Bond is Back?

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.