52 replies to this topic

[spynovelfan]

'Consider this scene: Two cars motor down a highway. One is a rusted-out station wagon with buckets, mops, and brooms in the back. Driving it is an illegal alien - a quiet, shy woman working as a domestic for under-the-table cash, sole support of her family. Alongside her is a glistening new Porsche driven by a brilliant and wealthy neurosurgeon. Two people who have utterly different backgrounds, beliefs, personalities, languages - in every way imaginable their CHARACTERIZATIONS are the opposite of each other.

Suddenly, in front of them, a school bus full of children flips out of control, smashes against an underpass, bursting into flames, trapping the children inside. Now, under this terrible pressure, we'll find out who these two people really are. Who chooses to stop? Who chooses to drive by? Each has rationalizations for driving by. The domestic worries that if she gets caught up in this, the police might question her, find out she's an illegal, throw her back across the border, and her family will starve. The surgeon fears that if he's injured and his hands burned, hands that perform miraculous microsurgeries, the lives of thousands of future patients will be lost. But let's say they both hit the brakes and stop.

This choice gives us a clue to character, but who's stopping to help, and who's become too hysterical to drive any farther? Let's say they both choose to help. This tells us more. But who chooses to help by calling for an ambulance and waiting? Who chooses to help by dashing into the burning bus? Let's say they both rush for the bus - a choice that reveals character in even greater depth.

Now doctor and housekeeper smash windows, crawl inside the blazing bus, grab screaming children, and push them to safety. But their choices aren't over. Soon the flames surge into a blistering inferno, skin peels from their faces. They can't take another breath without searing their lungs. In the midst of this horror each realizes there's only a second left to rescue one of the many children still inside. How does the doctor react? In a sudden reflex does he reach for a white child or the black child closer to him? Which way do the housekeeper's instincts take her? Does she save the little boy? Or the little girl cowering at her feet? How does she make "Sophie's choice"?

We may discover that deep within these utterly different characterizations is an identical humanity - both willing to give their lives in a heartbeat for strangers. Or it may turn out that the person we thought would act heroically is a coward. Or the one we thought would act cowardly is a hero. Or at rock bottom, we may discover that selfless heroism is not the limit of true character in either of them. For the unseen power of their acculturation may force each to a spontaneous choice that exposes unconscious prejudices of gender or ethnicity . . . even while they are performing acts of saint-like courage. Whichever way the scene's written, choice under pressure will strip away the mask of characterization, we'll peer into their inner natures and with a flash of insight grasp their true characters.'

This is an excerpt from the book STORY: Substance, Structure, Style and The Principles of Screenwriting by Robert McKee. Anyone who has seen the film CRASH, written and directed by Paul Haggis, will recognise that he used this basic idea - who to save in a car crash as revelation of character - in an extremely powerful scene between Matt Dillon and Thandie Newton. He reversed the unspoken assumption above that the man in the Porsche would be white and the blue-collar worker black, having Newton in the fancy car and Dillon a struggling cop, and he used the idea that the person we thought would be a coward turns out to be capable of heroism - again reversing expectation, because Dillon's character is a racist. (Haggis was also inspired by his own Porsche experience: http://www.landmarkt.../mn/crash.html)

I wonder if Messrs Purvis and Wade have also read Robert McKee's work or attended his seminar. I seem to remember reading an interview in which one of them talked about the scene in which Bond orders the Vesper as making it a 'hero moment', which strikes me as at least screenwriting manual jargon. McKee is one of many screenwriting gurus, and probably the best known after William Goldman.

He is also widely criticised - the film ADAPTATION, for instance, and this recent article in The Guardian, the latter taking a firm line that McKee is responsible for a 'McFlurrying' of Hollywood. I don't think this is the case, and don't think it was the point made in ADAPTATION, either. Poor interpretation of McKee's ideas does indeed lead to empty film-making, but he repeatedly insists on the need to break rules to create great art. In his book, the passage immediately following the above scene idea is titled 'Character revelation', and part of it runs like this:

'What went wrong with Rambo? In First Blood, he was a compelling character - a Vietnam burnout, a loner hiking through the mountains, seeking solitude (characterization). Then a sheriff, for no reason other than wickedly high levels of testosterone, provoked him, and out came

[Trident]

Very good observations, Spy!

In CASINO ROYALE, he falls in love and loses that love - just as in the book. But in Fleming's novels, the next book reverts back to the formula. Bond's scar is fixed and he goes off on the next mission. He falls in love (or near as dammit) with Solitaire, who is almost a doppelganger of Vesper. There is no fall-out from Vesper's betrayal (no internal MI6 enquiry) - the plot is essentially dropped. Vesper crops up again at the start of OHMSS, but it is really a prop for his next love affair that goes wrong.

Basically correct. But Vesper is not forgotten entirely. In DAF Bond skips 'La Vie en Rose' on Tiffany Case' record 'because it had memories for him'. In GF when he wakes up in the airplane, thinking he died at the hands of Oddjob and was on his way to heaven, he wonders how he explains Tilly to Vesper should he meet her there. So Vesper's shadow is still present, even if it's only at the very edge of Bond's world. But of course you're right there. The strong characterisation of CR has been dropped until OHMSS.

It seems to me that the script-writers of CASINO ROYALE took on board what McKee had to say about the formula of Bond and decided it had become much like Rambo (I've not seen those films, so I mean the interpretation of the series McKee offers): over-familiar. They then worked from the basis that true character needs inner conflict and revelation, and this can be both unexpected and unconscious, a trend that has worked especially well in the Bourne films (literally, in that case, as the main character has lost a vital part of his consciousness), and they went to work applying some of these principles. In the process, they have changed the Bond series forever - or have they? If the machine-gun wielding Bond of the end of the film becomes the norm, does true character become lost again, in the same way that McKee says it did with Rambo?

Any thoughts?

