James Bond and the Obsolescence of Q: Politics and Technology
In order to investigate today’s society, one must listen to the confessions of the products of its film industries. They are all blabbing a
rude secret, without really wanting to…they reveal how society wants to see itself. The quintessence of these film themes is at the
same time the sum of the society’s ideologies, whose spell is broken by means of the interpretation the themes.
Siegfried Kracauer1
Introduction: “The New Bond”
As we cope with unnatural disasters materializing from the war on terror and the construction of
“terrorism,” from the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, from issues of privacy and surveillance, and from the
ongoing erosion of civil liberties, this paper explores what James Bond can tell us.2 Unnatural disasters,
technology, and politics are wedded in intimate and involved relationships. In James Bond films these
relationships are underscored and are infused with a sense of drama and humor—significant mechanisms in
sublimating the fear, hatred, and anxiety that accompany contemporary notions of impending disaster, threat,
and uncertainty.
The drama and humor in Bond films are trademarked dimensions—the drama builds around a villain
bent on destruction and megalomaniacal control of the world while the humor originates from Bond’s
demeanor as a savvy and sexy hero who outsmarts and foils the villain. Although generally scripted and
predictable, the particular dramatic form and tenor of the humor change from film to film. I argue that
changes to the tone and configuration of the Bond character and his practices signal changes in the political
and technological landscape. Bond, as his character is developed in Casino Royale, gives voice to our
growing disenchantment with the ability of contemporary political institutions and innovative technologies to
effectively address global threats.
The seduction of James Bond films (and novels—although I will speak solely about the films) relies
heavily on allegorical representations of abstract principles. Characters, structure, and trademarked elements
1
Siegfried Kracauer (2005) The Mass Ornament: Weimar Essays. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, p. 292.
I argue that the Bond genre and character are still relevant in contemporary society. The number of websites
(44,600,000 hits on Google for the search terms: James Bond), an upcoming retrospective of Bond films (“Vintage
007”) scheduled for this summer at the Film Forum in New York, numerous academic conferences, the popularity of
referential and derivative films such as Austin Powers, and the number of scholarly and mainstream texts on James
Bond (15,000 hits on Amazon for the search terms: James Bond), all attest to the relevance.
2
1
reflect (albeit in distortion) “the social reality.” Umberto Eco argues that positive characteristics (i.e. Free
World, Great Britain, sacrifice, cupidity, discomfort over luxury, moderation, innocence, loyalty) are all
applicable to Bond, while the negative characteristics (Soviet Union, non-Anglo Saxon countries, duty over
sacrifice, ideals, luxury, excess, perversion, disloyalty) refer to the villain. Bond represents Western
civilization, puts his orders before his own interests, uses his ingenuity, suffers discomfort for the sake of a
mission, and is loyal. Conversely, the villain is usually foreign, lives in excessive wealth, and is sexually
perverse.3 The films typically follow a fairy tale structure (rescue the girl, slay the monster); express
capitalist ethics (work hard and be rewarded with pleasure); employ humor and comic relief; stress
patriarchal notions of ‘romance’ (sexual prowess); highlight Enlightenment faith in progress and machines
(the use of Q Branch inventive gadgetry); and express our fascination with glamour, wealth, celebrity, and
global jet-setting.. As allegory, the film’s structure appeals to us in that it bears suggestive resemblance to
our cultural imagination.
Although all Bond films reflect the political moment from which they emerge—e.g. Cold War era
villains, representations of the sexual revolution, and so forth, in the newest film, Casino Royale, the
parallels are particularly striking—the torture scene conjures images of Abu Ghraib; the weapons dealers
resonate with our paranoia of weapons of mass destruction; the proliferation and ambiguity of ‘the enemy’
(as opposed to the singular concreteness of the cold war enemy) invokes notions of terrorism. The Bond
genre has always focused on efforts to prevent (global) disasters—both natural and unnatural, but the recent
film stresses the unpredictability of the future in terms of ‘everyday risk’, our ambiguous and contested
relationship with technology, and the implications for ethics. The ‘new Bond,’ as he enters spaces of
contingency and follows specific globally-networked routes, signifies a world that has changed since the cold
war. As the world Bond inhabits changes, so must his character. Always self reliant, roguish, and
3
See http://www.hmss.com/articles/semiotics. Also, Umberto Eco (1979) The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the
Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, p. 148.
