Triumphantly Superfluous
December 12, 2014 9:57 PM Subscribe
A perfect excuse to repost 2010’s most interest comment, wuwei’s “We're all Jason Bourne now.”
posted by migurski at 11:02 PM on December 12, 2014 [5 favorites]
I don’t mean silly on the level of Craig vaulting off a charging Komodo dragon in Skyfall, I mean silly on the level of the following Wikipedia sentence: “Albert R. Broccoli is credited with adding steel teeth to the character.” Mix in enough submersible Lotus Esprits, cello cases repurposed as Alpine gun sleds, radioactive lint, and Timothy Dalton, and your revanchist political movement starts to look pretty toothless.
Mixing so many different elements together into one bag of 'silly' just makes the author look silly.
1. Jaws' teeth - it's a gimmick, sure, but not as silly as he's making it out to be. As a Bond film gimmick, it's perhaps one of the most tame one out there. The character did become silly over time, as his role in Moonraker showed how silly they were really going to go, but it's hard to blame him, as that film is almost nonstop torrent of silly, and no one in that film escapes being drowned in embarrassment. I mean Moonraker makes Megaforce look as serious as 12 Angry Men.
2. Submersible Lotus Esprit - I always thought it was a rather cool car, and far more practical, useful, and reasonable than a car ejector seat. The problem was in how it was presented - in that irritatingly whimsical way that plagued the Roger Moore era films along with the infuriating way most of the stunts of that era were presented, that almost always seemed to be a lame attempt to create some comedy mix of Jacques Tati and those "Just Kidding" prank videos.
3. Cello Cases as sleds - no argument there. Silly. I blame the whimsy stunt trend of the 80s.
4. Radioactive Lint - It was at least based on an actual thing used by the KGB back in the day. Not silly, but could have been done better.
5. Timothy Dalton - Not so much silly as just an unfortunate choice. Maybe there was a way for it to have worked, but certainly not with that script.
The Bond franchise still has a good bit of life in it if we're lucky enough to have the right people making the decisions about the direction it goes. The Craig films aren't perfect, but I am actually reasonably impressed by how they are approaching the character. I hope they explore further the gray area in Bond's character that between the cold-blooded psychopath that the job sometimes requires and the efforts by his masters and Bond himself to keep himself from going too far and becoming like the soulless murder machines portrayed in the early films as SPECTRE/Soviet assassins. (I'm looking at you, Red Grant)
posted by chambers at 11:14 PM on December 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
Mixing so many different elements together into one bag of 'silly' just makes the author look silly.
1. Jaws' teeth - it's a gimmick, sure, but not as silly as he's making it out to be. As a Bond film gimmick, it's perhaps one of the most tame one out there. The character did become silly over time, as his role in Moonraker showed how silly they were really going to go, but it's hard to blame him, as that film is almost nonstop torrent of silly, and no one in that film escapes being drowned in embarrassment. I mean Moonraker makes Megaforce look as serious as 12 Angry Men.
2. Submersible Lotus Esprit - I always thought it was a rather cool car, and far more practical, useful, and reasonable than a car ejector seat. The problem was in how it was presented - in that irritatingly whimsical way that plagued the Roger Moore era films along with the infuriating way most of the stunts of that era were presented, that almost always seemed to be a lame attempt to create some comedy mix of Jacques Tati and those "Just Kidding" prank videos.
3. Cello Cases as sleds - no argument there. Silly. I blame the whimsy stunt trend of the 80s.
4. Radioactive Lint - It was at least based on an actual thing used by the KGB back in the day. Not silly, but could have been done better.
5. Timothy Dalton - Not so much silly as just an unfortunate choice. Maybe there was a way for it to have worked, but certainly not with that script.
The Bond franchise still has a good bit of life in it if we're lucky enough to have the right people making the decisions about the direction it goes. The Craig films aren't perfect, but I am actually reasonably impressed by how they are approaching the character. I hope they explore further the gray area in Bond's character that between the cold-blooded psychopath that the job sometimes requires and the efforts by his masters and Bond himself to keep himself from going too far and becoming like the soulless murder machines portrayed in the early films as SPECTRE/Soviet assassins. (I'm looking at you, Red Grant)
posted by chambers at 11:14 PM on December 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
Skyfall was a damn fine film, Bond or no.
posted by fullerine at 12:13 AM on December 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by fullerine at 12:13 AM on December 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
This makes it sound as if Bond were a meditation on Britain's place in the world; but the international film-going audience would not have signed up for 24 films about that.
