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
http://www.thedailybeast.com/why-grumpy-daniel-craig-shouldnt-return-as-james-bond
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/news/a56236/daniel-craig-will-play-james-bond-again/
Shame this site doesn't have a comments section. I'd love to tell the guy how much of an idiot he is for taking things out of context.
People can't be so thick to not understand that, right? The cocksnot in the article linked above took most of the poorly written piece to deride Daniel for coming back after saying he was retiring from Bond, when in reality that perception is just what the internet has chosen to believe. You can't really blame Daniel for doing another Bond film when he's never made it clear that he wanted out anyway, and his wrists comment was transparent and obvious in its meaning for those of us with brains and an understanding of the man.
Some wonder why Dan is the way he is and refuses to bend to a stupid industry, but look at past Bonds like Sean and Tim, who also hated interviews doing their tenures because they naturally despised the cruel limelight of trivial and endless press junkets where a bunch of brainless "journalists" with a tenth of their talent asked them tedious, uninspiring and child-like questions about their movie they'd answered dozens of times elsewhere, with other "journalists" trying to set them off to make them say something cross and headline worthy. While promoting a film you become less of a human and more a piece of merchandise, so it's understandable while being locked inside interview rooms all over the country for most of the day and weeks on end spur the kinds of reactions Dan and other Bonds have given, especially when you value privacy and a respect of the craft as he does. If you ask stupid questions, be prepared for answers that take the piss out of you.
I was looking for the comments section, too!
I certainly agree that it must be tedious for actors doing the media rounds, but DC's wrist comment was still pretty dumb. He is a seasoned media performer and should've known it would come back to bite.
Anything bites back these days. We're in a zany, dipsh*t filled world with more faux journalists then actual professionals. Look no further than the articles on bookie bets for Bond or all the crazy production rumors these people come up with, or just as worse, the dullards on this very forum who eat it up.
It's not up to Dan to micromanage his words for fear that he won't be understood and heard out by internet goblins with little to their lives beyond professional outrage. If that were the case he'd never speak at all, as his brand of honesty is a sort that doesn't exist in his industry and that is used against him often. That's just one of the many reasons he's refreshing, because what you see is what you get.
I was just about to begin to answer both of your lengthy essays in detail, when I realized that actually none of you both answered my question.
I had asked for actual lines or quotes either out of the books or from Fleming that mirror Bond's behavior in the Craig films.
What both of you two are giving me YOUR perceptions and how YOU feel about some things. But that's not what I'm after.
You see, we know that Fleming initially rejected Connery on the basis of being too muscular and not refined enough. So we can quite safely conclude he would have hated Craig's appearance.
We know from Bond's thinking in the novels that he loathes amateurs and amateurish behavior. So what would he think about someone, who is on a surveillance job and ends up shooting down an embassy without any grave reason? Or an agent who blows his own cover, without any need for it, like he does at the hotel reception in Montenegro?
We also know for sure he felt protective for (and fell in love with) any bird with its wing down that crossed his way. Judging from that I guess it's also quite safe to assume that he would never ever just screw a woman of which he knows that she was a former child prostitute simply by slipping behind her under the shower (in itself an unbelievable stupid scene).
From what Fleming tells us about Bond's taste and attitude we can also assume that he wouldn't have been caught dead wearing a shirt like Craig in the Madagascar scene, eating with mouth open and, and, and.
Just to address both of your first points:
@Peter - Bond drinking too much in SF a updated version of his behavior after the dead of Tracy? Really? Using this logic you could also say that Dean Martin gave us a pre-dated version of it in Rio Bravo.
@Brady - Citing Craig's displayed sexual lust? REALLY?
Connery showed more sensuality and sexual appetite in Dr.No alone than Craig in all of his films together. When I first saw CR and there is this moment he realizes he has to follow Dimmitrios immediately and to leave Solange unscrewed behind, it occurred to me that his face should at least should have shown some regret about what he was going to miss.
I am absolutely sure that just about every of his predecessors would have delivered a reaction like that. After all, we are talking about James Bond!
I really wonder how a comment like "being James Bond is among the greatest and most rewarding things in the universe and I enjoy the hell out of it!"would have come back to bite him. Look, you can argue all day and night but it still was a comment as stupid as it gets and a true example of an unforced error.
Also, could you show me any lines and quotations from him that show how unbelievable brilliant and witty he is? I have yet to read anything from him that strikes me as gifted or especially insightful. Any link will do.
Fleming would have adapted to an updated image, as he did with Connery.
In the gym I workout in, we have two ex military, one in his mid 40s, one just turned 60-- both are in tremendous shape and health and strength. I can only imagine what they would do to the enemy.
