Tag Archives: violence

One Dry, Vodka Martini

 

We expect, in our heroes, the ability to last. They last from generation to generation, fighting the good fight, no matter if that good fight completely changes from now to then. As the times progress, so must our heroes. Their methods grow more modern. Their attitudes fit our own. Their morals reflect what we expect in a good person.

James Bond has been around, in one form or another, since the early 1950′s. The world is an extremely different place since he first stepped onto the stage. The Soviets are no longer around. Communism is not perceived as a threat. And we worry less about nukes and more about religious zealots with some simple explosive and the will to use it.

He has, however, managed to stay relevant for over six decades. His creator has died. The actors who played him at first are beyond the age where they could play him now. Six men have played him (not including the movies made by other studios), numerous authors have written him and who he is as a person has changed in sometimes subtle and sometimes drastic ways.

But, at heart, he remains the same. He is a lover, who will not let any harm come to his woman, but he will also not stay with them very long. He is a killer, but only kills when it is necessary to survive or necessary for the greater good, not for pleasure or sport. He is tough, intelligent and charismatic.

He has money, but not enough too much money. He likes nice things and appreciates good drinks and fine foods. He has a wealth of knowledge at his fingertips and is always interested and invested in learning more. He is curious, brave and determined to see matters through.

If one wanted to see a perfect, masculine ideal, a facet of the ideal, you would do no better than to see the evolution of James Bond. Or, perhaps, you would do no better than to see how James Bond has influenced a perfect masculine ideal.

The movies continually and routinely do well at the box office, even at their low points, it was never enough to kill the series. They keep making the movies and writing the novels, which means he appeals to the popular culture, which means he means something to the popular culture. He is, for a large number of people, an ideal.

This is how our culture defines a hero. He is British in a lot of ways, but also American (independent, takes law into own hands, almost a vigilante, in spite of his government agent status, see the number of times he is at odds with law enforcement and his own agency to see the vigilante aspects of his character).

A society’s heroes (and their villains) define them.

What does James Bond say about us?

What does his appeal say about us?

He has lasted 60 years as a relevant, pop culture icon, while remaining much the same in a majority of ways (assassin, drinker, womanizer, violent, sensitive, charmer, vicious), what does that say about our culture that promotes such a creature as our hero?

If you cast the light in a different way, you could make him a monster; a sociopath who destroys lives, a government robot so heartless that he will have sex and murder within the same hour. He is so controlling that his drink must be the same and made the same way every time.

You look to a culture’s heroes and you learn so much about them.

What does James Bond say about us?

-D-

4 Comments

Filed under Pondering

Gratuitous: Entry VI

One of the things that I’ve always worried about with my writing is  a prevalence of gratuitous violence. I never try and pack in the violence into my stories in an attempt to increase interest. Any violence in my stories is there because I feel it’s necessary for one reason or another.

If you’re uncomfortable reading one of my stories, it’s probably because I want you to be uncomfortable. I try and keep the discomfort to a mild level; say, the level of chewing on tin-foil.

As I discussed in an earlier post (earlier from today that is), a big part of horror is maintaining tension. There are a few ways of doing that. You can constantly hover the threat of death or violence over the more likable characters. But, in order to keep that tension up, you have to deliver on that threat on occasion.

That’s what makes Joss Whedon a more effective storyteller than some; he’s willing to pick off the more popular character and third stringers. If you’re worried that he’s going to kill off your favorite, you’re going to be more invested in the characters.

If you don’t want to invest a lot of time in a character in an attempt to make the audience like them, you can also threaten them with truly egregious violence. No matter how the audience feels about the character, they’re going to identify with what’s about to happen with them. It’s a cheap and quick way to get your audience to give a damn about the characters. No matter how they feel about Stan, being devoured alive by gold fish, piece by piece, sounds awful, so your audience is going to wince and cringe and wish that Stan will avoid this, even if they don’t care about Stan.

It’s something that I’m worried about leaning on too much. I’m worried that instead of creating interesting characters, I’m just creating nightmare scenarios to dispatch blander characters.

I’d rather make nightmare scenarios for likable characters and knock them off, one-by-one, to really get the audience mad at me.

-D-

Leave a Comment

Filed under Writing