Between Reviews: Bonding with Bond
BONDING WITH BOND
NOV 16, 2008 – I EMERGED FROM QUANTUM OF SOLACE, the latest James Bond outing, frustrated yet fascinated – or to put it differently, shaken yet oddly stirred. (You’ll have to forgive my shameless appropriation of a beyond-tired Bondism, but given that the rebooted double-oh-seven franchise so contemptuously dispenses with the little rituals we associate with the world’s most dapper secret agent, can you blame me for wallowing in a bit of nostalgia?) Hollywood rarely gets around to the business of fixing things that ain’t broke, and few things are as stoutly unbroke as the Bond installments. For decades, these films have proved so similar in tone and content, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were, stashed away in some studio executive’s safe, an instruction manual that detailed how to go about assembling a Bond movie in ten easy steps. (Step One: Open with a hair-raising stunt sequence. Step Two: Have Bond stop by the Universal Exports office for a briefing session with M. Step Three: Proceed to a briefing session with Q, without forgetting to have the older gent sigh, “Oh grow up, Double-oh-seven.” Step Four: Put your dirty mind to good use and come up with a groan-worthy collection of sexual puns.)
When Casino Royale broke away from these cherished traditions, I assumed it was due to the film being about how a scruffy spy turned, ever so gradually, into a suave secret agent. I assumed it was because the film could have been titled The Birth of Bond – and you cannot have Bondisms if there’s no fully-formed Bond to begin with. But with Quantum of Solace – which could be titled Bond: The Adolescent Years – I think we’re officially being instructed to head back to our DVD collections if we feel like catching up with the old Bond, for these new adventures aren’t apparently going to dip into that well ever again. Well, that’s one theory – and the other is that Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace (the sequel, which picks up a few hours after Bond captured Mr. White in the earlier film) are a two-parter kickoff to the new Bond series. Taken together, therefore, they detail a start-to-finish emotional arc for the retooled Bond character, and once this baggage is dealt with and deposited in our moviegoing minds, the fun can begin all over again. (Frankly, however, I don’t see that happening. Daniel Craig, the new James Bond, has many invigorating strengths, but I doubt that the ability to deliver a déclassé sexual pun with a twinkle in the eye, and somehow escape with dignity intact, is among them.)
This isn’t to say Quantum of Solace is a grim chore to get through. There’s a truckload of spectacularly diverting action – even if it’s the kind that’s spliced up into a blur of little pieces that leaves you with no spatial sense of the overall choreography of the stunts. And it doesn’t help that director Marc Forster tries to class up these already incomprehensible action sequences by intercutting them with a horse race in Italy or a particularly violent passage from the Puccini opera Tosca. (Call it the Bourne effect: James Bond and Jason Bourne, clearly, share more than just their initials and the tragedy of losing the one they loved.) And while there aren’t many of the Bondisms we once took for granted, there’s still a lot of nostalgia, in the form of returning motifs (as his business card tells us, Bond still operates as a Universal Exports employee) and returning characters (CIA agent Felix Leiter) and returning images (a clever, classy nod to Goldfinger). And yet, the direction this new Bond is being steered towards becomes evident in, say, the way the humour is employed. When M (the superbly dry Judi Dench) snaps at Bond, “If you could avoid killing every possible lead, it would be deeply appreciated,” the line invites an immediate chuckle, but it lingers through the film the way no mere joke could.
Like its predecessor, Quantum of Solace isn’t content to use its effects to jolt awake our jaded cinema senses with bursts of adrenaline. The film pauses to develop Bond as a character – not the superficial spy familiar to us but the tortured soul trying to pretend his lover’s death (in the previous film) didn’t mean anything. M’s line, therefore, doesn’t come off as just a casual toss-off to a man with a license to kill, but rather as a reminder that the loss of his love isn’t a license for a killing spree. Even Bond’s wittiest retort has less to do with the kind of punster he is than the kind of person he is. When Bond and a luscious fellow agent named Fields (Gemma Arterton) seek accommodation in La Paz, she points to a run-down hotel, which corresponds to their cover of teachers on sabbatical. Bond, instead, drives them out to what looks like the most expensive set of suites in the country, and barks to the reception desk, “We are teachers on sabbatical… and we have just won the lottery.” Again, despite the evident humour, this isn’t merely a line to make you laugh, but a pointer to a reckless man used to having his own way despite the inherent dangers. This surprising emphasis on sustained character development over easy entertainment lends a nicely literary quality to this new Bond (though whether literariness, even to the minimal extent here, is something we want in our Bond outings is another discussion altogether).
