With 22 films featuring the character, James Bond is undeniably a permanent fixture in pop culture. He has been played by seven different actors who took direction from fourteen different directors. It's easy to understand how the character could have changed so much over the years.

But there's more to Bond's transformation than just the crews who brought him to the screen. In the end, the cinema versions of James Bond reflect the changing values and perceptions of the culture that bears them. Throughout the 60's Sean Connery's Bond was slick and not just a little laconic. It was like watching Frank Sinatra battling spies with a tiny gun. Of course, that's exactly what the martini-drinking swinger crowds of the 1960's wanted. He was an antidote to the restrictive suburbanism that had taken over Western (and especially American) society. Since then, Bond has seen many permutations that build on that initial style.

But something strange happened in the 1990's. Up until 1989, there had been a new Bond film practically every year and a half since Dr. No. Then there was inexplicably a six year gap between License to Kill and Goldeneye. The only appearance of Bond in any form in those years were two productions that weren't even associated with Bond's regular home at EON Productions. One was an anachronistic radio production of You Only Live Twice in 1990 and the easily forgettable James Bond Jr. cartoon a year later. It's fairly safe to say that the world was taking a break from Bond.

Then 1995's Goldeneye emerged with Pierce Brosnan occupying the tuxedo. The film was a smash hit and is frequently ranked as a favorite among fans. It went so far as to change the "Best Bond" debate from the time-honored Connery/Dalton/Moore lineup to a slimmer Connery/Brosnan ticket. What exactly happened? Did Bond change so much in the 90's?

Well, sort of. The world changed a lot between 1989 and 1995. The reason for Bond's absence seems rather clear considering the historical relevance of the dates. Bond spent the better part of his career fighting Communists. The late 80's and early 90's marked the fall of Soviet Communism and thus the elimination of Bond's most frequent enemy. There just wasn't a need for a super spy in the world beyond the Iron Curtain.

When Bond came back in Brosnan, he was more of a living cultural meme than a stand-alone character. Brosnan cut a postmodern Bond who reveled in his own cleverness and smiled as if he had been thinking of those smooth one-liners all week. He was extremely proficient with snazzy gadgets, unlike older Bonds who seemed to use Q's inventions almost grudgingly. The spy who operated between Goldeneye and Die Another Day was something of an amalgamation of the many previous concepts of the character. There just wasn't any point in pretending that the audience wasn't completely aware of Bond. Many of them weren't even born when he had his first on-screen martini.

This makes for an interesting development in Daniel Craig's Bond. The most recent films are part reboot, part business as usual. It's been talked and written about to death that the new Bond is rough, conflicted and just slightly more realistic than his predecessors. The real question here is why Bond has transformed in this way.

Just like Brosnan had to play a James Bond who operated after the character-making Cold War, Craig has to play the role in the era of the War on Terror. Instead of fighting the terrorists, he fights shadowy profiteers and pseudo-corporate robber barons. As always, but in an entirely new way, James Bond is the hand of justice for the middle class. As much as ever we aspire to his elegance and proficiency, just like we love watching him fight those who create the ugliest parts of our world. The fact that the new Bond is angry and miserable reflects the political climate of his audience. Our frustration is Bond's fury. He is a scrappy fugitive because his audience has no real trust in those who govern them.

As society changes, we will no doubt see Bond change with it. Daniel Craig will go down in history as the stormy spy of the new millennium. When our culture comes to a new era, a new James Bond will emerge to address our hopes and fears just as he always has.