James Bond has to look the part today, not from 1953.
Re: Bond's loathing of amateurs: you're comparing apples and oranges: we never met Fleming Bond as an amateur, but knowing he's fallible and "human", I'm sure he became the professional we know him as, by making amateur mistakes...
I believe it was also in YOLT where Bond and Tiger visit a brothel (I could be wrong), so he's not beyond slipping in bed with a "working girl"...
I understand @noSolaceleft, that you dislike Craig. I, however, love his portrayal, and I do find the "idea" of Fleming Bond shows through his performances. I'm not saying I'm right. Once again, art is subjective; films have to tweak original source material to try and attempt to reach the larger audience, while still being true to the source material. It's a very tricky craft/business.
It's my belief that DC Bond's DNA is found in Fleming's material. You can disagree with me all you want. I, however, am not trying to change your opinion, and I know that you won't change mine.
I wouldn't expect him to smoke, but neither would I expect a pumped up muscle package featuring the rough face of a boxer who has it in his carrier lost more fights than he one (to borrow a quote from Germany news magazine Der Spiegel).
You see many, many of you here are making the mistake to assume that present day Bond would be a man of the military. I do not happen to think so. Flemings Bond had been at the navy, but he was there at a time when everybody who could walk tried to fight the forces of evil. Just like Fleming himself, who certainly wouldn't have pursued a military career if there hadn't been World War II going on. In Bond's file in CR it is even mentioned that he already worked for the service before the war.
When you talk about beginner Bond, you are in it self correct but we are not talking about some minor slip here. For gods sake, he is attacking an embassy! What do you happen to think what would have happen in the real world if something like that had occurred? Also, Flemings Bond believed in obeying to his orders, even if he didn't like them.
Craig's attitudes towards his superiors would never had come to his mind.
Also, I know that Bond used the services of prostitutes (at the beginning of a view to a kill he even muses about renting one for the night), but there is a huge difference between prostitutes and child prostitutes. Remember, we are talking about the bird with its wing Down syndrome!
Look, this is not a matter of me not liking Craig. I just happen to question the way some of you see him as the second coming of everything Flemings Bond stood for. He is objectively not. That's all there is to it.
FWIW: my response:
http://eyeonbond.com/2017/07/11/is-daniel-craig-grumpy-or-just-honest/
I just happen to be the opposite of your perception of what Bond should be. A character in film must be believable to his time. If we're discussing Bond period films from the 50 and 60s, then would an actor be as muscular and physical as Craig is today-- highly unlikely.
But we're talking about today, and, as someone who has worked out in a gym for the past twenty six years, DC is incredibly fit, but he is, in no way, a body building Arnie-type or Sly Stallone (circa Rocky IV). DC Bond does, however, look like a hard man that could take a life.
I do admire the updated performances (although, unfortunately, some choices in the script writing fail to live up to the standards of the man playing 007; especially in the last film, it feels as if DC elevated some of the tripe he was given).
In the end, @noSolaceleft, I grew up loving SC Bond. I did enjoy the other Bond actors, some more than others. But to me, there was only one, true Bond. And I'm not ashamed to admit that, once I had seen CR , another actor parked his Aston right behind Connery (and, as I said in another post, sometimes beside, and even in front of Sir Connery).
I've read all the Fleming books several times and fall in love with his wizardry with words and descriptions. I tried Gardner several times, but I couldn't sustain and found him to be so much weaker a writer than Fleming.
All this is to say, for whatever reason, DC's portrayal brought elements onto the screen that I had felt in the Fleming character. Once again, this assessment could be way off the mark
for some, and on the mark for others. It's subjective, and I don't think I've ever come on this forum and attacked an opposing view by suggesting that Craig Bond is the only and definitive portrayal. I've never done that (even if I think his is one of the strongest portrayals in the franchise history); I've never done this because I would be wrong to do so-- my feelings of definitive don't outweigh person a,b, or c's definition of Bond.
I may disagree and I may unabashedly share my love for DC Bond; but I could never shout someone down if they loved, for instance, Roger Moore. And why would I? He obviously gave people much joy (me included, although I always saw him as more of a saucy old uncle, than a paid assassin).
So, once again, and with all respect, I have a passionate regard for DC Bond and I see Fleming in his performance-DNA. I could be right. I could be wrong. You have an opinion, and the little you have said, I do genuinely see where you are coming from. I might even question if your literal translation of the Bond character could survive in today's film culture? Could a pure Fleming Bond appeal to modern audiences and have global appeal?
I strongly doubt it, and find that DC was able to bring the character up to date without losing the Fleming spirit, or "idea"; and to me, once again, this means the blunt instrument and the orphan-- these qualities I see in DC Bond the most, and these elements seem to drive his characterization.
