|
|
Daniel Craig? Not Bond, James
Bond.
|
I, Moviegoer. Daniel Craig? Not Bond, James Bond
Frank A. Hilario
November 26, 2006
He’s Blond, James Blond. He’s a counter-spy, an
impostor, a pretender, a double-agent. The aura doesn’t
match that of the real McCoy.
You ask, rhetorically: ‘Who cares whether James Bond
was black-haired or blond in Ian Fleming’s mind?’ I,
Moviegoer mind. And I mind not only the color of the
hair, the color of the cocktail – more so the color of the
character.
After the release of the latest Bond film by Sony
Pictures, what did all those movie experts say? Their
best. But their best isn’t good enough. They all miss the
point. James Bond is a sharpshooter; ‘I never miss!’ he
says. If he can only read the critics. On Casino Royale
(the movie), I have scanned a hundred movie reviews,
most of them are in praise of the new Bond – arising
from:
(a) a wrong assumption – Most assumed that it was all
about revivifying a movie series, which is error in logic.
(b) a forgotten rule of thumb – None said anything
about satisfying the customer, which is error in
marketing.
I, Moviegoer have something to say about most of
those film appraisals I have read and about the movie
itself: Eh? Anyway, I got a bang out of browsing those
approving works. I’m happy no one hit the bull’s-eye,
so I can shoot for my own.
A fair warning: James Cunliffe (19 Nov, mk-news.co.
uk/) overhears a moviegoer coming out, saying to the
companion: ‘It was okay. I’m still not converted
though.’ Me too.
Thinking of Daniel Craig’s Casino Royale and as a
writer, I love it when not everything comes together!
How do I love it? Let me count the ways:
(1) Casino Royale mixes metaphors, not cocktail.
As a drink, Casino Royale is mixed cocktail that stirs me
to the opposite direction of expelling it – if you will
pardon the mixed metaphor. It’s too heady for me.
The movie critics are bewildered themselves, as I shall
show you. I’m referring to online male and female
performers in a starring role – as they assign stars to
the motion pictures they critique. Once the movie
critics mix their metaphors, I say, Watch out!
Like: Stax says (17 Feb, au.movies.ign.com/),
commenting on the script: ‘Casino Royale reboots the
Bond franchise much the same way as Batman Begins.’
Stax is one of (if not) the first to say it, ‘reboot,’ trying
not to copy from Batman, trying to be chic and
knowledgeable. Nice try. If you reboot your PC, it’s the
same banana – you just get rid of a bug or register a
change or something. You are not installing a different
program, not updating software, not scanning for
viruses, not even scanning for errors. With Casino
Royale, with new software, Barbara Broccoli and
Michael Wilson have changed the image, and that’s not
rebooting – that’s morphing.
No. This Daniel Craig and his Casino Royale don’t make
a reboot; they don’t even make a pair: Yes, they make a
morph. To morph is to transform from one image to
another … completely and instantaneously (from
Encarta Dictionary 2006). A real, physiological and
psychological remake – Daniel Craig’s James Bond in
Casino Royale come up very different from all the other
James Bonds. The producers have made a paradigm
shift about their superspy.
Stax approves. He thinks of Casino Royale in terms of
Batman Begins of which he says: ‘The Dark Knight has
been gloriously reborn on film.’ Batman floats on air,
beautifully. It’s a freshly sensational story (I love it),
but Batman Begins is not a reinvention of Batman; it is,
in the language of George Lucas’ Star Wars, a prequel,
the one before this one, the one that establishes the
present. On the contrary, Daniel’s Casino Royale de-
establishes the present! In fact, it destabilizes the
present. In the years up to 4 BC (Before Craig), that is,
from 1962 (Sean Connery in Dr No) to 2002 (Pierce
Brosnan in Die Another Day), James Bond is a suave,
sophisticated, smooth, sexy sweetheart. Daniel’s James
Bond I note is NOTA: None Of The Above.
