The most interesting quote, from a Russian magazine in 1966:
> Philistine pragmatism takes over in Fleming’s novels. They tend to be indiscriminate, to combine elements of all sorts of sensationalism — political action and thriller, science fiction and advertising brochure, a fashion magazine and nudist film… This, briefly, is the secret of the genre, of popularity in its modern shape. Still, had it not been for the screen, Bond would have been lost among all the other spy characters out there. A nobody. It was the film industry that made him a myth.
This is all true, as far as it goes, but it is all because Fleming did a couple of things differently, which, perhaps accidentally, made his stories appealing as movie vehicles.
Firstly, unlike most other (and in some cases better) writers of espionage and sabotage fiction of the time, he set his stories in the Cold War rather than WWII.
Secondly, he cast Bond as an adroit womanizer. That term alone signals that we are talking about a different era.
Fleming also indulged his audience’s fascination with the lifestyles of the wealthy, though the Bond of his novels exhibited a certain prissiness that the movie makers wisely dropped.
Finally, that ‘license to kill’ nonsense was pure theater, but effective.
Come on. It's what the propaganda branch of CPSU Central Committee thought worth publishing. Which has about zero bearing on what actual Russians thought.
(Not to mention there wasn't much to think of, since obviously the movies were never run in the USSR back then).
So what the average Russian thought was along the lines 'okay, another front page full of usual bullshit, another front page useful as toilet paper'.
Soviet news at the time was actually much more accurate than the USA. In the New York Times about half of the things would be true and the other half false. However, if you simply believed the opposite of what Izvestia said on a given issue you would always have the truth.
>Which has about zero bearing on what actual Russians thought.
>(Not to mention there wasn't much to think of, since obviously the movies were never run in the USSR back then).
In USSR that phenomenon was known as "I haven't read it, but i condemn it" ("Не читал, но осуждаю") as a good Soviet citizen would of course never want to read/watch <insert whatever decadent/rotten product of the "West pop-culture" or USSR dissidents/etc.> (thus making the actual availability a moot issue) while of course a good Soviet citizen can't feel anything but condemnation to such a product. While it originates as used seriously by total Party suckers, it was used by most people with a double meaning of a satirical sum-it-all-up of the USSR ideological approach to culture, and in many cases the satire was going beyond culture as like Bond movies a lot of things weren't available in USSR - like "i haven't experienced the rotten luxury of the West cars/etc., but i condemn that luxury".
USSR had multiple classes (despite being a classless society on paper).
Nomenklatura ([1]) and some other smaller classes had access to western press and were often allowed to travel to the "capitalist countries". Even at home, they had access to special stores for foreigners and elite paying a special currency that regular Soviet citizens didn't have ([2]) to purchase Western goods. They watched Bond movies and wanted to read reviews as well.
That said, all of my relatives were regulars. I don't miss USSR.
I actually read some Bond novels. IMHO the series detoriates rather quickly. After two books Fleming's writing and yarn spinning is a far cry from Casino Royal. Casino Royal is very different from any of the movies and worth a read.
while a lot of attention is focused on Bond, i think it is notable that basically the same themes/style/etc. can be found in the [pretty good] children movie based on the Fleming's book and directed by Broccoli
I haven't read James Fleming's book but would like to. I'm glad that the review does not explicitly claim that James Bond fights the Communists, something so often asserted by people who don't know what they're talking about. Ian Fleming created SPECTRE because he thought that the Cold War might end soon, and so wanted a nonpolitical opponent for Bond.
In the films, the USSR is Bond's opponent only in For Your Eyes Only. Red China is the silent backer in Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice, but Auric Goldfinger and SPECTRE are the real enemies, and Thunderball establishes that SPECTRE is willing to work for anyone (including Western powers). Max Zorin in A View to a Kill, General Orlov in Octopussy, and Gustav Graves in Die Another Day are explicitly rogue agents.
