James Bond and Dramatica?

analysis
#1

Having just seen Spectre, I’m wondering if anyone can find a Bond movie with a complete storyform? I’ve tried a few times, but every time it’s crumbled somehow.

The closest I managed to get was Casino Royale, which has some of the best examples of a do-er vs be-er I’ve ever seen (in case you needed any clarification on which James Bond was) during the opening parkour chase. But even then, my storyform falls apart.

I remember reading somewhere (perhaps in the theory book, or maybe a post by Melanie) that Bond is always a steadfast do-er character, by nature. So, I’m wondering if there is a ‘complete’ Bond movie.

#2

The prevailing wisdom is: No. Because Bond is consistently a Steadfast Do-er, he occasionally has some influence on one of the villain’s girls or henchmen (or maybe one of his bosses). But there’s never much suggestion that Bond would even even consider changing; it’s either “rule Britannia,” or he’ll die trying.

1 Like
#3

That’s pretty much what I thought. The only instance I can think of in which he shows a change would be in Casino Royale, due to the death of the woman he loves. But even that is a bit of a stretch to consider as a true “change”.

#4

Bond starts to waver, but Vesper’s treachery (her Critical Flaw perhaps) convinces him to remain a spy. So he’s steadfast. But I agree that Casino Royale comes closest to a ‘complete’ story. Haven’t tried sorting the throughlines for it.

1 Like
#5

That’s where I got to, also.

Without any spoilers, I think Spectre could be an interesting discussion when it’s released in the states. It’s not a complete storyform by any means (nowhere NEAR the semi-completeness of Casino Royale, but they do make some interesting decisions in the third act that I imagine will provoke some conversation about the typical Bond ‘12 questions’.

#6

I just wanted to remind everyone that a character changing their Resolve doesn’t mean they’re changing their main goal. Luke Skywalker doesn’t change his aim of assisting the Rebel Alliance in defeating the Empire, but he does change the way he approaches that problem. (i.e. By backing off and trusting in the Force rather jumping to prove himself.) Similarly, Bond could still be a spy or still want to defeat the bad guy but change his modus operandi. I… haven’t seen a whole lot of Bond movies, so I can’t exactly give any examples of Bond changing, but it’s a possibility. I don’t know: maybe in Goldeneye, he learns to accept and trust others, rather than inherently distrust working with a partner, based on what happened to Trevelyan?

Honestly, it’s pretty hard. I’m not sure I could pick any of the half-dozen I’ve seen (and the two or three I’ve read) that aren’t just Tales with a thin veneer of character drama pasted over it. (I’ve heard Casino Royale is the closest, but it’s been a while since I’ve seen it.)

#8

Bond absolutely changes in Casino Royale–the only Bond film he does (as mentioned). Remember that the Change Dramatica speaks of with the Main Character Resolve is a change of approach, or point-of-view, on how to solve problems. It’s not about a change of career.

The best way to figure this out is to rewind your Main Character to the beginning of the story and ask, would he or she behave in the same way now that they’ve been through this story?

And the answer with Bond in Casino Royale is no.

Bond is a spy and as a spy he is tasked with gathering information. In the beginning of the film he screws that up by impulsively killing the bomb-maker Mollaka. He lets his passions get the best of him (the passion for survival) and robs M of valuable information.

Contrast this with the end of the film where he has the man responsible for his love’s death squarely in his sights and instead of killing this man, Bond chooses to wound him instead.

Bond has a found a way to control his passions in order to accomplish his mission; he has Changed the way he solves problems. Having been through his experience with Vesper, if he was able to go back in time and revisit that initial decision with Mollaka he would have acted differently. His perspective has Changed.

I had written about this before on my site but it was lost in a move. I’ll repost it and provide a link here when I’m done.

2 Likes
#9

Ok. I found it and cleaned it up – which required removing several instances of “really”. I guess in 2007 things were really, really important to say really. Lol

2 Likes
#10

“On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” has a decent story. Prior to the Daniel Craig Bond, it is the ONLY Bond movie where Bond is a Change MC. Diana Rigg plays his love interest and IC. It is a romantic subjective story.

“Goldfinger” gives lip service to an underlying storyform, where James is the Steadfast MC and Pussy Galore is the Change IC.

[after learning Pussy Galore alerted the authorities]
James Bond: I must have appealed to her maternal instincts.

1 Like
#11

Casino Royale (which I just re-watched in part because of this thread) presents one of the big challenges I have with seeing the connection between the storyform of Dramatica versus the storytelling in that the IC can often be a relatively minor character from the standpoint of the audience.

In this example, I completely see Jim’s point that Bond is a chance character and that what changes is he goes from allowing his passions rule him (which has clearly served him well in the past) to eliminating them by the end (as articulated by his casual dismissal of M’s question about him needing to take time off after the death of Vesper.) It’s clearly M that has been pushing Bond to stop letting his passions rule him throughout the film.

However, I think if you asked anyone watching the movie where the “heart of the story” (to perhaps mis-apply a term I’ve heard Jim use to describe the RS) they would all say it’s between Bond and Vesper. This isn’t simply because theirs is a romantic relationship, but because the two of them challenge each other throughout the film to change their perspectives. Vesper pushes Bond to believe that life doesn’t have to be an endless cycle of killing for “Queen and Country.”

