Showing posts with label James Bond. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James Bond. Show all posts

Thursday, 30 May 2024

TIES VERSUS TATTOOS

Sean Connery as James Bond wearing a tie - as always
 

I briefly chatted with a person serving me teach was working for English Heritage at Stonehenge the other day. His skin was covered with tattoos and I commented on this. He told me that he had been tattooed ten years ago and was quite fond of them. They were a part of his identity and he encouraged me to do the same and get myself tattooed. I told him that I would pass as I was not very fond of needles and we left it at that.

 

I was probably wearing a tie at the same time as I was working. I am old-fashioned enough to wear a tie when I go to work – although it is hardly necessary these days and lots of tourist guides do not bother to put one on and hardly any tourist do either. Casual is king these days but I am one of those curious men who feels he has not finished getting dressed unless he has put on his tie. An open neck shirt just does not do it for me.

 

A tie is a completely unnecessary piece of menswear. Women do not bother with a tie – unless they are trying to look like their male equivalents – and one man called it ‘a snake around my neck’. He obviously did not like his particular snake (and I like his image) but I have quite a collection of ties and I take a certain amount of pleasure in selecting which one to wear and putting it on, usually with a Windsor knot and the top button undone. 

 

The point about a tie is that it is temporary. You do not have to wear the same one tomorrow and I adjust which one I put on depending on what I am doing and which shirt is on underneath. Some of my ties I hardly ever use, others have seen a good deal of service and others are now starting to show their age. Although I wear one when I go to work or to some kind of formal occasion, I have called a halt to tie acquisition and don’t buy new ones.

 

A tattoo, however, is permanent. Removing one is both expensive and unsightly, often leaving nasty scars on the skin. Most people stick with their tattoos or ‘body art’, as it is sometimes called.  No matter how good (or bad) your tattoo is, you are stuck with it for the rest of your time on this planet. What will older people with elaborate body art on the surface of their bodies look like as said bodies start to shrink and shrivel as people age.

 

When I look at footballers, most of them have tattoos and sometimes they are covered with them. I prefer plain skinned people, I must admit, and I will almost certainly never allow anyone to carve anything on my torso. Not only am I unhappy with the thought of needles but I simply do not want anything permanent on my skin. Give me a temporary tie any day rather than a permanent tattoo. You can (and do) change your tie but not your tattoo.

 

I have further theories about ties. If you wear it fully buttoned up, you are indicating that you are a member of the establishment. If you wear it loosely around your neck with the knot loosened then you may be in the establishment but you not of the establishment. It is an expression of independence to wear your tie loose around your neck. You might earn a living by working for the establishment but you do not accept all their (usually) conservative values. 

 

This is almost an accepted code in Hollywood films. When James Bond appears on screen he usually wears a suit and tie as he works for MI6, the ultimate establishment organisation – even if he is something of a lone wolf with his own agenda. Billy Crudup, playing a composite of journalists interviewing Jackie Kennedy is shown, however, with a loosely knotted tie  in the film Jackie. The Kennedy men are shown with properly done-up ties.

 

In real life, Jackie Kennedy was enough of a fashion icon to not have given the time of day – let alone a full interview – to someone dressed as casually as Crudup was shown. However, the filmmaker (and possibly the actor) wanted to show a rebellious streak to the journalist so he is shown with a loosely knotted tie, which is shorthand for saying that the journo and the film are not mere hagiographies but are fashioned out of respect for the subject.

 

That this is the main thing I remember about the film – Crudup’s loosely knotted tie – is probably significant. I am enough of an establishment type to normally wear a tie when I go to work but, having a rather thick neck, I do not do up my shirt fully but use a Windsor knot to cover this up. I tell people that this is the one thing that the Duke of Windsor contributed that was worthwhile – even if Bond thought that the knot was the sign of a ‘cad’.

