The movies started years before I was born and by the time I began watching in 1971 on TV, there were several done. There would be a few more before before I'd be old enough to see a movie on the screen in 1977 with The Spy Who Loved Me. From then on, I saw all of them in theatres. And re-watched all the old ones.
Roger Moore became the Bond I saw most because Sean Connery did not appear as Bond from 1971 until 1983. In that year, as I finished high school and started university) both Roger Moore and Sean Connery appeared in competing Bonds. I saw both. Inevitably, even then, a comparison of Bonds arrived with every new one and Moore and Connery were compared even then. Throw along A George Lazenby and David Niven into the works too. I actually liked Lazenby even as he appears to be universally loathed. I did find On Her Majesty's Secret Service a compelling story. As for Niven, I don't think I have ever seen the full version of his Bond parody.
James Bond in movies, like the books themselves, was never going to be limited to the realpolitik of the Cold War. The villains were greater then mere nation state and Bond was not going to cultivate sources using tradecraft. As M in the movies said...Bond was a blunt instrument with a licence to kill. He was a man who was going to be pointed at something and had permission to kill to get it. And this was only fair because those opposed to him were out to kill him too.
None of this would work if Bond was not an attractive character with great humour and and a supportive cast of Bond women and fellow agents from Q to Moneypenny. As Britain has changed, so has Bond. No longer a smoker for some time now, Bond also encounters women who are formidable including his former boss M. He's a man who struggles to recover from physical as well as mental injury on the job. In the past Bond barely bent the crease is his pants and it certainly wouldn't have left him anguished of people who were lost along the way.
Each era of Bond over the decades including Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan were enjoyable as the moved from gritty to glam and from more grounded to fantastical. Charismatic villains with world spanning ambition were always lurking and could only be foiled by the British agent Bond.
One of the best game of punters has been the speculation about who the next Bond will be. It can be a cruel sport. And by the time an actor has been chosen, they sometimes have aged out of the desired range Bond should be. Or at least by the time they are finished the role can qualify for a pension. Both Moore and Connery were up there, Moore still putting Bonds out till mid 1980s.
Pierce Brosnan appeared to have the tap on the shoulder after Moore but contract obligations had him tied down and the role went to Timothy Dalton. Known more for theatre than movies, Dalton was a mystery to many audiences. I had only seem him in the less than successful Flash Gordon. He wasn't a bad Bond but the influence of Lethal Weapon and other 1980s movies played a part in storylines revolving around arms dealers and drug lords. It seemed less worldly ambitious for a Bond villain.
The long wait for Brosnan to take over the role of Bond attracted top tier directors and while the storylines and some other casting brought questions, the action oriented charms of the lead and world wide locations and effects harkened back to earlier times. The box offices were enormous. Despite his success, he was dismissed as Bond with no real explanation aside from that he was nearly 50 years old.
Speculation about who was to play Bond was rampant and Daniel Craig being chosen surprised many. Too blonde, too rough, too short...too not Bond. I had seen him in a few movies such Lara Croft and Munich. I thought he was a good actor but I was wondering if they had a Timothy Dalton on their hands who was more unknown to the general public. The producers themselves probably thought that simply leaving off where Brosnan left off was just not on. It seemed an origin story was in order. And why not? Every other serial seemed to do it. Why not Bond?
The very quick origin story showed how Bond rose to become 007 in Casino Royale. It was only snippets but it had never been done before. It embraced Daniel Craig's muscular and rough attributes in fight and chase scenes that pushed the boundaries of what M called the "blunt instrument." However, it also introduced how he found his favourite drink and first time with his favourite car the Aston Martin DB5. And lastly, ended with his famous "Bond, James Bond."
Daniel Craig in Casino Royale got to rock a few tuxes and fight in them and replace them over and over in a high stakes card game. And the first woman Bond met Vesper Lynd in Casino Royal, would haunt his career the rest of his days. Vesper played by Eva Green was no mere damsel in the movie, Her character had strength and will and would be memorable for incredible dialogue and compelling storyline.
Any thought that Daniel Craig was not a perfect Bond and that producers and writers were correct in going back to the beginning was erased by Casino Royale. What's more, the movie ended in a cliffhanger because only a single layer of onion had been peeled. This would go on to include all of the Daniel Craig's Bonds until the conclusion with No Time to Die. And each had a level of personal growth in the character that felt all the more real with Craig's acting.
Is it possible to watch No Time to Die without seeing the four Craig movies before? Yes, but there are so many reference points for the story that you are richer for it knowing the pain and commitment Bond has gone through. Characters who were just foils for levity have weightier presence and Bond women are their own women.
No Time To Die is a fine wrap up to this series of five movies with Daniel Craig. For those who originally thought Craig was not the Bond they were looking for, it is hard to imagine who if any could fit in his shoes. And how do you continue a storyline knowing the character has reached the end of an arc? Can you really introduce a new Bond as you did in the past and not have audiences not quite accept that as they did in the past?
Everyone is speculating more on who will be the new Bond rather than how they will be the new Bond. A re-boot might not be accepted. A continuation of the character will not likely be accepted. Thankfully, a clever writer might be able to solve this. But we have seen whole seasons of TV series explained as dreams or suggesting all the characters were dead and in some twilight zone. Not sure that will cut the mustard. I have an idea of how it might go but then in I'm not sure that is at all how the producers will take it.
In Winnipeg, from the 1970s on through till today, we have been able to watch Bond marathons on CKND, TBS and other networks. I suspect Daniel Craig's Bond might come to be one of the better loved ones for generations to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment