Monday, November 17, 2014

How Progressive Hollywood Shackles Bond

I am an admitted Bond fan. I love action films and spy stuff in general. Throw in Britishness, a couple hot chicks in each film and I am pulled in. My favorite Bond film is On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Roger Moore's version of Bond is my favorite, the duo of ladies in Golden Gun are my favorite Bond girls, and Auric Goldfinger my favorite villain. My favorite terrible Bond pun is "I thought Christmas only comes once a year", revealing that the script picked her name for that specific line at the end of the film. This is not a post on the franchise, which Counter Currents did to perfection. This is on the bias of our Hollywood overlords not properly using a Western spy vehicle to its fullest because of the left's desire for us to understand communists and avoidance of insulting Muslims.

Look through the history of Bond films. While many are adaptations of Fleming's novels with the terrorist organization S.P.E.C.T.R.E., Bond does not go up against communists. This is made all the more comical when post-Cold War Bond films usually have a line from M (played by grammy Judi Dench) about Bond being a Cold War relic or dinosaur of a bygone age. How could this be? He never once went on mission to foil the Soviets. There was no Bond fights the Russkis until the late '80s (License to Kill). This is rather idiotic as MI6 had a hand in crafting how the OSS, therefore the CIA, would behave and look. Fleming based Bond partly on a card playing, womanizing German spy that MI6 developed and then sent to the Americans to use in WW2. The Brits were also the focus of the biggest spy scandal of the Cold War with the Kim Philby defection and the Cambridge ring, including the Burgess and McLean defections of 1951 that set off the FBI on a massive mole hunt creating the FBI's use of McCarthy to go after the CIA. The extra stupidity of this is England's role as former global power with the Empire that turned into America's coach and go between with Europe in the post-war period. Despite all of this, Bond rarely has confrontations with the communists.

That is because from the time of FDR's election to the rise of Putin, Americans were told to fear the Communists by the outer party but told to try to understand the Russians by the inner party. If Americans would only understand the Russian perspective, rapprochement would be possible. The flyover idiots and knuckleheads were holding us back. Gorbachev is quoted as saying George H.W. Bush told him that the block heads and dummies were the supporters of Reagan and his extremist, confrontational approach. The people defending the Commies from knucklehead aggression were the types controlling Hollywood. Instead of a spy knocking heads with our actual main enemy that would be the justification for a large spy network with expensive gadgets, we see movies with cartoonish villains attempting idealistic, fantastic schemes. This same issue is in play now with Bond never dealing with Muslim terrorism. Islamofascist, Al-Qaeda, even home grown Londonistan types could all be worthy villains that would be red meat for audiences. We do not do it because even in the 9/11 era show 24, using Muslims as the source of terrorism plots is not Hollywood's approach. We should not demonize the other, instead we must understand them, do business with them, and keep importing them to our homelands.
 
This does apply to Skyfall. Just change Silva from a muddled European accented guy with blonde hair to a muddled Arabic accented guy with dark hair. Make Silva a former fantastic spy the Brits used in the Middle East and Near East who got burned by M, but then found patronage with a wealthy Arab (Bandar) who is hell bent on getting his way (Bandar) and will use his millions and proxies (Bandar). Brits are aware that the subway bombers were homegrown but had foreign connections, just like the rapping jihadi who beheaded one of the American journalists this year. Sure, the Arabs would cry out stereotyping, but uhhh, it's right. It would also put asses in the seats.
 
One fix I would do with the Bond series from a technical standpoint was sort of executed with Skyfall. Sam Mendes, a competent director, directed the film. A possible approach to the series that might break the formulaic feel to some of the films is actively seeking different directors and give them the freedom to make their version of a Bond film. All directors would give it their spin, but I would be intrigued by a David Fincher, Spike Jonze or even a Tarantino Bond film. Fincher would have it always raining, and Tarantino would give us gore and '70s pop culture references, but it could be an improvement on the normal flow of Bond films. A couple of directors crank them out, and suddenly, some other directors want to give Bond their spin. A portrayal of Bond would not just be the actor's performance and the audience's bias for or against an actor. Plus, they could dispense with he "Will Bond be a lady/black/queer?" tease as the next director would be the tease (Liz Hurley was their best bet for Lady Bond a decade ago).

