Unclear and Present Danger - Goldeneye (feat. Isaac Chotiner)

Episode Date: September 9, 2023

For this week’s episode, Jamelle and John were joined by Isaac Chotiner of the New Yorker magazine to watch and discuss 1995’s GoldenEye, the first James Bond film of the 1990s and the first James Bond film of the post-Cold War era. GoldenEye is the seventeenth film in the James Bond series and the first to star Pierce Brosnan, who would go on to star in three subsequent pictures, all of which we will eventually cover on the podcast: Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day.Directed by Martin Campbell and starring, in addition to Brosnan, Sean Bean, Izabella Scorupco, Famke Janssen, Alan Cumming, Judi Dench and Joe Don Baker, Goldeneye was something of a reboot for the Bond franchise, which had been on a six-year hiatus since the previous entry, License to Kill starring Timothy Dalton. The plot of GoldenEye is as straightforward as one of these movies can manage: Bond is tasked with stopping the mysterious Janus syndicate from stealing and using a Soviet-era space weapon capable of causing an electro-magnetic pulse blast anywhere on the planet. Complicating this mission is the fact that the leader of Janus, Alec Trevelayn, is a former MI6 agent who was supposed to have died on a mission with Bond, nine years earlier. There’s the usual adventures and explosions and casual sexual encounters, culminating in a final showdown between Bond and Trevelayn on a massive satellite.GoldenEye, if you’ve somehow never seen it, is available for rental and purchase on iTunes and Amazon.For our next episode, we’re covering the 1995 romantic-political comedy, “The American President,” starring Michael Douglas and Annette Benning.Connor Lynch produced this episode. Artwork by Rachel Eck.Contact us!Follow us on Twitter!John GanzJamelle BouieUnclearPodAnd join the Unclear and Present Patreon! For just $5 a month, patrons get access to a bonus show on the films of the Cold War, and much, much more. The most recent episode of the Patreon is on the 1970 Italian political drama, “The Conformist.”

When the world is the target. 72 hours ago a secret weapon system was detonated over 7. And the threat is real. Golden High exists. A radiation surge that destroys everything with an electronic circuit. You can still depend on one man. The name's Bond. James Bond.

The world's most famous secret agent is back. We aim to please. And this time, 007 is facing the ultimate enemy. The man who knows him best. Hello, James. What an unpleasant surprise. Kill him. The pleasure will be all mine. Did you check her out?

Ah! How's it all. Three clicks, arms the fuse. Don't say it. The writing's on the wall. Grow up, 007. I think you're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the Cold War. You know James?

I was always better. Both of you. Stop! You like boys with toys. On November 17th. Grabbing! United Artists brings you... Trust me.

James Bond. Why can't you just be a good boy and die? Welcome. to Unclear and Present Danger, a podcast about the political and military thrillers of the 1990s and what they say about the politics of that decade. I'm Jamal Bowie. I'm a columnist for the New York Times opinion section. I'm John Gans. I write the Substack Newsletter on Popular Front and I wrote a book about American politics in the early 1990s, which will come out sometime next year. The book is finished. The book is finished. Longtime listeners will

have heard the progression of John talking about the book from I'm writing a book to I hate that I'm writing this fucking book to this book is almost done now we're at the book is finished something could still go wrong I mean it's being copyrighted but well but for all intents purposes it's not we have a guest today joining us is Isaac Chattner a staff writer at the New Yorker magazine you are likely familiar with his interviews which range from being very informative to being very embarrassing for the person on the other side. Isaac, thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me. I'm excited to be here. Yeah. Are you going to ask us some tough questions, Isaac? I'm not. I was hoping to just discuss Bond and get away from interviewing, but I'd be happy to

if you want me to. No, that's okay. We'll ask the questions here. For this week's episode, we watched 1995 as Golden Eye, the first James Bond film of the 1990s. In the first James Bond film of the post-Cold War era, Golden I'd see 17th film in the Bond series and the first to star Pierce, Brosnan, who would go on to be Bond in three subsequent movies, all of which we will eventually cover on the podcast. They are Tomorrow Never Dies. The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day. Directed by Martin Campbell and starring in addition to Brosnan, Sean B,

Isabella Scorupico Famca Jansen and Alan Cumming Judy Dench and Jodon Baker Goldenye was kind of, it feels like a reboot for the franchise, which had more or less been on a hiatus since the previous entry, licensed to kill, starring Timothy Dalton. I actually kind of like the Dalton Bonds personally,

but that's just me. The plot of Goldeney is as straightforward as one of these movies can manage Bond is task. with stopping the Janus Syndicate from stealing and using a Soviet-era space weapon capable of causing an electromagnetic pulse anywhere on the planet, complicating the mission is the fact that the leader of Janus, Alec Trevelyan, is a former MI6 agent who was supposed to have died on a mission with Bond nine years earlier. After the usual adventures and explosions and casual sexual encounters,

Bond and Trevelyan fight on a massive satellite, and that's the the climax of the movie. If you've somehow never seen Goldine or played the Nintendo 64 game, the audience of this podcast are people who would have played the game in the 90s. So if you've done neither of these things,

GoldenEye is available for rental and purchase on iTunes and Amazon. And if you have a switch in the virtual console, you can play GoldenEy again. That way, fair warning, if you decide to pick up GoldenEye,

in the game it doesn't hold up the film was released on uh released in the united states on november 17th nineteen ninety five so let's check out the new york times for the day john wait the golden eye game is not fun anymore it's it's clunky you know it's like the controls are just like it's like back in the 90s when first person shooters from a concept will still we're still a novelty you kind of like the controls were fine but when you try to play it today you're like, why, why does it control like this? It doesn't make any sense. All right.

