It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I don’t think the Craig era outright critiqued the character so much that I feel they deconstructed Bond to where it’s become a trope. An argument could be made that they wanted to replicate the concepts and ideas that made Casino Royale such a big success, which isn’t a bad idea by any means. But I think they also may have lost sight in the fact that Casino Royale had a perfect arc as it is. There really wasn’t much of a need to drag on the repercussions of that film past the ending more than they did. Incidentally that’s why I think Skyfall felt like such a fresh breath of air back before they retroactively fit it into the larger narrative they were attempting to build; it was the perfect blend of the classic Bond formula with those subversive/emotional elements that made Casino Royale land so well with audiences.
On another note, I’m not sure about this obsession fans have with getting a faithful adaptation of Moonraker. Barbara Broccoli has said on numerous occasions that they will not do remakes, and will not to period pieces. Besides, I personally don’t think they’ll do any better than Goldeneye did at presenting a faithful version of Fleming’s original story; Goldeneye works extremely well as an “unofficial”adaptation of Fleming’s Moonraker.
Agreed on the last point. Big element from "Moonraker" I'd love to see in a film is a girl who Bond has fallen in love with but she rejects him in the end. I suppose one could squint and say QoS did that but I don't think Bond ever had desire for Camille.
I love the films unreservedly, but just for arguments sake ... a problem with the Craig arc is going from a young-ish agent (CR/QOS) to grizzled old veteran struggling for relevancy (SF) with almost no middle[-aged] ground to speak of, or basically the default Bond we got with the other four actors [Lazenby being a special case]. SP played down the age question somewhat but not his relevancy and by the time of NTTD he had already retired.
That question of relevancy seemingly necessitated a concentration on his character, almost as if in apology for carrying forward an icon from the 50s and 60s, and any negative cultural associations from that era, into the 21st century.
They can't go back; but how do they go forward, finally dispensing with these questions of relevancy. Maybe they made a wrong turn somewhat with SF.
Pulling this quote from Fleming in an interview conducted by the BBC in 1962, thanks to @Revelator in another thread:
I didn’t wish him to obtrude his personality, I meant him to be read as simply a really good professional, without any particular trademarks, but of course he’s gathered them over the years, and now a sort of myth of James Bond has clouded what was a simple, straightforward pro.
Wasn't that the secret sauce, which the films especially of Connery & Moore understood. Sure their Bonds had definable trademarks, and they were never exactly Fleming Bond; but they also had nothing we were meant to take as character flaws. In fact, character, in any high literary sense of the word, had nothing to do with it.
I don’t think the point of CR was to be about a young Bond though. Craig’s pretty obviously a man in his mid 30s, as is Bond in the original novel (I’ve never especially bought that Craig’s Bond even acts ‘immature’ in the context of the character - Fleming’s Bond in that novel acts childishly to the idea of a woman being sent to assist him and it’s clarified early on that he’s prone to womanising and is dedicated to his job. The film just switches up Bond’s ruthlessness for going ‘off grid’ and substitutes the old school sexism for tongue in cheek banter between him and Vesper).
In that sense Craig’s Bond was always a ‘veteran’, or at least a professional. In SF he just happens to be at the end of the beginning of his 00 career. Honestly, it always mirrored the novels for me. Pretty much midway through the series (probably around DN) it’s noted Bond has been through it since WW2, both physically and personally. His effectiveness is questioned on and off for the rest of the series (sometimes even by himself), usually after he has near death experiences, or isn’t as physically fit as he should be, or goes through something traumatic. There’s a sense that the world around Bond is constantly changing too. That’s more the sense I get from SF - Bond’s simply an agent who’s been through the wars, and aside from M who has an extraordinary level of faith in him, his superiors are unsure if he’s truly effective anymore. It’s not about a grizzled agent months from retirement ‘struggling for relevancy’ in this sense as Bond’s struggles are due to his physical and even psychological issues, not him himself questioning his place in the modern world (really it’s only Silva that truly touches on that idea). As for SP, honestly I even that plays well going on from SF. It comes off that Bond is reinvigorated and probably in his prime really.
Excellent post =D>
Fleming stressing that Bond was a man of his era is something I took be him drawing a distinction between Bond and earlier 1930s-style 'adventure' heroes. I was actually reassured by Phoebe WB when she said that Bond 'needs to be true to his character.' That's better than remodelling him to suit the latest snarks of columnists who don't even like Bond films, no?
