Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
The cinematic 007 - Two-dimensions versus three
I'm currently reading a book called 'Into the woods', by John Yorke, which if you have any interest in writing/screenwriting you should definitely pick up. It's main concern is the deconstruction of story; of narrative form and structure, plot, characters, cinematic and literary archetypes... anything and everything that contributes to storytelling.
At many points Yorke references specific films to illustrate his point and Bond crops up frequently. There's one particular passage that I found very insightful and I'd be intrigued to see what people make of it.
The general thrust of the chapter is about mainstream Blockbuster cinema and how the bulk of it is two-dimensional - the world of these films projecting a simple desire - the protagonist/hero wants something and in the pursuit of that goal, while they may face obstacles, they don't change. The general tenet of storytelling is that for a character to appear three-dimensional there has to be some sense of development. With that being said, Yorke goes on to hint that James Bond being a two-dimensional character works;
Bond is a particular type of character; he is the refined, simplified, hydrogenated bastardisation of a deeper archetype. He is white bread: impurities removed, digestion eased; a product of the demand for the thrill of the story, minus its more troubling and disturbing elements - the offspring of our desire for simplicity and repetition. Bond is two-dimensional because he doesn't change; he has a dimension removed so we can repeatedly enjoy him. Bond just wants; he is the embodiment of pure desire. Three-dimensional characters, however, do change; their purchase is deeper. They have both a want and a need, and they are not necessarily the same thing.
Given that the last few films have flown in the face of this notion, I'm keen to know where people stand. Has Bond lost this refined simplicity? Are concerns over injecting Bond with a need taking away from the raw 'embodiment of pure desire', that most of us will recognise in the earlier films? Do people feel that the films should embrace this ethos once again and if not, where do you want to see 007 go next?
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
At many points Yorke references specific films to illustrate his point and Bond crops up frequently. There's one particular passage that I found very insightful and I'd be intrigued to see what people make of it.
The general thrust of the chapter is about mainstream Blockbuster cinema and how the bulk of it is two-dimensional - the world of these films projecting a simple desire - the protagonist/hero wants something and in the pursuit of that goal, while they may face obstacles, they don't change. The general tenet of storytelling is that for a character to appear three-dimensional there has to be some sense of development. With that being said, Yorke goes on to hint that James Bond being a two-dimensional character works;
Bond is a particular type of character; he is the refined, simplified, hydrogenated bastardisation of a deeper archetype. He is white bread: impurities removed, digestion eased; a product of the demand for the thrill of the story, minus its more troubling and disturbing elements - the offspring of our desire for simplicity and repetition. Bond is two-dimensional because he doesn't change; he has a dimension removed so we can repeatedly enjoy him. Bond just wants; he is the embodiment of pure desire. Three-dimensional characters, however, do change; their purchase is deeper. They have both a want and a need, and they are not necessarily the same thing.
Given that the last few films have flown in the face of this notion, I'm keen to know where people stand. Has Bond lost this refined simplicity? Are concerns over injecting Bond with a need taking away from the raw 'embodiment of pure desire', that most of us will recognise in the earlier films? Do people feel that the films should embrace this ethos once again and if not, where do you want to see 007 go next?
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
^ 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
This also works for just Craig - he's clearly changed from CR/QoS to SF/SP.
"Impurities removed" is also quite fallacious. Since when was Bond free from impurities?
There are shades of personality, but I think what Yorke is trying to get at is the construction of the character and how he slots into the story. Moore and Connery may appear different on a superficial level, but beneath that they are still characters that don't tend to develop or learn across the course of a film. If you compare that with the DC Bond of CR, QoS, SF - there are varying degrees of turbulence in the way the character shifts and the way he goes through various stages of development. The Bond of SF is vastly different from the one of CR. There's nothing different about the actual character of Bond in DN and DAF, or LALD and AVTAK.
When he talks of impurities, I think he means impurities in terms of 'character', ie. there is nothing impure about the way the character is constructed. It's a cardboard cutout with certain attributes projected onto it. I don't think this is always the case, but in a broader sense I understand his logic.
1. The comparison at the end between DN/DAF and LALD/AVTAK makes sense, but I did mention it earlier. In the case of characters like Connery and Moore, I can understand them being two-dimensional. But Yorke wrote this in 2013, which meant that SF had already been released. How could he fail to notice the disparities between Bond in CR/QoS and SF?