I'm not sure about that question myself. CR was the boldest and most couragious move in Bond films since DN. In fact even more so, as the whole future of a most successful frenchise was at stake here, whereas DN was just one of many projects of two film producers who had vast interests and experience in the field. Had DN not taken off, Broccoli an Salzman would simply have put up their next idea. CR was a whole new start and I would hope the start of a new series that doesn't neglect charaterisation in favor of action. The point is, will it be possible to keep focus on revelation and inner conflict over a series of several films? I sincerely hope so, as this development revealed the full potential of Bond at the cinema for the first time since OHMSS, IMO.

And I think Barbara Broccoli has rightfully stated that this is just the time to tell these 'serious' storys and keep audiences interested. Interested not in the next generation CGI-SFX with explosions blowing away the first three rows in front of the screen, but interested in the people causing these explosions. Their motives and drives, their fears and longings. And yet still tell thrilling and gripping storys that drive audiences on the edges of their seats.

Edited by Trident, 26 June 2007 - 05:17 PM.

[spynovelfan]

Very good observations, Spy!

Thanks, Trident - I'm glad someone thought so, anyway! It was sparked off by our discussion in the Disbanding The OO Section thread on what continuation authors can do with the character. You mentioned that they can change anything, as long as they change it back! I wondered how they could change CASINO ROYALE back - they can't, really: it's a much more explicit revelation of character than even OHMSS. That film leads up to a character revelation, which was squandered in the next film; CASINO ROYALE is about the character revelation. It's the main thrust of the film.

The point is, will it be possible to keep focus on revelation and inner conflict over a series of several films?

Yes, I think this is the crucial question. Oddly, it seems that it's unacceptable to audiences for there to be no character revelation in one or even three films - but in 19 or 20, that's okay. Perhaps not 21 or 22, though, and they realised that. How they continue to change Bond while keeping him Bond is a long-term challenge, I think. Can they really go back to the unrevealed character? It seems hard to see how.

[Trident]

Yes, I think this is the crucial question. Oddly, it seems that it's unacceptable to audiences for there to be no character revelation in one or even three films - but in 19 or 20, that's okay. Perhaps not 21 or 22, though, and they realised that. How they continue to change Bond while keeping him Bond is a long-term challenge, I think. Can they really go back to the unrevealed character? It seems hard to see how.

From my point of view EON has moved its series into a whole different kind of genre. Previously, Bonds were for the most part glamorized thrillers with some fantastic/horror elements and emphasis on action (especially after LTK). Characterization and/or revelation were only minor elements in the beginning that became even sparser over the years and (after the 'failures' to reverse that development in OHMSS and once more in LTK) were dropped entirely in several films. The infrequent indications to Bond's status as widower (TSWLM, FYEO for example) were only halfhearted attempts with one or two lines of dialogue but didn't have any real impact on the storyline or audiences perception of the Bond character.

Now with CR, previously undiscovered terrain has been explored. As you already pointed out, characterization and revelation both are a vital part of CR and from what we learned up to now about BOND 22 may be vital parts of that sequel storyline. To me, that development suggests that EON intends to get a firmer grip onto this new field of character-suspense-action thriller. Yet, this is no genre that lends itself easily to a series of movies, and certainly not to the longest-running frenchise in the industry. We may find out that there is only ever so much room for revelation in a character as Bond. Maybe, after four or five films there is no more room within the given material of the character and his borders? If this should turn out true, I'd still want to see these five films, or whatever the limit is.

When that point is finally reached there are basically two (or perhaps three) possibilities:

Either EON realizes they can go no further without changing Bond's character and decides to shift the limitations of their hero (don't ask me how or where to, I've no idea).

Or EON calls another restart, giving them the option to either aim for casual-saturday-afternoon-popcorn-fun-Bond again or another Bond-begins adventure.

While I'd put my money on the restart-option I don't really think that EON has already made its mind up on such questions now. Filmbusiness is strongly dependend on what's en-vogue next year or the year after that. Nobody really nows, what that will be. If, for example, a new wave of comedy/slapstick movies swaps across cinemas and the audiences favor it, the 3-dimensional era of revelations in Bond history might quickly be forgotten again. Bond-film history is first of all film-history and mirrors the developments of that industry and the preferences of the audience. EON has always tried to keep up with the fashion and without the smashing success the Bourne films turned out to be (or the SPIDERMAN success that dealt with another hero who is not exactly happy with his calling) I strongly doubt that we'd have gotten the CR we've seen last year.

[spynovelfan]

Is it just the two of us here, Trident?

I like your point about Bond history being film history. As for whether there is room for revelation of Bond's character across four or five films, well, perhaps there is. I wouldn't have thought it possible before seeing CASINO ROYALE, but then I had never seen the possibilities that film opened up.

I think CR hints at far greater potential for character revelation, and that there is now a possibility that James Bond could become as complex as, say, Michael Corleone. That was only three films, admittedly, but the first stage of the character - Michael in Part One - lasted in the Bond universe for 20 films. Michael the soldier son, James the secret agent. Strict parameters. Now we have moved into GODFATHER TWO territory, and it may be possible to sustain the increasing of the character's boundaries for several films. Elements from Fleming such as Bond being brainwashed and trying to kill M, beign haunted/jaded/grief-stricken/on the verge of collapse were all unthinkable in the previous era - but now we have a whole new canvas.

Bond is not part of a Bond Film anymore: he has been set loose from his shackles. The world's greatest scriptwriters and directors could do wonders with this, and they certainly have an actor up to the part. I remember reading an interview with Kevin Smith a few years ago in which he was talking about his script for DAREDEVIL. I haven't seen the film and realise it didn't do well - but perhaps because it didn't include what Smith saw, which is that Daredevil is not a superhero, but a vigilante in a mask who goes home to his apartment in Hell's Kitchen every night and tends his battered and bloodied body. Another moment that springs to mind is in LAYER CAKE, when Daniel Craig's character sits alone in a room drinking, shocked to the core at having committed a murder. Also a similar scene acted by Eric Bana in MUNICH (and used on the posters for that film). This Haunted Hero trope can be seen - really for the first time in the Bond series - in CASINO ROYALE, in Bond's look after the first kill in the pre-titles sequence, and the brief scene in which he examines his bloodied face and body in the hotel room mirror and swigs a shot down. I think this is the character revelation McKee was talking about: the apparently super-suave and indestructible secret agent is, well, not a 'thinking man's Rambo', but a flawed, self-aware human being stricken with guilt and grief. They have been talking about this for so long - Brosnan's era especially - that it had become an empty cliche. In CR they delivered on it - I finally believed Bond was Human and Haunted and all the rest of it. What could a further character revelation be? How far could they go and how far would we accept? I think Craig looked almost psychotic at some points (his stare into the camera at the end of the titles, for instance; the last scene): could the series withstand that character revelation, that Bond has actually now lost his soul?

