Ari Leflein

"Goldeneye and the Resurgence of 'Evil'in Russia"

After decades of heightened tension between the world’s two superpowers, the Cold War came to a close, however, tension between the U.S. and Russia continued. Films, such as the 1995 James Bond Goldeneye, provide insight into how the West viewed Russia after the end of the Cold War. Goldeneye begins in the Soviet Union, but the majority of the film takes place in post-Soviet Russia where James Bond pursues villains reminiscent of the USSR. Overall, the film highlights the West’s changing views toward Russia; these views correspond to those expressed by the Bush and Clinton Administrations.

The Bush Administration embraced a transforming Russia whilst not losing sight of the notion that evil persisted in Russia. For instance, Robert Blackwill of the National Security Council “thought it was a mistake for Reagan ‘to have said the evil empire was a thing of the past.’” Further, in A World Transformed, George Bush and his National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft recall, “The President agreed that Gorbachev had undermined US leadership, and he wanted . . . bold proposals that would put us out front.” This highlights the consensus that the USSR, and subsequently Russia, could not merely be detached from their “evil” past. Goldeneye illustrates that evil persisted in Russia, as Russia is not the film’s antagonist, yet three of the film's antagonists are Russians and two are former Soviet officials. These former Soviets murder Russian workers and steal the Cold War era weapon “Goldeneye”; this affirms suspicions that former Soviets still possess evil qualities and that they will emerge from Russian society and murder their innocent fellow Russians. Additionally, reminders of the Soviet Union in Russia emphasize that evil persists. For instance, Alec Trevelyan, the film’s primary antagonist and Bond’s former fellow agent, emerges from a graveyard of Soviet statues. Trevelyan’s emergence from a place symbolic of the USSR suggests that the evil of the Soviet Union continues to inspire evil and that the former Soviet territories act as a breeding ground for evil. The film does not demonize Russia in its entirety—the film has a Russian protagonist and depicts innocent Russian civilians—yet, the film elaborates on the general consensus that the Soviet Union was an “evil empire” and that facets of that evil persist in Russia.

Further, the film highlights the attitude that after the fall of the Soviet Union there was a struggle between good and evil in Russia. Early in Clinton’s presidency, tension existed between the Russian Parliament and Russian President Yeltsin. Clinton viewed the turmoil in Russia saying, “what’s going on over there is about people, in this case, some people versus other people.” In the coming weeks, Clinton concluded “if those guys trying to impeach Yeltsin win—we’ll be back here talking about reversing our defense cuts and spending really big money to wage a new cold war.” Clinton backed Yeltsin and argued that a battle between good and evil existed in Russia. Goldeneye highlights this idea of a struggle between good and evil Russians as the film’s two former Soviet antagonists, General Ourumov and Xenia Onatopp, murder innocent Russians. This contrast between good and evil is further evident as General Ourumov kills the Russian Defense Minister who catches on to his evil plot.

After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, animosity toward Russia undoubtedly declined. However, the tension that existed between peoples for so long could not merely dissolve overnight. Goldeneye captures the complex relationship between East and West that existed in the post-Cold War era. The U.S. had begun to accept the new Russia, but held on to the notion that evil persists in Russia and that this evil continues to battle good and to provoke the reemergence of an “evil empire.”