Quantum of Liberalism
Juan Cole on Quantum of Solace:
Forster presents us with a new phenomenon in the James Bond films, a Bond at odds with the United States, who risks his career to save Evo Morales’s leftist regime in Bolivia from being overthrown by a General Medrano, who is helped by the CIA and a private mercenary organization called Quantum. In short, this Bond is more Michael Moore than Roger Moore.
This did seem like a noteworthy development to me when I watched the film yesterday. Admittedly, a few scenes imply that backing General Medrano would be the right thing to do if his coup really would lead to an oil bonanza for the US rather than being part of a complicated double-cross. But generally speaking, Cole’s read this right. And in a sense Bond’s evolution reflects broader trends within the intelligence world. During Cold War times, there was a general solidarity within the services with the center-right Cold Warrior ideology, and enormous skepticism of the post-Vietnam left’s skepticism about the endeavor. But as we’ve moved into the 21st century, the calculus has increasingly changed, and intelligence professionals and liberals have increasingly found ourselves on the same side of fights allied against the neo-imperial hubris of the right-wing.
That said, the title of this movie is really nonsensical and the idea that the Quantum conspirators would all wear “Q” lapel pins is insane.
51 Responses to “Quantum of Liberalism”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 17th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Spying agencies in general are viewed around the world with greater suspicion.
Another positive legacy of the Bush regime.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
The movie was a wreck. What a letdown after Casino Royale.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Ahem.
I pronounce Andy Sullivan vindicated:
.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I bet Tony Blair will be suing in a British court for libel, on behalf of his BFF George Bush…
November 17th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Funny, the original Ian Fleming story of that name was a tale of a wronged lover. Once a relationship loses that “quantum of solace” it is forever wrecked.
Tis a pity it didn’t work out, but then again I hated the way they adapted Casino Royale, so I’m not surprised that I won’t like Quantum of Solace.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
the title of this movie is really nonsensical
Sorry, Matt, but there you’re just wrong. I thought it seemed like a silly title at first, too, but after seeing the movie it’s become clear that the title is the best damn thing about it. That’s because, astonishingly, they’re actually using the word “quantum” in its correct technical sense (I know! unheard of), which is “the smallest possible unit of something.”
Which makes the title a damn near literary comment on the last scene in the movie.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I didn’t see the recent Casino Royale, but did see Woody Allen version. I assume they were different?
November 17th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Re: During Cold War times, there was a general solidarity within the services with the center-right Cold Warrior ideology, and enormous skepticism of the post-Vietnam left’s skepticism about the endeavor.
With respect to Latin American socialists, I don’t think this has much changed. Morales and Chavez aren’t just anti-imperialist, they are anti-capitalist. The only way you are going to support them is if you are also anti-capitalist, which no one in the U.S. intelligence services actually is.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Except the evil organization was disguised by the front of a green/environmental organization… Hardly a swipe at the right there. If anything (and I stress ‘if’) the movie was anti structures of power: Bond rebelling against M, the rape story, the love-letter to vigilantism, etc. That’s not necessarily left or right.
I thought QoS was pretty good, although some of the story elements were underdeveloped. Above average Bond movie, that’s for sure.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
In short, this Bond is more Michael Moore than Roger Moore.
No doubt, Michael Moore would have approved the early scene in which Bond delivered what’s-his-face to M in Siena for torture.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I really liked Quantum of Solace.
However, I must admit, it kind of suffered from a personality disorder. I do not think the director understood whether he was making a sequel to Casino Royale, or yet another bond film as it had aspects from both.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Errr, isn’t this just that the Bond movies were traditionally actually non-political, and indeed actively anti-political – that is, the Bond movies traditionally actively avoided introducing either villains or heroes who made any sort of political sense in the real world?
More concisely, the Bond movies specifically have gotten a tiny little bit smarter from being incredibly stupid, rather than any necessary reflection of any change of opinion.
Admittedly, I haven’t seen this latest Bond movie, but I’m not sure you couldn’t have said similar things about, for example, the 1965 film The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. Or, for that matter, Billy Wilder’s Stalag 17.
