Time for a break from Sports. As "Quantum of Solace" is due out next month (See, Christopher Nolan? *That's* how you make a highly anticipated sequel to a franchise-reboot in a timely fashion), I figured I would delve into the world of film for a bit and, to the horror of all Sean Connery purists, argue why Daniel Craig is the best James Bond ever.
Perhaps I should modify my original statement, though. I'm not trying to attack Connery, or Lazenby, or Dalton, or Brosnan (Roger Moore, though...ughhh). Connery will forever be tied to the character simply because he gave James Bond life and energy on the silver screen, and did it successfully enough to launch one of the longest running and most successful movie franchises ever. All I'm saying is, have you *seen* the classic Bond movies recently?
They are nothing if not a product of their time, which is interesting from a historical standpoint, but I get the distinct sense that audiences in the 1960s were looking for something different when they went to the theatre. Not something inferior to today's audiences, to be sure, but something different. The most recent Connery Bond film I watched was "From Russia with Love", which I remembered from years ago as being really engrossing and enjoyable because it didn't rely on the gimmicks and mad scientists that later fare did. I remembered it as telling a story first, and establishing the character beyond the man we saw in "Dr. No" and into one that we would follow for decades.
I was not, in general terms, disappointed. The movie was still a joy to watch, and I liked how it wove in references to Dr. No and his position within SPECTRE (something I had forgotten in the intervening years). The main MacGuffin of the plot (if it really is a true MacGuffin, but it is just an object to drive the plot, so I'm counting it), the LEKTOR coding device, always seemed more believable to me than, say, a mad scientist building a space station for repopulating the human race, or a giant underwater lair for stealing nuclear submarines.
The scenes on the Orient Express weren't as riveting as I remember, and though it wasn't quite as bad as "Goldfinger" (where Bond slaps a girl on the ass and says 'Go away. Man Talk.'), the 1960s sexism is more prevalent than I remember it to be. Bond doesn't really give Tania a reason to fall in love with him, she just kind of does because that's what the plot requires.
But I digress. I'm simply pointing out that, for this day in age, and the sensibilities of the modern world, Daniel Craig is the perfect Bond, and "Casino Royale" is, if not the best, than one of the top 3 Bond films made. The comparison that works best to illustrate this point isn't even with comparing "Casino Royale" to "From Russia with Love" or "Goldfinger", it's to put it up there with the reason there needed to be a reboot in the first place: "Die Another Day".
I have nothing against Pierce Brosnan, as I've stated. "Goldeneye" was not only a good Bond film with a great villain, it also sparked possibly the greatest video game ever made. But at the end of his 00 tenure, Brosnan was handed 2002's affront to all things Bond. Designed, I suppose, as a celebration of the 40th anniversary of the franchise, complete with Aston Martin, rehashing of Q gadgets, and Halle Berry's Ursula Andress bikini knife, 'Die Another Day" had me all hopeful about forgetting "The World is Not Enough", which was a big 'meh' sandwich covered in apathy sauce.
Instead of a taught political thriller taking into account the tensions of North and South Korea and the fundamental shift in world affairs since 9/11, "Die Another Day" gave us an insane North Korean general who wanted to use a giant space-borne sun laser to destroy the world. Oh, and he underwent gene resequencing to look English, when they could have gone with simple plastic surgery to explain that away. Or the techniques from "Face/Off". Seriously...ANYTHING would have been better. And don't get me started on the invisible car.
So that brings us to "Casino Royale". Trashing the whole works and starting from scratch was really the only option after the reviews for "Die Another Day" came in, and taking a big cue from the Bourne trilogy, UA went with a sleeker, more realistic approach for a post-9/11 world. Bond was still the Oxford-educated gentleman, but with more of a misanthropic edge that spoke to his need to be a weapon of the government. We not only got to see a Bond for a modern world, we got to see Bond as he was first starting out, making the kinds of mistakes on the fly and improvising his way out of them that Jason Bourne would empathize with. I'm thinking mainly of the airport chase here (homage to "Raiders of the Lost Ark" notwithstanding), and the rash decisions he makes whilst in Montenegro at Casino Royale itself.
He also (and this ties in with making mistakes) get injured throughout the movie, and actually pays for it. The scars and cuts he gets throughout "Casino Royale" stick with Craig, and he never just bounces back from some type of injury that's not in some way believable. Craig sells the physicality of Bond in these scenes, while also making us believe that this same man who is a glorified assassin can also be cultured and respectable, even if such cultured respectability is cold and insincere from Bond's perspective.
Also, being at the heart of the narrative of "Casino Royale", we got to see what makes Bond tick, and why he becomes the hard-drinking, womanizing bastard we all know and love. I had friends complain about the fact that he truly comes to love Vesper, since that's not what James Bond is all about. I felt it was rather a lost cause to try and explain that Daniel Craig's Bond isn't the one we see later on, but someone finding something he never thought he'd have and losing it just as quickly, fueling a life-long search for justification and revenge.
When Craig, blond as he might be but inhabiting the role perfectly, appears on the steps of Mr. White's house on Lake Como, we see him in a dark version of Connery's grey three-piece from "Goldfinger", holding a UMP and uttering "Bond, James Bond" for the first time. I found the message of that scene to be rather depressing on the whole, as we see the death of the man who we'd followed for the entire movie, engulfed by his grief and his anger to the point that he would never let anyone back in again, becoming the cold and calculating instrument of Her Majesty's Secret Service.
But then I heard the first rumors about "Quantum of Solace", and became immediately excited. 2008 was shaping up to be quite the cinematic year, with "Iron Man", "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", the cultural event that was "The Dark Knight", and then "Quantum of Solace" (or Bond 22, as it was known in pre production, before they decided on the weirdest Bond title since "Octopussy"). As I'm sure you've seen through the trailers, "Quantum of Solace" is going to be the first direct sequel in Bond history, resuming the action days, hours, or possibly even mere minutes after the end of "Casino Royale". I even heard a report that I can't cite at the moment that it begins right on the steps of Mr. White's house, right after Bond shoots him in the knee.
The Bond nerd in me hopes that they name the organization that White works for, be it some stand in for SMERSH (from the novels), or SPECTRE (from the films). I'd love to see some iteration of Ernst Starvo Blofeld pulling the strings, but I'm not holding my breath for that one. Dr. Evil effectively killed a movie audience's ability to take Blofeld seriously.
I'm grinning with excitement at all the possible directions they can take Craig's Bond, who through the trailers seems to still be taking the whole turn of events rather badly. He has a dead-set coldness to his gaze that Bond hasn't really ever had before, which makes me all the more anxious to see the film when it comes out next month. I'm also pleased to see Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter back in the mix. Felix was always the closest thing Bond had to a friend (as his contact with the CIA), and I near yelped with delight when the dapper looking man with all the cool lines at the poker tournament turned out to be Felix. They seem to be giving him more to do in this movie, which also excites me.
But I think that might be enough rambling on movies for the time being. It's getting late, and I still have to give the entry a once-over for typos (most of which I will miss). More to come on movies, the Bruins, the Patriots, and maybe even a little politics if I feel adventurous.
M
No comments:
Post a Comment