"I think that part
-Lewis Gilbert
O
of
the charm
of the
Bond
picture [is]
you
know what
you're
going to get...
You can change
it slightly,
but it's
very well laid down,
the
Law of Bond,
and people want
you
to abide by it"
Eco proposed that the characters in Bond novels are allocated specific roles or actions to perform. He stated
The [Bond] novel, given the rules of combination of oppositional couples, is fixed as a sequence of 'moves' inspired by the code and constituted accordingly to a perfectly prearranged scheme' (1979, p. 156)
Eco lists these 'moves' as
A. M moves and gives a task to Bond
B. Villain moves and appears to Bond (perhaps in vicarious form)
C. Bond moves and gives a first check to Villain or Villain gives first check to Bond
D. Woman moves and shows herself
E. Bond takes Woman (possesses her or begins her seduction)
F. Villain captures Bond (with or without Woman, or at different moments)
G. Villain tortures Bond (with or without Woman)
H. Bond beats Villain (kills him, or kills his representative or helps at their killing)
I. Bond, convalescing, enjoys Woman, whom he then loses
(1979, p. 156)
Eco proposes that all the moves are apparent in every one of Fleming's novels, although each move may appear more than once and they do not always occur in the same sequence (the exception is The Spy Who Loved Me which, as is discussed later, was purposefully constructed as an atypical Bond narrative) . Doctor No can thus be termed the archetypal Bond novel as Eco's moves run ABCDEFGHI, whereas Goldfinger is structured BCDEACDFGDHEHI. Altering the order of the moves like this and repeating some and not others prevents the books from becoming entirely predictable.
Eco states that Fleming also adds to and changes various secondary elements of the narratives such as the supporting characters, locations, modes of transport, and methods of capture, torture and escape as another means of disguising the similarities between the novels.
'Occurring alongside the sequence of fundamental moves are numerous side issues which enrich the narrative by unforeseen events, without, however, altering the basic scheme ... The reader finds himself immersed in a game of which he knows the pieces and the rules - and, perhaps the outcome - and draws pleasure simply from following the minimal variations by which the victor [i.e. Bond] realizes his objective'
(1979, p. 157, 160)
As such, although the Villains and Women perform the same moves in the books they are distinguishable and individual enough to be fresh and seemingly original. It could be argued that at the most basic level the role of the villain in a Bond narrative is to provide a threat to an equilibrium (the most obvious being World stability), yet this is achieved through different means. Largo in Thunderball, for example, hijacks an atomic bomb to hold the West to ransom, Blofeld in OHMSS plots biological warfare on England, and Drax in Moonraker plans to bomb London with a nuclear warhead embedded in his rocket. Although the villains therefore ultimately perform the same role and function in a Bond narrative, they do so through different means. Fleming further differentiates and distinguishes them from one another by providing them with grotesque characteristics and idiosyncrasies - Largo's hands are twice the size they should be, Dr. No has metal claws for hands and seems to glide across the room, Mr. Big is grey skinned and has a massive head, and Hugo Drax has a scarred face, protruding teeth, wild red hair and an ugly demeanor. This practice of maintaining the same basic underlying structure whilst altering the surface details in each novel creates what Eco terms 'a clever montage of deja vu' (1979, p. 163).
Alongside these moves, Eco noted that certain polarities between both characters and values were frequently found in the Fleming novels, and they therefore play a major role in determining and defining the Bond formula.
| 1. Bond - M | 8. Cupidity - Ideals |
| 2. Bond - Villain | 9. Love - Death |
| 3. Villain - Woman | 10. Chance - Planning |
| 4. Woman - Bond | 11.Luxury - Discomfort |
| 5. Free World - Soviet Union | 12. Excess - Moderation |
| 6. Great Britain - Non-Anglo Saxon Nations | 13. Perversion - Innocence |
| 7. Duty - Sacrifice | 14. Loyalty - Disloyalty |
Eco's oppositions numbered 1, 3 and 4 are centered around dominator - dominated relationships. In the first instance, it is M who assigns Bond missions and who gives him orders, be it to change the type of gun he uses (Doctor No) or to go to a health center (Thunderball). Although Bond may protest (indeed, he actually resigns in OHMSS and in the film Licence To Kill after his wishes have been overruled by M) he ultimately always obeys his orders. The opposition between the Bond and M of Fleming's novels is not only built around seniority, but also through the clash between M's rather Victorian values and attitudes towards Bond's unorthodox way of living and disregard of Service protocol, with M being very much of the old school, Bond of the new. The casting of Dame Judi Dench as a female M in the Brosnan films has added an extra dimension to the Bond / M relationship and accentuated the polarity between the two characters as the 'sexist, misogynist dinosaur' now has to take orders from and obey a woman.