Okay, let's hold. Let's see. Let's see. What is going on on the front page? Not a lot of foreign policy news, it looks like, but ex-president of South Korea jailed in bribery case, Rotee Wu, in the backseat of a car that took him to jail and Seoul yesterday. He was arrested on charges of accepting hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes while he was

present. And not the only ex-president of Korea that's been jailed. I think that's a pretty common, I don't know how many, but it's definitely more than one. And I hazard to say more than three or maybe as many as three or more. And yet they still have a functioning democracy. Yeah, yeah. And it's not a tin pot dictatorship. Okay, this is very funny.

I just Googled how many South Korean president. Sorry, I just binged. I'm on Microsoft Edge. So I just binged how many South Korean presidents went to jail. And the first result is from the American Enterprise Institute. South Korea's troubling history of jailing ex-presidents. This is very funny to me. But let me see how many have gone to jail.

See, half of all living former South Korean presidents are now in prison. That was in October 2018. How many is that? Okay. Okay, we got one, two, I think three. It's got to be at least three. Yeah. It's pretty funny.

I think it's pretty great. Yeah. Americans could learn some good lessons from South Korea about throwing their presidents or criminal presidents and fucking jail. It seems like a not such a great job. I mean, the average is 50% chance running up in jail. Okay, so let's see what else we got here. So, feuding goes on as GOP, presents its budget plan, President pledges veto, saying the U.S. will not be held hostage.

Clinton vows to recall 52,000 workers. Republicans presented their seven-year balanced budget plan today, a voluminous package of legislation that is the center of their political revolution and the fight with the White House that has led to a partial shutdown of the federal government. But the legislation, which promises to erase a federal deficit by 2002, while overhauling scores of social programs considered anethymote by Republican conservatives, competed for attention with the continued dueling between Republican leaders and President Clinton that approached political farce. This evening, by a vote of 60 to 37, the Senate approved a new Republican-responsive

spending bill that would finance government agencies and bring all federal employees back to work. The House had approved the measure early this morning. I remember the government shutdown, which was the first I had experienced in my life at this and I thought you know I as a child I thought oh if they shut down the government like it's going to be pandemonium there's going to be chaos in the streets I didn't really understood what a government shutdown meant and then I realized it's not really such a big deal we've done it several times it's not good probably that we keep doing it but not the end of

the world that it kind of sounds like the government shutting down um yeah this was after Gingrich's majority in the House was secured the so-called Republican Revolution and the contract with America, which, you know, basically Clinton collaborated, ended up collaborating with them to grievously cut a lot of social programs to balance the budget. So there's that little piece of history. Let's see what else we have here. I'm going to skip to the second page or the A3 of the newspaper because there's actually some interesting foreign policy news because the talks are the Dayton talks were in process now to end the the war in Bosnia. Bosnian talks snag on fate of two Serbs.

More charges filed against Karazic. With peace talks in Dayton, Ohio at a crucial stage, the Bosnian government in Serbia are wrangling over the fate of two Bosnian Serb leaders indicted by the international. National War Crimes Tribunal, so senior officials say. The matter took on new urgency with an announcement today the tribunals headquarters in the Hague of new indictments against Radavon Karadzic and the political leader in General Ratko-Mladic, the political leader, charging them with genocide in the days after the Serbs

invaded the Muslim obclavshavenica in July. The indictment details numerous instances in which Muslim captives in small and large numbers were summarily shot. I think they resolved this, and I think that both Karadzic and Miladich were convicted of war crimes and incarcerated, which was a kind of success for the International Criminal Justice Project. And here is another one. U.S. to press ball confluence to bend a bit.

Defense Secretary William J. Perry and Anthony Lake, President Clinton's National Security Advisor, and the commander of NATO forces in Europe are to come to Bosnian peace talks here on Friday at the United States Kentucky's a final crescendo of diplomatic pressure aimed at prodding the parties toward a peace settlement this weekend. People close to negotiations, which are now in the third week, said the visit by Mr. Perry, Mr. Lake, and the NATO commander, General George Jouan, is intended to press, again, upon the Serbs and the Muslim-led Bosnian government, the extent of Washington's commitment to peace and the fact that such an effort would not be made again in the near future if the talks fail.

Yeah, so we're coming to the end of the conflict, which was horrible genocidal conflict, the United States played, I think, positive role we could say in ending it, although there is some controversy about the NATO intervention. I'm not one of those people who thinks it was such a bad thing. Yeah, so that's the kind of foreign policy news. Some sort of post-Cold War order is shaping up, obviously. how long that lasts and how stable that was, you know, was doubtful. Anything else on the front page or any other pages that interest, you guys?

Not really. This is pretty boring as far as you see. Well, it's the middle of the 90s. Pretty, you know, things seem to be settling down. I mean, abroad, obviously, things were still unstable. But, yeah, the United States was sort of cruising along. Isaac, so when I asked you if you were joining us, join us for this Golden Eye episode,

I did so knowing that you are a Bond fan, but you don't like this movie. So before I start giving my take on this movie and I asked John to give hits, why don't you like this one? Well, you know, my original reason for not liking this one, I think I've sort of changed in the post, of Daniel Craig Bond era, which is that what I didn't like about this movie was I thought it was

too kind of meta. I thought it was a Bond film commenting on the series in some meta manner or fashion that I found sort of irritating. The Judy Dench scenes with Pierce Brosnan, the sense that Bond sort of existed as a figure in history rather than just a fun character who went and you know, went on his missions and that it was what it was, but it wasn't trying to take itself seriously. This felt too kind of aware of itself to me. But some of the better Daniel Craig movies, I actually think, did a good job

of that. And so I think what I just don't like about this movie is that I think the plot's kind of silly, and I've never really gotten into Pierce Broson's bond. But I'm curious what you guys think. You know, I go back and forth on this movie. And I end up,