The movie experts don’t see Batman Begins and Casino
Royale as prequels; For good’s sake they are, the
stories before the stories. Prequels MaryAnn Johanson
knows and puts the words in my mouth describing what
she likes of The Phantom Menace and, in effect, defining
what is a prequel in terms of the Star Wars storyline
(1999, flickfilosopher.com/):
From the opening scrawl – which mirrors the slight
hyperbole of Star Wars’ as it describes an ‘alarming
chain of events’ involving the ‘greedy Trade Federation’
and the Jedi Knights, ‘guardians of peace and justice in
the galaxy,’ who will put things right – to the echo of
Luke’s theme in Anakin’s in John Williams’ wonderfully
operatic score, this is without doubt the same self-
contained, internally consistent, astonishing and
frightening universe we’ve come to love. (my emphasis)
That is to say, when you’re in a James Bond or Star
Wars prequel, you can feel if not see the same self-
contained, internally consistent, astonishing and
frightening universe you’ve come to love. And how do I,
Moviegoer rate Casino Royale as a prequel? A non-
prequel prequel. Out of 5 stars, I give it not one; it’s ill-
starred. It changes James Bond himself. It doesn’t
reveal him from the very beginning; it doesn’t uncover
the hero. Instead, it reveals a different James Bond –
not the one that I, Moviegoer have come to adore.
Not only ‘reboot’ is mixed metaphor applied to Batman
or James Bond; it’s too high-tech. Folks, go down from
your level. When you talk about Ian Fleming and his
James Bond (in his books), talk low-tech: Fleming used
an old, manual Remington typewriter to type his stories
in Goldeneye, the name he gave his house on the North
Coast of Jamaica, writing at the end of World War II
(commanderbond.net/).
Daniel Craig is the wrong Bond. I agree with
danielnotbond.com, whom Clint Morris (17 Nov,
moviehole.net/) quotes and disagrees with:
How can a short, blond actor with the rough face of a
professional boxer and a penchant for playing killers,
cranks, cads and gigolos pull off the role of a tall, dark,
handsome and suave secret agent? This is what
happens when you lose touch with public opinion. By
casting Daniel Craig, Barbara Broccoli and Michael
Wilson have proven once and for all that they care little
for the opinions of Bond fans.
You’re right, Clint. I, Moviegoer am the one Broccoli
and Wilson are making Bond movies for. Of course,
Casino Royale is making millions of dollars right now all
over the world, so they must have done something
right, right? That’s because we moviegoers wanted to
see what’s new, or if the rumors were true. It was not
out of closeness but out of curiosity. Now they know
that James Bond is dead. This time curiosity did not kill
the cats; instead, it killed their curiosity.
(2) Casino Royale makes Bond imperfect.
Anton Carrera says it well in favor of Daniel’s Casino
Royale (21 Nov, rutgersobserver.com/):
In every other way, Casino Royale is an audience
pleaser because it introduces a more human, imperfect
Bond.
Anton, I, Moviegoer am not pleased; I don’t want a
more human, imperfect Bond. I want a perfect Bond!
About being perfect, Blair Pettis says of the spy in
Casino Royale (21 Nov, commanderbond.net/):
Daniel has found the essential Bondian chords within
himself and played them to near perfection. The man is
James Bond.
Blair, I don’t want that kind of perfect.
Mimi Avins reports that Director Martin Campbell claims
(15 Nov, southflorida.com/): ‘(Casino Royale is) the
perfect opportunity to reboot the series and go back to
basics.’ So! Even the director is guilty of mixed
metaphor; he should go back to the basics of grammar.
When you reboot a PC, you don’t go back to basics –
you go back to the original; in James Bond, you are
trying to create the original that fits into the stories
already told. You cannot simply ignore the character
and color of the James Bond that’s already in the
moviegoers’ mind. Otherwise, you lose your credibility.
Mimi also reports that the director also says:
Once I saw where we were going, Daniel was the
perfect fit for the story we were telling. The character
in the books is much darker than he has been in the
movies and that’s what we’ve returned to. It’s a more
personal, more emotional story than we’ve seen Bond
in before. Daniel has a sexuality that’s very much in
keeping with how Fleming saw the character.