Actually Bond is just the leading archetype of the secret agent. The British angle lends a bit of complexity which would be missing if he were American, but it's superficial. He actually doesn't fit the pattern of an English gentleman particularly well. He has zero sense of fair play or honour. He is obsessed with luxury brands and goods and other markers of status which for a gent would be rather vulgar and suggest insecurity. If he were really the kind of Englishman he's supposed to be he would probably be wearing shirts inherited from his grandfather and his suits would be twenty years behind the fashion. The reliance on absurd gadgets feels more American (or even Japanese).
But Bond doesn't have to make sense - his qualities are determined by what's commercial.
posted by Segundus at 12:25 AM on December 13, 2014 [5 favorites]
Actually Bond is just the leading archetype of the secret agent. The British angle lends a bit of complexity which would be missing if he were American, but it's superficial. He actually doesn't fit the pattern of an English gentleman particularly well. He has zero sense of fair play or honour. He is obsessed with luxury brands and goods and other markers of status which for a gent would be rather vulgar and suggest insecurity. If he were really the kind of Englishman he's supposed to be he would probably be wearing shirts inherited from his grandfather and his suits would be twenty years behind the fashion. The reliance on absurd gadgets feels more American (or even Japanese).
But Bond doesn't have to make sense - his qualities are determined by what's commercial.
posted by Segundus at 12:25 AM on December 13, 2014 [5 favorites]
Casino Royale, the first Bond novel, includes a sadomasochistic torture scene — it’s repeated in the 2006 Craig movie — wherein the villain pummels Bond’s testicles with a carpet beater; could there have been a louder declaration that British manhood was Fleming’s real quarry?
Lord save us from critics.
posted by Palindromedary at 2:16 AM on December 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
Lord save us from critics.
posted by Palindromedary at 2:16 AM on December 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
Mrs Segundus disagrees with me; she says it is about the British Empire, which she says has the same kind of appeal as dinosaurs; big, scary, and safely extinct.
posted by Segundus at 2:29 AM on December 13, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by Segundus at 2:29 AM on December 13, 2014 [6 favorites]
Migurski, thanks for the excellent link!
posted by tychotesla at 2:37 AM on December 13, 2014
posted by tychotesla at 2:37 AM on December 13, 2014
He actually doesn't fit the pattern of an English gentleman particularly well.
Duh.
Bond has always been the aspirational secret agent. If you want the true gentleman spy, you're looking for George Smiley.
posted by MartinWisse at 3:11 AM on December 13, 2014 [11 favorites]
Duh.
Bond has always been the aspirational secret agent. If you want the true gentleman spy, you're looking for George Smiley.
posted by MartinWisse at 3:11 AM on December 13, 2014 [11 favorites]
I agree with the author about the silliness of the films being integral to enjoyment of them. These new films have tried to be more serious, but they're still doing it a little, what with the komodo dragons and Bond rebooting his own heart and Javier Bardem's cartoony collapsible face. The next film could right back to knife-throwing clowns and murder lasers and I'd be fine with that.
I learned not so terribly long ago that both Patrick McGoohan and Jeremy Brett were considered to play Bond at some point. Both would have been amazing.
posted by heatvision at 4:01 AM on December 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
I learned not so terribly long ago that both Patrick McGoohan and Jeremy Brett were considered to play Bond at some point. Both would have been amazing.
posted by heatvision at 4:01 AM on December 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
McGoohan is what happens if James Bond quits MI6.
"You are 007."
"I am not a number, I am a free man!"
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 4:10 AM on December 13, 2014 [4 favorites]
"You are 007."
"I am not a number, I am a free man!"
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 4:10 AM on December 13, 2014 [4 favorites]
The next film could right back to knife-throwing clowns and murder lasers and I'd be fine with that.
