The Crisis Of Villainy

As soon as someone is cast in the role of a major movie 'villain's' part, or they actually end up playing the character in the movie - whatever movie it is - forever they are 'type-cast' as bad and as evil.

All film-goers (even myself included!), are 'credulous' always in a sense, because we deliberately choose to 'suspend the bridge of disbelief' as soon as we enter the cinema.

Yet, even so, we do still carry into the movie house with us our own actual personal life's context - the whole audience does do that - and so in a sociological sense, our credulity extends only insofar as certain functional internal story elements go; it does not extend past that into completely false ideas about the societies in which we live.

Lukasz Gottwald - 'Dr Luke.'
Very successful record producer.
Came out of a box...

In places that are not free societies - as far as any of us may say that any one of us really does live in any such a free place anyway nowadays - things are many stages removed from actual social context being reflected as truth inside the story up on the screen. You will not watch a film in China today that says bad things about the CCP, or it's 'Emperor For Life,' Xi.

You will smile, and clap at the appropriate key moments.

...In China. ...Watching a China-made film.

Movies like 'Bond' will attempt to reflect the modern social context inside the movie, as part of an audience-accessible 'reality' - especially when it comes to mechanistic matters, say, of science and technology.

The public expects it.

The most fundamental 'functional' elements of a Bond movie are: 'Bond is kind of good, his employers are completely good, and the villains are bad, purest evil.'

And no one believes that any more.

A percentage of the audience takes in with it, the suspicion that MI5 arranged and carried out the murder of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed. It doesn't matter why they did that, it's the impression now left in the minds of many people out in the public.

A percentage of the global audience takes in with it, a pre-commitment to Harry and Megan, and a general antipathy towards the UK side of things.

Ken McCallum - current DG of MI5

Notwithstanding that such perceptions might be wildly ludicrous (and I'm not saying they are, necessarily; there will certainly be completely opposed views of course), yet it is simply a fact that the audience is today polarized, very divided, and there are reasons for it:

The UK government is, for instance, grossly improperly detaining Julian Assange - there has never been any legal opinion at any level in the 'British legal mind,' to the effect that Justice delayed is in anyone's interests at all.

A large chunk of a global audience is rooting for the UK government and by association the 'Crown' - to fail and to lose.

I am very personally aware of what the 'issue' is with Julian Assange but even I cannot go that far to think or plan about 'assassinating him' simply because I might or could have government backing to do it (we're talking about a movie fictional context here!). Yet evidence is being tendered to a UK court this week to the effect that such a plan was genuinely 'on the table' with some 'arm' of a secret agency somewhere.

Morality does not come in the liquid dregs of a martini coup!

Just because someone 'orders a martini' is no indication that they are morally okay beneath the hard surface!

Czar Peter the Great Mont Blanc pen.

This martini business, yes, is a leitmotif for the Bond character but so what though?

But now I am going to lay something on you that you might not have thought about before...

Fleming was not a member of the active, operational UK secret services.

He was a reporter for The Sunday Times newspaper (not connected with 'The Times').

And now I'm going to tell you something 'funny' about UK newspapers - for one thing 'The Times' is one of the chief recruiting agencies for MI5.

For reasons not known to anybody, all UK spies are gay. 

And so, even though Fleming never worked for 'The Times,' my friends - his whole thing about the womanizer 'Bond' is a joke Fleming is throwing at the London City establishment in their 'shadowy world' where they are all gay.

Additionally, there is another theme running across any of these matters to do with major national issues, and that is that 'class' at the putative 'top,' is also split along various European family lines and ancient loyalties.

Pic sent in by our 'man in the field.' Fact.

'Henry White ' - the man who started The Sunday Times, was not English; he might have been Irish or Scots and way way back, from some kind of Norse roots. Again, on top of that, the White Family is from the British Indian Army circles and that places them firmly not, in the mob from London City; which is the same crowd that backs the Windsors.

Sir Roger Hollis, now, was he actually a double agent - literally was the man in charge for a good long time, from 1956 to 1965, of MI5. He had been, previously the Deputy Director General under Dick White. And there's your problem right there - White was from the 'White' family (The Sunday Times).

Hollis though, was a man with deeply split loyalties, because he would have been sympathetic to White and his moderately aristocratic ties, because... ...Hollis was a relative of the Russian Royal Family. I'm afraid, and in spite of major propaganda by the UK spooks over decades and decades to pretend that it isn't so - it is so.

Now you see the other problem MI5 and MI6 have, with people like me, is you try and pull the wool over the eyes of those not in the aristocracy and well fine, you might get away with it.

But they will be walking up a very long and steep road to even pretend any of them there today have the 'inner linguistics' which are known only to actual aristocracy...

Hollis was partly of Russian aristocratic descent.

Did that necessarily make him the actual double agent the CIA itself and the assorted 'witch-smellers' of the UK spycatcher group - people such as Jane Sissmore (born in Bengal...) thought that he was?

It doesn't matter.

From our man. Or woman, not saying.

What matters for the sake of finding out what a solid, believable movie 'villain' character would be today - is defining what the public hates viscerally today.

It hates being cheated.

It hates people lording it over them with overwhelming power (EG Emperor Xi of Beijing), who have cheated to get there and then cheat to remain there.

I hope though, you are getting the point that no one can really tell who or what 'the UK' actually represents today. It certainly does not represent an ideal system of human legal justice...

And if they have been trading uninterrupted with China for more than two hundred and fifty years, despite what was going on on the surface, then what even is such a thing as 'a side?' Assange got support from Chinese technology people. But the UK is going out of its way to, well, subtly kill him, really.

The US wants him, but funnily enough they still haven't actually got him. The story was floated that the CIA had plans to kill him...

These matters are way too convoluted to be reduced into some caricature of 'villainy' that can be represented easily in a pop flick.

The World War eras - I and II - gave the public the idea that guns and knives and bombs are the weaponry of choice. The presumed sheer potency of a tiny little pistol in the hands of Mr Bond, James Bond, is a weird kind of psychological support to people who had been bombed in the wars. For generations, they all still felt there was some chance of 'fighting back' - defending oneself - with a little gun in your hands.

Human inside? You wouldn't know.
How would you know??

Even today, the most well-equipped preppers all over the place have semi-auto rifles and Glocks and all that kind of thing. They really do feel, that when the zombies invade - or the ET Aliens that look like insects, or I dunno what else - that some bullets will resolve the situation.

The thing that gives Americans the right to have a gun, legally in their hands, is a piece of paper with some words on it.

It is a little bit of a chicken-and-egg question. Which came first, the gun that backed the piece of paper, or the guy with the words and the ideas?

'Power' does matter - always.

But in the same way that not enough people will ever be around in the general public to comprehend the meaning of the pic above about the pen, fewer still will understand this: 'What are you, O mighty mountain?'

The world has moved on since the times of the recent really big wars - WWI and WWII.

So have a certain tiny small handful of people too.

The 'Bond' of today is so scary, so genuinely powerful, that if you actually told it you the ordinary member of the general public what he/she were like, they would possibly want to turn on them.

The 'villain' is also the 'Bond,' in one sense.

Garrison Restaurant - 
not far from those Ferraris. LOL
Not our pic, though.

It is no longer about 'liberating' the public from oppression - the general public has utterly and fully chosen its fate.  

The public is dying.

Its leaders all believe they are living and surviving but they too, are dying.

And I know you don't believe me.

It's the smile you should take several looks at though...