"No, Mr. Bond... I expect you to make a clever quip and then use a nifty gadget to escape."

To paraphrase Honest Abe, you can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. Or, as our parents would say, we really would bitch if our ice cream was cold.

With the release of Quantum of Solace last weekend, America turned its attention from the presidential race to focus on the truly important question dividing our great nation: Should James Bond make a lot of wise cracks as he uses a stapler that's really an electro-magnetic laser glue gun to escape the latest trap devised for him by an outlandish villain in a secret volcano lair?

Like many of you, I grew up on Bond films. During my impressionable childhood I was soaking up the Connery flicks on network television and seeing most of the Moore films in the theaters. Live and Let Die and You Only Live Twice were the first Bond films I truly loved and throughout my adolescence Roger Moore was my Bond. I didn't come to really appreciate the more stylish and traditional cool of the early Connery Bond (Goldfinger and From Russia With Love) until I was a bit older and not so easily swayed by volcano lairs and voodoo alligators.

Which also means I was there front and center in the late '70s and '80s when the Bond film franchise began to slowly rot from the inside out. Moonraker was the last Bond film that a) carried the name of a Fleming novel, and b) bothered to retain even a vague thematic connection to said novel. When people disparage the '80s for being full of silly, tacky excess, the Moore Bond films are perfect examples of the decade's pop-culture decay.

Yes, I love George Lazenby's On Her Majesty's Secret Service--the brief respite from silly gadgetry between Connery and Moore. And I agree that Timothy Dalton would have made a fine, fine Fleming-style Bond. The only problems were that he was given the thankless task of following Moore's long-running (and long-in-the-tooth) reign, and he was saddled with the cheesy Moore-ian production style that in no way suited his grimmer, more stoic interpretation of the character.

As for poor Pierce Brosnan, he is the tragic Bond actor--perfectly suited to combine Moore's suave charm and Connery's rugged strength. But after being cruelly denied his chance in the '80s (he was still under contract for Remington Steele), the failed Dalton experiment left the Bond franchise such a weak presence on the pop-culture landscape that Brosnan, no matter how good he was, couldn't right the ship. His first Bond film, Goldeneye, was probably the only time in the '90s that anyone bother to look up and pay much attention to the floundering film series, and then mostly out of curiosity. After that, the series slid right back into the rubbish bin--people still went to see Bond films out of habit, but no one really cared or talked about them. (If there is a consolation for Brosnan, it's that he is a terrific dramatic and comedic actor who should go on to have a much more interesting and long-lived career free of the Bond albatross.)

Which brings us to Mr. Craig and what has been a Bond Renaissance both in terms of popularity and aesthetics. I'd read all the Fleming books in high school, and with Casino Royale's rebooting of the film franchise, I've started to go back and re-read the books in order of publication, one each fall. A whole 'nother article could be written about Fleming's spy novels (and in fact many have, including Kingsley Amis's book The James Bond Dossier, and countless grad-school lit papers), both in terms of their Cold-War context and how they play today. I'm finding that while they are certainly dated--hello, sexism!--they are charming as nostalgia and in their almost Zen-like attention to details both luxurious and brutal.

Back in the '90s, when the film franchise was clearly on its last cinematic legs, I began to entertain a wild fantasy: Why not re-film the entire Fleming canon as period pieces? With the fall of the Berlin Wall, it would seem a perfect time to reposition the Bond films as lovely, sexy peeks into Anglo-American Cold War escapist fantasies. I seem to recall that Quentin Tarentino might have floated a similar notion around that time.

The Craig Bond reboot has proven to be the next best thing. As many have noted, this is a return to the Bond of Fleming's novels--cold and brutal, only taking pleasure in sex and luxury as a way of off-setting what he knows will be his short, painful career. There are differences: Craig's Bond is both a bit more soulful and sentimental than Fleming's character, and at the same time, as M points out in the films, more likely to thuggishly enjoy beating and snuffing bad guys. Fleming's Bond was a sado-masochist, but he kept it more tightly under his high-society wraps.