2. Again, this makes sense with Connery and Moore but not so much with Craig.
Sean Connery could play fallible, watch his performance in The Offence:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070468/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
The character he plays in that film is lightyears away from Bond. The character suffers a mental breakdown (Connery give a great performance) so Sean Connery could have made his James Bond more three dimensional had Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman wanted to go that route but they saw Bond as a two dimensional fantasy figure. A man's man 'mysterious' type of hero.
Barbara Broccoli has retained the man's man hero aspect but not the mystery aspect. It's proven very popular at the box office so you have to give her credit but some fans, older ones, probably prefer more mystery to Bond. I'm not that interested in Bond's old home Skyfall. It made for an interesting location for a fight scene but we don't need to know too much about Bond's past. I've never got the impression Bond was haunted by his past. I imagine the death of Tracy and Vesper trouble him from time to time but I think he just gets on with the job. 'Regret is deathwatch beetle in the soul,' as Fleming said in Goldfinger.
That's what I'm saying, I don't think he's including the Craig films in his breakdown, his description is a pre-DC observation. It's not an in depth analysis of the character, but an observation of the classic Bondian archetype that existed pre-Craig. What I'm curious to see is if anyone feels the films can return to that type of mould, or whether the Craig films have now made that impossible? Also, has the need to add a third dimension diminished the character in any way?
I agree with you. What I've found tricky in the last two films is that the need to add another dimension to the character has led to this historical trauma angle, which does serve to somewhat undermine the legend. QoS does well with character because the trauma is very real and present; it's in the moment. The aging Bond angle in SF is also a neat way to play with a more three-dimensional character, one who genuinely feels and who does change. However, it's the added layer of childhood trauma that tips it towards melodrama for me. Pushing for a little humanity in the portrayal of the character brought something new to the table, but it definitely works better for me when the catalyst and resolution is in the moment.
In my opinion, it doesn't diminish the character at all. It's simply a manifestation of the character's capacity to adapt, which has ensured its ability to survive for 50 years in a way that no other franchise has, including the Godzilla franchise, which is very disjointed and has no sense of continuity (not saying that Bond has had the greatest continuity, but at least the films have a genuine sense of connection to each other).
Here's the problem though, in my view: The next actor has to be able to convincingly 'sell' a pre-Craig era Bond. This is key, particularly for those who are not Fleming purists, like myself and like most of the Bond audience these days I suspect.
We knew very little about Sean Connery's Bond deep down. However, we 'bought' him as the character he portrayed, and he played it consistently through his 6 EON films. The same applies to Roger Moore. Always the same unflappable self. Perhaps not Fleming, but certainly a consistent film character. Like comfort food. I think with Bond that works. The film character at his best is a caricature in some ways of the man some of us secretly desire to be. A personification of a 'super man' of sorts. Able to fight, love, smooth talk and all with traditional British wit, flair and charisma. Difficult to emulate, or at least he should be at his best. The difference between Moore Bond, Connery Bond and a superhero was still very distinguishable though. These were definitely real men....not supermen. However, they were just personifications of Darwin's natural selection. These two sold their versions of Bond perfectly.
----
In my view, Timothy Dalton is where the film Bond started to get confusing for a lot of the audience. Why? Well because he started to pull in more Fleming, but did it in a way that was unfamiliar to audiences who hadn't read the books. They didn't give context to behaviour with Dalton. More vulnerable. More intense. More real. That was confusing to many at the time, who had no understanding for why the character appeared more 'human' rather than 'super human caricature'. He definitely 'sold' his version, but the public didn't understand it or maybe want it from Bond. There was no context.
----
Pierce Brosnan didn't sell it as well in my view. He always seemed like he was 'acting' because his Bond didn't come from deep within himself, but rather from an amalgam of Connery and Moore. He was doing what he was told to do. Hence I didn't feel it was authentic, even though it was popular, and Bond consequently became more like a Marvel hero than ever before during his run. Or more like characters from the recent Man from Uncle film. All glitz with no core. Paintings on a wall.
----
With Daniel Craig, yes, they went back to Fleming like with Dalton, but they also gave his behaviour and mannerisms context. That was the key difference here compared to the Dalton period. So the three dimensional backstories of the Craig era have helped Craig to deliver his performances the way he has done. We (the general public who is not familiar with Fleming) now know why Bond acts the way he does. Why he treats women the way he does. Why he distrusts authority the way he does. Why he's loyal to her Majesty's Secret Service. All the layers have been peeled back. It was great to get this out of the way in the reboot era, and Craig was the right actor to sell this to the public.
