ARTSETC.
Bond needs no shaking, stirring
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ray Gustini:
- Gambling tale plays good hand (May 8, 2007)
- Quoteworthy Sanders forecasts cloudy film season (April 30, 2007)
- 'Sopranos' must break static streak, end with a bang (May 2, 2007)
- What would Cusack do? Hollywood needs new John (April 23, 2007)
- Old films boost film fest success (April 16, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Clothing may make person, accessories create ensemble (October 11, 2006)
- Bond has record 'day' at U.S. box office (November 25, 2002)
- 'Syriana' somewhat mediocre (December 13, 2005)
- High-low dressing (November 6, 2001)
- You're 'Welcome' (February 25, 2002)
by Ray Gustini
Monday, November 27, 2006
It is a truth universally acknowledged that change is inevitable, unless you are one of those lucky people who happens to have a suspiciously antiquated portrait of yourself rotting away in a closet. This of course does little to placate that adorable subset of nerds and conspiracy nuts who convince themselves that broad, hypothetical sociological trends (on the order of big oil, Ryan Adams, or some other hazily conceived malevolent entity) are somehow secretly plotting against their way of life.
The problem with resisting change is that if you do it when it comes to average things, you might be labeled "crazy," which can be a difficult moniker to shed. Once a person refuses a polio vaccine or insists on riding a rickshaw to work instead of taking the bus, it becomes difficult to earn back normal-person status.
The one exception is pop culture. Somehow, it has become perfectly acceptable, and even strangely noble, to complain about the devolution of our shared cultural experiences. Music, books, movies, sports — you can spend your whole life yearning for these things to return to the way they used to be in an era before you were even alive. And the crazy thing is, people won't hate you for it. They may even respect you for refusing to get rid of your eight-track tapes or making obvious, sentimental movies about what life was like in the '50s, especially if you happen to be named Barry Levinson. At worst, you'll be labeled quirky. At best, someone may write a magazine article where you are labeled a "neo-theologian revolutionary," which is the kind of thing that really helps you meet women.
I mention this not to try and make a point about our societal desire for a kind of shared cultural nostalgia, but rather because I am, by my own calculations, the most skeptical person in the world when it comes to change. If given the choice, my social life would look no different today than it did when I was 10 years old. I would go over to my friends' houses, have some juice and watch "Days of Thunder" (as I write this, it occurs to me that this is pretty much what I do today, except the juice is mixed with Fleischmann's). My biggest regret in life is not being alive in 1985, an era when Paul Hogan could open a movie, Bobby Knight found gainful employment despite his propensity for throwing chairs across basketball courts, and it was perfectly acceptable to unironically blast Bon Jovi, The Cure and Journey in your car.
It is with this in mind that I can say that, in retrospect, I was probably not the ideal audience member for "Casino Royale," the new James Bond movie that proudly advertises itself as the reinvention of the world's most charming mass murderer.
I have never been opposed to fixing things that aren't broken, as anybody who has ever seen me attempt basic home repairs can attest to. I do not, however, understand why James Bond needed to be fixed. I've always been under the impression that James Bond was pretty cool in of himself.
The buzzwords being thrown around the MGM lot suggest that Bond needed to become grittier, more real, and, my favorite, "soulful." I can't be sure, but I think my head may have exploded when I heard that one. The whole Bond franchise is built around the fact that the movies — even the best ones — make absolutely no sense. "Casino Royale" director Martin Campbell made a big point of saying that his new movie is designed to take Bond back to his roots. But look at the movies: There has never been a time when James Bond movies were gritty, or even an era when they made sense. People always talk about "Goldfinger" and "From Russia With Love" as paradigms for the Bond movies, and for the most part, they are right: It would not be correct, however, to think that these movies were anything but cartoons. In "Goldfinger," a mobster is put in the back of a car and driven to a car-crusher by a man who kills people with his hat. In "From Russia With Love," elfin madwoman Rosa Klebb has a poison dagger built into her shoe, a feature that is reportedly being incorporated into the LeBron Zoom IV, due out next year.
I took my father with me to see "Casino Royale" over Thanksgiving break. It made sense to take my dad, since he lives in the kind of pop culture vacuum unique to people over the age of 60. He's probably the only person in the world who could enjoy "Casino Royale" strictly on its merits. He wouldn't care that the script was written by Oscar winner and moderately entertaining "Entourage" guest star Paul Haggis, a man who believes any script could be improved by inserting a few scenes where people scream their feelings at one another. He wouldn't care that most people would prefer to have Clive Owen playing Bond, especially since he maintains Timothy Dalton was the best actor ever to take on the role. He probably would care that, for the first time in the history of Bond cinematography, Bond-girl Eva Green doesn't take her top off, but nobody is perfect.
