Quote:
Originally Posted by
Worth 
I suppose it comes down to what you want to see in a Bond picture.
Personally, the last thing I want in Bond is anything "real" or "true to life". I don't want an angst-ridden, introspective Bond who looks deep into the dark depths of his soul after killing an opponent.
I want Sean Connery or Roger Moore in a larger-than-life fantasy-adventure where they're surrounded by beautiful women in glamorous locations battling over-the-top villains and trading witty quips.
I don't want an angst-ridden Bond either, nor I do want an ambivalent, callous bruiser who is just as happy to offer "do you want a clean kill or do you want me to send a message." What has changed is that James Bond no longer projects an inner decency and intelligence while performing his duty. Like it or not, this has as much to do with the actor as with the writing. Nor should Bond have to insist "I'm motivated by my duty." His boss back at the office should not be questioning his motives or teaching him how to be a better man. Bond is a good man, or he's not Bond. They should both know they're fighting the same war. There's been a total break-down in the writing of the James Bond films. The current group of writers / producers have no idea what they're doing, no idea how to write a James Bond adventure.
Dr. No and
From Russia With Love kept the action and the dramatic interaction on a plausible level. There are no superhuman-feats. The element of fantasy is present but kept on the edge of surrealism. The tongue-in-cheek humor never escalates into camp and farce. Bond is a thinking and reasoning spy who navigates through danger and uses his wit as much as his brawn. That's where the Bond movies need to be. Bond also projects an inner decency; he is never ambivalent, callous, or thoughtless like in the last two films. He interacts with others like a normal person, not like a psychotic on the verge of an homicidal episode.
Goldfinger and
Thunderball walk the plausible / fantasy tightrope and allow for an occasional over-the-top bit of business as a crowd-pleaser, but then the films settle down to plausible again. This remains an appealing formula today. I wish the producers would return to that formula and return to the decent, intelligent James Bond. Frankly, Connery's Bond in
Dr. No and
From Russia With Love is edgier than the current one, and he moves through a more sophisticated world.
The current group of writers / producers should come to terms with the fact that a James Bond film is about James Bond on a mission; it's not about M or his relationship with M., and it's not about the female lead character, either, except in terms of how she relates to Bond and the mission. Every professional writer has to ask himself or herself "Who is this story about?" Decide, and tell that story with the lead character you've chosen. Lately, the Bond films have become confused about who the story is about. Supporting players are given more motivation than James Bond, and character development is applied to the wrong people. There is a reason a James Bond film is called a James Bond film. How can anyone become confused about who a James Bond story is about?
Like it or not, James Bond is not a female lead story.
James Bond a
male lead story. Period.
Bridget Jones Diary is a female lead story.
UltraViolet,
Vixen,
Joan of Arc,
Red Sonja, Cinderella, Gone with the Wind,
The Princess Diaries, and
Le Femme Nikita are female lead stories. Period.
Quote:
I have somewhat mixed feelings about the last couple of films. I think Craig is quite good and feel that the producers have raised the bar overall - after two decades of mediocrity, it's good to see a Bond picture with solidly written scenes and good performances
I wonder if the recent films are not the producer's reaction to the 1970s Bonds, which were shallow, artificial throwaways.
Casino Royale and
Quantum of Solace are about all the wrong things, but at least they're about
something. James Bond is going to be taught respect and responsibility the hard way along with spycraft and how to dress. The women characters are finally free of him -- they don't need him, don't want him, don't respect him, nor do they particularly want to share the adventure with him, and he's fine with that. Insofar as the two films are about something, I suppose these scenes are solidly written and competently performed. Actually, they're not solidly written. They're full of dramatic problems. Externally they work, but internally they are not James Bond adventures because the characters have been subverted. Bond and Vesper in the novel
Casino Royale are very different from the characters in the film, and I would much rather see the novel's characters explored than the so-called "update" they received.
Quote:
On the other hand, much like the new Batman, there's a sense of joyless gloom that pervades the Craig films, which seems to run counter to the inherent absurdity of the Bond universe.
Casino Royale's deconstruction of Bond isn't entertaining.
The action is exciting, but the characters are miserable.
Quantum of Solace turns Bond into a symbol of death.
He's death in a black and white wardrobe moving through a black and white production design.
That's gloomy alright, and not much fun.
They are Bond films in name only.
Your other point -- the inherent absurdity of the Bond universe -- is something else again.
The Bond films became an institution when the action was plausible and the stories were believable.
They stepped in and out of surrealism without turning into overt fantasy or science-fiction.
When this balance was lost in the 1970s, the films ran into trouble.
Characterization suffered, too, a problem the recent films address in the worst possible way.
I don't want to see an absurd Bond universe, but I want the sense of wonder and fun to return.
Quote:
The entire notion of a "secret" agent whom everyone knows, who single-handedly thwarts criminal masterminds and proves irresistible to every female he meets, is ridiculous. Connery and Moore - and their respective films - understood that in a way that the new films don't
You're making two very good points here.