2
spontaneous (also ruthless, arrogant, and sadistic)—these characteristics are heightened in the ‘new Bond,”4
in his representation of a particular contemporary ‘sensibility.’5 Bond is no longer indestructible—he gets
bloodied and bruised—and the film ends without a clear sense of resolution, gesturing to the climate of
current international affairs.
Casino Royale also signals a shift in our relationship to gadgets, (personal) technologies, life-saving
machines, and electronics used in accessing information and facilitating communication. Q (Major
Boothroyd or Quartermaster) is now obsolete6—there is no meeting in the inventor’s workshop to learn how
a pen can transform into a weapon, Bond now relies on everyday objects such as cell phones, computers, and
defibrillators. These are technologies we command as we bypass ‘experts’ through connecting directly to
new forms of social (virtual) networks (e.g. taking charge of our own healthcare in a crumbling healthcare
system, accessing detailed data via the internet). Our growing literacy of new (personal) technologies makes
them commonplace relegating these devices to the background while ironically, the real-life espionage of the
coltan industry (metals necessary for the production of electronics such as cell phones and laptops) mimics a
Bond film.
Technology: Gadgets, Intelligence, and Risk
Technologies and gadgets have always played a central role in Bond films. In nearly all the films, an
early scene shows Bond meeting with Q to review the procedures for using the latest batch of weaponized
gadgets. The gadgets Q provides fulfill two basic functions for Bond. First, they provide an escape route and
secondly, they allow Bond to “recode the external environment in order to force the villain to discover ‘false
The Bond character is actually the first incarnation in Fleming’s series. However, as I am discussing the films (even
though he is the first and oldest Bond), the 007 character from Casino Royale is the “new Bond”—the 21st century
version of the character.
5
This has been called, by the filmmakers—a “back to basics” approach to “reset the series.”
6
Miss Moneypenny is also absent along with her (playful) representation of stability, and security—traditional
relationships and family.
4
3
clues’ and throw him (or her) off the scent.”7 The ability to “recode” and manipulate the environment
through the use of hidden technologies is a consistent plot device in the genre.




a pen filled with acid to dissolve metal, which also included a radio transmitter (Octopussy);
a briefcase with hidden compartments holding ammunition, a knife, gold coins and a talcum powder
bottle that released tear gas. (From Russia With Love);
a cigarette that fired a small rocket (You Only Live Twice); and
a key chain with a skeleton key and a device that could trigger knockout gas or an explosive charge,
depending on how Bond whistled (The Living Daylights)8
The films are famous for predicting the onset of various technologies (e.g. luxury cars equipped with closedcircuit televisions, color televisions, GPS, and other amenities; the jet ski; illuminated watch faces; the pager;
and very small cameras9). Many of the gadgets used in earlier Bond films were, as far out as they may seem,
derivative of actual spy/intelligence technologies. The jetpack shown in Thunderball (1965) replicated an
actual defense department innovation debuted for JFK in 1961 (which was, incidentally, demonstrated at a
special ceremony for JFK—an avid Bond fan who screened Bond films in the White House and, it is alleged,
imitated Bond to some extent).10 However, that ‘gadgets’ such as these are not exploited in Casino Royale,
may be indicative of the loss of our sense of wonder when it comes to technology. As our world is layered
These two functions are taken from Jerold J. Abrams (2006) “The Epistemology of James Bond: The Logic of
Abduction” in James B. South and Jacob M. Held (eds.) James Bond and Philosophy: Questions Are Forever. Chicago,
IL: Open Court, p. 165.
8
From http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/spy-gadget.htm
9
Lois Gresh and Robert Weinberg (2006) The Science of James Bond: From Bullets to Bowler Hats to Boat Jumps, the
Real Technology Behind 007’s Fabulous Films. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. p. 30.
10
Other actual items that closely match the types of gadgets dispensed by Q Branch: hairbrush compartment for the
Minox camera; the Echo 8 cigarette lighter camera, created by Japan and used by US intelligence; the Tessina camera
and cigarette case—a cigarette pack with a hole in its side to conceal a tiny camera lens—issued by the east German
Stasi; the Toycha camera in a necktie, issued in 1958 by the KGB to its agents; a shoe with a heel transmitter, issued in
the 1960s by the KGB; a rectal toolkit, filled with escape tools, isssued by the CIA to its agents in the 1960s; a lipstick
gun that supplied on 4.5.mm shot, issued by the KGB in 1965; a gun in a cigarette case that delivered one shot from a
.22 caliber gun, issued in the 1950s by the KGB; a wristwatch microphone, issued by the US in 1958 to its agents.