My dad watches movies, listens to music and reads books, but he genuinely has no idea about what he is supposed to like and what he is supposed to hate. A few weeks ago, I wrote a column in which I endeavored to explain why I thought schlock-auteur Tony Scott is one of the best directors in Hollywood. Later in the day, my dad called me and told me he didn't understand the point of my article: "I don't get it — you mean there are actually people who don't like Tony Scott? 'True Romance' is great!"
To say that we did not like "Casino Royale" would be incorrect: More to the point, we were confused by "Casino Royale" and not just because the movie is built around one of those techno-babble plots the Bond movies patented years ago (ironically, the needlessly complicated plotting is the one Bond trademark this movie would have been well-served to get rid of, yet Haggis and Campbell embrace it with aplomb). Instead, we were confused because we did not understand what this movie was supposed to be.
That is the dirty little secret about "Casino Royale": It is not a James Bond movie. It is a movie that features a British assassin named James Bond, but he has nothing to do with the character of the same name played by Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton or Pierce Brosnan. Daniel Craig's Bond doesn't get to do any of the things these other actors got to do. While past Bonds have gotten to go off and have exotic adventures, Craig is frolicking around in the Caribbean Sea wearing a disturbing little mankini. (I am hoping for an outtake on the DVD where Craig asks, "Do these cutoffs effectively hide my thunder?") Past Bonds have gotten to square off against colorful villains with amazing secret lairs — "Casino Royale"'s villain is a compulsive gambler named Le Chiffre, played by a lisping Dane named Mads Mikkelsen who was apparently hired after the producers decided an 11-year-old girl would be too menacing. Eva Green is suitably foxy as Bond girl Vesper Lynn, but when paired with Craig — who seems to think he is playing Hamlet — sparks do not exactly fly.
Craig doesn't get any gadgets, which for whatever reason is a source of pride for the people who made this movie. Apparently, they feel this does the job of making Bond "gritty," although a more accurate descriptive adjective would probably be "lame." How do you make a James Bond movie without gadgets?
The answer to this question, of course, is that you don't make a James Bond movie without any gadgets. You make a movie like "Casino Royale," which is a James Bond movie to the extent that Kim Novak's character was the same person as Jimmy Stewart's wife in "Vertigo." Daniel Craig might as well be playing a spy named Nigel Hildebrand.
Based on the way the movie performed during its first two weeks, it looks like people have embraced the changes made to the franchise. People I've talked to have used words like "fresh" and "exciting" to describe their reaction to the movie. I nod and stare, and quietly wonder where I can get some eight-track tapes. Things may be changing, but that doesn't mean I have to go along with it.
Ray Gustini is a sophomore majoring in English and journalism. Are you with Rocky Balboa or against him? Let Ray know at rgustini@badgerherald.com.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 2:44am):
Wow, I guess someone has never read the Bond books. Craig is a throwback to the character Fleming actually wrote about, not the cartoon superhero played by others. And yeah, that Le Chiffre wasn't a bit menacing as he did his level best to remove Bonds manhood. Yeesh.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 3:06am):
agree with Ray when he says that Casino Royale confused him...Bond is a myth that we have loved for years...a myth thats made of girls, style, non-sensical [but witty] one liners, gadgets and menancing [at times comical villians.] Take those away and you dont have a de-mystified Bond but an action flick that could well have been another spy movie...Craig is a good actor...but am not sure if he is James Bond.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 3:18am):
Actually, just so you're aware:
"Taking Bond to its roots" Refers to what its based off of: Books.
The Bond books, written by Ian Flemming, *were* quite gritty, and involved things like for example... Bond agonizing over killing a man. Things you'd never expect out of a Bond movie of course.
So essentially - its not "fixing something that wasn't broken" - it's literally trying to bring the movies more in line with the original books.
Not invalidating your opinion per-se - but make sure you're set on rock-solid fact before asserting something.
(That said: its still not *that* close to the books - much closer than the previous movies however)
-JJohnson
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 5:59am):
man i think many have taken the meaning of this film entirely in the wrong sense
this pic is not to be seen and compared with the previously released pics but is a movie to be seen and then placed in the front of the other bond movies and then think
-this is why bond has become what we had seen so many years till now
-this is how bond was before he became the ruthless killer we saw all these years
-this is why we needed bond-gals in the movies whom the bond uses to quench his thirst from time to time all these years
-this is why he had that kind of mindset for gals as we had seen all these years
-this is why he became to be so trusted among all other spy agents MI6 has working for them
-this is why bond is different from other spies
now come on
just because you can't fathom the reason why someone will make a movie without gadgets and high flying fight sequences and that to just because you think every one has got accustomed to these things in a bond movie you can't say that the movie was not what it is said to be
just something you have to see
simple great
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 7:34am):
Though I have not seen the film, I concur with your thoughts 100%. From reviews and other articles, it doesn't sound like the Bond films that I grew up with. That being said, I've heard it's an entertaining thriller, but don't call it a Bond film.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 8:58am):
Congratulations on getting your column listed first in its category on google news. I can't say I agree with your column, but clearly you wrote a column that works well for the google news algorithms.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 9:55am):
How about you try reading a James Bond book for ones and stop thinking it started with the movies.
