Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Steve3007]

The distinguishing characteristics of James Bond movies are the longevity of the franchise and the use of numerous repeated tropes/motifs/themes that are all familiar to most people who have ever watched more than, say, two of them. It sometimes seems that a new James Bond movie could be created by feeding a set of rules into a computer algorithm.

This kind of repetitive theme is common in various artistic contexts. Comedians, for example, will often use "call back" in their routines, and it usually gets a laugh. It's hard to pinpoint exactly why it's such a successful comic device, but the relief caused by familiarity seems to be a factor.

Do we think that the power of repetition lies mainly in our desire for the comfort of the familiar? If you are the sort of person who doesn't particularly find comfort in the familiar (but craves novelty), do you dislike Bond movies? Or do you dislike them simply because they're terrible movies? If you are the sort of person who does find comfort in the familiar (perhaps you like to listen to the same songs over and over again) do you like Bond movies?

[Ecurb]

I haven't watched a Bond movie for 30 years (or so). I liked them OK when I was younger -- but not enough to have watched any of the last 10 or 15. Henri Bergson thought that humor at its most basic was "something mechanical encrusted in something human" (or something like that). So Charlie Chaplin is funny when he walks like a wind-up toy. A couple of decades ago I watched a Bond movie-fest on TV with some friends, and they all waited hopefully for the trite momvents -- like when Bond is asked his name and answers, "Bond, James Bond." I think this fits Bergson's notion of the essence of humor.

I love reading my favorite books or watching my favorite movies over and over again. In "A New Approach to Criticism" C.S. Lewis divides the "literary" and "non-literary" in part by the eagerness of the literary to reread. Non literary types (Lewis insists) think that once they are done with a book they have no need to dip back into it. I wonder if they feel the same about music (most people like listening to the same song over and over).

Bond movies -- like all big action movies set in exotic locations -- are probably better when seen in the theater. The theme songs are better with the good sound systems (Bond has had some excellent theme songs); the action more involving and exciting. But I haven't quite been encouraged to go to the theater to see the latest Bond. ON TV, those old, black and white filmed stage plays with fast-talking, wise-cracking heroines work well. I liked "Avatar" in the theater, but when I tried to watch it on TV it was dull. I miss the movies -- I went to 5 or 6 when the pandemic died down this summer, but Covid is now raging again in Oregon.

By the way, I think music is an underrated part of the film experience -- and it's generally better in the theater. One reason "Star Wars" was a big hit was the music. Some of my favorite Bond theme songs: "Live and Let Die", "Skyfall", "Nobody does it Better", "Goldfinger" (I'm sure I'm forgetting some). One problem with Bond movies-- they all have great openings (with those songs) and go downhill thereafter.

[Count Lucanor]

It's not the power of repetition that calls for the same effects and formulas, it is the power of given effects and formulas that gets us those effects being exploited over and over. I would say most, if not all, cultural products, even some that look pretty sophisticated, are the result of the exploitation of proven effects and composition formulas. The key for they not becoming outdated is that they get repackaged as new, that is, only altered superficially, while retaining the essence that produces the effect, and so people will not get bored, sometimes not even realizing they are seeing the same motif, and sometimes expecting it. In many forms of art, once a trope starts losing the power of producing the desired effect in the audience, and the producer of such art is not capable of "repackaging" it with key subtleties to present is as a novelty (either by incompetence or not wanting to take creative risks, or both), the elements of the formula need to be reinforced, exaggerated, make them too obvious so that it is ensured no one misses them. The result if often poor and formulaic. On the other hand, the highest forms of art are often considered so because they are in the business of inventing new motifs, forms, etc., that once recognized as artful, will become the repeated tropes of tomorrow and will degenerate eventually into formal cliches.

[Consul]

By the way, I think music is an underrated part of the film experience -- and it's generally better in the theater. One reason "Star Wars" was a big hit was the music. Some of my favorite Bond theme songs: "Live and Let Die", "Skyfall", "Nobody does it Better", "Goldfinger" (I'm sure I'm forgetting some).

You forgot an unforgettable one: "We Have All the Time in the World" [in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, 1969], composed by John Barry & sung by Louis Armstrong:

[Tegularius]

Bond movies, same old, same old fit only for the brain dead! Why is this crap even a philosophy subject?

[LuckyR]

Bond films are a great example of formula entertainment. The OP correctly comments on the value of novelty vs the value of familiarity. We typically appreciate both at various times. I personally relisten to or rewatch entertainment a significant minority of the time.

[Consul]

Bond movies, same old, same old fit only for the brain dead! Why is this crap even a philosophy subject?

Well, my brain is not dead, and yet I like the old Bond movies.

By the way, here's a book: James Bond and Philosophy: Questions are Forever

"Description: James Bond 007 strode into the human imagination in the novel Casino Royale in 1953 and hit the movie screens with Dr. No in 1962. He has become one of the best-known personalities, real or imagined, in global history. One out of every four people in the entire world has now seen a Bond movie, and every month thousands of new readers become addicted to Ian Fleming’s original Bond stories.