It’s not that bizarre, seemingly implausible devices no longer exist—it’s just that they are not mimicked in Casino
Royale. For example, the military currently uses the following gadgets in the field:
 ESG’s Flying Wings: flying wings that enable parachutists to fly through the air at high speed.
 Big Dog, the Robotic Mule: a four-legged robotic mule that can carry over 88 pounds.
 Trophy Active Defense System: provides an invisible force field for military vehicles by disabling incoming rounds.
 The Cornershot: enables military and law enforcement to observe/engage targets from around the corner.
 High-Tech Army Wristwatch:delivers real-time images (aerial views of the battlefield) on to a 3-inch LCD display.
7
4
more and more thickly with screens and software, are we less enamored by technology? Have we caught up
with Q and the gadgetry that once predated the emergence of the actual technology in ‘real’ life?11
The technologies at Bond’s disposal in Casino Royale seem ordinary, mundane. They express our
growing technological literacy (either ‘actual’—arrived at through use, or ‘imagined’—arrived at via
secondary sources such as the media, think CSI, for example) and our experience as ‘users.’ As literate users,
we experience a loss of wonder, a disenchantment with technology. Technology no longer seems out of our
reach either financially or in terms of mastery. Kitsch and novelty are challenged by design and function.
According to Heidegger, in “taking up and using the things around us, we engage…in revealing the world.”12
What does 007 reveal through the use of technology in Casino Royale? The items at his disposal consist of
health technologies, surveillance and tracking devices, and communication and information tools,—
‘common’ technologies used by mainstream society.










Aston Martin DBS: Includes a glove compartment filled with assorted tools and weaponry, including a first
aid kit and portable defibrillator used to combat poisoning
Sony Ericsson K800: Cell phone with sophisticated GPS.
Microchip implant: Bond is implanted with a microchip that helps MI6 keep track of Bond's whereabouts; it
also monitors Bond's vital signs which are transmitted back to MI6 for analysis.
Tracking device: Similar to the implant in Bond's arm, a tracking device placed in Le Chiffre's inhaler.
Text Messages: Bond makes extensive use of cell phone text messaging and other features to complete his
mission.
VaioTx series and Fj series laptop computer: These are used on his mission and again during the postmission vacation.
Watch: Bond starts out wearing a black bezel Omega Planet Ocean then somewhere changes to wearing the
steel bracelet Omega Seamaster seen in the previous film.
Blu-ray Disc: The surveillance footage that Bond views in the fictitious “Ocean Club” is stored on a Blu-ray
Disc and he uses a Sony BDP-S1 Blu-ray Disc player to view the discs.
Range Rover Sport: Bond briefly drives a Land Rover Range Rover Sport, before he crashes it into a row of
parked cars in order to distract security staff.
Sony DSC-T50: Digital camera. 13
11
Another argument could be that these technologies are chosen for purposes of product placement and advertising—
straightforward political-economy approach. Or, it could be argued that the gadgetry has passed into cinematic function
or stereotype, so needed to be abandoned. However, I feel both explanations evade important cultural significations.
12
Heidegger in Steven Zani (2006) “James Bond and Q: Heidegger’s Technology, or ‘You’re Not a Sportsman Mr. Bond’”
in James B. South and Jacob M. Held (eds.) James Bond and Philosophy: Questions Are Forever. Chicago, IL: Open
Court, p. 175.
13
List taken from Wikipedia.
5
Our disenchantment with the heroics of gadgetry is depicted in efforts to evaluate the feasibility of Q Branch
technologies—to question “the true science that that underlies Bond’s most fantastic and off-the-wall
accoutrements.”14 As technological literacy grows there is parallel growth in the concern, “could it work?”15
The gadgetry is dismissed—either as absurd (e.g. the blue x-ray glasses (The World Is Not Enough),
underwater breathers (Thunderball)), or, conversely, as uninteresting in its resemblance to our real, everyday
gadgets (e.g. Q’s pet in A View to a Kill and it’s similarity to the Bombots being used currently in Iraq and to
the robots that scoured the wreckage of the World Trade Center’s collapsed towers).16
Bond not only uses technology—he is technology with his body becoming the literal object of the
government.17 As his “00” status indicates, he is a killing machine employed by the British government.
