*** Official CASINO ROYALE Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[MikeRS]

Come the fuck on

Just because Bond's dynamic with women is (realistically) updated for the 21st century (origin movie or not), doesn't mean Bond himself acts like a "pussy" in these scenarios.

Again.....

Three women for Bond to interact with in the film:

M, Vesper and Solange

Solange is a married women seduced and coldly used by Bond. This scenario could have easily been played with the Sean Connery from Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, etc...

Show me how this scenario differs from Connery and Shirley Eaton in Goldfinger.

You won't be able to because it doesn't.

___________________


M is his superior and Bond is inexperienced. That's the dominant through line between them in the picture. Yes, there's an added subtext by having M be a woman. But why is that bad? I don't think the feminist subtext was preachy/overbearing as to overshadow a Bond origin move. I personally think the dynamic (and added subtext) works well because the film is well written and Judi Dench is an excellent actor.

Also what Mark Kalser expressed in his post has validity - why is it wrong for there to be an added feminist subtext to a Bond origin film made for the 21st century film marketplace?

There is obviously both an artistic and economic level to that question.

Vesper




If you want to call Bond a "pussy" for consoling a woman not prepared for experiencing the kind of "world" he inhabits.....


Whatever.

 

[Edwin-S]

All I'm relating is how an ordinary group of guys described the character after the movie. Believe it or not, there are still guys who prefer the old style Bond flicks where the women were objects of conquest and nothing more. Not every guy takes to these new age Bond flicks where the character always seems to be subordinate to some female superior. In that respect, CR is an even bigger offender. The character is subordinate to not just one, but two female superiors. Wow, it has almost become sickening how Broccoli's daughter has taken what was essentially a male power fantasy franchise and turned it into a female empowerment series. And how does she do that? By continually having Bond emasculated by some mother figure or by some sharp tongued harpy. In an old school Bond, women like the ones in these new flicks would have been thrown out of a high rise window.

 

[MikeRS]

Okay, I think I can put this as succinct as possible for folks like Richard (if he's still reading this thread):


We - those who admire the film - do not consider it a sell out/dilution of Ian Fleming's creation because while yes, Bond finds himself in 21st century dynamics/scenarios foreign to his 60s incarnation(ie: dealing with women in "power" positions over him), Craig's portrayal of Bond in these male/female dynamics becomes a fascinating storytelling conceit due to the actor maintaining plausibility as a younger, less experienced version of the closest cinematic Fleming Bond up until now.

(Yeah, I'm talking early Connery)

What I mean is, Craig is believable as an excellent super spy killer in training.

So regardless of his "feminizing predicaments" and the backstory/rough behind the ears aspects of the tale, he displays all the bravery, charisma, ego, masculinity, ingenuity, independence and yes, homicidal ferocity of the Bond we know and love. The seeds are all there, and you can feel him taming it all into shape.

His future implied misogyny/cold womanizing is also foreshadowed in the film which (of course) is no accident as Fleming readers have long percieved the Casino Royale tale (ie: the first Bond novel) as the backstory for his future modus operandi with the opposite sex (Although it should be noted that Fleming had a habit of making Bond fall in love much more than his cinematic incarnation. ).

His future refined cultured ways are also telegraphed.

So adding a feminist subtext to bounce off this character during his "origin story" does not turn these Bond fans off. It is embraced because the frission is welcome as a wonderful storytelling tension created by the interesting juxtaposition of a believable Fleming Bond-in-training dealing with particular 21st century predicaments.



And oh yeah....

Craig kicks ass.

 

[Paul_Scott]

interesting comments Mark.
I watched it again last night with these thoughts in mind, and came to the conclusion that must be a big component of why I like it so much.
The conflict with female authority, whether it's M or Vesper who controls his purse strings, seems like a breath of fresh air to me. Also as you say the landscape of the dramatic climax is more internal than external, which is also refreshing.

