Month of Bond: Why James Bond is a codename and not one man!

I’m going to pre-cursor this theory with a simple statement: This is my opinion of the series and not necessarily the intended view. It isn’t an original view, I’d heard it many times before and dismissed it as quickly but as I watched every film this year (and most this last month) I soon realised how much sense this theory made compared to the idea that James Bond is the same man in every one of the 24 movies about him. Not only did this make more sense, I actually enjoyed the films more because of it and as this theory took hold, so did my imagination and the clues within the Bond films that support it…

My Theory

The number 007 and the name James Bond are both codenames given to an individual when he enters the 00-program. To protect his real identity completely and to ensure that he is never traceable, the agent is given a new name and a new back-story, including favourite drink, weapon and car.

Each Bond is so different that a codename makes sense

How you choose which spy gets which codename is dependent on their characteristics and personality. James Bond will always be given to the most reckless of people. James Bond will be the name for the person who is most likely to shun orders, be a womaniser and shirk authority. You could even argue that 007 is always the best spy as well. This would explain why you get similar people who do similar things but who are all slightly different.

The proof

The first piece of proof is obvious but also the most easily dismissed – they are all completely different people played by completely different actors. That’s not such a great argument because superheroes have changed actors countless times without as much as a raised eyebrow but each actor is so different from the last and their version of Bond is too.

Connery’s Bond is a reckless playboy

Connery starts us off with a rugged, grounded playboy who is handy in a fight as he is seducing a woman. He completes many a mission successfully but his version of James Bond is “killed off” to cover his whereabouts (You Only Live Twice).

This is when George Lazenby takes over. He is less the charming womaniser and more the rugged, brutal assassin. He even says at the beginning of the movie (On Her Majesty’s Secret Service) “This never happened to the other fellow.” It also explains why Blofeld (another character who changes face) doesn’t recognise Bond when they first meet – even though they have seen each other already (You Only Live Twice).

After losing his wife it would make sense that Lazenby’s Bond would retire

At the end of the movie, a newly married Bond sees his wife assassinated by Blofeld. What better reason to leave the service than the mourning of a recently lost love?

So Connery, noticeably older, is asked back to finish the job he started (Diamonds are Forever); assassinate Blofeld. This (slightly) goes to plan but Connery is too old to play James Bond so a new, younger man enters.

Roger Moore’s Bond is less serious

This Bond isn’t the serious, brutal assassin that we knew before but more a gentleman spy, focused more on the women than the mission. This James Bond is willing to go to the silliest lengths to complete the mission, including dressing as a clown (Octopussy)! Roger Moore’s Bond also gets the best gadgets and most outlandish missions (Moonraker). He survives in the job longer than anyone, opening the door for our next agent.

Timothy Dalton is a different kind of James Bond. He has a problem with anger and seeking vengeance. He almost compromises his first mission (The Living Daylights) because of it and then essentially quits MI6 completely (License to Kill). With Dalton’s Bond too reckless, they seek a new agent to take the title.

Pierce Brosnan’s Bond was less angry and vengeful than Dalton’s

Pierce Brosnan is probably the best of the new spies. He is cocky, reckless but also mildly respects authority. He also sees in a new M, (Goldeneye) one who is more invested in her agents than any other, played by Judi Dench. Brosnan sees through many missions but he is captured (Die Another Day) and his trustworthiness as well as usefulness becomes a factor so a new, much more volatile Bond is recruited.

What is unique about Daniel Craig’s James Bond is we see his first mission and first ever kills. He is Judi Dench’s M’s personal choice and we get our first look at a raw 007 recruit. His missions have the first over-arching story too and after his first mission, he almost quits completely! (Casino Royale).

It explains how Dench’s M could know both inexperienced Craig and seasoned Brosnan

My theory would also explain how we have Judi Dench’s M at the beginning of a James Bond’s career and at the end of another’s (Die Another Day). It could also explain the very final feeling at the end of Spectre (which for spoilers sake I won’t go into too far now).

This theory makes for a more interesting saga. It demonstrates the changes in the 00-program and MI6. It also explains why when Craig’s Bond hears about Spectre, he has no idea who they are! Add to this a very exciting prospect: if there are many different James Bonds, could we have two of the actors fight side-by-side?

The problem

This has been heavily debunked! There is lots of evidence to link all the Bonds together as one person. Roger Moore visits Tracy Bond’s grave. There are many references to Bond’s wife through many of the different films. This can be easily forgotten and overlooked though.

Roger Moore visits Tracy Bond’s grave!

What can’t be dismissed is the two most recent movies. Skyfall and Spectre both involve James Bond’s past and actually name him as the spy as a child! We go to Bond’s family home in Skyfall and the villain is linked heavily with his childhood in Spectre. This could still be explained away with a codename though except…

James Bond’s parents’ graves are in Skyfall – with Bond as a surname! You start to have to take pretty big leaps to explain this evidence away – but I’m willing to ignore it.

Hard to dispute but not impossible!

Overall, I prefer the theory that James Bond is a codename and six different people. It explains the huge, mixed-up timeline that has been developed. It explains the inconsistencies in character and the wild change in technology. It also makes for a more interesting series which follows one codename rather than one very lucky spy! You may not like it, it may certainly not be what the creators of the Bond franchise have intended but it’s how I view the series and what I believe when I watch the films.

Wouldn’t it be great to see them fight side-by-side?
Advertisements

10 comments

  1. Still trying to figure how this post got past me. :/ I can see movie bits working for and against this theory. James Bond is a pretty decently common, average name.

    Though unless 007 is the “English” one (with each 00 representing a different ethnic sector), then Alec Trevelyan is a dangerously non-common moniker for 006…

    …will keep this theory in mind from now on. 😀

    • It isn’t a perfect theory but it helps me stretch the credibility of a character who has been on adventures for 50 years and not aged a day.

      It gets your mind working too, for example the 006 point is a valid one and another reason the theory isn’t necessarily accurate.

      • I wonder what benefit a dual designation provides since 007 uses lots of false identities in many of the films. Then again, ‘benefit’ may not be the point.

        It may simply be each 00 has specific responsibilities assigned to it the way lines in a script are assigned to a character regardless of what person plays that role.

        Then whoever gets that role learns those lines. So, if you hear 006 or Alec Trevelyan, everyone knows that means the agent handling missions, etc related to the USSR.

        I wouldn’t call it imperfect. Unrefined theories often have this quality of both supporting AND conflicting evidence. Doesn’t make it right or wrong, just incomplete – usually.

      • I love how developed you can make this. That is such a great way to justify it. I always thought of it as each 00 has specific characteristics too. 007 is clearly someone who is a risk-taker and “loose cannon” while oo1 could be your by the book reliable type.

  2. Those may not even be characteristics either, but alerts. We know from the movies that support agents are employed in all those places.

    So a covert employee hears “shaken not stirred” and knows it’s not only a field operative, but which one in particular.

    Comes in handy if more than one agent’s going to be in that area and it makes more sense than assigning agents by their preferred drink, etc.

    And no one has to risk getting seen winking or nodding or secret hand-shaking.

    Just teasing the theory out.

You've heard my opinion, let me know what you think...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s