Bond is Back?
March 26, 2009
In light of the dvd release of Quantum of Solace I would like to take up a conversation that securely places me in nerdom but, nevertheless, keeps me up at night. As a James Bond fan and enthusiast, I am somewhat conflicted about the direction of the latest Bond films. I’m not suggesting any conclusions – I’m just taking the opportunity to voice thoughts and invite further discussion.
In general, I’m sympathetic with the need to reinvent, and I’m aware of the dangers involved in formulas becoming stale and irrelevant. Although I have a stubbornly conservative streak regarding change, I acknowledge that reinvention was probably needed (on some level) for the Bond series to maintain relevancy in a post 9/11 culture. Truly, I applaud the efforts of reinvention.
Having said that, the Bond formula has always been one of the things I love about Bond movies. Whereas usually I am somewhat repulsed by anything formulaic, in Bond moves the formula has always been strangely attractive. The familiarity – knowing the rhythm – anticipating the one liners – visiting familiar characters – even knowing how it all ends before it begins – is like a kind of warm sanctuary for me. I detest predictability in other movies, but Bond movies have always been the exception. Indeed, it’s part of their lure.
So perhaps the question is this: have the new Daniel Craig films effectively reinvented Bond to make him more relevent while maintaining enough of the old school/proven formula so that they’re still recognizable as Bond films?
I have to say – I’m not sure.
Thank God they haven’t done away with opening scenes that lead into traditional credit sequence set to pop theme songs. Illiminating that would be heresy. Thank goodness there’s still M (although I miss Q).
Admitting that it may sound trivial, I have to say – I hate the fact that the movies don’t open with the traditional “dot”/gun barrel scooting across the screen to the classic James Bond theme. I’m somewhat scandalized that’s missing. It almost seems arrogant to remove it. I know the last movie showed the dot at the end – but whatever – don’t throw me a bone…
I miss the Bond music/theme interwoven throughout the film.
I also miss the fun. Don’t get me wrong – like any real Bond fan I cringe at Roger Moore silliness, and I totally appreciate a serious tone to the movies, but…
I watched From Russia With Love last weekend (for probably the tenth time), and I realized that even when Connery was at his best there was still a lot of tongue in cheek humor and a spirit of frivolity in the films. Is it good to have a Bond that’s sooooo melancholy?
Perhaps relevant to the conversation: I think it’s interesting to re-evaluate Pierce Brosnan’s Bond and observe how it stands the test of time. I remember how enthused the public was for his turn as Bond, and it’s curious how quickly his movies have become rather irrelevant and dismissible. Perhaps one reason for this is that Brosnan’s movies were religiously true to the old school Bond formula. They didn’t just tip the hat to Bond’s heritage, they revelled in it (examples: Bond’s flirting with Moneypenney went from subtle fun to way over the top sexual innuendos, Bond’s gadgetry stretched the imagination farther than the healthiest imagination can be stretched – invisible cars for crying out loud, etc).
Perhaps Brosnan’s movies make the biggest argument for the need of and goodness of reinvention.
All Bonds certainly have their ups and downs but their are certain things we’ve come to expect and generally enough common threads to identify them as Bond. I find the total lack of Bond style comic relief in the Daniel Craig Bond to be a bummer. After establishing himself as a reasonable Bond in Casino Royale I was definitely looking for him to start checking a few things off the Bond checklist but Quantum of Solace doesn’t really go in that direction. I’m not so super-pumped about it. Anyway, I agree with you that Bond films are to be evaluated in their own category, somehow these last two don’t quite fit. Is it wrong to miss just laughing AT the films -
because thay are, predictable, gadget filled cheese?
Some things to consider…
This conversation took place when Brosnan did “Goldeneye”. Basically, without the cold war, and after the “License to Kill” debacle, could Bond survive the 90’s? The answer was yes, although I understand the way some people dismiss most of the Brosnan films.