I looked on my letterbox to see one of the last time I watched this. It was actually last year. I think I just randomly put this on sometimes. because it's like, you know, it's golden eye. If I need to do something else, having golden eye on, it's not the worst thing in the world. And the last time I watched it, I was like pretty fine with it. This time I watched it, I was like,

I found myself just kind of annoyed with the whole thing. And I think it's, I think it's that, it's the self-awareness. It's like the self-awareness that this is like a Bond movie in the 90s, right? So you have to comment on the fact that like, you mentioned the Judy Dench scene where she's like, I think you're a dinosaur, you're a misogynist, blah, blah, blah and it's like yeah that's that's true but doesn't i don't know if it has any i mean like if you if you're watching there are 17 of these things if you're watching it you you get it

like you get you get the whole problem with it um for the most part so you're just kind of in for the ride and it's like this it's this so the crag the crag movies are they're very self-aware But they're very much trying to get away from some of the goofier aspects of Bond. And so I think what makes this a little jarring is that it's a goofy movie, not the goofy movie, yuck, but a goofy movie that's also trying to be postmodern and like self-referential while doing the kind of like, oh, here's Q showing. you all of the gadgets and we'll make a couple fun jokes about that and all that stuff. The highly, you know, Bond being highly self-aware that he has James Bond and all that stuff. So it's sort of like, on this watch for me, I just found myself kind of annoyed at the at the fact that the movie was trying to do two things. Be kind of a Roger Moore-esque Bond

adventure, maybe with something of a harder edge. Bond isn't quite as like sociopathic as he is in the Dalton films, but also trying to be self-aware. And I'm not sure it really does both successfully. John, what do you think? I kind of like it, not just to be contrary. So what I'm hearing from you guys is that this bond is too woke for you. Yeah. Go woke, go broke, except this would be $360 million.

Right. No, you know what? what? I watched this movie a little while ago and my first feeling about it is when I watched this movie when I was a kid, which I think this is the first James Bond movie I saw in theaters, obviously. And it was exciting because there hadn't been one in some time

so people had a lot of expectations for it. Was it felt very modern and updated and fresh at the time. And now looking back at it, you know, I'm just like, well, this is aged a lot and this kind of doesn't seem that much different from

how silly and kind of dated other James Bond movies look like. With that being said, I don't know. Like, I think maybe it was just because I have nostalgic feelings about it. I kind of do like it. I see what your guys are saying, those bits of dialogue where they're trying to like update bond for the post-Cold war world of, you know, bond after the end of history in a certain way. I could see how that's a little bit grading and silly.

And those discussions are kind of, you know, a bit, a bit irritating. On the other hand, like, I do think it's sort of interesting the way it attempts to update Bond and the way it attempts to make the movie relevant in a, in a post-Cold War environment. And it kind of begins a lot of the cliches that are fun about, you know, movies about the East in the 90s and beyond. you know, you've got, um, uh, I don't know if, if there was a guy who came up with the genre Nokia wave talking about like films from the Syria would have kind of like shitty tech,

but that's like, but it's portrayed in this way that it's, was that, is that Matt Matt? I don't know if Max Reed came up with it, but he definitely, I've definitely came to contact with the concept through his writing. And like, I like movies that have that sort of like shitty technology, but it's portrayed as being like the edge of high tech at the time. I also think that the wonderful scene and the kind of, and that's also shown in the credits about that the abandoned Soviet monument park, which became kind of like a cliche, a visual cliche of the post-Soviet world of like the abandoned statues of Lenin and Stalin and, you know, and was meant to be kind of a dramatic illustration of the fall of communism and the,

and the loss of those ideals. And I think, you know, I like it and kind of look back on that fondly. There's some interesting attempts to give it some serious political context. I don't know if you guys notice, but the Alec Trevelyan, who's the evil guy, who's played by Sean Bean, who I like a lot, is a Cossack. Is a descended from the Cossacks that retreated with the German army. And then were repatriated after the Yalta conference and were massacred and also sent into gulags and, you know, considered by many to be an atrocity of war. But the context was that a lot of these people were collaborating with the Nazi invasion. They were anti-Soviet.

They collaborated with the Nazi invasion. And then, you know, they thought they would get lenient treatment or refuge by the anti-communist British under Churchill. But at the Yalta Convention, it was decided to repatriate them. And that was where the kind of bitterness of the character comes from and his feeling of betrayal. It's part of what is known as the Western betrayal about the West not defending anti-communist Eastern Europeans and allowing, you know, Stalin to get his way at Yalta, essentially. So I thought that was kind of an interesting little, most audience members probably didn't pick up on that or understand that those little piece of dialogue.

But I thought they were, it was interesting to kind of put it into a historical context. Maybe that's the same kind of thing as bothers you guys about it. But I think that that was sort of interesting, at least, if not good. You can't talk about James Mawin movies without, like, gender and sexuality and its fucked up relationship to them. This movie was definitely trying to make strides against that. But, you know, with Dame Judy Dench as as. as, you know, Bond's boss and a slightly more assertive Bond girl, maybe.

You know, we watched, what was the movie? We watched Thunderball or something. And it was just like, yeah, we watched Thunderball. Yeah, we watched Thunderball. Yeah. It was shocking. Like, he's a rapist. It's just like, not. It's just completely, you're like, oh, what a woman eyes. And you're like, that's not, he's not seducing. Like, these, this is like, fuck. There's a very disturbing scene in Goldfinger, too, along those lines.

