James Bond: Sci-Fi Icon?

Being in London has its definite advantages right now. The pound is actually falling faster than the dollar. I don't have to listen to all the election bullshit (only The Daily Show through Hulu). And I saw Daniel Craig on Wednesday. Yep, the real one. I got to see his Bond movie last night, two weeks before it hits the States, at the palatial Odeon Leicester Square, the site of Wednesday's premiere. Yes, it's good to be me. I accept your jealousy.

THE NEW BOND

As for a review of Quantum of Solace, I can say only this: James Bond is Bourne again. Without going into any detail (this is relatively spoiler-free, though it might sour your opinion of the film), Bond is a running, overmuscular punching bag throughout the 106 minutes of the film (by far the shortest in the series). What this means is, there's no time to pause, and the pauses are really what Bond is all about. It's his wry wit, high tastes, and ability to get the upper hand in a fight through calculation, not brute force. It's what makes Bond fights memorable.

Think of the opening of Goldfinger, perhaps Bond's defining film inasmuch as it broke away from the pure spy thriller of From Russia With Love (a fine film as well, but on a different scale entirely from Goldfinger on). Bond is with femme fatale #1 after blowing up somebody's nitroglycerin, but sees the assassin running toward him in the reflection in her eyes. To make a long story short (as I don't have my copy with me and am operating solely from memory), Bond is able to toss the assassin into a bathtub and electrocute him with a lamp. "Shocking. Positively shocking."

Note how it wasn't a brute-force punching bag experience. It was clever, reasoned. Cheesy? Only in retrospect. Bond was able to make use of the world around him to save his hide; he didn't resort to brute strength because he's not about brute strength. How else could he later survive Jaws in The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker?

But the new Bond has none of the cleverness, none of the wit, and none of the epicurean tastes of the original (real?) 007. He trades Hong Kong suits for polo shirts that make his muscles bulge out of the sleeves. He trades flying the Concorde to Rio for a Virgin Atlantic product placement, and we see him on the damn plane! The only time we should see Bond on an airplane is if he's about to fight somebody, or if the pilots are about to jump out leaving Bond stuck in an out-of-control dive. This new James Bond is simply Jason Bourne with more resources (though not many more; mainly just the [wavering] support of MI6).

WHO IS JAMES BOND?

My feelings of betrayal toward the new Bond got me thinking about what makes Bond, Bond. One of the things that bothered me in Casino Royale (a much better film overall due to in part to its longer running time) is when the bartender asks Bond, "Shaken or stirred?" and he replies, "Do I look like I give a damn?" Well, that's one way to sum up the real 007 in a nutshell: he always has time to give a damn. He's never so out of control that he doesn't have time to make sure that his vodka martini is exactly the way he wants it. It's one of his calling cards. Dr. No gives him one without his even needing to ask.

Bond is a coldhearted sonuvabitch. He's a man's man and a lady's man. The only thing he's ever really attached to is the mission, even though he'll save the girl first. When Bond starts to care too much, audiences and critics have historically turned away. On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Licence to Kill. Bond does not drive Fords (although he may be "taken for a ride" in a Mustang). Bond does not go to parties that serve Coke Zero.

And Bond is conspicuous. It's very hard for Bond to keep secret that he's Bond, so he doesn't even try. He drives conspicuous cars. He seduces conspicuous women. He sits down at the baccarat (not Texas Hold'Em) table and announces his name. He's Bond. James Bond. What are you going to do about it, punk?

And is all this unrealistic for a spy? Hell yes. And that's what makes it a movie. It's teetering at the brink of reality, though it's clearly beyond it. Certainly, James Bond occupies his own universe, one where secret agents get to stay in five-star hotels and drive cars with missile launchers. It's one where 007 can get onto a space shuttle and have a laser battle. It's one whree he can get away with insane stunts because he's that good. He gets to deliver the lines. It's fun to watch, and for forty years, it's what we expected when we went into a Bond movie.

Okay. James Bond occupies his own universe, similar to our own and dealing with real-world issues of the time (the Cold War, mainly). He has gadgets that are improbable, but not outside the realm of possibility. He's tried to go into space twice, succeeded once. Which brings up the question: Is James Bond a...

SCI-FI ICON?

Well, this certainly backs us up into the very first question we were posed in SSF: What is science fiction? As I remember it, there wasn't a particularly straightforward answer. So I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, there's something about the Bond universe that suggests sci-fi to me, and not just Moonraker. It did examine terrorism, Cold War tensions, terrorism again, and the dangers of technology run amok. SPECTRE. Dealing with the atom bomb. Decoding Cold War secrets. Working together with the enemy. The vulnerability of our technology-based society. The power of the media. All presented in larger-than-life fasion, complete with a jet-pack and an Aston Martin with an ejector seat. Surely, James Bond is a science fiction icon.

Of course, there's also the part of me that says, "You idiot! James Bond isn't sci-fi!" But why? I suppose it's the fear that I'm casting the net too wide for sci-fi and that many super-realistic (as in, not unrealistic but beyond realistic) films that I might not be comfortable defining as sci-fi would fall into my definition. This might even bring up the question, how much sci-fi is in the Bourne series? Assassin with amnesia and a penchant for technology bringing havoc upon the intelligence community as an allegorical reflection of our security-obsessed times? Surely, we can glean some sci-fi out of that.

Certainly, there are sci-fi links in many of these action films. (Indiana Jones, I think, would be an interesting exception as it pushes itself into the realm of fantasy instead). And undoubtedly, many (all?) action films have been in some way influenced by the amazing amount of material from the Bond series. Somewhere in the back of our minds, we're always comparing our action hero du jour to 007, whether we're conscious of it or not. The character is engrained into the collective unconscious. So if Bond is sci-fi, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that I would see sci-fi elements in so many action films.

But Bourne and the new Bond try to avoid being super-realistic; they are instead trying to be hyper-realistic, gritty, and raw. While they might have some pretty cool gadgets and are certainly allegorical in some important ways, they try to ground themselves in reality. Even though Bond can take some cell phone pictures and magically have people's identities show up on his phone (sci-fi coming soon to reality by Google, I'm sure), that's not the sort of thing on which the film is based. The original Bond movies, by contrast, pushed the envelope of reality in their plots - a dude who wants to destroy the world so he can live in Atlantis? Or space? Come on.

Sometimes, we want our action heroes to do things that are, upon further review, patently impossible. But review too deeply and you'll ruin the fun. Yes, for a real Bond film, you must suspend disbelief. But that's not a bad thing. It allows us to enter a different world, albeit one that looks an awful lot like our own. Isn't this what we do for so much of sci-fi?

So there's my question. James Bond: Sci-Fi Icon?