 Bond films…James Bond films that is. They deserve some close analysis, and that is what I bring you this week. I chose this series because each installment tends to be chock FULL of stereotypes, that fit in nicely with Vladmir Propp's theory of the Eight Characters. Originally, he applied his ideas to Russian folktales. Later, those who study film realized that it applied to their medium as well! Propp's claims that in all fairy tales, characters essentially fall into one of eight slots: the villain or bad guy, the hero, the donor, the helper, the princess, her father, the dispatcher, and the false hero. What I'm most interested in looking at here are the dastardly villains that the ever suave James Bond, regardless of who the actor is, must outwit and defeat!
So, the hero is Bond. That never changes. Same characteristics, film after film. The villain, as well, has a standard set of traits no matter which film in the series he or she pops up in. First off, nearly all the villains have distinct physical or mental…errr…issues. Look at the bad guy in 1971's “Diamonds Are Forever.” He had a bum knee that left him with a limp. In 1965's “Thunderball,” the villain was missing an eye. Faring a bit better was the devilish fellow in “You Only Live Twice,” from 1967, who did have both eyes, though the right eye sported a pretty massive scar. To top it off, he was rather vertically challenged, and had an odd habit of always stroking a white cat that sat upon his lap. It gets even weirder with 1985's “A View To Kill.” In this flick, the villain was a lab-made man, meant to be a genius. But something went awry, and he ended up being, well, evil. “Die Another Day” from 2002 continued with some extreme body modification by the baddy, who had genetic plastic surgery that altered his Asian appearance. In the latest installment, “Casino Royale” from 2006, the villain was both asthmatic AND one of his eyes had a tendency to bleed. And, talk about kicking a guy while he's down, the poor guys OTHER eye was murky. So what about “Goldfinger”? Well, of course, there was Scaramanga - the bad guy with three nipples!
There is little doubt that this was intentionally done to make a strong distinction between the hero and his antithesis. The directors try to paint the villains or antagonists as freaks, or monsters, which are not to be seen as human. So we certainly don't feel bad when Bond simply kills them off. In fact, he is doing this to save mankind from these abominations. There have been over 20 Bond films and that means that James has disposed of over 20 antagonists, and a few side men, through his career. In simple terms, he is a murderer. But of course he does this for the government! Does this make it acceptable? I don't think so. But there is a certain katharsis effect that comes into play, and, in a fictional sense, the killings are justified.
 Then, there are the villain's partners in crime who have their oddities as well. Take 1979's “Moonraker.” Look at the man in the picture, and those unusual metal teeth. Do viewers get upset when they see a mean looking guy with grotesque metal teeth bite the dust? Nope. Once again, it comes down to katharsis.
Now, I've been writing about the villain and how he is portrayed, but one can look at any of Propp's characters and make a connection within a Bond film. One that particularly gets to me is the princess role. It is a continual recurring element throughout the series. Women inevitably fall in love with Bond, who often must save them from grave danger! The sad point here is that women are shown as weak and vulnerable. Not only that, it’s as if they are rewards for Bond. If he successfully conquers the bad guy, he gets the woman, his latest sexual toy. One dead villain that no one seems to care about and one new princess for Bond - what a deal.
Alev Deđim (COMD/III)
contactinspector@yahoo.com
|