Yeah, he's just kind of having, doing what he, wants. And this movie, his conduct is less than gentlemanly, let's say, but not quite as objectionable. So there are updating certain things. But then there's Femke Jansen as the Wikipedia says, a sadistic lust murderer who sort of presents female sexuality as threatening and so on and so she kills people. She seems to literally get off on, on, on, on, suffixating her sexual victims, partners, whatever you want to call it. Anyway, I like some of the kitsch, the post-Soviet kitsch in the movie. I like it because it reminds me of being a kid.

And I get what you guys find irritating about it, but still have a soft spot for this movie as the first Bond movie I saw in theaters. Yeah, and I think, I mean, to get into the politics a little bit. So, like I said at the top, the plot of this is basically that Bond is trying to stop the use of this Soviet era weapon, sort of the Soviet Union created an EMP weapon and it kind of got forgotten basically in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and this sort of arms dealer syndicate with help from within the government just trying to get it and to use it more or less to rob a bank. And Bond makes that.

that point in one of the concluding confrontations being himself and Trebellion, that for all intents and purposes, you're kind of just a bank robber here. And you're going to shut down the electronic communications in London, rob the Bank of England, and then go on by your merry way. And I do think it's interesting how that's like the threat of the former Soviet Union in this. Like the thought of the former Soviet Union obviously is not an ideological threat because it's the former Soviet Union. It's more that just its remnants are liable to be exploited by, like, unscrupulous people, by thieves or, and not even like terrorists, right?

Just by thieves. Someone gets their hand up on technology and they'd say to use it for personal gain. And this is one of the first movies we've done where we've had the kind of like former Soviet official, you know, leaders as like villains of the film. And here, they're not like nationalists or anything. They're not trying to reconstitute the Soviet Union. There's like a suggestion that Oromov, the Soviet villain or former Russian villain, envisions himself as like some sort of strong man in the future.

But there's like a throwaway line. Otherwise, we're just kind of looking at a very sort of straightforward criminal plot. and not, not even really a threat to the world, just sort of like, it would be bad if this happened, right? It would be unfortunate. We wouldn't like it. But it wouldn't necessarily, like, cause nuclear apocalypse or anything. Well, wouldn't, wasn't this also a sort of theme that the thing that you just said in 90s stuff? I'm thinking Tom Clancy, especially, that the former Soviet Union is kind of this dangerous area.

their nukes floating around, you know, international arms dealers could get their hands on them. And, you know, we sort of have to be, that's what we're not worried about a sort of new Putin rising and taking over and causing confrontation with the West. It's more just, this is this like post-Soviet wasteland and anything goes. Right. Well, that was, it's not, it's true. I mean, that's the way the country kind of, gangsterism was rampant. And there was all this kind of fear about, you know, that there was a trope or a cliche, like, oh, you can buy like a nuclear warhead. And, you know, I don't think that was ever really true.

But you could, you could buy nuclear weapons. You could buy all these kinds of things. The threat of, yeah, proliferation of weapons from the former Soviet Union was a big worry at the time. That's also present in true lies. I think they bought their, like, nuclear bomb from Kazakhstan or something like that. And right. Right. Right. The crimson dawn. They purchased it from Russian separatists in Kazakhstan. Right. So and then I think that's this weapon, this golden eye weapon that's supposed to be like send in electromagnetic pulse is interesting. I think that Republicans are still obsessed with it. Like there's some weird right wing trope where they're like they believe that this actually like something like this exists and that they're worried about it. I think this happens a lot of times. They like watch a movie and then they like get convinced that it's true. I think there are weapons. that do something like this, but basically every so often it like comes up in congressional hearings or stuff like there's a electromagnetic pulse weapon or like it's not really exist

as such in the way it's presented this movie. The idea that it's like a weapon that sort of returns things to the the dark ages but actually does not direct like kill anybody as a kind of interesting post-historical trope about concerns of you know, I don't know, return to prehistorical times, it's not that scary of a movie, you know? I guess at the beginning of the movie, they're taking out a Russian chemical weapons plant, right? And then like, it's sort of like, well, it's not a nuclear bomb. It's a kind of paranuclear weapon that just hurts electronics. It's sort of like the threat of nuclear holocaust is gone. And now we're sort of, we've seen this in many other movies, kind of mopping up.

up the criminal, destabilizing, you know, elements after this. And that's why Bond and the Western intelligence services are still needed. They're not out of date. They have to still keep order, but the order is against essentially criminals. And people with kind of, as the movie is subtly hinting with the Russian general and with Trevelyan even though he's sort of just a crook in the end people with these grudges with these old nationalist grudges even though in this movie that that's sort of the attitude as well that's not the real reason the real reason is they want money which you know probably is true

many of the movies this year and we see this also in air force one it's just sort of like a defining film of how we think of the post-Soviet world and the in the issues of the post-Soviet world and the you know the reconstitution of of Russia as a kind of geopolitical or even ideological threat is not really quite on people's radar yet yeah yeah I think I think that's right um this this is almost like a prototypical depiction of what people were afraid of coming out of the Cold War and looking at post-Soviet Russia and the post-Soviet world. Not a new ideological competitor, not like a new regional threat, but just sort of like a playground for unsavory people to use sort of the leftovers

from the Russian War machine. can I can I raise something which in this context which is that I think it's interesting in the sort of if you think about the mythology of bond which was very much written about when this movie came out because as Jamel said it was the longest time in six years since the previous bond which is the longest they've ever gone and it was the end of the going from you know the end of the cold war to the post cold war era it was often written about and it's talked about in the movie as bond being a relic of the Cold War, as Judy Dench says, a dinosaur. And what I think is so interesting about this is that, like, the Bond movies, the 16 Bond movies that came before this are not Cold War stories. They absolutely play on nuclear paranoia of the Cold War. And Bond is a figure of the West in some sense. But they, and the vast majority of the Ian Fleming books that they're, at least loosely based on, are not with Russians as villains. There aren't Bond movies with the Russians or the Soviets, really, as villains. In fact, in some of the Russians. In fact, in some of the Russians,

