James Bond Still Needs a Men’s Retreat
Despite a refresh, the 007 franchise remains stuck in the past
The Mandate Letter, by Jason Rogers, focuses on the evolving state of men and masculinities. Thanks for being here. If you were forwarded this email, get your own:
Please tell a friend about us and hit the heart button above; it helps other people discover the content.
Department of Reviews — No Time To Die
(Warning: This review contains spoilers!)
Last week I went to see the much anticipated No Time To Die, the final installment of the 007 franchise with Daniel Craig as its leading man. The film has received much media attention due to the fact that it will be Craig’s last act; however, in some spheres, a more highly touted aspect of the production has been the involvement of British female actor and writer Phoebe Waller-Bridge (she was a co-writer of the screenplay). Waller-Bridge is widely known for writing quirky and inscrutable female characters like Villanelle, the simultaneously sympathetic and sociopathic assassin on her hit show Killing Eve. Villanelle is a powerful force that drives both the intrigue and chaos factors in the series, making it thoroughly binge-able. So, it was a fair assumption on my part to think that Waller-Bridge’s fingerprints on 007 make bring the macho the modern age.
And in at least one major way — representation — she did. Women have always featured heavily in Bond films, however, usually as Bond’s white, one-dimensional assistants, accomplices, or playthings. In No Time To Die, we saw the introduction of Nomi, the black British agent who took over as 007 when Bond retired from MI6 (note: she returns the 007 identifier to Bond when he’s reinstated). At first, she’s a significant thorn in Bond’s side, going toe-to-toe with him in their scrimmages and spycraft during a portion of the film in which they are adversarial. Later, when they join forces, and she is much in control of the mission as he (at least until she’s not). Still, it would be a stretch to say that the film overwhelmingly passes the Bechdel Test, which would require a scene with two women talking about something other than a man.
We also see Bond in love. Generally, 007 has been an unattached, lust-driven kind of guy, but the film opens on Bond enjoying what we are meant to assume is a vacation-in-perpetuity with his long-term lover (or maybe wife, it’s unclear) Madeleine Swann. The two become estranged because Bond isn’t sure whether she betrayed him. But in the course of the movie, he learns that she in fact did not. We’re also introduced to Madeleine’s daughter, whom we are meant to infer also belongs to James. This gives the Bond character a motivational vector that he’s never really dealt with before. Generally, he’s been driven by self-preservation, ego, and some vague allegiance to Britain. In this film, the thrust behind many of his choices seem to be born of the heart.
He goes to great lengths to protect the little girl and also offers some really un-Bondish words to Madeleine during the film’s closing scene (I can’t remember exactly, but it was something like, “I don’t regret even one day of loving you”). It was definitely touching to see Bond in a more ragged and vulnerable state; however, there were still many macho moments that yanked me back into the Bond of old. I offer these criticisms hesitantly because I do really love the franchise, but I would be remiss if I didn’t point out moments in which this alpha-agent narrative is becoming a little tired, at least in the context of the modern world. For one, Bond remains Lothario-ish in his interactions with women. He doesn’t consecrate any of his entanglements; however, when he meets Nomi (the new 007), who follows him back to his residence, he slugs back a shot of whiskey and, when she says, “This is the bedroom?” he’s definitely DTF. Later, he completes a mission with Paloma, a female American agent. The two end up in a wine cellar, and she starts unbuttoning his shirt. He says flippantly, “shouldn’t we get to know each other first?” Turns it out there’s been confusion because she’s just trying to get him to change into a tux. I think both of these incidents are sleight of hand on the part Waller-Bridge and her co-writers because it’s initially the female character that’s making the advance (i.e. Bond looks less creepy). However, both scenarios perpetuate Bond’s nonplused attitude when it comes to coitus and the cultural narrative that men should always be up for sex.