They took Bond back to his roots, his roots being where he began with the books. Read a book and you'll understand.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 10:16am):
i could make make the pope renounce his own faith with less words. too much superfluous jibberish.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 10:18am):
Hamlet? I would definitely not go that far. This was fun, the exploration of Bond's, or the pre-Bond's, character was fun.
This film isn't about Bond, but about Bond before he was 007. It lays the foundation for a very smooth, measured agent. He is a typical agent, maintaining an idealistic devotion to country. But, having had enough, he gives himself to a special relationship in a totally happily-ever-after way. But he is betrayed, o, wait, not really betrayed, and watches the special person die. So we have a smooth agent who is probably never going to get out and have a normal life. He would maybe like to, but can't.
It's a realistic bit which makes some of the unrealism of the rest if seem a little more plausible.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 10:19am):
Casino Royale was the first of Ian Fleming's books. Bond does not have the "gadgets" or even flair as the more notorious James Bond because in Casino Royale his Character is developing. You'll notice the final scene you see him in Tuxedo saying "Bond. James Bond." This *IS* a Bond film. You could compare it to 'Batman Begins' where we can observe Bruce Wayne developing into Batman.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 10:24am):
Just a thought: I felt mostly the same way you did about this movie in respect that it didn't really feel like a James Bond movie, and least what I've come to think of as a James Bond movie. I did want to point out though that I think "back to his roots" refers to the books written by Ian Fleming. I could be wrong, as I have never read any of the books myself, but that is the impression I have gotten reading about the movie the past few weeks.
Alan
alan@alandykes.com
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 10:26am):
Apparently you never read the book this movie is based on. Go try it some time. Reading, I mean.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 10:26am):
I went to see what I though was a Bond movie, but if they keep this up then people won't come back to see the next Bond movie..
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 10:30am):
Dr. No didn't have too many gadgets and was fairly gritty. I felt as though this were going back to the real roots of what Bond is. Don't really believe me? Read the books.
You know why Bond lost to Happy Feet the first weekend? Because everybody expected it to be as dumb as the last few that Piece did (though he did make a great Bond, he was given awful scripts and stupid plots). The Bond franchise had just become another action movie franchise and had lost what made it unique. Casino Royal brought back the unique feel of Bond.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 10:50am):
You are right that this is not a "Bond" movie. It was designed to be a Bond prequel kind of like Batman Begins. In that respect it did a really good job.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 10:51am):
If your definition of James Bond comes from the ever more ludicrous gadget-wielding (an invisible car, right) fruit in a tux you would have a point. However for some of us James Bond was the creation of Ian Flemming, and his 007 was gritty and barely civilized and violent. He drank and ate hugely and smoked three packs of cigarettes a day, because he wasn't going to live past forty anyway. He made mistakes and he got hurt, and his relationships with women were cheap or mean and tragic either for him or her. These are the roots the makers of Casino Royale set their sights on, and to my way of thinking they succeeded magnificently. The Connery movies were good, and his Bond originally did what he did with only his Walther PPK and what ever came to hand. There's a scene in the first one where he meets Q, who says to him "Let me see your revolver, 007" Bond shows it to him and Q says something like, "here use this it's better," hands him a PPK and walks out of the room. After the modern buffoonery of the later bond flicks with respect to Q, I find that scene a hoot. Just a better gun, no exploding cufflinks, rocket packs, or garrote wire hidden in his jock strap ('Be careful when you pull it out James!'). No irrationally named villianettes, or hopelessly unfunny double entendres; just a tight script a complex plot and lots of rough (almost) believable action.
Casino Royale gave us a muscular fit animal of a secret agent. He is without a doubt the closet portrayal to the character in the book so far (except for the cigarettes) . The plot line was entwined, and unfinished. Good! A sequel then. I want to know more about this sinister organization (SPECTRE even?) and I'm looking forward to watching this grimacing Bond take it apart piece by piece.
With this movie the producers are actually trying to make a real, if somewhat fantastic character, not just dazzle us with aqua-car goofiness. So I guess it really comes down to where James Bond began for you. I read the books before I saw any of the movies so I'm delighted. I hope they can keep it up.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 11:01am):
Wow. So I am supposed to not like movies based on what people say?
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 11:18am):
Good point. It may a good adventure movie but it is not a James Bond's movie.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 11:28am):
Ray,
Are you forgetting that Casino Royale was the first incarnation of Bond? Who needs the gadgets when you've just proven yourself to be Double-Oh worthy and promoted accordingly.