----
Going forward:
Now that all of this has been done during the Craig period, I believe it's time to move forward with an actor who can once again personify Bond or the Bond character on screen. We don't need the peel backs because we've already got this with Craig. We don't need the cliches because that gets tired very quickly and is outdated as well.
What we need is an excellent actor who can 'live' Bond in a way that is authentic and comes from within. Someone who can build on what Craig has introduced with the character.
What we also need are compelling stories which people can relate to. These stories don't have to be about Bond any more. There is no need for a third Bond dimension now. The stories just have to be compelling.
I always come back to SF. That film wasn't about Bond. It was about M and Silva. That was compelling. That's what the public bought into. That's why the film was a success. CR was about Bond. SF was about M and Silva. They both worked.
Similarly, many have said that the family connection in SP was completely irrelevant and actually detracted from the quality of the film. It would have worked much better without it. This proves that no more 'peeling back' is necessary.
In a nutshell, the stories themselves have to be three dimensional, but Bond can be two dimensional from now on, with brief exceptions.
Perhaps controversially, I believe there are actors out there who can deliver an SP type unflappable Bond much better than Craig can. That's where they are headed. That's what they need. That's what the public will accept.
A big criticism of Craig's films is that, CR aside, everything has separated. The action is separate from the comedy which is separate from the drama. That's why modern Bond films need 2 and a half hours to tell a story, everything has become compartmentalized. The concept of narrative economy has vanished, instead of lean cohesive adventures, we have creaking, lethargic explorations of the human purpose, intercut with action set pieces to remind the audience what genre of cinema this is supposed to resemble.
Yes, compelling stories are paramount and I totally agree that they don't have to be about Bond and certainly not about past demons. CR is perfect for me in that it shows a progression of character without introducing a fabricated history as a means to add weight to the narrative. The action happens around him and because of him. It isn't the result of some distant catalyst.
Where I feel slightly differently from you is on the subject of SF. I think it is about the triumvirate of M, Silva and Bond. Bond is certainly not a passive character. If I had to pin it on one person, though, it would most definitely be M. The story at the heart of it is about this matriarchal figure who left both her 'offspring' to die. One became a monster the other a hero. That for me is the story at the very heart of that movie. I think it's unique, simple, but quite brilliant. Where I feel it goes a step too far is with the subplot alluding to Bond's childhood and how that weaves into the film thematically. That to me feels quite forced, where the simplicity of the M, Silva, Bond dynamic feels natural. I don't hate it by any means and I can see some merit in certain angles, but I don't feel it's necessarily needed and does stray into melodrama.
Weirdly SP falls into the same trap. In its own way it's almost a mirror of SF, substituting the matriarchal angle for a patriarchal one, in Hannes. But rather than keeping the connections symbolic they become more literal. Which is probably where some people feel it takes its biggest misstep.
I'd very much like another Bond that has some dramatic weight, but where the events that take place within the film are the means to shape the character. It doesn't even have to be anything overt, just something with a meaty plot that we can really get our teeth into.
With SP, as you correctly note, it is more literal (the author of pain and brother angle), and that's where its plausibility is being questioned more - precisely because it's in your face. One can't avoid it. One either buys it, or the whole thing falls apart.
I agree as well that Bond is an important character in SF. Bond in SF for me is more like the Bond of old. We aren't told too much about him via exposition, but we get to see by his actions (the shootout at the courthouse and his taking charge at the end to get M out of harm's way) and behaviour (sarcasm to M, in psych eval and confidence during Severine discussion) who he has become. I find that SF Bond far more compelling than the somewhat more detached one in SP. In my view, the SF Bond is closer to the way they did it in the early days. We learn via seeing his behaviour, rather than having to be 'told' why he behaves that way. I didn't bother too much about Skyfall ranch. For me that was just his home. No real subtext there because they didn't belabour it.
I really think the actor they cast next has to embody a believable and credible version of Bond. We have the backstory now. We just need an actor who can 'live' that character confidently on screen for us. he must show the history of the character through his actions, confidently. That is very difficult to do imho.
CR had some distracting things, like abandoning the gun-barrel, no Q, no Moneypenny etc.
Also I never felt the need to see the characters beginnings.
Of course CR is a great movie nonetheless.
But with QOS and especially SF, they took things way too far and in the wrong direction.
Bond as a character was barely recognisable in QOS and SF. Bond crying over M's death in a tear-jerker (aimed at women obviously) Grey's Anatomy-ish scene?
With Spectre they repaired a lot of it. At last Craig was recognisable as Bond and Spectre fits in perfectly with the franchises first 20 movies.
