Licence Revoked or: Timothy Dalton's Bond - Written By Zach Frances

Franz Sanchez: You could have had everything.

James Bond: Don't you want to know why?

Timothy Dalton's run as James Bond was very short-lived. In this article, I am going to explore why. Dalton starred in two films as Bond, The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill, and subsequently stepped down from the role of 007. The fans never seemed to recognize Dalton as Moore's successor, and to this day, most can't seem to appreciate what he did for the series. Why? The answer is quite simple. Dalton's Bond was relatable, human, and susceptible. James Bond was always an idea, a comic concept, and a fantasy. Dalton's Bond was a human being, all the while he still retained all of the charisma and likability that had carried the character up to that point. But giving Bond a human feel would be Dalton's undoing.

Dalton's Bond was ruled by his emotions, this point is made abundantly clear in Licence To Kill where Bond's emotions lead him to ruin time and time again. The problem most fans have with Licence To Kill are in part some of the reasons why I like it so much. The film was criticized for not feeling like a true Bond picture, but more like a renegade cop movie that would have been quite commonplace in the late eighties. But that brings up a very interesting concept. A renegade by definition is a deserter, someone who rejects lawful or conventional behavior. Before Licence To Kill, Bond had been well-established as a symbol of efficient and heroic militarism, a cog in the machine of a government that was always morally and ethically absolute. Essentially, James Bond was the poster boy for covert militarism at work. In Licence To Kill, Dalton's Bond does the unthinkable when he disobeys a direct order from MI6 and disregards the fact that his licence to kill has been revoked by the very agency that issued it.

Dalton's Bond feels that an injustice has been done, an injustice not recognized by MI6, and promotes himself from secret agent to judge, juror, and executioner. He deserts his government in pursuit of a greater institution. James Bond pursues revenge and receives bloody satisfaction. You see, its one thing to say that Licence To Kill feels more like a renegade cop movie than a Bond picture, but its another to blatantly overlook the implications that becoming a renegade had on a character like James Bond. This is Bond without his gadgets, without back-up, without a lifeline to MI6, and this is Bond without a country. Bond is not fighting for national pride here nor is he risking his life to save the world from nuclear catastrophe. He is out to seek revenge for one lost life. He is emotional, overwrought, and cracks in his facade are clearly visible throughout the film. This time its personal. People don't like it when James Bond gets personal, or at least they weren't too keen to it in 1989.

Bond had always been able to separate himself from his work, something Dalton's Bond could never do. Even in The Living Daylights, everything was personal for Bond. Dalton's Bond was not afraid to allow himself to be emotionally affected, or as most fans and critics saw it, Dalton's Bond was incapable of completing a mission the way a 00 ought to. In fact, Dalton's replacement was one Pierce Brosnan, and Brosnan to me was nothing more than a bland continuation of Roger Moore's interpretation of the character. And in Brosnan's first bond movie, GoldenEye, he explains that his cold resolve is what keeps his alive. What Brosnan's Bond is basically saying here is that a real man has to learn to conceal his emotions rather than express them to anyone in any capacity. He's saying that a true man is not ruled by his emotions, but controls them from ever affecting his work, and he's saying that if a man does not do these things he will die, be rendered obsolete; replaced.  I consider that a direct attack on Dalton's previous run. But that's what fans wanted, if Bond were to be noticeably emotional or damaged then the fans would have to feel things. They wanted their Bond to have less depth than a comic book superhero. They wanted Bond to get the girl, kill the villain, save the world, and to never under any circumstances question his government or his methods.

In Licence To Kill, Dalton's Bond systematically defeats the villain, Franz Sanchez, in a way that could only be described as both obsessive and compulsive. He actually considers Franz Sanchez equally dangerous, and although he gets his little one-liners, he endures far more moments of doubt than most Bond fans are comfortable sharing with him. Dalton's Bond was not a superhero, but Dalton's Bond was revolutionary nonetheless. People like to call him the darker of the Bonds, and that is almost entirely untrue. He was the most human and passionate of them all, and there is absolutely nothing dark about being human and passionate. Bond fans seem to view emotion as heavy or adult. Well, I just think most Bond fans are delusional.

