Introduction They call him Mr Kiss Kiss Bang Bang; the man with the license to kill; the most famous – and perhaps infamous – secret agent in history; his call sign is 007 and his name, we all know the immortal line, is Bond… James Bond. By investigating two films from the Bond franchise, GoldenEye (1995, Martin Campbell) and Casino Royale (2006, Martin Campbell) this dissertation will demonstrate that these James Bond films are depictions of the geopolitical and socio- cultural values of the time in which they were made. The research will be divided into two parts. Part One will investigate the representation of women while Part Two will focus on the representation of masculinity, conflict and geopolitics in the respective case studies. Each part will begin by contextualising the case studies within the zeitgeist 1, or socio-cultural values and perceptions, of the decades in which they were made. Thus Part One begins with a discussion of the state of feminism and gender equality in the 1990s and 2000s. Part Two begins with an investigation of the socio-cultural values and perceptions of masculinity, conflict and geopolitics in the same two decades. Each part then continues by identifying how these socio-cultural values are clearly reflected by the respective case studies. The reason for dividing this research into these two parts is simple. This dissertation argues that socio-cultural values and perceptions of women do not experience a significant 1 The way in which this dissertation utilises the term ‘ zeitgeist ’ is usefully mapped out by Marshal in A Dictionary of Sociology : “The characteristic spirit ( Geist ) of a historical era ( Zeit ) [...] most fully developed by Hegel [who argued that] works of art [...] cannot transcend the spirit of the age in which they are produced” (1998: available online). Hegel’s notion that art – or, in this case, film – “cannot transcend the age in which [it is] produced” (ibid) ties in neatly with this dissertation’s argument that these two popular films reflect the socio-cultural values – or “characteristic spirit” – of their times. Further, just as “the term zeitgeist has come to more loosely describe the general cultural qualities of any period, such as ‘the sixties’” (ibid), so this dissertation’s use of the term will refer to the “general cultural qualities” of the nineties and 2000s. 1 change between the 1990s and the 2000s. It thus follows that the way in which women are represented in the Bond films from these respective decades does not differ greatly. In fact, it will prove that female characters in both films conform to exactly the same narrative structures and ideology. In contrast to this Part Two will demonstrate that a significant change occurred in the socio-cultural values of masculinity, conflict and geopolitics between the end of the 20 th century and the beginning of the 21 st . In terms of these issues the two case studies, while merely a decade apart, are products of vastly different times. The world of the 1990’s (post Cold War; post Gulf War; on the cusp of the millennium; technology obsessed and technology anxious) stands in stark contrast to the world of the mid 2000’s (post 9/11; during ongoing and bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; post the coming of the millennium and enduring an elusive terrorist fear). The result is that, in contrast to the representation of women, the representations of masculinity, conflict and geopolitics in the two case studies are vastly different. These differences in subject matter influence the structure of Part One and Part Two. Part One argues a continuing trajectory in socio-cultural values which can be traced through both case studies. As a result it addresses the two films separately and chronologically, beginning with GoldenEye . This allows the dissertation to clearly delineate the depiction of women in the first film and then illustrate how the second followed on this depiction almost exactly. Part Two takes a different approach. Because it argues a dramatic change in socio- cultural values it does not discuss the films separately. Rather it addresses specific aspects in both films (such as the physical representation of Bond; his use of technology or the depiction 2 his world, for example) demonstrating the very different way in which each case study represents these aspects. Before the investigation can begin, however, it is advisable give a short synopsis of each film. GoldenEye While it is set in the early to mid 1990s, GoldenEye, directed by Martin Campbell (1995) draws extensively on a Soviet and post-Soviet milieu for its plotline and settings. The film revolves around 007’s attempts to find a stolen Russian weapon, codenamed: Goldeneye. The pre-credit sequence is set before the end of the Cold War, depicting how Bond and a close friend, Alec Trevelyan,(a.k.a.: 006) infiltrate and destroy