Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Casino Royale = James Bond rejuvenated, the inspiration ?


41 replies to this topic

#1 stamper

stamper

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2994 posts
  • Location:Under the sea

Posted 30 November 2007 - 10:03 AM

I was watching the 2004 DVD "The Bourne Supremacy" the other day (and no, don't go "another Bourne / Bond thread !"), with the commentary on, and lo and behold, mr Paul Greengrass actually comments a lot on Bourne and it's similarities to Bond on that disc !

I ripped the best ones from the disc.

Please note that these comments were made post Die Another Day, and way before we had a hint that the producers were going to reboot the franchise and start with something afresh.

It seems to me that they must have taken notice, not only because of the success of Supremacy, but also because what the director is offering in his comments is basically the essence of everything that was wrong with DAD, and fixed with CR.

All quotes below are from Mr Greengrass :

lt's interesting if you think of James Bond and Jason Bourne.
They're superficially very similar characters.
They're cut from the same cloth.
They're characters that originated in Cold War books -
the lan Fleming novels and the Robert Ludlum novels novels of the Cold War.
They were both spies.

But on film Jason Bourne is a very different character from James Bond.

James Bond embodies a value system. He's an insider. He loves the secrecy of it.
He loves being a secret agent. He kills without remorse or regret.
ln fact, often he rather enjoys it and finds it humorous.
He's an imperialist, he's a misogynist.

He worships at the altar oftechnology - he's always got a gadget or some gun that comes out of a turret on the end of his car some way whereby technology will rescue him.

ln the end he protects authority and he has no doubts.

But Bourne is a different character. Bourne is an outsider. He's on the run from authority.
He's subversive of authority. He doesn't trust them at all.
He doesn't want to kill at any cost. He would rather not kill.
He's absolutely not a misogynist.

He's a man wracked with doubt and confusion desperately searching for an answer.
And that's what makes him contemporay and youthful.
And that's why, in the end, l think that the Bourne character the Bourne franchise, speaks to today. Today's world, today's problems, tomorrow's problems in a way that Bond cannot ever do.



#2 Dunph

Dunph

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3826 posts
  • Location:Leeds, UK

Posted 30 November 2007 - 10:08 AM

He loves being a secret agent. He kills without remorse or regret.
ln fact, often he rather enjoys it and finds it humorous.


Hmm, not sure if I'd completely agree with that statement, Mr Greengrass.

#3 stamper

stamper

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2994 posts
  • Location:Under the sea

Posted 30 November 2007 - 10:11 AM

It relates to past Bond films, not CR. Don't tell me that Mr Moore or Sean didn't have good words after killing people :D

#4 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 30 November 2007 - 01:28 PM

Bourne is an outsider. He's on the run from authority.
He's subversive of authority. He doesn't trust them at all.
He doesn't want to kill at any cost. He would rather not kill.
He's absolutely not a misogynist.
He's a man wracked with doubt and confusion desperately searching for an answer.

He loves being a secret agent. He kills without remorse or regret.
ln fact, often he rather enjoys it and finds it humorous.
He's an imperialist, he's a misogynist.
He worships at the altar oftechnology - he's always got a gadget or some gun that comes out of a turret on the end of his car some way whereby technology will rescue him.
ln the end he protects authority and he has no doubts.



Thank you, Mr Greengrass. You just explained why I would take James Bond over Bourne anyday.

#5 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 30 November 2007 - 05:30 PM

Sounds like this Bourne chap is a overly PC goody two shoes!

#6 HH007

HH007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1833 posts
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 30 November 2007 - 05:50 PM

Well, it seems more likely to me that while they definitely noticed a rise in more "realistic", more character driven spy films like Bourne, I think it had more to do with the idea that they listened to the fans' complaints about DAD and decided to bring the series closer to Fleming's character. Although you could do a checklist of what Greengrass said and see that they did alter a lot of his complaints about Bond. But, Bond is still a part of the system, whereas Bourne is not.