Audiences will not get that, just as they will not get a Bond fighting Muslims endangering Mother England. Nigel Farage may be picking up support in England, but the mandarins in charge gasp at the slightest reference than immigrants be sent packing. Rotherham's rape crisis should be the tearing down and destruction of the current power structure and their shibboleths, but it is not. The media is sovereign, and the news media and entertainment media are one and the same. Not much in the way of protesting the Rotherham rapes and corruption in England. We definitely would not want a Bond film where he tracks a foreign problem only to lead him back to MI5 and corrupt or compromised individuals allowing the scum of Londonistan to operate freely. That might get the popcorn munching normies to thinking. Whether British or American, we do not want Joe Sixpack and Jane SUV to wonder why the power system works to import problems and manages our nations in anarcho-tyrannical fashion. Watch Bond take on a billionaire Russian bent on cloning perfect humans to create a war on the Korean peninsula. That may sound ridiculous, but it has a better chance of being the next Bond film than Bond battles jihadis.

16 comments:

Steve Johnson said...

This is the best answer to the fools who insist that the power structure is really about money.

They pass up money all the time in service of ideology.

nikcrit said...

This is the best answer to the fools who insist that the power structure is really about money.

They pass up money all the time in service of ideology.


I used to argue with peterike, who concurs with you, against this point; I point to so many examples i've seen in which coin is the driving force in the marketing decision, though my anecdotal flow leans more toward music than film evidence. I'm willing to amend my view, as i've been convinced otherwise by certain instances. but i still say 'the industry,' whether film, tv or music, thinks money first and then ideology ----- if when those mogul-ish 'u-know-whos' are pulling the levers behind the curtains.

nikcrit said...

edit: "if when" should be "even when"

bruce said...

Ian Fleming said James Bond's politics were on the left. Charles Stross did a little riff on this. I used to watch Bond movies with my dad and he'd say, look at all these guys out there building up their business, playing a little rough when they have to, but mostly minding their own business, and then this clerk shows up and nails their women, drinks their booze, and blows up everything they built .

Anonymous said...

Bond cannot fight reality is the real message here. Combating fantastic and unworkable schemes may be one thing, confronting real threats aimed at forcing the west to its knees are harder to explain. Even harder to explain is why the west goes along with this urgent need to see us reduced to the slaves of islam.

The minority must rule the majority it seems, though the current minority in the UK want to be the majority and certainly won't allow such unappealing western ideas to appear again.

Toddy Cat said...

"thinks money first and then ideology"

I can't speak to music, where you might be right, NikCrit, but when it comes to movies, this is so obviously wrong, I can't see how an intelligent guy like you could believe it. Do you have any idea how much a flag-waving WWII style Iraq War movie would have made in 2004? But Hollywood continued to churn out "Blame America" pap that lost money, but met with critical (i.e. leftist) acclaim. Sure, money is important, but there are certain ideological lines that simply are not crossed by "respectable" studios.

Anonymous said...

You have never watched "From Russia With Love" or "For Your Eyes Only" - both of which used the Soviets as villains.

Son of Brock Landers said...

SPECTRE is the bad guy in From Russia. For Your Eyes involves the Russians but in competition and multiple 3rd parties.

nikcrit said...

O.T.,

Every now and then I feel like conceding every point made here that I've felt compelled to argue against.

Hell, then there are days in which I feel like conceding here AND at sites like SBPDL.com

What makes for the latter?

Stories like these:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/man-20-charged-with-raping-101-year-old-woman-in-her-home-b99392981z1-283081241.html

Happy Holidays!!!

nikcrit said...



To be a bit more clear: I readily concede leftist taste and bias amongst Hollywood elite; moreso, I doubt the box-office power of blatant rightist storyline and product; i.e., many use "Passion of the Christ" as an example; but its box office was only superstrong in light of its relatively low marketing costs, etc.; also, I do realize that example sort-of conflates conserviative religion-vs-conservative-politics debate.