Mathis says to 007 in Casino Royale, “don’t let me down and become human…we would lose such a
wonderful machine.” Casino Royale takes a ‘back-to-basics’ approach in terms of the use of gadgetry. The
plot traces the origin of the persona of James Bond, paring-down the character to the raw emotional
experiences that shaped the character. Thus, Bond eschews experts—Q is not needed in this exercise of selfreliance. All 007 needs is access to (high-end) everyday technology, a fit body, and a sound mind (strength
and wits). The extended chase scene early in the film highlights the bodily strength and stamina of this 007.18
The new Bond exemplifies the tension between human intelligence and artificial intelligence.
Critical questions have arisen in the wake of ‘terror’ (its construction and the ‘war’ against) as to the role and
effectiveness of artificial intelligence versus reliance on human intelligence. Experts warn that foiled terrorist
plots are almost always due to traditional intelligence methods that rely on human knowledge and labor—
that new technologies are not necessarily the answer when it comes to security measures and policies.
Gresh and Weinberg 2006, book jacket text. Gresh and Weinberg’s entire text is devoted to a scientific exploration of
the feasibility of Bond gadgets. They scientifically analyze the various devices used in the films.
15
See for example, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/jamesbond/bondgadgets.shtml, for more analysis of the
viability of various gadgets.
16
This also applies to the villains’ gadgets—e.g. Fatima Blush’s face recognition security device and night binoculars in
Never Say Never Again
17
A longer discussion of Foucault’s (and perhaps, Agamben’s) notion of “biopower” could be considered here.
18
Bond is a true traceur—in the chase scene at the opening, he practices “parkour… a quasi commando system of
leaps, vaults, rolls, and landing designed to help a person avoid or surmount whatever lies in his path—a vocabulary,
that is, to be employed in finding one’s way among obstacles.” Alec Wilkinson, April 16, 2007, “No Obstacles:
Navigating the World by Leaps and Bounds,” The New Yorker. p. 106, 107.
14
6
Although “the risks of terrorism exponentially multiply with technological advancement,” and terrorist
networks rely on the internet and other communication technologies (e.g. as Ulrich Beck points out, “With
the technologies of the future—genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robotics, we are opening a new
Pandora’s Box. Genetic manipulation, communication technologies and artificial intelligence are all
interconnected ways that can get around the government monopoly of violence.” 19), new tactics of war can
be very low-tech. As military methods and strategies increasingly advance technologically, this is most
effectively countered with low-tech tactical responses such as the suicide bomber. As these low-tech methods
‘outsmart’ new high-tech responses, strategies and tactics turn (back) to low-tech responses. For example,
President Bush is vowing to smoke Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants out of caves, but detecting
subterranean lairs is no small feat. Under ideal conditions, high-tech tools can reveal the location and
structure of underground cavities by measuring subtle changes in the force of gravity, seismic waves
and electrical resistance…almost all U.S. reconnaissance tools—including radar and
communications interception devices—are built for detecting something. Caves are all about the
absence of something.20
However, “ideal conditions” necessary for the use of high-tech tools become less and less available
in the face of car bombings and other tactical maneuvers that infuse threat and risk into stable contexts. The
conditions and terms necessary for the function for high-tech strategies are disrupted—e.g. as technology is
built for detecting presence, terrorists utilize absence; technology relies on order and code, terrorists on
disorder and threat. Furthermore, like Bond, the suicide bomber is technology—a militarized tool to be used
(in the case of the suicide bomber, used only once)21 by the forces that back him or her. As we (and our
social interactions and environments) interface with screens, software, and mobile capabilities, the world is
reanimated, gaining an “unconscious presence…bugged by new kinds of pleasure, obsessions, anxieties, and
phobias.”22
Ulrich Beck, (Fall 2002) “The Silence of Words and Political Dynamics in the World Risk Society,” Logos, 41(1),
http://logosonline.home.igc.org/beck.htm (accessed April 7, 2007), p. 8-9.
20
From Al Grillo, October 30, 2001, “Technology Alone May Not Find Bin Laden's Cave,” Associated Press,
www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011030-attack02.htm (accessed April 7, 2007).
21
The individual approach and single function of the suicide bomber has been discussed in terms of “singularity” by
thinkers such as Arjun Appadurai, Etienne Balibar, and Ulrich Beck (among others).
22
Nigel Thrift (2005) “Beyond Mediation: Three New Material Registers and Their Consequences,” in Daniel Miller
(ed.) Materiality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, p. 241.