Am I wrong, @noSolaceleft ? Could be, but, since I have never tried to make you think as I do, why would you want to take away what gives me obvious pleasure, and something I have shared with the members here?
After all, why should I want to make a fellow Bond fan feel bad?
But like I said, the little you did say, I did understand where you were coming from. I just don't think, and I may be incorrect, that a pure Fleming Bond could ever sustain in the global marketplace.
And I responded and reacted to DC being an updated version of the blunt instrument and the orphan.
I'd be pleased to discuss further, nosolace, but I'd ask that you participate more-- instead of me having to prove points, let's have a conversation (you know we will most likely disagree on some things, and that's good, but we may find common ground on other things).
For instance, what are your feelings on the actors who have portrayed the character? Why do you think some, over others, capture Fleming? Once again, I may be in stark contrast to you, but these types of discussions don't have to be divisive.
Muscularity changes over time, and the fit body of today is vastly different from what it was considered in Fleming's time (along with most other social expectations), even drastically so. The expectations for military fitness are also different, as are the regimes and physicality demanded for the job.
Craig's Bond is a modern take on the character, with a modern sensibility. A man with naval experience in the rigors of such a demanding job would be approaching that fitness, but Craig's Bond isn't even as built as I've seen some true blue navy men in the states who need to be strong enough to endure what is called the "Two Weeks of Hell," a test that is one of the most demanding and strenuous prolonged examinations of what a human body can endure. The fitness of the character and his muscularity is very in touch with the military form you will see in that branch, as you really have to train yourself to be in peak shape for it. It wouldn't make sense if Craig's Bond had this military career and reputation, but was stick thin, as that would be an incongruous image.
I don't think Fleming's Bond was any slouch either, though. He wasn't a brick house (nor is Craig, actually) but he certainly was amazingly athletic and was known from his university days to his MI6 career as an expert level swimmer, fighter and overall physical specimen of peak fitness. Craig's Bond is that representation for our time, like it or not. Sean was the representation of his time in the same way, with a body that I imagine a 50s or 60s Bond in his 30s would have. I wouldn't say Bond had no reason to approach things as he does in Madagascar. He was after a bomb maker and was trying to move people out of his way so that Mollaka could be cornered and dealt with quickly, as he was strapped with an explosive that could've killed future innocents. If he didn't storm the embassy and catch the man, people would've died. Bond was able to not only get Mollaka, kill him and stop the bombing, he did so non-lethally. I call that a victory, as the only person to die was the man who should've. Fleming's Bond was also a bold man, willing to risk an incident to complete a mission, including his daring and ill-advised storming of Big's clubs and later the pirate island at the end of Live & Let Die (I hope I don't need to provide excerpts for those obvious examples).
The cover blowing is also simple. Bond knew Le Chiffre knew who he was, so he wasn't going to look like an idiot giving a false name when his enemy already had his file memorized. It became important for Bond to focus on what mattered, winning the game, and so his useless cover was ripped away as it no longer mattered regardless. What's the point of lying to a man who knows you're not being truthful?
I'm sure Fleming's Bond disliked some form of amateurish behavior, but he also made mistakes, big ones, even. This is a man who let people listening in on his hotel room know he knew it (when he shouts "bitch" loudly in Casino Royale), and who, despite being a man of such immense detail and focus, never once thought that Le Chiffre would retaliate after Bond took away his last chance of survival by winning the baccarat game. Bond was really quite idiotic for acting that way in the novel, as he should've seen the kidnapping of Vesper coming a mile away, and suspected her far sooner at the end too, after she acted weird for days on end while his head was in the clouds; seriously, why did he think she was having daily nervous breakdowns and taking strange nighttime calls?
The film largely fixes this, with Bond putting the CIA onto Le Chiffre the minute he wins, showing him trying to combat the villain's counter-attack. In many ways the man of the film is infinitely more intelligent and professional than the one in the book. I see this brought up all the time, and it has never made sense to me. Severine wants Bond, she invites him on the boat, and she consentually engages in the act with him. What's the issue? She is very much a Fleming-esque character, with a dark past and darker present with an air of mystery and danger, and Bond lusts for her as he does for every woman in the books because he's drawn to her from that energy. I don't think Fleming's Bond would've acted differently than Craig's Bond in the scene, really. He is a sex freak (both Fleming's and Craig's), and Severine was perfectly attracted to him. It wasn't a rape, he didn't just come on to her out of nowhere, and the whole casino scene set it all up.
I don't get what point you're trying to make, beyond showcasing some impressive straw grasping. You're giving me a laugh at this point. If these are your best arguments for why Craig's Bond doesn't act like Fleming's you are really scraping the ground at the bottom of the proverbial barrel.