Had they ended the movie before the final sequence, she would, I think, be the IC whose resolve remained steadfast while Bond’s changed. However because of that extra sequence, her entire role in the movie because something of a feint.

So the problem for me is that, while one can certainly say the RS is between Bond and M, that’s not remotely what it feels like even from a purely structural perspective. I say that because you could pretty much remove M from the film and it would still, by and large, be the same story. If you remove Vesper, everything changes.

Perhaps I’m mis-applying some key concepts here?

#12

Did someone say M was the Influence Character in Casino Royale?

It’s clearly Vesper. M might have a thing or two to say about his MC Throughline but I agree, the Influence and heart come from her.

#13

But how is Vesper the character challenging Bond to let go of his passions? It seems to me she’s specifically trying to get him in touch with his feelings. The approach he changes to at the end of the movie isn’t hers–it’s M’s.

#14

Vesper allows her mission to trump her emotions and feelings. Bond comes around to that same approach once he’s discovered she’s betrayed him.

#15

You could certainly make that argument, however M makes a point of saying that Vesper’s actions were fuelled by her emotions for Bond: she agrees to deliver the money in order to save his life from the men who’d killed Le Chiffre. So it’s hard for me to see this as her representing reason over passion.

#16

But that’s unknown to Bond at the time, isn’t it? And by the time M reveals Vesper’s motivations, (is M’s interpretation accurate or an attempt to make the situation more palatable to Bond? … been a while since I’ve seen the film) Bond has already changed his approach.

#17

My sense is that M offers it up as a last chance for Bond to retain some of his humanity–even she can see there’s something wrong with a guy who can completely turn off his emotions after the woman he loves dies horribly. When he indicates he doesn’t care (“The job’s done and the bitch is dead.”) she figures now she can really make use of him.

Again, that’s my interpretation of the end of the film. But my overall point is, if Bond’s change of resolve is from someone who lets his passions rule him to one who doesn’t, M is much more the person pushing him in that direction than Vesper.

Can one find an interpretation of Vesper that might sort-of fit into the mold of IC with respect to Bond’s change? I guess, but again, we get to the point where trying to force the film to fit into the model distances it vastly from how an audience is going to interpret it. There’s no question in my mind both that 1) the audience things the relationship story (regardless of romance) is between Bond and Vesper, and 2) M is the one who represents the opposite approach from Bond’s at the beginning of the movie. It’s worth noting that Vesper doesn’t even show up until an hour into the film (not that this precludes her from being the IC, but it’s noteworthy that the push and pull over passion vs reason comes between Bond and M)

#18

But what effect does M have on Bond that makes him change his approach? I agree that M is dispassionate and her approach to the work is where Bond eventually ends up, and needs to, in order to be a successful agent. But does Bond’s change come about because of M? Forgive me, as I mentioned it’s been a while since viewing the film, but it seems that despite whatever admonishments and cautions M may offer Bond throughout the story, they fall on Bond’s deaf ears. M doesn’t impact Bond or sway influence in that way.

I believe it’s Vesper’s betrayal (in Bond’s eyes, anyway) and the aftermath, her death, that leaves him cold and prompts his new approach, resolving not to let his emotions get the better of the mission again. From Bond’s POV, it’s likely he realizes that M was right all along but it’s the impact/influence of Vesper – direct or otherwise – that catalyzes that realization.

1 Like
#19

You make a good point and certainly I’ve heard Jim say before that the RS is not an argument but rather a relationship. However with this particular film Vesper’s influence is so incredibly oblique to the nature of the MC change of resolve that it feels like trying to jam the film into the model. When one character (in this case “M”) is so clearly the voice of the opposite approach while a different character is the IC it’s hard for me to envision starting from the correct storyform and arriving at the finished story (even while recognizing that a given storyform could result in thousands of different ways of telling the story.)

One thing that’s interesting to me about this particular film is that if all the throughlines would resolve if you ended it sooner (for example, at the moment where they’re in love and planning on leaving together, all four throughlines actually feel complete to me.) Then they add what feels like an extra act of reversals that retroactively take apart everything that was settled before.

Again, probably most of my ruminations here are simply due to my still being very much an amateur with the Dramatica model.

#20

I think M’s impact is primarily based in the Objective Story. The Objective Story as defined by Dramatica (if I’m not mistaken, which I probably am) has characters that have different viewpoints on what would solve the problem (the solution or the direction are the two options, I believe). So in that regard, it would make sense that M would oppose Bond’s methods regarding the way he conducts himself on missions.

But I think for sure Vesper is the IC, I can’t think of any alternative in Casino Royale (despite you convincing me otherwise for a good five minutes),

#21

While M’s comments here and there may fall into the IC throughline, she is not the IC in Casino Royale.

HOWEVER, if you take Casino Royale and the subsequent two films together as a trilogy, there DOES appear to be an MC/IC relationship between Bond and M. The bits in Casino Royale may be a setup for the larger arc to come.