Džeimsas Bondas: mitas ir politika

LTTrečioji Gailiaus knyga "Džeimsas Bondas. Mitas ir politika" – tai akademinė studija ir intymi išpažintis tuo pat metu. Joje neatsiejamai susipina autoriaus asmeninė gyvenimo patirtis ir jo originalus istorijos bei politikos apmąstymas. Skverbdamasis gilyn į Bondo mitą, Gailius siekia suprasti ir atskleisti šiuolaikinių vakariečių padėtį juos supančio pasaulio atžvilgiu, galiausiai atsiremdamas į amžiną nepanaikinamo ir nesunaikinamo žmogaus politiškumo problemą.

ENThe popularity and longevity of the James Bond series in both literature and cinema has drawn attention of many scholars around the world. The review and critique of Ian Flemings legacy started immediately after his death (1964). The first study of Bond as a literary character was written by Fleming s friend Kingsley Amis. The opus of Amis was titled The James Bond Dossier (1965) and it set the tone for the whole tradition of the pro- Bond studies. Amis was followed by John Pearson and Raymond Benson among others. A sort of critical opposition to Bond was initiated by Umberto Eco and Oreste del Buono in their collective opus II caso Bond (The case of Bond, 1965). This type of critique focused on mechanism of Bonds creation and cliches used in the process thus “unmasking” Bond as a product of capitalism and a hero of the “masses”. However, all critics of Bond, both pro-Bond and contra-Bond, saw the phenomenon of Bond through the lens of cultural critique. For them Bond was still a developing story. Although even today this story still continues, we are in a position to look at Bond from a different angle. We have to acknowledge that the extent to which the so-called Bond industry has grown can no longer simply be defined as “popularity”. Even artificial extensions of this term (like “super-popular” or “hyper-popular”) do not seem sufficient. Therefore the cultural theories themselves do not seem sufficient. They do not and cannot provide a clear explanation of the Bond phenomenon. That requires the fundamentals of other fields.The present study of Bond is interdisciplinary. Partly it is a study in history of ideas. Bond is a representation of a specific mentality. As a hero, he expresses certain ideas, convictions and even subconscious reflexes of the present age. Thus the approach of the history of ideas is very helpful in the analysis of Bond. However, the necessity to analyze the present age contradicts the concept of history itself. Therefore our study of Bond is not, stricdy speaking, historical. Our study could be more easily described as a study of political philosophy. There is always an element of politics involved in the discussion of Bond. Bond allows us to better see our own understanding of politics and our attitude towards political phenomena. In this sense, this study could be regarded as an effort to continue the work of Carl Schmitt and Hannah Arendt among others - to provide a new definition of politics comprehensible to the present age. But the best way to describe our study is to say that it is mythological. The story of Bond — an epic story which is in itself a rarity in the present age — is seen here as a myth. The term myth is understood in its classical meaning- mythos, the ultimate story. On the surface such a story appears like any other popular story, but a deeper analysis reveals political and religious dimensions hidden under the simple plot comprising adventures of the simple hero. [...].