujAIjTldk" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
In the Dynamite series “James Bond,” a rotating cast of creators make their comic-book version of Bond and the best interpretation came in “Vargr” and “Eidolon.” Acting as a sequel to the original books, Bond is a current-day cold-blooded killer trapped in an archaic mindset of espionage, using action over words. He is and should be subjected to criticism by his peers on his outdated methods.
Moving forward with Bond, beyond Daniel Craig, Bond needs to adopt this sensibility. Bond should be true to the character — a womanizer — but he shouldn’t be centered as a hero or powerful. Bond needs to be the subject of criticism. Bond films should maintain the hero 007, though be aware of and engage in criticism of the outdated role of “international secret agent.”
Benjamin Ervin is a senior studying English literature and writing at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnists do not reflect those of The Post. Want to talk more about it? Let Benjamin know by emailing him be425014@ohio.edu.
