I'm curious. With the new movie piggy backing on the Bourne films, The Bourne Legacy or something, I was wondering if the British intelligence service MI-6 is portrayed differently in Britain than our C.I.A. is portrayed here in film. It seems that the only portrayel of good C.I.A. agents comes from the Tom Clancy films, although there is a U.S.A. network show Covert Affairs that may show the agency in a positive light. Most of the recent films have shown the C.I.A. as bad if not outright evil especially in regard to the current fight against radical islamic terrorism. The Bourne films had the Agency trying to kill Matt Damon, even though the books the films were named after didn't have that plot. Sooo... in Britain, are the agents and organization of MI-6 portrayed as evil or bad? I know you have James Bond as the most notable member of the British Secret Service, but are other portrayals more positive or negative?
MI-6 vs. C.I.A portrayed in movies...
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,930
- Reaction score
- 1,452
billi, I have to say that this just isn't true; the CIA gets pretty good treatment in movies, overall.
In 2007, we had the fact-based Breach, and Charlie Wilson's War.More recently, there was the rom-com, This Means War. That's off the top of my head, without resorting to IMDB-I'm sure there are plenty of others, even if we don't include comedies-heck, on TV there's that U.S.A. program with the annoying expository voiceover, Burn Notice.
Fact is, though, if you look at the history of the agency, they're the people who we pay to do bad things, and sometimes there's some blowback from those bad things, and sometimes they don't turn out as planned-the CIA, historically, has been involved in a variety of events, sometimes directly,that none of us should be proud of, as well as some things that were fruitful-though it's arguable how proud we might be of some of them. For years, our country supported oppressive, fascist right wing dictators to combat the spread of communism, and we did a great deal of it through the work of the CIA.
As for the rest of your question about MI-6, I'll let someone else answer. I just needed to say that the Agency gets and has gotten more than its due in film, especially back in the 60', but even today......
WC_lun
Senior Master
...but Elder, that doesn't follow the narrative of the CIA/American hating pinko Hollywood types that Billi is trying to establish! 
The CIA understandably is a somewhat secretive organization. So it is understandable that movies that do cast the agnecy in a negative light do so because it is an easy plot point to work on. when MI6 was mentioned, I thought of James Bond right off. I know that isn't realistic, but that is what I thought of. Is that a positive or negative conatation.
The CIA understandably is a somewhat secretive organization. So it is understandable that movies that do cast the agnecy in a negative light do so because it is an easy plot point to work on. when MI6 was mentioned, I thought of James Bond right off. I know that isn't realistic, but that is what I thought of. Is that a positive or negative conatation.
As far as the British Intelligence services on TV or in the movies I can only think of James Bond and Spooks as examples.
In fiction overall, probably some of the most realistic stuff is by Le Carre and Deighton when it comes to the 'skullduggery' factor.
http://www.johnlecarre.com/books/
http://www.deightondossier.net/
Like Elder said above, the intelligence services are the dirty tricks brigade of international relations and much of what they do we would not be proud of if we knew about it (tho' our country might well suffer if they weren't doing those things).
In fiction overall, probably some of the most realistic stuff is by Le Carre and Deighton when it comes to the 'skullduggery' factor.
http://www.johnlecarre.com/books/
http://www.deightondossier.net/
Like Elder said above, the intelligence services are the dirty tricks brigade of international relations and much of what they do we would not be proud of if we knew about it (tho' our country might well suffer if they weren't doing those things).
OP
- Thread Starter
- #5
Here is a list of the best C.I.A. movies...
http://www.ranker.com/list/the-best-cia-movies/all-genre-movies-lists
As to Burn Notice, the main character is a spy, and one plot point is for him to get back into the business, but it isn't about the C.I.A. in particular, more about him using spy skills to help people.
Breach and Charlie Wilson's war are based on actual events, Breach about the F.B.I. agent selling secrets, and Wilson's war about Afganistan and the war against the Soviets. Neither one focuses on the C.I.A. in particular and the based on true events aspect of War focuses more on Charlie Wilson than the C.I.A.
The first three films on the list are the Bourne films, where the C.I.A. is trying to kill one of their own agents. Taken is listed, but that wasn't really about the C.I.A. Syriana, not good for the C.I.A. the Robert Redford movie, another bad portrayel.
http://www.ranker.com/list/the-best-cia-movies/all-genre-movies-lists
As to Burn Notice, the main character is a spy, and one plot point is for him to get back into the business, but it isn't about the C.I.A. in particular, more about him using spy skills to help people.
Breach and Charlie Wilson's war are based on actual events, Breach about the F.B.I. agent selling secrets, and Wilson's war about Afganistan and the war against the Soviets. Neither one focuses on the C.I.A. in particular and the based on true events aspect of War focuses more on Charlie Wilson than the C.I.A.
The first three films on the list are the Bourne films, where the C.I.A. is trying to kill one of their own agents. Taken is listed, but that wasn't really about the C.I.A. Syriana, not good for the C.I.A. the Robert Redford movie, another bad portrayel.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Movies are fiction and there has to be a protagonist and an antagonist to have conflict, and conflict drives the story. I don't get it, though. The idea of a government agency abusing power seems tailor made for you, billcihak.
Movies are escapist fun, for the most part. But I can totally understand the philosophical impetus behind conservatives driving for treatment of the military as heroes and not villains. I get that. But the CIA? Government in general? Typically, modern conservatives are distrustful of government enforcement agencies other than the military. From TSA to the FBI/CIA and DHS, conservatives tend to be suspicious and wary of abuse.