Craig's Casino Royale was the first Bond film since my childhood that I wanted to see again because it was a good film, not just easy escapism. I agree that Quantum of Solace, while maintaining much of the style and no-nonsense action from Royale, does feel more like a meandering continuation. While I enjoyed Solace, it suffers from a lack of narrative focus and drive--something that seems to be best found in the original Fleming novels. And on that note I say to the Broccolis, why not just redo the entire book series? Remake Live and Let Die next, and keep going from there. No more combing Fleming's short stories and estate for silly titles to tack on newly engineered tales--go back to the well and stay there on through The Man With the Golden Gun.

In the meantime, I'm loving this new cinematic Bond. We have finally escaped the creaky legacy of Moore's quips and increasingly ridiculous gimcrackery. We have a Bond who feels like a human being--albeit a brutal, single-minded human being. We have villains who conduct their business in polite society rather than steely day-glo super-lairs. (Thank you, Austin Powers for satirically burying that trope.) We have Bond girls that function as more then just publicity grabbing eye-candy. We have stunningly stylish cars that behave, for the most part, like real cars--no rockets or oil slicks. (The love of both women and automobiles is there in the Fleming novels.) We have Bourne-inspired hard-hitting, bone-crunching action, rather than the Moore-era Bond who never truly seemed in danger or able to feel pain.

And yet, some of you want to go back to the cheese. Having finally slipped free of cultural and creative irrelevance, you want to dive right back into the tuxedoed arms of your childhood Bond. And I fear the Broccolis might be considering back-sliding as well in future films.

To which I say to all of you, nay! Stay the course! Our on-screen Bond has been fixed--let's try to keep from breaking him again for at least another decade or so.

Comments

[Diego]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I recently got into a discussion (well, argument) with some people at my school. They said Die Another Day was cool. While I respect opinions, that was far too much for me. An invisible car? An ice palace?

I rather have this brutal James Bond, to a cheesy one.

[Jamiah]

I think a mixture of both is what is in order. For Your Eyes Only is my favorite Moore Bond film. It showed a brutality in the character while keeping the quips and a minimum of gadgetry. Characters like Q and Moneypenny should be able to be reintroduced without being too cheesy.

[MHS, Clarksville. MD,USA]

Well said! Life's all about change, and just because the new Bond (actor) is considerably different than the last (Brosnan) and even those before him (Dalton and Moore etc) it doesn't mean to say the new formula is 'wrong', as so many other reviewers keep harping on about. There's also much bleating about the non-appearance of Q and Miss Moneypenny; if you read the books, these two feature only occasionally and are not integral characters to the stories and plots themselves, just notable extras who add character to the surroundings. I'm sure they'll return at some juncture, in one form another - but please, no more John Cleese (great comic-actor, but so poorly miscast as Q's replacement).

I have been a dedicated fan since my father took me, aged 7, to see Live & Let Die (1973) at my local cinema and have been hooked ever since; the jovial campness of the 70s/80s portrayal by Roger Moore was glossed over by my naivity/youth, but in hindsight, despite being great entertainment at the time, one can only look back and gasp/laugh at some of the scripts and storylines then - let alone the fashions of that era, possibly moreso than Connery's swinging 60s or Brosnan's techno 90s.

Today, though, Craig's Bond is right up to date, and now wears jeans, a front-button cardy and swigs beet from a bottle - who'd have thought! The villains are portrayed, as Locke states, as human/ordinary - is it just me or does anyone else think Mr White is one helluva scary character, big time?! - and he's seemingly immortal too! The only real extravaganza per se is maybe Bond still being given an Aston Martin as a company car - and even that doesn't get the screen time it deserves as per the 'olden days' (Goldfinger, 1964) and a shame that is too. I'm glad Bond hasn't gone too politically-correct though either, although did the eagle-eyed viewer notice the Hydrogen driven cars that Ford had product-placed in the closing scenes of QoS? Nice touch though, and in-line with the film's sub-plot.

