James Bond is the worst spy ever.
Strong words, I know.
Let’s compare and contrast James Bond, super spy extraordinaire, and Tony Mendez, real life intelligence for the CIA played by Ben Affleck in “Argo” (easily one of the best films of the year) in an imaginary scenario.
Against this backdrop, we’ll pit the two spies against the Iranian hostage crisis of ’79-’81.
Six American diplomats are trapped in Iran after the storming of the U.S. Embassy. They’re now staying with the Swedish and Italian embassies (historically).
Needing to get the hostages out, the CIA enlists the help of James Bond to provide his expertise on exfiltration, as well as using in-house talent, Tony Mendez.
Mendez suggests a long-shot plan: to create a front production house to bamboozle the Iranian government into thinking that the U.S. Diplomats not in custody are members of a Canadian film crew, there to scout out Iranian territory for a “Star Wars” rip-off movie.
James Bond, buzzing hard off of the three mixed drinks he had just before coming to the meeting (presumably to still the cries of the innumerable people he’s killed, many of them up close and personal), doesn’t want to waste time. Bond wants to parachute in on an English flag and gun down anybody who gets in his way while wearing a $5000 suit. Oh yeah, and save some hostages too.
Mendez understands that a lone gunman parachuting into a hostile country wearing the colors of a nation allied to the U.S. would be foolhardy. He tries to reason with him using words and phrases like “international incident,” “it would never work,” “mass murder of hostages,” “forfeiture of other diplomatic initiatives in the middle east by NATO and allied countries,” “political censure,” “certain death,” and maybe ending with questioning whether or not Bond was a “ruthless, sadistic, bloodthirsty maniac.”
James Bond on the other hand, says something remarkably clever and pithy and remembers a “meeting” he has to go to, presumably to “look over some case files” (get loaded and laid) and huffily leaves the meeting prematurely.
Mendez is given the go-ahead to begin the implementation of his rescue op.
****
I am going to see “Skyfall” in the theater when it comes out. It almost seems a shame when you don’t see a Bond film in the theater. Bond films are like that cool uncle that you only see every seven years or so. Because he’s old enough to have had many wild adventures before you were born, you’re shocked at the skill with which he still manages to find his way into odd situations.
You can’t really apply Bond to the real world of espionage. He doesn’t translate well to a world where guns are remarkably dangerous to everybody, and cool laser torch watches aren’t standard issue to those employed in the subtle game of cloak and dagger. The shadowy world of the CIA, MI-6, Mossad, et al, are very often morally ambiguous, on the down-low affairs that are loathe to use force in a sticky situation like that.
Because real intelligence work is subtle. James Bond is anything but subtle.
But the nature of Bond’s enemies aren’t very subtle either.
Bond villains are theatrical. Why capture hostages when you can threaten to blow up the moon with a death ray?
“Casino Royale” brought so many cool things to the Bond franchise (an edgy, gritty, no-frills interpretation) and then it was flushed completely down the toilet with the next Bond movie, “Quantum of Solace.” Maybe people don’t want to see a Bond that can be truly harmed; a John McClane of spies.
What it really comes down to is that audience’s tastes have changed. At least, I know that mine have.
The depictions of the spy game have changed.
Don’t get me wrong, I still like a Bond movie. But they’re not a go-to for espionage thrills.
Calling James Bond a spy is just as ridiculous as calling mayonnaise suntan lotion … not that I’ve ever tried that.
Whatever the reasons, I truly hope that “Skyfall” impresses me. I can always hope.