19
7
Thus, smart technologies present uncertainty, risk, and error.23 As technological literacy grows,
chaos and complexity theories take on new meaning.
Such theories [chaos and complexity theories] involve repudiating simple dichotomies of order and
disorder, of being and becoming. Physical systems do not, it seems, exhibit and sustain structural
stability. The commonsense notion that small changes in causes produce small changes in effects is
mistaken. Instead there is deterministic chaos, dynamic becoming, and non-linear changes in the
properties of systems as a whole rather than transformations within particular components…
Complexity theory emphasizes how complex feedback loops exacerbate initial stresses in the system
and render it unable to absorb shocks in a simple way which re-establishes the original equilibrium.24
This inability of systems to absorb, neutralize, and order even small changes leads away from structural
explanations towards inquiry that lingers on analysis of resonances of disorder that destabilize sedimented
structural understandings. Systematized borders and orders (i.e. political compositions, boundaries of safety)
are transfigured through stresses infused into the system. As globally networked, the movements in one area
resonate as unpredictable variation in other, often distant, spheres.
Bond has developed dispositions that allow him to take advantage of these gaps in technopower.
Although he is a ‘user’ who capitalizes on the gadgets the technocracy offers, Bond’s relation to technology
is different than that of the villains.
In a cinematic oeuvre where both hero and villain are technologized, Bond’s relationship is one of
necessity rather than sport…In Bond, we see freedom rather than control, and a world where nature
and technology help to define humanity, instead of consuming it…it is Bond’s willingness to
relinquish any technology, not simply cars, which marks him as different from the obsessive villains
around him.25
Bond relinquishes technology in his pursuits, as does the larger society through incessant upgrades.
Heidegger warns us that as we transform the world with our tools, “we can also make ourselves into nothing
but tools in the process.”26 This is the consequence suffered by the villains in earlier (cold war era) Bond
films. As 007 remarks to Dr. No in 1962: “World domination. The same old dream. Our asylums are full of
people who think they're Napoleon. Or God.” Heidegger cautions against representing technology as an
instrument to simply be mastered. The essence of technology is characterized by ambiguity and tension
23
For example, in Casino Royale, 007 gets caught on surveillance tape shooting a man at an African embassy.
24 Urry, John. (2000) “The Sociology of Space and Place,” in J. Blau (ed.) Blackwell Companion to Sociology.
Malden, MA: Blackwell, p. 10.
25
Zani 2006, p. 179.
26
Zani 2006, p. 179-185.
8
between the use of power (as “ordering” or “enframing”) and the ability to let technologies reveal themselves
(“Modern technology, as a revealing which orders, is thus no mere human doing.”).27 As a balancing act, the
management of this tension is expertly executed by 007.
In Casino Royale, Bond struggles not only with the tension inherent in the use of technology, but
also against moral, mental, and physical odds—more so than in previous films. The labor he exerts elides the
ease of earlier Bonds. How 007 functions is important. After all, the audience doesn’t watch 007 to see if
Bond will win, but to see how he will win. It is the structure of the “game” that is seductive—a game that is a
“remarkable admixture of art and strategy.” 28 Bond plays the game poetically and with panache, drawing on
knowledge from both high and low culture—from both elite institutions and the street. As chaos and
complexity characterize the contemporary world, the game operates under new rules and with new moves.
Engaged in the game, 007 is a significant representation of that world, and as a result, the new Bond is
ultimately conflicted.29 He struggles with moral issues involved in managing risk. We have rarely seen 007
struggle so much—even in the face of death in earlier films he managed to maintain his composure and sense
of humor. In Casino Royale, Bond (in the process of earning his 00 status, his license to kill) expresses
remorse for his first killing. This vulnerability—his conflicted feelings about killing, was not a theme in
earlier films.30 The scene is filmed in black and white giving it a noirish inflection that is a decided turn from
the light humor that opens earlier films.31 After a harrowing evening staged later in the film, when asked if he
would like his martini “shaken or stirred,” instead of the formulaic reply (“shaken, not stirred”), 007
responds, “Do I look like I give a damn?” That 007 can himself be shaken, that he can make mistakes (as he
does when he is caught on security camera tape killing a man), represents a major shift in the character—a
shift that speaks to major shifts in political, social, and technological landscapes.
Martin Heidegger (1977 [1954]) “The Question Concerning Technology” in Basic Writings. New York: Harper and
Row, p. 314, 300.
28
Abrams 2006, p. 168.
