Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

CASINO ROYALE: A closet fan speaks


9 replies to this topic

#1 R

R

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 171 posts

Posted 14 September 2001 - 09:02 PM

To most Bond fans it is "The film that dare not speak it's name". In the family of Bond films it is the insane old aunt that no-one likes to talk about, and would rather everyone forgot. It is an anomaly, an abberation, some would even say an abomination. But I have a confession to make, it may stigmatise me, render me a Bond pariah and outcast, but I cannot stay silent any longer.

I LIKE "CASINO ROYALE".

There, I've said it.

Charles K. Feldman's 1967 Bond "spoof" has long been looked down upon by "serious" fans of the James Bond movie franchise. You know the type, don't like anything post-"Colonel Sun" on principle, and have actually read past the first few chapters of "The Spy Who Loved Me" more than once. It is seen as an interruption and irritation in the otherwise sleek flow of the Bond franchise. A sacrelidge on the spirit of Fleming and "what a Bond film *ought* to be. A bastardized, misbegotten mess that should never have reached celluloid and associated the name "James Bond" with the likes of psychedelic humour, UFO's landing in London, and Carry-On style innuendo.

Well I disagree. I believe that CR, although not an "official" Bond movie, is still a fun piece of escapist entertainment. It's certainly not be the best film ever made, and it's faults scream at you as you watch, but I believe that the good aspects of the film more than outweighs the bad. With your indulgence, I'll list a few points in CR's favour.

Firstly, let's put to bed the argument as to whether it is a "legitimate" Bond film. This all depends on how you define "legitimate". If you mean that it's not a part of the EON series then you would be correct, bit there's more to "legitimacy" than that.

Believe it or not, Casino Royale is a closer adaptation of Fleming's original novel than most of the EON series, especially the "official" 1967 Bond offering, "You Only Live Twice". The central plot of CR is identical to the novel: British secret agent James Bond is sent to beat SMERSH operative LeChiffre at Baccarat, thereby losing a significant amount of SMERSH funds. Bond is captured by LeChiffre and tortured, using a chair with the seat taken out and a carpet beater attached (watch it if you don't believe me). SMERSH agents kill LeChiffre ending Bond's torture. YOLT only kept the location of Japan and the names of a few characters. You can't criticise CR for departing from what Bond is about without also including half of EON's work.

Now, of course it's not a "traditional" Bond film in one very important way, which, I believe is the cause of most of the ill-feeling towards CR. It's a screwball comedy. It's sending the whole Bond world and franchise up in typical late 60's over-the-top fashion. People who try to compare it to the likes of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", "Licence to Kill" and even "Moonraker" will always find that it compares unfavourably. Whilst the Bonds have always had a certain tongue-in-cheek element (especially Moore's), CR's tongue has gone right through its cheek, circled it's head a couple of times, paid a visit to Woodstock, put on Sgt Pepper and finally returned with a tablet of LSD. And be honest, would MR's indestructable Jaws seem out of place in CR?

So if you approach it as an acid-driven comedy, it won't disappoint by not being "Goldfinger". And it does have some killer comic moments and one-liners, mostly belonging to David Niven's excellent performance as the "original" Sir James Bond. His speech to the gathered intelligence chiefs bemoaning "joke shop spies" and "that sexual acrobat" is a great piece of writing, as is his later lament that "the words 'secret agent' have become synonymous with 'sex maniac'. Special mention also has to go to this interchange between Peter Sellars' Bond and the head of the 2eme Bureau, Mathis....

BOND: There's one thing that bothers me Mathis, you're French, and yet you speak with a Scottish accent.

MATHIS: Aye, it's bin botherin' me too...

I wonder who that was aimed at.

OK, so there are dreadful misfires, the auction scene and the climactic fight sequence being the most notable culprits (Native Americans??????), but to that all I would say is: Sherrif J Dubya Peppah and MR's Jaws.

And I can'r move on without and honourable mention of M's toupee: "It can only be described, as a hair-loom", and Woody Allen, his comic contribution to the film would take far too long.

And finally, there's the music. How can anyone not like the theme tune?

This isn't an attempt to convert the whole of Bond fandom to the cause of Casino Royale, it's more a plea for understanding from those of us who have had to keep their proclivities sceret for so long for fear of ridicule or disapproval. We are not strange, we are not abnormal. We are normal Bond fans who appreciate 60's humour and try not to take things to seriously. Please don't hate us for that. Let's try to be a broad church, a family with common cause who can understand each other's differences, and get along in peace.

Of course, anyone who likes "Never Say Never Again" should be locked up...

#2 Evil Doctor Cheese

Evil Doctor Cheese

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1019 posts

Posted 14 December 2001 - 09:16 AM

Austin Powers owes so much to that film, it's quite pathetic how much actually. Certain scenes are lifted directly from it... like the circular revolving bed scene (the "do I make you horny" bit). And Myers nicks some of the songs. I love Casino Royale but we all know that you have to leave your brain in a jar before you watch it and the film drags a bit in certain places. Sellars is god and Niven is class act. Love it! Thanks for reminding me how much I like that film R.

#3 Evil Doctor Cheese

Evil Doctor Cheese

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1019 posts

Posted 14 December 2001 - 09:19 AM

Where should I leave my card when Mr Asterix makes me turn it in??! :)

#4 Blofeld's Cat

Blofeld's Cat

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 17542 posts
  • Location:A secret hollowed out volcano in Sydney (33.79294 South, 150.93805 East)

Posted 14 December 2001 - 10:08 AM

I wonder how much stigma the movie hexed on the novel? If, after seeing the movie, how many people rushed out and bought the novel? And after reading it did they react by saying: "This has nothing to do with the flick!"?