My thought is that James Bond is not someone everyone knows in the books, so he shouldn't be someone everyone knows in the movies. He is a secret agent, but not a "famous" secret agent. Of course the notion of a "famous" secret agent is ridiculous, so why do it? In the early films, Bond is a known spy, but not a "famous" spy. Somewhere in the progression of Bond films the film makers started to incorporate marketing and promotion into the dramaturgy. Big mistake. Bond may be famous as a movie character, but he should not be famous within his dramatic universe. This was one of two or three mis-steps that began in the film version of
Thunderball. It begins at the 123 minute-mark after Bond and Fiona, the enemy agent and his counterpart, have just slept together, and her henchmen have taken his gun away:
Quote:
BOND
Not that it matters, but that was under the pillow
all the time.
FIONA
When did you find out?
BOND
Well, you're wearing the same ring as Largo.
FIONA
It's a ring I like to wear.
BOND
Vanity has its dangers.
FIONA
Vanity, Mr. Bond, is something you know so much about.
BOND
My dear girl don't flatter yourself.
What I did this evening was for king and country.
You don't think it gave me any pleasure, do you?
FIONA
(slams the door closed)
But of course, I forgot your ego, Mr. Bond.
James Bond, who only has to make love to a woman
and she starts to hear heavenly choirs singing.
She repents and immediately returns to the side of
right and virtue. But not this one.
What a blow it must have been, you having a failue.
BOND
Well, you can't win them all.
.
Dramatically, this conversation starts out playing the scene and then goes wrong when Fiona references Bond's sexual prowess as something he is famous for. Let's side aside the question of Fiona's exagerration about heavenly choirs and repentance. If Bond must be famous for his sexual prowess, he should be famous for it only in the publicity for the film, not in the film itself. When Fiona references his fame, the fourth wall is broken and we are reminded we're watching a movie. A stroke of the pen would have adjusted the dialog so that the fourth wall isn't broken and what needs to be said isn't sacrificed, but I understand from the commentaries that it was ad-libbed on the spot under the director's instructions. I wish Terence Young had given it more consideration. Again, James Bond should not be famous in the universe in which he operates. As for his sexual prowess, there's nothing I can say about that on HTF that won't get me into trouble.
If Bond is not famous, he's plausible, but if he's famous, he's ridiculous. Future entries in the series would compound the error, but none more so than Casino Royale. When Bond and Vesper check into the hotel, he breaks his own cover -- "Bond traveling as Somerset" he tells the receptionist -- on the grounds that the opposition will soon recognize him anyway. Vesper counters, correctly, that now they know he's reckless. Not olnly does Bond do something really stupid, he loses the argument. Not only does he lose the argument, he doesn't know he's lost, and he doesn't realize the seriousness of what he's just done. Sometimes Casino Royale adheres to the plausible except when there is a chance to make Bond behave like a fool. So he's famous, but he's not famous. A writer avoids absurdity by removing the cause of it. Not the current crop of Bond writers; they will break the fourth wall if it helps to debunk and deconstruct the James Bond character. In the past, audiences could not be expected to suspend disbelief in a movie that violates its own plausibility as an in-joke or as a moral judgment on itself, but with todays audiences ...
Your other point -- that James Bond proves irresistable to every woman he meets -- is not true of the novels and not exactly true of the early films. More to the point, the Bond novels were largely about the assignations and the refreshingly adult approach to sex. The female characters were on the make and unapolagetic about it. The early Bond films are about people who are attracted to one another, and that's why we go, to see an on-screen romance which is essential to the adventure. Bond seduces, but he is also seduced. They are equals. Perhaps it is a fantasy to populate a film with characters who are there to be attracted to one another, but that's the premise of this particular universe, and of storytelling in general. This changed in the 1990s Bond films. Suddenly it became a crime against feminism if the female lead is attracted to a man or if they have consensual sex like grown-ups do. Think about it: Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are about people who are not attracted and not interested in each other.
Casino Royale is a souring film because there is no civility between M and Bond, and very little civility between Vesper and Bond. Their interaction is based on antagonism and contempt -- listen to the dialog. That really takes the fun out of a James Bond movie. That kind of reality belongs in some other movie. Further, the politicizing of sexual encounters has to stop. When Solange is killed in Casino Royale, M blames Bond and lectures him on mis-using his charm. When Fields is killed in Quantum of Solace, again, M blames Bond and delivers the same lecture on mis-using his charm. She doesn't blame the business they're in, or the mission they're on, or the villain who did the actual killing, or on the female spy who takes the same risks as the male spy because she chooses to do so. From now on, if a female dies, it's James Bond's fault. There is more to M's blame-game, but I better stop there. One hopes that this kind of political correctness will be left behind in Bond 23.
Edited by Richard--W - 8/13/2009 at 03:38 pm GMTEdited by Richard--W - 8/13/2009 at 03:41 pm GMT