– You have to understand the effect of movies like “Austin Powers” and others since the revival of Bond. Since the late 90’s, we have seen many copycats of Bond like Triple XXX or Jason Bourne. Also, many of the Bond films were becoming rather Cliched’, thus the Austin Powers franchise, which was immensely popular. Add to that other franchises like “Alias”, “Tomb Raider”, “Charlies Angels”, etc. – some of those aren’t that great, but they all followed the spy genre and they were all popular. Bond had to had to get away from some of the formula aspects that were being overplayed.
I really enjoy the way they have been exploring the character of Bond. I think after all these years he is getting some depth to him and you can begin to understand his character more. Don’t get me wrong, I will always love Connery as my favorite Bond, but I also know better than to compare every bond movie with the likes of Goldfinger or YOLT. Many people make that mistake and they end up subsequently disappointed.
Yes, I do miss the Bond theme and I guess the opening trademark logo. The theme song to this last one was horrible, but it also followed perhaps one of the best theme songs in “Casino Royale”. I really enjoy though the return of the tough, smart, clever 007 as opposed to a Bond that merely pushes a button on a gadget to get out of a situation. I understand that the public would rather see gadgets but for me the clever, smart way he gets out of his problems is more appealing. Lets face it – new technology isn’t amazing people as it used to and the producers need something new to carry the story.If you don’t agree, look at “Die Another Day”. I mean, the tech stuff in that episode was way unbelievable and I feel now that it was overdone. Cool at the moment, but forgettable now among a plethora of tech-savvy shows and movies. You brought up FRWL….but there was very little gadgetry in there. It was just a good, believable story with good acting and writing.
I think Bond would be better served if it could return to a central villain to carry some of these movies. Connery had Blofeld, Moore had Communist Russia. Craig could use a recurring villain to ground him and carry the franchise along, and that seems to be the direction they are heading.
As to the previous response asking if it was wrong to laugh at the films because of certain elements, then I guess it depends. I realize that most people don’t care about a story unless it entertains in some way. Hey, if I laugh, then I am entertained. If that is all you want, then you will be very happy in our culture. However, I would like something more, and I do not feel that just because something makes me laugh = quality. We often laugh at things that are easily dismissed, and a lot of what passes for comedy today is forgettable an unedifying. I ask this question. Is it wrong to desire some solid, quality writing centered around a familiar character that aims to stimulate and entertain on a higher level as opposed to taking the easy route of entertainment with cheap laughs, special effects, sexual thrills and thus a shallow 2 hours of movie?
Brian – thanks for the thoughtful response (and Reb too!). I really agree that it would be good for Bond to have a consistent adversary. One of the endearing elements of Connery’s era was the consistency of Blofeld – and the books definitely got better once Blofeld was introduced as a running foe.
I’m not sure this is the same conversation as Goldeneye. Yes, there was a question if Bond could survive a post-cold war culture, but after Goldeneye the masses answered with a resounding “yes”. Brosnan was more popular than anyone since Connery (I have a Bond book that came out at this time who’s cover features Brosnan and Connery standing back to back. Moore and company are merely background figures), and confidence was truly restored in the franchise.
But again – the question here is not whether or not Bond can survive. The question is if Craig’s movies are recognizable (an enjoyable) as Bond movies? This was not even an issue with Brosnan – as I stated in the post – Brosnan’s movies were “in your face” traditional Bond formula…nobody had a hard time recognizing them as Bond.
Brian – Do you really like the character? Is it really a “return” to anything? All fun has been stripped away from him. I agree that FRWL is a serious spy movie – but, as I said, Connery is not melancholy. He is charming, witty, and – yes – funny. There is a mixture of tough seriousness and tongue in cheek humor that Connery’s films always seemed to master (that nobody else ever seemed to get quite right). With Craig – they’ve stopped trying to emulate Connery. It’s a whole new guy. Is that something you like?