With QOS and SF, I've always felt that there's a much bigger time jump in the internal storylines than the four years between the actual films. A lot's happened off screen - we're missing at least three films there! This is where Ludovico's graphic novels come in...
I guess the question is, as 007HallY pointed out: does it actually do that? Bond is referred to as old fashioned quite a lot in it (as is M and her methods in fact), and he's also 'lost a step' from his injury and near-death experience, but really I think it's pretty much only the Q scene where there's an old/young dichotomy brought up. Age isn't even mentioned in Bond's evaluation, so I don't think there's really a question of him being 'too old' as such. And the whole film has quite a bit to say about 'the old ways being the best'.
Doesn’t Mallory specifically allude to it?
Yes, it's a fair point; he does say 'it's a young man's game'.
I've always had the exact same issue. Of course, they didn't know what the future holds at the time of writing and filming, but it's still a jarring leap to go from rookie agent in CR/QoS straight to Bond being seemingly past his prime one installment later. I'm surprised people don't see that as a running theme in SF. There are several quips from numerous characters throughout in regards to that.
This shows how a single line can change the focus of a story or character; remove this line and there is no age trap, or less of one.
Mallory chimes in with the 'it's a young man's game' line, which to me came across less about Bond's age, but simply that he's part of M's 'old guard' and he thinks it's best to make way for a new generation. In the context of the film she's on her way out, her 'best agent' is of questionable physical adequacy, and indeed seems to have deep seated personal issues which could prove compromising. There's the scene with Q and Bond at the Tate, and the only time Bond's age seems to specifically resonate with him (albeit in a scene played in part as comic) is when he appears annoyed at Q's little speech about the painting and time. Apart from that their jibes about each others' age is less overtly antagonistic and more banter. The furthest it goes with the idea of an aging Bond is perhaps with his (in some ways temporary) disillusionment with MI6 and his past being brought up, but even that's quite indirect and to me doesn't point to him being 'too old'. Just that he's slightly older.
To me, Craig's Bond in SF came across as basically the equivalent of where Brosnan's Bond is in GE. Or even Dalton's Bond in TLD. He's part of the previous cohort at MI6, an experienced and even well regarded agent approaching or just about in his 40s. And yet he's at odds with some of his superiors who seem to think the world has changed fundamentally and question how effective his methods are for various reasons.
This is basically the same thing, though. Bond's advanced age and supposed irrelevancy inform nearly every aspect about SF, plot-wise and thematically. The audience can interpret things how they want but obviously the intention of the filmmakers was to turn Craig's Bond into a dinosaur character who didn't belong in the new digital world, even though she was shown hacking into M's computer six years earlier.
“I understand double-0s have a very short life expectancy…”
In a short life, six years was a lifetime ago. He was entering his middle age as an agent in SF. Combined with life threatening injuries, he has lost a step.
Until he completes his resurrection at Skyfall.
Depends on what you mean by 'advanced age'. Like I said, Craig's Bond is essentially the equivalent to Brosnan's Bond in GE, and many of the same beats and ideas are explored, including Bond being a 'relic' (in many ways it's actually less prevalent in SF as you're not talking about an agent six years out from the Cold War, but an experienced MI6 agent attached to the generation on their way out). So yeah, I'm not saying these ideas aren't there, but I think most viewers can work out that Bond's not an old man, but an older one compared to the previous two films. If anything it seems fans have the most problems with this.
And like I said, Bond’s older age compared to the first two is there. But he’s basically in his early 40s (maybe). It’s not NSNA or NTTD territory.
Never thought of that prospect before but it would've helped clear up a few issues I had with the film, absolutely.
What's your thinking? I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just curious what you think it would add that the 'death' didn't.
Not that the "death" wasn't impactful mate, but just that it would have been interesting to see how they would have written the story with Bond being captured, discarded and then having to prove his importance to MI6.
From a selfish perspective, I would have liked to see what Daniel did with that story thread like that and how it impacted his performance of the character. I doubt they would have shaved Bond's beard off then forgotten about it, like they did in DAD.
It also could have explained the short haircut and Bond being over the hill a bit better too. But listen I love Skyfall as it is