For the moment, the next film is called Spectre and Christoph Waltz is playing Blofeld. The rumors hint that they're remaking You Only Live Twice, and I'm all for a ninja army assaulting a volcano lair and Waltz throwing people to the piranha pool.
posted by sukeban at 4:19 AM on December 13, 2014 [4 favorites]
For the moment, the next film is called Spectre and Christoph Waltz is playing Blofeld. The rumors hint that they're remaking You Only Live Twice, and I'm all for a ninja army assaulting a volcano lair and Waltz throwing people to the piranha pool.
posted by sukeban at 4:19 AM on December 13, 2014 [4 favorites]
Speaking of the submersible Lotus Esprit, one of the prop cars was recently sold on ebay.
posted by smcameron at 4:29 AM on December 13, 2014
posted by smcameron at 4:29 AM on December 13, 2014
It's going to be hard to watch Bond after all the recent revelations about the UK's actual intelligence services. I mean, a modern Bond would be on social terms with the guy who straps prisoners into diapers for a secret flight via Diego Garcia and audits torture sessions run by guys that work for Assad or Muammar Gadaffi.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:23 AM on December 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:23 AM on December 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
According to my sources, the next Bond film is called Trigger Warning. And let's face it, Craig will never come close to Roy Orbison's Bond from A Smidgeon of Tact, let alone the impeccable performances of Mirsad Turkoglu in I Was Not Expecting Company or Do Not Look Upon My Face (Turkish markets only).
posted by oulipian at 5:32 AM on December 13, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by oulipian at 5:32 AM on December 13, 2014 [3 favorites]
If you want the true gentleman spy, you're looking for George Smiley.
Well, no. I'm looking for John Steed.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:51 AM on December 13, 2014 [8 favorites]
Well, no. I'm looking for John Steed.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:51 AM on December 13, 2014 [8 favorites]
I still can't get into James Blond, no matter what.
Visually, I consider Pierce Brosnan to be the ultimate Bond. As an actor, it's a close tie with Sean Connery.
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:52 AM on December 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
Visually, I consider Pierce Brosnan to be the ultimate Bond. As an actor, it's a close tie with Sean Connery.
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:52 AM on December 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
I watched (part of?) one of the Daniel Craig Bond movies. I can't remember which one it was. But I was really struck by how mundane and silly it was and how obvious it was that the Bond franchise had been eclipsed by reality/technology and how I would love to see a good theorist examine why this was. I was thinking about my exuberant wonder as a child watching Bond movies, how absolutely thrilling they were, how they carried a whole world of suggestiveness and mystery and romance, fueled by the idea of Bond as the ultimately resourceful, completely equipped, effortlessly debonair spy. And today, perhaps because we are flooded with spy movies largely inspired by and informed by Bond, we are much more jaded and less easily impressed. In the one I saw, Craig did not seem to be Bond; he just seemed to be a guy. I don't know if this makes any sense, but the magic of the old movies was that at any given moment you were fully aware that this was JAMES BOND and you fully expected to be dazzled and surprised. In the Craig movie, I never felt that frisson of Bondness ... it just seems that we live in times where that frisson is impossible. He just seemed like an ordinary person and any derring-do was just ... yawn. I actually felt the pain of the screenwriters, they HAVE to be frustrated trying to make this stuff work, it has to be something they feel, the impossibility of conjuring that old Bond magic.
posted by jayder at 6:09 AM on December 13, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by jayder at 6:09 AM on December 13, 2014 [3 favorites]
The reboot is going to be You Only Post Twice, the ninjas are mods and the volcano is a server farm. You read it here first. It's going to by Luke Wilson's comeback vehicle; he's "Pat Caughey", a maniacal blogger set on torrenting every premium cable show unless his demands are met.
posted by Renoroc at 6:11 AM on December 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Renoroc at 6:11 AM on December 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
Spectre? I thought the next Bond movie was Live Free or Die.
posted by drdanger at 6:11 AM on December 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by drdanger at 6:11 AM on December 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
If you spliced together the best parts from all the Bond films, you'd wind up with one pretty solid flick. My favourite is probably Die Another Day; every time my wife and I go up to her parents' place for Christmas we seem to stumble across it on cable. Watching it and laughing our asses off (invisible car! Madonna! Ice palace! Surfing! Sooooo many product placements!) has turned into a holiday tradition.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:27 AM on December 13, 2014
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:27 AM on December 13, 2014
He named the character after the author of a guide to West Indian bird-watching, because he thought it was “the dullest name I ever heard.”