The story you are telling? I’m not listening. The
character you are showing? I’m not liking. The
sexuality Daniel is exhibiting? I’m not interested.
(3) Casino Royale makes Bond a brute.
George Grella says of Daniel Craig as James Bond (22
Nov, rochester-citynews.com/):
Daniel possesses some of the brawny virility of Sean
Connery, for many the only true Bond; in fact,
contrasting with the generally supercilious manner of
some of his predecessors, he rather resembles a well-
dressed thug.
George, James Bond is not about brawny or virile; it’s
about sexy. And George, I, Moviegoer don’t want my
hero as a thug, no matter how well-dressed.
And it’s not about adhering to the details of Ian Fleming’
s story, not like what Devin Zydel reports when Daniel
Craig first read the script for Casino Royale (22 Nov,
commanderbond.net/):
Upon finally seeing the Casino Royale script, Daniel
said, ‘Paul Haggis had sprinkled his magic dust on it. I
was honestly wanting to dislike it. It would have been
an easy decision. I could have said, “That’s very nice.
Good luck with it.” But it was too much. I sweated
when I read the script. I thought, this is a great story,
probably because it adhered to the book quite closely.’
Daniel, if I want the original, I’ll read the book! James
Bond (the movie) is not supposed to be James Bond
(the book). It can’t be, no matter how you try. When I
watch a James Bond movie and celebrate, I’m not
celebrating Ian Fleming’s James Bond, who is too
intellectual. Try him; published by Signet (1961), here
are the first 4 sentences of Thunderball (the book):
It was one of those days when it seemed to James Bond
that all life, as someone put it, was nothing but a heap
of six to four against.
To begin with he was ashamed of himself – a rare state
of mind. He had a hangover, a bad one, with an aching
head and stiff joints. When he coughed – smoking too
much goes with drinking too much and doubles the
hangover – a cloud of small luminous black spots swam
across his vision like amoebae in pond water.
Ian Fleming’s James Bond is psychologically intense
and intelligent in the book. You can’t create him in film
– you have to recreate him. If you create a James Bond
that is like that in the book, I can’t call that originality –
I can only call it lack of imagination.
And oh, yes, the first 2 sentences of Casino Royale (the
book) make my point even more clearly:
The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are
nauseating at three in the morning. Then the soul-
erosion produced by high gambling – a compost of
greed and fear and nervous tension – becomes
unbearable, and the senses awake and revolt from it.
Outside the book, I want my spy suave and
sophisticated, one that I am not. How can I fantasize if
I can see myself in him, if I can identify with him? I
must only be able to admire him, look at him as if he
were one of my friends, entirely different from me.
James Frazier describes the Bond he loves that’s not my
type either (21 Nov, fp.uni.edu/):
Each star had his own niche, from Connery’s macho
unflappability to Pierce Brosnan’s ice-cold lethality, and
Daniel is no exception. He portrays a significantly more
predatory killer that nonetheless carries a glimmer of
regret in his intelligent eyes.
My point exactly! Lethal is different from predatory.
Joe Williams doesn’t like my favorite Bond either and
describes Daniel Craig in Casino Royale in these terms
(17 Nov, stltoday.com/):
Daniel Craig is a fair-hair, bare-knuckle antidote to
Pierce Brosnan. Instead of depending on gadgets and
good looks, this Bond is stripped to his basic brutality.
I never did like any beast. Not even King Kong.
James Verniere puts it more bluntly describing the
James Bond he loves (21 Nov, townonline.com/):
Daniel is the real story. His Bond is a cold-hearted killer
and screaming madman who likes his sexual partners to
be married, but not to him. This Bond wears his
lacerations like a Marquis de Sade-approved badge of
honor.
Brute!
And what has Blair Tellers to say (21 Nov, whitworth.
edu/)?
As for the newest member of the Bond family, Daniel
Craig is, in a word, spectacular. Todd McCarthy of
Variety magazine along with an impressive multitude of
other movie critics, praises Daniel’s acting, describing
the reinvented Bond as ‘recharged with fresh roughness
and arrogance, along with balancing hints of sadism
and humanity.’
