The Narrative and Visual Implications of Digital Technology for The Onscreen Body in James Bond
However, the essay maintains that the films featuring Daniel Craig as Bond imply a bleaker meaning. Through a qualitative analysis, the essay will engage in humanist and anti-humanist theory, primarily the work of Michel Foucault, to evaluate how each film utilises technological structures, thereby making the human body redundant in Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond. Contextually, the methodology draws on the post-911 context concerning digital technology and global surveillance to analyse the relationship between the character of Craig’s 007, the villains of each film and the technologically-based agency of MI6.
Surveillance,
espionage, and infiltration are central themes of the spy-oriented James Bond
franchise and these elements have become more relevant and sophisticated with
the advancement of technology. The franchise has transformed significantly in
the post-9/11 world, with the films reflecting the new realities of global
terrorism and the impact of digital technology on espionage and warfare. For
example, Skyfall features threats from cyber-attacks and hacking that
demonstrate the vulnerabilities of digital communication technology. In the
film, the villain Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem) is conversant with these, being a
“master computer hacker who steals and leaks MI6’s agent identities on YouTube”
(Jeong, 2020: 214). Additionally, the films highlight the uses and issues of
surveillance programs as key components of their scripts. Spectre sees
MI6 permit “innovative tracking devices to be inserted into the bloodstream”,
dubbed the ‘smart-blood’ program, (Pheasant-Kelly, 2021: 119-20) to track
Bond’s movements and monitor his communications. The villain Ernst Blofeld
(Christoph Waltz) attempts to gain control of global surveillance through the
Nine Eyes program at MI6. The use of this advanced technology subscribes to
Shoshana Zuboff’s research on surveillance capitalism, which “operates through
unprecedented asymmetries in knowledge and knows everything about us, whereas
its operations are designed to be unknowable to us” (Zuboff, 2019: 11). As a result, Craig’s Bond often shows an inclination to
operate outside of these intelligence-gathering methods. In Spectre,
he ‘goes rogue’, rejecting the smart-blood program, with Eve
Moneypenny and Q aiding Bond covertly. As the most contemporary
actor, the films featuring Bond under Craig have portrayed an evolving
intelligence agency that relies on advanced technology to carry out its mission.
But, as this essay will contend, they imply dangers regarding the use of this
technology that threatens to affect Bond as “a paragon of manliness”
(Reijnders, 2010: 374) in how physically strong, hard-working, and in control
of technology (Eco, 1966; Bennett & Woollacott, 1987; Zani, 2006) he is
usually portrayed as.
As
mentioned above, the theoretical underpinning will be the rivalling
philosophies of humanism and anti-humanism. The former is a concept which is,
in the English-speaking world, often associated with “an optimistic and secular
view of the world which asserts the privilege of human beings over non-organic
(or organic but non-human) entities” and “defends the rights of human beings to
happiness and the development of their individual potential” (Han-Pile, 2010:
118). By contrast, anti-humanists reject the importance of humans and emphasise
the influence of unconscious structures in the determination of thought and
behaviour. As defined by Foucault, the human is less an ‘author’ and rather a
‘function’ of the texts (1975: 119). Foucault added that ‘in modern society’,
power is “enacted through the body” and that the “location of the body [is] within
a political field of power relations, and, in particular institutions, that
seek to discipline the body and thus render it ‘docile’ and ultimately
productive and economically useful” (in Funnell: 260). Seong-Huen Jeong
concurs, saying one is “required technical skills for handling knowledge and
information as immaterial assets that overwhelm physical assets in cognitive
capitalism, along with corporeal tenacity, mapping ability, flexible mobility,
and useful adaptability in a globally expanded workspace and limitless
competitive market” (2020: 215-6). Although Foucault’s findings originate from
an era preceding the digital era, his analysis is still used to evaluate the
“apparatus of technologies of domination” (Markula and Pringle, 2006: 73; see
also Duncan, 1994; Markula, 1995). I
evaluate how his analysis of the body is present in the narratives of the three
Bond films chosen for this essay.
