Daniel Craig Slams the Kardashians

Not sure I can completely agree there. Bond does save British and American interests. Only these interests are no longer represented by the respective British and American governments.

In my book, that doesn't really qualify as British and American interests in the context of foreign policy, if they're not ones maintained by the incumbent governments. Although saving Bolivians from drought is an admirable act, it's not really my idea of Bond. When you think about it, it's more Indiana Jones circa TEMPLE OF DOOM, in its transformation of a cynical hero into the benevolent face of globalisation - saving the children of India. As the strong arm of the civil service, Bond's a different animal.

Fair point. Can't say I see that parallel myself, probably because Bond's victory wasn't revelled by these Bolivians which makes the thing quite circumstantial to me. It's perhaps closest to all those potential drug consumers (black US citizens we assume here, whose fate is of no particular interest to Bond's service) he saves from the hands of Mr Big in LALD. It's mentioned in passing but it's not really that interesting or the focus of the affair. At best it's a collateral benefit. Not much to chew on for Oxfam or Greenpeace here.

I suspect what made this latest example of an in fact fairly established element in Bond films so controversial is the particular timing, the film hitting theaters at a time when the regime change in the USA was happening and all kinds of political subtext and "hidden agenda" were interpreted into it, of course mostly from the side of the losers. I highly doubt we'd even discuss such questions if that other fellow (forget the name, sorry) had won.

I think you're onto something there. Although released just after the election win, it was written by Haggis during the last year of Bush's presidency. Like GREEN ZONE, QOS came far too late to the party, and by the time of November 2008 its platitudes feel redundant. Nevertheless, even it was made earlier I still think it would have been critiicised for its politics sticking out like sore thumb in the Bond canon.

Well, what politics there are. The main world-shattering difference in QOS goes largely under the radar and is hardly ever mentioned. I find the idea that SIS is clearly about to torture Mr White with the evident approval of M and perhaps even the participation of Bond sticking out much more. Haven't heard a whisper of protest there, although it's evidently the behaviour of the anti-Bond that is adopted in this case. Why was this not a topic of discussion? Of outrage and bitter sentiment about the good old times and what that evil Broccoli-Wilson Empire has imposed upon our hero? Quite simply because this is now the current state of our superior/inferior/irrelevant moral compass. We don't bat an eyelid any more about such minor details. That is the care of time for you. Unfortunately we can't choose what to adopt with this change of times. We've got to take the good with the bad and the humane with the bestial. Two and a half sentences of hurt US/UK pride (and not really that many people apparently felt the sting) are actually a bargain price for such major change, wouldn't you agree?

Have you read 'Zero Minus Ten' or the tie-in to 'Goldeneye'? Much the same elements to be found, even a bit broader than in GE or QOS. Never have I heard or read a critical opinion about these parts. I think this is because they were for the most part irrelevant for the actual plot and fairly in line with what I'd still consider to be common sense and conduct.

I read DOUBLESHOT around the time it came out, and that permanently put me off Benson. I think why much critical analysis hasn't focused on these novels, is because they are marginal within the world of Bond. Even when they were released, the Brosnan films were considered the genuine article by most fans, and the Raymond Benson books were looked down on.

Even if there was a political bias in the last two books (I haven't read CARTE BLANCHE, but I can't remember anything in DEVIL MAY CARE), it would have been overlooked and forgotten about before long. The truth is that Bond films will always receive the most attention and scrutiny from fans, critics and scholars. They are what's under the spotlight, not Benson, Gardener, Wood, or Deaver.

Yes, definitely. The state of the Bond world is decided on the screen. Yet I find it interesting that the GOLDENEYE film tie-in goes much deeper into the backstory to Trevelyan and his parents, who were betrayed and deported to Russia and there directly to the shooting squads. It's a much more stinging piece of history and indeed the stuff to make one ashamed. A similar mention of a dark spot on Britain's conscience appears in ZERO MINUS TEN with the opium war and the handover of Hong Kong. And neither Gardner nor Benson can be regarded as having a sense of a political mission. Consequently I've not read any complaints about such historically sensitivie content. Once more I think the reason is that these elements were handled in a common sense manner that didn't give the impression of an - hidden or obvious - agenda. The difference to QOS's supposedly offensive 15, 20 syllables is, these were uttered in an atmosphere of hysteria, rage and paranoia that befell a small but all the more vocal minority.
Place that same dialogue into DAD and it would stick out, but hardly anybody would have felt offended or whine about the end of the series as we knew it. Not because of that 20 seconds.

As I said above, I feel sure the three sentences in QOS do not sting so much for the actual content but for the raw flesh they hit with a small part of the American audience.

I don't really think it's an exclusively American problem with the film. I'm a Brit, and I know several others (mostly right-wing) from here that have complained about its Bob Geldof-as-Bond lunacy.

But doesn't the American angle and the hurt sensibilities lend this storm in a teacup the necessary momentum? What otherwise would have been forgotten by the time of the end titles?

And to films like THE MAGNIFICIENT SEVEN, THE STING and APOCALYPSE NOW.

The key thing here is the way it's shot, the subtext, what's in between the lines. Forster's direction in these scenes being modeled after Iñárritu's in BABEL is no small coincidence.

Well, sure. But I took that to be more a fad of current direction than a deliberate device to transport a political agenda. Question would be if the one isn't necessarily the other? Don't really know.

No, I get that you don't call for a right-wing bias instead. But I think you misinterprete as a liberal bias what is in effect just the lowest common denominator of the current mainstream

You have a point there. Maybe as if you say, the liberal bias is equivocal to the current mainstream, then what I've got a problem with is Bond adapting to the current mainstream mode of thought. I think he should stand out from the crowd, just as Fleming did from his contemporaries.

But mainstream is the only way the series can survive. It's not about the books, the character or the legacy of 007. In the end it's always about getting enough folks into theaters to earn the money for the next one. We can see this as selling out or not, Bond has to stand out from the center of society, not from the fringe or out of the history books.

Edited by Dustin, 06 January 2012 - 06:23 PM.

Poll: Daniel Craig speaks his brain

Do you agree with him?

Regardless of the above, has he rather cheapened himself by doing this?

What do you require of Daniel Craig?

Who or what would you like him to have a go at next in his crusade to tell us his necessary thoughts on critical stuff? He's sooo right! C'mon Daniel, you MUST tell us. TELL US. We are nothing without your wisdom.

#151 Dustin

#152 Dustin

#153 Cody

#154 J B

#155 Iceskater101

#156 Dustin

#157 seawolfnyy

#158 Red Barchetta

#159 The Shark

#160 Chief of SIS