In Madagascar Bond is undercover, so he dresses like the locals to avoid sticking out. He wasn't going to wear a three-piece suit in that heat, and in a slum, for crying out loud. Does that really need explaining?
I must make the point that Fleming's Bond wasn't a style icon either, if you actually study his fashion sense in the books. He wore the same color suit almost everywhere (dark blue) and matched it with black ties instead of dark blue ones, which you're never supposed to do, and often wore dress shirts with no sleeves with the coats, foregoing collars like a madman. On occasion he also wore sandals with his suit, the biggest faux pas you could make as a wearer of high fashion pieces.
So if you're going to argue that Craig's Bond wasn't like Fleming's Bond and you mean to do so by leaning on his dress sense, please realize that the author's original character didn't give a damn about the fashion rules of his day, and dressed how he wanted. He wasn't a runway model, he was an individual with his own sense of style and identity and was maverick about how he presented himself at times. In Craig's films he also has his own style, but he is far more able to match what we expect of a well dressed man than Fleming's Bond ever was in any of the books. So if you're arguing that Bond should dress well, Craig's Bond fits the bill more than Fleming's.
It must secondarily be noted that both Fleming and Craig's Bond don't dress to stand out, they wear things that would blend into their surroundings and not stand out. They are secret agents, after all, and limit their wardrobes the colors of blues and grays. This is in steep contrast to the horrific Moore years, where he dressed in every color under the rainbow and best approached the appearance of a human neon sign. Sean was the master of lust and I agree (as I am always arguing in his favor), but I think Craig's Bond is also a very carnal, lusty man and we see that time and time again in his worship and recreational enjoyment of women. When he comments about single women not being his type in Casino Royale, we know that this Bond has gotten himself into hairy situations with many angry husbands over the years due to his insatiable desire for women. He also seems to share Fleming's Bond's view on relationships as expressed in the last chapters of Casino Royale, where he details the tedium of romantic relationships and his distaste for them:
"The lengthy approaches to seduction bored him almost as much as the subsequent mess of disentanglement. He found something grisly in the inevitability of the pattern of each affair."
Craig's Bond shares the lust and uncontrollable desire of Fleming's Bond, and they even share the same history at Eton where they were kicked out for screwing around with a maid. It's obvious how much Craig's Bond wants to gets his kicks and get out, as he does with Fields after Vesper, and even Lucia in Spectre when he pumps her for information. With Solange he was enjoying himself, but when he got the information about Dimitrios and knew time was ticking away for him to get back to the mission, Bond dropped everything and ran. Fleming's Bond was the same way, dedicated to the cause, and would've left too, as sexing the girl up wasn't professional at the time. Craig's Bond still leaves the girl with a wonderful meal and drink as he departs, express from room service, so he doesn't leave her coldly.
Some other quotes for you, since you seem to want them despite the numerous examples already supplied...
Right from the master's mouth, we have a very broad but exact idea of Bond that matches highly with Craig's. A blunt instrument? I think a brawling monster of a man who faces death on a whim and surgically removes problems satisfies, as seen in the opening of Casino, his murders of Mollaka, Obanno and Slate, his personal kill of Patrice, etc. In M's hands he's the deadliest weapon around, the perfect black knight to face oncoming forces, the very empirical tool so many of his villains deride and despise him for.
When it comes to vices and virtues, he's outmatched in the latter by a massive number of the former. He's a dutiful man of the government, but is a rampant womanizer and drinker, with the hint of a death wish. He is a dark man with a dark history and dark thoughts, not the perfect person to have a dinner conversation with. Though he's on the side of the virtuous in the eyes of some of the world, he knows that he stands closer to his villains than he strays apart, and we can see this gray morality of Fleming's Bond in Craig's by how he much play the villain's game to win a victory. We can see this in his dumping of Mathis' body in Quantum to make the scene look like a robbery to throw the police off the scent, how he used Severine to track Silva despite her weak position and the danger to them both, and how he threw himself into Le Chiffre's bomb plot while he was intended to be off the job to crash his way into Carlos's plan and stop his scheme.
Some quotes from the Fleming novels that mirror Craig's Bond (maybe they will satisfy), namely Casino Royale as that is the book I’m freshest on at the moment on top of it being Craig’s greatest achievement in the role that makes for easy and clear comparison between the cinematic and literary takes on the character:
This very eroded and quiet picture of a man is a cornerstone of the Craig Bond performance, where you can sense the inner workings of the man and spot his sometimes exhausted or weary face that he uses to greet the world. From this passage we can tell that Bond is aware of the flaws inherent in the human condition, as Craig’s Bond is, and it’s this knowledge that he is able to use against his foes to unsettle them. Great examples are his romancing of Solange and his defeat of Dimitrios in poker to offset and weaken the man, his crashing of Quantum’s opera party or his constant verbal bouts with Silva as they battle for alpha status. By understanding humanity and human fear, you can take out anyone.