I read a few of the earlier Bond books; there the antagonistic organization isn’t Spectre but the actual WW2 era Soviet counter-intelligence org SMERSH, whose name is short-hand for “Death to Spies”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMERSH
I've seen both movies, though I'm Canadian. I enjoyed the movies because my family is East Asian, and I wanted to see what a real East Asian hero in the movies could look like (long before Shang-Chi came out). This differs from the typical depiction of Asian guys in Hollywood movies as unconfident, geeky, and not romantic interests.
In contrast, the hero of Wolf Warrior is athletic, confident, highly competent, and heroic (he saves civilians in the second movie).
I really enjoyed this because the absence of East Asian heroic figures has contributed to Asian men being seen as unattractive in the dating pool [0]. Career-wise, Asians are also the least likely in the US to be promoted, according to the Harvard Business Review [1]. It's also a struggle to lack Asian role models growing up.
You can't even really talk about this issue of underrepresentation in media as an Asian male without criticism. The first result when you search for issues facing Asian men today is a Slate article documenting radicalized men who have harassed Asian women ("Men's Rights Asians Think This Is Their Moment"). What those guys did is reprehensible, but if I speak about these issues in real life, I can get lumped in with them.
So, I enjoyed the movies, but don't typically talk about my enjoyment for fear of being ostracized. Anyways, Wolf Warrior is more G.I. Joe than James Bond or Rambo. He's also not fighting against American spies or representatives of the US government, but rather villains who happen to be American (and more vicious than bumbling). Also, the hero surprisingly disobeys the Chinese government several times (and ends up imprisoned, though he ultimately returns to alignment with the government in the end).
I doubt most Americans even know they exist. I pay a lot of attention to China (through sources like HN, youtube channels, etc.) and even I am only barely familiar with the genre. The movies don't get published here (for obvious reasons), and Americans tend not to pay much attention to movies they themselves aren't going to watch.
I've seen a few clips, and they look like if Marvel fired all their writers and cut their budgets by 80%. I tend not to like the writing of any Chinese movies I've seen though, which I guess is to be expected. Different culture, different emphasis, different ideas of realism.
I've only heard of it through China In Focus on YouTube. Our free press doesn't really report much on China. From what I've seen though, it would pass as pretty good comedy in the US. It's really over the top, similar to "The Interview" comedy movie about North Korea, except it's meant to be serious, which makes it funnier.
I just watched the 4 Ip Man kung fu movies on Netflix: #1 is Chinese versus evil Japanese occupiers, #2 is Chinese versus evil Brits (Hong Kong occupiers), and #4 is Chinese versus evil Americans (Chinese immigrants in US).
I really enjoyed the depictions of foreigners from the Chinese POV, since their clichés are still visible, even as a Western viewer.
Looks like people were not too impressed. I haven't seen it but from the description it looks like Chinese special forces fighting drug lords who happen to be American, not really the same thing.
Interestingly, just the other day I was reading a Tom Clancy novel and thought, surely other countries must've wrote novels or made movies where the Americans loose WWIII, or whatever. I'd be interested in a recommendation. I'm really curious how others see it going down. Although maybe it's boring, i.e. Luke gets to the end of the trench, and misses...
More broadly speaking, I'm concerned that their production may be consistent with the CCP's recent saber-rattling. The more evidence I see of that posture, the more I worry that my sons will die in an unnecessary war.
Russians didn't think anything about James Bond, they lacked access to the source material. There were critical articles and newspapers, bashing this low quality pulp anti-soviet crap, which pop popularity in the West was signalling the decay of the capitalistic society. Seeing such article, average soviet person just nodded ah-ok, and moved on.
Some of the politics is really out there, but despite the fact I’m far from in alignment politically, nor do I care about British politics for that matter, I have been a subscriber for decades.
There are many literary articles, all the writing is top notch (hard to find in the USA), not stuffy despite its Tory orientation, and has had waves of quirky topics, like recipes (referred to as “receipts” for reasons I won’t go into), an agony aunt, and even (pre internet) classified personals for a while.