Daniel Craig's Bond seems to be getting far too much credit at the moment, especially in the character development department. If Dalton had been given the opportunity to make another Bond film, I feel as if the character would have developed much faster than he has. Dalton seemed to be pushing the character in an exciting and visceral direction, and Brosnan took the character a step backward. Now it is 2013 and James Bond has officially cried on film. Take a look back at Dalton's Bond, and try to tell me that sort of breakthrough wasn't long overdue.

In closing, I would just like to say how important Dalton's run was to the series. His films remain classics, cult or otherwise, and he is slowly getting recognition for the revolutionary way he handled the character. One of the biggest upsets in the entire Bond universe was the fact that Dalton was axed after only two films. Maybe Licence To Kill illustrated the emotional complexities that the character was capable of twenty years too soon on an audience that were simply not ready for a Bond they could actually touch.

Thanks For Reading!

-Zach Frances

To Catch A Thunderball or: Fiona's Apple - Written By Zach Frances

Fiona Volpe: Do you like wild things, Mr. Bond, James Bond?

James Bond: Wild? You should be locked in a cage.

Fiona Volpe: This bed feels like a cage. All these bars. Do you think I'll be safe?

Sean Connery's fourth outing as James Bond is also one of his very best. It is called Thunderball, and there is a very surprising theme underlying the film: prisons and prisoners. It may be the most complex Bond movie ever made.

The first time Bond sees the word 'Thunderball' it is stamped on the cover of a top secret folder, its contents confined by both confidentiality and sealed by tape. He is told to examine the documents contained within the Thunderball folder after hearing that his government is being forced to pay a large ransom to protect its citizens from nuclear catastrophe. Therefore his Government has been turned into a prison of SPECTRE, its citizens turned prisoners. There is also the matter of the missing plane that had carried the atomic bombs, its missing. Where does Bond find it? Confined underwater in a shark cage.

"Vanity has its dangers."

Several characters perpetuate the theme of prisons and prisoners further, but none so much as femme fatale Fiona Volpe. She completely fascinates me. Possibly my favorite Bond girl of them all, Fiona Volpe was portrayed by Luciana Paluzzi in the film with deadly precision. She is an agent of SPECTRE and an absolute scene-stealer. There are many fascinating things about Fiona, but first off I would like to talk about her appearance. She is a very desirable woman, sometimes she is too beautiful for words, and evil is one of her most attractive qualities. This makes the viewer a prisoner of his own attraction to danger and evil, but that's far too simple a statement to make when dealing with a Bond film. Her villainy highlighted by her physical beauty reveals deadly desire's true colors: passionate and "wild". Bond's relationship with Domino, the true Bond girl of the film, is of the traditional variety, meaning hollow and acceptable. Bond and Fiona, on the other hand, pursue a short but passionate and revealing affair. This proposes the concept that being evil is more emotionally rewarding than being good. Or at least a more passionate alternative to it. Her appearance perpetuates this concept further, since she is a very beautiful woman, much more so than Domino, one can assume that evil is more beautiful than good. While Emilio Largo has Domino followed constantly so as there is nothing to damage her innocence, Fiona is independent as well as damaged, and about as far from innocent as you can get. Bond's desire leads him to Fiona, but its his mission that makes Domino the necessary companion. Then again it is Fiona's mission that leads her to Bond, but you must understand, her mission was her desire. When men think with their hearts, evil's sway is well in reach, but when they think of their duty, rewards for this obedience will come with practicality.

In fact one of the major gripes Bond had with Fiona was the fact that she wasn't affected emotionally by sleeping with him. Perhaps even the fact that Bond was seduced instead of the other way around. Both characters are prisoners of sex and duty. The only time the two of them actually participate in romantic affairs is when the mission calls for or allows it to take place. Fiona tells Bond that the bed they are making love in feels like a cage after Bond tells her she belongs in one. In this situation, the mission is the prison, and Fiona and Bond's allegiance to their organizations is something they both know will prevent them from ever seeking true comfort in the arms of another. Fiona and Bond mix sex with violence so much I'd be surprised if either one can tell the difference between the two. Maybe there's no difference at all.

