I found myself forced to admit that, solely based on the criteria of fine, nuanced drama, superb multi-layered performances, breath-taking, pulse-pounding action sequences, stunning, brutally effective fight sequences, and the depth and shockingly naked grittiness of its unprecedented maturity, 'Casino Royale' was, quite simply, THE finest James Bond film, with Daniel Craig giving THE single finest performance as Bond of any actor who has ever embodied that 0-0-so-iconic role.
And yet, how could I -- a died-in-the-wool, die-hard "Sean-Connery-IS-James Bond" adherent -- have so heretical a response?
Well, it troubled me and ate away at me for a few days until I came to a sudden realization.
My problem came from considering 'Casino Royale' as another installment in the venerable long LONG-running multi-film franchise when, in reality, it's actually another animal entirely -- no matter WHAT label is put on it, or WHO produced and directed it.
For the stark, cold, unvarnished truth is that the newest Bond film inhabits another universe entirely from the films that came before it, and to compare it with its predecessors is not only unfair but, ultimately, misleading. And that is because there are certain indelible qualities which have defined and characterized all of the previous Bond films -- to a greater or lesser degree -- and which are almost entirely absent from Bond's newest cinematic incarnation. And those various qualities can basically be distilled down into one dominant, over-riding quality: i.e. FUN.
Yep. The newest Bond film may be many things -- and one of those things is an instant classic -- but it is NOT 'fun" in any usual sense of that word. This is simply NOT a feel-good movie, folks. Exciting as hell, yes. Stylish, yes. And, at times, even witty. But it is simply NOT a film from which you emerge happy and exhilerated and feeling like a kid again -- unless, of course, you had one seriously twisted childhood!
Oh, but don't get me wrong -- I DID indeed experience a KIND of happiness and exhileration as I emerged from that first viewing of 'Casino', but NOT for the same reasons as I did after seeing so many of the previous films in the series. No -- THIS time those feelings were engendered simply by the sheer shockingly ballsy gutsiness of the film-makers at actually having the unmitigated chutzpah to SO radically and refreshingly depart from so many cherished and deeply entrenched "officially sanctioned" Bond-film conventions.
By giving SO many standard elements of the previous films the DB-5 ejector-seat treatment, 'Casino Royale' managed, in one fell swoop, to simultaneously dust off and re-invent a series which had long become mired in endless variations on a "Bond,,,James Bond" theme. And much of the credit for that must go to the writers, the producers, and, not least, Martin Campbell who somehow managed to transform himself from a dependable, skilled craftsman into a full-fledged virtuoso of action film-making on a par with Spielberg or Cameron at their best.
And yet, more than any other element, it is Daniel Craig who pulled off the most impressive and unprecedented feat of all -- making Bond a living, breathing, bleeding, feeling, fully three-dimensional human being, rather than the impossibly suave, cynically charming, and occasionally lethal near-superman so indelibly minted by Sean Connery.
And yet, as brilliant as Craig undeniably is -- and first time out of the gate, to boot! -- one only has to imagine Daniel Craig starring in 'Goldfinger' to see how essentially different an animal he is from the James Bond embodied by Connery. Run that what-if scenario past the tumblers of your brain and it should be immediately obvious that the casting in that case would simply not have worked. Craig's 007 simply does NOT inhabit remotely the same cinematic universe as ANY of the previous screen Bonds. And, therefore, it is both unfair and futile to compare Craig with any of the previous Bonds in terms of relative excellence of acting.
Yet, IF Connery had been ALLOWED to attempt what Craig so unforgettably pulls off in 'Casino', I think he would have succeeded admirably, since, like Craig, he's also simply a damned fine actor. And if anyone questions that, just go rent 'The Man Who Would Be King', 'Robin And Marion', his Oscar-winning turn in 'The Untouchables' or, most impressive of all, Sidney Lumet's two power-house Connery vehicles 'The Hill' and 'The Offence', See those and you'll have NO doubts that Connery could have handled the requisite rigors and emotional complexiites of 'Casino Royale'. And yet, conversely, could the rough, edgy, comparitively unpolished Craig as effortlessly embody the kind of Cary-Grant-meets-cold-blooded-hitman quality which Connery virtually invented for his iconic interpretation of Fleming's legendary secret agent?
Time, perhaps, will tell.
Edited by pdc7, 24 November 2006 - 05:35 AM.