Anyone else reading this - do feel free to chime in!

[Loomis]

Well, there are some fascinating points here, but I wonder whether the depth and richness, the GODFATHER II-ness, of CASINO ROYALE isn't being a tad overstated. Now, I do realise that CR isn't, say, A VIEW TO A KILL, but then again claims of amazing and mould-breaking character growth in CR would hold more weight if Bond didn't seem to be already a seasoned and ruthless action man at the start of the film and wasn't the exquisitely-dressed quipster at the end of it.

All that really happens in CR is that Bond gets formal Double-O status (offscreen), gets tortured (which we've seen before, albeit not like this*) and gets betrayed (which we've also seen before). Is there really anything in CR we hadn't seen in, say, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE?

I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent - CR is an excellent film, and we really do now have "the world's greatest scriptwriters and directors" on the series, but for the most part it's conventional. Brilliantly done and tremendously entertaining (and, yes, resonant), but conventional nonetheless.

*I think us hardcore fans need to appreciate how average punters can look at CR and the Bond films - I have a friend who has told me, with a perfectly straight face, that the torture in CR wasn't as harrowing or powerful as the torture in DIE ANOTHER DAY.

[doublenoughtspy]

I agree with everything you just said Loomis.

During the Brosnan era, when they were trying to "peel back the layers", show Bond being betrayed by friends and lovers, the angst, etc. etc. I said that it is Bond's invincibility, not his vulnerability, that audiences want to see.

Streching back to the Dalton era, he said that he didn't want to play a Superman, and that audiences couldn't identify with such a character.

Obviously it's a successful blending of the two that makes a great film - Bond can't be a Terminator robot and 20+ films of that would get boring. But you can't have Bond so conflicted and unstable that he can't perform his job.

Regarding the torture - I can totally see your friend's point. In CR - Bond was undergoing incredibly painful torture - but he had the upper hand. He had the information they wanted.

In DAD - they were trying to retrieve information that Bond did not have. And drowning can be scarier than a wack on the balls.

[David Schofield]

Sorry, Spy, I'm with doublenaught and Loomis.

There has been an awful lot of pretentious guff written about Casino Royale, and I for one would strongly venture that there is nothing more revelatory about CR than in the much-maligned Licence to Kill.

As Trident has pointed out, the timing may just be right now for CR to be appreciated. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it is just a more successful LTK, nothing new.

[byline]

Sorry, Spy, I'm with doublenaught and Loomis.

There has been an awful lot of pretentious guff written about Casino Royale, and I for one would strongly venture that there is nothing more revelatory about CR than in the much-maligned Licence to Kill.

As Trident has pointed out, the timing may just be right now for CR to be appreciated. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it is just a more successful LTK, nothing new.

I think there's more to it than that. Yes, "Licence to Kill" did not get an overall great reception at the time of its release . . . and I believe much of that has to do with fans' expectations (expecting Brosnan to be cast, then treating Dalton like the second choice, etc.). I also think that at the time, most fans weren't ready for a grittier, darker Bond; now they are. But I think it goes beyond that. My interpretation of what I've heard and read about "Licence to Kill" is that there was not a united front on how to portray the character. So even though Dalton wanted to play Bond not as a superman, but as a conflicted man in extraordinary circumstances, there are aspects of both of his films that tell me not everyone was totally behind his interpretation, and certain "Moore"-ish elements were retained -- especially in "The Living Daylights" -- to satisfy the audience.

The difference with "Casino Royale," I believe, is that everyone was of one mind on how to present Bond, and so we see a far more cohesive dynamic . . . in the end, making it a superior film. Just my opinion, though.

[spynovelfan]

Well, there are some fascinating points here, but I wonder whether the depth and richness, the GODFATHER II-ness, of CASINO ROYALE isn't being a tad overstated.

Quite possibly, depending on what you thought of the film. But I think there's much more of an attempt in CR to peel back the layers than in any Bond film other than OHMSS, and even then I think Bond is revealed as a more complex character here. Just how successful you find it depends on your own view of the film, but my point in that long rambling introductory post was more that Purvis, Wade and Haggis seemed to have made a conscious decision to reveal a deeper level of character in the script than is traditional to the formula - whether or not that is to your liking/plausible/well-executed. Perhaps that's an obvious point, but your listing of OO status, tortured, betrayed seems to suggest it wasn't. There's surely much more to it than that. This Bond makes serious errors of judgement, he bruises and bleeds, he doubts, he has a conscience about killing - he didn't do any of the above before (even in LTK!). He also grieves, which we have seen, but it looks like he will turn this to vengeance, which we haven't.

Robert McKee's STORY was published in 1999: then, the sentence 'James Bond has no inner conflicts' was a no-brainer. Can the same really be said of CASINO ROYALE? Do all of you really not feel that the inner conflict has been pushed to the fore?

I'll get my coat!

[Brock Samson]

Streching back to the Dalton era, he said that he didn't want to play a Superman, and that audiences couldn't identify with such a character.

Obviously it's a successful blending of the two that makes a great film - Bond can't be a Terminator robot and 20+ films of that would get boring. But you can't have Bond so conflicted and unstable that he can't perform his job.

This is a great point. Bauer and Bourne are both popular 'conflicted' heroes that are vulnerable enough to seem 'real' but tough enough to appeal.
I wouldn't say CR was influenced so much that it was copying this idea of a more realistic action hero, more that it's been a prevailing trend for awhile now.
I think 24 may have gone a little too far into introspection with Bauer at times but he's still an immensely popular character. There appears to be more of a market for heroes of popular fiction that have more of an edge or at least a little more depth.
Good stuff, I reckon.

