Bond, but not as we know him
I went to see Casino Royale last night with high expectations, but came home disappointed. I'd read all the blurb about making Bond more realistic, more gritty, less misogynistic, less outlandish. But the script, and Daniel Craig were a let down.
Bond has lost his charisma and charm. He's turned into a gritty character out of Spooks or Two Smoking Barrels. Bond was supposed to transport us to a different world of uber-glamour, outrageous villains and eye-popping stunts. Instead, we got no fabulous opening drama sequence, a weepy, sulky woman who was supposed to be the female foil to the new masculine (as opposed to sexual) Bond, and a rather dull villain with no gold teeth, white fluffy cat or any notions of megalomania.
You'll say that I'm harking back to the old days, and not moving with Bond to a new era. But really, this is a different kind of film altogether. It felt more like action hero than movie icon. Bond was its own genre, but now it's just another drama film. It could have been Die Hard, or Patriot Games.
But what really confused me was the gritty realism being intertwined with deep and meaningful psychological analysis of Bond's make up, trying to explain the origins of his behaviours. It's far to soft and gentle, you feel like all his subsequent conquests should weep for his poor ravaged life and offer him counselling.
Despite all this, the film is quite good watching, until about twenty minutes before the end before Bond makes a revelation that Bond should never ever make. And it's all downhill from there. This is a new "hard on the outside soft on the inside" Bond, that has lost his charm and his crackling confidence and his signature sneer has turned into a compassionate understanding of the 'big picture' of the world and its emotional intricacies. How disappointing. We already have real life for all that.
Bond has lost his charisma and charm. He's turned into a gritty character out of Spooks or Two Smoking Barrels. Bond was supposed to transport us to a different world of uber-glamour, outrageous villains and eye-popping stunts. Instead, we got no fabulous opening drama sequence, a weepy, sulky woman who was supposed to be the female foil to the new masculine (as opposed to sexual) Bond, and a rather dull villain with no gold teeth, white fluffy cat or any notions of megalomania.
You'll say that I'm harking back to the old days, and not moving with Bond to a new era. But really, this is a different kind of film altogether. It felt more like action hero than movie icon. Bond was its own genre, but now it's just another drama film. It could have been Die Hard, or Patriot Games.
But what really confused me was the gritty realism being intertwined with deep and meaningful psychological analysis of Bond's make up, trying to explain the origins of his behaviours. It's far to soft and gentle, you feel like all his subsequent conquests should weep for his poor ravaged life and offer him counselling.
Despite all this, the film is quite good watching, until about twenty minutes before the end before Bond makes a revelation that Bond should never ever make. And it's all downhill from there. This is a new "hard on the outside soft on the inside" Bond, that has lost his charm and his crackling confidence and his signature sneer has turned into a compassionate understanding of the 'big picture' of the world and its emotional intricacies. How disappointing. We already have real life for all that.
posted by Shelina Zahra Janmohamed at 13:37
7 Comments:
You are perhaps the only person EVER to not like this film. And for that reason I accuse you of being deliberately controversial, but then I've already taken the bait so...
This Bond is far better, he shows he is human and realistic. More panache than Connery, more funnier than Moore, less wooden than Dalton and more ruthless than Brosnan.
I liked Brosnan, but this Bond is more of what a human being who is a spy is like.
But I for one don't want my Bond shaken or even stirred by ordinary human traits.
'Spooks' gives me that in abundant measure and it works in that context - poor Adam collapsing on the floor with PTSD 'cos of the rotten way his wife was assasinated; or Harry doing glum 'cos he has had to put duty before heart.
Though even there I'm much more taken by the Ice Queen that is Hermione Norris [be still my pounding heart!] as she floors villains with a vicious verbal jibe, a death-ray silent stare or a venomous karate kick to the nethers. That's my kinda spy.
"The name's Bond, James I-feel-your-pain Bond"? Naw, that just ain't how it should be.
Shelina, I would like you to please write on the recent spy case and his death due to radiation.
I was surprised not to see the "Islamic/Muslim/Terrorist" name popup in the media.
I completely agree with you, but have to say that you are the only person who, as far as I know, has the courage to write this on a semi-public forum! All the newspaper reviews were totally enthusaistic about the movie. Why does everyone choose not to see its flaws vis-a-vis the Bond-genre tradition?
This reminds me of a line I read in a book (I think it was the now-famous Q & A). One of the poverty-stricken characters said that he watched - highly unrealistic - Bollywood movies simply to escape reality. "Why watch a movie if you can look outside and see the same thing?"
I agree with your review. The makers have removed much of what made Bond a genre, a legend in his own right.
Ah, well. Never really liked Craig much anyway.
I couldn't bring myself to go to the cinema to see the latest offerings - Hollywood has lost a customer!
Post a Comment
<< Home