Et tu, Brute! I like the humanity but not the sadism.
(4) Casino Royale makes Bond a superhero.
James Bond is from the mind of Ian Fleming, not Stan
Lee; he’s a superspy, not a superhero. Kevin Cowherd
calls him in Daniel’s Casino Royale a ‘Marvel Comics
hero’ (20 Nov, baltimoresun.com/). Kevin writes
(excerpts):
In Casino Royale, Bond is tortured so much. In the
opening scene alone, Bond survives about three-dozen
brushes with death. … By the end of the movie, Bond
has been beaten, shot, whipped, poisoned, nearly run
over by a tanker truck, thrown from a speeding car and
almost drowned. … And tortured in a very, um, unique
way. … The point is, it’s so over-the-top, this physical
abuse, that it becomes cartoonish. Even for a Bond
movie. It’s Bond as-cyborg. Bond as Marvel Comics
hero. Bond able to withstand the kind of punishment no
human being – not even a bionic man – could withstand.
And so Kevin pleads, and so do I, Moviegoer:
No, Give me the old days, where all Bond had to sweat
was the occasional tarantula dropped on his pillow, or a
powerful laser inching toward his groin, or a nutty
Spectre agent who looked like your grandmother with a
stiletto hidden in her shoe. He never took the kind of
beating they give him in Casino Royale. Heck, back then
Bond would wipe out 20 vicious martial-arts-trained
hitmen and barely get a scratch on his face. Not a lick of
hair was out of place, either. I liked him a lot better
back then.
After all, Kevin says, remembering the good old days of
Bond:
As everyone knows, watching a James Bond movie
requires what the poet called ‘a willing suspension of
disbelief.’
Too much of a bad thing makes one a superhero. If I
wanted to watch a cartoon, I’ll watch Superman or
Batman or the Simpsons.
(5) Casino Royale makes Bond different.
I, Moviegoer am a Catholic, and I listen not only to non-
Catholics but also to other Catholics, even movie critics.
Here’s what Catholic David DiCerto says (22 Nov,
catholicnews.com/):
Some fans will applaud its harder-edged return to the
grittiness of Ian Fleming’s novels. Others may feel it’s
too dark and serious, and lacks the sense of campy fun
of earlier films. Both sides, however, will agree that
from its brutal prologue – shot in stylish black and
white – this is a different kind of Bond movie.
David, yes, it’s a different James Bond – It’s the one I
don’t like. It’s different from the previous James Bond
films – It’s the one that doesn’t thrill me at all.
Tim O’Connor describes the Casino Royale in these
words (21 Nov, purdueexponent.org/):
Right from the beginning, we’re treated to a stylistic
black and white flashback of Bond earning his
promotion. This opening is so cool you’ll wish the
entire movie were filmed this way. After that, there’s a
thrilling chase scene with Bond and his target running
across a construction site. Then, for the next hour,
nothing.
That hour is spent playing poker. Sherwin Das says of it
(22 Nov, baltictimes.com/):
Too much is built around the poker game which, for me,
is a tad more exciting than watching paint dry.
That’s 2 against this 1: Basil Deakin must be so in love
with Daniel’s Casino Royale he doesn’t see the soporific
poker hour that eats up the film he watches, and says
the opposite (23 Nov, thechronicleherald.ca/):
I regard the new movie as possibly the most exciting,
action-packed 007 epic of the 40-year-old, 21-strong
film series, with Daniel a riveting, hard-fisted Bond.
Okay, it’s most exciting – where there’s action, outside
of the hour-long poker game. Hard-fisted? That’s what’
s wrong with this Bond.
Let’s hear from Tim O’Connor again:
Bond movies are all about explosions, hot women and
one-liners. This movie has very little in the way of any
of those. The action is spaced too far apart to keep our
interest and the one-liners aren’t especially clever or
memorable.
The James Bond movie I find irresistible has the
explosion of explosives, expletives, women and wit.
Tim continues:
Another change for the series is its tone. Casino Royale
has a more somber tone than any previous Bond flick.
Die Another Day had a brief torture scene at the
beginning, but it was quick to return to a campy, fun
atmosphere. This time, the torture scene is longer and
more disturbing.