Point being, I know there's stong leftist slant in Hollywood (Jon Voigt notwithstanding); I'm just not so sure rightist product would deliver killer box-office ---- I think conservative demo is not really a movie-going demo, however how much underserved.

caveat: I'm not swearing by any of this; I'll change my mind if someone gives me some easy evidence to peruse...lolzz

PA said...

Nikcrit, re. conceding... (BTW, does that also include conceding points made on Gucci Little Piggy?)

... I think that if I were part black out black Talented Tenth and wanted to take comfort in my race, I would read Zora Neale Hurston's "Their Eyes Were Watching God.."

I thought a lot about that book and what I take away from it now is something very different than what my lit professor did.

Anonymous said...

"Jon Voigt notwithstanding"

Maybe part of the reason Voight became an American Gentile Likudnik is that his uncle was a major anti-Semitic journalist of the 1940s and 1950s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kamp
Joseph P. Kamp (1900–1993) was an American political activist who was jailed in 1950 for being in contempt of Congress stemming from 1944 campaign activities.[1] He was acquitted of a second contempt charge in relationship with the lobbying activities of the Constitutional Educational League, an anti-communist organization.[2]

Kamp was a contributor to The Awakener before the Second World War. He also served as a policy advisor to the Liberty Lobby.

Kamp is an uncle of Jon Voight.


You know, too much anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism among the Dems-as the neocons always tell us.

nikcrit said...

BTW, does that also include conceding points made on Gucci Little Piggy?)

Don't know if you're serious or even semi-serious here, but, technically speaking ---- no, I wasn't conceding earlier more earnest and elaborate points.
Basically, here i was 'conceding' to convey EXTREME exasperation.

I mean, considering the link I posted, can you blame me?

nikcrit said...

p.s. @ PA,

Straight-up, I don't know much about Hurston; for some reason, i couldn't get through her book, don't even recall which one, when i was an undergrad..... however, i do recall you citing her a few times at onestdv and glpiggy; that sorta intrigued me because, at that point, i'd built some rapport with you and it struck me as rare for you to have read a black author that closely, so that made an impression, etc...... interesting to see you use a hypothetical construction such as 'if i were part black and in the 'talented tenth,' etc........that sorta dovetails with my casual, FWIW posit that you sometimes indulge a white-exaltation-vs-black-other contrast in your racial defining, a la a Conradian "Nigger-and-the-Narcissus"-in-one kind of projection, etc.

(please emphasize the aforementioned FWIW in this particular comment, lolz).

PA said...

you sometimes indulge a white-exaltation-vs-black-other contrast

I appreciate the "FWIW," but I don't do that.

i couldn't get through her book, don't even recall which one, when i was an undergrad

It may have been the same book. I could see you not getting into it, as the book is usually framed as discussed as feminist literature. The plot itself is chick-lit in a way, a story of an attractive young woman's three consecutive husbands. But between the lines, if you apply historic understanding and red pill insight into female nature, it is an interesting novel.

The three husbands in the story represented three archetypes of men: the salt of the earth laborer, the leader of men, and the alpha badboy. You can make an interesting discussion vis-a-vis black destiny in America just by considering those archetypes and which ones won out.

There were no whites in the story whatsoever, and the communities in which the story took place were top-to-bottom black economies. I liked that, because it made me appreciate the story at face value and on the depicted culture's own terms.

On that last point, so much evil comes from mixing of cultures and peoples, which has for a long time been one of my meta-arguments.

Robert What? said...

Interesting that your favorite was Roger Moore. I couldn't stand his ever present smirk, although they managed to get him to tone it down in later films. That charcter worked great in the old TV series "The Saint" (guess I'm dating myself) but I don't think it carried well into the Bond films.

Re: villains - films are only allowed to portray rich white men as villians: specifically American, European or Russian. Anyone else is strictly verboten, despite Hollywood being run by rich white men. The only film in recent memory I can think of that portrayed Arabs as terrorists was the action/comedy "True Lies". I don't think any film since then has come even close.