of them, they're sort of the spy who love me, for example. They're helping bond out. The West and the East are joining forces to prevent Spector from destroying the world. This is a common theme of the Bond movies. And the villains through not just international organizations, famously Spector, but the villains, Jamel mentioned Licensed to Kill, the last bond before this, where the villain is sort of a typical 1980s drug dealer from Latin America. In the 70s, you had villains trying to deal with the energy crisis. So they were often very, oh, that's the man with the gold and done. They're often very of their moment, but they're not really Cold War stories. And so it's interesting that they examine sort of post-Cold War Russia in this sense, given what the

mythologies in the movie is about, given what the mythologies of the series is about, given what the movies are actually about, which is something a little bit different. Yeah, it's true. I mean, Spector is such a funny, silly conceit that there's just like an international evil group that's just into all kinds of crime. And then you have, you have Blofeld,

who was kind of classic Bond villain, Dr. Evil guy. That's true. The movie was, they were already kind of like not attempting to be ideological. So this kind of takes it into more serious territory or more historical territory.

When they were sort of post-historical or to begin with from Russia with Love Spector is still the villain right they're trying to trick him into thinking it's the Russians but it Specter's the villain yeah that's interesting I mean you think you think of Ian Fleming as like the right wing

guy well he was but yeah he was personally right wing but the books as being the right wing fantasy of the Cold War even though as you correctly point out they don't deal with the Cold War directly well John LaCarray is the serious left-leaning, but the Soviet Union is very much the rival in that, but it's set in a world of reality. Maybe what's annoying about this bond to you guys, and I think this is just pretty much

what you said, is that it's trying to situate a little too much in reality, and not in the fantasy world of bond with its kind of ludicrous villains. This villain is a plausible, is not quite the right word, but is definitely, he's not. He's not. this silly doctor evil character who's just like kind of delights in being wicked you know he's got a real he's a he's a bad guy but he has like a real grievance um yeah well it's also jemelle said it's not just that it's sort of trying to be too real but it's it's trying to be too real in a way that it doesn't add up to a particularly good movie the way i think like casino royale the daniel craig coin is a good movie um that's also trying to be real you know so it doesn't quite

Nailed the landing, I don't think. Yeah. That's fair. I think if I know, I have to comment about any Bond movie, but I guess especially this one too, because there's this line when they are observing, they're doing satellite images or like a direct satellite feed of the first use of the EMP weapon on the facility where, I guess, the Golden Eye program is housed. It's where we meet the Bond Girl for the film, where we meet Alan Cummings character, Boris. It's sort of a pivotal point in the film. And Judy Dench says something to the effect of, you know, unlike the Americans, if you don't like to get our bad news from CNN.

And it's a funny line, but it's funny in part because one of the fantasies of these movies and of this movie is the idea of Great Britain as, like some pivotal world power and Britain as having some role to play in the maintenance of international order, which by the, I mean, obviously during the Cold War, with kind of the United States being, you know, the Western global superpower, that was certainly a bit overstated. But by the 90s, it's just difficult to think of Britain in any way as being that kind of that kind of power right that kind of having that kind of role on the on the global political stage and it's always been interesting to me how the bond movies are like this in addition to being kind of like a power fantasy in the form of james bond it's like a power

fantasy for the for the british state you know i think that that's just like the british tradition of espionage which lecari takes a kind of more uh jaundiced view of is like, well, Britain produces great spies. They invented spycraft and all these things. They had the worst moles of anybody, too. But the idea was like, oh, well, we may not have the military economic and imperial power we must have, but we have intelligence, literally, figuratively. We have this specialized elite group, and we still kind of can still help and guide and keep order And that's sort of also just, I think kind of the British ruling classes concede about itself in the post, in the Cold War, and the post-imperial moment was, well, we're handling the mantle to the United States. But we have things to teach them still, right? And you see this in the portrayal of the, in the good shepherd of the creation of the CIA where like the old school British spies are teaching the Americans how to do this and kind of how to. how to rule the world in a certain way.

So I think that's just like part of the legend, the myth of British intelligence, which James Bond is hugely a part of, the British spy as being some kind of particularly masterful, you know, figure. And I think with sort of the comforting that the United States could even think of is like, well, we have our one friend in the world and they have all these special abilities. when they might be able to pick up the slack, that was a big part of the war on terror feelings. It was like, well, at least Britain is with us. And those good old Brits are with us.

And then now we just think of them as a mess. And their world, their reputation as a world power just collapsed. You know, they tried to fight their own war in the 80s. They fought their own war without our help in the Falklands. They were picking on somebody, maybe not their military equal. but, you know, they went off and fought an kind of imperial war. So, yeah, I think the whole, both of Brits and Americans was that, like, the Britain would do its part to be, to uphold the West. And now that's gone.

