I despise what Campbell did to the character of James Bond in Casino Royale. Campbell stripped Bond of his dignity. He turned Bond into a clueless, thoughtless, slovenly uncouth thug. That's not the character Ian Fleming wrote nor the character the originating film makers and actors worked so hard to create and sustain. Barbara Broccoli is equally to blame. There were other ways, better ways, to reinvigorate the series. What you saw on the screen was the easy, lazy way.
Richard
Have we seen the same version of Casino Royale or read the same books by Ian Fleming?? Because I think CR is the most faithful movie to the spirit of Fleming in almost 40 years.
Faithful to the outline of the story only, not to its internal meaning. Internally, James Bond is deconstructed and then reconfigured into a very different character. Forget who the director is for a moment and ignore who is the playing the part. Study the character. Note how the motivations of the characters in the book are changed in the film. Step by step, the changes amount to a repudiation of the character Ian Fleming wrote and the originating filmmakers brought to life.
Remember, in the novel the plan to beat LeChiffre at cards is conceived by Head of Station S and passed up the channels to M, who approves the plan only because they have an agent who knows how to gamble. Remember also that Bond advises his superiors the plan may not work without enough funds to break the bank if necessary. In the novel Bond is a scientific gambler with realistic expectations. All this is cut out by the movie so that Bond can be made to look egotistical, reckless, and stupid at the card table. The carefully written strategy of the card game is also thrown out. It could have been a terrific suspense sequence, but it was important to Barbara Broccoli and Martin Campbell for Bond to be reckless and egotistical so that they could stage yet another scene in which Vesper tells him off. How many times does he get told off in the film version?
All the male characters in the film version are reprehensible.
In the books I never saw Bond as a posh suave superspy who never got his clothes dirty or hair out of place,
That's because he isn't a superspy who never got his clothes dirty or hair out of place in the novels. He is never a superspy in the novels. You are confusing the 1970s and 1980s films for the novels. In the novels Ian Fleming goes to great pains to describe both the thought process of the suave, mannered gentlemen and his physical appearance. Entire pages are devoted to the meticulous care James Bond gives to his fine clothes, personal effects, his food and drink. That is his upbringing, not his schooling. The Bond of the novels is not a superspy; he is hard to kill because of his training, wits, and physical stamina. But he is not indestructible, in fact he is often injured and bloodied in those fine clothes. In the novels Bond is always vulnerable but he is also always thinking, reasoning, planning, and standing up to the physical ordeals he is put through. Maybe you should read those books again.
unless you are referring to the Gardner/Benson novels.
Forget the Gardner / Benson novels. They are neither here nor there. I never refer to the Garden / Benson novels.
I also never saw Bond as a clueless thoughtless, slovenly uncouth thug in Casino Royale either.
That's exactly what he is in the film. He slouches when he walks, chews with his mouth open, wears ratty clothes (adept behavorial acting by Craig), says cold things like "do you want a clean kill or do you want to send a message?" In the novels, and in the early films, Bond feels for the victims. There are moments in
From Russia With Love,
Goldfinger, and
Thunderball, for instance, where Bond is allowed to show grief for a moment over the bodies of Kerim Bey, Tilly Masterson and Paula. This new Bond feels nothing.
All the dialog between M and Bond in the novel is cut by the film and replaced by new dialog that is intended to make her sound intelligent and make him sound stupid. That is the manifest of Barbara Broccoli's agenda. There are several arguments with M and Vesper in the film, which are not in the novel, and which he loses because a) he can't keep up, and b ) he's always wrong. The women have to teach him how to think like a spy (one bombmaker and invading the Embassy) and dress like a gentleman (dinner jackets and dinner jackets). Even his origin story has been changed from the upper class to the lower class, or didn't you notice?
Remember in the book CR, Bond did not like the idea of having to work with a woman.
That's true he didn't, but it is partly the arc of his character that Vesper succeeds in getting under his skin and changing his mind. This plays out in a more sophisticated way in the novel than the gender war and dumbing down of Bond in the film version.
Martin Campbell does a fine job with action, but his view of character and story is at odds with Ian Fleming and the originating films.
Richard
I thought Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were both crap films, for various different reasons. I've never been a fan of Martin Campbell as a director, though. Even before he directed a Bond film. He frames everything far too tightly for my liking. Forster's direction on his Bond film was far and away better, IMO.
As for this interview, Campbell's always had a big gob. He promoted Brosnan and GoldenEye by slagging off Dalton (and even talking down Connery for being too "blue collar") to try to make the new boy look good, and he pulled the same trick on Brosnan when Craig became Bond. So, blather like this from him is nothing new.
It is bad form, though.
Well writ, Royal Dalton.
I'll buy you a drink one of these days.
Richard
Edited by Richard, 31 January 2010 - 04:49 AM.