This very raw picture Fleming’s Bond in all his anxiety and exhaustion is once again a vital part of Dan’s approach to Bond. While many or most Bond films choose to focus on the spy as this super cool, stylish action man with flashy gadgets and a charming smile, Craig’s films show us raw and private moments with Bond where all that glamor and glamorized content is stripped away, leaving us with a very human man sharing a quiet moment. Craig’s Bond is one we see at his worst as much as his best, stripped naked and beaten to hell and back or soaked in blood, sweat and dirt from a near-death scuffle as he catches his breath and focuses his mind on the task ahead.
In Skyfall we get a moment with Craig’s Bond we’d see with no other interpretation, where, after doing extensive physical hurdles in front of MI6 to prove that he’s ready for field work, Bond collapses to his feet and huffs a heavy breath the second he’s left alone for the day. We see a tired half shell of a man trying to pull himself back to what he once was, covered in sweat and humiliation. It’s not a glamorous or sexy image, very jarring to the usual visual of a carefree cinematic Bond with a Walther lifted in his hand as he winks to the camera.
Because we get to see Craig’s Bond in his worst moments, broken, beaten, bloodied and raw as any other take on the character, he takes on that same humanity that Fleming’s Bond elicited. I am all the more fascinated with him and attracted to his character as he is put through the ringer because he feels real, and the movies go beyond the iconography of the character to make him something more, grounding him in the same emotional or physical plights Fleming did in his work. It’s what sells his torture at the hands of Le Chiffre or Blofeld, his battering throughout Skyfall and his emotional and tender vulnerability in the wake of Vesper throughout Quantum of Solace.
What a visual. When I hear the words “taciturn,” “brutal,” and “cold,” it’s hard not to instantly see Dan’s Bond in my head. As a dark and dangerous man of few words who can take himself to the limit to do his job, he has this same air that Fleming ascribes to Bond in the scene above. He’s a quiet man, capable of dark things, and as Fleming notes, his warm and humorous side is but a mask he puts on to hide the uncomfortable layer underneath. It’s Dan’s Bond who wears this same mask, able to put on a smile to hide his insecurities or other emotions on the job, as he does while facing Le Chiffre at poker, any time a character confronts him about Vesper, and in the aftermath of Severine’s death to name a few examples, all in an effort to make himself seem invulnerable and un-penetrated.
As Fleming’s Bond sets off to bed his fingers hold his gun, prepared for an intruder. It’s Dan’s Bond with his keen awareness and sense of cynical foreboding that makes me think he would sleep just like this with his PPK, assuming his time is limited and that he needs to be ready for a sudden attack on his life. Because he’s a cruel man, he knows how cruel and decisive his enemies could be, getting at him the very moment he gets lazy or complacent.
This quote underscores why Dan’s Bond has the attitude he does about his cover being blown in Casino Royale. He knows how well connected Le Chiffre is and didn’t expect his ruse to stick, but he gets on with the job anyway because it’s what he has to do. He doesn’t cut and run or lie to Le Chiffre about who he really is, he accepts that his enemy now knows his face and prepares to meet him at the gambling tables with added tenacity. In short, Fleming’s Bond and Dan’s Bond are one.
A great example of not only the dry humor of Fleming’s Bond and how Dan’s Bond perfectly replicates it, but also an instance where Bond blows his own cover to those listening in on him. He is frustrated and has a break, letting out his anger. This very raw and unfurled Bond who gives into his rage is often brought out in Dan’s own interpretation, like when he shouts at Vesper when she refuses to give him money to buy back into the poker game, or in Quantum of Solace when he and M swap barbs following Fields’ death where their trust for each other is put to strain. While he’s often cold on the job, these rather hot-headed moments where present in Fleming’s Bond and aren’t one of the many ways that Craig’s Bond with his equally fiery temperament have paid tribute to that.
This passage lets us into Bond’s head and shows him warming to Vesper after first sharing a prickly and uncertain start with her. While Dan’s Bond was slightly more positive about her at the beginning, he and Vesper did share some very lively verbal warfare and butted heads as the game between he and Le Chiffre went on, to the point that she got sick of what she saw as his untamed ego and refused to help him any further. We later see their dynamic sweeten, and much like Fleming’s Bond, Dan’s Bond only consummates his attraction to her after the mission is over and they are quietly recuperating.
