52 replies to this topic

[Tarl_Cabot]

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.

I think I once refered to the korean lady as the world's most humane torturer. I'm sure it hurt but 14 months of torture and his eyes,teeth,ears, privates, and impeccable good looks are still intact? I hope I get tortured that way if it ever happens.

[spynovelfan]

He had an itchy beard at the end of it, though!

I suppose in a nutshell that is my point. While previous films had nods to the kind of character development I'm talking about, none of them really delivered on it. Across the previous 20 films, we saw James Bond show fear, make mistakes, battle opponents physically more capable than himself, be tortured, dressed down for his arrogance by several characters, rebel against the system, question the ethics of his profession, let down his armour and fall in love, lose someone he loves and more besides.

But in CASINO ROYALE, he does all of the above and does each of them much more than in any other film (with the exception of the love story, in OHMSS). So I think I'll stick to my original premise here, despite excellent arguments to the contrary, and I think the torture scenes of DIE ANOTHER DAY and CR illustrate it perfectly. The DAD scene should have been more gruesome - on paper, Bond went through much more (14 months of it!). But it was just lip service to the idea - we got very little idea that he was really feeling it. It didn't make us feel it, quite. More importantly, though, any fleeting feeling we or Bond got that he had been through a hellish experience evaporated the moment he was in his hotel suite unwrapping Brioni shirts. He was like a cartoon - he falls off the cliff, gets a huge bump on his head, but in the next scene he's fine. We didn't see the character build in any tangible way. Not so with CR. I don't believe at all that this Bond has to become the old Bond. The point is that he is becoming anything at all. I think that is the major innovation - continuity to the character. They left the cartoon mechanics behind.

[plankattack]

This thread has been a fascinating read with some real educated opinion on all sides. I do believe that what CR means (blimey, that sounds pompous, doesn't it?) will only come into focus when Bond 22 is out, so I'm a little more reticent than most to dissect the characterization of our hero. Yes, it is one of the few films in the franchise which has actually been about the man, and that is one of the reasons it works as a story (and will be a landmark in the franchise). But my own personal fave, FRWL, really isn't about the man, he is 'merely' the central character around which the plot unfolds so I'm not sure that's the sole reason for CR working as well as it does ('cos FRWL works brilliantly).

For me, the core of the film's success, and the standard to which EON should now be held, is the tone of the storytelling. The series long ago broke the wall between film and audience, moving along in almost "Alfie-like" fashion, everyone onscreen very aware that we were in on it. Not always as overt as OP, with Tarzan yells, or TSWLM with Lawrence of Arabia music-cues (OHMSS, beloved by so many of us still has its "other fella" line), but nevertheless the series developed a pantomime element which relied on the audience to participate, either by groaning at the pun, or having a premeditated expectation with how things should unfold, which culminated in DAD and it's endless catalogue of references (something which I enjoyed at the time, and admit to still doing now, taking it simply for what it is - and giving me a reason to actually watch into the second hour).

CR is a reboot, not because of the story that it tells (CR the novel is not in my mind an origins story, it's simply the first in a series) but the manner in which the film approaches its place in the series. It is, thanks to of what's been covered in the thread so far, whether it be the lead's performance, the nuance of the writing, the subtext, what-have-you, devoid of self-awareness. It's played straight-up, and for the first time in a long time, the humour fits the story, both in tone and, most importantly, in character. So many of us have waited for a Bond film that takes itself seriously (as opposed to a serious film; YOLT is not serious - it's quite outlandish but it does attempt to take itself seriously) and is neither reined in or hampered by the fact that it's a Bond and should be "certain things." CR just tells the story without condescendingly reminding us that in fact it is just that.

Now, where's my DVD of Moonraker...........

Edited by plankattack, 28 June 2007 - 12:22 AM.

[David Schofield]

As my final thought on CR in the context of this thread, I leave you with this:

The final scene involves Bond entering Mr White's property. Alone. In a three piece suit. Looking impeccable, barely breaking sweat. He is walking about, apparently, openly. OK, he carrying a large gun.

Now where is any sense of the vulnerability that has previously been argued about in this thread? Arrogance, perhaps - no one in their right mind would assault an enemy stronghold alone and so overdressed (except Brozza-Bond, of course) - but hasn't M just told us Bond has learned his lesson in that regard?

Or has Bond become the bullett-proof, smug, self-satisfied superman of, say, AVTAK already?

[RazorBlade]

This is one of the all time great threads here on CBn. I am enjoying the hell out of it.