Or, take a look at the British mini-series Reilly: Ace of Spies in which it’s rarely crystal clear who precisely Sidney Reilly is working for (in various circumstances throughout the series, Reilly may (or may not) be in reality working for such wildly disparate entities as the German armaments industry, the American armaments industry, the English government/English industries attempt to block Rockefeller and the Rothschilds from monopolizing the world oil supply between them and a half-dozen other potential backers and causes at various times).
Reilly’s most consistent opponent (though they also collaborate at various times) is seemingly the British armaments titan Sir Basil Zaharoff (who’s perfectly willing to play both opposing sides himself), while Reilly’s theoretical bosses at British intelligence are either partially unwitting pawns of Zaharoff’s minions in England or simply have no idea what’s happening.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I was hoping that Dominic Greene would have a stroke and we could slide right into the Diving Bell and the Butterfly.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I actually thought the movie was alright, but hated the depiction of CIA agents. Clearly the CIA has done some shady stuff in the past. But I seriously doubt that they go around carelessly letting regimes fall and allowing the murder of secret service agents from other countries.
For the next film, though, I’d like to see a combination of the action in Quantum with the substance of Royale.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Maybe the clever thing about the plot is that Bond’s motivations for pursuing the bad guy have to do with his own story, and it just happens to combine with the larger machinations.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
“I actually thought the movie was alright, but hated the depiction of CIA agents. Clearly the CIA has done some shady stuff in the past. But I seriously doubt that they go around carelessly letting regimes fall and allowing the murder of secret service agents from other countries”
Read “Legacy of Ashes”. Carelessness and barbarity pretty much sums up the entire history of the CIA.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Not so fast.
There may be some truth to the Bond character — and MI6 — developing the testicular fortitude to differentiate policy and goals from the CIA, but recall too that the two CIA agents, Felix Leiter and Gregg Beam, are hardly on the same page themselves.
And at the end of the film, it’s Felix who, we learn through M, gets promoted at CIA and Gregg demoted.
So, things are a little more nuanced than Juan Cole suggests.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Also watch “Burn After Reading.”
November 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Felix Leiter’s CIA boss seemed to be based on the standard for Bush administration national security appointees. He thought he was tough but really he was just dumb. And poor Felix had to suffer until he could get help from Bond.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
“Above average Bond movie, that’s for sure.”
Definitely. I liked the movie better than I expected to, from the reviews.
And I like how gradual they’re being with the Quantum group … keeping ‘em mysterious.
Anyone know if the plan is to remake any of the “classic” Bonds, Dr. No for instance? I had kinda hoped so … they’re grossly overrated.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
“the idea that the Quantum conspirators would all wear “Q” lapel pins is insane.”
Hey, I’ve got one of those “Q” pins. It’s leftover from some ’80s quality circle.
I bet they got a real deal on them.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Re “But I seriously doubt that they go around carelessly letting regimes fall and allowing the murder of secret service agents from other countries.”
———–
You might read some of the memoirs by Philip Agee –the CIA officer in what’s now called the Clandestine Service –who went “rogue” because of what CIA was doing in South America and who started helping human rights groups expose CIA operatives in the THird World.
Until Congress passed the Intel Identities Act making it illegal to expose Clandestine Service officers as spies.
Well, unless you have the backing of the Vice President. Then it’s evidently ok.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Agee
November 17th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
i find it hilarious that nobody has apparently watched the film. it was perfectly obvious that the bad guy here was a frontman for a global conspiracy, and his cover was as a green activist engaged in suckering entire nations.
the bolivians were pawns from the beginning and proven to be pawns in the end. the cia was entirely blase about the entire matter of ideology so long as they could get their hands on oil.
to use this film to attack ‘neo-imperial hubris of the right wing’ without any acknowledgement of the global con game of green activism is to be finally blind.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Not to get off topic, but has anyone else seen the documentary “Our Brand Is Crisis,” about James Carville’s political consulting work in Bolivia? It basically showed how they were able to play up the perception of crisis to elect a free market privatizer who wanted to sell natural gas to the United States through Chile, despite widespread public opposition. While they were able to get him elected with a tiny plurality (less than 25%), he basically had to resign within months because of public opposition, allowing Evo Morales to come in to power. Quite interesting.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Bond villains being insane?