Given our romantic associations with the name James Bond, it's almost impossible to conceive the way contemporary readers of Fleming reacted to "James Bond" when they first encountered these words on a page. They're people who, a few decades earlier, were reading stories and novels about secret agents with dashing, polysyllabic names--such as John Ashenden, the hero (and author's doppelganger) of several secret agent stories by Somerset Maugham. "James Bond," to the earliest readers of the first editions, seemed like a name more appropriate to a fishmonger, banker or insurance agent. Its two syllables seem steeped in blandness.
But that's the way Fleming wanted it. Bond wasn't an agent who, like earlier heroes, lived and breathed a life immersed in romance and adventure 24/7/365. Instead, he was a government employee who, by pure luck or happenstance, was assigned to the field and able experience adventures no more than once or twice a year, at most. The majority of his existence consisted of down-time, during which he recuperated from his last assignment in hospital, prepared for a future outing, or simply occupied his time by pushing papers across a desk. He was the epitome of the post-WWII civil servant.
Fleming lays out the mundane details of a Bond day in the first chapter of "Moonracker." He gets up at an early hour and speeds off to work a vintage Bentley, one of the hero's few indulgences. For the rest of the morning, he reads intelligence briefings and reports, chain smoking custom made cigarettes. For these labors he's paid a mid-level civil servant's salary, about $60,000 if adjusted for inflation. He lives alone, looked after by an ancient servant. On weekends, he plays golf, gambles or pursues affairs. Fleming is quick to note that these love affairs involve, for the most part, married women. In other words, they're a far cry from the assignations with supermodels or superactresses like Barbara Bach or Halle Barry. Whether on weekdays at his desk, or on weekends, Bond's existence in England is nondescript, lonely, and a little sad. It is the consummate life of a government drone in the years after World War II.
The other part of Bond's life--the annual or biannual adventures he's thrust into by fate--are definitely romantic, at least on the surface, and certainly include their share of romance with attractive partners. But the Bond character portrayed in them, at least in the books I've read, is the opposite of "experienced, precise, quick-thinking, unsentimental, and witty." He's frequently bumbling, awkward, and inefficient. He makes amateurish mistakes. He's fearful and hesitant. His enemies take advantage of him, tripping him up, surprising him unawares and knocking him out from behind. Most importantly, he's leagues distant from the Jason Bourne-esque lone wolf of the movie series. Bond in the Fleming novels is assisted in the field by a revolving crew of advisers, CIA agents, and helpers, of whom the most prominent is Felix Leiter, the CIA agent who is much more active in the books than in the movies, and often functions like a sidekick.
In "Dr. No," the first movie of the series, you can get an inkling of what Bond would have been like if the producers had stuck closer to the original archetype of the novels. His gallery of helpers and sidekicks include Leiter, Honey Rider, and the boat captain Quarrel. His tailored suits are few and far between; he's often wearing a bathing suit or a dirty, tattered T-shirt. His emotions, particularly fear, are on full view. When Bond and Honey Rider enter Dr. No's lair, they're holding hands, and Bond, apologetically, tells Honey "Don't worry. My hands are sweaty too." This is the everyman civil servant of the original books, who is trained and competent, for the most part, but also slightly awed at his latest adventure and wracked by emotions that any reader would be familiar with.
The movies quickly strayed from this model into escapist fantasy. That's why I think it's exciting to return, from time to time, to the books, and the dull, prosaic character who inhabits the name "James Bond."
posted by Gordion Knott at 9:58 AM on December 13, 2014 [25 favorites]
Given our romantic associations with the name James Bond, it's almost impossible to conceive the way contemporary readers of Fleming reacted to "James Bond" when they first encountered these words on a page. They're people who, a few decades earlier, were reading stories and novels about secret agents with dashing, polysyllabic names--such as John Ashenden, the hero (and author's doppelganger) of several secret agent stories by Somerset Maugham. "James Bond," to the earliest readers of the first editions, seemed like a name more appropriate to a fishmonger, banker or insurance agent. Its two syllables seem steeped in blandness.