As for the question of whether the franchise could or can keep our interest for more than 5 films of "character development". I understand the concept of a character arch (development). And yes, it can make for a great story. But it is also possible to take an interesting character and have them go on a journey/through an adventure. The story is still character centered and can be just as compelling as the arch type story. I feel that James Bond is interesting enough, for many of the reasons already stated, that we can explore his story for many years to come. It is not necessary for Bond to go through some character arch in each film as long as we see an interesting character go through an adventure.

To me, Bond has always been about character. Even the films that were weaker, in our individual and collective opinions, were about Bond's character. Example, one of the reasons that many of us miss Q and Moneypenny is that underneath it all, these characters are extensions of Bond and not separate characters at all. So much so that even in a less than stellar film we still see Bond's character and can enjoy that even as we grimace at (fill in the blank with your most unfavorite moments). In fact to a degree, even the villians were extensions of Bond. Perhaps they were memories of his now dead father displaced onto whatever enemy he had to face. It would explain why so many of them look alike (especially the Blofelds). Here I assume that each of the Blofelds are not the same person but different men on whom Bond has projected the unhappy memories of his father.

[spynovelfan]

As my final thought on CR in the context of this thread, I leave you with this:

The final scene involves Bond entering Mr White's property. Alone. In a three piece suit. Looking impeccable, barely breaking sweat. He is walking about, apparently, openly. OK, he carrying a large gun.

Now where is any sense of the vulnerability that has previously been argued about in this thread? Arrogance, perhaps - no one in their right mind would assault an enemy stronghold alone and so overdressed (except Brozza-Bond, of course) - but hasn't M just told us Bond has learned his lesson in that regard?

Or has Bond become the bullett-proof, smug, self-satisfied superman of, say, AVTAK already?

If it's your final thought responding is probably futile, so I'll just reply with the end of my first post in this thread:

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?

[David Schofield]

As my final thought on CR in the context of this thread, I leave you with this:

The final scene involves Bond entering Mr White's property. Alone. In a three piece suit. Looking impeccable, barely breaking sweat. He is walking about, apparently, openly. OK, he carrying a large gun.

Now where is any sense of the vulnerability that has previously been argued about in this thread? Arrogance, perhaps - no one in their right mind would assault an enemy stronghold alone and so overdressed (except Brozza-Bond, of course) - but hasn't M just told us Bond has learned his lesson in that regard?

Or has Bond become the bullett-proof, smug, self-satisfied superman of, say, AVTAK already?

If it's your final thought responding is probably futile, so I'll just reply with the end of my first post in this thread:

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?

Rather than trying to be dismissive of the thread, Spy, I was really using the example of Bond at the end of the film to evidence the fact that really Bond is no more or no less changed from the start of the film to the end - for running through walls and storming embassies, substitute assaulting large houses while overdressed. (Though this I atribute to EON trying to sandwich the Bond-Begins story on top of Fleming's original which doesn't support it).Similarly, he has not lost his arrogance either in doing so. And isn't that exactly the sort of conflict that has appeared throughout the series thus far, and evidenced by others in posts in this thread: Bond can be at all times (even in Moore and Brosnan guise) both arrogant and error-prone (he gets caught an awful lot, doesn't he?), vulnerable and superhuman.

[spynovelfan]

Well, if you don't see it you don't see it. I think they were going for something else. As Trident brilliantly pointed out, in all previous films you saw Bond in the fight, but none of the aftermath of that: the cleaning up, the disposal of the body, the self-examination. Bond just moves onto the next stage of his mission. Now one could argue - some have argued - that in the other films we have seen him bloodied and bruised, but it's hardly the same thing, is it? I haven't said Bond has changed through the course of the film: the film as a whole opened up the character and showed us many new aspects to him. Chiefly, inner conflict. Is there any inner conflict in Brosnan's performance - or was it all outer, for show? The scene with Bond looking at himself in the mirror is, for me anyway, character revelation. It's not a gesture at showing Bond's humanity - I believed he was human there.

I didn't really want to discuss whether or not I liked the film, though, but the intent of the script-writers. I think that they deliberately set out to make all Bond's actions reveal and deepen his character , in the precise way Robert McKee suggests in his book, and that this was the primary goal and indeed theme of their script - I don't believe this was done for any other Bond film.

[doublenoughtspy]

You keep bringing up the script writer

[Loomis]

[quote name='doublenoughtspy' post='751214' date='28 June 2007 - 13:46']I

[Brock Samson]

As well as Vesper being present, the killing in the stairwell is more visceral than the previous kills we saw. It's one thing to put a round in someone, something else entirely to squeeze the life from them I'd wager. I realise that Bond had thought Fisher(?) drowned and that opening fight is brutal, but the stairwell fight differs because Vesper is there and we see the aftermath.
Before (and possibly after) Bond could/can deal with things as he sees fit, after the fight in the stairwell, he's forced to deal with the realities of his job.
Maybe not the hugest reboot or revelation, but the series is rarely so introspective for such an extended period.