It’s a small, inbred crew (Boris Johnson was editor for a while, and quite a good one) but the magazine has managed to survive for longer than The Economist, which is something.
I remember calling once about my subscription and being told there were two subscribers in Palo Alto, of which I was one. I later ran into the other in a bar (he was carrying his copy). We had little in common.
It's effectively the house magazine of the British Conservative party, and as such is basically made out of bias. I can't see why you'd read it unless you wanted your prejudices reinforced and an advance feed of what talking points you're going to get on the news.
It’s a British conservative magazine. I would say it’s very high quality. Just take a look in private browsing mode to read some more articles and decide
[+] [-] neonate|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Brakenshire|4 years ago|reply
> Philistine pragmatism takes over in Fleming’s novels. They tend to be indiscriminate, to combine elements of all sorts of sensationalism — political action and thriller, science fiction and advertising brochure, a fashion magazine and nudist film… This, briefly, is the secret of the genre, of popularity in its modern shape. Still, had it not been for the screen, Bond would have been lost among all the other spy characters out there. A nobody. It was the film industry that made him a myth.
[+] [-] mannykannot|4 years ago|reply
Firstly, unlike most other (and in some cases better) writers of espionage and sabotage fiction of the time, he set his stories in the Cold War rather than WWII.
Secondly, he cast Bond as an adroit womanizer. That term alone signals that we are talking about a different era.
Fleming also indulged his audience’s fascination with the lifestyles of the wealthy, though the Bond of his novels exhibited a certain prissiness that the movie makers wisely dropped.
Finally, that ‘license to kill’ nonsense was pure theater, but effective.
[+] [-] ncmncm|4 years ago|reply
So the most unrealistic things about James Bond were that his and his opponents' gimcracks worked, and that he succeeded at anything.
Actual spycraft is really mostly about extortion.
[+] [-] helsinkiandrew|4 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stierlitz
[+] [-] GreenWatermelon|4 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragol_Al_Mostaheel
[+] [-] bussiere|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lstodd|4 years ago|reply
Come on. It's what the propaganda branch of CPSU Central Committee thought worth publishing. Which has about zero bearing on what actual Russians thought.
(Not to mention there wasn't much to think of, since obviously the movies were never run in the USSR back then).
So what the average Russian thought was along the lines 'okay, another front page full of usual bullshit, another front page useful as toilet paper'.
[+] [-] AQuantized|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trhway|4 years ago|reply
>(Not to mention there wasn't much to think of, since obviously the movies were never run in the USSR back then).
In USSR that phenomenon was known as "I haven't read it, but i condemn it" ("Не читал, но осуждаю") as a good Soviet citizen would of course never want to read/watch <insert whatever decadent/rotten product of the "West pop-culture" or USSR dissidents/etc.> (thus making the actual availability a moot issue) while of course a good Soviet citizen can't feel anything but condemnation to such a product. While it originates as used seriously by total Party suckers, it was used by most people with a double meaning of a satirical sum-it-all-up of the USSR ideological approach to culture, and in many cases the satire was going beyond culture as like Bond movies a lot of things weren't available in USSR - like "i haven't experienced the rotten luxury of the West cars/etc., but i condemn that luxury".
[+] [-] helge9210|4 years ago|reply
The concept of "toilet paper" didn't exist back than in the USSR. First toilet paper factory was built seven years later.
[+] [-] regnull|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] starik36|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krasin|4 years ago|reply
Nomenklatura ([1]) and some other smaller classes had access to western press and were often allowed to travel to the "capitalist countries". Even at home, they had access to special stores for foreigners and elite paying a special currency that regular Soviet citizens didn't have ([2]) to purchase Western goods. They watched Bond movies and wanted to read reviews as well.
That said, all of my relatives were regulars. I don't miss USSR.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryozka_(Russian_retail_store...
[+] [-] 5tefan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] helsinkiandrew|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trhway|4 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chitty_Chitty_Bang_Bang
[+] [-] CoastalCoder|4 years ago|reply
(And tangentially, no Bond villain ever devised a death-machine as scary as the the pipe in which the kid Augustus got stuck.)