But that's the way Fleming wanted it. Bond wasn't an agent who, like earlier heroes, lived and breathed a life immersed in romance and adventure 24/7/365. Instead, he was a government employee who, by pure luck or happenstance, was assigned to the field and able experience adventures no more than once or twice a year, at most. The majority of his existence consisted of down-time, during which he recuperated from his last assignment in hospital, prepared for a future outing, or simply occupied his time by pushing papers across a desk. He was the epitome of the post-WWII civil servant.
Fleming lays out the mundane details of a Bond day in the first chapter of "Moonracker." He gets up at an early hour and speeds off to work a vintage Bentley, one of the hero's few indulgences. For the rest of the morning, he reads intelligence briefings and reports, chain smoking custom made cigarettes. For these labors he's paid a mid-level civil servant's salary, about $60,000 if adjusted for inflation. He lives alone, looked after by an ancient servant. On weekends, he plays golf, gambles or pursues affairs. Fleming is quick to note that these love affairs involve, for the most part, married women. In other words, they're a far cry from the assignations with supermodels or superactresses like Barbara Bach or Halle Barry. Whether on weekdays at his desk, or on weekends, Bond's existence in England is nondescript, lonely, and a little sad. It is the consummate life of a government drone in the years after World War II.
The other part of Bond's life--the annual or biannual adventures he's thrust into by fate--are definitely romantic, at least on the surface, and certainly include their share of romance with attractive partners. But the Bond character portrayed in them, at least in the books I've read, is the opposite of "experienced, precise, quick-thinking, unsentimental, and witty." He's frequently bumbling, awkward, and inefficient. He makes amateurish mistakes. He's fearful and hesitant. His enemies take advantage of him, tripping him up, surprising him unawares and knocking him out from behind. Most importantly, he's leagues distant from the Jason Bourne-esque lone wolf of the movie series. Bond in the Fleming novels is assisted in the field by a revolving crew of advisers, CIA agents, and helpers, of whom the most prominent is Felix Leiter, the CIA agent who is much more active in the books than in the movies, and often functions like a sidekick.
In "Dr. No," the first movie of the series, you can get an inkling of what Bond would have been like if the producers had stuck closer to the original archetype of the novels. His gallery of helpers and sidekicks include Leiter, Honey Rider, and the boat captain Quarrel. His tailored suits are few and far between; he's often wearing a bathing suit or a dirty, tattered T-shirt. His emotions, particularly fear, are on full view. When Bond and Honey Rider enter Dr. No's lair, they're holding hands, and Bond, apologetically, tells Honey "Don't worry. My hands are sweaty too." This is the everyman civil servant of the original books, who is trained and competent, for the most part, but also slightly awed at his latest adventure and wracked by emotions that any reader would be familiar with.
The movies quickly strayed from this model into escapist fantasy. That's why I think it's exciting to return, from time to time, to the books, and the dull, prosaic character who inhabits the name "James Bond."
posted by Gordion Knott at 9:58 AM on December 13, 2014 [25 favorites]
In the Craig movie, I never felt that frisson of Bondness ... it just seems that we live in times where that frisson is impossible. He just seemed like an ordinary person
I was going to say that CraigBond is much closer to the book/originalBond, but Gordion Knott naaaaaaaaailed it.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:05 PM on December 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
I was going to say that CraigBond is much closer to the book/originalBond, but Gordion Knott naaaaaaaaailed it.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:05 PM on December 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
Word on the street is that the Spectre script was stolen in the Sony eBreak-In and #GOP is going to release it. Guess we'll all know pretty soon what's going on.
posted by JoeZydeco at 3:27 PM on December 13, 2014
posted by JoeZydeco at 3:27 PM on December 13, 2014
I mean, a modern Bond would be on social terms with the guy who straps prisoners into diapers for a secret flight via Diego Garcia and audits torture sessions run by guys that work for Assad or Muammar Gadaffi.
