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 think it's fair to say that CR did a few principal things right:
1) It was very bold: it dropped traditional elements and stripped the Bond series to its bare essentials. Like Batman Begins, it told us that the new "less" would lead to a different kind of "more" but that old formulas were first being dusted off, and too bad for us if we couldn't get over that.
2) It introduced a new Bond and simultaneously it introduced Bond. CR not only brought us Bond's "first adventure as 007" but effectively explained certain of the character traits that this new Bond would carry with him (once again not unlike what Batman Begins had done with its titular character.) Bond himself would evolve as a character in this film, in subtler ways than usual for lead characters, but at least much more than any Bond ever had before. Bond would prove vulnerable, both physically and emotionally, and in his persistence to overcome setbacks, lay his major appeal. Few Bond films had ever pushed Bond through these personal ordeals and while it's fair to say that many of us don't want 007 on the psychiatrist's couch, a brutally honest exploration of the man behind the tux was long overdue. In more sophisticated times (i.e. 2006) the world was ready to embrace a mapping out of Bond's inner universe.
3) CR went in a different direction with Bond himself. Craig's casting led to some tumultuous weeks on the Internet, doing the series a pretty big favour actually. Rather than, "oh, it's just the next Brosnan Bond", we ploughed through some heated debates, objectionable and offensive websites, petitions and more. Many of us got a little case of cold fever until the teaser trailers were released and the world whispered, "wait a minute...", anticipating something fresh, something cool, ... For the first time in decades, Bond himself would be a completely new flavour; like rediscovering the sweet taste of sugar, we were game.
4) The Brosnan era had been firmly locked up in the 90s, and DAD hadn't done the series too many favours. With many people speculating that Bond was in terrible danger of being vastly outsmarted by the Bournes and Hunts of the spy world, CR had to not just go next-level, but conceptually redefine Bond and unhook itself from a worn-out formula. That's what the film did. CR is perhaps the first Bond film to not deliver us an "updated" version of the Bond you already know, but to deliver us a Bond you don't already know. And yet, he's still Bond; the film didn't give us a bastardized version of Bond.
5) But maybe the biggest reason for CR to be liked so much is its story. First of all, the source novel is a damn fine book. It's one of Fleming's shortest and it's his first, but in my opinion, it remains his best. It's a unique story, simple but exceptionally original. An agent isn't sent on a mission to kill a bad guy or to stop a nuclear explosion from happening. Instead, the agent must play cards and beat the bad guy at a game to deprive him of the resources he requires to refuel the confidence of the people he answers to. At the same time, Bond falls in love with a girl who will bring him very close to death, and not because she's evil but because she herself struggles with a painful dilemma. Bond isn't at the top of the game; he merely messes with one cogwheel to overall weaken (though not destroy) a bigger machine. By not having Bond pile up absolute victories that allow us to live another day, but by only marginally crippling a very powerful, faceless enemy, the story feels much more naturalistic, much more mature and much more realistic. Audiences in 2006, demanding sophistication and complexity, embraced this story, which brings me to my second point. Having a 50-year-old spy story to work with is one thing, but fusing it so elegantly, organically and reverently with other plotlines needed for a modern film of almost epic feature length, is quite a unique achievement. The film doesn't pull Bond back to the 50s, nor does it defecate on Fleming's legacy. It combines the best of both worlds/times and seamlessly at that. Even people who had never read Fleming's book were surprised by how tense a card game could be and how smart it is to not have Bond pitched against a megalomaniac with world domination plans. CR resurrected Fleming's genius in a way that few Bond films ever had before, and consciously or unconsciously, audiences can feel the brilliance of Fleming through this film.
Spot on, best Description of CR.
Introducing an A-list actor as Blofeld, and making Bond in Blofeld's foster-brother, in what is in all likelihood the current Bond's last or second-last film. . . why? It hard to avoid the feeling that they've painted themselves into an unnecessarily tough corner here. Why not have Bond fighting a lower-level villain, and make the big reveal at the end a glimpse of Blofeld, the hand behind it all. Sign your A-list Blofeld on to a multi-film deal and have him help continuity for the next actor, like Q and M have done in the past.
Instead, after assembling what was probably the best collection of talent on both sides of the camera for any Bond film, we're left with a whole handful of loose narrative threads that need tying up or very obviously ignoring.
Saying all that, I'll again argue that I think it's the best-looking Bond film, and for that reason alone I suspect it will age relatively well.
The first two films... DN and FRWL
Uhh no thanks.
Ah that’s so weird no thanks
This is a great, well-thought-out post! Thank you.
My biggest disappointment with SF and SP is that Mendes introduced the bloat back into Bond. I really didn't need Moneypenny or Q, and I would have preferred that even QoS use Villiers instead of Tanner (perhaps Menzies' career had gotten too busy by that point).
There is something lean and mean about CR despite it being 2.5 hours. And as you point out, the narrative spine of the novel is strong: card game-->torture-->betrayal.
I also think that Eon/the screenwriters really learned from their OHMSS lesson by not ending on a total downer: they kept "the bitch is dead" but gave Bond a final moment of triumph, sending the audience out bruised but happy.
QoS is the most misunderstood Bond movie in terms of his character arc. M thinks that Bond is blinded by revenge but as Bond put it (and should we believe him?): "I never left." If nothing else, QoS deserves a place high in the Bond pantheon for its ending.
Alright, alright, but what if - hear me out on this - we have a final scene in which a Trump impersonator calls Bond to thank him for saving the day, and then Bond hands the phone over to a talking parrot, and some hilarity ensues?
That should age better, right?
Love it. A scene between a preening repetitive creature who talks a load of crap and a parrot!
Fine post, sir.