Well, my thoughts on Craig are that they have tried to make a tougher, serious Bond than Brosnan. So maybe that is why you are seeing a difference compared to Connery. Perhaps the problem is that they are trying to distance Craig from Brosnan and comparing him to Connery isn’t working. Now…
You have to remember that what they are doing is showing Bond in his early days, when he was rough around the edges. Even M has her doubts about him. So, naturally I don’t see him as the charming, witty Bond, but one that is kind of developing his charm and class. Remember how Vesper cleaned him up in Casino Royale. Remember some of the mistakes he has made in these two movies, like being overconfident at the Poker table or mistaking Mathis as a traitor. So, I see what you are saying about him not being like Connery or Moore, or even Brosnan. Do I like him? Yeah, I do. Each actor that has been Bond has brought his own interpretation. I will always like Connery, because I think in that time period (60’s) you could get away with the kind of uber-realism he brought to the character and things weren’t so tongue in cheek. Moore continued that, but Brosnan did it too well in the wrong era. Now, they are trying to bring a seriousness back to Bond that has been absent, because lets face it…some people haven’t taken him seriously.
So yeah, I do like him, but maybe for different reasons. I do see room for improvement in the area of charm and some humor. Maybe they are still trying to distance him from Brosnan, or Austin Powers.
Great discussion here. While I am not as big a Bond buff as you all, I’ll give you my two cents:
1) I actually enjoy most of Roger Moore’s movies (I await your criticism
, I like his goofiness and the fun he has, I accept that it is all to make me laugh and enjoy that. I also think that Jaws was at his best in some of the Roger Moore movies (just don’t ask me to name the films, cause I can only remember the scenes). Jaws to me was just one of the best characters that is missing – a great combination of funny, a little bit scary with his poisonous teeth and brute strength, funny though cause he was clumsy and slow. Just loved him though! (Jaws was probably in the Connery movies too, I just am not a big enough Bond fan to know though)
2) Totally agree on the need for a sustaining villain for Craig to go up against. I actually thought the latest villain was ok (the water utility CEO guy) – he was nice and slimy and easy to hate. But I never thought to myself, “Man does Bond have some problems here – how is he going to get by these guys?!!” I think that may be just a byproduct of Craig being so buff and tough and of course he is going to kick ass and take names. . . . would be great to get a character that really smokes Craig in a fight and has some good ‘evil’ qualities like the great Bond bad guys of yesteryear. (Or at least make the evil masterminde a little funny with a quirk or two that make you laugh)
3) Agree with Brian’s point that they’re trying to explain in these last two films why/how Bond became the woman-using playboy he is in all the other films – Part of me would like to see him get over the ‘dark days’ and get back to having fun (like Connery and Moore), you know, the days where he is joking around and picking up the girls and finishing out movies with some babe, floating in the Caribbean. . . . I think they tried to do that a little with the red-head, but then boom, she dies.
Alright, those are my thoughts. Brian’s points on all the other spy movies are well thought out – the Bourne movies in particular were so cool, maybe we are subconsciously comparing the two? Also, did you notice in the Bourne movies how the villain was kept somewhat secret? Maybe that is a way they could get the spice back into the villain, by somehow hiding who the villain really is. . . aiight, I’m out guys. Hope you’re doing well!!
Mike – Thanks for replying and good to hear from you.
1. I don’t know if I can take the response from someone who likes Roger Moore the best seriously. Just kidding – Moore made some awesome Bond movies – I enjoy a lot of them too. Jaws, by the way, is only in two movies – both Moore.
2. I think we actually see Craig get beat up much worse than any other Bond. I don’t know if it’s sheer violence from a villain we need – Craig’s movies are more real and brutal than anything we’ve yet seen. Indeed, because of their realism I am more inclined to imagine Craig getting injured/killed than any other Bond. I think what you’re really suggesting, however, is a villain whose actually a mega maniac and threatens the entire world (like villains of old). This is something I miss – Craig hasn’t had a true baddie yet – but I doubt he ever will because of his movies’ commitment to realism.
3. I don’t buy the whole explaining how he came to be angle. I don’t think Craig’s movies explain anything – there are no similarities between this Bond and Bond’s of the past. I have read every Flemming novel and Bond was always rather suave – never a thug…
By the way – I think Bourne movies are irrelevant to the conversation…these two franchises have nothing in common.
Just my thoughts – as correct as I always think I am…