The Discourse of M: Managing British Intelligence in James Bond Movies

Abstract

As shown in the analytical part of the project, the discourse between M and 007 reveals both stable (permanent) and dynamic features. The former ones may be seen on the topical level of the encounters between the interlocutors. Their existence formed the basis of the structure of the analysis in terms of types of encounters, i.e. giving and receiving orders (Chapter 2.2.1 M orders), giving and reacting to critical remarks (Chapter 2.2.2 M criticizes), expressing care and evaluating of performance (Chapter 2.2.3 M cares). All the elements listed above appear throughout the history of 007 movies from Dr. No (1962) till Spectre (2015). It is within the framework of the encounters where the dynamism, or potentially also the stability, are to be sought. Both male Ms before Judy Dench (played by Bernard Lee 1962–1979 and Robert Brown 1983–1989) appear as managers who are certain of their position, and they communicate with 007 using polite but decisive, formal but friendly, language. Among their favourite manners of issuing orders to Bond is that of a puzzle-solving structure of a dialogue. The structure assumes asking Bond questions he can answer and inducing him to ask a question which becomes the objective of the agent’s mission. Judy Dench introduces a new habit of issuing orders in terms of expressing her own needs, or rather, to be more specific, the needs of hers as the manager of MI6, as the head of the institution she happens to represent. This characteristic feature of her language is represented by the phrase I need you… The latest M (played by Ralph Fiennes 2012–present) has not provided us with as much discursive data as the predecessors. One can easily notice, however, that he continues the course of being not only Bond’s manager but also a partner in the performed mission. Even though tentative structures appear in Ms’ utterances, certainly all Ms so far have been able to issue straightforward orders in the imperative mood or simple tenses as well. Surely, the orders do not have to be literally (at all?) performed by Bond. The latter is always eager to do things his own way. However, Sean Connery and Roger Moore offer mild reluctance and prefer to make counter proposals, modifications, or suggestions to the orders received. George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton are the first to offer resistance by declaring resignation, while Daniel Craig is the first to refuse in a straightforward way. The latter problem also involves the weakening position of M. MI6 managers before Judy Dench were certain of their position and of their role in the structures of power within the institution. Judy Dench as M, on the other hand, faces the weakening of the position of her organization and has doubts about her own role. The dynamic changes may also be well observed in the way M criticizes 007 and the latter’s reaction. Strange though it may seem, the best yardstick to measure the changes is the interlocutors’ discourse concerning sleep. In the first movie, M’s question When do you sleep? is a veiled criticism of Bond’s (night)life style and the agent’s answer is both evasive and polite: Never on the firm’s time. Both parties follow the face-saving strategy. Roger Moore in Live and Let Die continues the line, although he is bolder on subject when he answers his boss visiting him in the night: Insomnia, sir. Judy Dench – Daniel Craig dialogues on that subject, on the other hand, have nothing to do with politeness and face saving. In Quantum of Solace, for example, Bond dismissively tells M Go back to sleep. In Skyfall, M, exasperated by Bond’s performance, arrogance and disobedience, requites like for like when saying to him: Well, you’re bloody not sleeping here. James Bond’s resignation stands the test of time. It appears in three movies: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Licence to Kill and Casino Royale. The first and last of the notices mentioned are supposed to take the form of a written document and they use the official/formal style. The second, oral one, has very much in common with the other two in terms of style. The legend of James Bond might be intriguing and colourful, but it is the character of M which undeniably gains more and more multidimensional nature throughout the years and the twenty-four movies which have been released so far, which, in turn, makes M at least as intriguing as the famous agent. This happens thanks to several factors. First of all, different Ms have different personalities. They also have different visions of how MI6 should function or accomplish its missions, and of their own position in the institutional context. Additionally, the fact that one of Ms is played by Judi Dench adds even more interesting colouration to the character’s profile. Furthermore, consecutive films have appeared every few years and, to some extent, they reflect different times, socially, culturally and linguistically. Within those specific times and socio-cultural reality, different Ms adjust their identities and their language. The discourse of M appears to be an inexhaustible repository and a fascinating material for analysis. This book concentrates only on selected aspects but there are many socio-cultural-linguistic areas which could be given attention in terms of this discourse, such as the language of men and women or the features of institutional discourse in Ms’ utterances. Let this book be a point of reference for other socio-linguistic studies in the field and an inspiring read for the fans of the James Bond series.