The relationship between the Villain and the Woman is also sometimes built on a dichotomy of power, with the Woman often in the employment of or trapped in some way by the Villain. For example, Pussy Galore is Goldfinger's pilot, Solitaire is Mr. Big's tarot reader in Live And Let Die, and Domino is Largo's mistress in Thunderball. However, the Villain - Woman / dominator - dominated scenario is not always based on a gender difference. This is particularly apparent in the films where some of the most memorable Villains have been female - namely Rosa Klebb in From Russia With Love, Fiona in Thunderball, May Day in A View To A Kill, Xenia Onatopp in GoldenEye, and Elektra King in TWINE. In these cases the polarity between Villain - Woman is manifest through the characters' sexuality - these characters are all sexually perverse (Klebb is a lesbian and Fiona, May Day, Onatopp and Elektra are oversexed) which, when set against the Bond girl's 'innocence', emphasizes the binary opposition between the two roles.
The Woman - Bond relationship is clearly one of dominated / dominator. The Bond girls of Fleming's novels are little more than objects to satisfy Bond's sexual appetite, as illustrated in the following extract from The Spy Who Loved Me:
'All women love semi-rape. They love to be taken. It was his sweet brutality against my bruised body that made his act of love so piercingly wonderful. That and the coinciding of nerves so completely relaxed after the removal of tension and danger, the warmth of gratitude, and a woman's natural feeling
(Fleming, 1962, p. 154)
The films, however, have reflected the changing attitudes towards women and equality of the sexes, and as the series has progressed the filmmakers have attempted to increase the female characters' importance and impact on the narratives, the most noticeable examples being Tracy in OHMSS, Ana in The Spy Who Loved Me, Holly Goodhead in Moonraker, and Melina in For Your Eyes Only. Ultimately, however, at some point each and every girl is reduced to an ineffectual, wailing damsel in distress. Even Michelle Yeoh's character Wai Lin in Tomorrow Never Dies, despite being much publicized as being Bond's equal, is still taken captive and has to be rescued by him at the climax of the film. It is unfortunate that with Denise Richard's portrayal of Christmas Jones in TWINE the Bond girl has all but returned to the worst of 60's bimboism.
The binary opposition between Bond and the Villain is perhaps not as clear as it may first appear as they are, after all, both killers. What sets them apart, however, is 
their conscience and morals - or lack of them. Unlike the villain, Bond does not enjoy killing, although this aspect of his character is perhaps less pronounced in the novels than the films. When the assassin Scaramanga in the film version of The Man With The Golden Gun claims that they are the same, Bond replies 'There's a useful four letter word and you're full of it. When I kill it's on the specific orders on my Government, and those I kill are themselves killers'. Bond kills either because he is ordered to or because the target has been deemed dangerous, being a threat to his mission or to World stability. Killing rarely gives him pleasure, and he never kills without reason.
Those values proposed by Eco which are positive (i.e. Free World, Great Britain, sacrifice, cupidity, discomfort over luxury, moderation, innocence, loyalty) are all applicable to Bond, and the negative ones (Soviet Union, non-Anglo Saxon countries, duty over sacrifice, ideals, luxury, excess, perversion, disloyalty) refer to the Villain. Bond represents Western civilization, puts his orders before his own interests, uses his ingenuity, suffers discomfort for the sake of a mission, and is loyal to Queen and country. Conversely, the Villain in Fleming's novels is usually foreign (Drax is German, Mr. Big American, Dr. No Chinese), lives in excessive wealth, and is sexually perverse. As Eco states, 'Bond represents beauty and virility as opposed to the Villain, who often appears monstrous and sexually impotent' (1979, p.148).
The validity and usefulness of Eco's conception that Bond narratives can be deconstructed and analyzed in terms of common and recurring elements can be seen in recent publications analyzing the Bond narratives which neatly divide their critiques into sections corresponding to aspects of the Bond formula. Lane & Simpson in The Bond Files (1998) arrange sections in their critique of the Bond novels into such titles as locations, my name is (Bond's aliases / disguises), toys for the boys (gadgets), villainous foibles, and sadism; Barnes & Hearn in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang! (1997) use teaser (pre-title sequence), titles, locations, gadgets, girls, villains, fights, chases and explosions, and dialogue and double entendres; whereas Pfeiffer & Worrall in The Essential Bond (1998) entitle sections 007's women, 007's villains, 007's allies, vehicles, gadgets and weapons, and music. Turner (1988) elaborates on the attraction of that which is expected and predictable in the films, proposing that
'there is a pleasure in the familiar, in recognizing conventions, and relishing their repetition and restatement. Nevertheless, there is innovation and originality in genre films and the best examples can achieve a very complicated and delicate balance between the familiar and the original, repetition and innovation, predictability and unpredictability. Each genre film has to do two apparently conflicting things : to confirm the existing expectations of the genre, and to alter them slightly. It is the variation from the expectation, the innovation in how a familiar scenario is played, that offers the audience the pleasure of the recognition of the familiar, as well as the thrill of the new'
p. 86
Rather than being detrimental to one's enjoyment, the Bond formula and predictability therefore actually increases it. Jarvie states that 'one of the vastly underrated strengths of the popular arts is their use of formula' (1998, p. 164) and cites Perry Mason and Mission : Impossible as franchises which, like Bond, are or were successful in spite of - or rather because of - adhering to an established formula and set of conventions.