(To me, this new incarnation of Bond seems to have more in common with Jack Bauer from 24 than he does with Jason Bourne)

#7 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 30 November 2007 - 06:31 PM

Depending how you come at it, I really do feel that the differences between the characters are in their situations - not in their inherent characteristics. Both Bourne and Bond are assasins, and once you get to that point, the character's personal morality is really quite irrelevant. Remorse? Come on, do they look like they give a damn...?

Neither character is busy mowing down the innocent to get to their quarry, so they are both "good guys." Trying to differentiate between levels of "goodness" when it comes to two guys (and a third if you count Jack Bauer) is trite and best. The presumption that a particular character feels bad about it, or is on the outside etc makes little difference to the corpses.

The notion that someone is an imperialist, or is working on orders makes little difference to the "heroic" characteristics of the lead within the storytelling framework. In fact what the new movie Bond has taken from Bourne is to explore their similarities.

#8 stamper

stamper

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2994 posts
  • Location:Under the sea

Posted 30 November 2007 - 06:48 PM

I do find that Craig's Bond has an anti-etablishment "don't trust the authority or anyone" feel that was absent from Brozza's Bond who just surfed the waves and generally had more of an "etablishment" look to him. Craig's Bond goes solo on him mission, like Bourne does, and unlike Brozza who was always "sent" to the job.

I liked the premise of DAD because I thought they would play the whole "Bond goes solo against the authority" thing, ala LTK, which I believe is what Bond is about. He hates bureaucracy and bureaucrats, and should play them up just like Bourne does. Alas, after a bit, DAD retreated into familiar territory.

I think Greengrass not only refers to Broz Bond in his comments, but Moore Bond also, who did murder chaps for no other reason than making a quip. Remember "what a helpful chap" in Spy ? Bond had no reason to kill this guy, he got what he needed already ! What things Moore wouldn't do for a laugh :D

#9 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 30 November 2007 - 06:56 PM

...the differences between the characters are in their situations - not in their inherent characteristics.


I like that. :D

I don

#10 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 30 November 2007 - 07:04 PM

[quote name='Judo chop' post='801025' date='30 November 2007 - 13:56']I don

#11 Daddy Bond

Daddy Bond

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2052 posts
  • Location:Back in California

Posted 30 November 2007 - 07:17 PM

I do find that Craig's Bond has an anti-etablishment "don't trust the authority or anyone" feel that was absent from Brozza's Bond who just surfed the waves and generally had more of an "etablishment" look to him. Craig's Bond goes solo on him mission, like Bourne does, and unlike Brozza who was always "sent" to the job.

I liked the premise of DAD because I thought they would play the whole "Bond goes solo against the authority" thing, ala LTK, which I believe is what Bond is about. He hates bureaucracy and bureaucrats, and should play them up just like Bourne does. Alas, after a bit, DAD retreated into familiar territory.

I think Greengrass not only refers to Broz Bond in his comments, but Moore Bond also, who did murder chaps for no other reason than making a quip. Remember "what a helpful chap" in Spy ? Bond had no reason to kill this guy, he got what he needed already ! What things Moore wouldn't do for a laugh :D


Stamper, we must be on the same wavelength today. Believe it or not, I did not read your post until *after* my post (See "James Bond Deadly Spy") and my comments on DAD.

#12 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 30 November 2007 - 07:37 PM

From the title of your thread Stamper, I was kind of expecting to see a case made for why EON rebooted Bond. But based on Greengrass

#13 HH007

HH007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1833 posts
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 30 November 2007 - 08:07 PM

[quote name='Judo chop' post='801043' date='30 November 2007 - 19:37'][quote]In the end he protects authority and he has no doubts.[/quote]
Same guy in CR. Check.

Not meaning to be belligerent, but I don

#14 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 30 November 2007 - 08:43 PM

Also the CR Bond doesn't seem to take pleasure in killing (well, he does smile at that guy at the airport


HH - you might subconsciously be channeling Greengrass here. I agree that Bourne doesn't take any pleasure in killing. But I don't think Bond does either. But using the example above, he does take pride in a job well done. He smiles at the airport because he got the better of his opponent, rather than the fact that he killed him. If he'd killed him but failed to save the plane, Bond wouldn't have been so happy. So Greengrass, if he'd made the distinction between murder and successfully completing the assigment, might have been onto to something. But I think he was too simplistic in confining his statement to "killing."