And should EON end up "legitimising" Casino Royale, would the sales of the novel skyrocket? The long forgotten first Bond novel.

I'm basically refereing to the general public's perceptions here, not the hardened fan element like us. :)

#5 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 14 September 2001 - 09:44 PM

"R" (14 Sep, 2001 10:02 p.m.):
Believe it or not, Casino Royale is a closer adaptation of Fleming's original novel than most of the EON series, especially the "official" 1967 Bond offering, "You Only Live Twice". The central plot of CR is identical to the novel: British secret agent James Bond is sent to beat SMERSH operative LeChiffre at Baccarat, thereby losing a significant amount of SMERSH funds. Bond is captured by LeChiffre and tortured, using a chair with the seat taken out and a carpet beater attached (watch it if you don't believe me). SMERSH agents kill LeChiffre ending Bond's torture. YOLT only kept the location of Japan and the names of a few characters. You can't criticise CR for departing from what Bond is about without also including half of EON's work.

This is a VERY excellent point R. In fact, when I recently saw CR with an audience, I leaned over to a friend (who is a big "name" in the world of Bond fandom) and whispered, "You know, in a weird way, this is more of Bond film than TWINE." He just smiled and nodded and later said, "I've been trying to explain that to people for years."

Yes, tonally CR is not in line with the EON films, but structurally it is very much a "Bond film." And take a look at that car chase. It ain

#6 Blofeld's Cat

Blofeld's Cat

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 17542 posts
  • Location:A secret hollowed out volcano in Sydney (33.79294 South, 150.93805 East)

Posted 15 September 2001 - 01:12 AM

BLOODY HELL, R! You're a pain in the :). :) ;)
Now I've got to look at Cr again, but this time with 'new eyes'.
It maybe the Austin Powers factor.

#7 White Persian

White Persian

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts

Posted 16 October 2001 - 02:03 AM

This discussion of that "curate's egg" of a Bond movie, Casino Royale, reminds me of an interview I read donkey's years ago (possibly in Australia's "Movie News", or "TV Times") with Terence Cooper.
He's the New Zealand actor who plays one of the ersatz 007s, Agent Cooper. He mentioned in passing that when Fleming, Jack Whittingham and Kevin McClory were trying to get a Bond movie up and running in the late 50s, that he was signed to play Bond! "It was my name on that bloody contract", I can recall him claiming. I always vaguely meant to write to him for clarification, but never did, and he died a few years ago.
The odd thing is, he'd probably have been damn good.
Firstly he looked the part- 6'3'', green eyes, looked a bit like a more handsome Ian Fleming, in fact.
He was a real character as well, a bit of a hell-raiser in the Oliver Reed/ Richard Harris mould. You can't tell from his brief appearences in the '67 film, but he was a decent actor, too, with real presence on screen.
He was never all that fussed about an acting career, but became quite a respected painter.
His claim may well have been rubbish, but it would have been interesting to find out what, if any, truth lay behind it.

#8 Mister Asterix

Mister Asterix

    Commodore RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15519 posts
  • Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W

Posted 16 October 2001 - 05:42 PM

Turn in your card, "R" you are out of the club.

No real Bond fan could ever say that they liked that movie; I'm not sure your even aloud to think that. (I'll have to check the rules.) :)

Okay, sorry about that. I have to say I hate Casino Royale, but not for being such bad movie (taken in context it really is quite the romp). The reason I hate it is it could have been such a great movie. No, I don't mean as a EON film but as a spoof. It was a great idea for a spoof. This ultra nerdy guy is sent in to play James 'Friggin' Bond against a real, honest-to-God Bond villain. With Niven, Peter Sellers and Orson Welles, my goodness what a great film it could have been. As I understand it, this is how the film was originally to be until Peter Sellers got involved. Now I loved Peter Sellers but he ruined this film. His improvising took it from light spoof to wacky comedy. Then he quit. Half-way through filming his scenes, he just stopped showing up. What were the producers to do they had a half done wacky comedy with no way to make it cohesive. They did the only thing they could barring starting over or giving up, they got wackier. The original light spoof completely destroyed.

Casino Royale is a good movie, but I hate it.

Geronimo!

#9 Mister Asterix

Mister Asterix

    Commodore RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15519 posts
  • Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W

Posted 16 October 2001 - 09:16 PM

I deleted this because I was wrong.

#10 remy

remy

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 81 posts

Posted 14 December 2001 - 03:06 AM

Visually, it is one of the most impressive films I've ever seen. Every shot is striking. While I admit its not particularly hilarious, its cast and production are lavish. Stylistically speaking, it is the comic mirror-image of YOLT. This bashing is such a bandwagon. Its blatantly obvious Mike Meyers looked at this film very closely. I say there's no shame in being a Bond fan who can appreciate a beautifully filmed, extremely hallucinagenic, if uneven, experience. Having never seen this in widescreen, I can't wait for the dvd. Its also the kind of film where there must have been some deleted material. Although I doubt it will turn up, it would be fascinating to see. John Q. Bondfan should probably pass on it to avoid a sensory overload. "R", I'm with you all the way on this one.