Judging the "James Bond Code Name Theory"

   In the past decade, the internet has been much more geared toward user-generated content. As a result, movie fans have been able to share a plethora of fan theories about their favourite films. This extends to the James Bond 007 series which, as exquisite as it is, is still not perfect. Of course it's fair to expect a 50 year old movie series with 24 entries to have a few inconsistencies. The most popular fan theory of explaining these disparities is the Bond Code Name Theory, which asserts that the name “James Bond” is not agent 007's real name but instead a code name that is successively passed down along MI6's best agents. It's an interesting theory, but does it hold water? Let's take a closer look at the infamous Code Name Theory.

The Case For

   The main purpose of the Code Name Theory is to explain why the character of James Bond does not age despite the obviously changing times (Cold War, Space Race, War on Terror, etc.) and stages of technological advancement. The Theory also explains why Bond's appearance and personality seem to change over the years. Third, the Theory also goes some way to account for the fact that agent 007 just can't seem to maintain any romantic relationships. And lastly, the Theory accounts for the fact that the spy's name is thrown around so much; pretty much everyone knows agent 007's name and so it would make little sense for him to be using his real name while on missions. Such a code name scheme could also be extended to account for the changes in both M and Q's appearances. (This explains how Judi Dench continues her role in the Craig-era films.)

   The evidence supporting the Code Name Theory comes mainly from just one movie: 1969's On Her Majesty's Secret Service featuring George Lazenby as the second actor to portray James Bond. The opening scene of that film concludes with Bond looking at the camera after the hot chick gets away and saying, “This never happened to the other fellow.” According to the Code Name Theory, this is Lazenby's Bond referring to his predecessor (Connery) as agent 007. The other main bit of evidence supporting the theory is the fact that Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond despite their meeting face to face in the previous film You Only Live Twice.

The Case Against

   There is much more evidence countering the Code Name Theory than there is supporting it. For instance, there's a scene in On Her Majesty's Secret Service in which Lazenby's Bond is considering resigning from MI6. He looks through a collection of gadgets in his drawer, reminiscing about past adventures (which took place in the Connery films). A similar scene appears with even more gadgets later in 2002's Die Another Day. Diamonds Are Forever shows Connery's Bond obsessed with finding and killing Blofeld. Considering that in the previous film Blofeld killed Bond's wife, this suggests that both Bonds – Connery and Lazenby – are the same character.

   In fact, references to Tracey Bond (and her death) are littered throughout the series. Here's a list of them:

• In The Spy Who Loved Me agent Anya Amasova lists everything she knows about Bond (Roger Moore), including the tragic end to his brief marriage. Bond impatiently cuts her off with “Alright, you've made your point.”
• For Your Eyes Only opens with Bond (Moore) placing flowers at Tracey's grave.
• Felix Leiter tells his newlywed wife in License to Kill that Bond (Timothy Dalton) “was married once, but that was a long time ago.”
• Elektra King asks Bond (Brosnan) in The World is Not Enough if he has ever lost someone close to him. Bond briefly pauses, then changes the subject, ignoring the question.

   Admittedly those last two points aren't very conclusive, but I'd like to think that they are indeed referring to Tracey. If they weren't, then they would just be random, inexplicable lines leading to nothing, and that would just be Tommy Wiseau-level of sloppy filmmaking.

   Other than that, there are additional pieces of evidence linking Bond portrayals together. For example, in The Spy Who Loved Me Moore's Bond runs into an old friend from Cambridge University, the same place where Connery's Bond recalled studying in You Only Live Twice. The Code Name Theory is also debunked by the fact that Bond is still called Bond after he leaves MI6 in License to Kill. His absence from they spy game is the reason why he's being evaluated for duty at the beginning of the following film, Goldeneye (featuring Pierce Brosnan taking the place of Timothy Dalton).

   Taking the Code Name Theory to its logical extreme quickly reveals its ridiculous reasoning. While the theory may be appropriate for such characters as M and Q, is it really appropriate to other characters who have changed actors like Ms. Moneypenny, Ernst Blofeld, or Felix Leiter? Are we also supposed to assume that recurring actors like Maud Adams, Charles Gray, Joe Don Baker, and Walter Gotell are playing the same character every time?

What About Daniel Craig?

   This one's easier to figure out. The films featuring Craig as Bond take place in a separate, rebooted universe from the rest. This is proven by the opening scene of Casino Royale, which shows Bond earning his 00 status early in his career. This is further backed up by the fact that in Spectre Bond has clearly never heard of the organization before. As for the continued presence of Judi Dench, I'm guessing the producers finally realized that they oughtta do something with this Academy Award-nominated national treasure of an actress, so her role was expanded upon in the following three films.

   It's also pretty clear that James Bond is this character's real name. In Skyfall Bond returns to the orphanage where he grew up. The groundskeeper there recognizes him and calls him James Bond. Furthermore, we later see the grave of 007's parents and their headstone has the name Bond engraved on it. If that doesn't convince you that the Theory doesn't apply here then I don't know what will!

Conclusion

   In my view, the Code Name Theory sounds interesting but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Most of the evidence supporting it comes from just one movie, and even then the most important piece of supporting evidence (Blofeld not recognizing Bond) comes from a simple continuity error. (In the book order, OHMSS came before YOLT , which would mean Bond and Blofeld were meeting for the first time in OHMSS. The screenwriters must've forgotten this when the movie order was changed around.) I think it's pretty conclusive that every Bond actor from Connery to Brosnan all portrayed the same character. Taken as a whole, the series' chronology was never all that comprehensive/cohesive, and the chronology of the 007 movies was probably never meant to be taken too seriously.

   Still I think it's cool that the fans have been dedicated enough to devise a way to try to make sense of everything. It really goes to show how much the fans care about this great series of films. Now if a black actor were suddenly cast as Bond, that would really throw a wrench into things... Anyways stay tuned next week when I'll go over some alternate 007 continuity theories.