In my
analysis, I found that the use of digital technology has undoubtedly had a
significant impact on the depiction of the onscreen body in recent James Bond
films. From the creation of realistic special effects to the manipulation of
actors' appearances, digital technology has allowed for a new set of visual and
narrative implications (Becker, Weiner, and Whitfield, 2012). One aspect of
digital technology that has affected the onscreen body in James Bond films is
the use of computer-generated imagery (CGI). CGI allows for realistic special
effects that have made action sequences and stunts more spectacular (King,
2005; Whissel, 2014) and enabled filmmakers to push the boundaries of what is
physically possible for actors to accomplish on screen. Despite this, the
extensive use of technology in this sense has led to issues not unrelated to
those raised by humanist and anti-humanist scholars above. Hye Jean Chung
argues that: “At stake is our very ‘human-ness’ in a digital era amid anxieties
that this may be destabilised via technological transformations” (2015: 57).
Frances Pheasant-Kelly concurs, saying that:
In
the contemporary climate, technology renders the human body redundant. The
realm of filmmaking is not left untouched by this, as we have seen digital
technology overcome much physical activity of the human self. The extensive
incorporation of computer-generated imagery has expanded from enhancing
spectacle to de-ageing elderly actors to look younger or even resurrecting
deceased actors with a digitised likeness.
(2021:
121-22)
For
example, in Skyfall, computers were used to digitally add bare hands
over gloves that Craig wore during the Komodo dragon pit sequence. This was
“determined to be cheaper than reshooting the entire scene” (Sherlock, 2020).
Moreover, Skyfall is the only James Bond film to have been completely
shot digitally, whilst the others have been done so on film. Though Spectre
would return to more traditional 35mm film (ScreenRant, 2020), photography has
come to be predominantly digital in the 21st century. Despite the prevalence,
some filmmakers remain committed to conventional filmstock. Christopher Nolan,
for example, expressed dismay at the digital filmmaking revolution:
It’s
cheaper to work on film, it’s far better looking, it’s the technology that’s
been known and understood for a hundred years, and it’s extremely reliable. We
save a lot of money shooting on film and projecting film and not doing digital
intermediates […] I’ve never done a digital intermediate. Photochemically, you
can time film with a good timer in three or four passes, which takes about 12
to 14 hours as opposed to seven or eight weeks in a DI suite.
(Merchan, 2012)
There
is an issue of redundancy of the human, specifically in a physical sense,
something where contemporary [movies] have become “a technology and apparatus
of power that would organise and bring meaning to everyday lives” (Denzin, in Pheasant-Kelly,
2021: 123) Norman Denzin adds “They would function as adjuncts to the
twentieth-century surveillance societies, deploying the cinematic gaze and its
narratives in the service of the state” (in Pheasant-Kelly, 2021: 123). Spectre
envisions a “total-surveillance society” (2021: 119). Max Denbigh (Andrew
Scott), head of the new joint intelligence service, campaigns for Britain to
join the global surveillance and intelligence initiative ‘Nine Eyes’. This
would subsequently shut down the ‘00’ program. Denbigh justifies the program as superior to
the efforts of “one man in the field with his license to kill” (Mendes, 2015).
Similarly, No Time To Die’s villain Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek)
customises nanotechnology that streams through the blood. Safin’s dialogue even
directly reflects Foucault’s ‘author’ as
a ‘function’ claim (Han‐Pile,
2010: 118). The villain states “We talk about the fight for free will […] but
we don’t really want that. We want to be told what to do” (Fukunaga, 2021). As
all three villains lack the physical stature of Bond, they compensate by
embracing technology to the point where it takes over their existence. Safin
elevates his technology above Bond’s traditional human capabilities, averring
that “your [Bond’s] skills will die with your body, [whereas] mine will survive
long after I’m gone” (Fukunaga, 2021). Like Denbigh, Safin gloats about how
such a phenomenon has made Bond “redundant”.