Yeah, I mean, I think what you guys both say is true. I mean, there's a very sort of literal manifestation of this in Casino Real where the Felix Leiter character basically has the money to let Bonn keep playing, you know, the joke being. the Americans have the money, but of course, Bond has the skill. Like, Felix Leider can't play poker, like James Bond is the one who's the world-class poker player. They just fund the operation. But, no, I mean, I think also Jamel's point about sort of upholding British power is true. And I mean, I think, you know, Fleming during the war did help the Americans kind of develop the forerunner to the post-war intelligence service. And his books are full of kind of, the books, not the movies, are full of kind of resentment at the Americans.

for taking over. I think for the movies, all you see, you don't really see that for the American market, obviously being the most important one. They couldn't really do that. You just see the British sort of, you know, as the skilled ones who are maintaining their power, but there's none of the kind of resentment in America

about being replaced. They have an affectionate, goofy portrait of Americans, like Joe Don Baker's character usually. The CIA agent is reliable friend, maybe not as bright as bond. Definitely not as brightest bond. But sort of like, oh, a good, a good hail and hearty American type, but not, you know, a particularly brilliant spy or kill or cold blood killer in the way that Bond is.

This is very much propaganda for the for the continued importance of Britain in the world. And I think this movie was also, these movies are also like Britain is not only, you know, still a powerful nation and an important nation, but a stylish and, you know, exciting. place that generates, you know, an aristocracy of, of, of these sorts of, you know, world travelers who are, you know, very suave and so on and so forth. And I think that contributed a lot to the, the chic for Britain in the 60s was definitely, you know, obviously the British invasion was a huge part of that, Carnaby Street, the mods. But James Bond was a part of that. The style of James Bond, his clothes, the look of the movies. They were kind of part of a, almost a,

tourist advertisement for Britain as a cool place. And I don't know if they work that way. I don't, I think it barely people think of Bond as British. I mean, obviously, he's always a guy with a British accent. But the Britishness of Bond, I think, has sort of like faded. He's just sort of an action hero now. I think that that's sort of, you know, the global brand of Great Britain, even in the 90s, there was a there was a second wave of british cool because there were all of those bands like

oasis and blur and stuff like that wouldn't they call that stone roses they called it um brit pop brit pop there's a yeah there's yeah britpap and they just called the second british invasion that's like yeah yeah so there was like a sense of britain as being in the 90s especially and also cool cool britannia too cool britannia exactly cool britannia like it britain was a cool place still and an important place culturally. I hate to keep on making fun of it and beating up on the British, but I mean, it's just incredible how their stature in the world on every level, culturally, economically, militarily has just fallen precipitously from in the last 30 years. And I think that Gold and I was sort of a, not a high watermark, but it was in the context of a lot

of other things that were coming out of Britain, cultural products about Britain coming out of Britain that made it look like still a cool and important place. And it's just funny to reflect on it. It is striking, isn't it? Because like right now, right now, it's not as if Britain doesn't have a presence in at least American pop culture, just the fact that like, you know, throw a stone at an actor in a movie and there's a decent chance you're going to be British. Right. Especially especially in like blockbuster pictures like they just they just love to hire brits for for lots of roles arguably one of the most famous actors in hollywood idris elba is notably he's he's british um and so they there's this this kind of presence in pop culture but it doesn't really

translate to like any kind of you know it doesn't translate to any kind of enthusiasm for the country itself and if anything since since brexit i feel like that that the narrative in the United States has been like this place is really going down the tubes well it is they fuck themselves I mean I mean it is objectively going down the tubes but yeah you're right to say that there's been just like kind of serious decline in Britain's cultural standing in the United States there was a real fascination with products I remember growing up because of think of cool Britannia but I think it was also the aftermath of punk rock There was a sense that Britain was a cool place and that things that came out of it were cool and desirable commodities and stuff like that.

And having a British, like, affecting a British accent used to be a thing that people wanted to do. Do people even try anymore? Like, no, I agree with what you guys are saying substantively about British decline and about the sort of everything you guys have said. I do think, though, culturally stuff is still there. I mean, if you look at the sort of Harry and Megan stuff, which, I do think the interest in it is a form of anglophilia in a strange form. You know, still the popularity of kind of Downton Abbey type shows and, you know, the popularity of Bond still, the popularity of Harry Potter. I mean, it does feel that there's still a cultural presence, but I agree, it's nothing like it was even 25 years ago and certainly nothing like it was in the 1960s.

But the royals still feel like they register, or ex-royals, I should say, in a way that few things from a broad do. The Harry and Megan thing was interesting because it just had some racial aspect. And there was anglophilia, but also kind of anglophobia. I think that Britain is in the land of traditions because it has no written constitution. So it's all about the substance of its traditions. And for some people, those traditions embodied in the monarchy. embodied in James Bond, embodied in all these things, are reassuring. The the perenniality of Bond movies is just like one of the kind of reassuring things. Oh, jolly old England will always

be there with its funny little traditions that we can rely on. There's the queen and so and so forth. And I think, yeah, so there's, I think there are a lot of Americans, and I think this has been the case that's like the early republic who look at Britain and its traditional. as being kind of a comforting, oh, our cultural load star is still out there and kind of like the more conservative Americans, but I think this cuts across conservatives and liberals who admire the Leroyelson's movement. And then you have the Anglophobia, which is the British monarchy is representative of every evil that the West has ever done, you know, like as representative of slavery, representative of imperialism.

I mean, let's be frank, there was some involvement. And then the Megan Markle stuff was like, oh, this is the, this shows their true colors. This shows their, you know, and we have a down-to-earth or smart American woman kind of poking her finger in the eye of Britain and all of its stuck-up traditions, it's racism, its hide-bound way. and so on and so forth. So, yeah, I think America kind of ping pongs back and forth between Anglophilia and not Anglophobia in the same way that French people have it, but a certain kind of contempt or feeling that the British are silly, that the traditions are outdated, that they should just get it off with.

I think that was sort of represented. And that's also, but I think it's also like there's the culture wars about bond, right? like, is there going to be a black bond? Is there going to be a female bond? Like, you know, transgender bond. Like these are concerns that kind of rock the right every so often. They really will need James Bond to remain the same, you know? And sure, I get it.