A description from Vesper of Fleming’s Bond that I think could easily be used for Dan’s as well. A rugged sort of appeal with a cold and ruthless face, in short a man who you think has or could kill. Dan has the perfect look to match so much of the original literary character, even down to the cruelest mouth one could image a man having. Fleming’s Bond casts a very dark and compelling image, a face that tells a story, and Dan’s Bond has this same aspect to him. A whole history of a life is painted on his cruel mouth and in his blue eyes to match the literary Bond’s same cold pools. In many ways Dan’s features and the way he uses his body to perform in the role make him more reminiscent of Fleming’s original than any Bond actor yet. Not bad for a blondie.
Fleming proves that meek old Jason Bourne wasn’t the first man to look at himself in a mirror. Here we get another raw image of Bond taking himself in, a moment that is perfectly recreated twice in Casino Royale both as the spy tries on a tux and after his fight on the stairwell as he washes the blood from himself. In the former moment he’s eyeing himself and making sure he’ll fit the room, all while getting his head in the game and focused on a win. In the latter he is baptizing in water coated with his own blood to renew himself for the rest of his fight with Le Chiffre, desperately trying to stop his wounds from spewing out more blood. Both show two different sides of Bond, playing offense and defense.
Fleming’s comparison of Bond to a pirate is very in tune with Dan’s features, in that he looks like a rough man who has been around and has metaphorically stormed a few ships. The literary original openly decries Vesper’s comment about him looking like Carmichael, underscoring that even he views himself as a very rugged and not at all “normal” looking man, the same attraction Dan has. Bond is not George Clooney, nor should he be as that is not how Fleming drafted his secret agent.
This little moment before the baccarat game gives us a window into how much Fleming’s Bond relishes the competition with Le Chiffre. Dan’s Bond has this same character trait, in that he partially gets off when he must prove his superiority to a villain in a game of wits. He loves the facts and figures of poker and the bluffing you need to do to play the opponent across from you, really getting into it. As he describes the game to Vesper on the train you can see the passion he has for the game in his eyes, and even as he’s at the table with Le Chiffre you can catch him giving a smile when the odds go his way or when he’s amused by another bit of stimuli happening around him. He’s in his element, gambling not only because it’s his mission, but because he loves it.
This image of Fleming’s Bond, coldly staring down his enemy while facing off with him, isn’t just something Dan perfectly recreated while filming the poker game of Casino, never taking his eyes off of Mads’ Le Chiffre, he has retained this character trait throughout his entire era. Whenever he’s speaking with Greene he’s up close and personal, staring into his soul without fear as he mocks him, or even after he blows the opera meeting of Quantum and stares at the man from just feet away as the villain ad his guards come down the stairs. How he gazes directly at Silva, never leaving his eyes, as they face off in their verbal game, refusing to blink or flinch as he goes. Dan’s Bond is very animalistic in this way, staring down his prey and refusing to look away. His eyes tell us so much, and in his face-offs with his villains we can see all of the spy’s contempt, fury and decisiveness spilling out. In so many of the public functions Bond shares with his foes, from a Body World exhibit, wild poker game, expensive environmental party or a crowded secret briefing hall, his disgust and determination to stop them is kept privately between them as they swap gazes as those passing around them are oblivious.
Another moment perfectly recaptured by Dan’s Bond in Casino Royale, the spy loses his money to Le Chiffre and is left alone at the table with his thoughts. With no words needed Dan tells us all we need to know about Bond’s state, his ego done in, as he runs through the myriad of failures and how he will have to explain himself to others who were counting on him. In his body language we can see how unsettled and angry at himself that he is, shaking Vesper when she denies him money and in his stiff but focused movement as he takes a knife and prepares to kill Le Chiffre. In short, the content of the page is seen clearly on the screen.
As in the book, Dan subtly conveys the same sense of victory over Le Chiffre once the poker game is over. The movie built to their face-off with Bond nearly forced out of it altogether, but finally with another winning hand. We see his confidence as he keeps his eyes on Le Chiffre, takes his cards and reveals the truth, giving the villain fresh fear to contend with as he puts himself back in the game. Although the film version of Casino Royale swapped the gun cane moment with a poisoning, we can still sense the same sweat-caked fear on Dan ‘s Bond as he knows something is wrong and races to the defibrillator in his car, his body failing him more and more as the seconds go by. It’s a very human moment, another not often seen in a Bond film where we see the direct consequences and near death of the spy after failing to see a trap forming around him. Sweating, stuttering, weakening, it doesn’t get more raw than this.
When Bond is back to health and saved by Vesper, his return to the table in full spirits matches the literary Bond’s own revival of heart, refusing to back down as his recent survival overwhelmed his past experience along “the dreadful valley of defeat.”
