What do JFK and James Bond have in common?
Besides being two of the most iconic figures of the 20th century, they were the architects of a transnational brand that we have been “in love” with for over sixty years.
We are fascinated by spies because they represent the ultimate “cool”, from the gadgets to the high-stakes environments they move in. But as any PR or Politics student will tell you, the distance between the tuxedo and the reality of a windowless briefing room is vast. I recently had the chance to dive into this gap at the Czech Embassy during a talk titled “The Spy Whom We Love,” led by Richmond’s very own Dr Martin D Brown.
Dr Brown, a staple of our History and Politics faculty, not only discussed movies but also showed us how espionage functions as a critical, if messy, tool in international history and power dynamics.
The core of the discussion centred on a surprising truth: James Bond is a terrible spy. He breaks the first rule of undercover work: he always introduces himself by his real name. But as Dr Brown highlighted, Bond is not actually a spy; he is an assassin and a “blunt instrument” of state power. In the world of political optics, Bond exists to be seen. He is a walking, martini-drinking billboard for British influence.
To understand why Bond resonates globally, we looked at his Mid-Atlantic identity. This deliberate Mid-Atlantic branding provided a foundation for what would become a massive industrial success story, as Dr Brown pointed out, the Bond franchise was essentially an industrial policy supported by UK government tax breaks to keep the British film industry afloat. Bond doesn’t gather intelligence; he projects it, normalising the idea of “execution over arrest” and shaping how the public perceives this idea.
The “Bondian” lens is so powerful that real-world intelligence agencies are forced to engage in their own brand management to counter it; one example mentioned was the use of the hashtag #ForgetJamesBond by the chief of MI6. Because the public’s perception of espionage is so heavily influenced by 007’s gadgets and glamour, real agencies have to work overtime to explain that actual intelligence is often data-driven and scruffy.
“If you look at a piece of work academically, and deconstruct the influences that might affect it, the prejudices that go into it and recreate the images people have of Soviet History, it changes the way you see both the work and politics at play”, said Ainhoa Navarro, an International Relations student. “That’s what I’m going to think about when I’m watching James Bond now!”
As a student navigating the complexities of Politics and PR, events like this are where “theory” gets real. It’s one thing to read about Cold War power dynamics in a textbook; it’s another to discuss them inside an Embassy, realising that the “Bondian” villains of the past have evolved. What surprised me most was learning that the Bond franchise was an industrial policy from the start. The UK government used tax breaks to ensure the British Brand stayed culturally dominant. Studying History and Politics in a global city like London means the worlds in your classroom. Whether it’s a tax break for a film or a presidential nod in a magazine, the optics of power are everywhere. And at Richmond, we’re learning how to look behind the curtain.
Curious about how history and media shape our world? Explore our BA International History or BA Political Science programmes at Richmond and start your own journey into global statecraft.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!