Or, at least, that's what I thought. I could have it totally backwards.
Speaking just for me, I don't get too worked up about who or what is cast as the villain. I thought it was hilarious in the movie Red Belt that David Mamet, then a purple belt in BJJ under the Gracies, cast every single Brazilian, played mostly by prominent members of the Machado family (including the main character's wife) as villainous, greedy, and morally ambivalent. And then cast a non-brazilian, philipino-American as the Red Belt. It's make believe.
Good list, though.
Movies are escapist fun, for the most part. But I can totally understand the philosophical impetus behind conservatives driving for treatment of the military as heroes and not villains. I get that. But the CIA? Government in general? Typically, modern conservatives are distrustful of government enforcement agencies other than the military. From TSA to the FBI/CIA and DHS, conservatives tend to be suspicious and wary of abuse.
Or, at least, that's what I thought. I could have it totally backwards.
Speaking just for me, I don't get too worked up about who or what is cast as the villain. I thought it was hilarious in the movie Red Belt that David Mamet, then a purple belt in BJJ under the Gracies, cast every single Brazilian, played mostly by prominent members of the Machado family (including the main character's wife) as villainous, greedy, and morally ambivalent. And then cast a non-brazilian, philipino-American as the Red Belt. It's make believe.
Good list, though.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #7
I'm just recognizing the fact that men and women are overseas right now, working to keep our country safe, doing as noble a job as our uniformed men and women, and they get much less respect in this country. When they are killed in the line of duty, most times they are not even acknowledged to the general public and only get an anonymous star on the wall at the C.I.A. headquarters. More Americans could appreciate their sacrifices and it would be nice if more movies portrayed them as the heroes that they are. Most of the movies on that list that actually portray the agency, as opposed to focusing on individuals, show the Agency in a bad light. My thought on this thread is to see if Britain also treats their MI-6 the same way. With James Bond, they get a lot of good feelings. He is an acknowledged killer, with permission to kill from the government, and he never has to worry about being hunted down just to cover up for their agency.
You haven't seen 'Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy.' yet have you. British understatement, but still nastily setting each other up. If you can, get hold of the BBC TV series, but the recent film version, with Gary Oldman and Colin Firth is good.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,930
- Reaction score
- 1,452
A spy who has been sort of back in his old job, working for/with the CIA for most of the last two seasons-while using his spy skills to help people. (Hey, it's television fantasy, don't blame me!)
If we're going to be technical, the agency in the Bourne films is never actually named as "the CIA." If we accept that it is the CIA, we also have to recognize that there are sympathetic characters within that organization who actually are on the side of what's good and what's right, and that puts them on "Jason Bourne's" side as well. As for the CIA trying to kill him, well, let's face it, billi, that's part of the business that they're in, and if one of their operatives had gone rogue as they suspected Jason Bourne had, killing him would be the next logical consequence. Just because their actions are opposed to the protagonist does not make them "evil," or even simply amoral, as in the case of the two characters at the head of Treadstone.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,930
- Reaction score
- 1,452
No,,billi, sleeping with the enemy, blackmail, bribes and assassination, using family members and religious convictions, and even drugging and kidnapping, are not "as noble a job as our uniformed men and women." They are, all to often, as necessary a job, but a great many of the people who do that work deal with a wide range of personal moral conflict, or, at least, ambiguity.
Because no one is ever supposed to know.
When it's been known or suspected, they have, but mostly they haven't, because no one is ever supposed to know.
The real work of MI-6-not the shaken, not stirred. dry vodka martini fantasy-has been just as sordid and dirty as the work of the real CIA-it is, after all, the same game, except the British have been at it far longer than we have. It's depictions, particularly by those who had inside knowledge, have been just as sordid at times, if not more so.
I think you just have a hard-on for Hollywood, billi......:lfao:
Well to be fair they weren't setting each other up as much as there was a Soviet mole setting them. I'd suggest reading the book, it's the original after all and both the television series and the film left out and changed quite a bit. There's sequels to the book too, equally good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/tudors/spying_01.shtml
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/
https://www.sis.gov.uk/
personally I'd recommend these, though I'm biased naturally http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/aboutdefence/whatwedo/securityandintelligence/dis/
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,930
- Reaction score
- 1,452
Well, it's not like you haven't been at most everything longer than we have....:lol:
(And I said you've been at it longer, I didn't say you did it better...:lfao: )
Steve
Mostly Harmless
I've read the first five books in the series, including two written by lustbader. I see the original three Ludlum novels as being great for their time but terribly dated both technologically, but also thematically. For example, in the 70s, there was no problem seen with the idea that a man could take a woman hostage, at gun point, and she would remain a viable love interest in the story. This was in Bourne Identity, but also in films, such as Three Days of the Condor.
I think that the original books were good. Great for the time. But let's not go overboard. The first three books don't stand up well to the test of time. The Lustbader books are little more than longer Mack Bolan books (which I thoroughly enjoyed), essentially the male equivalent to a Romance Novel. Updated, sure, but not very deep, and certainly not masterpieces of modern literature.
Also, just for the sake of the discussion, the entire point of these movies isn't that the CIA is corrupt. It's the "what if" there were a covert, black ops, off the books program that went sideways. In viewing the stories, the CIA is made up of characters who are villains, complicit in the abuse of power. There are also heroes, doing their best to protect the country without sacrificing their ethics. And within that framework is a protagonist who is realizing that his patriotism and desire to protect and serve his country has been taken advantage of by men and women within the agency who have abused their authority (and what those people are willing to do to protect that authority). In my opinion, it's compelling.
Similar threads