a Soviet weapons facility. Things go horribly wrong and 006 is executed by a Russian, Colonel Orumov, while 007 escapes in a dramatic gun battle climaxing in a fantastical aerial stunt as the complex explodes. After the credits Bond attempts to thwart the theft of a highly advanced helicopter prototype, the Tiger, by an alluring and beautiful woman, Xenia Onnattopp. The evening before the theft Bond attempts to seduce Xenia, but she rejects his advances in favour of an admiral whom she strangles to death during foreplay in order to obtain the access pass required to steal the Tiger helicopter. Xenia and her anonymous partner, revealed to be Orumov, (006’s executioner in the pre-credit sequence) now a General in the Russian army, use the Tiger to steal a highly advanced weapon system, codename: Goldeneye. During their theft they slaughter the staff of the Severnaya facility, which had run the Goldeneye program. A lone programmer, Natalya Simonova, escapes. M (the head of MI6) and Bond watch the theft and destruction of 3 Severnaya via satellite. Subsequently M orders Bond to “find Goldenye; find who took it, what they plan to do with it – and stop it” (00:47:36) 2. The film follows Bond on his mission. Along the way several characters cross his path. One is an arch nemesis, Valentin Zukovsky, whom Bond coerces into helping him – a coup, considering their past animosity. As his search continues he meets Natalya Simonova who, after some coercion, aligns herself with Bond, seeking those responsible for the slaughter of her friends at Severnaya. Bond is finally led to the villain at the heart of the Goldeneye plot only to discover that it is 006, his old friend. It is revealed that Trevelyan had been in cahoots with Orumov and faked his own death. Bond is shaken by this revelation and ambushed. He and Natalya are left for dead in the Tiger helicopter which is set to self-destruct. Thanks to Bond they escape. The two of them pursue Trevelyan throughout the rest of the film. During the action- packed pursuits and near death encounters Natalya warms to Bond and the two become lovers. Before their final love scene Natalya probes Bond about the trauma of pursuing an old friend who is now an arch enemy. In the climax of the film Natalya and Bond discover Trevleyan’s stronghold and infiltrate it, only to be captured. In the moments before he has them killed Trevelyan reveals his master plan: to electronically steal a fortune from the Bank of England and then detonate the Goldeneye weapon to erase any trace of his theft. Bond and Natalya fight their way free and sabotage Trevelyan’s plot. She programs the Goldeneye weapon to self-destruct and Bond 2 This dissertation contains two differing types of timecode references. Where the text refers to a series of events within a scene (starts: timecode) gives the timecode at which the relevant scene begins. Where the text refers to specific moments of action or dialogue (timecode) gives the exact moment at which the relevant occurrence takes place. 4 destroys the massive satellite dish with which Trevelyan could reverse her command. Bond and his former-friend-turned-nemesis battle it out in the metallic confines of the dish until Bond drops the other man to his death. GoldenEye – Main Characters James Bond ... Pierce Brosnan Alec Trevelyan ... Sean Bean Natalya Simonova ... Izabella Scorupco Xenia Onatopp ... Famke Janssen Jack Wade ... Joe Don Baker M ... Judi Dench Valentin Dmitrovich Zukovsky ... Robbie Coltrane General Arkady Grigorovich Ourumov ... Gottfried John Q ... Desmond Llewelyn Miss Moneypenny ... Samantha Bond Bill Tanner ... Michael Kitchen (GoldenEye , 1990-2010: available online) Casino Royale Directed by Martin Campbell (2006) Casino Royale depicts the origins of James Bond; describing the journey which takes him from a novice ‘00’ who is shaken by his violent acts and makes several critical errors during his mission to a cold, cool and ruthlessly capable secret agent. The film’s pre-credit sequence depicts James’ first two kills – the requirements to obtain ‘00’ status. After the credits we see Le Chiffre , a banker to terrorists, introduced to a menacing 5 African terrorist by a mysterious Mr White. Mr White’s introduction convinces the terrorist to trust Le Chiffre with the laundering and investment of vast sums of money. Meanwhile Bond is tracking an international terrorist network’s financiers. His actions cause a very public debacle as he executes a bomb maker and blows up an embassy. M scathingly rebukes him and orders him to lie low. Bond continues his search however, following a lead from the bomb maker. He seduces a terrorist’s wife, Solange, kills the terrorist and thwarts the bombing of a massive airliner. Le Chiffre , having masterminded the bombing, had done a ‘short’ transaction (a bet against the shares of this airline falling) – with his clients’ money.