 

Neither ties nor tattoos are necessary. They are purely decorative aspects of menswear but, why should we not have something superficial and decorative to add to our wardrobe? Tattoos, however are permanent, and you are stuck with them even if you no longer support the cause (or the woman) honoured in them. Wearing a tie may be unnecessary but it can be fun and should not be ditched altogether for the sake of playing it casual. 

________________


My other blog is diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com


Edwin Lerner

Sunday, 31 October 2021

BOND AND THE BADDIES

Daniel Craig as James Bond 007
(If he looks waxy it is because it is
a model from Madame Tussauds)

According to a recent report, people do not go to the cinema unless there is a fair bit of killing in the film.  We do not fight large scale wars anymore so we watch our killing on screen instead.

A case in point is the latest James Bond film No Time To Die, which we went to the other day.  It is, of course, Daniel Craig's last outing as Bond.  (Inevitable if you watch to the end, but I will not say why and give away the ending.)  Craig offs more bad guys than previous Bonds and is officially the most violent incarnation of the man with a licence to kill, a nonsensical idea which is nevertheless a fundamental part of his identity as shown by that fictional 00 prefix.

Computer programmes tell people who put their money into films that, in order to recoup their investment, lots of people have to be killed on screen.  With interest payments alone at a million pounds a month because of its delayed release, it is hardly surprising that the Bond film ends up being one where an army of anonymous baddies line up to be killed by the hero, usually in a variety of ways, often with him making a pun or quip as he does so.  None of the gunmen think that a concerted rush at the lone saviour of humanity might work but come out one or two at a time, giving him the opportunity to kill them.  And none of them can shoot straight either.

At the same time, war films are increasingly realistic in showing us what it is actually like to kill someone - bloody, messy and long-winded.  I caught a little of Hacksaw Ridge a war film directed by Mel Gibson (who has done his fair share of killing on screen) and it showed just how dangerous and bloody it was to fight in a real war with actual weapons.

Relax, I hear you say, it is only a movie, a few hours entertainment that should not be taken too seriously.  Well, yes, but I often wonder how the chief baddie (who also cannot shoot straight) gets hold of his army of men who are prepared to die for him and the pay-packet he presumably offers them in the end.  There is a section in one of the Austin Powers films, which are spoofs on Bond, in which the families of Powers' victims mourn their loss while he makes terrible puns about how he killed them.  It is the most interesting part of a not always effective satire.

It all started off quite innocently with Craig-Bond learning to kill at the beginning of Casino Royale.  He becomes quite expert and enthusiastic at it by the latest film which follows the formula that, in order to make the world a better place - or simply to save it - you have to kill a bunch of people.  It is a tempting proposition but a huge oversimplification.  People act from all sorts of motives, sometimes in the belied they are doing something worthwhile, sometimes just to pay their bills and make a living.  That these sometimes come with a death penalty attached if they end up on the wrong side of the moral fence is not usually factored into their calculations.

All o this comes at a time when Alec Baldwin is in deep trouble for actually killing someone and wounding someone else on the set of a western he was making.  There is no suggestion that he knew it was loaded with live rounds rather than blank ones but he pulled the trigger in a pretend killing that turned into a real one with a real victim.  Why were a real gun and bullets used rather than fake ones?  Time and an investigation will presumably tell but a pretend killing turning into an actual one shows how reality and fantasy sometimes get mixed up - with fatal results.

Films often have in their credits a note saying that no animals were harmed in its production but that will ring a little hollow if it is appended to Rust, the film Baldwin was making, when two real human beings were injured, one fatally, when he was working on it.  People are bound to ask awkward questions when and if the film is eventually released and will expect answers.

Asking awkward questions is one of the freedoms we fight for when we try to protect freedom and it is one that assorted villains are only too eager to suppress when it comes to gaining world domination, an idea that keeps popping up in James Bond films.  Well, it is not too much of a spoiler to say that he saves the world from domination by the forces of evil in the latest movie. He also has a five year old-daughter who appears in the film.  Bond, however, is about taking life not creating it.  Where, I wonder, do they put the bodies of all the people he kills in his work?

My other blog is diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com 

Edwin Lerner