Fiona expresses how wild she feels, while earlier Bond expressed to Largo how he is not a man of passion. This contrast should prove an important one while on the topic of sex in Thunderball. Before Bond has his affair with Fiona, we see him engage in intercourse with a physiotherapist and it is neither passionate nor involving, its borderline bribery and boredom. With Fiona, it was very different, and the difference was made abundantly clear by Bond's actions after Fiona turns on him. Laying with evil made Bond feel something we had never seen before Thunderball, it made him feel passion. The question of whether or not Bond knew Fiona's intentions the whole time is wholly insignificant here because that's not the way Sean Connery played that scene. Sean Connery played a hurt Bond, but only as hurt as James Bond can get. Its a performance of nuance and subtlety, even if he knew in his heart of hearts that Fiona was an agent of SPECTRE, he was enjoying her company rather than absorbing it. He allowed himself to be physically and emotionally probed rather than physically dominate her. And then he learns that wasn't even a possibility. Also, the fact that the ring she wears gave her away is telling of the marital allegiances SPECTRE agents hold. There is absolutely nothing that gives away Bond's affiliation with the British government, but perhaps that's because they don't brand their agents. Interesting that its a ring though, considering the marital implications derived from such an accessory.

Fiona's apple, her passion, gave way to her death.

The death of Fiona Volpe is my all-time favorite death in any Bond film. The set-up is deliriously exciting and the whole scene washes over you in masterstrokes of editing. Its also my favorite death in any Bond film because of the underlying ideas that accompany it. She dies performing a passionate activity, dancing. A gunman has Bond in the cross hairs, Fiona knows this and Bond knows this. The gunman fires, and Bond swings Fiona around in order for her to catch the bullet. The bullet enters her spine, presumably lodging itself in her heart. Bond covers the bullet's entry-point with his hand and briefly continues to dance. This is a perfect visual metaphor for passion in the modern industrial age. Man can have his passions just as man can play with fire. But when duty calls, it is man's responsibility to heed it. Man must cover up his passions in order to fulfill his obligations to society. Man does not necessarily need to be devoid of emotion, but he cannot be ruled by it. Fiona had to die in order for Bond's world to continue unaffected by her cold resolve. Much like how Fiona's loyalty had not been swayed by sleeping with Bond and sharing one of the most private things you can share with a person, Bond was wholly unscathed by watching her die. Sex and dying are two very personal things, and they are things Fiona, a self-described wild woman, shared with 007, a self-described man of little passion.

Allow me to praise Luciana Paluzzi for a moment because I thought she was just extraordinary. Her physical beauty alone communicated the passion, honor, and maleficence the dialog likes to take credit for. The dialog did not communicate those feelings, it inherited them. Paluzzi communicates feelings that are not in the script, and her character feels the most alive out of all of them. She really did steal the show here, and like Mercutio and Moritz before her, her character was the crux of the production, regardless of her lifeline. She personified beauty and evil, and how the two can't inhabit the same body without warring with each other or causing some sort of self-fulfilling doom. One of the better performances by an Actress in a Bond film. Whether you agree or disagree, you do remember Fiona Volpe. A superb villain, very underrated, but incredibly iconic.

If I could just touch upon the similarities with James Bond and Emilio Largo for just moment, and say that like most of his other villains, they share several likenesses. Only in Thunderball the similarites are more evident, seeing how Largo is SPECTRE's Number Two, and, arguably, Bond is the British Intelligence Agency's go-to man. Neither man seems to trust their women, and neither of them should. They share an affectation for duty and honor, and an unbreakable bond with the organizations that have fostered them. It might also be worth pointing out that Largo defeated Bond in combat, and Bond's life was saved by Domino, a woman Largo once trusted. I find it interesting that Largo physically defeated Bond, almost as if his allegiances to duty were of the passionate kind, whereas Bond seems to go through the motions in a textbook style more than define them heroically, altruistically, or passionately.

There is so much more I can talk about concerning Thunderball, but I feel that this article has gone on long enough. This is one of my favorite Bond films, and I think technically speaking, it may be the best of the Connery era. A lot of people seem to gloss over the characters in Thunderball and I enjoyed taking this time to single out a few interesting points about them. Like I said in my Dr. No article, a lot of people fail to consider Bond's underlying themes, but if you do the films become much more interesting. Thunderball is high up there on my list of favorites and I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

Thanks for reading!