Campy, as in affectation or appreciation of manners and
tastes commonly thought to be artificial, vulgar, or
banal … appreciated for its humor (from American
Heritage Dictionary).
My James Bond is high camp.
Peter Travers tells us why he likes Daniel’s Casino
Royale (13 Nov, rollingstone.com/):
Not only is Daniel, 38, the best Bond since Sean
Connery, he’s the first of the Bonds (great Scot
Connery, one-shot George Lazenby, charmer Roger
Moore, stuff-shirt Timothy Dalton and smoothie Pierce
Brosnan) to lose the condescension and take the role
seriously.
Peter, I don’t want my James Bond to take his role
seriously. I want him to enjoy so I can enjoy too!
I hope Daniel Craig’s James Bond will finish with Casino
Royale. Meanwhile, we’re not finished with Tim O’
Connor who wants to finesse the whole thing:
One interesting question the movie brings up is how
does Bond deal with all the killing? How can one
cleanse his soul after taking another life? Unfortunately,
that question is never really answered and the dilemma
resolves itself by removing the inspiration for our hero’
s internal struggle. This is evidence that the Bond
franchise should let other films deal with such serious
questions, and you should just deal with another Bond
film.
I, Moviegoer want James Bond back!
Andrew Hard doesn’t see the subtle difference, but I
do; he says (15 Nov, foxnews.com/):
It’s a radical change from his predecessor: the suave,
ladies-man assassin played by Pierce Brosnan.
Andrew, you’re right about the radical change but, I
beg your pardon, James Bond is not an assassin. He is
licensed to kill, 007 is, but he kills neither for business
nor for pleasure. Rather, he kills under pressure.
The title of Basil Deakin’s review is this: ‘West needs
real Bond with brains over brawn’ (23 Nov). But, Basil,
they’re offering a Brawn, James Brawn.
Michael Calleri says (21 Nov, niagarafallsreporter.
com/): ‘In this new adventure … Daniel is a better
Bond because we are at the beginning. We learn how
Bond became Bond.’ That’s faulty logic: ‘better …
because … beginning.’ So far, I have yet to see better
logic with Casino Royale.
(6) Casino Royale leaves much to be desired.
I want more than Daniel Craig’s James Bond. Kevin
McQuarn puts the words right in my mouth, listing what
are/should not be there (23 Nov, 2theadvocate.com/):
(1) Not as many big explosions.
(2) This James Bond is blonde.
(3) No Q.
(4) No gadgets.
(5) Not enough hot cars.
(6) James Bond actually falls in love – with a ‘real’
woman.
(7) Daniel’s Bond reminds me too much of an
underwear model.
Perhaps producers Barbara and Michael are thinking of
their life after James Bond, going into the apparel
business?
Anthony Breznican dismisses Casino Royale in all but
one sentence, this one (16 Nov, usatoday.com/):
James Bond arrives at a ritzy tropical resort in a blue
Ford Mondeo, the kind of nice-but-everyday vehicle that
projects ‘suburban dad’ more than ‘superspy.’
I, Moviegoer don’t want your suburban dad; I want my
superspy.
Anthony quotes Daniel Craig as saying:
There’s a duty to fulfill here. Nobody is more aware of
the responsibility for this than me. I get that this is
incredibly important to a lot of people. It’s part of their
movie upbringing. My only plan is to deliver everything
I am.’
And the actor did. And I, Moviegoer did not like it.
Casino Royale made $42.2 M in 27 countries in its
opening weekend (NS, 22 Nov, playfuls.com/). That’s
quantity. What about quality? Ben Hoyle & Joanna Bale
quote Peter Taylor of Sony Pictures as saying (20 Nov,
timesonline.co.uk/):
It’s the most successful opening weekend of any Bond
film … we are delighted – it’s a great testament to the
quality of the movie.
Now I know $42.2 M is a record of sort, but then I don’t
know that quality can be measured by quantity.
(7) Casino Royale is not psy-fi.
When Ian Fleming thought, he was metaphorical; when
he typed, he was mechanical, which is beside the point.