I think Jamel made the point previously. He's like, James Bond's supposed to be, in my eyes, kind of a piece of shit. And I don't want them to like transfer it. like you're supposed to be just like a British person like I don't want them to like make a like I don't need there to be a black James Bond you know like yeah this is this is my slightly you know like to be since that bond works I do think he works as like a figure of imperial nostalgia I mean I think that's what the character is right and so like it would be weird to me to have a figure of imperial nostalgia be like Nigerian or be Indian or

or whatever. Very much in the line with modern Britain. Yeah, I mean, I think we discussed this on the Thunderball episode, maybe, that, like, yeah, it would be, you know, the current prime minister of Great Britain is Rishi Sunak, who is Indian. Right. The modern Tories are like a multicultural party, a multicultural leadership whose base remains sort of like old white pensioners.

Right. and so yeah i mean which they all are yeah yeah and so you're right there there is this way which like you a a a Nigerian bond uh an Indian bond would make total sense given where modern Britain is and yet I still will find it weird I would still find it weird so you're with the Ben Shapiro's of the world that you know you don't that's right you're going to make a 40 minute video playing if Idris Elbow becomes Bond. You know what? You know what?

If a black guy does become Bond, I will make like a 20-minute video railing about it. From the left. From the left. I'm going to hold you to that. This is now on the record. This can't be edited out. So, yeah. I know.

Now, yeah. We need Idrissela to become Bond now just to see this. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I want to see this video. Yeah, I know. it's true. I mean, I agree. I don't know. I feel like, because I know what you guys were saying about

Golden Eye as being too updated for Bond, but to me, it's Trad because it was the first one I saw. So I'm like, that's the way a Bond movie should be or could, you know, that. So I guess maybe Golden Eye is about as updated as I want them to be in their regressive, all their regressive stuff. And if it's, but that's the 90s nostalgia of Golden Eye for me. And along this movies, it's just like, well, did things really need to change that much? Wasn't this good enough? Wasn't, isn't a mediocre? That's like the mediocrity of the 90s are sometimes sort of like what people seem to

yearn for. It's like, and I get it. I'm like, isn't, you have all these like fantastic, spectacular Bond movies now. He dies. He comes back to life. Who knows what's going on? Explosions, blah, blah. Isn't this mediocre Bond movie good enough?

Shouldn't we have been happy with this? End of history, mid-90s, middle, the most mid-bond, Pierce Broson, perhaps the most mid-bond. Definitely not the worst, but definitely not the best. Like, that's just what I'm saying. My case for a golden eye is its midness and how reassuring and kind of nice that is. And the same thing with the N64 game, which you say is bad, don't you just kind of want to be back at home and there's like even like right wing propaganda made about this now don't you

just kind of want to be back at home with your friends in 1995 playing golden eye you know like it's a world of security in a certain way that I understand the yearning for and and golden eye certainly does it for me where I watch this movie I'm like yeah I'm 10 years old golden eye is the most fun thing going to see golden eye is the most fun thing I could possibly imagine playing golden eye on n64 with my friends is the most fun thing I could possibly imagine. Life doesn't need to get better or worse than this. That's my defense of Golden High

in all of its mediocrity. Isaac, do you have any any last words on Golden Night now that John's made his defense? No, I mean, I I'm not certain that Pierce Brousin is not the worst James Bond. I mean, we don't need to get

way into this, but I have sort of some nostalgia maybe of the type John's talking about, although Obviously, I'm not that old for George Lazenby, even while acknowledging he's not very good. But I like all the other. Yeah. There's something about Pierce Brasen that I just find completely off-putting. There's a smugness to him and a sort of fake smile to him.

I mean, he looks great. He looks fantastic. I mean, I think he sort of. It looks the part. He looks amazing in a tux and he's very handsome. And, you know, I think he sort of physically looks right. But he looks fine doing action. but I don't know, never done it for me as an actor in any form.

He's not even in the ghost, the ghost writer where he plays the former smug, former British Prime Minister. I don't remember that one. Is that Polanski? Yes. Another movie that Brazz, because I think you're right that Braxton is smug. I mean, his bond is like smug. But another role in which that actually really works is this, another Martin Campbell film, actually. Is The Foreigner with Jackie Chan?

I don't ever saw that. 2017. In it, in it, Brosnan plays basically, I mean, he basically plays Jerry Adams. Oh, cool. Okay, the foreigners are a weird movie because you go into, like, oh, it has Jackie Chan on the poster, you know, it's going to be action and all that stuff. And then it's like a somber political thriller for most of it. But Pierce Brosnan plays like, a retired IRA, you know, leader slash, like, you know, mainstream politician now. I got to watch this. And he's, he's pretty good in the role. The movie's, the movie's pretty decent. I liked it. I did watch it on a plane, which might, you know, plane movie, you watch it, I'm going to

plane. Whenever I watch a movie on a plane, it feels better than it actually is for whatever reason. But, yeah, it's worth watching. And Pierce Broson, like, Pierce Broson deploys his Pierce Brosonness to, it's a good effect in the film. He's not bad in the John Borman adaptation of the La Curee novel, Taylor of Panama, with Jeffrey Rush. Oh, yeah, because he's playing a real piece of shit.

