MovieChat Forums > Licence to Kill (1989) Discussion > Did M actually have a point?

Did M actually have a point?


https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/StrawmanHasAPoint/Film

License to Kill is probably the only Bond movie in which M is depicted as an out and out antagonist. We're supposed to hate M here because he isn't sympathetic or supportive (M is especially heartless when Bond reminds him that an innocent woman, Della Leiter was killed) of Bond regarding his personal vendetta against Franz Sanchez. But in some respects, wasn't M actually right about not wanting Bond to pursue Sanchez?

Bond inadvertently or indirectly gets his friend Sharkey killed during his mission. Bond also unintentionally screws up Kwang's undercover operation against Sanchez. It's debatable over whether or not M knew that there were already people (or more specifically, the extent) in Isthmus City working against Sanchez. Either way, even Pam at one point calls Bond for letting his personal vendetta endanger a critical DEA plan to cripple Sanchez's operation.

reply

Of course M had a point. He was entirely in the right.

reply

Also, M tells Bond that his vendetta against Franz Sanchez could lead to a major scandal. He says point blank "This private vendetta of yours could easily compromise Her Majesty's government." Sure, M does come across as a cold and condescending jerk with the way that he goes about it. But still, he does have a point when you really think about it. Especially in light of Bond brutally killing Killifer by feeding him to a shark.

reply

I however, do think that M is a dickhead in regards to not being patient and reasonable with what Bond has to say to him. M pretty much brushes off the fact that Felix was brutally attacked because in M's words, "He knew the risks!" In other words, M was basically telling Bond that he knew what he signed up for. That is to me, an extremely callous and small-minded thing to say.

It would be like telling the family of a firefighter or police officer or solider who was killed in the of duty, to not be upset over their deaths, because they should've known that there was a possibility that they would die. And again, M is extremely dismissive when Bond reminds him that Felix's innocent wife was gang raped as well as brutally killed on her wedding day no less.

Also, why doesn't M seem to care or pay any mind when Bond tells him that the Americans won't do anything about Franz Sanchez? Bond didn't clarify by saying that the American authorities in Florida can't pursue him as long as he's out of their jurisdiction. I get that M doesn't run a vigilante operation, and it wouldn't be the best idea for his agents to go after on the British Secret Service's time, money, and resources, anybody who personally pisses them off.

But still, M takes this blunt, "it's my way or the highway" approach when dealing with Bond. He seems to view and treat one of his top agents as little more than a commodity than as a human being with actual feelings.

reply

M is absolutely right. That doesn't mean we don't like seeing Bond go rogue here. But M is completely spot on.

reply

I don't think he was an antagonist. M was trying to protect. Not to mention the Service if he were to be caught.

reply

M had a point but Bond isn't supposed to be always right or a hero we champion.

Certainly with the Connery, Dalton, and Daniel Craig portrayals which are the most Fleming like, he's a bit of bastard who makes mistakes at times.

reply