I'm glad you admitted that you weren't the ideal audience member for this. As a Bond enthusiast I would rush out to see every new Bond film as it was released regardless of who was playing Bond. It's one of the few films I would actually pay ten bucks to see.
The Bond franchise did need fixing ever since Roger Moore took the reigns as Bond. Don't get me wrong, Roger Moore is a brilliant actor, I just had a hard time NOT seeing him as Simon Templar. His Bond films were more Sci-Fi than Eye-Spy.
Lazenby and Dalton did little for me in terms of carrying on Connery's legacy. However, I still enjoyed their films as well. Brosnan was a vast improvement. All in all I kept an open mind with every new Bond incarnation as I did with this one.
How did I like Craig's portrayal as the new "recently promoted Double-Oh agent" in the first of the Bond novels? He was brilliant! Actually, Craig is brilliant in every film I've seen him in.
You criticize that this "new" Bond doesn't get to do the stuff that the past Bonds had done (exotic adventures). Hello, Bond's adventures start here at Casino Royale as a recently promoted Double-Oh!
I noticed a bit of hypocrisy in your article when you said, "I do not, however, understand why James Bond needed to be fixed. I've always been under the impression that James Bond was pretty cool in of himself."
Then later, you write,"How do you make a James Bond movie without gadgets?...you don't make a James Bond movie without any gadgets."
So now you think James Bond needs to be fixed because he didn't have any gadgets in this film, which, what, makes him less cool?
Dude, keep it real! James Bond is entertainment. It's too bad you weren't as entertained as I was. By the way, I'm taking my dad to see it as well, then I'm taking my wife. Was it Gritty? Absolutely! Fresh? Definitely! The movie itself is a "must-see" for any Bond aficionado. I know my father will enjoy it--he's read (actually read) every Bond novel!
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 11:30am):
In 1963 I sat down and read all the "Bond" books available. Since then I have been waiting for the filmmakers to get the right balance. "From Russia with Love" came the closest, but even this needed a lot of help. That the powers that be decided to create films for 12 year-old boys forever put Bond on the wrong track.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 11:31am):
No gadgets? What was the defibrillator? And who knows what else was in that glove compartment? Craig was perfect in this role, and the film aptly set the scenario for "beginning Bond." If you didn't think sparks flew, well, I repeat: Craig was perfect.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 12:07pm):
I disagree. This is a good movie that attempts (mostly successfully) to follow in the Bond tradition without being a mere parody of it. Daniel Craig did a fine job as Bond. The movie drags here and there, but, overall, it's a good effort. I recommend it.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 12:19pm):
As an English major, I'm a little surprised Mr. Gustini doesn't realize that there are things called "books," and that the original James Bond was created for these antiquated, quaint, printed forerunners of 8-track tapes. I'm also very disappointed that as a journalism major, he couldn't take the time to research the original, text-based, James Bond, since if he'd done so he would have seen that many of the things he associates with the "movie" Bond -- the gadgets in particular -- were not part of author Ian Fleming's original vision. Going back to Bond's roots doesn't mean going back to earlier movies, but to the original source material.
So, I must ask -- was the review meant to be humor, or are a lack of knowledge of literature and a lack of research skills what UW-M's English and Journalism majors are taught, respectively?
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 12:28pm):
Sorry, Ray...you're losing me. What exactly "confused" you (and your father) about "Casino Royale"? Regardless of studio interests or public polls the point of the story was that this is the origin/introduction story for Bond (James Bond). As you should know, all good epic storylines must have a beginning, a starting point that allows the charater room to evolve over time.
The Bond character has been entrenched in the "collective culture's" mind over the past 30 odd years (apparently much longer than you've been alive, so it does strike me rather dubious as how "authoritatively" you tend to posture yourself on certain topics...but I digress) and to be able to tell an origin one needs to strip away all the years of prior knowledge of Bond. James didn't saunter out of his mum's womb with a martini in one hand and a license to kill in the other. This movie, which attempts to follow Flemming's material arguably closer than any of the prior Bond films, requires those who "know" bond to give leash to the established iconography, to take leave of some flash in favor of some substance.
Don't worry...the next Bond film should steer closer to what you deem worthy of double-0. Or else you could always write another column to pout about it again...
Anonymous (November 28, 2006 @ 11:40pm):
The movie Casino Royale is about the character James Bond as written by Ian Fleming...not as portrayed by Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan...Craig did a fine job. If one's understanding of Bond is just about gadgets, then he is better off watching Johnny English.
Anonymous (December 1, 2006 @ 6:22pm):
The reason I actually went and saw a Bond flick after so many years was because the ludicrous villains and gadgets had gone bye-bye and we got a gritty hero instead.
And hey, you have no idea how many women have gone to see Bond because of that swimsuit scene ;)