29
Bond has always been “conflicted”—he is civilized, yet uncivilized; he is loyal, yet a rogue; a simultaneous
representation of order and disorder.
30
The Bond character is not a cold-hearted killer—he kills either because he is ordered to or because the target has been
deemed dangerous—a threat to his mission, to himself, or the world security and stability.
31
This is also the first Bond film in 44 years where it rains.
27
9
Political Landscapes: Uncertainty, Liquidity, and Piracy
In my business you prepare for the unexpected.
James Bond in License to Kill.
Risk, once a synonym of hazard, danger, and peril, can now be distinguished from these—“What has
come to distinguish risk from danger or hazard is the attempt to calculate and govern it…This means that risk
is distinguished from mere hazards such as famines, plague, or natural disasters which might once have been
accepted as matter of fate, or as acts of God.”32 Our society has developed complex mechanisms to navigate
and govern risk. These mechanisms and the efforts they belie demonstrate a shift towards individualization
(versus a collective approach—welfare provision, for example) and a shift in our trust in experts and
institutions. “At the heart of our relationship to risk is the question of trust in experts, in politicians, and in
the institutions of contemporary society.”33
Casino Royale can be read as metaphor for the “risk society.” Ulrich Beck argues that “risk society”
does not indicate increased risk, but rather a society that organizes itself in response to risk—a society that is
preoccupied with security and safety, a society that generates the notion of risk.34 In his post 9/11 update to
his concept, Beck clarifies the notion of world risk society and redefines a series of notions.35 He notes
fundamental alterations: to concepts of war and terror; to concepts of economic globalization and
neoliberalism; and concepts of the state and sovereignty. Beck identifies three layers of danger in the world
risk society—ecological crises, global economic crises, and the risk of transnational terrorist networks (and
in Casino Royale, Bond addresses all three). Beck asks: How can attempts be made to render the
unpredictable predictable? How can calculable risk be incorporated into efforts to address the potential
explosiveness of the world risk society. “The failure of institutions that derive their legitimacy through a
declared mastery of danger” is faced with the question of how to deal with “singularity” as the new “global
32
Tony Bennett, Lawrence Grossberg, and Meaghan Morris (2005) New Keywords: A Revised Vocabulary of Culture
and Society. Malden, MA: Blackwell, p. 311.
33
Bennett et al. 2005, p. 313.
34
Ulrich Beck, (1992 [1986]) Risk Society, Towards a New Modernity. (trans.) Mark Ritter, London: Sage.
35
Beck 2002 p. 4.
10
nature of danger.”36 If the military and the nation-state are cumbersome and inadequate in addressing the
singularity of terrorists, James Bond (although a ‘mechanism’ of the British government) is cinematically
shown as an alternative. He himself is ‘singular’ (although he works “for God and country” and is under the
watchful eye of Vesper Lynd who monitors his finances and his is ultimately accountable to M and MI6 in
spite of his roguish behavior)—he is effective because he is mobile, spontaneous, and a ‘man of action’—
traits that are dependant on his singularity and independence.37
The new Bond is able to respond to the challenges posed by the society of risk due to his “liquid”
qualities. 38 “Liquid modernity” is a post-Panoptical place where the nomadic elite rule. There are no assured
meanings in “liquid life.” Seduction replaces coercion. Power is equated with “traveling light,” and with
increased individualization and self-reliance, there is a decreased need for experts. Although self-reliance has
always been a 007 trait, it takes on a new tenor and a sense of urgency in Casino Royale. There is an
increased level of political disenchantment refracted through 007. Institutionalized political compositions no
longer ring true as Bond practices “productive piracy.”
The pirate maintains a variable proximity to the state as both its secret agent and the criminal agent
that disassembles it—as criminal enforcer. [The pirate] operates axiomatically, squarely in the realm
of those ethical struggles that accompany colliding worlds….The pirate who is too smart to be right
exploits an error language to unravel beliefs either in his own purity or in the purity of his resistance.
Errors, disguises, and jokes substitute mongrel organizational resilience and ingenuity for innocence
and the violence of remaining intact.39
As a pirate (or “military entrepreneur”), 007 points to the perversity of a global system that creates what it
then seeks to destroy.
The Technological Sublime
The sublime plays a major role in the construction of culture and social imaginaries that mark
historical moments. It has been argued that:
36
Beck 2002, p. 4, 8.
It should be noted that this understanding is in opposition to what Beck presents as a solution. For Beck, transnational
cooperation is the answer.
