21 replies to this topic

[Bon-san]

James Bond Has Returned

_{CBn's Blair Pettis reviews Casino Royale}

[Loomis]

Good stuff, Bon-san.

[zencat]

Great review, Bon-san.

[00Twelve]

Although I disagree about Vesper and the romance angle, fantastic review.

[Captain Grimes]

Brilliant review. Effusive and clear-eyed. Well done.

[Qwerty]

Just finished it now. A fantastic review, Blair.

Nice work.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Great review. The "absence of camp" is why I liked it so much.

[Seannery]

Bon-san! Long time, no see--hope all is well at the dojo. Nice review--cogent and intelligent as usual. You make strong points for your point of view even though I disagree a fair deal. May you bask in the appreciation of a 1,000 geishas.

[Loomis]

I'd hardly say there's an absence of camp in CASINO ROYALE. What's Le Chiffre's bleeding eye if not camp? The film and the character would have worked perfectly well without it. And Dryden's as camp as a campsite - a theatrical, hammy, black-hatted villain who *drumroll* conceals a gun in his desk drawer. All of this is straight out of some longburied 1930s Republic serial or Sax Rohmer.

Nope, CR ain't DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, and, yes, these little touches are amusing and in no way harmful or irritating (as with RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, it's camp that works), but I think it would be as much of a mistake to say that the film is free of camp as to say that THE BOURNE SUPREMACY is a realistic and serious espionage flick.

[Scottlee]

Good review, Bond-san. Passionate but fair.

[Genrewriter]

Great review, Bon-San.

[killkenny kid]

Well done, Bon-San.

[Bon-san]

I'd hardly say there's an absence of camp in CASINO ROYALE. What's Le Chiffre's bleeding eye if not camp? The film and the character would have worked perfectly well without it. And Dryden's as camp as a campsite - a theatrical, hammy, black-hatted villain who *drumroll* conceals a gun in his desk drawer. All of this is straight out of some longburied 1930s Republic serial or Sax Rohmer.

Nope, CR ain't DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, and, yes, these little touches are amusing and in no way harmful or irritating (as with RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, it's camp that works), but I think it would be as much of a mistake to say that the film is free of camp as to say that THE BOURNE SUPREMACY is a realistic and serious espionage flick.

OK.

In relation to the rest of the series, I would venture that one of the biggest distinctions one could draw between CR and the 'other 20' is a major tonal shift. Casino Royale may indeed have moments one could consider campy (the examples you cite above don't really seem so to me. Perhaps, not being British, I misunderstand the true meaning of the term). But the overall sensibility of the film, to me, says 'no camp here'.

My review, like all my pitiful attempts at putting more than three or four words together, was a stream of consciousness affair. I really tried not to go into deep thought in analysing the film. I was going more for my initial, visceral reaction after seeing it on opening night. After a second viewing, I find myself feeling less emphatic about many of my criticisms. But I found the second viewing measurably less rewarding. Go figure.

[MattofSteel]

That's what happens with repeat viewings, I suppose. I've seen it 3 times, and it was noticeably less exciting three times, as the 4th viewing will likely continue the trend. That doesn't make me love the movie any less, however.

And for the record, I thought the opening of the film was so brilliantly old school, that camp-be-damned. Felt like it was literally made in the 50s or 60s. And I loved that.

[Loomis]

In relation to the rest of the series, I would venture that one of the biggest distinctions one could draw between CR and the 'other 20' is a major tonal shift.

Very much agreed. Not that precludes a bit of camp here and there, of course.

Casino Royale may indeed have moments one could consider campy (the examples you cite above don't really seem so to me. Perhaps, not being British, I misunderstand the true meaning of the term).

I'm just using it in the sense of "overly theatrical". Putting an eye that weeps blood on Le Chiffre is a case of gilding the lily. He'd be perfectly menacing without it, and, besides, he's already got his inhaler as a little eccentricity.

In spite of which, I agree with:

But the overall sensibility of the film, to me, says 'no camp here'.

After a second viewing, I find myself feeling less emphatic about many of my criticisms.

Same here.

[ACE]

A wonderfully written and considered review, Bon-San.

Love the Christmas/Olympics analogy!

Brrr, how wincingly well Mr Pettis writes!

[Seannery]

I'd hardly say there's an absence of camp in CASINO ROYALE. What's Le Chiffre's bleeding eye if not camp? The film and the character would have worked perfectly well without it. And Dryden's as camp as a campsite - a theatrical, hammy, black-hatted villain who *drumroll* conceals a gun in his desk drawer. All of this is straight out of some longburied 1930s Republic serial or Sax Rohmer.

Nope, CR ain't DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, and, yes, these little touches are amusing and in no way harmful or irritating (as with RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, it's camp that works), but I think it would be as much of a mistake to say that the film is free of camp as to say that THE BOURNE SUPREMACY is a realistic and serious espionage flick.

