http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/fea ... violence.p hp
A bit shaken and stirred by Bond violence
MARK SMITH July 21 2009
Roger Moore was the best James Bond. Really, I'm serious. I know the consensus, repeated again and again in pubs and at parties, is that Sean Connery was the greatest but I've never agreed with that. I've always thought Moore was the best for exactly the same reasons I'm worried about the new, unexpected direction the Bond franchise is rumoured to be about to take.
Yesterday it was revealed that the makers of the films are considering prequel movies based on the Young Bond novels by Charlie Higson. The books, which feature a 13-year-old version of the spy, have been a big success since the first, SilverFin. That book, which was published in 2005, was set largely in the Scottish Highlands with a primary-colour cast of characters including a wicked American laird and the very first Bond girl (Scottish, incidentally). It has been suggested that Higson's novels could help encourage teenage boys who have drifted off from reading to more tempting pasttimes like cider and cigarettes to start drifting back.
That may or may not happen, but should we encourage young boys - or girls for that matter - to see Bond as a hero? Can't we find a better role model for children than a boy or a man who solves his problems with guns or fists or bombs? Even Charlie Higson himself has admitted that the violence in his books is high. "Some people have complained the books are too violent but that's entirely my kids' fault," he has said. "They insist on high levels of gore, so I have to keep killing people off."
Certainly, that has been the trend in the films too. The series was relaunched three years ago as Bond with extra blood. When punches flew, we heard them. When bullets cut through bodies, we saw them. A conversation with Bond used to end with a one-liner; now it ends with a wordless bout of violence.
Even Roger Moore himself has criticised the way the films have gone. "I am happy to have done it," he said recently, "but I'm sad that it has turned so violent. That's what cinema-goers seem to want."
It doesn't have to be that way. Moore is my favourite Bond because he was just as likely to solve a problem, to get out of a deadly situation, with a barb as a bullet. That famous eyebrow would twitch just as often as his trigger-finger. Wit was a weapon. Violence wasn't always the answer.
And that is the kind of hero we should be encouraging children to admire. Yesterday, new pictures were published of Matt Smith on his first day playing Doctor Who, a man who never treats women badly or resorts to violence except as a last resort. Equally, if we're looking for a hero who is also a good role model for children, Harry Potter would do just as well. Like Bond, Potter lives in a world where evil is waiting, where believing in the best in people can get you killed, but his response is entirely different to Bond's. Harry is part of a team and solves problems using that team; he beats his enemies standing alongside his friends. Bond on the other hand is the loner who thinks friends are for wimps and girls are for kissing and then dissing. That Harry Potter is different doesn't make him a softie. Far from it: he is an idol for millions of children.
No one could deny of course that there is a lot of violence in Doctor Who and the Harry Potter books and films but the underlying message is that violence is always a last resort (often Harry wins by turning the violence against the baddies, using their own spells against them). The message of Bond couldn't be more different: he promotes the idea that the only response to violence is violence. If someone hits you, the only thing to do is hit back harder. That's okay in adult movies, but not in films aimed at children.
And there is something else that is important too. The new Doctor Who wears a bow-tie, Harry Potter wears glasses. These are heroes for exactly the kind of boys that a bully like James Bond would think nothing of pushing around. They are kind of heroes that prove James Bond is nothing but a loser.
) or Jason Bourne. As many people have stated, this was done by Eon to try to get a new audience for Bond.