I've never really felt that the recent Bonds were too far from that anyway. Certainly bits of Casino Royale (the nad-smashing, for starters) had that seedy, evil feel about them.
posted by ambrosen at 5:27 PM on December 13, 2014
I've never really felt that the recent Bonds were too far from that anyway. Certainly bits of Casino Royale (the nad-smashing, for starters) had that seedy, evil feel about them.
posted by ambrosen at 5:27 PM on December 13, 2014
The nad-smashing scene involved the bad guy being evil. I think what Joe in Australia was saying was that the Bond-of-now would be the nad-smasher, or at least on good terms with.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:43 PM on December 13, 2014
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:43 PM on December 13, 2014
Yeah, basically. The defining thing about Bond is that he's a "00" agent with a "license to kill". This meant something, once: we presumed that other agents were forbidden to kill people and were potentially in a lot of trouble if they did. Bond's license set him above and apart from other agents; his purity was demonstrated by the fact that he was one of the very few people entrusted with doing the dirty work of a state that otherwise flinched away from extrajudicial punishment.
I think now we have a different frame of mind. We know what actually happens to killers, at least ones working for the USA: nothing very much, perhaps a promotion as a way of saying "fuck you" to the human-rights types. There's no longer any mystique about a license to kill. In fact, it would be more remarkable if Bond were like Batman and had a phobia about taking life. That might actually make a good story. A license to kill? You don't need a license for that; if there's no prospect of punishment then everybody has a license.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:11 PM on December 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think now we have a different frame of mind. We know what actually happens to killers, at least ones working for the USA: nothing very much, perhaps a promotion as a way of saying "fuck you" to the human-rights types. There's no longer any mystique about a license to kill. In fact, it would be more remarkable if Bond were like Batman and had a phobia about taking life. That might actually make a good story. A license to kill? You don't need a license for that; if there's no prospect of punishment then everybody has a license.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:11 PM on December 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
Interesting point, Joe in Australia. I'm now curious whether the current iteration of the Bond movies (the Craig Bond movies) appeal more to younger audiences than older ones. There's already the issue that older audiences are used to a sillier, more playful Bond (while younger audiences associate that with Austin Powers and other spoofs). Younger audiences (who mostly grew up post 9/11) have lower/no expectations that Bond will restrict his killing, avoid torturing his enemies, or associating with people who do so--while older audiences may expect that Bond will continue to act the gentleman (if so, the Craig films are likely to be somewhat disappointing).
Full disclosure, Skyfall was absolutely my favorite Bond film ever. I fell into a damn rabbit hole (to be specific, a rabbit hole made of fanfic). Why?
-You throw that many talented actors (Judi Dench most especially but let's not leave out Craig, Fiennes, Bardem, Finney, etc.) into an average-to-good story and they class up the joint. IMDB counts something like 41 Oscar nominations between the key players of the film and it shows
-I really like the snappy dialogue, especially between Dench's M and Craig's Bond
-Any movie to which I can take my dad and we both have a good time is a win-win in my book
-Adele's song got stuck in my head before I saw the movie and it was a pleasure to match the lyrics to the moments
So I'm half dreading the newest Bond film because there will be no Dench and because the bar was set somewhat high with the last movie. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.
posted by librarylis at 9:59 PM on December 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
Full disclosure, Skyfall was absolutely my favorite Bond film ever. I fell into a damn rabbit hole (to be specific, a rabbit hole made of fanfic). Why?
-You throw that many talented actors (Judi Dench most especially but let's not leave out Craig, Fiennes, Bardem, Finney, etc.) into an average-to-good story and they class up the joint. IMDB counts something like 41 Oscar nominations between the key players of the film and it shows
-I really like the snappy dialogue, especially between Dench's M and Craig's Bond
-Any movie to which I can take my dad and we both have a good time is a win-win in my book
-Adele's song got stuck in my head before I saw the movie and it was a pleasure to match the lyrics to the moments
So I'm half dreading the newest Bond film because there will be no Dench and because the bar was set somewhat high with the last movie. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.
posted by librarylis at 9:59 PM on December 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
A friend of mine has a series of essays about the Bond films that seems relevant to this discussion, including books vs. films and various interpretations of Bond's character over time. It may be of interest! (But it's long, so pack a sandwich or two.)
posted by Shmuel510 at 11:56 PM on December 13, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Shmuel510 at 11:56 PM on December 13, 2014 [3 favorites]
The essay links are at the bottom of the page to which Shmuel510 linked to.
posted by I-baLL at 8:10 AM on December 14, 2014
posted by I-baLL at 8:10 AM on December 14, 2014
"Fleming first conceived Bond as a “blunt instrument,” a dim man to whom exciting things happened."