Bourne is quite dour in this respect. His lack of emotion at times is more in line with The Terminator, with the exception of the end of the car chase in Supremacy - then he reminds me of TD after killing Sanchez.

#15 HH007

HH007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1833 posts
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 30 November 2007 - 08:48 PM

Also the CR Bond doesn't seem to take pleasure in killing (well, he does smile at that guy at the airport


HH - you might subconsciously be channeling Greengrass here. I agree that Bourne doesn't take any pleasure in killing. But I don't think Bond does either. But using the example above, he does take pride in a job well done. He smiles at the airport because he got the better of his opponent, rather than the fact that he killed him.


Well, I was going to add that I thought Bond was perhaps feeling more victorious about stopping a bombing than taking pleasure in killing, but... well I should have said that, because I was thinking it. But you said what I should have said, so... no, I'm not subconsciously channeling Greengrass, I was just not stating my case as thoroughly as I should have. :D

#16 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 30 November 2007 - 09:13 PM

Also the CR Bond doesn't seem to take pleasure in killing (well, he does smile at that guy at the airport


HH - you might subconsciously be channeling Greengrass here. I agree that Bourne doesn't take any pleasure in killing. But I don't think Bond does either. But using the example above, he does take pride in a job well done. He smiles at the airport because he got the better of his opponent, rather than the fact that he killed him.


Well, I was going to add that I thought Bond was perhaps feeling more victorious about stopping a bombing than taking pleasure in killing, but... well I should have said that, because I was thinking it. But you said what I should have said, so... no, I'm not subconsciously channeling Greengrass, I was just not stating my case as thoroughly as I should have. :D

I think that all this applies to Sir Rog and Brozza Bond too. I always felt that Sir Rog took pleasure in the simplicity of one-upping his opponent, rather than the killing aspect of it, so I think Greengrass is off-base in his assertion that 007 enjoys killing. Sir Rog's quips all smack of "haha, got the better of you."

Then again, comparing the Bond of TSWLM and MR with Jason Bourne in the first place is quite silly. It's like saying who's the better detective, Dirty Harry or Inspector Clouseau? In a way, Greengrass' commentary of Ultimatum (rather than Supremacy and DAD) vis-a-vis CR might be an interesting listen.

#17 HH007

HH007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1833 posts
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 30 November 2007 - 09:25 PM

Also the CR Bond doesn't seem to take pleasure in killing (well, he does smile at that guy at the airport


HH - you might subconsciously be channeling Greengrass here. I agree that Bourne doesn't take any pleasure in killing. But I don't think Bond does either. But using the example above, he does take pride in a job well done. He smiles at the airport because he got the better of his opponent, rather than the fact that he killed him.


Well, I was going to add that I thought Bond was perhaps feeling more victorious about stopping a bombing than taking pleasure in killing, but... well I should have said that, because I was thinking it. But you said what I should have said, so... no, I'm not subconsciously channeling Greengrass, I was just not stating my case as thoroughly as I should have. :D

In a way, Greengrass' commentary of Ultimatum (rather than Supremacy and DAD) vis-a-vis CR might be an interesting listen.


Ah, indeed. Although Matt Damon said he never bothered to watch CR, and since both he and Greengrass seem to have a mutual contempt for Bond, it wouldn't surprise me if Greengrass hasn't seen it either. And if he has, he might just say, "look, there, you see? They just ripped us off!"

As for Moore, he never took Bond seriously in the first place. He said he "played it tongue-in-cheek because he never really believed in that kind of hero."

#18 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 30 November 2007 - 09:39 PM

I was watching the 2004 DVD "The Bourne Supremacy" the other day (and no, don't go "another Bourne / Bond thread !"), with the commentary on, and lo and behold, mr Paul Greengrass actually comments a lot on Bourne and it's similarities to Bond on that disc !


Does he ever talk about anything else, ever?

#19 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 30 November 2007 - 09:47 PM

Ah, indeed. Although Matt Damon said he never bothered to watch CR, and since both he and Greengrass seem to have a mutual contempt for Bond, it wouldn't surprise me if Greengrass hasn't seen it either. And if he has, he might just say, "look, there, you see? They just ripped us off!"