Craig's portrayal makes the Y2K Bond possibly the most realistic, at least since Sean Connery, and maybe the cinema-going public want to see that and embrace a hero that's dependable, likeable (and not just blue-eyed eye-candy for the 6-pack viewing female audience); he also bleeds and feels pain (both physically and emotionally) and is actually now capable of doing good over evil in a world climate that's currently scared and confused - save the comic-book heros for fantasy, we now have the right cocktail mix, shaken - of course, for the present Bond to be plausible and at least have a go at taking on the world. Here's to Bond 23, and beyond.

Martin (who can't wait for a 3rd viewing soon)

[00Vic]

I say this article is right on, except if the Fleming novels were to be remade, with the exception of modernizing James Bond and his world they should be true adaptations of the novels. Casino Royale should serve to set the bar for this. Anyone who has read the novel knows this was a very close adaptation. The only real changes were in additional material that did not take away from the original storyline and modernizing some things to the time period. For example Baccarat becoming poker, the Russian anti-espionage agency Smersh becoming Quantum and the cold war espionage in general transferring to a modern day intelligence approach to terrorism. The essential elements of the story and Bond were there and intact.

As for the new Bond, I think Fleming himself would be very pleased with Craig. My favorite Bonds have been Connery, Lazenby and Dalton as they were not only close to the literary Bond, they were also close to the reality of an intelligence agent and a human in the eras they played him in respectively. Now enters Craig and blows them all out of the water in both categories. He is faithful to Fleming's Bond and to what we would have to believe an agent would have to be like to function effectively in this day and age. Part of what made the novels so successful was that Fleming brought a good deal of intelligence info to the table with him. His books gave readers the ability to experience this dangerous and exciting world in a semi-realistic capacity from the comfort and safety of their favorite reading chair.

Don't get me wrong, Moore and Bronson both made great bonds for the cheesy camp films the franchise was producing at the times but I think Fleming would have rolled in his grave to see what was happening to his beloved character. These movies were very entertaining but had lost all grounding in reality. Craig and company have brought this back with Casino Royale and QoS. We can once again experience a close reality to this world and the Bond character from the safety of the movie screen. For the critics thinking this Bond to cold, cruel and brutal, I say they should try and imagine the personality types that would be successful in this job. Some of our beloved portrayals of Bond from the past never would have had a chance.

So I say kudos to Craig, and to the people pulling the strings on the franchise, lets keep things moving in the direction you have started with CR and Qos. Whoever is responsible for Craig's portrayal of Bond, whether it be Craig or others, keep up the good start you've made and keep Bond grounded close to his literary roots and the reality we have to imagine his character would function in today.

00Vic

[Mike]

I have to say I very much dislike the new bond. Having been a true die hard, all Bond films are worth watching more then once and owning every Bond movie on tape, dvd, and book, kind of guy. And with the release of the Casino Royal movie, deciding that this Bond movie was most definitely made by a woman and not good old Mr. Broccoli :( and that this new Bond was to be the character who became Bond. Well my vote has to be … Start Over!!! Just about any dark haired sophisticated actor would be better. We need a stricter to the books Bond, who doesn’t wreck his Aston Martin in the first 10 seconds you see him driving it! Or Pass up an amazingly hot girl. I don’t like this Cold hearted Bond that we see at the end of Casino Royal either!! Bond is a lover and fights for Queen and country, not just because he’s pissed off!! We need gadgets, we need sexy women, we need opening titles with half naked models, we need Bond to not have a perfect set of abs !! He’s an icon Not a model! !!

[jeremy]

I'm still new to the whole James Bond franchise. I read Casino Royale because I was on a spy-book kick, and I was very pleasantly surprised. While Live and Let Die was pretty disappointing, I really preferred Fleming's Bond to what I knew of Brosnan's Bond.

[MHS, Clarksville. MD,USA]

Well said! Life's all about change, and just because the new Bond (actor) is considerably different than the last (Brosnan) and even those before him (Dalton and Moore etc) it doesn't mean to say the new formula is 'wrong', as so many other reviewers keep harping on about. There's also much bleating about the non-appearance of Q and Miss Moneypenny; if you read the books, these two feature only occasionally and are not integral characters to the stories and plots themselves, just notable extras who add character to the surroundings. I'm sure they'll return at some juncture, in one form another - but please, no more John Cleese (great comic-actor, but so poorly miscast as Q's replacement).