To fit this description see:
OSS cent dix-sept
posted by bird internet at 10:52 AM on December 14, 2014
To fit this description see:
OSS cent dix-sept
posted by bird internet at 10:52 AM on December 14, 2014
fullerine: Skyfall was a damn fine film, Bond or no.
Skyfall was also a damn fine film about Bond's world from the POV of another character; it's the only "Bond" film in which Bond plays a supporting role.
It's a "Bond" film in the sense that Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is a Nick Fury TV series.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:31 PM on December 14, 2014
Skyfall was also a damn fine film about Bond's world from the POV of another character; it's the only "Bond" film in which Bond plays a supporting role.
It's a "Bond" film in the sense that Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is a Nick Fury TV series.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:31 PM on December 14, 2014
I learned not so terribly long ago that both Patrick McGoohan and Jeremy Brett were considered to play Bond at some point. Both would have been amazing.
If McGoohan was picked, he would have never done more than a film or two, and while he was quite good in Danger Man, and excellent in The Prisoner (a show which I think is one of the absolute best TV shows ever made), he just doesn't have either version of James Bond in him - he's got too much going on inside him to be the Bond from the novels, and the movie Bond seems to have a lot of qualities he finds silly or irritating. Add his ego to his controlling, rebellious, contrarian nature to the mix, and he'd have eventually demanded full creative control if the first couple films had been successes, and would have simply walked away from it.
Jeremy Brett, however... hmmm. That's interesting. A little googling shows he was considered for it back in 1973. I could actually see that working pretty well for a while, but I think he found a far more perfectly-fitted role for himself with Sherlock Holmes.
For me, I think the ideal Bond would be kind of a British version of Lemmy Caution. Though it would have to be Godard's Alphaville version, not the earlier incarnations (of the few I have seen) where he often comes off as too much of a smug asshole. Don't get me wrong, Caution was still a bit of an asshole in Alphaville, but it usually only came out when he was irritated or provoked, as he was more of a calloused spy who seemed to have stopped giving a shit about a lot of things (but not everything) a long time ago.
posted by chambers at 6:21 PM on December 15, 2014
If McGoohan was picked, he would have never done more than a film or two, and while he was quite good in Danger Man, and excellent in The Prisoner (a show which I think is one of the absolute best TV shows ever made), he just doesn't have either version of James Bond in him - he's got too much going on inside him to be the Bond from the novels, and the movie Bond seems to have a lot of qualities he finds silly or irritating. Add his ego to his controlling, rebellious, contrarian nature to the mix, and he'd have eventually demanded full creative control if the first couple films had been successes, and would have simply walked away from it.
Jeremy Brett, however... hmmm. That's interesting. A little googling shows he was considered for it back in 1973. I could actually see that working pretty well for a while, but I think he found a far more perfectly-fitted role for himself with Sherlock Holmes.
For me, I think the ideal Bond would be kind of a British version of Lemmy Caution. Though it would have to be Godard's Alphaville version, not the earlier incarnations (of the few I have seen) where he often comes off as too much of a smug asshole. Don't get me wrong, Caution was still a bit of an asshole in Alphaville, but it usually only came out when he was irritated or provoked, as he was more of a calloused spy who seemed to have stopped giving a shit about a lot of things (but not everything) a long time ago.
posted by chambers at 6:21 PM on December 15, 2014
" There's already the issue that older audiences are used to a sillier, more playful Bond (while younger audiences associate that with Austin Powers and other spoofs)"
You know, after watching "Department S", "Jason King", "Our Man Flint", "In Like Flint", and the Harry Palmer movies, I realize that Austin Powers is not a parody of James Bond at all though Dr. Evil is most obviously a parody of Blofeld.
posted by I-baLL at 9:30 AM on December 16, 2014
You know, after watching "Department S", "Jason King", "Our Man Flint", "In Like Flint", and the Harry Palmer movies, I realize that Austin Powers is not a parody of James Bond at all though Dr. Evil is most obviously a parody of Blofeld.
posted by I-baLL at 9:30 AM on December 16, 2014
« Older Radio Soulwax: The Final Mix and its Twenty-Three... | The Fall of THQ Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments