My 007 essay !

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

I have been contributing quite a bit to AICN talkbacks on Casino Royale. In an attempt to get a point across I kinda got carried away and ended up typing a bloody essay ! Still, I thought I would reproduce it over here for your perusal :

BOND OF HIS TIME

The point is completely missed by those who argue that Brosnan is a better Bond than Moore, and Connery more than Lazenby etc. etc. in the same way it is completely missed by the abhorrent idea of "Let's do a retro Bond set in the 60's" etc.

If you prefer Connery to Brosnan then go watch his films over Pierce's. If you want a retro Bond then grab one from the shelf. That is the absolute beauty of the Bond franchise beyond all other series of movies.

The fact is that Bond is always completely OF HIS TIME! Whilst the character is a constant despite the relentless passage of time, standing reliably against an ever moving backdrop the portrayal of that character is always highly reflective of the period in which the character exists.

Connery from the early and mid 60's with his thuggish brutality yet charm perfectly capturing Britains post-war mood both at home and abroad even though they were diametrically opposed to one another.

Lazenby with easy charm but thumping right hook that the audiences wanted to believe symbolised where the Western world was in 1969.

Moore with the combination of the frivolity of the late later 70's and then the "greed is good" materialism and yuppie era of the early 80's.

Dalton back to the harder... yet somehow more sensitive late 80's with the rise of "new man" and AIDS scaring the world, against the backdrop of the uncertainty of the end of Communism and the demise of a sure-fire enemy. A reluctant and flawed hero sometimes, before such heroes had even become majorly desirable in big budget action films.

Brosnan then re-launched the franchise with, to be fair, a great amalgamation of his predecessors yet with a great anger when required, and just enough cheekiness to counter it. A stuffed shirt secret agent in a time of Cool Britannia, globalisation and a rise in global knowledge and awareness never before seen.... and he pulls it off !

As for Daniel Craig. You will have to wait and see. What does the 21st century hold for us ?

So far it is a climate of fear, crisis of confidence in our leaders but a real hope they will lead us out of it, a need for protection, a shadowy and mysterious enemy we don't understand, already in our midst. An uncertain world where sometimes bad things have to be done to protect what we see as good.

We sometimes want to believe that out there, in the grey areas on the tacit edge of what we find acceptable there may be people such as 007 operating in ways that whilst may not be exactly palatable, they do at least serve to try and protect us.

This is what Craigs Bond will be about, and when you think about it, isn't it quite close to the 60's Connery, cold war and retro Bond some of you yearn for ?

This is all part of what makes this character great. Those of you that glibly ask "Are they still making these films (snigger)?" yes they are and yes they will continue to. And "Why is this character relevent?" etc. I hate to dissappoint you, he always has been and he always will be.

[Boromir006]

I feel this is likely far too intelligent for the typical AICN talkbacker. (Though I am amused by the guy who suggests Hulk Hogan for the bad guy in every movie ever discussed on there.)

Nice job, brother!

[Cooper]

An A+, DCD. Well said.

[LeiterCIA]

... in the same way it is completely missed by the abhorrent idea of "Let's do a retro Bond set in the 60's" Hey... I resemble that remark!
:smirk:

[Kara Milovy]

I was waiting for Leiter to answer...that's all you have to say, Felix? ;)

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

I just think that due to the precedent and constant forward movement a retro Bond is an irrelevent betrayal of the character, the franchise and the fans.

As I said in my original essay, if you want a retro Bond, pick a period then go pull out that DVD from your collection. 60's - DN to OHMSS, 70's - DAF to MR, 80's - FYEO to LTK or 90's - GE to TWINE. That is what is so great about the series.

I know Leiter will have plenty to say on this now.

[Kara Milovy]

I agree about a retro Bond and for the same reasons. I would enjoy a Bond-style retro movie if it was well made. But Bond is in the eternal Now. Because I study and write about mythology, I think this is significant. It's part of what makes Bond so lasting, so much a part of our culture. If he was time-bound he'd be historic rather than mythic.

If you're not into Joseph Campbell or Mircea Eliade or Wendy Doniger that probably sounds like gobbledygook. Sorry.

[LeiterCIA]

I know Leiter will have plenty to say on this now. I think you people are all smoking crack!! :smirk:

I don't understand why people are so against 'period' films... I guess I can't argue tastes...

I mean... Perhaps the '77 version of 'King Kong' set in the present day, starring Jessica Lange is superior to the original 1933 'King Kong' with Fay Wray, or to the new incarnation, the period version of 'King Kong' directed by Peter Jackson.

Perhaps you only prefer 'Dracula' movies whch are set in the modern day, like 'Dracula 2000' and it's sequels, to the 'Bela Legosi' films, or other period films, like the '79 Dracula starring Frank Langella, or 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' directed by Francis Ford Coppola.