According to psychological explanations and studies, the familiar is viewed as comforting whilst change is unpleasant and stressful because it involves having to adapt to new, unfamiliar situations. Both major life changes such as marriage, promotion, divorce and loss of job and also minor everyday daily changes can lead to psychological distress and, in some cases, physical illness. Change from an established norm or routine can thus be unpleasant and uncomfortable, and this perhaps explains why when a Bond film or book diverts too much from the formula it is markedly less popular. The novel The Spy Who Loved Me is an example of this, being a conscious decision by Fleming to try something new. He stated 'I tried to break away from my normal formula but the readers were so furious that James Bond didn't appear until about three-quarters of the way through, and that it was ostensibly written by a girl ... that I must confess it wasn't a success and took quite a beating from the critics' (cited in Lane & Simpson, 1998, p. 44). Similarly, Licence To Kill is viewed by some as not being a typical Bond film in that it is violent (it was the first and thus far only Bond film to be classified '15' by the British Board of Film Classification), contains swearing, lacks humor, and has few stunts, fights, gadgets and chases. As Barnes & Hearn (1997) state in their damning critique of the film 'the misconceived Licence To Kill only jerks to life sporadically [when] it deigns to lower / raise itself to the level we expect from a Bond film ... This is not a James Bond picture; devoid of glamour, elegance, elan, it's a Rambo, a Death Wish - mean - spirited, second -division, conveyor-belt popcorn.' (p. 191)
The quote at the beginning of this article is by Lewis Gilbert, the director of three of the most financially successful films of the series (You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker), and he talks of the necessity when making a Bond film to adhere to the formula, and this view is succinctly echoed by Bennett & Woollacott (1987) who state 'the familiar Bond formula is what [a Bond narrative] trades on' (p. 286).
However, a Bond film or novel is disparaged if it adheres too strictly to the formula. In their review of the film version of You Only Live Twice the Monthly Film Bulletin wrote 'The fifth James Bond is rather less enjoyable mainly because the formula has become so completely mechanical ... without any compensation in other directions' (cited in Chapman, 1999, p. 6). I would personally add The Man With The Golden Gun and A View To A Kill to the list of Bond films which merely go through the motions, sticking to the formula so strictly that, no matter how well crafted they may be, they do nothing to further or develop the Bond franchise. Roger Spottiswoode, director of Tomorrow Never Dies, posed the questions every Bond director has to face - 'How much do you change? How much do you keep? What do you do with the existing elements? If you are going to do a Bond you have to find something that is fresh and exciting' (cited in Pearce, 1997, p. 610). The positive reaction of audiences and box office grosses for TND showed Spottiswoode to be successful in balancing the traditional elements of Bond with the new.
The series of both Bond novels and films have to walk a dangerous tightrope of adhering to the Bond formula and yet making it seem fresh and original. If a Bond narrative merely plays it safe and slavishly sticks to the established formula then it becomes totally predictable and people become bored, yet if it is too different and strays too far from what has gone before then it runs the risk of no longer being Bond. As the series of books and films continues it becomes increasingly difficult to be original and yet retain links to the series' past without them becoming too different or too stale. However, those involved in the progression of the Bond franchise in both film and book form understand and realize this dilemma, and there is no reason why Mr. Wilson, Mrs. Broccoli, Mr. Benson et. al. should now fail to fulfill audiences' expectations yet excite them with something new when for the past half century they have been so successful in producing Bond narratives that thrill, excite and surprise, yet remain unmistakably Bond.
Copyright © 2000 by Richard Johnson
References
Barnes, A. & Hearn, M. (1997). Kiss Kiss Bang Bang! : The Unofficial James Bond Film Companion. London : Batsford.
Bennett, T. & Woollacott, J. (1987). Bond and Beyond : The Political Career of a Popular Hero. London : Macmillan.
Chapman, J. (1999). Licence to Thrill : A Cultural History of the James Bond Films. London : Tauris.
Eco, U. (1979). The Role of the Reader : Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington : Indiana University Press.
Fleming, I. (1962). The Spy Who Loved Me. London : Jonathan Cape.
Jarvie, I. C. (1998). Towards a Sociology of the Cinema : A Comparative Essay on the Structure and Functioning of a Major Entertainment Industry. London : Routledge.
Lane, A. & Simpson, P. (1998). The Bond Files : The Unofficial Guide to the World's Greatest Secret Agent. London : Virgin.
Pearce, G. (1997). The Making of 'Tomorrow Never Dies.' London : Boxtree.
Pfeiffer, L. & Worrall, D. (1998). The Essential Bond : The Authorized Guide to the World of 007. London : Boxtree.
Turner, G. (1985). Film as Social Practice. London : Routledge.
Return to
Books
Films
HMSS Contents