As for Moore, he never took Bond seriously in the first place. He said he "played it tongue-in-cheek because he never really believed in that kind of hero."


Believe it's Hollywood - they watched it. If you're as obsessive about competing with Bond as they are, then they watched it.

#20 HH007

HH007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1833 posts
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 30 November 2007 - 09:51 PM

Ah, indeed. Although Matt Damon said he never bothered to watch CR, and since both he and Greengrass seem to have a mutual contempt for Bond, it wouldn't surprise me if Greengrass hasn't seen it either. And if he has, he might just say, "look, there, you see? They just ripped us off!"

As for Moore, he never took Bond seriously in the first place. He said he "played it tongue-in-cheek because he never really believed in that kind of hero."


Believe it's Hollywood - they watched it. If you're as obsessive about competing with Bond as they are, then they watched it.


They definitely seem more obsessed about competing with Bond than Bond is with competing with them.

#21 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 30 November 2007 - 10:16 PM

Basically, I'm saying that what Greengrass thinks of the DAD Bond still applies to CR's Bond, with the exception of one item:

James Bond embodies a value system. He's an insider. He loves the secrecy of it.

Same guy in CR. Check.

He loves being a secret agent. He kills without remorse or regret. ln fact, often he rather enjoys it and finds it humorous.

Same guy in CR. Check.

He's an imperialist, he's a misogynist.

Debatable whether that's even true of the DAD Bond, but either way I don't think this aspect of Bond has changed from DAD to CR.

He worships at the altar oftechnology - he's always got a gadget or some gun that comes out of a turret on the end of his car some way whereby technology will rescue him.

Ok, that's the DAD Bond and clearly not the CR Bond. Not checked.

In the end he protects authority and he has no doubts.

Same guy in CR. Check.

Not meaning to be belligerent, but I don't see a strong case for saying this particular article served as the inspiration for the change from DAD Bond to CR Bond.


What? I'd say it was more like:

James Bond embodies a value system. He's an insider. He loves the secrecy of it.

Not the same guy in CR. At all. He is not an insider - he went to Oxford or Cambridge or wherever but he wears his clothes with a disdain for that world; he wants to get the bad guys, but he's willing to break the rules to do so; he's willing to break into M's flat, if needed. That's not an insider.

He loves being a secret agent. He kills without remorse or regret. ln fact, often he rather enjoys it and finds it humorous.

Not the same guy in CR. Or even close. Look at his expression after his first kill. Okay, the second... that's yes, considerably. But that's the conflict. Look at the shower scene. The mirror scene.

He's an imperialist, he's a misogynist.

Imperialism isn't touched, from memory, but misogyny is. He initially views Vesper as a sex object to conquer. Sizes her up. Flirts. Stephanie Broadchest, etc. Then she strips all that away from him, he falls in love with her, he has his heart broken. Not a misogynist.

He worships at the altar oftechnology - he's always got a gadget or some gun that comes out of a turret on the end of his car some way whereby technology will rescue him.

But this, I would say, is still pretty much the CR Bond! Despite all the pre-press hype, he used quite a lot of - mainly Sony - gizmos, and looked happy using them. It's turned down, of course, but we still get the vibe that this is a man who likes the latest technology, I think.

In the end he protects authority and he has no doubts.

Were we watching the same film? He's loaded with doubts. He considers quitting everything to save his soul!

Whether or not the DVD talk-track on THE BOURNE SUPREMACY intitiated the change is another matter entirely. I suspect they knew most of that anyway. It's disingenuous or ignorant to compare Bourne with Bond in this way, as though they were independent creatures to this extent. Bourne was borne from Bond. The entire idea of Jason Bourne was Ludlum playing with Fleming's YOLT. Bond is an assassin for his country... what happens if he wakes up one morning and has no memory of who he is? Does he still believe in it all? That's the premise of Ludlum's books - the lead character effectively has to come to terms with the fact that he's not an ordinary Joe, but 'James Bond'. So of course they are diametrically opposed - that's the whole conflict driving the story, and why it was a good idea (dreadfully executed in the novels, brilliantly done in the two films I've watched). It wouldn't work if Bourne immediately said 'Okay, it seems I was some kind of government assassin. Cool. That feels like me.'