The Bond girl here (Camille, played by the slinkily sexy Olga Kurylenko) is shaped along the lines of the Bond girl that Carole Bouquet filled out in For Your Eyes Only, but only so far as both are out to avenge the murder of their parents. Forster and his writers outline an almost novelistic full-circle around Camille’s story (even her name is literary, harking back to the Alexandre Dumas Jr. play), by telling us that her house was burned down as her parents were killed, and then staging her revenge in a burning building. And Bond, instead of treating Camille as just a beddable object, actually becomes some sort of mentor, imparting to her his hard-won wisdom about loss and retribution. At times, the quiet ambition in Quantum of Solace reminded me of The Godfather: Part II. Perhaps Bond isn’t about to lose his moral centre – the way Michael Corleone did, at least not yet – but he does possess the same quality of losing (or alienating) the ones closest to him. As the villain, a pocket-sized megalomaniac played by Mathieu Amalric, smirks about Bond, “Everything he touches withers and dies.” At such times, it appears almost irrelevant that the QUANTUM of the curious title refers to a top-secret spy organisation. An equally likely interpretation is that, by avenging himself on those who killed the ones he loved, this tortured man is simply looking for a quantum of solace.
Copyright ©2008 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Hi Rangan
A nice write up and I am pretty sure going by the interviews that Craig has given and indeed what I gathered from the film itself, your analysis of him wanting his quantum of solace is precisely what the film is all about.
In your Casino Royale review you wrote and I’m paraphrasing here.. “previously you used to look at bond and say ‘lucky bastard’ but you look at craig in CR and say ‘poor bastard.”.
Well, isn’t the whole point of 007 to be able to say “what a lucky bastard!”. Like let’s be honest, the plausibility of the story in QOS is no better than SMERSH or any other ridiculously over the top villain. So why keep the film rolling as though it is some serious effort to unravel not only the problems of socialist Bolivia but quite honestly of a man who obviously doesn’t exist.
I can suspend my disbelief for fantasy, but I don’t want to see a “realistic” (in a visceral sense) fantasy. Kinda defeats the purpose.
Fleming wrote Bond like a man who didn’t care for violence, a man who just had to get through the violence to get to the other side. Craig however plays the man like he actual revels in it. Obviously you will point out that most Bond actors have not played the character anything like the books (Lazenby was the closest in OHMSS imo but that’s another story for another day), so why keep upping the self righteous importance of someone like James Bond? Seriously why should I give 2 pence for his personal troubles.
I enjoyed the film to a certain limited extent, but it was too loud, too vacuous and far too generic.
I remember as a teenager who read Flemings novels and enjoyed watching Connery and certain other actors playing the role I’d tell my friends that Bond was somehow better than all the other generic action heroes.
With what has resulted in QOS (no opening gun barrel, no Q, no Miss Moneypenny, no “the names bond, james bond”, brash violence and a lack of what I’d call imperialist stylish snobbery, I just wonder whether Craig and friends have forgotten what made James Bond special?
Hopefully for the next one they bring back some “fun” and by that I don’t necessirly mean puns and innuendo and villains rubbing the backs of cats, but just some breathing space, some larking about, some of the characters that have become institutions in themselves. I also wonder whether it would be time to replace Dench as M. She’s had a fair run and the whole maternal side has been explored, but I think a new and possibly male M would be better.
I’d like to see 007 change to fit the 21st century as much as anyone else, but this type of vacant generic action blockbuster with its politically correct portrayal of the heroine relationship is not what I want from Bond, I can find my fix for those types of films elsewhere.
I know it’s been a long and rambling post but seriously, if you see James Bond drive his Aston Martin (a beautiful piece of engineering) and not find a smile or joy then I think there’s something going wrong.
