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 was recently having a discussion about CR and specifically the dinner jacket scene (I maintain that it is impossible to have that dinner jacket ready the way she does) and of course took that as an opportunity to over-think through the film on a sleepless night.
That brought me to the question above. That scene and the previous one on the train are written in a way that suggest Bond is kind of badly dressed and Vesper initiates Bond into the world of luxury and really high-end fashion. That is one of the many aspects in which Bond's encounter with her makes him into "Bond, James Bond" by the end of it. In the "Casino Royale is a superhero origin film" way of reading it, the dinner jacket scene is the equivalent of a superhero getting their super-suit. That would indicate that he didn't dress properly before.
A similar tack is taken in the train scene when Bond and Vesper meet for the first time. In her reading of him, she says "By the cut of your suit, you went to Oxford or wherever and actually think human beings dress like that." But that is where I don't follow. I didn't go to Oxford or wherever, but I do think human beings dress like that?! Or at least they did so in 2006.
Now maybe the suit is a tad to businessy, but nothing out of the ordinary for an upscale dining establishment and at any rate, Vesper is dressed for business as well.
Going with the other outfits in the film prior to meeting Vesper it is true that Bond doesn't wear a full suit and tie combo. On the other hand, there are only a handful of scenes where I would have considered that appropriate at all (the PTS, breaking into M's flat, gambling at the Ocean Club). Roger Moore would have worn a light suit for the Madagascar scene, but Roger Moore also wouldn't have burst through a piece of dry-wall.
Plus, even after meeting Vesper, he is back to his casual wear pretty much immediately after leaving the casino, wearing polo shirts and t-shirts with cardigans until the very final scene, which of course brings the whole idea of him becoming "Bond, James Bond" with all the sartorial ideas that come with it, full circle.
So what do you think (apart from "what the hell is he on about again?!")? Is Bond badly dressed prior to meeting Vesper? Is her sense of dress off and the train suit is actually fine? Did Purvis & Wade put this idea in the script, but the costume department didn't care? Is a three-piece suit proper tactical wear for attacking the compound of an enemy operative?
I like that Craig's Bond doesn't wear a suit to do absolutely everything, as Brosnan's did. All of the previous Bonds wore casual gear when appropriate too, but for some reason I feel like they went overboard in Brosnan's being suited almost constantly. For example: why does he put a suit on when he breaks into Carver's secret lab?
R.e. TND, I would say it would look more odd if Bond was sneaking around Carver’s lab in anything other than a suit, seeing as everyone else in the building is formally dressed.
-On one of the pictures you showed, Bond is recovering from the torture, elegance is not required. In other pics after he leaves Casino Royale, he's not in a setting when a suit is required, bit he is still dressed well for the circumstances. He's got a casual elegance if you will. He dresses better than when I go to the office for sure (or when I used to go.)
-During the train scene, I think Vesper is being nitpicking. She sees something off that we don't.
-For the three pieces suit at the end, I think it has mainly to do with the rule of cool. Also, it's in the middle of the day, in a posh neighbourhood near Lake Cuomo. If Bond wants to get around and remain unnoticed, he needs to look like he belongs to that environment. I guess he could have disguised himself as a delivery man of some sort, but again: rule of cool.
Well a suit probably can be tailored in a couple of days; having it tailored isn't the same as having a bespoke one made (although you can bet the suit Craig is wearing has probably been made for him! :) )
You can get them made bespoke for you in a couple of days in Asia.
Wai Lin doesn't think so! :) I dunno, he just seemed to be a bit overly suited in his films to me. Craig in a beautifully-fitted polo shirt in CR actually screams Bond to me more than any number of Brioni suits Brosnan wore.
That was basically the discussion I was having that started this entire train of thought. From what I hear, trained tailors can get pretty close just by look. So we can kind of headcanon something where Vesper has that ability, whatever. But calling ahead to a tailor on a foreign city she probably has never been to (ok, maybe it's a hotel service, but really?), telling them the measurements and having a piece delivered in what? A day? I don't buy it.
But @Ludovico is absolutely correct: It's a cool scene, so I'm ok with it.
I think the Morocco Brunello Cucinelli suit looks so great because it isnt a typical Craig suit, i.e. traditional Grey, Charcoal or Black, and really suits the dusty desert location.
I think you're right: I really doubt that he would have done that considering what seemed to be his thoughts on B15. Bear in mind that Sam Neill was too different a choice for him in '87 too, so I don't think he'd have gone for Craig.
And it's hard not to say that if he had taken those decisions, he'd have been wrong.
But is Bond a "rookie" in CR? Yes, of course he only earns the 00 at the beginning and a lot of the film is about him amassing the various accoutrements we associate with the character, but he is absolutely capable from minute 1. There is no training (ironically, we finally get a training sequence in Craig's "Old Bond"-entry Skyfall), there is no mission that goes wrong because he couldn't do X and then he has to do X in the climax to get the bad guy or anything like that. He surely isn't perfect, but he doesn't fail at anything. He is a machine from the go - specifically being shown as a superior both in rank and ability to Carter in the Madagascar scene very early on. That scene gives you a sense that becoming a 00 is less like joining a professional league as a rookie and more like being voted a starter on an All-Star team. You already have to be the absolute best at what you do.
I am not a Bond historian, but wasn't Cubby's thing more that he didn't want Bond to be shown as less than capable? CR kind of eats it's cake and keeps it, too in that regard.
At the beginning of the movie he's a reckless loose cannon-type character who is cold with women. At the end of the movie he seems much the same, but with a bit of sad bravado. The filmmakers seem to want it to be an origin story, but I don't see much of an arc in Bond's characterization.
Don't they do Saunders because they're specifically trying to press Bond into action?
To kill Pushkin? Yes it must be that, I can't quite remember.
Yes, it's all part of the deception plan to make Bond and MI6 believe that the Soviets have revived Smiert Spionom again. The blue balloon calling card left at the murder scene is meant to reinforce this notion. That's why Saunders was targeted by Necros.
The Smiert Spionom thing is pretty clear, I was asking why Saunders in particular. I think Prof Joe is right about the Pushkin thing, I feel like they have a conversation about why Bond hasn’t killed Pushkin yet.
Yes, in a scene in the film Whitaker agrees to Koskov's suggestion that if another British agent were eliminated then it would induce MI6 through Bond to assassinate Pushkin. He orders Necros to carry out the assassination. That was why Saunders was chosen to be assassinated as he was known to be a member of British Intelligence by Koskov through the fake defection.
Bond, in the guise of Burt Saxby, talks to Blofeld on the phone, and Blofeld tells him to kill WIllard Whyte. Soon after, the actual Burt shows up to kill Willard Whyte. Is this just a mistake, or was there a scene cut, or did I miss something?