In James Bond and Philosophy, seventeen scholars examine hidden philosophical issues in the hazardous, deceptive, glamorous world of Double-0 Seven. Is Bond a Nietzschean hero who graduates "beyond good and evil"? Does Bond paradoxically break the law in order, ultimately, to uphold it like any "stupid policeman"? What can Bond’s razor-sharp reasoning powers tell us about the scientific pursuit of truth? Does 007’s license to kill help us understand the ethics of counterterrorism? What motivates all those despicable Bond villains—could it be a Hegelian quest for recognition?"

[Consul]

QUOTE>
"[W]e are attached to [James Bond] because we see ourselves in and through him. Bond exemplifies our hopes and dreams, a desire for a world where good always triumphs and where good and evil are clearly defined and easily recognizable. Perhaps this is why the movies do not accurately reproduce the books. In the books the line is not so clear between justice and revenge, good and evil, right and wrong. But in the movies we are given what we want, and what we need, namely, clarity and resolution.

Despite Bond’s flaws, his status as a cultural icon, the themes of good and evil, and the degree to which we both identify with him and worry about that identification, make Bond an ideal vehicle for philosophical discussion. He provides the impetus for us to reflect upon ourselves, our values, and our world. He provokes us to ask ourselves what we believe, why we believe it, and if we should believe it.

The Bondscape is rife with important and thought provoking issues. There are the obvious issues pertaining to misogyny, objectification, feminism as well as cold war politics and nuclear proliferation. But the Bondscape is much lusher than some give it credit for. Through Bond we are confronted with humanity’s intersection with technology: how we create it and it creates us. We are provoked into asking about the nature of a license to kill, the rule or law, governmental powers, and human rights. As a character study Bond provides an interesting window onto classical conceptions of the good life and themes in existential philosophy. The themes covered in this book range over a great deal of philosophy from existentialism to logic, law to eastern philosophy, and technology to phenomenology. There will be some areas not covered and some readers will find glaring omissions, but hopefully all will find present an introduction and discussion of major philosophical themes in a way that will both engage them as intellectuals and delight them as fans."

(Held, Jacob M., and James B. South. James Bond and Philosophy: Questions are Forever. Chicago: Open Court, 2006. p. xv)
<QUOTE

[Tegularius]

Bond movies, same old, same old fit only for the brain dead! Why is this crap even a philosophy subject?

Well, my brain is not dead, and yet I like the old Bond movies.

By the way, here's a book: James Bond and Philosophy: Questions are Forever

"Description: James Bond 007 strode into the human imagination in the novel Casino Royale in 1953 and hit the movie screens with Dr. No in 1962. He has become one of the best-known personalities, real or imagined, in global history. One out of every four people in the entire world has now seen a Bond movie, and every month thousands of new readers become addicted to Ian Fleming’s original Bond stories.

In James Bond and Philosophy, seventeen scholars examine hidden philosophical issues in the hazardous, deceptive, glamorous world of Double-0 Seven. Is Bond a Nietzschean hero who graduates "beyond good and evil"? Does Bond paradoxically break the law in order, ultimately, to uphold it like any "stupid policeman"? What can Bond’s razor-sharp reasoning powers tell us about the scientific pursuit of truth? Does 007’s license to kill help us understand the ethics of counterterrorism? What motivates all those despicable Bond villains—could it be a Hegelian quest for recognition?"

Whatever turns your crank! The asinine questions referred to can just as easily pertain to a thousand other movies...many much better. As for the "scholars" you mention, they seem desperate to find any subject remotely viable to philosophically analyze, justifying their titles and salaries.

As occasionally mentioned, there was never a dearth of educated idiots; the hallowed halls of academia certainly haven't been spared. Also, from everything I read by and of Nietzsche, anything that stupid and phony would not have interested him in the least. It's not a secret that what ranks as most ludicrous in entertainment is usually the most liked by the crowds. The lowest common denominator has always had the largest following.

[Ecurb]

I looked up the 20 highest grossing movies of all time. Six were super hero movies; six were Disney animations; two were Fast and Furious (I've never seen any of them), and six were sci-fi fantasy (Star Wars, Avatar, Harry Potter).

This makes sense, to me. First, filmed stage plays (which might be more intellectually and artistically mature) are probably less accessible to non-English-speaking audiences. Second, with everyone having access to TV, big. special effects extravaganzas are better suited to the big screen. I've seen all the Disneys and Sci-Fi fantasies, but none of the super hero movies, which I've boycotted ever since the Batman with Heath Ledger as the Joker, which was so terrible that when The Joker was captured halfway through the movie I prayed that meant the movie would soon be over. Unfortunately, it did not.

James Bond made nary an appearance on the list.

I see nothing wrong with trying to analyze pop culture. Why shouldn't academics show an interest in it? (Whether the analyses are cogent is a separate issue.)