#22 vavu007

vavu007

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 34 posts

Posted 30 November 2007 - 11:42 PM

Though I have mentioned this on another thread, I think it needs repeating. Whatever self doubts Bourne or Bond may have about what they do, these people come from two very different places. Bourne (the movie version) is a manufactured human being, while Bond is just an extremely competent person doing his job. Bourne does not really feel things the way Bond does because he has been conditioned (as in programmed) to do what he does. Bond has skills he has learned, skills he is very aware of. Bourne simply reacts to situations the way his programming tells him to. Yes there is a moral human being there, but he is submerged in a lot of conditioned behavior.

Someone here mentioned the Terminator. That is a very good vision of what Bourne (in tactical mode anyway) is, an organic robot. Greengrass can crow all he wants about what a wonderful guy Bourne is, but what gets people in the seats to watch him is that tactical robot stuff. No one watches those movies to see Bourne in self-doubt mode.

Bond on the other hand is a multifaceted human being. Seeing his self-doubts adds to our understanding (and enjoyment) of the character. It is a part of why we love to watch the guy. He is human and we can identify with him.

So no, I don't think the Bourne movies were in any way an inspiration for CR. I think that EON understood very well what went wrong with DAD(even though it made them a ton of money), and knew that the franchise needed a change if it were to go on.

#23 stamper

stamper

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2994 posts
  • Location:Under the sea

Posted 01 December 2007 - 12:08 AM

Spynovelfan, Greengrass comments predate CR, he is not talking about CR in the Supremacy disc, you got that confused ! Someone said he probably will in the Ultimatum disc.

I disagree that Bond and Bourne aren't similar, as said above, Bourne (the novels) is / are a continuation of Bond where Fleming left him off. They are brothers. That's why I find interesting that after the Bourne films turned all this Matrix bullet time unwatchable soap opera crap on it's head, that the 007 character would be rebooted in Bourne influence mode rather than Bullet Time Matrix mode.

I think Greengrass comments can be debated, but the essence of them is that he thought, in 2004, that Bond was hold hat, and that Bourne had the take on how Bond should be portrayed in films.
Let's face it, DAD was a joke, and it's director ended up being arrested disguised in ladies underwear with a wig in a Los Angeles street. That's a dam nightmare, not worthy of the Bond legacy.

Whatever hype there was around DAD, it was all empty with no soul. Bourne series got the soul thing back into spy type thrillers, and CR followed up suit. I disagree that Bourne is Terminator like, the reason these movies work is that he as little dialogue, but transmit a lot of info via his face and body language, which is exactly what Craig does at several points in CR. Also Bourne works because after the greatest car chase you have ever seen, he goes trying to amend his crimes to the girl whom her parents he executed. Ending a mainstream hollywood action movie like this was unheard of since the 70's I think. Of course, we dig him killing the bad guys just like we do for Bond, but without the soul thing, it wouldn't work.

#24 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 12:26 AM

Though I have mentioned this on another thread, I think it needs repeating. Whatever self doubts Bourne or Bond may have about what they do, these people come from two very different places. Bourne (the movie version) is a manufactured human being, while Bond is just an extremely competent person doing his job. Bourne does not really feel things the way Bond does because he has been conditioned (as in programmed) to do what he does. Bond has skills he has learned, skills he is very aware of. Bourne simply reacts to situations the way his programming tells him to. Yes there is a moral human being there, but he is submerged in a lot of conditioned behavior.

Someone here mentioned the Terminator. That is a very good vision of what Bourne (in tactical mode anyway) is, an organic robot. Greengrass can crow all he wants about what a wonderful guy Bourne is, but what gets people in the seats to watch him is that tactical robot stuff. No one watches those movies to see Bourne in self-doubt mode.

Bond on the other hand is a multifaceted human being. Seeing his self-doubts adds to our understanding (and enjoyment) of the character. It is a part of why we love to watch the guy. He is human and we can identify with him.

