Shaken or Stirred: How James Bond Influences National Security Policy
James Bond has always been a barometer of public taste, from the classic curves of the Aston Martin and the sharp cut of his tux, to his refined preferences in both cocktails and women. The two latest Bond films, however, have seen this fashion plate enter the public discourse on contemporary homeland security issues. What is the extent of this influence, and are we even aware that this messaging is happening? What ramifications does this have for the national security profession?
Released in 2012, Skyfall was a propaganda piece that supported increased government intrusion into the lives of citizens, as well as increased acceptance of civilian casualties caused by government, in order to defend the public against the modern threats of terrorism and cyber crime. Although such a view may seem unpopular now, at the time this narrative reflected public opinion. A poll conducted in 2010, prior to the Snowden leaks, found that 63% of Americans thought the U.S. government did not go far enough in surveillance methods to keep the public safe. Skyfall reinforced this opinion by exposing viewers to this message even when they thought they were simply watching a mindless action film
Early in the film, Skyfall establishes terror and cyber attacks as the modern dangers threatening contemporary society. Gone are the elaborate doomsday devices and space lasers that were appropriate boogeymen when cold war nuclear annihilation had seemed possible. Such threats no longer scare audiences. In their stead, Skyfall presents a terrorist bombing that destroys MI6 headquarters and a computer hack that compromises the safety of spies worldwide. These threats frighten viewers because they are believable, and they justify government actions that might have previously been considered excessive.
Skyfall presents civilian casualties as an unavoidable necessity when combating contemporary threats. This message is conveyed in an early scene when Bond’s government deliberately takes a risky sniper shot to try to kill a bad guy, but instead hits and nearly kills Bond. In presenting this action as necessary, the film unmistakably condones the parallel policy of accepting innocent casualties in drone strikes.
The film also suggests that citizen privacy must be reduced in order to keep the public safe from terror and cybercrimes. Bond stoically submits to an invasive medical, physical, and psychological examination to determine his ability to defend his country. This scene teaches viewers that they should acquiesce to government intrusions into their privacy in order to keep their country safe.
The final scene solidifies the narrative that civilians must support their governments even when they commit potentially undesirable actions because of the great danger posed by contemporary threats. Bond and his boss, who represents Western government, have retreated to a lone mansion in the bog. The mansion, representing Western society, is besieged by enemies who suddenly appear to shoot bullets or bombs at the mansion before disappearing again into the darkness, much like terrorists are perceived. Even though Bond’s government considered him acceptable collateral damage and had him shot, questioned his integrity and invaded his privacy, he still fights to protect the government because it is needed to keep us safe, and this is the message that viewers subconsciously take home from the film.
Interestingly, the latest Bond film now opposes government surveillance. Released in 2015 post-Snowden, Spectre is a cautionary tale about the danger of invasive intelligence services, and a direct reflection of changing U.S. opinion that now considers government surveillance to have gone too far.
Does James Bond shape public discourse on homeland security issues, or does he merely reflect and intensify prevailing opinions? What is the role of entertainment and popular media in shaping public sentiment regarding national security issues? What influence should this medium have on our decisions?
The takeaway? The next time you form an opinion on homeland security policy, make sure your choice is informed by fact, rather than fiction.
