Who here is the resident psychologist or psychiatrist that has diagnosed Bond as being depressed? What are your credentials to be able to determine this on-screen without an interview or observation?
He seems fine to me. But what do I know? I'm not a head doctor.
I think this shows, that Bond isn't simply a Two dimensional action character but ( as observed by the actors
who have played the role) he has many subtle levels and moods.
Sorry, but I never found Bond in Craig's films to be any more dimensional than in other films. Bond in Craig's films just shows a different side of the character than we've seen before, but discards other sides of the character.
{[] Oddly, the most fun Bond has in any of Craig's films is in Casino Royale. After that, he seems all but incapable of anything except brooding, to the degree that he doesn't even get the dalliance at the beginning of Spectre. Even Bruce Wayne, who Craig's Bond is obviously patterned after, gets to have some lighter moments. But Craig's Bond is depressed and depressing far too often. It's my biggest peeve about his otherwise wonderful performances as James Bond.
...or was shot dead just after their marriage. In both cases, it could be strongly argued that Bond was suffering from a reactive depression as anyone would.
... with corpses piling up all around him and still be winking at the camera and making bad puns, that's not healthy
He'd find some justification in that it's to kill one person than them killing hundreds or thousands (or billions in the case of Drax), but the puns and light hearted nature could be a product of the 'people who smile a lot are sometimes the ones who are suffering inside the most'. I believe that line of thinking was behind Moore's interpretation of the character. Of course, he took it to the extreme.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,651MI6 Agent
...or was shot dead just after their marriage. In both cases, it could be strongly argued that Bond was suffering from a reactive depression as anyone would.
Since Daniel Craig’s Bond borrows from the literary Bond’s life journey more or less, I think Bond’s mindset in whatever movie depends at which point he’s supposed to be in his life/career. Fresh from Vesper’s suicide, he must have been seething, then later after Tracy’s death, onto YOLT and perhaps the beginning of TMWTGG, he suffered from a combination of depression, mid-life crisis (more of a mirroring of Fleming’s own life setting) and burn-out. But I think we are reading more into this than we should and that Bond in the period in-between, mentally and emotionally was generally, just okay.
"I’ve quoted this before in a similar thread regarding Bond's general indifference and untroubled disposition in life, from FYEO:
”M looked sharply at Bond. "How's your coefficient of toughness, James? You haven't got to the dangerous age yet." Bond didn't like personal questions. He didn't know what to answer, nor what the truth was. He had not got a wife or children — had never suffered the tragedy of a personal loss. He had not had to stand up to blindness or a mortal disease. He had absolutely no idea how he would face these things that needed so much more toughness than he had ever had to show. He said hesitantly: "I suppose I can stand most things if I have to and if I think it's right, sir… "” {[]
This is why I think ideally, a movie like SP or a movie with a similar feel should have gone in-between QoS and SF because in SP Bond was relatively easy-going in SP in which visually it was so obvious he was having fun (PTS). Instead, Bond jumps from the angst of "Bond Begins" to "Midlife Crisis" Bond in such an immediate succession.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Who here is the resident psychologist or psychiatrist that has diagnosed Bond as being depressed? What are your credentials to be able to determine this on-screen without an interview or observation?
He seems fine to me. But what do I know? I'm not a head doctor.
One can be depressed and not necessarily suffer from depression. I never diagnosed him with the condition.
But people who shut themselves away from society and drink heavily seem fine to you? Good thing you're not a head doctor!
To deal with stress, I'm sure many do use. Drink, drugs, sex etc to deal with it. I myself
use, thoughts of unicorns, bunnies and balloons dancing in the wind, ........ then I turn to
drink, drugs and sex.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
There is a clear difference between the Bond of CR and QoS and the Bond in SF and SP. In the first two, Bond is this action hero who shakes pain off, gets the job done against orders, and is probably fuelled by the adrenalin, what with him only just being given 00 status. He, at least at first, seems to enjoy his job. He still retains most of this personality in QoS, only, of course, he's doing it for his own personal gain.
But by the time SF comes around, he is a different person. He's starting to get old, he's not as fast paced as he used to be, and he takes his orders to do his job. It's a great bit of development for the character, and I personally prefer Bond in SF and SP compared to his younger self in CR and QoS.