OK.

In relation to the rest of the series, I would venture that one of the biggest distinctions one could draw between CR and the 'other 20' is a major tonal shift. Casino Royale may indeed have moments one could consider campy (the examples you cite above don't really seem so to me. Perhaps, not being British, I misunderstand the true meaning of the term). But the overall sensibility of the film, to me, says 'no camp here'.

My review, like all my pitiful attempts at putting more than three or four words together, was a stream of consciousness affair. I really tried not to go into deep thought in analysing the film. I was going more for my initial, visceral reaction after seeing it on opening night. After a second viewing, I find myself feeling less emphatic about many of my criticisms. But I found the second viewing measurably less rewarding. Go figure.

Bon-san! "Measurably less rewarding the second viewing"--you are coming around some my friend. It's not horrible at all--it's just not all that.

[Bon-san]

Well, Seannery, my friend, I remain of the mind that it's a very good film.

I won't really be able to place it in context with respect to the rest of the bond canon for some years yet. Such is the way of things. Who knows, time may end up yielding a more favourable impression of CR from you.

[Seannery]

Yes, it will be interesting to see how myself and all of us think about CR in a couple years time.

[Mr Ashdown]

A nice review; gets across the tone and texture and immediacy of the film very well.

I quibble about the reviewer's opinion of Vesper, and the reason Bond gives his heart to her.

Bond himself *explains* why: She has no "tells"; she's unreadable. This is why he's surprised and delighted when she gives herself to him. He simply hadn't counted on it, unlike with (presumably) every other woman he wants.

Vesper feels more real than other Bond women (Tracy excepted) because she's like real people: she's contradictory, inconsistent; she doesn't behave exactly in the same way all the way through the movie, following a set-in-stone pattern. She is very well characterised because we're never sure of her, just as we're never really sure about *anyone*.

So Bond finds her fascinating, beautiful, desirable. He wants her, but can't read her, can't find a way in. Eventually, he relaxes, stripped of his armour, and it is *this* that makes her love him.

We fall for the things that surprise and intrigue and excite us. That's why Bond falls in love (very much to his surprise) with Vesper. Because she is not a predictable, one-note Bond girl. She is a secret he wants to uncover, layer by layer. And he can only do so when he stops trying, becomes James Bond instead of 007, and removes his armour to reveal his heart.

Mr Ashdown (a soppy old romantic)

[Bon-san]

A nice review; gets across the tone and texture and immediacy of the film very well.

I quibble about the reviewer's opinion of Vesper, and the reason Bond gives his heart to her.

Bond himself *explains* why: She has no "tells"; she's unreadable. This is why he's surprised and delighted when she gives herself to him. He simply hadn't counted on it, unlike with (presumably) every other woman he wants.

Vesper feels more real than other Bond women (Tracy excepted) because she's like real people: she's contradictory, inconsistent; she doesn't behave exactly in the same way all the way through the movie, following a set-in-stone pattern. She is very well characterised because we're never sure of her, just as we're never really sure about *anyone*.

So Bond finds her fascinating, beautiful, desirable. He wants her, but can't read her, can't find a way in. Eventually, he relaxes, stripped of his armour, and it is *this* that makes her love him.

We fall for the things that surprise and intrigue and excite us. That's why Bond falls in love (very much to his surprise) with Vesper. Because she is not a predictable, one-note Bond girl. She is a secret he wants to uncover, layer by layer. And he can only do so when he stops trying, becomes James Bond instead of 007, and removes his armour to reveal his heart.

Mr Ashdown (a soppy old romantic)

Excellent points, Mr. Ashdown!

[VeteransAbroad]

Interesting points. But I don't think a man falls in love with a woman these days because she's the only one who isn't easy to go to bed with. The sexual revolution ended with a bang in 1986 when both the political right and left joined forces to scare everyone on AIDs. Since then, no matter how suave and good looking a man is, the tendency is for him NOT to succeed quickly with any particular woman and this 2006 version of Casino Royale shows a modern man who doesn't expect sex like a 70s man might have.

Also, a 38 year old man in today's society would find it normal for a western woman in her twenties to be "complicated" around him, no matter how rich and sophisticated and good-looking he was.

So the idea of the man "wanting what he could not have" or "wanting someone mysterious whom he couldn't figure out" may be off here a little. He'd be used to that behavior in modern society.

IMHO, what Green's character did well was to show a personal interest in Bond, which is what he would have responded to. Then again, I saw the film in German and may need to see it in English to hear every last word the way an English woman would be talking.

As a 38 year old, I might not have been impressed with a woman ten years younger than I was scolding me for having too much ego. But then maybe I would admire her for at least caring enough to get so personal with interest. I think the romance was believable and I am glad they spent the extra half hour depicting the romance developing.

Like in the book, the suicide scene was heartbreaking (even if I had to suspend disbelief that a Venice canal would have swimming pool water and be so deep).