Maybe you think 'Cruel Intentions' is a superior film to 'Dangerous Liaisons'.

Perhaps, 'Tarzan, the Ape Man' with Bo Derek is a better film than... (ok, please dont make me finish this thought).

Maybe you just didn't like period movies like 'A Room With a View', 'Grease', 'Good Fellas', 'Age of Innocence', 'Braveheart', 'Gladiator', 'The Color Purple', 'Emma', 'A Leage of Thier Own', 'Chicago", 'Brokeback Mountain', or one of my favorite films set in the 1960's, 'Catch Me If You Can'.

Now just to set the record straight,... (and I think those who are familiar with my 'Bond views' dont need much clarification). I dont want to get too deeply into the 'this would be better than that' debate, because that implies that I think the 20 Bond films are lacking in some way. Thats not the point... I wouldnt be here if I wasnt absurdly in love with the Bond movies.

But... am I the only one who gets a thrill from reading the Ian Fleming novels? Am I the only one who gets an added charge from reading about a time-period from another time and place?? We already understand that some of the thrill of the Bond films are the exotic locations, but what about an exotic time? Am I the only one who gets an added charge from reading about a time-period that I just missed?? Just this past week I was reading 'Casino Royale' along with the 'For Your Eyes Only' short stories, over the course of a boring business trip. Just this morning I was in an airport, nursing a fantasy of a double-bourbon in the airport, just as Bond did in the opening of the Goldfinger novel. Of course, the only thing I could find in the airport was a McDonalds and a few other awful fast food joints.

Ok, I think I've made my point.

I am not even trying to suggest that a period 'Bond' film would be superior to the existing Bond franchise.... I just think a well-done Bond treatment set in the day of Fleming, would me more than welcome.

[Kara Milovy]

I love period films, Leiter. Love 'em! But we're not talking about films, we're talking about Bond! I mean, I love musicals, but if Bond burst into a song & dance number, I would not be a happy camper.

Ian Fleming didn't write period pieces. He wrote intensely contemporary novels in the period in which he happened to live. Each Bond film has been contemporary as well. Dr. No was totally 1962, NOT the 1950s that Fleming wrote in. And then by GF we were in '64, and it was a DB5 not the DB3 that Fleming wrote of, and the homer that Fleming described was more miniaturized and flexible. So it's been modern to the setting throughout.

[UNCLEagent]

Ian Fleming didn't write period pieces. He wrote intensely contemporary novels in the period in which he happened to live.

Same could be said for the plays of William Shakespeare. But I have no desire to seeing Hamlet rap in baggy jeans hanging off his ass.

I agree that the films have all been contemporary to the periods they were filmed in. I for one, when reading the original Fleming novels do not see the contemporary settings. I see the period in which Fleming wrote them, in all its glory.

Let's face it, the franchise has been on life support systems for the past several years. Each film has been rehashing a previous one, which in turn has rehashed an earlier tale. While the films still excite a diehard fan as myself - really - what is there about the lastest round of Bond movies that we haven't seen before in the past forty years? I do give the production team serious credit for maintaining the quality and passion we have associated with the franchise, but sometimes enough is enough.

I am intrigued with the selection of Craig. Maybe that and the "Bond begins" approach (one idea - honestly I'm not too keen on, but open) will work. Maybe not.

As to running a new series as a set of period tales faithful to Fleming's world? Why the hell not? I'd love to see it done in earnest, with the same level of commitment and quality shown thus far. There was a time I figured that particular era was long gone and impossible to realistically recreate on film without looking horrendously overdone and fake. Until I saw LA Confidential. I loved the look and feel of that film (while oddly, I recall very little of the story or acting :ohwell: )

I mean, if our world can embrace a "James Bond Junior" in the literary circles, why can't the films offer a fresh new taste taking Bond to Fleming's roots, at least for the time being?

[UNCLEagent]

BTW, great essay DCD!

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

Ta muchly ! And a great debate.

[LeiterCIA]

And a great debate. Agreed!

My point is simply, why should we as Bond fans limit ourselves to one single interpretation of Bond, the current, 'present-day' evolution as seen through the eyes of Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson?? I see James Bond as being a fictional hero, born from the pages of Ian Fleming; similar to other fictional heros who have been brought to the screen in numerous successful (and some not) incarnations, like Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, and Superman. The major difference is that, while the aforementioned have been featrured in MANY different features, and many different mediums, Bond has been hugely successful in primarily a singular film series spanning over 40 years.

With the success of the Bond film franchise, I suspect many people have grown very (dare I say) 'conservative' with regards to taking Bond in different directions. I agree with Kara's view to some extent, that within the series lies enough diversity, that it just isn't neccesary to a complete overhaul. But I think we can do even better than pulling a 'FYEO' or 'TLD' on the series again.

