Posted 25 October 2005 - 12:15 AM
Yay, a girl thread!
Luckily I'm too lazy to read the whole thing, so I've no idea how the epic battle between Jim and the anti-Craig brigade ever did turn out. Was there bloodshed? Does anyone have a tape?
At the risk of treading on familiar ground, my first Bond film was OHMSS. This probably spoiled things for me; I've seen it as the black sheep of the franchise ever since (excepting DAD, which is the murderous crackhead cousin of the franchise). I am sure it (OHMSS, not DAD, for God's sake) is a fine film, but it's simply not Bond. Anyway, it was not OHMSS that got me hooked: it was the idea of Bond.
I was hooked on Bond years before I saw a film or read a book. I can't possibly explain it without sounding far too SavageGarden-y, but there is something about the concept and the persona of the man that captivates you if you're completely insane, as I am. (Hey, it happened to Tania, right? And she wasn't...TOO crazy.)
After I'd seen all the films I finally turned to the source material - FYEO was my first book, and remains my favorite, solely because of the explanation of how Bond lost his virginity and his note-case in Paris. There is something terribly, terribly funny about that. At the moment I prefer the novels to the films, and am largely dissatisfied with almost all the film portrayals. For one thing, they are all quite iconic of the eras in which they lived, where Bond is - if you ask me - fairly timeless. (Side note: one reason why Austin Powers quickly lost his sheen is that Bond is totally NOT sixties, baby. Never was. You want to do a spot-on parody, make him fifties if you must, except don't, because the fifties aren't funny. The man himself is funny, apart from the decade he's in - and he knows it, too.)
I think each film Bond got an aspect right. He's a hard character to translate to screen, as he was meant to be somewhat of an everyman. Connery caught on to the playfulness and the zest for life that hides under a cruel shell when he's got to kill; Lazenby was the kinder, gentler side of Bond - the side that was "easily tipped over into sentiment," as we learn in Fleming's CR. Moore was the smooth, witty Etonian that Bond is sometimes forced to be. Dalton was the savage, desperately sexy yet anonymous-looking killer with a heart of gold. Brosnan is - was! - the desperately sexy killer who never grew up after age twelve - an important element from Fleming that was mostly lost in the cinematic Bond. Each one, sayeth the Psychology-obsessed girl, got just a tad bit right. None of them were close to perfect.
In reality, Bond is all of that and more. He is incredibly complex, incredibly real, despite his superhuman luck and the bizarre situations he lands in. I love every bit of him, up to and including his cruel, ruthless ways. I think a lot of women still wish they could find a man like that, who won't sit for hours and talk about how you're feeling, but will tug your hair and order you around just a little bit - take care of you, protect you, if it comes to that. Few women will admit it. Lots of them would snatch one up if he came along. In this day and age, when it's okay for boys to cry, there's something very refresing and very alluring about a man who still hides his tears.
This topic is locked
.JPG)