One of my favorite descriptions of Fleming’s Bond, and one that I think is replicated by Dan’s Bond constantly. Whenever this Bond is faced with a challenge that same face, a “grim” but “serene” countenance takes over, where Dan is able to both give off the spy’s cruel and cold features but also the calm with which he deals his brutality. Like a machine, perfectly programmed, he wears his anxieties and darkness on his sleeve but doesn’t let this stop his operational capabilities as he channels tranquility and focuses his mind. I think of his is cold kill of Dryden, the face-off with Dimitrios in Miami, his chase after Le Chiffre following Vesper’s kidnapping, the meeting with a wounded Mr. White, his storming of the hotel for Greene and Medrano, his entrance to Silva’s island and in his fight against the man in Scotland, and on and on and on.
Here we get an idea of how Fleming’s Bond views relationships, and how certain traditions or expected normalities sap away the passion that should be allowed to be exchanged between lovers. He hates how two people who are attracted to each other don’t just get on with it, and instead prolong a very simple exchange of biological cargo.
I feel this same sense in Dan’s Bond, where he pursues women to get off and when he’s had his fill, he leaves before things get complicated. I think that the orphan side of himself (shared by Fleming’s Bond) instilled in him a sense of abandonment, where he leaves a partner before the inevitable complications arise. He’s a pleasure driven man of travel, and wants to enjoy himself with all the benefits of sex and none of the downsides, which he views as commitments. We can see this in how he indulges in the likes of Solange, Fields and Lucia before leaving them behind once he’s had his use, and in how he confesses to Vesper that single women aren’t his type. He may have an extensive and preferred history of going after married women already committed in other relationships, so that he can sleep with women who want nothing more to do with him beyond getting off as he thirsts to. When the sexual ritual is complete the wives pretty up and go back to their oblivious husbands, and Bond, fulfilled, goes back to his work. He doesn’t have to worry about awkward calls of love afterward, because the women are already devoted to another, and he can skip all the inevitable drama and heartbreak because he and his partner understand that they are only there for the very simple biological need for pleasure.
It’s this playbook that I can see Dan’s Bond going by, one that is very much inspired by how Fleming’s Bond viewed romance as a spiked trap that distracted from the true intention of the act.
Another moment ripped from the novel, we can see Dan’s Bond expelling both fury and melancholia as Vesper lays dead before him. He breathes in and out like a bull preparing for a charge, seething with how he was betrayed, but his red eyes also convey a sense of heartbreak and sorrow as he stares down at the traitor he fell in love with. It’s a beautifully played scene by Dan that perfectly recreates the warring sides of Bond’s head as his professional side hates Vesper and his personal side fights to repress the way she burrowed herself into his heart.
Eventually his colder side takes over, and he puts on a bold and unmoved face for M to show her that the woman meant nothing to him, referring to her as a bitch. While Fleming never followed up Bond’s recovery from Vesper, Dan’s work Quantum of Solace perfectly and subtly shows the spy trying to hide his feelings for the woman from those who he can’t appear weak towards in what could be the most masterfully understated performance of the series. Throughout the film we quietly watch him struggle to both remember and forget the woman, until he ultimately forgives her and moves on, leaving the rough memories behind.
This “sentimental baggage” is stuff that Dan’s Bond makes a hobby of repressing, much like his rough childhood in Skyfall and Spectre, and any other unsavory or dark moments of his past that made him into the cold man he is. He’s very much Fleming’s Bond, a man who faces hardship and prefers to keep them bottled up and pressed inside himself where they can stew privately, eating him from the inside instead of broadcasting themselves on the outside. With little of the man’s past known, it becomes a compelling mystery to ponder how he became this way, and why this coldness and repression persists. More than any other Bond, Dan’s performances simulate this depth of character and quiet mystery of the spy as seen in the novels.
I’ll even throw in an extra passage from Live & Let Die, as this one reminds me of Dan’s Bond too:
Facing extreme peril at the hands of Mr. Big, Bond realizes the difficulty of survival awaiting him as he and Solitaire will become dragged behind the villain’s yacht, forcing him to contemplate suicide as a peaceful way out of certain death as shark food.
This moment is perfectly tributed at the end of Quantum of Solace, where Dan’s Bond is stuck with Camille in another situation that threatens to deprive them of oxygen. Faced with the consequence of burning alive as the hotel in the desert continues to heat up, Bond prepares himself to kill Camille peacefully to save her the pain awaiting her, and possibly even himself via suicide. Directly inspired by Fleming, we see the hero put into a situation where his solutions are limited and his chances of survival seemingly little. It’s a quiet but unpleasant moment, with Dan’s Bond doing as Fleming’s does and taking it upon himself to provide peace where only fear and despair reigned after all other options were discarded.