By creating James Bond, Ian Fleming left me a legacy,
and I treasure it as a writer. That legacy John Cork
describes well (1995, klast.net/):
Fleming single-handedly transformed popular detective
and spy fiction from the dark, middle-class heroes of
Hammett, Chandler and Sapper, to the elegant world of
his own, seen through the eye of James Bond, secret
agent 007. Bond grew from the literary world of Edgar
Allan Poe, Ambrose Bierce, E Phillips Oppenheim, John
Buchan and Sax Rohmer.
Fleming argued that he created Bond as ‘an interesting
man to whom extraordinary things happen.’
That’s my man.
In Daniel Craig’s Casino Royale, the poetry is gone, that
wonderful character is gone. I call Ian Fleming’s James
Bond stories in book or movies, psy-fi, psychological
fiction. I invented the name; Ian Fleming invented the
genre.
Petri Liukkonen says of Ian Fleming (2000, kirjasto.sci.
fi/): ‘Fleming spent some years with British
intelligence, but his books are far from reality – they
offer colorful locations, beautiful women, and exciting
and inventive adventures.’ Precisely! A construction
site is not my kind of colorful location. And Eva Green is
not my kind of unreal beautiful woman; Daniel’s Casino
Royale is not kind of unreal adventure. It’s the story
that unmakes the film.
One book can’t define a genre; all 13 Bond books make
the series psy-fi. Daniel’s Casino Royale stands out as a
standalone film – no relation to the other Bond films.
James Bond is dead. Long live James Bond!?
Patrick Herald inadvertently puts it well, in these his
own words (20 Nov, svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/): ‘Due
to my less than all-encompassing knowledge of Bond,
this review will focus on Casino Royale as a standalone
film.’ He believes he can view Casino Royale apart from
the 20 other ‘official’ James Bond films produced
before. No Patrick, you can’t have one without the
others. Ignorance is not an excuse for not knowing.
James Bond is not James Bond if he can’t repeat his
adventures and miss-adventures in different stories in
different times. And I’m not indifferent to that.
Simon Hooper sums it all in 4 words, speaking of James
Bond as (15 Nov, edition.cnn.com/) ‘The world’s
favorite spy.’ I, Moviegoer don’t care about the world –
he’s my favorite spy, and that’s good enough for me.
Give him to me!
Peter Fulham is convinced when in praise of Daniel he
says (22 Nov, buffalonews.com/):
If Pierce Brosnan, who held the job for the past four
films, was the gentleman’s Bond, annoyingly suave and
relentlessly indestructible, Daniel is his infinitely cooler
younger cousin – gritty, brusque and deadly.
Ah, but you miss the point, Peter. I, Moviegoer want
him to be a gentleman’s Bond, and annoyingly suave,
and relentlessly indestructible – that’s what I call a
deadly combination
Daniel’s Casino Royale is so standalone that it stands
opposite all the other film Bonds. This is what I mean,
in the words of Andrew Hard (15 Nov, foxnews.com/):
Casino Royale offers a frightening new take on England’
s most famous spy – this grim-faced character played
by Daniel Craig is as menacing as any classic 007 villain.
Grim-faced? Daniel Craig doesn’t have to act at all.
James Bond as villain? Thereby Casino Royale turns
James Bond’s world upside down. But it’s okay – he’s
not my James Bond.
So, after all is said and done, who is my favorite James
Bond? Dean Kish’s favorite is Connery; he ignores mine
(23 Nov, realmovienews.com/):
No matter if your favorite Bond is Connery or Moore,
one thing is for sure that we always remember why we
love James Bond. The allure of the world of espionage
and intrigue, of course.
Of course. And my favorite Bond is Brosnan, Pierce
Brosnan. Having said that, I better beware of Simon
Winder; Simon says of the films of my beloved Bond (18
Nov, nytimes.com/):
The film Casino Royale is a remake based on the first of
Ian Fleming’s Bond books: an attempt to return the
character to his roots, a fresh beginning after the
increasingly witless Pierce Brosnan years. In
astrological terms, this is the equivalent of several
planets or suns or whatever being perfectly aligned.
