“Happy Birthday, Mister Bond.”
Those words, if spoken by the adoring grandees of Hollywood,
would convey distinct admiration and nostalgia for fifty years of
“Bond, James Bond” since the release of Dr. No in October
1962. Spoken instead with a heavy Central European accent, they
could be menacing and signal the presence of archfiend Ernst Stavro
Blofeld, leader of the Special Executive for Counter-intelligence,
Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion known by the acronym SPECTRE,
sometimes seen caressing a white cat, while giving orders and
questioning the clandestine operations of his deputies.
As Bond in cinema celebrates his 50th, it is appropriate to ask
if a vibrant western democracy should measure itself against Bond,
or should it measure Bond against itself? Put another way, should
we assess changes in society against the values of Bond, or should
we evaluate Bond in the context of contemporary tastes and mores?
Each approach yields a profound but radically different
conclusion.
Although played by various accomplished actors with unique
personas — Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce
Brosnan, and Daniel Craig — the case may be made that Bond is
fundamentally a constant, a universal role model for men who aspire
to Epicureanism and all things machismo. For decades, Bond has
shown us a resplendent tapestry of Savile Row, gaming tables from
the Bahamas to Montenegro, Aston Martins, vodka martinis “shaken
not stirred,” foie gras, high tech novelties, and the Walther PPK
chambered in 7.65 millimeter.
Bond the super spy is cut from the cloth of the command and
control system, facing off against a determined SPECTRE that seeks
world dominion, and other disturbed and fanatical men such as Auric
Goldfinger and Hugo Drax who seek to cause financial Armageddon or
wage biological warfare against the Earth. There is no room for
self-doubt in Bond’s world of intrigue and paranoia. There are only
orders to follow, issued by M, chief of the British Secret
Intelligence Service known as MI6. It is a grand, purposeful, and
heroic existence, and Bond is the instrument that assures the
continuation of Western civilization, with a waning but surviving
tradition of the British Empire, at times partnering with the
Central Intelligence Agency. And danger is his business. Alas, what
could be more noble?
In our current times, however, Bond could be adjudged an
unmitigated disaster. His directness of purpose is at odds with a
pluralistic and highly matrixed society, where indiscipline,
fissiparousness, and nuance can define national character. Today
Bond would be Gulliverized by intrusive federal and local
regulations that impede both covert and overt operations. There
would be few convenient places to smoke a Morland blend of Balkan
and Turkish tobacco; Bond might need to excuse himself for a
cigarette break a stipulated distance from the ominous MI6
headquarters on the banks of the Thames River. Further, protective
lobbies could make it hard to find foie gras, and environmentalists
and the need for governments to economize would force Bond to drive
a Prius hybrid. Bond’s signature irreverence would provoke
inquisitive Human Resources staff members, and he would find
himself on the next RIF or reduction in force list, a process used
by major corporations to eliminate staff.
The Bond of today would have much less latitude. He would be
expected to multitask while festooned with electronic devices,
update his Facebook page, tweet stakeholders, and receive robust
360 degree feedback from superiors, colleagues, and subordinates.
He would be required to accept criticism and attend off-sites to
assess vision and mission statements and to formulate institutional
strategy. He would be asked to submit his annual training
objectives for self-improvement. He would also be expected to have
tofu and herbal tea for lunch, while conversing in a collegial
fashion. In an era of global grunge, fastidious sartorial kit from
Savile Row could be a career stopper for the modern Bond.
In a sensitive society, where listening skills, PowerPoint
charts, and cuddly matrixes are valued more than excellence in
implementation, Bond would be deemed a pathological
misfit.