[spynovelfan]

[quote name='doublenoughtspy' post='751214' date='28 June 2007 - 12:46']You keep bringing up the script writer

[Loomis]

The inner conflict is precisely that: how can he kill people so ruthlessly and professionally and live with himself? At the start of the film, he thinks he can.

I may be completely missing the point of CASINO ROYALE, but I think he thinks he can at the end of it, too. As long, of course, as the people he kills are - as Schwarzenegger puts it in TRUE LIES - "all bad". I see no evidence at all in CR of any major soul-searching on Bond's part about popping villains, and, really, no huge character change to speak of. It's still a splendid film, but I just don't see how it lays Bond bare (and in ways we've never seen) or shakes him to any huge degree. Sure, the Vesper experience hurts him, but he's swiftly back to being the same old chap. For all we know, BOND 22 will open with the broken man of Fleming's YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, showing that 007 was indeed deeply altered by the events of CR, but until that happens there's nothing to suggest that our hero has for once been in a film that's chewed him up and spat him out in the way some CR supporters claim.

[00Twelve]

Well, I think that when he's living the good life with Vesper before Venice, his treatment and his whole experience in Montenegro has gotten him to the point that he wants to get out while he still has some of his soul left. I thought it was rather obvious that the killing was taking a toll on him (little things like the mirror-gazing stuff), and that he was ready to lay it down. But when Vesper betrayed him, I imagined that in his haste, he believed it was all a game to her and so he reverted back to what he knew, which was to eliminate the enemy. I'm sure there was some personal revenge motive there, too. At the end of the film, I felt like he was resolved not to trust, not to be remorseful about his job. There was no longer anything valuable in his personal life; all he has left is his job, and damn it, he's gonna do it. And he's gonna take White's organization down.

That's just what I got from it, at least.

[spynovelfan]

The inner conflict is precisely that: how can he kill people so ruthlessly and professionally and live with himself? At the start of the film, he thinks he can.

I may be completely missing the point of CASINO ROYALE, but I think he thinks he can at the end of it, too. As long, of course, as the people he kills are - as Schwarzenegger puts it in TRUE LIES - "all bad". I see no evidence at all in CR of any major soul-searching on Bond's part about popping villains, and, really, no huge character change to speak of. It's still a splendid film, but I just don't see how it lays Bond bare (and in ways we've never seen) or shakes him to any huge degree. Sure, the Vesper experience hurts him, but he's swiftly back to being the same old chap. For all we know, BOND 22 will open with the broken man of Fleming's YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, showing that 007 was indeed deeply altered by the events of CR, but until that happens there's nothing to suggest that our hero has for once been in a film that's chewed him up and spat him out in the way some CR supporters claim.

We have to disagree then, Loomis, because that is precisely how I see it! Bond laid bare. Deeply altered. Chewed up and spat out. He is not 'swiftly back to the same old chap' - he goes through hell and has to settle for being dragged back into being that old chap. He starts off killing anyone he thinks are bad - no problem with his conscience. Vesper wakes up his humanity, he searches his soul, he has an inner conflict, he becomes a Haunted Hero, he goes on an unconscious quest and any other way you want to put it. He is plonked down in a chair - bare as the day he was born! - with a hole cut from the middle of it. If that isn't enough of Bond laid bare for you, he then tells Vesper he has been stripped of his armour. Short of having him say the line 'I'm laid bare', could this have been made any more explicit in the script? He admits love, and he wants to leave his life of killing behind before he loses what is left of his soul. There's the inner conflict resolved, off we go into the sunset, oh, whoopsy she's a traitorous bitch, she dies, he puts his armour back on and he goes back to the soulless killing. Just when he thought he would get out, he is pulled back in...

[SecretAgentFan]

Interesting discussion! However, McKee, Field, Seger and all the other gurus (who actually never wrote a hit movie) should be enjoyed with care. Sure, they point out things that are true. Yet you should never follow them point by point. Just the opposite makes movies interesting and fresh. (And later on these gurus will incorporate the deviations from their formula as part of their formula...)

To be honest, I don

[Loomis]

The inner conflict is precisely that: how can he kill people so ruthlessly and professionally and live with himself? At the start of the film, he thinks he can.