[+] [-] craz8|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TMWNN|4 years ago|reply
In the films, the USSR is Bond's opponent only in For Your Eyes Only. Red China is the silent backer in Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice, but Auric Goldfinger and SPECTRE are the real enemies, and Thunderball establishes that SPECTRE is willing to work for anyone (including Western powers). Max Zorin in A View to a Kill, General Orlov in Octopussy, and Gustav Graves in Die Another Day are explicitly rogue agents.
[+] [-] the_decider|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FearlessNebula|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] peter303|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clockwork123512|4 years ago|reply
In contrast, the hero of Wolf Warrior is athletic, confident, highly competent, and heroic (he saves civilians in the second movie).
I really enjoyed this because the absence of East Asian heroic figures has contributed to Asian men being seen as unattractive in the dating pool [0]. Career-wise, Asians are also the least likely in the US to be promoted, according to the Harvard Business Review [1]. It's also a struggle to lack Asian role models growing up.
You can't even really talk about this issue of underrepresentation in media as an Asian male without criticism. The first result when you search for issues facing Asian men today is a Slate article documenting radicalized men who have harassed Asian women ("Men's Rights Asians Think This Is Their Moment"). What those guys did is reprehensible, but if I speak about these issues in real life, I can get lumped in with them.
So, I enjoyed the movies, but don't typically talk about my enjoyment for fear of being ostracized. Anyways, Wolf Warrior is more G.I. Joe than James Bond or Rambo. He's also not fighting against American spies or representatives of the US government, but rather villains who happen to be American (and more vicious than bumbling). Also, the hero surprisingly disobeys the Chinese government several times (and ends up imprisoned, though he ultimately returns to alignment with the government in the end).
Sources:
[0] https://theconversation.com/asian-guys-stereotyped-and-exclu...
[1] https://hbr.org/2018/05/asian-americans-are-the-least-likely...
[+] [-] BobbyJo|4 years ago|reply
I've seen a few clips, and they look like if Marvel fired all their writers and cut their budgets by 80%. I tend not to like the writing of any Chinese movies I've seen though, which I guess is to be expected. Different culture, different emphasis, different ideas of realism.
[+] [-] cronix|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robocat|4 years ago|reply
I really enjoyed the depictions of foreigners from the Chinese POV, since their clichés are still visible, even as a Western viewer.
[+] [-] qsmi|4 years ago|reply
Looks like people were not too impressed. I haven't seen it but from the description it looks like Chinese special forces fighting drug lords who happen to be American, not really the same thing.
Interestingly, just the other day I was reading a Tom Clancy novel and thought, surely other countries must've wrote novels or made movies where the Americans loose WWIII, or whatever. I'd be interested in a recommendation. I'm really curious how others see it going down. Although maybe it's boring, i.e. Luke gets to the end of the trench, and misses...
[+] [-] CoastalCoder|4 years ago|reply
More broadly speaking, I'm concerned that their production may be consistent with the CCP's recent saber-rattling. The more evidence I see of that posture, the more I worry that my sons will die in an unnecessary war.
[+] [-] coupdejarnac|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Andrew_nenakhov|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zkirill|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gumby|4 years ago|reply
There are many literary articles, all the writing is top notch (hard to find in the USA), not stuffy despite its Tory orientation, and has had waves of quirky topics, like recipes (referred to as “receipts” for reasons I won’t go into), an agony aunt, and even (pre internet) classified personals for a while.
It’s a small, inbred crew (Boris Johnson was editor for a while, and quite a good one) but the magazine has managed to survive for longer than The Economist, which is something.
I remember calling once about my subscription and being told there were two subscribers in Palo Alto, of which I was one. I later ran into the other in a bar (he was carrying his copy). We had little in common.
[+] [-] pjc50|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] google234123|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gumby|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] osipov|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unobatbayar|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]