First, let me note that this is a thought exercise about fictional characters. There is no real "James Bond", there is no real "Jason Bourne". You could argue that Bond is closer to reality since author Ian Fleming based much of his writing on his own experiences, but that's a stretch.
What makes this interesting, though, is that the debate keeps cropping up. Matt Damon was quoted in the UK, at the opening his the third Bourne film, saying that Bond sucked. I don't know if anyone solicited a response from the current Bond actor, Daniel Craig.
Then a commentary on MSNBC declares essentially the same thing, that Bond is a has-been and that Bourne more accurate reflects our modern, complicated world.
I gag.
I haven't yet seen the third Bourne film. I'll probably wait for the DVD, since that's how I've seen the first two. I enjoyed the first and was pleased with the second. I have mixed feelings about the third. Why? Because near the beginning of the second they killed off Maria (Franka Potente). From perusing the novels I knew this was a change made by the screenwriters, since she's a character in the third novel. So what would they do to the book in order to make it work?
Also the stridently anti-American tone gets nauseating. The Bourne movies trot out the usual leftist nonsense that capitalism is inherently evil. The CIA brainwashes "recruits" and turns them into lethal, unstoppable killers (via Project Treadstone). Every mission of Bourne's that we're given insight into is a political hit job, an inconvenient African dictator here, a Russian reformer there. Meanwhile, there are corrupt CIA officials at every turn, driven by personal greed, and even the Russian capitalist is horribly corrupt.
Clear message: The CIA sucks, the US is horrible, capitalism is the root of all evil.
Pay too close attention to these details and the Bourne movies become boring. Ignore them and the films are, at the very least, entertaining. The least offensive is the first, the second is tolerable, I am in fear of the third.
Compare this to Bond. First, there's sheer longevity. Damon's pontifications remind me of some young buck in a high school boxing ring talking smack about the current heavyweight champion of the world. Maybe he'll have something to say when the 20th Bourne movie is completed. Until then, there is no other movie series on Earth (that I'm aware of) that matches the Bond series. It even survives regular infusions of new talent, i.e., new actors playing Bond. That's usually the kiss of death. For Bond, it's business as usual.
Now Bond has had its string of silliness. The worst of the Bond films all involve implausible attempts to take over the world. The formula was silly from the beginning and only got worse. But even accepting these, one thing always stands clear: Bond stands for something, and it's always for the right.
What modern critics and actors find deplorable about Bond is that he is a member of Her Majesty's Secret Service and is loyal to his country first, freedom second. Compare this to Bourne, who is loyal to...partying? I mean, once he gets the CIA off his back in the first film he's off to hook back up to Maria and get down to some serious "living".
Wow, inspirational.
Bond, you see, is a hero, while Bourne, you see, is a victim. In today's world, we seem driven to praise victims and throw away our heroes. We call them archaic and out of date. Puts me in mind of the C.S. Lewis quote: "We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst."
Not that Bond is always acting honorably. He is, after all, a government-sanctioned assassin (what it means to be a "double-oh"). But consider that all we see Bourne doing is either acting at the behest of evil men or being purely reactionary to someone attempting to kill him. Bourne stands for precisely nothing, and we absolve him of his loathsome past because he can't remember it. I imagine that's some mild comfort for his victims.
I have read that in the third film Bourne can't remember the names of any of his victims but he keeps seeing their faces, and these memories torture him. He feels remorse, as if that's the important thing. In contrast, say these same critics, Bond is like an impersonal robot, killing without feeling or remorse. This is the meme that the left prefers, emotion over reality. Bourne feels remorse so he is absolved, despite the inherent evil behind his deeds; Bond doesn't express remorse so he is evil, despite the inherent good behind his deeds.
From everything I've read about actual combat, from talking with people who have actually killed someone while in some form of combat, Bond is closer to reality than Bourne. At the time of the event there is no time for remorse, no opportunity to second guess. You perform as trained and, if you do it right, the other guy is dead and you are alive. Later, afterwards, at the debrief or at home, you'll drain and run through the event a few hundred times. But during the job, while on the mission...a professional hasn't time for such things.
But then, Bourne isn't a professional while Bond is. It may come down to nothing more complicated than that. I prefer the dedicated professional, and so Bond always trumps Bourne.