It shows the compassionate side that binds both Dan’s Bond and Fleming’s original, two men who look out for their innocent partners when the pain awaiting then would prove too inhumane to allow.
@noSolaceleft, You seem to have lost interest in arguing these above points, and I was already sick of it when you came in here posting with an underlying sense of competition to make us prove our opinions about Craig's Bond, as if you expected us to be so startled by your request that we'd shrivel up from a lack of strong data. Whether you approve or not, there's quite a lot to tie Fleming's original to the incumbent Bond as I have argued for above. I could provide you even more examples and quotes until the cows come home, but I don't think you'd care to hear further arguments from me or others anyway (that is the sense I get).
I think we'll end up reaching an impasse here anyway, as we don't seem to agree on anything Bond and it usually turns cruel or obnoxious between us at some point, as if opinions are insults needing to be exchanged. I'm all for debate, but I prefer to leave the childish implication for competition at the door, as well as straw thin retorts and weak counter-arguments.
noSolaceleft wrote: »
What both of you two are giving me YOUR perceptions and how YOU feel about some things. But that's not what I'm after.
Brady wrote:
It's called an opinion, the only thing one can give. We're not Fleming, so we don't have word of God over Bond and exactly how he would think and feel at every moment of every day. We looked at the books and described Bond's attitude in them and how Craig's Bond shared similarities. I can't give someone else's opinion to do that, I just comment on what I see and feel. It makes little sense to do anything else, no?
********************************************************************************************************************
I will focus on this point, since it is actually what it's all about. I had asked for quotes and lines, kind of facts if you will that all of those perceptions how he nails Flemings Bond are indeed somehow funded.
I had given examples of those myself to proof the stark contrast I personally see in his take vs Flemings creation.
You could save yourself a lot of time if you actually tried to wrap your mind around the actual posts before you start hammering zillions of words into your computer.
In this case the appropriate answer would have been:
"Sorry, I am not aware of quotes and lines proving my perceptions."
Honestly, I have problems taking you seriously. You call yourself Bondfanatic and yet you haven't even read all of Flemings Bond novels. I'm myself are far from being a fanatic, but had already read them when I was 12. You spend endless time trying to see things in the movies that most probably were never ever envisioned by its makers and lecture people that don't see things the way you do yourself, yet the most obvious things like Camilles behavior when her room is burning is rooted in her childhood drama don't even occur to you. Or for example when you are lecturing people that his running style in SF is designed to evoke a military running style, when all it does is just look embarrassing.
Also Craig's body in CR is not mirroring the way British special forces personal look. Andy McNab, Who knows a thing or two about British special forces reveals in his documentary "The ultimate warrior" that actually only the American special forces are fond of bulked up men, while the British for example are into versatility, the French into stamina and the Russians push endurance of pain.
The reason why only the Americans favor the brick houses is that heavy muscles need very much energy to be sustained and also rob stamina because their weight has to be moved.
By the way, Fleming's comment about Connery is one of the oldest known trivia and I think the last time I heard it was told was by BB in "becoming bond". She also added that Fleming basically wanted a young David Niven(!).
Also, if you really consider Bonds actions at the beginning of CR surgical, you might have a wrong picture of intelligence work in itself. This man is is smashing, drowning and shooting a suspect on the public toilet at the local cricket club. No wonder that shooting down an embassy doesn't strike you as unprofessional.
You know, if you happen to know that someone was forced into child prostitution it stands to reason - especially in this part of the world - that she is still someone's "property". A property that is acting on the behalf of its owner and therefore is not free at will. He could have very well ordered her to bring this Mr. Bond to him at all cost and on the way screw his brain out so he doesn't suspect anything bad.
Also, she obviously was a woman full of fear and therefore, even if she hadn't had that order, might just have slept with him as a form of payment.
Also, some see the invitation on the board as an invitation for sex. Why exactly? All they had been talking about was that she brings him to her boss and he tries to kill him for her. Actually, they don't have any real flirting moment together apart from her mentioning that he's attractive. Not, that this comes as a surprise since Craig hadn't had a flirting moment in all of his films. Makes you wonder why.
In terms of the seduction aspect, yes, I agree. I've not really seen Craig as credible in that respect, but then again I'm not a woman.
Along with his gleeful "I will, thank you" to the receptionist at the Hotel Splendid.
This harks back to my previous post, when I said it doesn't pertain to the discussion at all. Just felt like commenting on bits of seduction/flirting/friendliness between Craig's Bond and some of the girls in the series that I think he handles very well.
I agree with you on eyeing up the babes outside the Ocean Club though - that was nicely done.