I agree with the first half of your review. And I want my Bond back!
raj might again say that this is a laboured review…I might just agree with him this time!! Sorry…
Venkat: Nice set of thoughts, and I agree with you to an extent. I like what they’re doing with this Bond, but I wish they’d found a way to bring in the things we like about the old Bond too.
Agree on all points Mr.B. It’s rather unfortunate that Bond has gone all Bourne..but I suppose in this climate of uncertainty (the spectre of terrorism still looming, global economic slowdown), it’s the Bond we deserve, not necessarily want (to paraphrase dialogue taken from another Dark blockbuster this year).
But I’m holding out hopes that elements of Classic Bond are introduced steadily with each movie. After all, the gun barrel sequence that now closes the movie rather than start it could be an indication the a return to more familiar territory is in order. And thank God it’s opening credit sequence, with silhouetted females at least makes a nod to tradition (although the Alicia Keys’ number stinks) unlike Casino Royale’s babe-free opener:-)
After Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, if they bring back the old Bond, will it work? This Bond is the closest you get to reality, and if we are asked to go back to the classic ‘dont take me seriously’ Bond, how will it look? Just wondering!
Man, I guess there really is no accounting for taste. I was really tiring of the campy Bond’s. Daniel Craig is the first Bond I could take seriously. I think they did keep the old staples, in terms of the cool cars/technology (that touch screen interface in the MI-6 office was pure gold) but I was getting tired of the lack of seriousness of it all. It was funny at first hearing how Roger Moore was the best Bond coz he “rogered more” (get it, hyuk hyuk!) but it gets old after a while.
Touch screens were futuristic in Minority Report. With the iPhones and Touchsmarts and Microsoft Surface computers, it is a reality, NOT future.
I mean, why would I want to see existing technology in a Bond Movie????
Chaitanya: I said cool, not futuristic if you’ll notice. Touch screens being current dont make them any less cooler. An Aston Martin is an Aston Martin, whether or not it can shoot bullets out of the hood. Like I said I dont get any of the nostalgia or sentimentality associated with the earlier Bond movies. I prefer the “Bourne-vita” Bond.
I thought Casino Royale was boring. I remember complaining elsewhere that it was more like Bourne(although inferior to Bourne) and less of Bond. Two years later, you seem to think the same way. Craig sucks as Bond. With his cold eyes and stone face,he would be more suited to play a cold-blooded villian in a typical Bond movie than Bond himself. Anyways the Bond franchise had more than worn out its welcome and instead of putting it to rest unfortunately they have decided to resurrect it and take it in a different direction that is neither Bourne nor Misison Impossible. I guess maybe they wanted to keep Bond in line with the other superhero franchises like Spidy and Batman, where suddenly making the superhero cry and look vulnerable and emotional has become fashionalbe(and is considered superior entertainment by a few snobbish critics) and it is no longer enough if your superhero just enjoys his job.
Vijay, infact Bond is a lot like Bourne. Bourne is shown to be vulnerable and emotional (the Goa scenes from Part 2). I’m glad Bond is most unlike MI (which is what Pierce Brosnan’s stint as Bond turned out to be). It’s got nothing to do with snobbish critics…but this Bond is a lot like what Ian Fleming envisaged. Since Roger Moore arrived on the scene, Bond has been going down a dangerous path…trying to make each film bigger than the last one. I’m glad they decided to resurrect the franchise this way…this is the best thing that could have happened. I do believe Craig suits the role to a T. I would rather take the cold eyes and stone face for an undercover agent than a “pretty” face like Brosnan or Clooney!!
Shankar, Fleming also wrote bond as a sexist, misogynist, imperialist, racist bastard.
He wrote him as a chain smoker and drinker.
He wrote him as a royalist.
Now I wonder why are those aspects of his characterisation gone?
Oh and he also wrote him as a womaniser. It seems that is missing too!
EON keep what they want and remove what they want.
None of the above traits which are wholly engrained in the novels are anything like Bourne.
Like Vijay said, I’d rather Bond actually enjoyed himself as he did in the books. This whole conflicted individual thing is becoming so passe.