Time for James Bond to hang up his tuxedo?

 After seeing, Spectre, the latest installment in the Bond franchise last weekend, I can't help but think about how this should be one the last of 007's License to Kill adventures.

Before I go into that (admittedly controversial) idea, let's take a look at what has made the Bond movies so enduring over the decades since audiences were introduced to Dr. No back in 1962. I think the foremost of these reasons is escapism. For those of us born in the late 80's with no memory of the Cold War, it's hard to believe that a large current of apocalyptic fear hung over society in the 50's and early 60's, hidden behind the prosperity of those years. People in this time were often looking for an escape from that fear/cold war ideology and a return to the black and white morality of Second World War and an identifiable enemy. This is exactly what the Bond films gave audiences in the early years of the franchise with dastardly villains such Dr. No, the original Ernst Bloefeld, Goldfinger etc. It's surprising when you look at the 'classic' era of Bond (Sean Connery and Roger Moore) and realize how many times the Soviet Union is not the primary enemy. Yes, you get characters like KGB officer Rosa Klebb, but in even in her film “From Russia With Love”, the evil organization SPECTRE is the real enemy, not the Soviet government. Unlike the USSR (a horrific dictatorship yes but one that, on paper at least, was dedicated to building a better socialist future) SPECTRE's modus operandi seems to be nothing but profit and chaos. Thus, you have the Good vs. Evil dichotomy that audiences were looking for, instead of adversaries with shades of grey that were not popular in the early 60's. In the same vein, Bond's access to a License to Kill and destruction of civilian environments seem completely justified to combat an enemy that is bent on the creation of raw destruction for no visible purpose.

In addition to Good vs. Evil, Bond movies have also been able to adapt themselves to the 'look and feel' of the time period in which they were made. Just compare M's office in British intelligence from 1962's Dr. No with it's wood paneling to the glass and steel official building being constructed throughout the course of 2015's Spectre. If you want a feel for what people associated with power and wealth in the 60's, M's office would be a good example. Similarly, the intelligence HQ built in Spectre compares favourably with the condominiums and office buildings that grace city centres worldwide now. In addition to this, Bond's wardrobe also moves with the times. (Aside from that white jacket, which never EVER changes). This feeling that Bond's world is recognizable helps audiences fit themselves comfortably into the action and for someone of my age, gives a certain portrait of the earlier 20^th century that we are not personally familiar with.

With all this in mind, it's not really a surprise that James Bond is our most enduring action/spy hero. However, with the 24^th movie now on cinema screens, we have to ask ourselves some hard questions as to why this series needs to continue for the foreseeable future. Before going on I need to make the point that one can enjoy a set of films or piece of media while still criticizing aspects of it or questioning it's continuing relevance and this is the approach I'm taking here with Bond.

Having watched the Daniel Craig Bond films since 2006, it's clear the filmmakers are trying to continue the tradition of moving with the times and culture. In some ways, this has been very successful; as the recent movies have used plot lines based on current issues such as corrupt international finance (Casino Royale) and government surveillance (Spectre). Even more groundbreaking is that Daniel Craig has been set up as a more realistic hero. He feels physical pain, gets tired, has the fancy gadgets cooked up by Q fail at the worst possible moment and generally feels more like a human being than any other actor in the franchise. The latest films have even tried to give the character more emotional depth through his attachment to Vesper Lynd (Eva Green in Casino Royale) a reasonably independent and strong Bond Girl. Throughout the continuity of the Craig films, his close attachment to her and remorse for her death form key plot points. Yes, earlier films did also try to have this depth, most famously through George Lazenby's Bond marrying Diana Rigg, but none used it as a recurring plot device through several movies.

All of these aspects of the recent 007 movies should keep the franchise relevant in today's day and age but I feel that they're still past the best before date. Why? To start with, while your standard cartoonish villains that we all know and love have been replaced with the more contemporary

concerns of terrorists etc, we're still left with the facile situation that Ernst Bloefeld has been spending years and presumably absurd amounts of money killing Bond's girlfriends just to get back at him because he's.....wait for it.....Bond's half brother! I don't expect a movie in this franchise to have a plot based exactly on current events, part of the fun in these movies is the global mastermind as main villain. However, there are easier ways to get back at your half brother which makes that particular plot device is completely silly. This ruins any sort of suspense for the audience and to me, Spectre is less of a cool evil organization after learning of this motivation. While the early films also kept a sense of 'fun' in that SPECTRE was gloriously absurd in it's actions, lately we're led to believe that a world spanning secret organization is responsible for global terrorism, financial crimes etc. I almost wish the filmmakers had stuck to the tried and true formula of Blofeld launching rockets from a volcano base as it would better fit the Bond formula. The well intentioned attempt at making the villains contemporary falls flat as it just makes no sense. If audiences today are looking for a darker, grittier, more 'realistic' spy franchise, maybe trying to contort the Bond movies to fit that bill isn't going to work?

Secondly, I feel the most glaring aspect of 007's escapades is the sheer number of women he sleeps with. To some extent this is part of the over the top nature of the character and in the 60's, fit the playboy image that was trying to be created. Is it sexist? Most definitely but in the time period it also fit the sense of fun and attracted a core target audience to the films. Again, where all of this falls apart is when the studio attempts to update this for our day and age. As I said before, giving James a serious love interest in the form of Vesper Lynd was at attempt to make everyone's favourite mysoginist spy a bit more relatable. However, after her death he still sleeps with any female in a 500 meter radius and in spite of the fact that many are supposed to be intelligent professionals (For example, Madaleine Swann, Spectre's main Bond Girl, supposedly has medical degrees from BOTH Oxford and the Sorbonne) they just can't help themselves and still fall into Bond's arms. Again, if the movies had just wanted to recreate the 60's feel, this would still be utterly sexist but at least fitting the classic franchise type. However, in setting up an 'independent' Bond Girl the movies fail to do either of the things they wanted: appear less sexist while still trying to make the main character act like James Bond. Just like with the updated Spectre organization, this balancing act just doesn't work.

So, while there are very good reasons for James Bond to have been one of Western cinema's longest running action heroes, times have changed and trying to update the franchise to suit modern tastes while keeping the old formula is a plan that is failing. Even Daniel Craig is sick of playing Bond in spite of being contracted for one more film I'd say it's time to give moviegoers an action hero fit for the 21^st century!