According to Matt Damon:
Bond is an imperialist, misogynist sociopath who goes around bedding women and swilling martinis and killing people. He’s repulsive.
This is an old quote but it was recently resurfaced on social media. It’s easy to mock Damon’s opinion, as many of the 3 million people who have viewed this post on X have. For example, it’s easy to point out Damon’s hypocrisy, given his role as Jason Bourne, another hyper masculine movie character who does a fair amount of killing. One commenter also pointed out how Damon himself was pals with Harvey Weinstein—which, talk about repulsive, Matt!
But as fun as it is to take cheap shots at Weinstein’s good feminist friend, I want to take his critique of Bond seriously. Specifically, I want to analyze his critique using the criteria Scott Galloway laid out in his new book Notes on Being a Man.
Galloway has emerged in recent years not only as a champion of male virtues, but as the media-approved champion of male virtues. Just in the past few months, Galloway has shared his wisdom on modern masculinity with Oprah, Anderson Cooper, Katie Couric, Bill Maher, Jordan Klepper, Ben Stiller, and many others. This level of publicity makes Galloway the de facto expert on masculinity for the broader culture.
Scott Galloway’s Three Ps
Fortunately for my purposes here, Galloway relies on a simple principle to determine whether a man demonstrates healthy masculinity or (to use Damon’s word) repulsive masculinity. Galloway defines healthy masculinity in terms of Three Ps: Protect, Provide, and Procreate. So, a man is good if he protects loved ones from physical harm, provides for his family and contributes to society, and either has children (procreates) or somehow nurtures the next generation.
Although obvious, it’s worth noting that not all Bonds are equal. The 1960s Bond behaves in ways that the 2021 Bond never would. But Galloway doesn’t seem to have moral qualms about any of them. In a clip from his podcast with Kara Swisher, Gallway says Daniel Craig is his favorite Bond, Roger Moore as Bond is “dreamy,” and people only like Sean Connery the best for sentimental reasons.
All fair enough. But how does Bond—past or present—hold up to Galloway’s Three Ps?
Let’s start with the fact that Bond kills people. Although Matt Damon is repulsed by this, it’s likely Galloway would say that Bond is only a killer because he is a protector.
In a recent interview with Ross Douthat at The New York Times, Galloway describes the protector:
Who breaks up fights at bars? Big, strong men. Who starts fights at bars? Insecure people who don’t like themselves. So, I think strength immediately moves to protection.
In Diamonds Are Forever, Bond kills Oddjob to save himself and Tiffany Case. In GoldenEye, he kills Alec Trevelyan, who wants to destroy London. In No Time to Die, Bond kills Lyutsifer Safin, who is about to use a biological weapon to kill millions. Etc. Sometimes there is an element of vengeance in Bond’s killings, but most often he only kills in order to protect innocent people or people he loves.
Matt Damon’s critique that Bond is an “imperialist” can also be analyzed in terms of the first P. Galloway, who is generally a proponent of globalism and of nations having strong armies, would almost certainly consider Bond’s imperialist aims as being protective—not only of his nation’s interests, but of Western values. To be James Bond and not engage in furthering Britain’s imperialism means—what?—letting the criminal enterprise SPECTRE take over the world? Note that SPECTRE is comprised of Nazis, Soviets, the Italian mafia, Turkish drug smugglers, and the like. Does Matt Damon really want the Nazis and Soviets to rule the world?
On a more serious level, it is true that James Bond (particularly in the books and the early films) displays behavior toward non-British citizens that today we consider insensitive or even racist. But it’s never fair to judge an old book by contemporary morality. Also, it’s odd to call attention to Bond’s insensitive behavior by calling him an imperialist, as if being associated with imperialism is inherently bad. Given how many countries have had imperial ambitions (according to ChatGPT it’s roughly 100), it would be absurd to say that anyone who ever worked for or supported any of those countries was a repulsive person, as that would include most of humanity.
What about Bond’s “misogyny,” his lifestyle of going around “bedding women and swilling martinis”? Maybe at a glance it could seem like Damon has a point on this count. Bond doesn’t exactly show appropriate office behavior with Miss Moneypenny, constantly calling her “darling,” for example. But if you give a little room for the fact that, again, the Bond books were written in a different era (1952 – 1964), it’s hard to fault Bond too much. He may have been a flirt and a tease but he was certainly gentlemanly in the spirit of the times.
Meanwhile, does Damon really want to criticize Bond for having consensual sex with more than one woman and for drinking alcohol? If Damon wants to judge Bond’s behavior by today’s standards, he’s got to be consistent. And today we don’t consider it particularly repulsive for an attractive man to have consensual sex and to drink martinis. Scott Galloway certainly wouldn’t fault Bond for this.
In fact, Galloway has argued vociferously that young men in particular need to have more sex and drink more alcohol. Sex, Galloway argues, is motivating for young men. And alcohol is a lubricant to help young men socialize and develop more and better relationships, which in turn aids men in being ambitious, finding a fulfilling career (to be a provider), and finding a partner (to procreate).
James Bond may be best known as a playboy, but he also has a family life. The details depend on the storyline, but in No Time to Die, Bond has a daughter with Dr. Madelein Swann. Circumstances outside his control prevented him from being a better father figure.
We don’t expect movie characters to be flawless people. We want to see them do morally questionable things so they are complex. More importantly, we want to live our wildest fantasies vicariously through them. We don’t want to watch a hero do everything by the book. That’s what we all do in our real lives. We want to live the fantasy of the hero who breaks rules and doesn’t just get away with it, but save the world only because rules were broken along the way.
You might think this would all sound familiar to the guy who plays a rogue agent who disobeys CIA orders, breaks international laws, and regularly uses extreme violence to achieve his aims. But—to get back to taking cheap shots—apparently Matt Damon is simply too jealous of James Bond to give him a fair assessment.