The one thing I heard repeatedly about the CR torture scene was the tremendous physique of Craig, particularly from the ladies.

[David Schofield]

Sorry, Spy, I'm with doublenaught and Loomis.

There has been an awful lot of pretentious guff written about Casino Royale, and I for one would strongly venture that there is nothing more revelatory about CR than in the much-maligned Licence to Kill.

As Trident has pointed out, the timing may just be right now for CR to be appreciated. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it is just a more successful LTK, nothing new.

I think there's more to it than that. Yes, "Licence to Kill" did not get an overall great reception at the time of its release . . . and I believe much of that has to do with fans' expectations (expecting Brosnan to be cast, then treating Dalton like the second choice, etc.). I also think that at the time, most fans weren't ready for a grittier, darker Bond; now they are. But I think it goes beyond that. My interpretation of what I've heard and read about "Licence to Kill" is that there was not a united front on how to portray the character. So even though Dalton wanted to play Bond not as a superman, but as a conflicted man in extraordinary circumstances, there are aspects of both of his films that tell me not everyone was totally behind his interpretation, and certain "Moore"-ish elements were retained -- especially in "The Living Daylights" -- to satisfy the audience.

The difference with "Casino Royale," I believe, is that everyone was of one mind on how to present Bond, and so we see a far more cohesive dynamic . . . in the end, making it a superior film. Just my opinion, though.

Byline, I'm considering LTK based upon what's on the screen, rather than whether all parties concerned were happy with it. Inspite of any conflict, I feel that the "cohesive dynamic" of the LTK story is no less than CR and that, and I fail to recall LTK featuring any Roger Moore-isms that might have dragged it down (though I may have missed them).

LTK, IMO, stands as the same quality product as CR and features, basically, the same James Bond.

[spynovelfan]

Here's what I would say is the fundamental difference between LTK and CR's characterisation of Bond. In LTK, Bond is a hero - a ruthless, cold-blooded hero, but still a hero. He is better than everyone else, and knows it. In CR, Bond is not yet a hero: he thinks he is better than everyone else, but he isn't yet. CR's Bons is racked by self-doubts and acknowledges that if he continues in he leaves his current profession he will still have some of his soul left - ie if he doesn't, he won't. Where is that self-doubt in LTK - or indeed in any other Bond film?

(The cloakroom attendants appear to have misplaced my coat.)

[doublenoughtspy]

This Bond makes serious errors of judgement, he bruises and bleeds, he doubts, he has a conscience about killing - he didn't do any of the above before (even in LTK!). He also grieves, which we have seen, but it looks like he will turn this to vengeance, which we haven't.

We've seen Bond bruised and bloody before.

He's had a conscience about killing before - see TLD - Dalton's sparing of Kara and his line to Saunders about only killing professionals.

So his killing of Sanchez in LTK ("Don't you want to know why?") isn't vengence for Della and Felix? It felt to me like he grieved over her and then got vengence.

Pushing Loque off the cliff with "I believe you left this with Ferrara" isn't vengence?

I do grant you that CR is the first time we've seen Bond make a number of mistakes though.

[spynovelfan]

This Bond makes serious errors of judgement, he bruises and bleeds, he doubts, he has a conscience about killing - he didn't do any of the above before (even in LTK!). He also grieves, which we have seen, but it looks like he will turn this to vengeance, which we haven't.

We've seen Bond bruised and bloody before.

He's had a conscience about killing before - see TLD - Dalton's sparing of Kara and his line to Saunders about only killing professionals.

So his killing of Sanchez in LTK ("Don't you want to know why?") isn't vengence for Della and Felix? It felt to me like he grieved over her and then got vengence.

Pushing Loque off the cliff with "I believe you left this with Ferrara" isn't vengence?

I do grant you that CR is the first time we've seen Bond make a number of mistakes though.

I concede that elements of this peeling back of the layers have been there before: significantly in OHMSS and the Dalton era, and with superficial nods to it in the Brosnan era. But I ask again: 'James Bond has no inner conflicts'. It's basically true until CASINO ROYALE, isn't it? I don't think any of the examples of vengeance you've given are as close to home as we see at the end of this film, but even if they were, I think we still have, for the first time in the character, mistakes - and doubts. Dalton may have some conscience, but he never really doubts himself or hsi profession, does he? The Bond looking into the mirror and talking about losing his soul is surely a pretty major character revelation.

[David Schofield]

Here's what I would say is the fundamental difference between LTK and CR's characterisation of Bond. In LTK, Bond is a hero - a ruthless, cold-blooded hero, but still a hero. He is better than everyone else, and knows it. In CR, Bond is not yet a hero: he thinks he is better than everyone else, but he isn't yet. CR's Bons is racked by self-doubts and acknowledges that if he continues in he leaves his current profession he will still have some of his soul left - ie if he doesn't, he won't. Where is that self-doubt in LTK - or indeed in any other Bond film?

(The cloakroom attendants appear to have misplaced my coat.)

I've never been convinced that the Bond is CR really is anymore vulnerable than any other Bond. He defeats everyone he comes across, some - Demetrios, the stairwell guys - with relative, typically Bondian ease. He can "read" people remarkably well. Sure, he gets captured and only escapes as a consequence of someonelse's intervention; but that is no different from Tracy rescueing Laz, Brozza being freed in DAD.

On LTK, I believe Bond shows great doubt in his ability to defeat Sanchez. Consider his uncertainty when he is actually considering meeting Sanchez and his men face to face. It is not a given. Similarly, Bond shows the same brash arrogance in actually believing he can take on Sanchez alone, as Pam Bouvier points out. And has there ever been a greater acknowledgement of Bond realization of the futility of what he does than the huge sigh after Sanchez is incinerated?

Ah, I hear you say, but in CR Bond is naiive enough not to catch on the Vesper's duplicity, arrogant enough to condemn the innocent Mathis. But isn't this the same naiivety and arrogance Bond was still showing in OHMSS by marrying Tracy first rather than concluding the capture of Blofeld? Or was Bond in OHMSS similarly aware, as in CR, that here was a chance to get out with some soul intact, regardless?

