Yahoo News in its infinite wisdom decided that its top story yesterday was an online petition to fire actor Daniel Craig as James Bond. Let us set aside the editorial nincompoopery that causes Yahoo to deem Hollywood casting as more important than, say, a threatened presidential veto, and skip to the real question:
When will this idiotic franchise finally die?
I am gobsmacked and thunderstruck that a character with so little depth as James Bond can attract such an avid following. Here is a character with no backstory, no real distinguishing characteristics, no hint of a psyche. There’s a reason why fans so eagerly anticipate each new Bond’s performance in the famous title sequence (man in tuxedo walks onscreen, man draws gun and swivels to face camera). The reason is: that’s all there is to the character. Here’s a suave guy carrying a gun. That’s it. No, really.
(Note that I’m making a distinct separation here between the film James Bond and the literary James Bond. As anyone who has dipped into the original Ian Fleming novels can tell you — and I read about eight or nine of them many years ago — they’re two entirely different animals altogether. Fleming’s 007 was a grim and sober character with little interest in philandering or gadgets or hobnobbing at cocktail parties. See an interesting rant about film-JB-versus-book-JB posted on Ain’t It Cool News.)
After 21 films featuring the intrepid agent 007 (or 23 films, if you include the so-called “non-canonical” features like the 1967 Casino Royale), here is essentially all we know about Mr. Bond:
* He’s a white British male.
* He works for Her Majesty’s Secret Service as agent 007.
* He likes his martinis shaken but not stirred.
* He employs a lot of high-tech gadgets.
* He is a heterosexual.
* He’s cool under fire and wears lots of snappy tuxedos.
Here is just a small sampling of what we don’t know about James Bond:
* Where does he live?
* Does he have any friends or family?
* What are his hobbies, besides fighting international crime?
* What was his childhood like?
* Does he have any political or religious affiliation?
* Where did he go to school?
* What motivates him?
* Has he ever really loved anyone?
* Has anyone ever really loved him?
* Why did he join HMSS in the first place?
* Has he ever considered retirement?
* Has he ever read an entire book to completion that didn’t include pop-ups?
* Does all the killing ever get to him?
* What are his feelings towards the country he strives so hard to protect?
* Does he have any opinions whatsoever?
I’m sure James Bond fans can point me to lots of minor details that the films have revealed over the years, possibly including some of the above. But these details are written into a particular script by the screenwriter for the purposes of that particular film; they are not integral parts of the character. It’s no wonder that second-rate actors like Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan have had such an easy time filling the role, considering that there are no subtleties to convey.
Of course, one can argue that James Bond is a creation of pop culture — a cartoon character, in essence — and that we don’t need an entire Myers-Briggs workup on a pop culture film character to make him compelling.
But this response doesn’t wash with me. I’m having trouble even thinking of a cartoon character as two-dimensional as James Bond. A single viewing of even the kitschiest of the modern Batman and Superman films gives you much more information about their title characters than the entire Bond canon. We know more about Austin Powers after three films than we know about James Bond after twenty-one. Hell, we know more about Yogi Bear.
So enjoy the stunts and the big-budget effects and the offhanded quips and retorts of a James Bond film. Far be it from me to deny the pleasures of popcorn cinema. But please remember that the protagonist is as thinly sliced a caricature as they come, and don’t fucking waste headline space debating him.