Everyone's A Critic...

And I'm no exception. There are those times when you just have to weigh in on something you like, or know about, or maybe even detest, simply because you might be able to present a P.O.V. that others have overlooked.
Such is the case in today's paper. Located at the very back of section D (Living section) was a half-page article about two very intriguing characters of books and films, namely Ian Fleming's James Bond and Bob Ludlum's Jason Bourne (they both have the same initials...very interesting).

Now I really like BOTH characters. Hell, I grew up with the Bond novels (my first foray into the world of the public library, courtesy of my father), and I find the Bourne movies every bit as captivating (I should read the novels to see how close to each other they are).
In the original article written by David Germain (Associated Press), they (Matt Damon and his director, Paul Greengrass) both refer to Bond as "misogynistic", and I take some offense with that. I wouldn't say that Bond HATES women...he LIKES women all too well...but he is not beyond USING women (and rather enjoys them in the process, as they him), and I wouldn't call that "hate", per se, especially when the women give in to his wiles and "charm". Bourne still loves and mourns for his dead girlfriend...Bond still remembers his dead wife.
If there was a some major differences between Bond and Bourne, the first one would be all too obvious: Bond WORKS FOR the government. Bourne is wanted BY the government.

Other obvious differences are also evident.

Bond kills because it's his job (and he obviously gets paid damn well for it, not to mention all those "perks"), and satisfaction with one's work make a person a good "employee".
Bourne kills because he was not only trained to (ala Bond), but it's basically more a survival instinct. Bourne doesn't relish the fact that he HAS to kill (and pretty damn efficiently as well), but he's got to stay alive long enough to find out WHO he is and HOW he became so damn good AT killing. Simple, huh?

Both men have the physical (and mental) prowess to elude, evade, and escape most any situation (a good thing when you're a field operative). Both are highly adept at weaponry (another plus), and can "think on the fly" (an absolute when being pursued or when necessity dictates some "outside of the box" creativity).

One aspect however, that has diluted the Bond character for me (over the span of 20+ movies), has been all the unbelievable gadgets. The novels had little in the way of the novelties that allow Bond to complete his missions. And those presented in the novels "could" exist in the realm of possibility (such as the attache case in From Russia With Love).

Bourne has whatever is at hand to aid him. I call them "items of opportunity". And he uses them well. But aside from Bond's trusty Walther PPK (later the P99), many of the high-tech toys he plays with are just not possible, such as a laser watch, submersible Lotus, piton-firing watch, sonic ring, and the vanishing car (from Die Another Day). Now don't get me wrong...the Aston Martin DB5 Bond drove in GOLDFINGER is STILL cool (the mileage would suck with ALL that gear), but it is ALL feasible, even the ejection seat.
I wonder where the Brits get all those millions of POUNDS to pay for such things? I've always heard that taxes were HIGH over there, but c'mon now!

Bond uses wit and charm to beguile a female (friend OR foe), and is well versed in damn near everything from swordplay to vintage wines. He likes to gamble (in many ways), knows what he wants, and in some bizarre way, he's a renaissance man of sorts.
Bourne doesn't have that luxury...his clock is always ticking, so no time for niceties; no time to explain how his adversary's plot will never work (to his adversary';s FACE no less). He's always trying to remain a few steps ahead of those who are after him. Talk about a paranoid existence. It's a wonder Bourne hasn't become a lot more dangerous to everyone and everything.

Therein lies Jason's greatest asset...discernment. I would consider Bourne to be like a tightly wound spring...ready to be unleashed at the blink of an eye, or uncoiled slowly in an act of empathy, and that's the way Bourne sees himself as well. He broods about this as would any person seeking the answers he seeks. He does an excellent job of keeping himself in check.
Bond is more like the loaded gun. Most of the time the safety is on, but it can be discharged with equal ferocity and damage. Bond can seemingly turn this on and off at will. Again, he DOES have the time and luxury to avail himself of this. And Bond plays it a lot more loosely than Bourne in that regard. Bond is definitely more cavalier in that respect

I can't say that either character is better than the other, or who would win in a fight. They both have similarities as well as differences, and that makes them both intriguing for different reasons. They are products of their respective eras (Bond - cold war / Bourne - post cold war), and we should enjoy them as such. It's still good escapism entertainment. They're well-crafted characters, made in the anti-hero mold we see all too often.

They're not perfect. They have foibles. They have failings, and they have problems (real and perceived), yet we flock to see them both, not in spite of those issues, but BECAUSE of them.

If there is one thing that I feel is certain, it's that Jason Bourne has firmly established his own unique place in our spy/agent mythos alongside James Bond.

And just like Bond, he will endure.