The many faces of James Bond

I was just discussing Casino Royale with Bass of BassBlog fame, which encouraged me to discuss my pet theories on a more open forum.

James Bond has now been played by 6 actors. It's something you can expect in a long-running film franchise, but I don't see it as the kind of replacement you see in soap operas ("The part of Stafano will now be played by..."), but rather as an actual replacement, within the Bond world.

Let me explain. When there's a change of actor in tv or movies, but an implied or explicit status quo of the show/film's WORLD, it tends to distract me. The Batman and Superman franchises are good examples. The TimBurtoniverse Batman becomes progressively less interesting in part because he's played by a number of actors (and stuntmen). Batman Begins however, is ste in a different world, so we more easily accept the new face on Bruce Wayne et al. Or look at the entirely unsatisfying Superman Returns. Had it been a Begins-style cold restart, I might have been able to accept the casting. Instead, it's meant to continue from the (overrated) Richard Donner films. So this Superman and Lois are 5 years older than Reeve and Kidder, but look a lot younger. Immediate comparisons crop up, similarities look like impressions, and bam, the whole thing leaves you cold.

Now back to Bond. 6 actors over 22 films, all apparently in the same world of M.I.6. Is there a cold restart at the start of each actor's tenure? Well, that could be argued. Moore ordering bourbon in Live and Let Die. Bronson palling with the previously unknown 006. Seeing Daniel Craig's first murders and first meeting with (a different) Felix Leiter. But no, I prefer to believe that "James Bond" is just as much a code name as "007" is.

We've seen 6 James Bonds, all different men, and though we've never seen them die onscreen, they must have and been replaced by a successor who takes on the number AND the name. That's how a James Bond could be fighting Russians during the cold war, but still be something of a rookie post-9/11. Casino Royale "proves" this idea in a number of ways:

For one thing, this isn't a cold restart. We've plainly got the same "M" as in the Bronson films. So we're in the same world. And Casino Royale is really the story of MAKING a Bond. We see the first men he ever killed. We see him able to give up the life, but then accept the mantle completely (in the last scene, he's in a tux for a reason, he has truly BECOME Bond). And I love M's line about "when I knew you were you". That's key here. I think she means, when I knew you were a James Bond, when I knew you had all the elements to be 007. It's like the mantle of the Flash, or being a Green Lantern.

Discussions on what kind of men are recruited, and the supposed short lifespan of a 00agent cement the deal. The almost-Scottish Connery, the takes-nothing-seriously Moore, the flawed Dalton, the cocksure Bronson, the haunted Craig, and umm... Lazenby if you can to count him in, all had names and identities before being recruited by M.I.6, but at some point, they were given the famous number and name. Possibly because they were all of the same "type" (cold womanizers who love the upper-class lifestyle). Obviously, M, Q, Felix Leiter and even Moneypenny are similar handles, used to protect you and anyone connected with you.


But what do you think?

Comments

Anonymous said…
I think this is great! Now all you have to do is apply this delusionaly theory to other movies you didn't like because of breaks in continuity and go actually enjoy them this time. ;)

I think you give too much credit to the Bond writers if you think they would actually let a detail like that slip out of the obvious and hide in the subtle for so many years.
Siskoid said…
There are two acts of creation to any work of art:

The creator's and the reader's.

Writers of the franchise over the years didn't think of this, no. But Casino Royale's might... it's actually a theme running through, and a much smarter script. We're also more hypertextually/pop culturally savvy today, so we can "get it".
Anonymous said…
so... is liking martinis a question on the job application?
Siskoid said…
Good question, and another "proof" from Casino Royale.

Technically, they don't all like martinis. Moore likes Bourbon, for example, and Dalton orders a Budweizer of all things in License to Kill.

I think it's part of the persona, and they take on that aspect, but they don't all like that drink at first.

In Casino Royale, Bond starts by ordering a martini, but switches gears and creates a totally new drink that everyone then orders, thereby positioning him as Mr. Cool at the poker table and rattling Le Chiffre. Later, he does order a martini and when asked if he wants it shaken or stirred, responds with "Do I look like someone who gives a damn?"

So maybe the martini is part of an image designed to create the illusion in the intelligence community that there are invicible agents out there, a James Bond that has been active for decades, a total killer with a huge reputation. Maybe it's just a kind of code between agents (004 might spot 007 by the drink order, for example).

But Royale definitely plays with this idea.
Anonymous said…
Basically, you are saying that in order to believe in this "007-James Bond-kill-who-you-want" world, we need stop seeing it as a continuity and see them as being different people who were given the "James Bond" name and the "007" handle. They are never, or at least not for every movie, the same man.
Connery's Bond was in the "50s and '60s, Moore's in the '70s ans '80s, and they were... not the same guy!

It's so brillant... it might just work. Glad I was part of that little chat.
And to say that the whole James Bond discutions started because I called the cute receptionniste Moneypenny.
ArcLight said…
Well, to an extent I agree with you, if only because I came up with my own version of this idea way back when. (Don't worry....many many people have developed this idea independently.) And from what I hear the second version of "Casino Royale" (with David Niven, Woody Allen, etc.) used the idea but it's been forever since I've seen even part of it and don't think I've ever seen it all the way thru.

When I came up with the idea, I thought it would be beautiful if the opening action scene used the previous Bond and shows him getting killed. The next scene is the new actor being shown into M's office and being handed a file labeled "Bond, James - 007 - For Your Eyes Only" and then the credit sequence rolls.

Oh...and the martini is part of the "Bond" persona in the file, along with things like a past in the British Royal Navy and one wife, deceased.
Siskoid said…
I love your scenario, Arclight!
Baskingshark said…
This is really cool, but it would also need to apply to the other characters in the series, like M, Felix Leiter (lots of those, they must be pretty bad at their job - except the one who came back in License To Kill, maybe he was MIA for a while, presumed dead, but they found him alive?) and, of course, Miss Moneypenny...
LiamKav said…
There are a couple of quirky things that possibly go against this. Bond being married used to be part of his character post-OHMSS, with Moore even visiting the grave. As a counter to that though, the film immedietely after OHMSS has Connery's Bond chasing Blofeld and Tracy doesn't get mentioned.

I think Brosnan's Bond is asked in TWINE whether he's ever lost anyone close to him, and he avoids answering. You could take that to be Tracy, but you don't have to.

On the other hand, if you accept that you can reboot a universe and have new actors, can't it also be true that you can have a universe reboot without the actor's changing? Bale's Batman is not Kilmer's Batman, and Judi Dench (Brosnan's) M is not Judi Dench (Craig's) M.
I actually have the theory that Bond is a timelord- quite possibly chasing rogue time Lord Samedi- and that, after his tenure as Craig, he chases his nemesis back in time, but loses track of him- instead, post-regeneration, falling in love with a woman named Tracy. After her death, he's driven half-mad with revenge and flies off to the 60s to hunt and eliminate the murderer, Blofeld- at which point, in a very traumatic altercation, his TARDIS is destroyed and he regenerates into the likeness of Connery. Then he continues as normal- his Diamonds Are Forever opening rage due to having been unable to alter the timeline and prevent Tracy's death (and probably being present to observe, from a distance...). In a final confrontation with Blofeld, he regenerates into Moore. And so forth, making Brosnan the newest regeneration- and one who probably has to go into hiding until his first self departs from modern-day England.

Of course, an alternate possibility is that Blofeld himself is a Time Lord- and Felix Lieter almost undoubtedly is- however his chronology- and apparent unlucky life (considering the number of regenerations) are too complex to even attempt transcribing.
Siskoid said…
That makes Lazenby the Peter Cushing of the Bond set.