The patriotic, jingoistic nature of Bond was what was lacking in society at the time. People weren’t sure of themselves and their ideology. It’s no surprise that in the next decade a cultural revolution took place that left old-fashioned beliefs out in the cold. In the 50’s Bond acted as an establishment figure that people could respect, and that didn’t challenge their views. Bonds values were almost Victorian, because of this people could look back at the past, and not worry about the uncertain future. In the real world things were changing, but reassuringly change had yet to affect the Bond novel.
James Bond the character is a very conservative pro establishment figure. He’s intelligent and independent. Paul Johnson writes that contrary to the idolized Bond that people view him, he’s actually “unhealthy, thoroughly English: the sadism of a schoolboy bully, mechanical, two-dimensional, has the sex longings of a adolescent, and the crude snob-cravings of a suburban adult” (Chapman 1999 pg12). Bond combines the good and the bad in people. Just like all heroes he has flaws.
The element in the James Bond novels that really courts controversy is the feminist views in the books. These views act as an insight in to the role of women in 1950’s society. As Bond says “Women were for recreation. On a job, they got in the way and fogged things up with sex and hurt feelings” (Fleming 1952). Fleming’s novels today are considered extremely sexist. The women are their purely for pleasure. Men are men and women are glad of it. Women are controlled by Bond; they are seen as inferior to him physically and intellectually.
This View of women is very much a reaction to what was happening at the time. Women had been working during the Second World War, they had been empowered. Men’s place in society was changing, and they feared for it. Bond helped reassure men that women were inferior, that men were the kings of their castle. James Bond’s sexist view was a ‘barometer of a time’ that men were still trying to cling to. Just like imperialism, things were changing, but Bond still clung onto old ideologies.
The Bond novels show the attitudes of 1950’s people. It highlights the common ideologies of the time. However, looking back with hindsight it’s clear to see that perhaps in 50’s society, James Bond represents pre war values. In the 60’s we know there was a cultural revolution. The people of the 50’s were in a transitional stage between old fashioned ideals and the new beliefs of a younger generation. James Bond it seems is a character of his time, and his time was probably not when he was first introduced.
However, during the 1950’s Britain was beginning to enjoy the consumer affluence that TV and film promised. Bond with his Rolex watches and cigarettes was what people aspired to be. British people were now much more affluent and able to spend money on a new lifestyle. Rather then being backward looking in terms of consumerism Bond was right at the fore front. Bond with his designer clothes and his penchant for labels is a real marker for how 50’s consumer society wanted to be.
Coupled with consumerism, James Bonds need for sex is a part of Bond that is very much of future generations. Bond was “Concerned purely with his own sexual appetite”(Horrocks 1995) Changing opinions meant society was breaking free from “Victorianism…which had acted as a straightjacket or safety-valve for the past century”( Chapman 1999) At the same time as Bond came the first serialization of a pornographic magazine, Playboy. Along with Playboy magazine, the Bond series was one of the main sources of the 50's and 60's male fantasy of the good life with swinging sex. Bond could be considered as paving the way for the 60’s ideals of free love.
In the 1950’s, as David Carradine writes “At home, a changing conventional morality was accompanied by an unprecedented rise in living standards, which encouraged the most puritanical critics of ‘decline’ to liken England to the roman empire – obsessed with sex and self indulgence, and turning its back on the more Spartan modes of life which had been the foundation of former greatness”(Cannadine, (1979) pg 46-55) James Bond is both the figure obsessed with self-indulgence, and the foundation of former greatness. “Bond novels can be read as a reflection of Britain emerging from the drab world of post-war austerity and entering a new age of affluence in the 1950’s”(Chapman 1999 pg 35)
The interesting part of Fleming’s Bond character is that while he seems to represent some of the future 1960’s ideals, the character is also a homage to ideologies that are slowly becoming obsolete. The issue of race helps give us an idea of how society was still looking towards the past. In James Bond “the British Empire and its white Christian civilization are constantly in danger of subversion by villains who represent other races” (Chapman 1999 pg29) the theme of other is very apparent in the novels. Different races are all seen as being evil and villainous. Bond is seen as the protector, trying to keep other races out of the way.
As Chapman writes “Bond is committed to preserving the institutions and society of his country….. The threats to those institutions and society generally come from foreign villains who are contemptuous of England.”(Chapman 1999 pg30) the racist views in the novels were seen as expectable in the 50’s. This suggests that they were the accepted views. The fact that James Bond passed into 1950’s popular culture without too much complaint, means that its view can be used as an indicator of what times were like in the 50’s.
The character can clearly be seen as a product of his time when you analyze the films that followed the book. As Umberto Eco writes, “The [Bond] novel, given the rules of combination of oppositional couples, is fixed as a sequence of 'moves' inspired by the code and constituted accordingly to a perfectly prearranged scheme” (Eco 1979, p. 156). The bond stories are extremely formulaic. Despite the years off change, from 1962’s Dr No too 2002’s Die Another Day. The basic formula has stayed the same, and with this so has the enormous profits.
Umberto Eco has put the basic James Bond film or novel into nine basic steps;
1. M moves and gives a task to Bond
2. Villain moves and appears to Bond (perhaps in vicarious form)
3. Bond moves and gives a first check to Villain or Villain gives first check to Bond
4. Woman moves and shows herself
5. Bond takes Woman (possesses her or begins her seduction)
6. Villain captures Bond (with or without Woman, or at different moments)
7. Villain tortures Bond (with or without Woman)
8. Bond beats Villain (kills him, or kills his representative or helps at their killing)
9. Bond, convalescing, enjoys Woman, whom he then loses
(Eco 1979, p. 156)
Each one of the bond films falls into these basic steps. They are reassuring for the public who feel safe in what they are about to watch. They know that in Bond they have a safe character who they know will give them pleasure. Does this therefore show that if people accept the same old structure, then the character has stayed the same? Although the plot has stayed the equivalent in all the films, James Bond has moved on. The fact that James Bond could no longer stay the same as he entered the 1960’s, highlights the reality that he was a product of his time.
In later Bond films James Bond had to be turned into a classless hero. Society was breaking free from the shackles of a repressive culture. Bond was now more working class. Sean Connery, who played Bond, was from a small Scottish village far removed from the world of Eton and imperialistic attitudes. The female characters too have changed; they are no longer there for recreational activities. The women have become the equal of Bond, Just as Women became equal to men after the equality driven 1960’s.
The change in the characters in Bond shows me that the 1950’s Bond was an entirely different character to the 2002 one. The changing nature of James Bond, demonstrates what he once was. When you compare the current James Bond of the film world, to the 1952 Fleming creation, it’s clear to see the difference between the respective societies that they are viewed in. 2002’s Bond is more understanding of others, he’s lonely selfish existence has changed. Race and feminism are no longer by words for being weaker.
In conclusion James Bond seems to represent pre 1950’s beliefs. Bond is “Sexist, heterosexist, jingoistic, xenophobic and racist” (Chapman 1999 pg 13) He seems to be of an older generation. Together with those ideologies is Bond’s very post 60’s views of consumerism and sex. 1950’s Bond was a reassuring figure to those that remember the good old days, and also an inspiration to the younger generation who wanted what they want, not what their parents had told them too.
We see the character of James Bond as a ‘barometer of his time’, because of firstly the fact that he was so popular in the late 1950’s onwards, means that society found something in the character they could relate too. Society relates to a character because it has something they desire to be. James Bond had lots of elements that people aspire to have. For this reason Bond shows us how the society of its time felt and what they want to believe. James Bond gives us a fantastic insight into the morals and ideologies of the historical location it came from.
.