38
See Zygmunt Bauman’s (2000) Liquid Modernity and his (2005) Liquid Life, Malden, MA: Polity
39
Keller Easterling (2006) Enduring Innocence: Global Architecture and Its Political Masquerades. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, p. 195-6.
37
11
The sublime underlies [the] enthusiasm for technology…The sublime taps into fundamental hopes
and fears. It is not a social residue, created by economic and political forces, though both can inflect
its meaning. Rather, it is an essentially religious feeling, aroused by the confrontation with
impressive knowledge…The technological sublime is an integral part of contemporary
consciousness, and its emergence and exfoliation into several distinct forms during the past two
centuries is inscribed in public life.40
The changing nature of the technological sublime is contingent on the social context of technology—how
new objects and technological processes are integrated into the fabric of social life. As democracy and
advancing technology no longer exist in a indissoluble relationship, as technological achievements and
machines no longer measure cultural value, as common justifications for technological advancement
(patriotism, the advancement of science, and protection of the free world) break-down, and as technology
poses the possibility of a “death world” over enlightenment, the experience of the technological sublime is
fundamentally altered. The concept of the sublime consists of two basic categories: difficulty and
magnificence (Burke); but is also tied to rhetorical structures that demonstrate power, awe, astonishment,
vastness, power, obscurity, and importantly, terror.41
In a post-9/11 society, there is little faith that a “technical fix” can adequately address risk
preparedness. Atomic weaponry and space exploration (as a militarized program born of reaction and fear)
provided the nagging notion that technology may not ensure the possibility of self-preservation.42 This
nagging notion has escalated into a more acute sentiment in the context of recent (unnatural) disasters (9/11,
Katrina). “[I]ntimations of the death world emerge in moments of international tension”43 pointing to
uncertainty and dread that simmer beneath the surface. In this context what is invested with sublimity? As
the sublime experience of technology and gadgetry wanes, it is reconstructed in new experiential realms. For,
“[o]ver time, the same objects cannot always be counted upon to evoke the sublime response. Their power
often decays, and other alternatives are sought.”44 Perhaps now, sites of (unnatural) disaster capture our
hopes and fears, confronting us with the sublime—power, awe, and wonder tinged with terror. Gawking at
40
David E. Nye (1994) American Technological Sublime. Cambridge, MA: MIT, p. xiii-xiv.
Kant’s “dynamic sublime” stresses that the sublime involves “the contemplation of scenes that arouse terror…seen by
a subject who is safe from immediate danger.” in Nye (1994), p. 7.
42
Nye 1994, p. 228.
43
Nye 1994, p. 255.
44
Nye 1994, p. xiv.
41
12
the aftermath, the sublime experience takes place in relative safety. Yet, tourism of post-Katrina New
Orleans and the World Trade Center site, although relatively safe, is haunted by the uncertainty of belonging
to a society ‘at-risk.’ The collective effervescence that emerges through belonging to a society at risk is what
keeps us transfixed in the presence of contemporary sites of disaster. Faced with the dissonance of
uncomfortable thoughts and feelings that emerge in this context, Bond films function to sublimate reactions
and feelings (those of hopelessness, anger, anxiety, hatred, etc.). Impulses and practices are dealt with on the
screen by an efficacious operative as Bond effectively acts out our impulses and assuages our anxieties like a
Freudian dream.
Conclusion: Entertainment and Reality
Bristling with security systems and intelligence-gathering devices, the regime is hungry for information, but it prefers to recognize
only compatible information that reinforces its innocence and righteousness.
Keller Easterling
Can serious issues be translated into film (images, script) without losing content? Can movies
(humor, drama) make explicit ‘real’ social dramas? Is something gained (politically, philosophically)
through the medium of film? Can James Bond provide commentary or insight into our cultural politics in
ways that more serious media cannot? In a world where we watch the war on television (entertainment?),
while Defense Department policy censors images of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq, is fiction better
able to address serious political issues and stimulate cultural dialogue?
Following a recent New Yorker story on the television series 24,45 a military interrogator responded
with a letter to the editor linking military action to the fictional television show,
I have witnessed soldiers modeling their actions and speech, sometimes word for word, on movies
such as Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, and Apocalypse Now. Most interrogators do not use abusive
techniques, because the results are unreliable and often counterproductive. What most concerns me,
however, is the influence of shows like 24 on impressionable front-line soldiers and marines who
lack sufficient training in the handling of prisoners. It is the abuse of thousands of routine captives,
who are often of no intelligence value, that erodes our credibility and moral standing, not the
treatment of the minute number who possess information on imminent attacks. It is a shame that the
45
See Jane Mayer, February 19 & 26, 2007, “Whatever It Takes: The Politics of the Man Behind 24,” The New Yorker.