Yeah, playing like a sleazy, not really James Bond type or not, you know, not not, not, uh, James Bond without any of the good qualities. He's pretty good. All right. So that's, I mean, my, I don't have any additional takes on golden ice. I think, I think we can wrap things up there. I feel like it's not worth making any kind of recommendation for this movie. because it's Goldner. I just,

I, who hasn't, who under the age of like 30 hasn't seen this movie? It's kind of, I think you're right, John to say that it feels like, like the Bond movie

for like a particular generation of people. Even as like, I mean, my personal favorite modern bond remains Casino Royale, which is a movie I really do love. But, you know,

this is golden one is my first Bond movie. And I've seen it a bunch. And, And it is, it is, it is what it is. It's stuck much more in the culture, I think, maybe partially because of the video game, but just broadly than the other three Pierce Broson movies, which all did pretty well at the box office,

but I don't feel like have really any lasting cultural impact. Yeah, no, that's right. The World is Not Enough has a pretty good song by Garbage. That's the most I can think of. I didn't realize they did the song for that. Yeah, no, you're right about that for sure. Golden I was the cultural touchstone. I think it might be the video game

just because tomorrow never dies, which I actually don't think it's too bad. It has what Jonathan Price as... Rupert Murdoch. Yeah, as Rupert Murdoch. Yeah, it's like... Bond takes on the global media complex. But yeah, the video game

for Golden Eye really did make a huge cultural impact. That is our show. If you're not a subscriber, please subscribe. We're available on iTunes, Spotify, sit your radio and Google Podcast, and wherever else podcasts are found. If you subscribe, please leave a rating and a review.

It does help people find the show. And you can reach out to us on social media if you want to. The podcast, social media is at UnclearPod. You can also reach out to us over email at Unclear and Present Feedback at Fastmail.com. For this week in feedback, we have an email from Walter titled Dead Presidents and Bloods, Accounts of Vietnam by Black. Vets. Hi, John and Jamel. Love the podcast. Thanks so much.

Thank you. When discussing dead presidents, it would be remiss not to mention Bloods, Black Veterans of the Vietnam War and oral history by Wallace Terry, which Dead Presidents is loosely based on. Bloods presents the wide range of black experiences in the U.S. military during Vietnam, as told by Black veterans themselves. There are accounts of traumatized and disenfranchised black vets, resorting the violent crime after returning home, which inspired dead presidents.

However, it is notable that even the Colin Powell-type black soldiers, sailors, aviators, Marines that did it right, earning promotions and accolades for truly exemplary service, still experience extreme levels of violent racism. These narratives deconstruct the myth of the colorblind military that awards all soldiers based from heroism and merit. Looking at you, fucking Forrest Dump, that, because, that is part of the Forrest Gump movie. I would also recommend reading about Sergeant Dwight H. Johnson, who won the Medal of Honor

for some truly unbelievable Rambo-type heroic shit in Vietnam, and yet after returning home to Detroit, he was gunned down in a convenience store. He was supposedly tried to rob the store and was thus shot four times by the owner. His own family speculates that he was just looking for someone to kill him since he was suffering from severe PTSD after returning from the war. Again, thanks so much for such an informative and entertaining podcast, one of my favorite movie genres. It barely falls in the 90s and was a TV series. I would love a tour of duty episode.

I'm not really sure what tour of duty is. Also, there was definitely some right-wing backlash to the accounts by the soldiers told to the accounts told by the soldiers in bloods, since it does not fit the white reactionary narrative of Vietnam. That's interesting. That's interesting. Yeah. In the Dead President's episode, if you didn't listen to it, we discussed, we talked a lot about kind of the Black experience of military service and how complicated it's been in terms of American

history. And this seems to fit right in. That's fascinating. I was a little bit aware of that book just reading about Dead Presidents, but I've never read it. Yeah, neither have I. No. Isaac, you ever see Dead Presidents? No, I've never seen it.

I would love to see. I need to, it's one I need to watch. It's good. It's good. It's good. I think our verdict on it, it's very ambitious movie, very much made by young filmmakers, and it's not perfect, but it's like, it's, there are not very many movies like it, that are sort of like coming of age stories slash Vietnam War movies for black Americans in particular.

It's worth watching, I think, for being somewhat unique in, in that kind of genre, a film. All right. Thank you, Walter, for the email. Episodes come out every two weeks, so we will see you then with an episode on Rob Reiner's political romantic comedy, The American President, written by Aaron Sorkin, of course, starring Michael Douglas and Annette Benning. Here is a brief plot summary. Widowed U.S. President Andrew Shepard, one of the world's most powerful men, can have anything he wants. and what he covets most is Sidney Ellen Wade, a Washington

lobbyist, but Shepard's attempt at courting her spark wild rumors and decimate his approval ratings. This movie is both good, and it's a very stupid movie. It's very dumb movie. I remember seeing this. We'll talk a bit about how funny it is to have

the president's love interest be a lobbyist. I don't know Capcom would have a political advisor of it allow that to happen. The American President is available to rent or buy on Amazon and iTunes. Also, Martin Sheen's in this. So, you know, Isaac, thank you for joining us on the show. Do you have anything you want to plug?

Anything you know, share, anything you've done recently? You'd like your listeners to read. No, no, I actually don't. No, I've got nothing to plug. New Yorker.com, you can find mine and my colleagues work. I think I've heard of it. I've read some things there every so often. Yeah, and I, Isaac, you're, I mean, you're one of my favorite interviewers, but also

a terrific writer as well. So people, if you don't read Isaac's work, you absolutely should. We are going to plug our Patreon, latest episode of which is on the 1970 film The Conformist. You can listen to that and much more at patreon.com slash unclear pod for just five a month, you get two episodes on movies that are usually actually good. Yeah, the quality recently has been pretty high of the movies we've been doing it. Yeah, it's been, it's been some classics of European cinema in particular. So that's the Patreon. Please check it out.

For John Gans and Isaac Chodner, I'm Jamel Bowie. We'll see you next time. I'm going to be able to be.