I may be completely missing the point of CASINO ROYALE, but I think he thinks he can at the end of it, too. As long, of course, as the people he kills are - as Schwarzenegger puts it in TRUE LIES - "all bad". I see no evidence at all in CR of any major soul-searching on Bond's part about popping villains, and, really, no huge character change to speak of. It's still a splendid film, but I just don't see how it lays Bond bare (and in ways we've never seen) or shakes him to any huge degree. Sure, the Vesper experience hurts him, but he's swiftly back to being the same old chap. For all we know, BOND 22 will open with the broken man of Fleming's YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, showing that 007 was indeed deeply altered by the events of CR, but until that happens there's nothing to suggest that our hero has for once been in a film that's chewed him up and spat him out in the way some CR supporters claim.

We have to disagree then, Loomis, because that is precisely how I see it! Bond laid bare. Deeply altered. Chewed up and spat out. He is not 'swiftly back to the same old chap' - he goes through hell and has to settle for being dragged back into being that old chap. He starts off killing anyone he thinks are bad - no problem with his conscience. Vesper wakes up his humanity, he searches his soul, he has an inner conflict, he becomes a Haunted Hero, he goes on an unconscious quest and any other way you want to put it. He is plonked down in a chair - bare as the day he was born! - with a hole cut from the middle of it. If that isn't enough of Bond laid bare for you, he then tells Vesper he has been stripped of his armour. Short of having him say the line 'I'm laid bare', could this have been made any more explicit in the script? He admits love, and he wants to leave his life of killing behind before he loses what is left of his soul. There's the inner conflict resolved, off we go into the sunset, oh, whoopsy she's a traitorous bitch, she dies, he puts his armour back on and he goes back to the soulless killing. Just when he thought he would get out, he is pulled back in...

All of that is true, but what I'm really railing against is the notion that no Bond film ever had anything remotely intelligent to offer until CASINO ROYALE. I know that that isn't your view, but judging by the way some people are raving about CR (which, in truth, I can't really object to, 'cause I love CR and am a Bond fan and am thus always delighted to read things bigging up CR/Bond) you'd be forgiven for thinking it was an Ingmar Bergman film.

[tdalton]

The inner conflict is precisely that: how can he kill people so ruthlessly and professionally and live with himself? At the start of the film, he thinks he can.

I may be completely missing the point of CASINO ROYALE, but I think he thinks he can at the end of it, too. As long, of course, as the people he kills are - as Schwarzenegger puts it in TRUE LIES - "all bad". I see no evidence at all in CR of any major soul-searching on Bond's part about popping villains, and, really, no huge character change to speak of. It's still a splendid film, but I just don't see how it lays Bond bare (and in ways we've never seen) or shakes him to any huge degree. Sure, the Vesper experience hurts him, but he's swiftly back to being the same old chap. For all we know, BOND 22 will open with the broken man of Fleming's YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, showing that 007 was indeed deeply altered by the events of CR, but until that happens there's nothing to suggest that our hero has for once been in a film that's chewed him up and spat him out in the way some CR supporters claim.

I completely agree. I didn't see any real change in Bond's approach to the villains from the beginning of the film to the end. At the end he does what he does without a second thought about it. At the end, he appears not to give a second thought to whatever he's about to do to Mr. White. In fact, he even looks happy about it, evident in that hint of a smile he gives as he delivers "Bond, James Bond" while looking down on Mr. White. I didn't see any evidence of the fact that Bond has gone through some sort of emotional trial in this film either. Even in the torture sequence, when he's supposed to be brought to the edge and not know whether or not he's going to make it, I don't really sense that he thinks anything other than he's going to make it out of the situation. He taunts Le Chiffre throughout the entire sequence, and never really shows any signs of thinking that he may not make it through the scene.

Also, I didn't think that the relationship between Vesper and Bond was believable enough to make it seem as though he's been as hurt emotionally as the screenwriters would have liked to have made us believe that he was. I think that, had they cut out the first hour of the film and used that time to develop that relationship, then we may have seen Bond go through some things that may have accomplished what the film was trying to accomplish, but the relationship was rather shallow and was barely more substantial than the average relationship that Bond has had in the previous films.

[Harmsway]

Even in the torture sequence, when he's supposed to be brought to the edge and not know whether or not he's going to make it, I don't really sense that he thinks anything other than he's going to make it out of the situation. He taunts Le Chiffre throughout the entire sequence, and never really shows any signs of thinking that he may not make it through the scene.

I disagree. He's cocky for most of the scene... but then there's that look of sadness and realizations when Le Chiffre tells him MI6 will take him back, either way. And Bond knows there is no victory, and braces himself for death.

[Trident]

While I obviously agree with SNF for the most part, there is a remark from plankattack that I feel is valid here:

This thread has been a fascinating read with some real educated opinion on all sides. I do believe that what CR means (blimey, that sounds pompous, doesn't it?) will only come into focus when Bond 22 is out, so I'm a little more reticent than most to dissect the characterization of our hero.