Will Bond’s latest rebirth usher in some new era in our
history?
The Brosnan years witless? I’m witness otherwise. If
you don’t recognize wit, you’re without.
But Simon insists. With Brosnan as Bond, Simon says:
I have always felt Mr Brosnan was a false prophet – a
figure more at home modeling chunky watches or
conservative suits than fulfilling Bond’s homicidal and
sexual core competences. But the scale of his films’
success at last banished Mr Connery’s ghost. His
followers may have been misled, but there could be no
arguing with the immense, fervid crowds Mr Brosnan
could draw.
So Simple Simon says. ‘Core competences’ eh? Simon,
when I watch James Bond, I don’t want to learn about
management, not even about core values. The heart of
James Bond, yes; and it is this: international intrigue
internalized intelligently & individually. You can call
them The 5 Is of Bond, James Bond.
And Simon, I, Moviegoer say I make that passionate
crowd, and my number is legion. Misled? I love the
Pierce Brosnan that Simon says he hates. And the one
that Michael Phillips pontificates on (15 Nov,
chicagotribune.com/):
For a long time now, the James Bond franchise has
been operating with a license to overkill. That license
has been revoked by Casino Royale. It doesn’t even feel
like a Bond film as we have come to expect (each of)
them, in their numbing, increasingly gadget-dependent
gigantism. No death rays from space this time. No
invisible car. For once, most of the laws of physics are
given due respect.
Michael, physics has nothing to do with entertainment.
I am after entertainment, not respect for the laws of
physics. Science is too serious for entertainment if you’
re not Isaac Azimov or Ray Bradbury or Arthur Clarke.
Else, science doesn’t make sense to the I, Moviegoer.
Jeremy Reynolds walks softly talking about the new
Bond movie, but he too trips (20 Nov, dailytoreador.
com/):
Casino Royale is a gritty James Bond masterpiece that
redefines what the series could be – minus all the
British-charm fluff. Daniel Craig … takes over where
Pierce Brosnan left off. Daniel is a younger, blue-eyed,
blond-haired Bond who is still wet behind the ears and
allows his arrogance to overshadow his brains.
Jeremy, my Bond is more brain than brawn – that’s why
he survives. When he kills, he thrills.
Oh! And my dear TP says it quite frankly that I do give a
damn (19 Nov, teluguportal.net/):
This movie, in many ways, is the antithesis of the Bond
archetype. Apart from the simpler action sequences,
there are no one-liners, sexual innuendos and hi-tech
gadgets.
Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. Following Hegelian
thought, you can’t have an antithesis without a thesis
first.
My thesis: The Bond archetype is the one that
moviegoers favor in their individual dialectic. And as
customers, they are always right.
At 66, I am suddenly grown up, thanks to Daniel Craig.
I don’t like James Bond anymore.
My synthesis: Pierce Brosnan as James Bond sharpens
all my senses. Now that he’s Gone, James Gone, I’m
going back to reading James Bond as he sharpens my
mind. I’ll leave the broccoli soup to Barbara. They don’t
make it like they used to anymore.
Casino Royale (the book) was published in 1953 by
Jonathan Cape in London (commanderbond.net/), the
first of Ian Fleming’s 13 James Bond novels. I have
read many of them and admired Fleming’s passionate,
cerebral 007. Everything was right in all those books,
everything about this superspy. Most anything was
right about the first 20 James Bond movies; most
anything is wrong with Casino Royale, the 21st Bond
film. Here, James Bond wins millions in the poker game
but loses millions of his fans. He survives the
assassination attempts but he will not survive the
series.
Is Daniel Craig the new emperor of psy-fi? The child in
Kimberly Last has been looking at the photos and now
she tells me (email), 'The emperor has no clothes.'
What else is there to say? Daniel Craig's James Bond
chains us, the legion of movie boomers, to the new
dialectic of Broccoli & Wilson, producers who, not being
perfect, forgot to ask the customers what they want.
Boomers of the world, unite: You have nothing to lose
but your chains!
|
|