[spynovelfan]

But the difference, surely, between all the examples you have given and the ones in CR, is that in previous films this was subtext. In CASINO ROYALE, it's a central theme of the film: how James Bond became James Bond. Bond explicitly expresses doubts about his profession - he should get out while he still has some of his soul left (compare to Brosnan's beach speech about it keeping him alive). We may sense arrogance in Lazenby's error at thinking Bunt no longer a threat - we are repeatedly told Bond is making errors in CR. Too early to promote you. We may sense a level of futility in Dalton's performance - but his scene with the shot glass was cut.

[tdalton]

Well, there are some fascinating points here, but I wonder whether the depth and richness, the GODFATHER II-ness, of CASINO ROYALE isn't being a tad overstated. Now, I do realise that CR isn't, say, A VIEW TO A KILL, but then again claims of amazing and mould-breaking character growth in CR would hold more weight if Bond didn't seem to be already a seasoned and ruthless action man at the start of the film and wasn't the exquisitely-dressed quipster at the end of it.

All that really happens in CR is that Bond gets formal Double-O status (offscreen), gets tortured (which we've seen before, albeit not like this*) and gets betrayed (which we've also seen before). Is there really anything in CR we hadn't seen in, say, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE?

Agreed. Casino Royale is an OK movie, but I don't see it as something that has completely redefined the entire series. Granted, we now have an actor playing Bond who has already, IMO, become far and away the best James Bond the franchise has ever had, but the film itself isn't really all that different from what has come before. It still is bound by the formula that was the blueprint for the past 20 films. Of course, they've approached it from different angles, but the formula is still very much there.

Also agreed that a lot of CR is stuff that we've seen before. It's now been almost 2 decades since we've gotten a film that wasn't a "this time, it's personal", and that element for CR is something that we've seen before, as well as the components of the film such as the torture scene, Bond falling in love, the big action sequences that are there simply to have a big action sequence, etc. I'll admit that CR is a step forward from many of the movies in the series (especially the last four and maybe a handful of the others), but I still don't find it in the same league as films such as TLD, LTK, FRWL, FYEO, OHMSS, DN, amongst others, that used the same formula that CR used and did it much better.

[Trident]

I like your point about Bond history being film history.

Well, just about every major film trend (and several minor ones) is quoted during the series to some extent. You can find 'Smokey and the Bandid'/'Cannonball' as well as Shaolin-Kung-Fu, Star-Wars, Spencer/Hill-slapstick fisticuffs, talking animals, matrix effects and so on.

This Haunted Hero trope can be seen - really for the first time in the Bond series - in CASINO ROYALE, in Bond's look after the first kill in the pre-titles sequence, and the brief scene in which he examines his bloodied face and body in the hotel room mirror and swigs a shot down. I think this is the character revelation McKee was talking about: the apparently super-suave and indestructible secret agent is, well, not a 'thinking man's Rambo', but a flawed, self-aware human being stricken with guilt and grief.

I just had to rewatch that scene! It's really so incredibly charged up with tension Craig seems to pop out from the screen and drip blood onto my parquet floor! Fantastic! Absolutely fabulous!

They have been talking about this for so long - Brosnan's era especially - that it had become an empty cliche. In CR they delivered on it - I finally believed Bond was Human and Haunted and all the rest of it. What could a further character revelation be? How far could they go and how far would we accept? I think Craig looked almost psychotic at some points (his stare into the camera at the end of the titles, for instance; the last scene): could the series withstand that character revelation, that Bond has actually now lost his soul?

Oh, but there certainly is potential room for such development. But some of the possibilities are quite daring (and some darker ones are currently being explored in fan-fiction by Jim, amongst others). For example Fleming himself mentioned Bond actually for the first time getting into a frenzy (strangling Goldfinger in his airplane). Could Bond actually enjoy a kill?

Or perhaps another hint from Fleming (from 'Moonraker'): Bond shoots some badguy and has to stand up at Old Bailey for his pains.

Or Bond killing somebody after his masters have decided to join forces with the person in question and want him to abort his mission.

Or Bond being blackmailed.

Or Bond dealing with an enemy he had made at Whitehall.

Or Bond sparing an enemy's life.

Or... Or... Or...

[David Schofield]

But the difference, surely, between all the examples you have given and the ones in CR, is that in previous films this was subtext. In CASINO ROYALE, it's a central theme of the film: how James Bond became James Bond. Bond explicitly expresses doubts about his profession - he should get out while he still has some of his soul left (compare to Brosnan's beach speech about it keeping him alive). We may sense arrogance in Lazenby's error at thinking Bunt no longer a threat - we are repeatedly told Bond is making errors in CR. Too early to promote you. We may sense a level of futility in Dalton's performance - but his scene with the shot glass was cut.

But, Spy, where is the vulnerability in CR Bond. As I posted above, he defeats everyone, ultimately. Business as usual. OK, M implies she made a mistake promoting Bond - and then promptly contradicts her doubt about him on the beach in the Bahamas when Bond suggests she knew exactly what he'd do to find out about Ellipsis. She sets up a bizare sceem to entrap Le Chiffre which involves giving Bond several million dollars and sending him off to play CARDS! This is not the action of a woman who doubts her man! All this you've learned your lesson stuff could quite easily have come from Messervy M to Bond after his return to work after Tracy's assassination.

In short, Bond's supposed vulnerabilty and lack of experience is CR a MacGuffin. It sounds good too. Pretend we're showing you a different Bond so you can intellectualise about it, when you've seen it all before. CR's Bond is no less Superman than in his previous movies: he even runs through walls and in the Madagascar scene as Terminator-unstoppable as he's ever been.

Then again, as we know the Bond of Fleming's book never claimed to be a novice anyway, its perhaps no wonder CR the movie has such a problem being convincing on that issue.

[byline]

Dalton may have some conscience, but he never really doubts himself or hsi profession, does he?