What is the world coming to.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Cobb: I saw the movie. One of the least interesting and least convincing plot devices was the green cover-up of the villain. In no way does it say anything of note about the world. On the other hand, in the real world, the autonomy-related activism of la media luna in Bolivia was pretty damn close to what was suggested in the movie, complete with apparent backing & involvement by the U.S. ambassador, heavily denied as usual.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Re Cobb’s comment “it was perfectly obvious that the bad guy here was a frontman for a global conspiracy, and his cover was as a green activist engaged in suckering entire nations. ”
————–
I haven’t seen the movie yet but the villain sounds like Al Gore. The Brits have a nasty sense of humor.
Anybody remember Clinton’s “War on Drugs” in Columbia in his waning days? Herbicide supposedly being dropped on Cocaine but somehow landing on a Rain Forest Tribe whose hunting grounds laid over an oil patch coveted by Occidental Oil.
The source of Sweet Al’s fortune is left as an exercise for the reader.
Anybody remember how the “War on Drugs” ramped up drastically after rebels bombed the Occidental Oil pipeline and cut the electricity to the pipeline pumps?
Anyone remember Jumping Joe Lieberman signing up for the Good Fight after the right wing Columbian strong man agreed to buy US helicopters for the fight.
The state in which Sikorski Helicopters resides is also left as an exercise for the reader.
See “Plan Colombia” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia#Guerrillas_and_Oil
and http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia255.htm
Anybody ever heard of the US government getting in bed with a band of right wing death squads called AUC?
November 17th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I think that there is a lot of overthinking going on, The film may simply be equating foreign control of water resources with global criminals. That is
a message that will play well in South America where foreign firms have
managed to take control – at least temporarily – of water systems and
then greatly increased water rates.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=30402
November 17th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I saw the film last night and concluded that it wasn’t nearly as good as the first Bond reboot. On the other hand, it was more sophisticated in its characterization of Bond.
And Daniel Craig IS a good actor of the taciturn variety. Not to mention someone who can play really violent action scenes believably, as opposed to most of the Bonds in the past. In fact, to some degree, the directors seem to want him to die, considering the stuff he’s put through – and the injuries he sustained on both films.
The directory unfortunately is one of these idiots who thinks manic scene cutting during action scenes is a way to convey chaos to the audience – it conveys chaos, all right, but doesn’t help the audience SEE what the hell is going on. Such directors need to be subjected to some chaos of their own – such as the unemployment line.
I also did NOT like the theme song for this movie. Very poor. Alicia Keyes is not up to the likes of previous Bond movie singers. Even the first reboot theme song was better than this one.
And finally, of course, the entire movie was worth it for one simple reason – Olga Kurylenko. For a model turned actress, she is amazingly good – not to mention amazingly hot. Also check her out in “Hit Man” and currently playing “Max Payne” (unfortunately she is killed early on in the latter – but only after a hot scene on Max’s bed.) This girl is going to have a significant movie career, unlike other models turned actress.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I’m with Richard. I appreciate the fact that they’ve finally ditched the chuckle factor of an agent who hardly suffers a scratch, or a crease in his tux.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I happen to think this Bond film actually was better than most. Sure – was it as good as Casino Royale? Not – but this is because it is a sequel meant to move the story forward. The next installment is going to be much more climatic in terms of the story progression. Remember – this was the first Bond film which actually (aside from the beginning to For Your Eyes Only ~ Bloefeld getting dumped down the smoke stack.) take a plot from a previous movie and continues off of that.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
It’s not about liberalism or conservatism. It’s about the Americans being idiots who need the Brits to save them. It’s a stock theme in the Bond films. This one’s no different.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
But as we’ve moved into the 21st century, the calculus has increasingly changed, and intelligence professionals and liberals have increasingly found ourselves on the same side of fights allied against the neo-imperial hubris of the right-wing.
Where? When?