So no, I don't think the Bourne movies were in any way an inspiration for CR. I think that EON understood very well what went wrong with DAD(even though it made them a ton of money), and knew that the franchise needed a change if it were to go on.


Sorry, I don't agree at all. I'm all for a good fight scene, but what makes the first two Bourne films for me (haven't seen the third yet) is that it has a killer machine - an organic robot, if you like - who has been taken over by a sentient, doubting man, discovering who and what he is while being hunted. That conflict drives the films, and it's what makes them interesting. If he was merely an extremely efficient organic robot, there'd be very little interest or suspense. It's his discovery of his capabilities, his ambivalence about them, and the way he puts them to new use, that creates friction and new situations.

Stamper, I don't think I misunderstood. You were saying that Greengrass' comments on the SUPREMACY DVD may have initiated the change in direction of the Bond movies. I don't think so, mainly because the Bourne series is directly inspired by Bond anyway: the books from the idea of an amnesiac Bond, as I said already, the films quite clearly from the likes of FRWL, as well as other Cold War spy flicks. The idea of a more vulnerable human Bond with fewer gadgets and all that is hardly new - they did it in 1969. Bond also has his share of doubts and problems in the novels - Michael G Wilson has clearly read all the novels several times over, so I don't imagine he needed Greengrass' commentary to give him this idea. I suspect the success of the Bourne films may have been a factor - and the first 20 minutes of CR are clearly influenced by the Bourne films - but I seriously doubt that the ideas you've quoted would have been new to the makers of the Bond films.

#25 stamper

stamper

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2994 posts
  • Location:Under the sea

Posted 01 December 2007 - 08:04 AM

That would be saying EON doesn't pay a lot of attention to others movies, but I think reading John Cork Bond legacy clearly shows otherwise. They adapt by being totally aware of everything that is going on in the world at any time, including especially the movie business and trends.

#26 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 09:43 AM

That would be saying EON doesn't pay a lot of attention to others movies, but I think reading John Cork Bond legacy clearly shows otherwise. They adapt by being totally aware of everything that is going on in the world at any time, including especially the movie business and trends.


No, it's not saying that. I said they were probably inspired by the success of Bourne - read my post! But I suspect they got everything that Greengrass said from watching the films - they already know that. The success of the films might well have made them rethink it. I very much doubt that they sat down and listened to Greengrass' commentary on the DVD and made notes and said 'Yeah, let's do that, that and that.'

#27 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 11:32 AM

lt's interesting if you think of James Bond and Jason Bourne.
They're superficially very similar characters.
They're cut from the same cloth.
They're characters that originated in Cold War books -
the lan Fleming novels and the Robert Ludlum novels novels of the Cold War.
They were both spies.


True enough.

But on film Jason Bourne is a very different character from James Bond.


But is his point of reference the Bourne and Bond from their respective literary sources? Or filmic interpretations?

James Bond embodies a value system. He's an insider. He loves the secrecy of it. He loves being a secret agent.


Does he? Certainly, he enjoys aspects of the job but "love" is too strong a word. He actively dislikes part of his work but does it anyway because he is a professional. In the novels, internally, Bond does not feel part of the establishment - he feels like an outsider getting a glimpse behind the curtain of people and events. The film Bond fluctuates but they don't revel per se in the job.

He kills without remorse or regret.
ln fact, often he rather enjoys it and finds it humorous.


Obviously Greengrass is basing this on the movies (and is ignorant of litBond).
I guess Bond is a trained assassin like David Webb was. Webb had little regret when he offed dictators and oil barons.
The humour is interesting. The best Bond quips bubble up dryly to relieve Bond's (and our) tension. It is a misreading to think that he is enjoying killing.

He's an imperialist,


No, no, no, no. He's patriotic. Big difference. Here's a thing. In Bond world, 007 travels to other countries, has alliances with natives of those countries, explores and revels in the culture and women of those countries. He is outward looking.

What does Bourne do? While in other countries is obsessed with only what his nation's intelligence service is doing, spends time only in his nation's institutions, and spends time exploring his past. The allies serve to expound on Bourne and his operations. We do not go into their worlds. Bourne is inward looking.