I have been a dedicated fan since my father took me, aged 7, to see Live & Let Die (1973) at my local cinema and have been hooked ever since; the jovial campness of the 70s/80s portrayal by Roger Moore was glossed over by my naivity/youth, but in hindsight, despite being great entertainment at the time, one can only look back and gasp/laugh at some of the scripts and storylines then - let alone the fashions of that era, possibly moreso than Connery's swinging 60s or Brosnan's techno 90s.

Today, though, Craig's Bond is right up to date, and now wears jeans, a front-button cardy and swigs beet from a bottle - who'd have thought! The villains are portrayed, as Locke states, as human/ordinary - is it just me or does anyone else think Mr White is one helluva scary character, big time?! - and he's seemingly immortal too! The only real extravaganza per se is maybe Bond still being given an Aston Martin as a company car - and even that doesn't get the screen time it deserves as per the 'olden days' (Goldfinger, 1964) and a shame that is too. I'm glad Bond hasn't gone too politically-correct though either, although did the eagle-eyed viewer notice the Hydrogen driven cars that Ford had product-placed in the closing scenes of QoS? Nice touch though, and in-line with the film's sub-plot.

Craig's portrayal makes the Y2K Bond possibly the most realistic, at least since Sean Connery, and maybe the cinema-going public want to see that and embrace a hero that's dependable, likeable (and not just blue-eyed eye-candy for the 6-pack viewing female audience); he also bleeds and feels pain (both physically and emotionally) and is actually now capable of doing good over evil in a world climate that's currently scared and confused - save the comic-book heros for fantasy, we now have the right cocktail mix, shaken - of course, for the present Bond to be plausible and at least have a go at taking on the world. Here's to Bond 23, and beyond.

Martin (who can't wait for a 3rd viewing soon)

[Valiant]

I like the cheese...and bonecrunching violence is overrated compared to a good quip here and there..plus i like Bond to be the center of attention..so keep throwing those window dressing ladies in there...movies are to relax and best for laughter versus just making them into the real world in which you are escaping from for an hour or two...forget about making the cars more like stuff we drive...keep them fantasy...keep the ladies glamorous and flashy...keep Bond suave and witty...i dont need to see some military version driving a Saab...sorry i dont agree with you...don't take it personal

[Ted]

I've read all the Ian Fleming Bond novels and they are indeed nothing like the Bond films, much nastier and darker. I'm not really convinced that they would translate well to the silver screen and capture a large audience - although they would certainly have a cult following if they strictly followed the books. I suspect that Broccoli knew this which is why the films deviate so much from the books.
But, make no mistake about it - the reason the movie franchise faltered has nothing to do with bad filming. It is due to the end of the Cold War. When you have major governments battling each other in real life, and stories framed around those battles, the stories assume a majesty that isn't equaled by Bond vs small-timey terrorist. In the old days when Russia and the US were ready to push the big button, you could have a believable story about SPECTRE bribing a government - the audience would walk out of the theatre still wondering if the next day the missles would be launched. But today, such a thing isn't believable.
I don't think a rehash of the Cold War would grab audience interest, and I hope that they don't go that direction. History can make good film - but since everyone knows the ending when the movie starts, it can never have the suspense that fiction has.
My gut feeling is that for the Bond franchise to continue they are going to have to move into Science Fiction, and into the future. The Bond movies worked because they combined a travelogue with suspense, and major governments who would give their secret agents unlimited funding, thus anything was possible. That formula can still work, but it's going to have to graduate to competing planetary governments fighting each other, in order to attain the awe-inspiring factor that the old Bond movies had, framed in the context of the Cold War. For an example of what I'm referring to, read the Stainless Steel Rat books from Harry Harrison.

Our Site support this blog

[Rosie]

What I find amusing about all of this is that every time a new actor is introduced as Bond, critics and filmgoers alike end up bashing his predecessor. Moore was bashed when Dalton assumed the role. Dalton was bashed when Brosnan took over. Now it's Brosnan's turn to be bashed, since Craig is the new Bond.

I wonder what complaints will be made about Craig when they get a new actor to replace him.