But how much Fleming revisionism is a censequence of Craig's (brilliant) performance?
Suddenly, Fleming Bond is not debohair, not a good-liver! (Hell, I've heard it ventured on these boards Fleming-Bond might have been working class...)
Suddenly, Fleming Bond is not immaculately (in a formal, collar and tie sense) dressed all the time.
Suddenly, Fleming Bond is not conventionally good looking - BECAUSE CRAIG ISN'T? - and yet Tatiana says he has the looks of a (50s) movie star!
Suddenly, modern Fleming Bond has to be a able to bench press a truck and flash his glistening pecks because that's what a modern spy would do! Where's the evidence for this??? Bond is NOT a Steven Seagal commando - that is Jason Bourne! He is a spy, and if you follow Fleming not in hand to hand combat that much!!!
Conversely, Fleming Bond is essentially bored with his work, and disgusted when he has to carry it out at the type of person he has become. He is more le Care civil servant spy that secret agent.
Bond is apparently anti-authoriatrian. Again, why? Because Craig is a bit chippy and grew up in actors theatre in Liverpool with a bunch of lefty actors? Fleming Bond is part of the Eton/Blades/military world of 50s Conservatism. Sure, Spy, he was chucked out of Eton for shagging a maid but that can't have been that much of a sin in a world of whole scale buggery, can it?
Bond is now driven because Craig-Bond is determined??? Why. Fleming Bond was an upper middles class fellow of good background WITH A PRIVATE INCOME!!!!!
And Bond looks ruthless because Craig looks like a hardcase!!! So a 2000s interpretation James Bond has to look hard (Craig) not handsome (Brosnan)?
I know the Bond de jour is THE man. Particularly when played as well by Craig. But how much of the re-think here on Fleming's Bond isn't Craig influenced.
And though I only whisper it, how many of us prefer Craig's ordinary-man Bond? His average height, average looks Bond? Sure, he's got a great physique but most of us could achieve that with gym work.
And James Bond is aspirational. Should be. And Craig's Bond is the most achievable for us. The most, well, average.
But I think while Fleming wanted us all to identify with Bond, I also think he wanted him to remain a littel out of reach. Unattainable.
I do not necessarily think this is really much to do with Craig, but with what Fleming
designed Bond to be. In my opinion he's fairly classless. I wouldn't go as far as make him working class, but his father apparently did have a job. Yes, a private income is mentioned, so there is money available. But it wouldn't seem to be
old money, making a huge difference. And apparently it also wouldn't seem to be very much money either, as is indicated when Bond tells Marc-Ange to keep his million pounds:
"'...I didn't have any money and I haven't needed it. I've loved winning money gambling because it is found money, money that comes out of the air like a great surprise. If I'd inherited money, I'd have gone the way of all those playboy friends of Tracy's you complained about so much. No, Marc-Ange.' Bond drained his Steinhäger decisively. 'It's no good.'"
To me, this indicates a remarkable disregard for financial things. Together with his own characterisation as 'Scottish peasant' he certainly doesn't come across as intent on being very 'upper'. For his time I think Bond qualifies as surprisingly classless, a template that can contain a wide range of background. That Craig portrays Bond only reveals how much room there really is for identification in the books. But I didn't change my view of Bond (the literary version here) because Craig came along and played the 'ordinary' version. I've seen Bond in this way all along.
Bond's features conventionally good-looking? When we meet him for the first time there is this:
"Then he slept, and with the warmth and humour of his eyes extinguished his features relapsed into a taciturn mask, ironical, brutal, and cold."
Not what I would come up with, had I to describe the face of a conventionally good looking hero.
Craig's physical presence. Well, I think one must distinguish between what the characterisation of Bond necessitates, i.e. ruggedness, charm, bon-viveur, charisma, cockyness, so on, and between what the specific filmic endeavour demands of the character. This is not something to do with Bourne, or at any rate not
specifically.
The films cover a certain terrain of their genre, a terrain that calls for a vast amount of physical action, for a certain kind of capability. We can depict this with the help of a number of tricks, of stuntmen/women, with camera and editing work. But, big BUT here, the extent unto which audiences are willing to accept, to 'believe' into the fiction they see on screen has become a different one since the days of Moore or Dalton. Or even Brosnan, for that matter.
We know we want certain elements to appear in a Bond film. Appear without fail, you can bet all your worldly belongings on it, you just won't find anyone coverning the bet against you. These elements, roughly, would be:
-hand-to-hand fights, several
-shootouts, several
-chasing sequences, at least one
Now, while these are the staple diet of any Bond film, regardless of script, date or actor, they have one thing in common. They must be convincing in looking dangerous (and some truly are dangerous, even for the stuntpeople involved). And this quality today is only to achieve if the actor in the role of Bond can convince us he's up for it. This is a change from the practice of 15 or even 10 years ago, yet it's a change you cannot ignore. All action sequences, regardless of genre or subgenre, have become considerably more demanding. Even if I shoot a film not focussing on action, any action sequence nonetheless has to be up to scratch, even in a kitchen-sink drama. And if audiences are expected to believe a character not only does any number of dangerous things, but also survives them remarkably well, then they need to see someone who at least gives that impression physically. I grant that Craig may have done more than necessary in this regard. But I also think a physique like Dalton's (fairly average) wouldn't be convincing any more today.