Now, this is not a criticism of Bourne. The nature of the stories (the movies rewrite from more expansive Ludlum novels) dictate that. But the Bond worldview is much larger and expansive and exploratory. The Bourne worldview is all about Bourne. Sure, he goes to many locations but the story is, by necessity, all about Bourne and the intelligence services of his nation.

he's a misogynist.

Well, sexist arguably (although the defence to that is Bond's attitude was normal for the time). But misogyny (as in "How many women does it take to change a lightbulb? None, let the bitch cook in the dark") - hatred of women - no.

He worships at the altar oftechnology - he's always got a gadget or some gun that comes out of a turret on the end of his car some way whereby technology will rescue him.


I can see that in some films. But generally, for Bond, technology is a tool. He doesn't worship it (Q will attest to that!). He merely uses it, in the field, in a throwaway manner. Often inverting in the intended use (exploding Lotus, fingerprint scanner, DAD ejector seat). Bourne, of course, needs that grid. 50% of narrative drive of a Bourne movie would be lost if an EMP explosion happened.

ln the end he protects authority and he has no doubts.

Well no, he protects authority but does have doubts.
And Bourne, of course, just wants to be left alone. If he'd been left alone in Goa with Marie, he wouldn't be trying to shut down the illegal CIA operations. He'd be living the highlife on their proceeds, ignoring their continuing injustice. The only time Bourne fights for anything is if it interferes with his lotus eating. Bourne's world is personal and isolationist.

But Bourne is a different character. Bourne is an outsider. He's on the run from authority.
He's subversive of authority. He doesn't trust them at all.
He doesn't want to kill at any cost. He would rather not kill.
He's absolutely not a misogynist.

He's a man wracked with doubt and confusion desperately searching for an answer.
And that's what makes him contemporay and youthful.

Yup, so he's quite like Bond. Yes, and Bourne is great and his adventures are wonderful. And Greengrass and Damon are a terrific team. The Bourne films are fantastic entertainment and put together are an exquisite spy saga.
But while Bourne may be overtly more contemporary (how well will they age?), Bond is certainly more classic.


And that's why, in the end, l think that the Bourne character the Bourne franchise, speaks to today. Today's world, today's problems, tomorrow's problems in a way that Bond cannot ever do.

Well, this is the nub. Bond is the benchmark. Bond is so relevant today (culturally and arguably in content), that all up-and-comers have to put him down to get media attention. Note Greengrass isn't comparing Bourne to Ethan Hunt (in some ways a more direct comparison). Or Jack Ryan. Copy is gleaned only by Bond bashing.

Bourne won't be around tomorrow, slyly and wittily commenting on global realpolitik in 5 years time. Bond will. Bourne's box office is a significantly smaller fraction than Bond's (we won't even begin to compare the profitability of the first 3 Bonds with the first 3 Bournes!). That Bond 21 outperforms Bourne 3 is phenomenal in the industry. No matter the domestic (US) gross of Bourne, Bond outstrips Bourne nearly 2 to 1 globally. I know we shouldn't measure a film by box office but this does go to relevance.

I know Greengrass was just opining something for a commentary and did not expect to be taken to task on every line. And he is a fine, fine director and writer who has done some powerful work. I'm a big fan. But I get Bond-bashed by Bourne all the time and have equipped myself with return fire.

#28 Dunph

Dunph

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3826 posts
  • Location:Leeds, UK

Posted 01 December 2007 - 12:14 PM

Hurrah and huzzah. Well said.

#29 LadySylvia

LadySylvia

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1299 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 02 December 2007 - 07:56 AM

I had recently written a retrospective look at "CASINO ROYALE":

A Look Back: "CASINO ROYALE"

#30 TheSaint

TheSaint

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3067 posts
  • Location:Bronx,NY

Posted 02 December 2007 - 09:25 AM

I think Greengrass not only refers to Broz Bond in his comments, but Moore Bond also, who did murder chaps for no other reason than making a quip. Remember "what a helpful chap" in Spy ? Bond had no reason to kill this guy, he got what he needed already ! What things Moore wouldn't do for a laugh :D

So, it's ok for Sandor to try to kill Bond but Bond kills him and he's the bad guy? Bond had every reason to kill Sandor.