-Zach Frances

The Humiliation At Crab Key Island or: A Dr. No You Can Touch - Written By Zach Frances

Dr. No: I'm a member of SPECTRE
James Bond: SPECTRE?
Dr. No: SPECTRE. Special Executive for Counter Intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, Extortion. The four great cornerstones of power headed by the greatest brains in the world.
James Bond: Correction. Criminal brains.
Dr. No: The successful criminal brain is always superior. It has to be.

Seniority has nothing to do with it, Dr. No is one of the best Bond movies ever. Much is written about the James Bond series, but not much is actually said. The fans of James Bond fit into what I like to call a bandwagon following, meaning that they go with the popular trend of the character. Goldfinger used to be heralded as the best Bond film ever made. Period. Then Skyfall came out and the critics praised it. Suddenly the fans learned a different tune. Me? Never. Dr. No was one of the best when I was five years old and its still one of the best today. The titular character is the reason why.

"East, West, just points of the compass, each as stupid as the other."

Dr. Julius No does not appear until nearly two hours into the film, and by then he is more than an enigma, he's a goddamn ghost, and that's exactly the way actor Joseph Wiseman plays him. The name 'Dr. No' is ushered repeatedly throughout the film. Almost religiously. Truths, lies, and mysteries are all spun before the crux of the film makes his entrance. The film defines Dr. No by what people say about him, rather than what he actually does, by mysteries rather than facts, by his absence and not his presence. Dr. Julius No is defined by the dangerous measures the hero goes through in order to face him and not the actual confrontation that expels him. As it happens, Dr. Julius No is the most fleshed out and fully realized character of the film, regardless of having such a small amount of screen-time. He is an unseen and hauntingly sinister shadow, a nightmare, a mad man, a God, and then he appears... and Joseph Wiseman does not disappoint.

"Unfortunately I misjudged you, you are just a stupid police man..."

The scene where Bond comes face to face with No and joins him for dinner is, bar-none, the greatest scene of its kind. Ever. In any film. The way Wiseman approached his character was flawless, understated, and unsung. To say he was emotionless would be insulting, he oozes insecurity. A man who has awaited defeat since childhood, No had been dealt one embarrassment after another in a series of painful blows throughout his lifetime, and he has welcomed every one of them with his... hands open. He's fashioned himself a God but never defines the purpose of his Kingdom nor does he particularly identify himself with it. He speaks loathsomely of those who have rejected him his entire life, of the humiliation he suffered that repels him from being accepted, and  the jealousy and sadness that all of that humiliation creates. Sadness can be mistaken for emotionless very easily, which is a mistake most people make when they watch Dr. No.

Make no mistake of it, No is a tragic character. He sits with Bond, both orphans, both unwanted, both are being used by a secretive organization for their own devices, and yet only one of them is ruined because of it. Dr. No offers his companionship to Bond and Bond laughs in his face. Bond humiliates him. Just one more person in a long line of people who have rejected No and have laughed in his face. Just another humiliation.

Dr. No's final humiliation is death. He fights knowing he cannot win, he never wins, and he doesn't deserve to. His own master plan betrays him, his Kingdom consumes him, and, ultimately, he suffers the greatest humiliation of all: fighting for your life and failing to save it. No was a wonderful villain, and the best villain ever crafted for a motion picture. Most people think that since its a Bond film, there isn't anything lurking between the lines. I assure you that these people are being foolish. When you look at Dr. No, at the way he carries himself and if you actually listen to what it is he says, a portrait of an unloved, heartbroken, and vicious man appears before you. Whether you choose to recognize his dilemma is a decision entirely of your own choosing. You just can't ignore the humanity of Dr. No. It is impossible for me to accept the final confrontation as anything other than it truly is: humiliation. I'm not saying No did not deserve death, just the opposite. What I am saying is far more important: No deserves to be viewed as the villain he really is. No is complex, multi-layered, and tragic. Dr. No is an enigma.

There are several other reasons as to why Dr. No is my favorite Bond of them all, but none of them are as important as exploring its titular character. Well... maybe this deserves some attention:

Smoldering hot.

There you have it. One of my favorite Bond films of all time, and one of my favorite movies ever made. A strong sense of nostalgia accompanies this film when I watch it. A strong sense of nostalgia and an overwhelming feeling of adventure. I am a huge Bond fan and this is the first of many essays I plan to write about the series. I saw it fitting that the first essay I wrote was about the first installment in the franchise. Thanks for reading.

-Zach Frances