You can't un-do what has already been done in the Bond franchise. Whatever happens in Casino Royale wont detract in any way from Goldfinger.

As Uncle said, the series has grown into something so old and tired and set in it's ways, that its difficult to steer it into a new direction with taking a drastic step. And after 20 great films, I for one am ready to embrace a new direction, especially if it attempts to get in touch with it's classic, hard-edge, Fleming-esque, roots.

And while I'm at it, I would like to see the Bond films STOP leaching on to current trends, and start setting them again!! One of the things I just can't stand about the Bond films is how over the years, it's become a follower rather than a leader. I can't stomach watching Bond films looking more and more like 'ABC Monday Night at the Movies', 'Foxy Brown', 'Star Wars', 'Temple of Doom', 'Lethal Weapon', and 'The Day After Tomorrow'. I dont want to see Bond switching to Texas Hold'em just because it's gained some popularity by featuring b-actors playing on certain cable TV channels. I want to see James Bond playing baccarat, and in turn, making baccarat, and James Bond, popular again!

[Kara Milovy]

Same could be said for the plays of William Shakespeare. But I have no desire to seeing Hamlet rap in baggy jeans hanging off his ass.
Seriously, making contemporary (or different-period) Shakespeare is a long-standing tradition. It goes back centuries! These got great reviews:
Hamlet (2000) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0171359/)
Romeo + Juliet (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117509/)

[Kara Milovy]

My point is simply, why should we as Bond fans limit ourselves to one single interpretation of Bond, the current, 'present-day' evolution as seen through the eyes of Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson?? I see James Bond as being a fictional hero, born from the pages of Ian Fleming; similar to other fictional heros who have been brought to the screen in numerous successful (and some not) incarnations, like Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, and Superman. The major difference is that, while the aforementioned have been featrured in MANY different features, and many different mediums, Bond has been hugely successful in primarily a singular film series spanning over 40 years.
Having Bond set loose like Sherlock Holmes, or Shakespearean plays, would be fabulous. It's purely a legal issue, though, as you know. Only Eon has the legal right to make Bond movies, and that is unlikely to change. So, we can only talk about "the" direction for Bond; there can only be one.

And while I'm at it, I would like to see the Bond films STOP leaching on to current trends, and start setting them again!! One of the things I just can't stand about the Bond films is how over the years, it's become a follower rather than a leader. I can't stomach watching Bond films looking more and more like 'ABC Monday Night at the Movies', 'Foxy Brown', 'Star Wars', 'Temple of Doom', 'Lethal Weapon', and 'The Day After Tomorrow'. I dont want to see Bond switching to Texas Hold'em just because it's gained some popularity by featuring b-actors playing on certain cable TV channels. I want to see James Bond playing baccarat, and in turn, making baccarat, and James Bond, popular again!
Totally agree.

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

I agree about the trend setting. But in todays world it is very, very difficult.

--We all travel so much more so exotic locales are not so exotic to us.

--Bond skiing or scuba diving may have seemed like the stuff of dreams 30 years ago but now..... heck, I scuba dive and snowboard !!!

--Casinos, once the stomping ground of the suave, sophisticated and rich, are now all over Vegas and Reno stocked to the hilt with Wilbur and Myrtle from Buttf*ck USA at the "All you can eat buffet" dressed badly and usually smelling even worse after a nine hour session at the tables.

In fact, f**k it, you total git, you have made me crave a retro Bond movie set in a time before all this !!!!!!!!!

:lol:

[LeiterCIA]

I agree about the trend setting. But in todays world it is very, very difficult.

--We all travel so much more so exotic locales are not so exotic to us.

--Bond skiing or scuba diving may have seemed like the stuff of dreams 30 years ago but now..... heck, I scuba dive and snowboard !!!

--Casinos, once the stomping ground of the suave, sophisticated and rich, are now all over Vegas and Reno stocked to the hilt with Wilbur and Myrtle from Buttf*ck USA at the "All you can eat buffet" dressed badly and usually smelling even worse after a nine hour session at the tables.

In fact, f**k it, you total git, you have made me crave a retro Bond movie set in a time before all this !!!!!!!!!

:lol:

Damn you! You may have conceded the debate, but you have completely depressed me in the process!! :lol:

On the other hand, you make a great point as to why Casino Royale shouldn't sink to having Bond play 'Hold'em'. And b-actor can be seen playing Hold'em. Bond needs to get over to the Baccarat table, where few dare to go!