Both
the nanotechnology and the Nine Eyes initiative disavow the necessity for the
physicality of agents in the field, particularly in Bond’s case. Today,
nanotechnology exists to utilise somatic surveillance. The Institution for
Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN) mission (2002) is a key example. The institution
was set to provide a dramatic upsurge in survivability to the individual
soldier through nanoengineered materials and devices in a significantly
lighter-weight uniform (see Bockstaller, Mickiewicz, and Thomas, 2005:
1331-49). However, they still emphasise bodily monitoring and control analogous
to what is described by Torin Monahan and Tyler Wall as ‘somatic surveillance’
(2007). They deemed this as “abstract[s] bodies and physiological systems from
contexts, facilitating bodily monitoring and control” (Pheasant-Kelly, 2021:
123).
As implied earlier in the essay, MI6 is correspondingly
guilty of the issues of extensive digital technology practice; I exclude
Denbigh as he is revealed to be an infiltrator for Blofeld. The next section of
the essay will look into the role MI6 serves in affecting Bond’s physical form.
As Pheasant-Kelly remarks: “Intrusive surveillance aspects are important in
providing narrative interest to what would otherwise be mundane and highly
repetitive scenarios, though at times they may reflect the practices of real
institutions.” (2013: 3-4). The most significant example of this is M (Judi
Dench). In Skyfall, the role is “increased from a secondary character to
an important site of psychological and social conflict” (Wight, 2015: 177-88). As
she is the primary figurehead of this technology-based agency, she visualises
Foucault’s summation, whereby power is ‘enacted through the body in modern
society’ (Funnell, 2015: 260). Jeong concurs, also applying the war on terror
as context for his analysis of Craig’s Bond. He asserts that Bond “must survive
with technical proficiency for intelligent tasks as well as the self-healing
power for body recovery (pulling out heart-screwing pins), flexibly adapting to
volatile situations which test his superhero-like status to be retained despite
its disposability by and in the system” (2020: 215). Silva, for example, wants
revenge against M for being complicit with the capture and torture he endured
with the Chinese. He survived, saying that “life clung to [him] like a
disease”. As a result, his body is permanently damaged, as shown by horrific
facial scarring, which he compares to Bond’s injuries. Like Silva, Bond suffers a fatal injury in the pre-title sequence and, upon the presumption of death, is
replaced.
The issue of replaceability is a key factor
across the films, as explained above with the narrative importance of the
gadgetry and surveillance programs and could be why Craig’s incarnation suffers
more physical damage than any predecessor. It is a theme forever present for
Craig during Chris Cornell’s theme for Casino Royale (2006): ‘Arm
yourself because no one else here will save you. The odds will betray you. And
they will replace you.’ The ‘they’ is about the technological body of MI5 that
professes influence on Bond’s physical body to render him docile and, if
damaged, the body is rendered redundant. Regardless of his reputation as a superheroic
action icon, Bond under Craig mirrors the concerns of Foucault and others
mentioned above. Skyfall’s pre-title sequence sees Bond seemingly killed
and swiftly presumed dead, despite not having an official postmortem with the
body not being found. Spectre’s plot makes the ‘00’ section, and
therefore Bond, redundant. Even in death, Bond is replaceable; his passing seemingly
receives no official acknowledgement, except a brief toast from his friends and
his desk cleaned for a successor. I argue that the amount of punishment and
near-death experiences he endures is a narratological test from Mendes and
Fukunaga to test the primacy of human proficiency.
Bond under Craig mirrors anti-humanist
concerns as he is repeatedly faced with redundancy and replaceability by his
agency. Eerily, Bond is less a loyal servant of the state, but a “twin of the
villains” of his respective films (Jeong, 2020: 216). For example, Silva
mirrors Bond as a ‘son’ of M as both have been morphed into ‘two caged rats’
tested to survive under any endurance. Safin too compares himself to Bond to
the point of calling his ‘own reflection’. Finally, Blofeld is Bond’s adoptive
brother, claiming his way of constantly keeping Bond under surveillance is due
to this siblinghood. Yet, in every instance, Bond rises above these
connections; as he states to Safin, “We’ve led slightly different paths”
(Fukunaga, 2021). For example, whilst Bond and Silva share similarities in
their shoddy relationship with their superior, their bodies show stark
contrast. Whereas Silva’s is permanently damaged and horrifically disfigured,
Bond’s physique remains intact without any formidable harm, excluding temporary
lacerations and bullet wounds. This serves as a ‘valorisation of traditional
physical and mental strength over postmodern techy smartness’ (Jeong, 2020:
218), replicated in the other two antagonists. Likewise, Blofeld has his eye
irreparably scarred whereas Safin has his face disfigured from an attempted
assassination he suffered as a child. As all three embrace digital
surroundings, they are immediately othered in their
disfigurements, showing their bodies to be impotent and breakable in comparison
with Bond’s.
In
these films, Bond serves as a
solution to the digital era. For one thing, after Bond is presumed dead and
subsequently substituted in Skyfall and after failing a series of
physical and psychological examinations upon return, M approves his return to
the field, as if he is the only essential factor in tracking down the
terrorist. In terms of mise-en-scène, Bond’s physique is key. The fact that on
both occasions of his death, his fake one (Skyfall) and real one (No
Time to Die), Bond’s body is unclaimed by the agency speaks directly to the
humanist-oriented validation of the human body. He acts “as an antidote to the
pre-eminence of technology that has […] led to a belief in the inability of the
human to deal with technological sophistication” (Willis, 2003: 153).
No
matter how advanced the technology of these films is, they always
return to Bond as the essential constituent to saving the day, as if teasing
the idea of anti-humanist societies, only to resort back to traditional
foundations toward the end. In every climax, Bond’s victories were achieved
primarily through traditional hyper-masculinity. This is evident in how Craig’s
Bond apprehends each of his villains in the three films. In Skyfall,
Bond lures Silva to his childhood homestead where antiquated fighting replaces
this cybernetic warfare. The titular mansion is a “dark old place for
traditional physical actions of bare lives” where Bond “uses conventional
firearms with no computer” and finally “kills Silva with a knife” (2020:
217-8). Equally, Blofeld stalks Bond throughout his life, calling himself the
‘author of all [Bond’s] pain’, mirroring Foucault’s claim that humans are not
‘authors’ but ‘functions’. However, Bond thwarts him repeatedly, by first
destroying the main SPECTRE facility with his physical prowess and manipulating
explosive devices in his favour. Later, Bond refuses Blofeld’s urgings to kill
him after apprehending him, diverting the concept that he is a ‘function of a
text’. Finally, Bond apprehends Safin by destroying the villain’s island
housing this weaponry and displays his physical dominance by breaking Safin’s
arm. The character of Bond, under the guise of Craig’s interpretation, can,
henceforth, be seen as a defender of the human body from the influence of
technology. Willis concurs, saying that “Bond’s power comes from making
technology perform for him rather than allowing it to take his place” (2003:
158).
However,
what cannot be denied is that Craig’s final outing witnessed the first instance
in which the character was killed off, in an almost 60-year-old cinematic
legacy. Most interesting is the cause of demise. Bond’s body is infected by
Safin’s nanotech weaponry and the inception of this weaponry was overseen by
Bond’s superior, M (Ralph Fiennes), at MI6. One might question what this choice
by director Cary Joji Fukunaga and producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara
Broccoli to have this signifier of human energy against the digital revolution
die indefinitely onscreen implies for the future. Although the character is set
to return, one might ask if he will favour traditional human qualities and
stand against its high-tech replacement. Or perhaps we move to an entirely new
future where we see the ultimate use of technology, from nanotechnology to
surveillance hacking systems, dictating the adventures of our future James
Bond.
In conclusion, the Daniel Craig era has demonstrated how digital technology has had a significant role in the franchise. Along with the use of special effects spectacle in action sequences, one of the most notable ways this has been seen is in how Craig’s Bond has implemented concerns over the redundancy of human efficiency. In each film, the villain Bond combats and the agency he serves reflects the contemporary political upheavals and the issue of physical redundancy in the digital revolution. Each film concludes with Bond victorious through acts of traditional human physicality, without the predominant need for gadgetry. Yet, his death leaves audiences with a dilemma that the digital age may be inevitable for even the most proactive characters that make the most spectacular stand against it. Until Bond returns, with another actor in the role, we are left to speculate what the future for the character will be, paralleling our future with technology. Will we continue to make technology work for us as the world's most famous spy or will we allow it to influence our lives?
Comments
Post a Comment