Who’s your vote for the next James Bond?

[Paul Farquhar]

Mostly because those are the U.K.-specific markers, rather than the rest which is standard government action hero.

I think the problem is, the idea that British Intelligence would want a “moral decision maker”. The British people, in general, are used to the idea that the intelligence services are highly immoral, and are okay with that so long as it isn’t directed against them and they don’t know about it.

See le Carre.

The character of River in Slow Horses is basically this. An agent with a conscience is viewed as a liability and shipped off to Slough House where friendly bombs will be dropped on them.

If you want your moral Bond to be credible, it would need to be despite his bosses, not because of them.

 

[Morrus]

I think the problem is, the idea that British Intelligence would want a “moral decision maker”. The British people, in general, are used to the idea that the intelligence services are highly immoral, and are okay with that so long as it isn’t directed against them and they don’t know about it.

See le Carre.

Intelligence agencies don't want their agents making morality decisions, they want them following orders.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Intelligence agencies don't want their agents making morality decisions, they want them following orders.

Indeed, and that's where a ton of the drama in spy shows, and even in modern Bond, actually comes from - the cold, heartless intelligence agency vs. the human agent who doesn't actually like murdering people or betraying/abandoning them, and is probably looking for a way to avoid doing either.

I think the problem is, the idea that British Intelligence would want a “moral decision maker”.

I think the idea is that someone who is sufficiently good at blowing stuff up and so on might be recruited despite that, no? Historically it would be just about the smallest misjudgement the MI agencies have made lol, given some of the people they've recruited!

 

[jian]

I think the problem is, the idea that British Intelligence would want a “moral decision maker”. The British people, in general, are used to the idea that the intelligence services are highly immoral, and are okay with that so long as it isn’t directed against them and they don’t know about it.

See le Carre.

The character of River in Slow Horses is basically this. An agent with a conscience is viewed as a liability and shipped off to Slough House where friendly bombs will be dropped on them.

If you want your moral Bond to be credible, it would need to be despite his bosses, not because of them.

Well, that is classic but also a terrible cliche, says the Korean-English person. Le Carre is all very well, as is Slow Horses, but I’d like something different. Cynicism is boring, sometimes. The intelligence services act as the suspicion of the nation, but nations can aspire to become better. As I said earlier, I’d like a Bond I can root for, not someone who’s just yet another cog in the international murder machine.

It’s actually quite realistic that you’d want an active field agent to be able to make decisions of the fly, and while you would generally want them to prioritise the mission (whatever that may be) you would also want them to be able to make the best decision at the time, and that can include the morality and ethics of the situation. The history of intelligence and military operations is full of examples of when people who were supposed to obey orders without question did not in fact do so for moral reasons, to the greater good (or, in a few cases, to the survival of the species). Those people should be celebrated as heroes.

You wouldn’t want everyone to act like a Starfleet officer, as it were, but if you have one agent whose job it is to do the right thing and do it well, because he basically operates under a version of superheroic tropes (which cinematic Bond often does already) then you might want that chap to be able to change the plan as needed.

I’d think you’d have to make it clear in such a portrayal that M, Moneypenny, and Bond are quite exceptional to both the civil service and the intelligence services, and that many in the government might think their approach to be a dangerous liability, but as long as they keep on winning it’s hard to argue with. That would be an arc over several films.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Cynicism is boring, sometimes

It’s the British way. As is being boring.

nations can aspire to become better

People can aspire to be better. Nations? The scum rises to the top.

The history of intelligence and military operations

Is suppressed. And people prefer it that way. People are quite happy for bad stuff to be done on their behalf, so long as lack of knowledge relieves them of responsibility.

 

[jian]

It’s the British way. As is being boring.

People can aspire to be better. Nations? The scum rises to the top.

Is suppressed. And people prefer it that way. People are quite happy for bad stuff to be done on their behalf, so long as lack of knowledge relieves them of responsibility.

It really isn’t, we’re under no obligation to be boring or to let scum float to the top. Cynicism, on the other hand, is deeply tiresome.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It really isn’t, we’re under no obligation to be boring or to let scum float to the top.

How do you suppose to stop it?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

People are quite happy for bad stuff to be done on their behalf, so long as lack of knowledge relieves them of responsibility.

Nah.

That's a cheap and cynical justification used by genuinely evil (or completely amoral, but what's even the difference?) men to do genuinely evil/horrific/monstrous things, and the very fact that normal, sane, decent people are outraged and upset when these things come out proves that it's not true. To put it another way it's a "lie people tell themselves" - specifically these evildoers tell themselves this lie.

The only people who are "happy that lack of knowledge relieves them of responsibility" are other cynical, amoral men, often quite senior in government.

It’s the British way. As is being boring.

Even Le Carre doesn't actually believe either of those things. He treats them again as "lies people tell themselves". You can see this in his later writing, because he kept writing up to his death in 2020.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How do you suppose to stop it?

I mean in fiction that's quite often the job of people much like James Bond or indeed the crew at Slough House. Slough House averts a thinly-disguised Boris Johnson analogue's political ambitions, which he is furthering through cynical manipulation of far-right terror groups, for example. He even specifically gives a justification along the lines of what you proposed, which even the very-cynical-himself Jackson Lamb rejects. And in fact, Lamb, ultra-cynic, is still not amoral, not truly - he likes to act the part, but when push comes to shove, he consistently takes moral action rather than cynically folding like his "boss" at MI5, whose name is escaping me. She uses every excuse in the book to be amoral, cynical and frankly even a little lazy, and the position of the books (and TV show) is that this actually makes her bad at her job, despite her protestations, because she continually creates problems that didn't have to exist, or exacerbates existing problems by inserting herself and her amoral agents into situations. She's also really bad at negotiating because of this, because she cannot possibly be trusted unless you have insane leverage on her, so again her total amorality, lack of any shred of decency/honor/respect means situations get worse, because you can't trust her. And once people realize this, they have to treat her amoral, cynical ass as dangerous and continually look for leverage on her - to her disadvantage - this makes her less effective and more vulnerable.

I think that contrast is actually a pretty good illustration of what audiences want - which is they don't want some completely amoral cynical jerk murdering people (that's more of a CIA thing) - they want a moral actor - now whether they want a Jackson Lamb or a River Cartright is another question, but obviously Cartright and Bond have a ton more in common.

I was tempted to say:

With a fwip-fwip here and a fwip-fwip there
Here a fwip, there a fwip, everywhere fwip-fwip

But I'm not sure fwip is still universally recognised as the noise of a silenced pistol.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I mean in fiction that's quite often the job of people much like James Bond or indeed the crew at Slough House. Slough House averts a thinly-disguised Boris Johnson analogue's political ambitions, which he is furthering through cynical manipulation of far-right terror groups, for example

And they stop it using means that are just a dubious. It’s a case of using the Ring to defeat Sauron.

There are several people who it would appear that the world would be a better place if they were assassinated. But does murder actually ever make things better? One thing I am sure of - being sad afterwards is not justification.