This is an excellent discussion of the elegeic tone that some fans took issue with but I found just lovely, taking the whole franchise up a notch from the classic shoot-and-fuck Bond to a much more complex, and tragic, character. Maybe I’ve been reading too much Parade’s End lately, but the…
Anybody who thought it was elegaic, though, missed M’s entirely sound (and, minutes later, proven correct) rebuttal against the panel’s attack on her employing the likes of James Bond. The hearing was a stroke of brilliance. Simultaneously, they put her on trial, along with her ‘old-fashioned’ methods (and by extension, Bond’s methods), AND the continued use of operatives both in the movie and in real life, where they are employed in much the same way as we see them in the movie.
The panel asks, “Do we need them? Are there easier, better ways of doing this?” Her answer, and the movie’s answer—and it is a true answer—is that in today’s world, we need them more than ever. There are places computers can’t go, things they can’t overhear, triggers they can’t pull (or decide not to pull). And furthermore, you can take out all the computers and systems you like; you still have to deal with the person who stands behind them. If the enemy WERE still primarily other nations, it would be so much easier; they employ enormous systems, present vast fronts for attack, are targets that we can find. But that’s not the world we’re living in, anymore.
The classic setup of James Bond is gone. There’s no convenient monolithic enemy such as the Soviet Union to hurl him against, no grand international stage of espionage for him to strut across and throw his famous name around on for instant recognition and respect. The future of Bond’s world will be a far messier, more fragmented, more personal one, where he’s likely to end up getting his hands dirtier than ever.
And he’s looking forward to it.
Capturing interest: Wherein PA thinks too much about James Bond.