While I agree with you that Craig's Bond is more uncertain (the mirror scene reflects that perfectly), Dalton did have moments of uncertainty . . . or, at least, moments when he questioned his profession. In "The Living Daylights," he welcomes Saunders to report whatever he wants to, and if M fires him, he'll thank him for it. So, while he's not questioning his own actions, he is, I think, questioning the legitimacy of his profession and whether he wants to continue on in it. And, in "Licence to Kill," of course there's that scene where he confronts M and seems only too happy to abandon his profession for the sake of avenging Leiter. Again, Dalton's Bond appears quite certain of his own motives, but doesn't seem all that enamored of MI6's.

Ah, I hear you say, but in CR Bond is naiive enough not to catch on the Vesper's duplicity, arrogant enough to condemn the innocent Mathis. But isn't this the same naiivety and arrogance Bond was still showing in OHMSS by marrying Tracy first rather than concluding the capture of Blofeld? Or was Bond in OHMSS similarly aware, as in CR, that here was a chance to get out with some soul intact, regardless?

I agree with you there. We have seen all of this before. The difference with "Casino Royale" though, I think, is that Bond's vulnerability is made more obvious to us throughout the entire film, rather than in scattered bits and pieces. And perhaps it should've been before, as IMO that's far more believable than some superhuman hero who comes out of every confrontation mostly unscathed.

But, Spy, where is the vulnerability in CR Bond.

Certainly, when Bond is strapped to that chair in Le Chiffre's torture chamber, he's about as vulnerable as one can get. And when he confesses his love for Vesper (then later on realizes her betrayal), we see how vulnerable he was emotionally.

Also, while Bond does defeat his enemies, this is the first time I can recall that he actually carries scars from his battles beyond that particular scene. Even Dalton, who got pretty bloodied by the end of "Licence to Kill," looks pretty normal by the time he jumps in the pool with Pam. So we're getting little reminders here and there that even though Bond is smart and strong enough to outwit his opponents, he is blood and bone and isn't invincible. Also, he makes errors in judgment . . . which, of course, we've seen before. But I think we see more of his learning process on display here, rather than some sort of assumed invincibility that he's always going to be led, somehow, to the right decision.

[byline]

LTK, IMO, stands as the same quality product as CR and features, basically, the same James Bond.

I guess that's where we'll agree to disagree. As much as I love Timothy Dalton's Bond, and while "Licence to Kill" grows on me with each viewing, I still feel that as an overall film, it has some pretty huge flaws. You're correct in pointing out that the Moore-isms aren't there . . . thankfully. (They returned with a vengeance in Brosnan's Bond.) One problem I have with "Licence to Kill" is the uneven acting by some of the principles . . . Carey Lowell, David Hedison, etc. Of course, Hedison admits that he didn't get his script until he arrived on the set, so that probably explains that unfortunate development. Leiter is so crucial to the underlying story, and Bond's motivation for what he does, yet we really don't see that chemistry from Leiter's point of view (Dalton is impeccable, as always). And Robert Davi's Sanchez is wonderful. All of this almost makes up for the other elements that are lacking.

That's another difference, IMO, with "Casino Royale." There isn't a weak performance in the bunch; every note rings true, IMO. I don't feel like I have to work for it the way I do with "Licence to Kill." Again, of course, this is entirely my opinion.

[byline]

This Haunted Hero trope can be seen - really for the first time in the Bond series - in CASINO ROYALE, in Bond's look after the first kill in the pre-titles sequence, and the brief scene in which he examines his bloodied face and body in the hotel room mirror and swigs a shot down.

For me, this was one of the most obvious points at which we were seeing a different Bond, someone who really was grappling with his own fears and mortality . . . rather than someone who just talked about grappling with these things (or, as was the case in "GoldenEye," someone else talking about him grappling with these things, even though we saw no real signs of it in Brosnan's portrayal).

Here's something else my husband noticed: In the shower scene with Vesper, we assume he's just there for her, trying to comfort her as best he can. But my husband noted that he's also doing that for him. She's brought him back to that point where he has to confront not only his own mortality, and the effects of his profession on himself, but also the impact all of this is having on other people. As my husband said, he didn't just do that for her; he was doing that for himself, as well. It would be a valid point that we could find instances of this in other Bond films, but I just don't think it was done with as much depth as what we saw here.

[Loomis]

Casino Royale is an OK movie, but I don't see it as something that has completely redefined the entire series. Granted, we now have an actor playing Bond who has already, IMO, become far and away the best James Bond the franchise has ever had, but the film itself isn't really all that different from what has come before. It still is bound by the formula that was the blueprint for the past 20 films. Of course, they've approached it from different angles, but the formula is still very much there.

Exactly. Although I'd say that CASINO ROYALE is an excellent movie, not an okay one; however, for all its excellence, Craig is by far the best thing about it. Would people really be raving about it so much if it were the exact same film but starred a lightweight like Julian McMahon?

And as for all this business about an arrogant Bond who makes stupid mistakes, I refer you to THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, in which 007 fumbles the mission at the various points (e.g. his hamfisted tour of "the world of Suzie Wong", as M puts it), and makes an incredibly graceless attempt to pull Goodnight for a night as one of his "passing fancies" and falls flat on his face (okay, granted, Goodnight does come round, and very quickly, but we still see Bond boobing).

And Bond has never grieved or felt that he should leave his profession in order to salvage what remains of his life? OHMSS, anyone?

I do love CR - I'd say it's by some distance the best Bond film ever made (although my favourite remains TMWTGG). However, I don't think it's as staggeringly novel as it's made out to be, or that Bond has never been anything more than a "cardboard booby" in earlier outings.

[byline]

Exactly. Although I'd say that CASINO ROYALE is an excellent movie, not an okay one; however, for all its excellence, Craig is by far the best thing about it. Would people really be raving about it so much if it were the exact same film but starred a lightweight like Julian McMahon?

Point taken. I suspect you're absolutely right. And this was another area where I felt that "Casino Royale" distinguished itself. In countless previous Bond outings, it seemed we had an "either/or" situation going on: Either Bond was played by a superb actor, but his leading ladies were basically models posing through their scenes. Or, less frequently, Bond was played by a less-than-stellar actor, upstaged by his co-stars. In this case, I was pleased that both Bond and Vesper were played by people who could actually act, rather than pose, and Bond was played by someone who made all the things he did believable. (In Moore's case, as time went by, I kept being reminded that there was no possible way someone of his age and build could do the things we saw him doing . . . which constantly took me out of the story.)