I've seen SF a good number of times. It took me a few viewings to realize how Craig's Bond in the PTS is very different from the one I see after his near death experience. When he first appears in the PTS and throughout the entire sequence - I can't seen anything in his appearance or behavior that suggests he is much older or less lethal than he was in QOS. People quibble about his short haircut, but I put that down to the idea it may have been part of an undercover look he was doing either prior to SF or because his cover was of a man who would sport such a look when he was sent to Turkey. It's only after he almost dies then spends three months drugging himself back to life and going without any form of exercise that he suddenly appears aged and haggard. I suppose I would too if I went through all that. I thought that was a good, graphic idea of showing how much of a toll his near death and absence from his job took on him. The thrust of the plot of this film was obviously inspired by YOLT and TMWTGG - which, being the last novels from Fleming, shows Bond nearing what appears to be the twilight of his career. Fleming never had the chance to show when and how Bond would end up - though Colonel Sun wasn't a bad follow up. However, I got the idea that if Mendes was thinking this was to be his only Bond, having the writers use the character as he was in the last couple of novels must have been attracted for him since as the type of director he is he wanted to get more into Bond's emotions than just follow up QOS with another straight action film. The problems I had with SP was that Mendes knew this was his last one (for now anyway), so he decided to just do a more classic Bond by bringing back Blofeld. The problem was he wanted to tie all of Craigs films together (which is another reason I had the feeling he and Craig both knew this was their last Bond), so Craig could walk off with the girl and they could kick start the series again with a new actor and director. Using Blofeld as the "chain" to accomplish this seemed like an original way of reintroducing the character, but for me having him as part of Bond's past made it too unoriginal. Given the gravity of this also seemed to be too stark a contrast to the lighter parts of some of the scenes in the film. When I watch GF, though there are very serious elements in the film like the death of Tilly, they are still balanced out much better against the lighter aspects. I think a lot of that has to do with Bond's character. With Connery in GF, we don't really care about how he feels about his life or career because the film is just a straight up defeat the villain and get the girl. If they wrote it with more character development about Bond as they did in Craig's films the light vs dark scenes would not have worked as well either. Had Mendes and the writers wanted to do more of a classic Bond like this, they should have ditched the Bond/Blofeld relation with the villain behind everything.
Getting back to the gist of the original post - I enjoyed seeing Bond's character depressed and almost having a career ending episode. However, I agree that this would have been a great last act for Craig. Though I'm not sure SP would have been received as highly as SF was for the 50th anniversary .
Getting back to the gist of the original post - I enjoyed seeing Bond's character depressed and almost having a career ending episode. However, I agree that this would have been a great last act for Craig. Though I'm not sure SP would have been received as highly as SF was for the 50th anniversary .
I agree. It seems to me that they tried to take the blend of what was successful in SF and merged it into the classic Bond film style and came out with butchered results.
SF's ending (the very end, establishment of M etc.) was so satisfying and exciting I was just hoping for the good mission. Not more of the mollycoddled mission that occurs in SP...
Getting back to the gist of the original post - I enjoyed seeing Bond's character depressed and almost having a career ending episode. However, I agree that this would have been a great last act for Craig. Though I'm not sure SP would have been received as highly as SF was for the 50th anniversary .
I agree. It seems to me that they tried to take the blend of what was successful in SF and merged it into the classic Bond film style and came out with butchered results.
SF's ending (the very end, establishment of M etc.) was so satisfying and exciting I was just hoping for the good mission. Not more of the mollycoddled mission that occurs in SP...
Presumably that top secret folder M threw on the desk for Bond could be for a standard mission that we never got to see. Since in SP he's off he grid and gone rogue again as usual.
I saw the Bond in Skyfall not as one who's really getting old and losing his edge, rather I viewed him as someone who's questioning himself because he's never failed like that before. Most people make mistakes, learn to deal with them and move forward. My point is we know we aren't infallible. James Bond, however, is a very arrogant character who's cheated death more times than he can count on both hands. All the while accomplishing his tasked assignment. I like to think Skyfall showed Craig's Bond really failing for the first time ever and he became a wreck because he didn't know how to deal. Plus, knowing M told Moneypenny to "Take the bloody shot!" surely made him feel as though he was being put out to pasture.
I think he was in his prime at the beginning of the PTS but after the incident with Patrice, Bond had to learn how to put on his big boy pants again.
I saw the Bond in Skyfall not as one who's really getting old and losing his edge, rather I viewed him as someone who's questioning himself because he's never failed like that before. Most people make mistakes, learn to deal with them and move forward. My point is we know we aren't infallible. James Bond, however, is a very arrogant character who's cheated death more times than he can count on both hands. All the while accomplishing his tasked assignment. I like to think Skyfall showed Craig's Bond really failing for the first time ever and he became a wreck because he didn't know how to deal. Plus, knowing M told Moneypenny to "Take the bloody shot!" surely made him feel as though he was being put out to pasture.
