The Name's Rosenberg, Max Rosenberg

AAAAAND, we’re back. Hope you enjoyed Foucault and Chomsky. I particularly like how Foucault is so frank about power structures, no sugar coating there!

Anyways, I’m here with the first Structuralist culprit! None other than the double agent, Bond, James Bond.

First off, before I divulge into the plot structure, all the Bond movies have a few repetitions that I have noticed they are as follows:

1. The Gun Barrell
2. “The names Bond, James Bond”
3. “Shaken Not Stirred”

Now, these are NOT the things I am concerned about. They are just Hollywood character gimmicks, they do not appeal to our deep unconscious structures like structuralism suggests. They are catchy things to make people expect certain things from the movies. What is more important here is the writings of Umberto Eco who provides a structuralist analysis of the Bond Films. I was unable to procure a copy of Eco’s writing, so a Strinati summarization and my own paraphrasing will have to do folks!

Ok, so Eco breaks down the Bond novels (and movies by their association and similarity) and his, “concern it to uncover the invariant rules governing the narrative structure” (Strinati 91). It can be seen that what Eco is doing is trying to unearth the ‘langue’ of the Bond series. From there, each movie institutes its own ‘parole’, uses the rules but changes the plot a little. As Strinati explains, “these rules ensure the popular success of the novels and their appeal to a cultural elite. As popular culture, the novels are based upon an underlying structure which makes the popular” (91). So you see, by using this structure, you as the viewer are already set-up to enjoy/like the movie because of these rules that the Bond films use. For Eco, “the 007 saga – a success which, singularly, has been due both to the mass consensus and to the appreciation of more sophisticate readers” (Strinati 91). Strinati continues when he writes, “This ‘narrative’ structure presumably connects at some unconscious level with the desires and values of the popular audience, for each cog or ‘structural element’ of which this machine is composed, is assumed to be related to ‘the reader’s sensitivity’” (91).

So what are these structures in the 007 series? Well, there are 9 of them and here they are! (notice the chess language of “check”) Strinati does note that these elements do not always appear in this order but DO appear at some point!

1. M moves and gives a task to Bond
2. Villain moves and appears to Bond
3. Bond moves and gives a first check to Villain or Villain gives first check to Bond
4. Woman moves and shows herself to Bond
5. Bond takes Woman
6. Villain captures Bond
7. Villain tortures Bond (reveals master plan)
8. Bond beats Villain
9. Bond, convalescing, enjoys Woman, whom he then loses. (Strinati 92).

It must be noted that the recent Bond film Casino Royale does not fit this structure as much. The Woman ends up back stabbing Bond, which is not part of the 9 points. This was purposeful as they tried to make a new style Bond, as Royale was more of an origin tale. Additionally, I presume the new Bond movie, Quantum Solace, will also differ slightly.

Eco suggests that, “there is no basic variation, but rather the repetition of a habitual scheme in which the reader can recognize something he has already seen and of which he has grown fond […] the reader finds himself immersed in a game of which he knows the pieces and the rules – and perhaps the outcome – and draws pleasure simply from the following minimal variations by which the victor realizes his objective” (Strinati 93). I don’t know about you, but this speaks such truth! I mean, I realize that 007 is going to survive, he’s not going to die, he’s going to get the villain but STILL I watch the movie, STILL I like it. Is that wrong? Let me know your thoughts in the comments section. I find that I like watching how Bond is going to get out of his predicaments, and even when all hope is lost he escapes! I guess I’m at a crossroads. I know these structures exist, which anger me. But conversely, I like the Bond movies! AHHHHHH! I think Strinati explains this phenomena when he writes that, “the universal character of the structure which lies behind and explains the popularity of the Bond novels” (93) and “they express a universal structure of basic oppositions which, because it is universal, will ensure popular success” (94). So I guess you as the viewer are as they say, shit out of luck before the first title sequence even comes on! Hope you like James Bond, wait you have no choice!

Again, I will leave off with a final quote:

“The popular success of the Bond novels is accounted for by the idea that the mass audience is unknowingly in tune with the universal themes which are evoked” (Strinati 94).

News and Notes: Also, here is a video that I think summarizes well too! Don’t all these scenes look like they could be from the same movie (well, minus the different actors)!