Bond seems a little dated; the Cold War is over. Nonetheless, glamor, action, and special effects still drive audiences to the theater. Animation is also far better at the theater than on TV -- watching animated films on TV reminds me of looking at prints of famous paintings instead of seeing them in a museum.

[Sculptor1]

The distinguishing characteristics of James Bond movies are the longevity of the franchise and the use of numerous repeated tropes/motifs/themes that are all familiar to most people who have ever watched more than, say, two of them. It sometimes seems that a new James Bond movie could be created by feeding a set of rules into a computer algorithm.

This kind of repetitive theme is common in various artistic contexts. Comedians, for example, will often use [*****//en*wikipedia*org/wiki/Callback_(comedy)]"call back"[/url] in their routines, and it usually gets a laugh. It's hard to pinpoint exactly why it's such a successful comic device, but the relief caused by familiarity seems to be a factor.

Do we think that the power of repetition lies mainly in our desire for the comfort of the familiar? If you are the sort of person who doesn't particularly find comfort in the familiar (but craves novelty), do you dislike Bond movies? Or do you dislike them simply because they're terrible movies? If you are the sort of person who does find comfort in the familiar (perhaps you like to listen to the same songs over and over again) do you like Bond movies?

What do you think of it so far........?

[Tegularius]

QUOTE>
"[W]e are attached to [James Bond] because we see ourselves in and through him. Bond exemplifies our hopes and dreams, a desire for a world where good always triumphs and where good and evil are clearly defined and easily recognizable. Perhaps this is why the movies do not accurately reproduce the books. In the books the line is not so clear between justice and revenge, good and evil, right and wrong. But in the movies we are given what we want, and what we need, namely, clarity and resolution.

Despite Bond’s flaws, his status as a cultural icon, the themes of good and evil, and the degree to which we both identify with him and worry about that identification, make Bond an ideal vehicle for philosophical discussion. He provides the impetus for us to reflect upon ourselves, our values, and our world. He provokes us to ask ourselves what we believe, why we believe it, and if we should believe it.

The Bondscape is rife with important and thought provoking issues. There are the obvious issues pertaining to misogyny, objectification, feminism as well as cold war politics and nuclear proliferation. But the Bondscape is much lusher than some give it credit for. Through Bond we are confronted with humanity’s intersection with technology: how we create it and it creates us. We are provoked into asking about the nature of a license to kill, the rule or law, governmental powers, and human rights. As a character study Bond provides an interesting window onto classical conceptions of the good life and themes in existential philosophy. The themes covered in this book range over a great deal of philosophy from existentialism to logic, law to eastern philosophy, and technology to phenomenology. There will be some areas not covered and some readers will find glaring omissions, but hopefully all will find present an introduction and discussion of major philosophical themes in a way that will both engage them as intellectuals and delight them as fans."

(Held, Jacob M., and James B. South. James Bond and Philosophy: Questions are Forever. Chicago: Open Court, 2006. p. xv)
<QUOTE

I'm sorry, but this has to be one of the biggest pieces of crap I ever read...not to mention if this were true, then every absurd hero movie ever filmed has equal merit. It wouldn't surprise me that anyone who takes Bond movies seriously as a sort of course in existential philosophy and beyond would also tend to believe that the movie Amadeus was a true story.

For sure! let's take a shortcut; forget about Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Instead, watch the entire series of repetitive Bond movies a few times in a row to learn all about modern existentialism. Idiots are forever (and that's not fiction) should have been the title of that book!

[Steve3007]

What do you think of it so far........?

Of the latest Bond movie or the whole franchise? If you mean the whole franchise, I think of them roughly the same way I think of "Carry On..." films. I like the idea of them and have fond childhood memories of them, but when I actually watch one I remember how awful they were. I remember going to see "The Spy Who Loved Me" at the cinema when I was about 11. Loved it. Watched it again recently with my son when he was a similar age. Awful. He was bored rigid by it.

[Steve3007]

I'm sorry, but this has to be one of the biggest pieces of crap I ever read...

You gotta take these things with a pinch of salt. Like astrology, or Morrissey's political views. Astrology is a way for people to chat about their personalities. The whole star sign thing is just a loose framework for that chat. I'd take a book like the one described by Consul as a tongue-in-cheek coffee table curiosity to buy as a Christmas present for a Bond fan if they've already got too many socks. Even if it isn't.

[Sculptor1]

What do you think of it so far........?

Of the latest Bond movie or the whole franchise? If you mean the whole franchise, I think of them roughly the same way I think of "Carry On..." films. I like the idea of them and have fond childhood memories of them, but when I actually watch one I remember how awful they were. I remember going to see "The Spy Who Loved Me" at the cinema when I was about 11. Loved it. Watched it again recently with my son when he was a similar age. Awful. He was bored rigid by it.

This is a UK in-joke, related to repitition.

https**/www*youtube*com/watch?v=WMXz2SCqtfg
http**//www*youtube*com/watch?v=kJKYcZiqK5Y