Where is the evidence that the CIA (the institution, not individual dissenters) has reigned itself in and resisted neo-imperial interests in any way? It serves those interests by its very design.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Clearly the CIA has done some shady stuff in the past. But I seriously doubt that they go around carelessly letting regimes fall and allowing the murder of secret service agents from other countries.
While this is painfully naive, it is true that the CIA doesn’t carelessly let regimes fall. It deposes them, or helps depose them, quite intentionally and violently. Just ask the people of, among other countries, Syria, Greece, Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, Haiti, Laos, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Brazil, Indonesia, Bolivia, Zaire, Ghana, Iraq, Cambodia, Bolivia, El Salvador, Chile, Angola, Liberia, and Nicaragua.
And that’s not to mention the many failed coups, both old (Cuba, most notably) and new (Venezuela in 2002 and Somalia in 2006).
November 18th, 2008 at 1:17 am
I really liked it, despite or rather because it’s not really a Bond film, but more in the Bourne style. Which is no surprise, because director Marc Foster hired two key members of the Bourne Ultimatum crew (editing and second unit). I still prefer the Bourne films, though.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:18 am
ooops: Marc Forster
November 18th, 2008 at 1:35 am
I’ve been sceptical of the rebooted Bond movies, I had thought that the whole point of the series was that it was stupid, and something of a period piece, so trying to make intelligent and serious Bond movies was self-contradictory. Also that it would bave been better artistically (not commercially!) if the series had ended with “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”.
But I’ll give Quantum of Solace a try anyway based on what I’ve read here. I don’t think there has been a Bond movie yet set in South America.
November 18th, 2008 at 6:03 am
Yes, there was. One of the Bond films with Timothy Dalton was set in Colombia, I believe. The one where he’s after the drug lord.
NoahB: Vis-a-vis the Brits intel vs CIA, do you remember the Brit series “The Sandbaggers”. That was a show short on action and long on the interoffice intrigues between a small, highly clandestine British intelligence service called “Sandbaggers” and the British Foreign Office. Roy Marsden starred as Neil Burnside, a career intelligence officer with a Cold War obsession against the Russians.
I’ll let Wikipedia explain the rest:
What interested me about the show was one episode in particular. Willie Caine, Sandbagger One, is seconded to serve as a bodyguard to a dynamic and popular US Senator who is running for President. The Senator is assassinated despite Caine’s efforts. The reason Caine was recruited for such a job is because it was apparently considered to be common knowledge in the UK intelligence services that the FBI and Secret Service were both compromised – and that the FBI had assassinated John F. Kennedy, apparently on J. Edgar Hoover’s orders, over the issue of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. This was discussed on the show as if it were quite common knowledge among both the UK MI6 and the CIA. There was no argument about it at all.
Whether that was some sort of dramatic ploy or whether that’s really how the UK and/or Europe see the Kennedy assassination, it was very interesting as a US citizen to see it played that way.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Of course, the Bond fellow always seemed to be battling rogue capitalists with a fetish for shark tanks and world domination rather than some of these communist types.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Hack does have good taste. Sandbaggers is indeed an incredible show, and may well be the best TV show ever made (yes, Wire-heads, it prefigures what you all praised about The Wire). Marsden, who’s later career tended to take it a bit too easy in fluffy Mystery! TV shows, is the absolute shiznitz.
November 30th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Nonsensical: the name was taken from a short story of Ian Fleming. Look up on something before you write something stupid.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Fans cheer at the last Georgia-Auburn game at Memorial Stadium in 1958. Jimmy Griggs reached his seat in the Memorial Stadium pressbox. He checked the microphone in front of him. He prepared his papers. From his perch up high, he watched
March 1st, 2009 at 5:09 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
March 1st, 2009 at 5:52 pm
cialis
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:21 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 14th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:22 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:58 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:00 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:59 am
Great site, Good info viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Good morning. Without the capacity to provide its own information, the mind drifts into randomness.
I am from Saudi and bad know English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Find best rates on hotel reservation, discounts on flight tickets, cheap car.”
THX
, Nyssa.