 

[Andy Sheets]

I guess for me the problem is that Bond isn't supposed to be in training. He's a 00 - that's supposed to mean he's ready to go and be self-sufficient on his missions. That doesn't mean he knows everything (Fleming's Bond frequently screws up and indeed the whole point of the story in the first place is that Bond is full of himself and is primed to be taken down a couple of pegs), but there shouldn't be scenes of M yelling at Bond for shooting up an embassy like a violent adolescent because it's not in character for Bond to do that in the first place, nor is it reasonable for a man in his position, even an inexperienced man, to think of doing such a thing.

Overall I think the movie is really good but I do believe there's a strong tension in it between the over-the-top action movie idiocy of the recent films and the more subdued source material. It's like cinematic MPD. When the movie sticks more closely to the book I think it's pretty strong, but when it tries to expand on the book, like with the opening action scene and the stuff at the airport, I feel like it's veering uncomfortably towards the old Brosnan nonsense. I'm certainly hoping for the best but I really wouldn't be surprised if the next installment sends the franchise off the rails into cartooniness again.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Just like Batman Begins, which I also am thankful for, I have to look past a few points that are at best, poorly thought out.
The irrational Madagascar chase (and its more out of character conclusion) is one of these. But even then, the sequence contains one of my favorite moments in any action film- when Bond, 20 stories up & without flinching, catches the bombers gun and whips it right back at him.
Thankfully no sequences where he stands up spraying machine gun fire at swarming hordes of bad guys, but yeah, it doesn't look like that stuff is likely to stay away from the series for long.

It's sad that Craig comments about the humour in the next one going back to the double entendre female names. I loved the nod to this in CR where he cracks the joke that Vespers cover name is Stephanie Broadchest. For me, it seemed like the series had finally risen above itself at that point and a big part of that was Vespers reaction. I really loved all the interplay between the two of them- on the train, in the bathroom pre-game, and then post bloodbath, etc etc. Maybe I have a hard time seeing the feminist architecture, because I find both character too endearing. In this respect, the relationship here works much better for me than the relationship with Tracey in OHMSS

 

[Ruz-El]

While No "A View To Kill", I really liked that part in CR, where Bond runs up that building. that was cool.

 

[Steve Christou]

There's nothing in Casino Royale that tops Roger Moore driving his gondola-turned-hovercraft through Venice. Moonraker, great great film. I was so disappointed with the next one, the feeble in comparison For Your Eyes Only. I was rather hoping Bond would be up against giant robots in the next installment.

But seriously, Casino Royale is the best Bond film in ages and still people aren't happy. And I don't think the followup For Your Thighs Only is going to make them any happier.

The action sequences are some of the best too, veering away from invisible cars and ice-surfing, but some of the posters here didn't like the big action setpieces in CR either, oh dear. Glum sourpusses is the thing that comes to mind, sorry.

 

[TheLongshot]

Mark,

If Richard had decided to play things the way you did, maybe he'd still be here arguing his point.

What I'd like to put up is this: if we change M's sex to male, does that really change anything? Maybe from the standpoint of the contempt Bond shows to M at times, but I can see him doing that to a male he doesn't respect as well.


I get the impression that M reluctantly promoted Bond, if because there was a need (like his gambling skills) or that, technically, he was the best man for the job. But, just because you've shown you have the skills doesn't mean that you have the temperament. That seems to be what she's questioning.

That whole first part seems to have a couple of points 1) an excuse to have a big action sequence and 2) to poke fun at previous Bond films for doing that and making a point that a good spy doesn't do that. I was bothered by it at first until M admonished him about it, then I understood. It seems at a lot of points they poke fun at previous Bond films, pretty much saying, "No, this isn't your father's Bond."

Jason

 

[Ruz-El]

About the only thing that would make "A View To A Kill" any better would be a giant robot. Serious, what more do you need in a Bond picture? Christopher Walken has never been better, Grace Jones never sexier and HELLO!! Duran Duran can out do Chris Cornell anyday with a theme song!! Really, they should of stopped making Bond films after AVTAK. Roger Moor IS James Bond, no one before or after will ever touch him!


What films have you been involved in?

 

[Richard--W]

Here is a well-informed review:

Two Views from the Hotel Splendide

I'm not as kind toward the film as Ian Dunross, but at least he knows his subject.

 

[Brian D H]

Wow. So, I'm guessing he DIDN'T like it?