It’s the little things that make a character iconic. The suits, the one-liners, the women. The Aston Martin. The Walther PPK. These — and the cheesy, ephemeral theme songs — describe one man and one franchise. They classify him as MI6’s most famous agent; perhaps the world’s most famous agent. But what makes James Bond a cultural icon that stands the test of time is his ability to change with the world.

James Bond was introduced to the world in Ian Fleming’s novel “Casino Royale” in 1953. Bond in the Fleming canon is much like Daniel Craig’s Bond: dark, serious, reserved. This change is illustrated not only through the colors in the film itself — muted, dark, sharp contrasts — but also the through the dialogue and subject matter. Instead of giant mechanical teeth and killer bowler hats, there are vicious torture scenes and criminals weeping blood. Lost are the punny one-liners in favor of choking recognized tropes (Bond’s “Do I look like I give a damn?” when asked how he prefers his drink). There are no exploding pens, no bombs concealed in cakes, no lasers about to saw a man in half, no piranhas.

Shifts like these follow other films. Batman has taken on a darker hue, as has Ironman. It’s a conscious shift from escapism to gritty realism that has covered most of the film industry.

The tone of the films isn’t the only thing to have experienced a conscious shift. The portrayal of women has grown tremendously, and changed tremendously, mimicking the cultural shift. Honey Ryder, the first “Bond girl” was followed a few films later by the now infamous Pussy Galore. Women in these early films are one thing: sex objects. They do not serve any other purpose than to look nice and entertain James.

Although it may be argued that “Skyfall” reverts back to some of these feminine stereotypes, it is important to look at how relationships between these women and Bond are redefined in the Craig era. Vesper Lynd, though arguably not the best female role model, can verbally spar with Bond (see their first meeting). She is one of the only women with whom Bond has an actual relationship.

With “Quantum” and the introduction of Camille Rivero, we see a woman who not only has her own agenda and is well on her way to achieving it, but also a woman who doesn’t sleep with Bond. She stands alone, a woman with demons to rival Bond’s own. These shifts serve not only to keep Bond exciting for viewers, they comment on the progress of our society — how we adapt and evolve in our morals as a culture.

As the women in Bond films have changed, so have the villains. Who Bond fights mirrors our national fears. In the first film, released in 1962 in London, Bond fights Dr. No, a Chinese scientist scorned from the West, bent on revenge by initiating a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States.

The next film introduces Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the most prominent Bond villain, appearing in a quarter of the films. Blofeld worked on both sides of World War II, and attempts to facilitate nuclear war between Russia and the United States — before settling for trying to nuke the world on his own.

By the end of the Cold War and the end of Timothy Dalton’s tenure, the villains fall into the domain of a new enemy: China and North Korea. Half of Pierce Brosnan’s Bond films take on the East. Most of the films in the series’ 50 year history deal with these national enemies, villains that are easy to root against.

The trend continues even through the Craig films. “Casino Royale,” released in 2006, pits Bond against a terrorist organization, the new fear pressing against the national psyche. He doesn’t fight against a country or a place, but an idea.

In “Quantum of Solace,” when a coup tries to oust democratically elected leaders for nefarious purposes, who should step in but Bond, James Bond. The coup is lead by a the Quantum organization, a group composed of the plutocracy of a plethora of nations. They, like many transnational corporations today, work for financial reasons, void of consciousness and morality.

Javier Bardem as the newest Bond villain falls closest to our present fears: he is Bond. More importantly, he is us. He is the hero turned villain, that man pushed just a bit too far in the name of queen and country. All of this raises the question: Do we see what we fear or do we fear what we see? Bond reflects of our personal and national battles but even he is at times unsure.

With the release of “Skyfall,” the Bond franchise gets back to its roots again. In “Casino Royale” we saw a return to the novels, and with the new one we fall back to the classic Bond iconography from the early films. It’s a welcome mix, a balance between what continues to make both the films and the novels remarkably popular. As two more films have been announced with Daniel Craig and current screenwriter John Logan, Bond only looks to continue to grow and change within the entertainment industry as wider culture grows outside of it.

Sarah is a senior in LAS. She can be reached at [email protected].