Spinning Yarns

Last week, we went to see the new Bond movie, Casino Royale. Much to my surprise, it was every bit as good as I’d heard, and I’m now much more comfortable with the idea of Daniel Craig as the new actor for James Bond than I was when I first heard he was replacing Pierce Brosnan in the role.

The trouble I’ve had with the more recent Bond films has been that since the James Bond character was created, the times have changed, but the stories haven’t always kept up. Born in Ian Fleming’s novels of the 1950s, James Bond was originally an archetypal figure of the Cold War era intrigues between the Soviets and the West. But since the reunification of East and West Germany and the economic collapse of the Communist government in the Soviet Union, he’s been hard-pressed to play catch-up with the modern world. I’ve found it difficult, sometimes, to really see his relevance in a post-Soviet world. Oh, he’s kept busy, to be sure, in titles like Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies — but lately, his efforts have been more directed towards foiling the machinations of drug runners and terrorists than the secret plans of evil totalitarian states. Since the latter seems kind of hokey these days, I’m not complaining, but it remains that Bond feels like a fish out of water sometimes.

What makes Fleming’s Bond so compelling to me is that he is multifaceted: Part of him is the stone-cold killer who earns his 00 status with both hands; capable of casually breaking the neck of an inattentive guard without so much as slowing his stride. Another aspect is the thoughtful, careful spy, who can slip past the tightest security net without ruffling a single feather on the pirate captain’s parrot. And, of course, there is always the edgily flirtatious lover, charming to virtually any heterosexual female character worthy of having her name listed in the Dramatis Personæ. I think the character works best when these aspects of him are in their proper balance.

Surprisingly, Mr. Craig manages to carry off an excellent blend of the lover, the killer, and the spy. His repartee with Vesper Lynd (delightfully executed by Ms. Eva Green) manages to retain its tense flirtatious undercurrent without turning into the head-patting “don’t fret your pretty little head” Neanderthal dialogue that was legion for Connery and Moore; and yet the lover is still there, not lost in the noise as it was in Timothy Dalton’s portrayal. On the other hand, I found Craig’s “killer Bond” believable enough that he gave me the shivers. This is the stuff of a true intelligence operative, in stark contrast to the syrupy romanticism of Roger Moore’s portrayal or the puckish flipness of Pierce Brosnan (although I should add, I thought Mr. Brosnan did an excellent job with the Bond character overall). There are moments when Craig’s Bond looks like a brute thug — only to be transformed by the flicker of a smile or the barest movement of the eyes like a secret only we the audience share. In short, I thought he did a really excellent job, and gave James Bond a new life.

So, the upshot is that I think you should go see Casino Royale. For old-time Bond fans, you will not be disappointed — and newcomers have something here they can really sink their teeth into. Sean Connery was always my favourite Bond actor before, but I think after seeing this latest offering, I have to hand the prize over to Mr. Craig. Bravo, good sir; bravo!

Filed by Michael at 10:35 under Miscellaneous
3 Comments