To judge CR's influence with its characterization of Bond (or the lack of it) we'll have to wait for BOND 22 and maybe beyond. Only then we'll get the full perspective of what CR's impact on the series is/was.

[Stephenson]

I do feel that Bond's approach to close-up killing is different in CR than in other films (not better or worse mind you, just different), and for one main reason: in the other films, Bond's killing of villains almost always comes as a consequence of one of four things: something they have done to him (Bloefeld, TWINE, GE); something they have done to someone he cares about (LTK, TND, TLD, FYEO); because killing them is the only way he can escape (Volpe, Grant, Oddjob); killing them is the only way to stop the villain's evil plan to destroy/take over the world (Drax, Dr. No, Largo, Graves). There have been exceptions, obviously (Moore letting go of the tie in TSWLM), but it was rare to see Bond kill without provocation.

In CR, his first mission is to kill, nothing more. He doesn't come to investigate Dryden or the contact, he comes to execute them (punishment). I think his expression after he believes he has killed the contact in the bathroom is that of a man who has just fully realized that his main function is to be a killer. He has trouble understanding exactly how this is supposed to work (M's lecture), but his real emotional struggle begins after he meets Vesper. He reaction after the stairwell can be seen as a consequence of that struggle: is this really all I'm meant to be? An executioner?

Bond at the start of CR would have blown White's head off because he pissed him off. Bond at the end of CR only wounds him because he is a professional who finally understands what he is. There was another thread which asked if the end of CR is tragic because Bond has embraced his role and finally given up his soul. I agree that we'll need to wait for 22 to find out.

Edited by Stephenson, 29 June 2007 - 03:37 PM.

[Brock Samson]

Snip

I agree wholehearted with all that. An excellent way to read the film. I also agree that 22 will be very interesting indeed, with regard to how/if it expands on these themes.

[LadySylvia]

I have a few things to say about CASINO ROYALE and Daniel Craig as Bond.

First of all, I don't believe that CR was unique in being the only Bond film that was a slightly realistic spy thriller. Before CR, there was FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. We also had movies like THUNDERBALL and OCTOPUSSY with plots that seemed very probable in the real world (nuclear threats in the name of extortion or/and political manipulation). And there was LICENSE TO KILL that was gritty, but seemed more like a revenge story than a spy thriller. But I do believe that CASINO ROYALE was one of the best movies in the franchise. Aside from one or two plot points (involving Bond's actions in Madagascar), I feel that it was a well-written thriller with complex and three-dimensional characters.

As for Daniel Craig, mny have criticized his Bond for acting like a professional and experienced agent at the beginning of the movie, despite being a novice. I have to point out that in this version of CASINO ROYALE, Bond IS NOT a novice spy at the beginning of the story. He already had experience as an intelligence operative for the Royal Navy and as an agent for MI-6. At the beginning of the movie, he was promoted to the "00 Section". He had already been serving with MI6 for some time.

Although I have enjoyed the performances of all six (or should I say eight?) actors who have portrayed Bond, Daniel Craig's performance has appealed to me a lot stronger than the others. I am not saying that I believe that his Bond is the best. I simply prefer his Bond a lot more stronger than I do the others. So far, Craig's Bond is not tinged by Connery's lack of humanity, Lazenby's inexperienced background, Moore's cheeky humor, Dalton's heavy angst factor or Brosnan's bad scripts. This latest manifestation of Bond is a ruthless and athletic man with a sardonic sense of humor, a taste for good living, a penchant for taking chances and allowing his ego to go uncheck. But knowing EON Productions' reputation for sometimes screwing up a good thing, who knows what will happen?

I have heard comments that Craig's Bond had fully become the iconic figure that has become famous during the last 44 or 45 years by the end of CASINO ROYALE. But others have pointed out that the character who shot Mr. White at the end of the movie is the same man who had chased Mollaka in Madagascar. I am more inclined to believe the latter. I believe that Bond's character had regressed due to the heartache he had suffered over Vesper's betrayal and death. Somewhat. After all, Bond did manage to bring down Mr. White without allowing his emotions, ego or trigger finger to get the best of him. Hopefully, EON Productions will allow the audience to see Bond develop beyond the cold-blooded and brutal man who used women to avoid emotional attachments. I hope that by the time Craig films his last Bond film, his character will develop into a somewhat mature man who has learned to balance any emotional attachments he may have formed with the ruthless agent he has to be in order to do his job.

Edited by LadySylvia, 29 June 2007 - 06:10 PM.