I'll accept anything from EON for the next Bond. After all I'm a fan(boy) and I just love Bond. I even can enjoy DAF for Heaven's sake :))
If I could wish for something it would be that the next Bond actor actually looks like Bond (tall, dark-haired, muscular but not too much, with a good range of acting from comedy to drama and physically able to do action).
As for Bond's character: no family issues whatsoever, no link to some "secret" past or anything soapy like we got in SF, no love-story.
I want Bond to be like he was in LTK for example. Determined, ruthless if necessary, keeping a good sense of humour, and of course loyal to Queen and Country in the end, but never throwing his principles over board.
I like Bond also in FYEO for example. Surely one of the best depictions of Bond's character.
For 40 years Bond was pure entretainment, it was till the last 10 years they were looking for something else.
I don't know if they completely go back to Pre Craig Bond but they could lighten up a bitt and take the formula back witn a little more depth.
Something like Spectre but with the formula more in check and take off the personal missions maybe the depth could get focused on villains which have similarities with the problems of today.
You've touched on something very salient here. I was talking with a friend about this only the other night. Hitchcock said something along the lines of 'The better the villain (which could also translate to 'the threat'), the better the picture'. I couldn't agree more, it's the primary reason I love Bond. It's something that, even on a subconscious level, has always resonated with me. For example, I would proffer that Greene is lacking, hence the ambivalent reception to QoS, compared with villains such as Le Chiffre or Silva.
We know who Bond is, focusing on the threat/villain and how that challenges Bond will always yield satisfying results IMO.
So true a great villain can make a whole movie just look at the dark Knight.
Batman begins didn't get the hype of its sequel because Ras alghul quite of a boring villain meanwhile the dark Knight had the Joker and the franchise raised to new heights.
The same goes for Bond.
If you notice the most liked films are the ones with the best villains. Examples
Alec Trevelyan-Goldeneye
Goldfinger -Goldfinger
Silva -skyfall
So Hitchcock was so right the better the villain the better picture
Exhibit 1 - Die Hard - Hans Gruber
Especially considering the Bond of SF is supposed to be so loyal to England. Wouldn't Bond's feeling of parental abandonment increase his loyalty to his country, not lessen it? "Orphans always make the best recruits." The film seems confused on this point.
I agree with you that the symbolic relationship between Bond/Silva/M works, but introducing Bond's actual childhood was a mistake. I mean, in Skyfall, it's pretty tastefully done - the family home is basically just a stage for the climax, with a few bits of dialogue about the death of Bond's parents thrown in. The first time I saw the film, I thought it was approaching some awful fan fiction idea that M or Silva literally had something to do with Bond's parents. But the film showed restraint and backed away from anything too contrived. I was pleasantly surprised.
However, Spectre goes all in on the fan fiction. Okay, so Blofeld didn't kill Bond's parents, but he killed Bond's step father. Not any better. They just had to invent a new traumatic history for Bond (I guess this means Major Dexter Smythe doesn't exist in Craig's timeline - a significant deviation from Fleming - a shame, because I would have loved to see Craig in an adaptation of "Octopussy" filmed at the Goldeneye estate). And I'm not sure how this trauma is meant to fit into any of Spectre's other ideas - it's just sort of there. Even Bond doesn't seem to care about the revelation. What was the point?
As others have said, it is completely possible for Bond to be a well-rounded character without having a traditional character arc. The story's events can allow us little peeks into the character's psyche - I actually think TLD contains the best psychological profile of Bond in any film.
Give character arcs to the villains and love interests. They won't be returning for the next installment, so they should change/grow/move significantly... Unlike Bond, who wouldn't even resemble himself if he did that in every film. Constantly giving Bond character arcs would take him from the start of his career to the end of it in record time. Hmm... I wonder where we've seen that before. ;)
You make some good observations.
Does this 'unresolved childhood trauma' extend to Hannes Oberhauser dying as well? Is the young Bond a total f**k up because anyone he gets close to keeps dying?
Or, given Dan doesn't even blink that Franz killed Hannes, are we to assume he didn't give a toss about Hannes? Especially if we heed Kilcaines words 'He went in there when they told him his parents were dead. When he came out he was a man.'
So when he went to Austria he was already closed off? So Hannes wasted his time showing affection and turning his son against him?
Christ I think in their heads P&W imagine it as some sort of epic Greek tragedy but it's just an absolute clusterf**k.
I'd love to know what Fleming made of all this tripe.