13
Army has to expend resources attempting to counteract the corrosive influence that Jack Bauer and
similar characters have on young soldiers.46
At a Heritage Foundation panel on 24(the panel was moderated by Rush Limbaugh), Homeland Security
Secretary Michael Chertoff “praised the show’s depiction of the war on terrorism as ‘trying to make the best
choice with a series of bad options…Frankly it reflects real life.’”47 Is there a point where the fiction of film
and imagery overlap with reality and experience? What types of relationships exist between the politics
depicted in film and the politics of the real world? As representation (simulacra?)—does the filmic represent
the real or does the real represent the cinematic? Does “‘real social life’ itself somehow acquire the features
of a staged fake…a reversal into a spectral show?”48 GlobalSecurity.org organizes their data according to the
categories: WMDs, military, intelligence, homeland security, space and the public eye—they feature satellite
images of tsunamis, nuclear reactors, photos of fighter planes and Iraqi cities, as “Picture of the Week,”
recalling themes and images from the Bond genre. Bin Laden could be viewed as a quintessential Bond
villain—living in a ‘hideout’ cave; releasing videotaped training manuals, promotional materials, and
messages to the world; conducting chemical gas experiments on dogs.
Is, consequently, Osama Bin Laden, the suspected mastermind behind the bombings, not the real-life
counterpart of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the master-criminal in most of the James Bond films, involved
in the acts of global destruction? James Bond penetrates the master-criminal's secret domain and
locates there the site of intense labor (distilling and packaging the drugs, constructing a rocket that
will destroy New York...)…the function of Bond's intervention, of course, is to explode in firecraks
this site of production, allowing us to return to the daily semblance of our existence.49
Similarly, the discovery of Saddam Hussein in an “underground facility” harkens to bygone-era Bond films.
But perhaps it is the coltan industry and the extraction of this commodity—used primarily for mobile phones,
computer chips, and nuclear reactors—that sets-up the most fruitful dialogue with a Bond film. Surrounded
by accusations of slavery, fueling the war in Congo, illegally smuggled, threatening the integrity of the
environment and national wildlife reserves, the extraction of coltan could provide the context for a Bond film
rich with espionage and conflict. It also echoes the perversity of global conflicts (and disasters) today—while
Richard Kedzior, letter to the editor (“Televised Torture”), The New Yorker, March 19, 2007.
Jane Mayer, February 19 & 26, 2007, “Whatever It Takes: The Politics of the Man Behind 24,” The New Yorker. p. 82.
48
Slavoj Zizek asks this question in his essay, “Welcome to the Desert of the Real.” Available at:
www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/times/109zizek.htm (accessed: April 16, 2007).
49
Zizek, “Desert of the Real”
46
47
14
we could imagine 007’s intervention in the context of Congo, he would rely on laptops, mobiles, and
microchips, the very cause of the conflict itself.
Just like film and cinema, political and technological landscapes are imbued with myths and desires—
myths and desires subject to disenchantment. The World Trade Center once embodied the classic form of the
technological sublime. Perhaps now the site’s crater embodies a new sublime where we:
were introduced to the “desert of the real”—to us, corrupted by Hollywood, the landscape and the
shots we saw of the collapsing towers could not but remind us of the most breathtaking scenes in the
catastrophe big productions…it was…a shock, but the space for it was already prepared in
ideological fantasizing…this threat was also obviously libidinally invested—just recall the series of
movies from Escape From New York to Independence Day. Therein resides the rationale of the
often-mentioned association of the attacks with the Hollywood disaster movies: the unthinkable
which happened was the object of fantasy, so that, in a way, America got what it fantasized about,
and this was the greatest surprise.50
Thus, the dialogue between film and the actual goes beyond questions of representation—the dialectical
nature of the conversation acts to sublimate our experience of insecurity that comes from living in a society
at-risk. “Stupid and unreal film fantasies are the daydreams of society, in which its actual reality comes to the
fore and its otherwise repressed wishes take form.”51
Barbara Adams
PhD Candidate, The New School for Social Research
50
51
Zizek, “Desert of the Real”
Kracauer 2005, p. 292.
15