And Bond has never grieved or felt that he should leave his profession in order to salvage what remains of his life? OHMSS, anyone?

While that has been done before, and this may be an area where we're going to disagree, I felt it was done immeasurably better in "Casino Royale." For me, it just gets down to the fact that Lazenby wasn't an actor . . . though he did remarkably well in that last scene. But the fact that he is not an actor shows in several scenes, and that, for me, is part of what makes that film not nearly so believable.

[Trident]

I can see the point that most of CR's elements have been present before CR in the series. What makes the difference for me is that for the first time these elements carry the major part of the entire movie IMHO. To me, CR isn't just a well done action flick but a suspense thriller with action elements.

As an example take the scenes after the stairwell fight. The usual routine standard operation practice of Bond I to Bond XX would be: one-liner/next scene.

CR delivers the scenes that have previously been omitted: shaking hands frantically washing off the blood and drowning his nerves in a double bourbon/scotch/brandy. The only other scene I can think of that came close to that was Connery being sick after smashing the spider and we're not shown that actually.

And no, I don't think it's granted that Bond is defeating the baddies. It's not the first time he makes mistakes but in CR his mistakes are truly crucial. Knowing the stakes and LeChiffre's desperation and still doing away with cocktail after cocktail is nothing but insane bravado. Getting nearly poisoned is only a logical consequence. Surviving that attempt, winning the tournament and then sitting comfortably in a restaurant with his beautiful companion as if he just won nothing more dangerous than a game of bingo is likewise lunatic. Ending up in a crashed car and shortly after that on a chair minus cloths and seat again is just the penalty for his previous mistakes. Bond's mission is messed up bad, but not because Vesper is a double. The only one who truly ed up the affair was Bond! Nobody else is to blame that he got tortured and M should give him the sack for his unprofessional behaviour. In fact there is no reason why Mr. White doesn't wait another minute before he finally kills LeChiffre. He can't kill Bond as he wants to get to the money via Vesper. Or can he? Vesper as the envoy of the treasury should get her hands on the funds, so Bond is expendable. Bang, off goes Mr. Bond. But Vesper agrees to cooperate only if Bond is spared. If not for the sentiment of Vesper Bond's brains would have mixed with LeChiffre's on the wall of that blasted boat. At several points in this plot Bond doesn't survive because he's the better to the opposition but because of sheer luck and his reluctance to give up.

When has that been the case before?

[byline]

I can see the point that most of CR's elements have been present before CR in the series. What makes the difference for me is that for the first time these elements carry the major part of the entire movie IMHO. To me, CR isn't just a well done action flick but a suspense thriller with action elements.

As an example take the scenes after the stairwell fight. The usual routine standard operation practice of Bond I to Bond XX would be: one-liner/next scene.

CR delivers the scenes that have previously been omitted: shaking hands frantically washing off the blood and drowning his nerves in a double bourbon/scotch/brandy. The only other scene I can think of that came close to that was Connery being sick after smashing the spider and we're not shown that actually.

Exactly. I guess that, rather than saying we're seeing a "new" Bond, I feel as if we're seeing a more convincing Bond, in terms of his humanity. I felt that Dalton tried very hard to get this across, but given some of the conflicting points of view that were apparent at that time, he wasn't able to get it across as convincingly as Craig. And it certainly isn't because Craig is a better actor . . . though both are in the same league. But I think the story, from writing to execution, was aimed at being more believable from the standpoint of Bond, the human being. Of course, they didn't completely remove the fantasy elements, but the story just felt more grounded, which seemed to give Craig more freedom to play the character as he wished.

[Trident]

I can see the point that most of CR's elements have been present before CR in the series. What makes the difference for me is that for the first time these elements carry the major part of the entire movie IMHO. To me, CR isn't just a well done action flick but a suspense thriller with action elements.

As an example take the scenes after the stairwell fight. The usual routine standard operation practice of Bond I to Bond XX would be: one-liner/next scene.

CR delivers the scenes that have previously been omitted: shaking hands frantically washing off the blood and drowning his nerves in a double bourbon/scotch/brandy. The only other scene I can think of that came close to that was Connery being sick after smashing the spider and we're not shown that actually.

Exactly. I guess that, rather than saying we're seeing a "new" Bond, I feel as if we're seeing a more convincing Bond, in terms of his humanity. I felt that Dalton tried very hard to get this across, but given some of the conflicting points of view that were apparent at that time, he wasn't able to get it across as convincingly as Craig. And it certainly isn't because Craig is a better actor . . . though both are in the same league. But I think the story, from writing to execution, was aimed at being more believable from the standpoint of Bond, the human being. Of course, they didn't completely remove the fantasy elements, but the story just felt more grounded, which seemed to give Craig more freedom to play the character as he wished.

You nailed it there: more convincing. The aim with CR was to give a convincing impression, taking the affair seriously within its limitations where several previous films just aimed for the fun side.

[spynovelfan]

But, Spy, where is the vulnerability in CR Bond.

David, surely you jest! When has he ever been more vulnerable? His armour has gone. 'You've stripped me of it.' He is tortured, naked, like we've never seen before - however much more information he might have than Brosnan had in a similar situation, I never felt the sweat and the fear and hysteria and pain in Bond before now - the closest I can think of is the suspense leading up to the laser moment in GOLDFINGER, which is sweaty (but has no emotions other than fear attached to it - here, the villain plays with Bond, using the idea that M might save him whatever happens), and in another class from the whole series, the last couple of minutes of OHMSS. But this film is like the whole of that last two minutes. James Bond has never really had inner conflict before. It has been implied, of course, yes, and people have given good examples. But here it is the main thrust of the script, the conflict between the cold cruelty of his profession ('I wouldn't be very good at my job if I did', 'Yes, considerably') and the human with a soul caught up in it.

As I posted above, he defeats everyone, ultimately.

How do you figure that? He doesn't defeat Le Chiffre - Mr White does! The other villain is Vesper - does Bond defeat her? No, he falls in love with her. More importantly, we believe he does.