[tstone]

Seriously, making contemporary (or different-period) Shakespeare is a long-standing tradition. It goes back centuries! These got great reviews:
Hamlet (2000) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0171359/)
Romeo + Juliet (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117509/)


Not to mention the eternal now of both Marvel and the DC universes. Go watch good incarnations of Superman, not just in the comics, but say, compare the first Christopher Reeve film to Superman. Creations reflecting the idiosyncracies of their times. But, for me, both capturing the essentials that make their characters great and memorable.

Same with Bond.

Except I was never a Roger Moore fan.

[Kara Milovy]

In fact, f**k it, you total git, you have made me crave a retro Bond movie set in a time before all this !!!!!!!!!

:lol:
Unfortunately, you're missing a key point when you crave a retro Bond. The audience will still be familiar with casinos, scuba diving, and world travel. Bond has to be something different. Classy. Removed. Touching the finest and most exotic. Adventurous. Sexy. If it's a casino, it must be the best casino. Not Atlantic City, but Monte Carlo. It worked in GoldenEye for exactly that reason.

[LeiterCIA]

If it's a casino, it must be the best casino. Not Atlantic City, but Monte Carlo. It worked in GoldenEye for exactly that reason.
EXACTLY!! The slots at Harrah's in AC might be accessable for any slob, the baccarat tables in Monte Carlo are not. Hence, I hope they dont go with Texas Hold'em.

[Kara Milovy]

EXACTLY!! The slots at Harrah's in AC might be accessable for any slob, the baccarat tables in Monte Carlo are not. Hence, I hope they dont go with Texas Hold'em.
Well, they're definitely doing the poker thing, because I read spoilers.

SPOILERS IN INVISI-TEXT BELOW (Highlight to read):



The villain will be a mathematics genius, who uses his ability in poker. Bond has shown he is also a great poker player.



The thing I like about poker is there actually is more skill involved than in chemin de fer. But they have to keep it very high-class.

[LeiterCIA]

They really just dont get it!

Well... all in all, it's a minor deviation I suppose.

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

My argument in favour of Texas Hold 'Em (although I see where you guys are coming from) is simply thus :

The card game is a pivotal part of Casino Royale. It's not just an excuse for Bond to beat the bad guy at a game of cards and make eyes at the bad guys girl. The audience need to be engaged in the game for them to understand the stakes. It is what brings Felix Leiter into the story (Vesper in the movie)

In the novel of Casino Royale there is a three or four page description of the rules of baccarat, and then there is commentary as the game progresses, all of which help the reader understand each turn of the cards, each hand that is dealt. You know how important the next card is, what Le Chiffre needs, what Bond needs. The tension is ratcheted up as a result.

You simply cannot have this narrative in a movie. As Texas Hold 'Em is so popular right now and so many people know how to play it, you can instantly engage the audience without the need for the narrative of the novel.... which you can't have anyway.

Now I know there is an argument of "Screw it, if the audience are too blue collar, dumb or low rent to understand Baccarat then it's not our problem." but if the majority of the audience is totally disengaged and doesn't know what is going on, or the significance of it, then the majority of the audience are lost at a crucial point.

[Kara Milovy]

It's a good argument, DCD, and I think it works, if they keep it high-class.

[Cooper]

As I said in the other thread... I'd like to see retro interpretations of the Fleming books but that's it. You can't go back now and make new adventures set in the past. It very well may have more of a parody feel if done that way. it would be too self-conscious...the setting would overtake the plot.... "Hey, I'm James Bond and I'm gonna smoke a cigarette indoors cause IT'S THE '60'S!!"

Bond films have been perod films in their own right because Bond has never really fit into today's world, or today's world of action/spy movies. M called him a "dinosaur" in Goldeneye, because Bond IS from another time. He always carry that old school Fleming mystique with him. Even though the films are contemperary, Bond and his adventure is a fantasy that is timeless.

In a way, that is why I loved that Bond played Baccarat.. I had NO idea what the rules were (until I read Casino Royale) and the only way I knew Bond won or lost was by the reaction of the crowd. THAT being said, I am not against the Poker in CR. DCD nailed it. It's too big a plot point to use a game no one knows at all. That would just be bad film-making.

So, while the new films don't need to go retro, and I understand the need for poker, these films have to be careful to not be TOO contemperary. ...and I am specifically talking about the horribly embarrassing "Bond plays a video game" scene from Never Say Never Again. Ugh...that scene is so horrible, it's hysterical.. "and when I fire my red laser, you need to fire your blue laser..but wait, I have a missile!.. but if you collect 100 gold coins you get an extra life."

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

SPOILERS IN INVISI-TEXT:

Also, if the villain is a mathmatical genius, that would give him no real tactical advantage in a game of baccarrat. However, in Texas Hold 'Em where it is all about working out averages, chances and whether to bet and play in double quick time then it kinda fits that a maths genius would be playing that game.



Edited for spoilers.