I think he was in his prime at the beginning of the PTS but after the incident with Patrice, Bond had to learn how to put on his big boy pants again.
The failure in the PTS isn't Bond's, it's M's and Eve's. It's the betrayal that has most likely upset him. Bond never even hints that he feels responsible for losing Patrice. And even if it was his fault, it wouldn't have been his first failure. That happened when the money he won in Casino Royale was lost to finance terrorism, yet at the very end of Casino Royale he seems to be over that loss as well as Vesper's death. Bond's next big failure doesn't come until the end of Skyfall when he fails at protecting M.
I saw the Bond in Skyfall not as one who's really getting old and losing his edge, rather I viewed him as someone who's questioning himself because he's never failed like that before. Most people make mistakes, learn to deal with them and move forward. My point is we know we aren't infallible. James Bond, however, is a very arrogant character who's cheated death more times than he can count on both hands. All the while accomplishing his tasked assignment. I like to think Skyfall showed Craig's Bond really failing for the first time ever and he became a wreck because he didn't know how to deal. Plus, knowing M told Moneypenny to "Take the bloody shot!" surely made him feel as though he was being put out to pasture.
I think he was in his prime at the beginning of the PTS but after the incident with Patrice, Bond had to learn how to put on his big boy pants again.
The failure in the PTS isn't Bond's, it's M's and Eve's. It's the betrayal that has most likely upset him. Bond never even hints that he feels responsible for losing Patrice. And even if it was his fault, it wouldn't have been his first failure. That happened when the money he won in Casino Royale was lost to finance terrorism, yet at the very end of Casino Royale he seems to be over that loss as well as Vesper's death. Bond's next big failure doesn't come until the end of Skyfall when he fails at protecting M.
Good points, I hadn't thought about those aspects when I originally wrote that post. Bond losing his confidence because M "failed" him also mirrors Silva's story in that way as he was seeking revenge for her "betrayal" during his time with MI6.
Bond losing his confidence because M "failed" him also mirrors Silva's story in that way as he was seeking revenge for her "betrayal" during his time with MI6.
Exactly; this is part of SF's subtext (it's one of the richer Bond films in that area). Briefly, Bond and Silva are M's surrogate sons (note how Silva refers to her as "mother", for example) and both feel let down/betrayed by her- it's how they deal with this that defines the difference in their characters and who will ultimately be the last rat standing. Bond, though saddened by her death, gains maturity and is ready to continue ("with pleasure, M") after losing his surrogate mother while Silva's path is destructive and self-defeating.
The conclusion of SF left us with a fully-formed Bond- it's a shame that SP wasted the opportunity by getting bogged down with the silly "brother" angle.
Bond losing his confidence because M "failed" him also mirrors Silva's story in that way as he was seeking revenge for her "betrayal" during his time with MI6.
Exactly; this is part of SF's subtext (it's one of the richer Bond films in that area). Briefly, Bond and Silva are M's surrogate sons (note how Silva refers to her as "mother", for example) and both feel let down/betrayed by her- it's how they deal with this that defines the difference in their characters and who will ultimately be the last rat standing. Bond, though saddened by her death, gains maturity and is ready to continue ("with pleasure, M") after losing his surrogate mother while Silva's path is destructive and self-defeating.
The conclusion of SF left us with a fully-formed Bond- it's a shame that SP wasted the opportunity by getting bogged down with the silly "brother" angle.
Very nicely put, and yes it was a shame.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I disagree that Bond "failed" in Skyfall because M died. Following the shootout in front of the Committee, M tells Bond that "too many people are dying" because of her. Based on this observation, Bond's objective is to isolate M in order to protect innocents. Mallory agrees with this and doesn't see fit to send in backup. The final battle with Silva is staged by Bond in a location where non-combatants won't be threatened. Even Kincade is there on his own volition. While M's death is obviously unfortunate, protecting her was not Bond's mission. Bond actually completes his mission, which was to kill Silva without any additional collateral loss.
If Bond had "failed", we wouldn't have seen Mallory promoted to become M, nor would we have seen Bond in service at the end of the film. We know this because when Mallory, Tanner, and Q are abetting Bond, Mallory notes that they'll all be finished if Bond's plan doesn't succeed.
Comments
He seems fine to me. But what do I know? I'm not a head doctor.
The closest to that description would be me, although I've never said Bond was depressed.
I think I'd be depressed if the woman I loved turned out to be a double agent that committed suicide...
He'd find some justification in that it's to kill one person than them killing hundreds or thousands (or billions in the case of Drax), but the puns and light hearted nature could be a product of the 'people who smile a lot are sometimes the ones who are suffering inside the most'. I believe that line of thinking was behind Moore's interpretation of the character. Of course, he took it to the extreme.
Since Daniel Craig’s Bond borrows from the literary Bond’s life journey more or less, I think Bond’s mindset in whatever movie depends at which point he’s supposed to be in his life/career. Fresh from Vesper’s suicide, he must have been seething, then later after Tracy’s death, onto YOLT and perhaps the beginning of TMWTGG, he suffered from a combination of depression, mid-life crisis (more of a mirroring of Fleming’s own life setting) and burn-out. But I think we are reading more into this than we should and that Bond in the period in-between, mentally and emotionally was generally, just okay.
"I’ve quoted this before in a similar thread regarding Bond's general indifference and untroubled disposition in life, from FYEO:
”M looked sharply at Bond. "How's your coefficient of toughness, James? You haven't got to the dangerous age yet." Bond didn't like personal questions. He didn't know what to answer, nor what the truth was. He had not got a wife or children — had never suffered the tragedy of a personal loss. He had not had to stand up to blindness or a mortal disease. He had absolutely no idea how he would face these things that needed so much more toughness than he had ever had to show. He said hesitantly: "I suppose I can stand most things if I have to and if I think it's right, sir… "” {[]
This is why I think ideally, a movie like SP or a movie with a similar feel should have gone in-between QoS and SF because in SP Bond was relatively easy-going in SP in which visually it was so obvious he was having fun (PTS). Instead, Bond jumps from the angst of "Bond Begins" to "Midlife Crisis" Bond in such an immediate succession.
One can be depressed and not necessarily suffer from depression. I never diagnosed him with the condition.
But people who shut themselves away from society and drink heavily seem fine to you? Good thing you're not a head doctor!
use, thoughts of unicorns, bunnies and balloons dancing in the wind, ........ then I turn to
drink, drugs and sex.
But by the time SF comes around, he is a different person. He's starting to get old, he's not as fast paced as he used to be, and he takes his orders to do his job. It's a great bit of development for the character, and I personally prefer Bond in SF and SP compared to his younger self in CR and QoS.
Getting back to the gist of the original post - I enjoyed seeing Bond's character depressed and almost having a career ending episode. However, I agree that this would have been a great last act for Craig. Though I'm not sure SP would have been received as highly as SF was for the 50th anniversary .
I agree. It seems to me that they tried to take the blend of what was successful in SF and merged it into the classic Bond film style and came out with butchered results.
SF's ending (the very end, establishment of M etc.) was so satisfying and exciting I was just hoping for the good mission. Not more of the mollycoddled mission that occurs in SP...
"Better make that two."
Didn't catch that subtle reference - thanks for sharing!
Mm-hm, all that you say could be true... (feeds fish to cat)....
More on subtext in Bond films here http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/44307/subtext-and-themes/
I think he was in his prime at the beginning of the PTS but after the incident with Patrice, Bond had to learn how to put on his big boy pants again.
The failure in the PTS isn't Bond's, it's M's and Eve's. It's the betrayal that has most likely upset him. Bond never even hints that he feels responsible for losing Patrice. And even if it was his fault, it wouldn't have been his first failure. That happened when the money he won in Casino Royale was lost to finance terrorism, yet at the very end of Casino Royale he seems to be over that loss as well as Vesper's death. Bond's next big failure doesn't come until the end of Skyfall when he fails at protecting M.
Good points, I hadn't thought about those aspects when I originally wrote that post. Bond losing his confidence because M "failed" him also mirrors Silva's story in that way as he was seeking revenge for her "betrayal" during his time with MI6.
Exactly; this is part of SF's subtext (it's one of the richer Bond films in that area). Briefly, Bond and Silva are M's surrogate sons (note how Silva refers to her as "mother", for example) and both feel let down/betrayed by her- it's how they deal with this that defines the difference in their characters and who will ultimately be the last rat standing. Bond, though saddened by her death, gains maturity and is ready to continue ("with pleasure, M") after losing his surrogate mother while Silva's path is destructive and self-defeating.
The conclusion of SF left us with a fully-formed Bond- it's a shame that SP wasted the opportunity by getting bogged down with the silly "brother" angle.
Very nicely put, and yes it was a shame.
If Bond had "failed", we wouldn't have seen Mallory promoted to become M, nor would we have seen Bond in service at the end of the film. We know this because when Mallory, Tanner, and Q are abetting Bond, Mallory notes that they'll all be finished if Bond's plan doesn't succeed.