She sets up a bizare sceem to entrap Le Chiffre which involves giving Bond several million dollars and sending him off to play CARDS!

But I'm talking about the element of character in the film. This is a silly plot contrivance, but it's taken straight from the book.

This is not the action of a woman who doubts her man! All this you've learned your lesson stuff could quite easily have come from Messervy M to Bond after his return to work after Tracy's assassination.

But it didn't, though. That's my point. You can read such stuff into the series at certain points - but CASINO ROYALE gave it to us, front and centre. It took the bold move of treating James Bond as a character who could do things that we would not expect of James Bond - continually. It continually attempts to reveal character (whether or not it always succeeds is not really my point). For example, we all know Bond as the ridiculosuly fussy suave-meister-in-chief, famous for his incomparable taste in dress, food and drink. 'Do I look like I give a damn' is not just a funny line - it's character revelation. This isn't that Bond yet. He wasn't always that Bond. What did he go through to become that Bond? What makes Bond Bond? Part of it is his indivuality, and in CASINO ROYALE we see Bond's impeccably contrarian tastes turned against, not the monolithic mundanity of everyone else's stale and predictable tastes to carve out his own, but the mundanity and predictability of James Bond's tastes. This James Bond has better taste than that dull business exec James Bond we've all gotten used to - he takes the piss out of him.

In short, Bond's supposed vulnerabilty and lack of experience is CR a MacGuffin. It sounds good too. Pretend we're showing you a different Bond so you can intellectualise about it, when you've seen it all before. CR's Bond is no less Superman than in his previous movies: he even runs through walls and in the Madagascar scene as Terminator-unstoppable as he's ever been.

I don't see that scene as him being Terminator unstoppable at all: Mollaka is a cleverer, more accomplished athlete in the surroundings. Bond can catch people quite easily, usually. That's the cliche of the previous films. The character revelation - yes, even in that action scene - is that this Bond is fresh and raw around the edges. He doesn't have the soft balletic grace, he doesn't have all the answers. It's a laugh moment that Mollaka effortlessly and jaw-droppingly jumps like that; we expect Bond to do it, but even better, and gain some ground. Instead, he crashes through the wall like a Keystone Cop, a bull in a china shop, a Bond who gets things done even though he doesn't yet have all the stuff Bond should have. That is refreshingly unsuperhuman, unTerminator. He is a novice!

I may well be intellectualising something that's not there, but I don't think so. My intellect isn't usually moved, and I found CASINO ROYALE moving in parts. I think there's a reason for that.

For me, this was one of the most obvious points at which we were seeing a different Bond, someone who really was grappling with his own fears and mortality . . . rather than someone who just talked about grappling with these things (or, as was the case in "GoldenEye," someone else talking about him grappling with these things, even though we saw no real signs of it in Brosnan's portrayal).

Absolutely! Well said!

Here's something else my husband noticed: In the shower scene with Vesper, we assume he's just there for her, trying to comfort her as best he can. But my husband noted that he's also doing that for him. She's brought him back to that point where he has to confront not only his own mortality, and the effects of his profession on himself, but also the impact all of this is having on other people. As my husband said, he didn't just do that for her; he was doing that for himself, as well. It would be a valid point that we could find instances of this in other Bond films, but I just don't think it was done with as much depth as what we saw here.

Excellent observation.

And as for all this business about an arrogant Bond who makes stupid mistakes, I refer you to THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, in which 007 fumbles the mission at the various points (e.g. his hamfisted tour of "the world of Suzie Wong", as M puts it), and makes an incredibly graceless attempt to pull Goodnight for a night as one of his "passing fancies" and falls flat on his face (okay, granted, Goodnight does come round, and very quickly, but we still see Bond boobing).

Are we really meant to see these as serious errors, though, in the context of that film? On a par with losing all the money and therefore throwing away the mission ('Get the girl out')?

And Bond has never grieved or felt that he should leave his profession in order to salvage what remains of his life? OHMSS, anyone?

I've admitted we have seen him grieve - we never saw the grief turned to vengeance. Do you really see his marrying Tracy as him salvaging the remains of his life from the cruelties of a profession in killing? Is that something that can be read into it, or a clear and explicitly stated theme of the film? I think it is in CASINO ROYALE.

As an example take the scenes after the stairwell fight. The usual routine standard operation practice of Bond I to Bond XX would be: one-liner/next scene.

CR delivers the scenes that have previously been omitted: shaking hands frantically washing off the blood and drowning his nerves in a double bourbon/scotch/brandy.

One of the most astute things I've read about the film: spot on, sir!

[Loomis]

'Do I look like I give a damn' is not just a funny line - it's character revelation. This isn't that Bond yet. He wasn't always that Bond. What did he go through to become that Bond?

To become what Bond? You seem to be assuming that Craig's Bond will eventually grow into Moore's, that CASINO ROYALE is the origin story of someone who ultimately becomes a ridiculous old pantomime turn, the "ancient gay dress designer" (as The Guardian put it) in matters of clobber, food and wine, and goes to outer space. My point being that it's only "character revelation" if you consider CR to be part of a saga the essential outcome of which is already known to all and has been for decades. If you follow - I'm conscious that I'm not expressing this train of thought especially well.

It's a laugh moment that Mollaka effortlessly and jaw-droppingly jumps like that; we expect Bond to do it, but even better, and gain some ground.

Do we? The Established Bond™ has often come up against physically superior opponents whom he's ended up conquering by brain rather than brawn. Think of his electrocuting Oddjob, or his tricking Jaws into getting grabbed by the magnet. Bond is a fine specimen, of course, and certainly handy in a scrap, but I'm not sure that he's ever really been portrayed as more superheroic than in CR.

Once again, it's hardly my intention to bash CR. It's an amazing film, and as a Bond fan I'm still pinching myself over the fact that Eon has delivered the picture many of us were calling for for years on CBn (without ever dreaming it would or even could actually be made) and then some. However, I don't believe that CR is quite as stunningly novel as it's often cracked up to be - many of the elements it supposedly pioneers have actually been in the series all along, albeit not in such concentrated or brilliant form.