The film certainly did not reinvent the wheel when it came to the villain. Safin, played by the Academy Award-winning actor Rami Malek, is Bond’s worthy adversary and resident psychopath. Malek no doubt put on an unsettling performance, however, his character is a familiar one. We learn that Safin’s entire family was poisoned when he was young, hence his desire to inflict pain on pretty much everyone around him. Once again, we see the origin of his evil in a familiar archetype: the damaged little boy. During their final showdown, Safin smashes a chemical weapon against Bond’s face which essentially makes him untouchable by Madeleine (it’s a long story but suffice it to say that the main mechanism for destruction in the film involves genetically coded killer nanobots that travel through the blood). That closing act of malice is just another way for Malek’s character to say, “if I can’t have love then I’ll make sure that you can’t too.” It’s partially what leads to Bond’s decision to sacrifice himself at the end of the film and also suggests that when men finally open themselves up to love, it will invariably be ripped away.
Lastly, the overall story read as a little superficial to me because I’m kind of sick of seeing the “one man saves the world” plotline. I certainly understand that it’s one of the few pre-crafted molds that work for a film like this. However, it 1) reads as unrealistic (saving our world is definitely not going to be a matter of pushing the figurative equivalent of a big red button). And it 2) subtly perpetuates the notion that our savior will come in the form of a single, white man. Our history books are littered with inaccurate depictions of these kinds of “heros.” And, currently, many of the profiles on, say, Elon Musk carry the tenor of beatification. And while the Paypal, SpaceX, and Tesla super-billionaire is not short on accomplishments, I do not think that he is going to save us from our climate crisis by sending us to Mars. To put a fine point on it, the Bond film still retains an anti-collaboration message that I’m not sure we need right now.
It’s totally unfair to lay really any of this criticism at the feet of Waller-Bridge. After all, she was a co-writer along with the film’s male director, Cary Joji Fukunaga, and Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, two dudes that have done at least seven other Bond films. In an ideal world, the group of writers would have sat down together and hashed things out collaboratively. However, the reality was that she was brought in toward the end of the process to “liven up” a pre-baked script. I’m sure there was only so much she could do.
Also, it may be totally unreasonable on my part to expect a progressive narrative from a Bond film. I’m sure longtime fans would argue that, with 007, what you see is what you get. “If you want something complex and emotional try an Indie film,” one might say. And I get that. It’s not like the basis of No Time To Die could have been Bond and Safin together in therapy or working through their feelings on some kind of men’s retreat. Without all that fictional destruction, it wouldn’t have made for much of a film. Or perhaps that’s where I’m wrong.
Department of Links
Mandate Book Club — For those of you that missed the announcement about the new book club, we will be reading and discussing Testosterone: An Unauthorized Biography on Nov 3 and Nov 4 (these are separate sessions to accommodate different time zones). If you are interested in joining sign up here! | Nov 3 OR Nov 4
Ocean Vuong on Talk Easy — This is from a few months back, but I really enjoyed this interview with Ocean Vuong, the author of the best-selling novel On Earth We’re Briefly Gorgeous. It’s an enlightening conversation on a number of topics, but Vuong is particularly elegant and incisive on masculinity and the various ways American culture has sent the construct off course | Talk Easy
Succession — One of my favorite drama series is back for session 3. Succession focused on the Roys, a family helming one of the largest media conglomerates in the country. As the title suggests, it focused on which of the three children will take over the empire from the tempestuous patriarch. The writing on the series is whip-smart and thus the fundamental theme — power — is explored kaleidoscopically. So, as you would imagine in a show about various powerful men, abundant wealth, and competition to inherit said power and wealth, unhealth expressions of masculinity have a tendency to appear | HBO Max starting Oct 17
Want Me — I originally came across Tracy Clark-Flory’s work through a review she wrote of Justin Baldoni’s book for Jezebel. While the review, I felt, was unfair to Baldoni, it did make some very important points about how, when it comes to the conversation about masculinity, it is impossible to untangle politics, gender, and sex. Intrigued by this perspective, I picked up her recently published memoir, Want Me, in which the sex writer describes a length a really really interesting tension that has underpinned her career: the feminist principles she holds about sex and her actual relationship with sex. It’s a raw picture of an honest reckoning and thoroughly interesting book | Goodreads
How was this article
Please tell a friend about us and hit the heart button; it helps other people discover the content!