How Representation of James Bond characters has changed since October 5th 1962

‘007 licenced to kill, HM Secret Service agent’

‘The description or portrayal of someone or something in a particular way.’ (Wikipedia descriptions)

The above description defines the word ‘representation’ in a way in which can be understood by anyone. The term has a whole new level of meanings that would take more than twelve words to describe and that which I plan to go into in-depth detail about.
This case study will map out why the term ‘representation’ is so prominent in the ongoing fifty-year old thriller sequel, James Bond, how influential it can be on a persons opinion, and the way in which it shapes a whole film.
Representation may or may not have shaped not only the way we see the characters but the way in which we look at features after the film has been made, for example, do we view stockbrokers on Wall Street the same now as we did before the Oscar winning film ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ was produced? Or do we assume that every secret agent is just like James Bond?

Michael Wilson, producer of Skyfall and screenwriter of many of the 007 films, says:
‘the film character of James Bond is always dependent on the actor who plays him and the time at which the film is made because Bond always lives in the contemporary time the films are made.’

The representation of characters in films is vital to how we view a film and whether we take an instant like or dislike to the character. Firstly the representation of James Bond in the 1962 film Dr.No, played by Sean Connery. The Bond figure back then was a very distinct, masculine character. A role model for all men nationally, everyone wanted to be like James Bond. A stunningly slick individual who always appears in an immaculate tux. Hair swept back at all times, never appears untidy or scruffy, but above all, a genuine ‘heart melter’ with the ladies. Every girl he sets his eyes on seems to buckle under his charm and presence. Along side being a gentle lover, Bond is also an exquisite professional at his art; an excellent pistol marksman, marshal arts expert and a brilliant secret agent. Where does representation come in to this? You may ask. In 1962 Sean Connery was the absolute ideal man, a ‘national sex symbol’, every woman desired and every man aspired. This made the Bond films very popular and attractive which you could say drove the success, it suited a large target audience whereby other films in that day had very niche target audiences.

“The original trailer for Dr. No, on the other hand, declared:
Bond has a licence to kill whoever, whenever and wherever he likes.
The line seems shocking now – especially in comparison to Craig’s more responsible image. But, at the time, Connery’s Bond, with his casual attitudes to sex and violence, represented a Tarantino-style cool for a sixties audience.”
“Weiner and Whitfield argue that Connery’s Bond ‘at his best was an avenging angel of the free world, at his worst an instrument of state-sponsored terrorism, killing on command to insure the interests of a singular political agenda’. So it is interesting to consider that To Kill a Mockingbird was made in 1962 – the same year as Dr. No.”

The Bond of today – Daniel Craig (Skyfall, 2012) has a very similar representation but plays a very different character. Daniel Craig puts his own twist on Bond, a quiet, more conserved individual. One for the words, an inquisitive, quick thinker. Still has his way with the ladies but this time without the, somewhat, ‘cheesy’ pickup lines. In skyfall we see Bond have a very male dominant authority over the Bond girl, Severín. He uses her for information and doesn’t bat an eyelid when she is shot. Roger Moore once said ‘Daniel Craig scares me’ in an interview. It is thought that Craig is a more cold hearted killer than a gentle lover such as that displayed in the 1962 film. He is described as a ‘cold hearted bastard’ by M in the previous film, Quantum of Solace. Although he is a completely different actor, Daniel Craig still represents the same image Sean Connery did, its just portrayed differently. Everyone still wants to be like James Bond.

Weiner and Whitfield, in their introduction to James Bond in World and Popular Culture: The Films Are Not Enough (2010), believe Daniel Craig’s Bond is now a very different sort of agent to Sean Connery’s debonair playboy spy. For them, Craig’s open display of bloody bruises suggests an angst and despair not acknowledged by Connery’s gentleman spy.

Other characters are represented differently throughout as well, Quartermaster (Q) for example changes hugely throughout the 50 years.
Desmond Llewelyn played Q in arguably the best Bond ever made, Goldfinger, 1964. He is one of the most iconic figures in the film and provides humour in a non-intentional way. His serious manor and zero tolerance of Bond also helps provide another representation of the main character. The gadgets he produces also gives an inside indication of what Q is really like. A classic one would be the ‘exploding pen’ which was a personal favourite of Llewelyn’s. These gadgets would always conveniently come in handy at some point in the film where Bond is in trouble. His strict role with Bond portrays a sort of farther like figure, where he seems to be the only one to stand up to him (apart from m of course). Q is one of the few people Bond never gets the better of, hes one that can outwit bond and has the technological brains over him also.
Ben Whishaw played the quartermaster in Skyfall (2012) where we saw a very different Q. Throughout the 23 Bonds, the Quartermaster has always been a much older man, one that can be seen as a father like figure to Bond. However in Skyfall, the Quartermaster is mid twenties, much younger than Bond. This completely throws off the image that q originally had and replaces it with a more youthful outlook on things. Q originally had a very sciencey look about him, a lab coat was always worn and a shirt and tie was a guarantee. However current Q is more of a young technological wiz, an ‘I.T freak’, however still appears geeky. Bond even makes a remark about the age of his new quartermaster; “No because you still have spots” is a comical remark to the very stubborn opinion of Bonds view on the age of his new aquatint. The gadgets have also made a dramatic change. The exploding pens and laser watches have made a humble disappearance and made way for the more realistic registered palm print pistols and simple radios. A line is even scripted to elaborate on this point; “if you were expecting an exploding pen, we don’t really go in for that anymore”.

In the research I carried out I asked 10 people if they preferred old Q to new Q; 70% said they did, due to his witty remarks and unintentional humor.

Obviously, one of the biggest changes in representation over the years is the role of the ‘Bond girl’. In 1962 Ursula Andress, took place in arguably one of the most iconic Bond scenes ever filmed. She played the role of a very typical girl in the 60’s. She was very unfamiliar with a male figure, hence why she was so defensive when James Bond began to sing with her. She had clearly never been friends with a male or certainly never had a sexual relationship. This was typical of the 60’s, women were put to the side as men took the limelight, however women were never as defensive as she was. As soon as she spotted Bond she instantly went defensive, threatening him as if he were out to hurt her, which portrays the image she had of men, which reflects what women in the 60’s may have thought of males.

In contrast to this the Bond girls of today; in Casino Royale (2006) we see a very rare occurrence. A girl, who actually persuades him to leave his job as an agent and travel the world with her, seduces Bond. He finally finds a girl who has met his match. We meet Eva Gaëlle Green who plays Vesper Lynd at the beginning of the film on a train. She makes a very masculine appearance, showing Bond she is not just another one of his lovers. Throughout the film she is constantly has her guard up against Bond, almost as if she knows he is going to try it on with her. However towards the end it is Bond who lets his guard down, it is he who lets her in, which is an extremely rare occurrence, although this later comes back to bite him when she betrays him, it may represent the way women are seen today. They are now a force not to be reckoned with, not as much of a push over as they used to be maybe?

(1523 words)

Bibliography

Skyfall – Film

Dr.No – Film

Goldfinger – Film

Casino Royal – Film

Quantum of Solace – Film

Primary questionnaire

Article from Media Magazine 41 September 2012

Images all from google images