Casino Royale
When Pierce Brosnan was fired from playing the role of James Bond, Her Majesty’s dearest bad boy, everyone wondered who would inherit the vanishing Aston Martin, the vast collection of gadgets and the sassy wit and lecherous demeanor. Much to everyone’s surprise, the new James Bond, Daniel Craig seemed all wrong for the role. He was blond, did not have Brosnan’s smooth charm and seemed almost gruff. Quite unlike the posh and sophisticated, shaken martini drinking 007 we all know and love. Daniel Craig’s only redeeming features seemed to be his British-ness and his sculpted body. We also know Craig from Munich where he did not get much acclaim for his supporting role, having been outperformed by Eric Bana.
Anyone who plays James Bond has a lot to live up to. Considering the fact that some of the brightest movie stars of all time have played Bond - Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan - anyone who plays Bond not only has to match his illustrious predecessors but also needs to surpass them in some way. Sometimes these tactics don’t work. Timothy Dalton played Bond as well, but Dalton’s Bond looked more like a clumsy secret agent with a heart of gold. George Lazenby, the only Australian to play the role, was disastrous in his sole performance as Bond. Brosnan, an immensely talented actor, did the last four Bond movies. Yet his best performances did not stem from 007 story lines. Brosnan will always be remembered for his gritty performance as Rory O’Manion in the mini-series The Manions of America and The Matador and the TV series Remington Steele.
So does Daniel Craig live up to any of his predecessors? In one word, YES! Does he surpass any of his predecessors? Again, YES! So how does Craig manage to do this?
I watched the new Bond movie Casino Royale yesterday in a packed theater. When the movie finished, people stood up and applauded. It may have had something to do with the fact that the final line of the movie before the credits roll in is, “My name is Bond, James Bond.” And yet this single line conveyed the most important sense of the movie – that the Bond we had been critically eyeballing in Casino Royale was not really the Bond we had watched in various other movies spanning four decades. It is at the end of Casino Royale that we are finally introduced to James Bond as the stereotype of Bond to come.
Casino Royale was the first Ian Fleming novel published in 1953. In 1967 it was made into a movie starring David Niven as Bond and faithfully bombed at the box office, even though it also featured Deborah Kerr, Peter Sellers and Orson Welles. 39 years later, director Martin Campbell has got it right. The new Casino Royale is in one word – gritty. Making Casino Royale was undoubtedly an ambitious project because this is the movie that sets the stage for James Bond. It tells us about who he was, how he evolves and why he acts the way he does in subsequent movies. Given that people have now begun to associate Bond with semi-clad women, general promiscuous behavior and lots of mindless killing, the new Casino Royale faced the daunting task of challenging these pre-existing perceptions about Bond in the minds of worldwide audiences.
And it challenged these perceptions with great skill. People have gone to watch Bond movies in recent years to catch up on the latest gadgets and weapons in the spy’s repertoire, his newest female conquests and under-explored exotic locations. Most importantly, they have not gone to watch Bond films expecting something out of the ordinary from the central character. In Casino Royale we do not meet the stereotypical Bond. We do encounter a couple of gorgeous women, but we do not see a single gadget or a super-car which could put Hasselhoff as Knight Rider to shame. And this is pretty important – we also see James Bond killing brutally with his bare hands. Something which Bond almost never does.
The movie takes Bond back to his roots. Bond is not born into money; he just learns how to ‘perform’ like old money. He is essentially a working class man, who has the benefit of a superior education (from Oxford) which has allowed him to enter the crafty world of international intelligence. He is also not 007 at the beginning of this movie. He gets promoted to that status after securing two kills. His first kill is messy and brutal. It is clumsy and prolonged. His second kill is more efficient. But he is still rusty on chases. In Madagascar, Craig as Bond chases a bomb-maker through a construction site where his quarry is constantly outsmarting him. Bond clumsily follows and doesn’t display any grace whatsoever in the chase. But that’s precisely because he is still ‘green’. As the movie progresses Bond evolves into a smarter and more efficient fighter and killer. Craig pulls of the physical evolution with great skill.
The actor, Daniel Craig, internalizes Bond’s learning curve in his physical ability, body language and on-the-spot strategizing. The movie begins with Bond’s gruff and somewhat unpolished mannerisms, his messy fighting style and his ability to fall hard for anything in a revealing satin dress. This progresses into better clothes, efficient killing and calculated heart-giving by the end of the movie. In Casino Royale, Bond doesn’t display good judgment about people and isn’t discerning enough about his enemies and friends. He learns.
Daniel Craig as Bond is not polished, but he can pretend to be. He loves fast cars, but we see him driving a rented Ford. He doesn’t enjoy killing but kills with his bare hands if required. In short Craig introduces us to a Bond who is not exactly a playboy, still not sure of himself, can be extremely sensitive in his treatment of women (compare this with Roger Moore slapping his leading ladies) and almost naïve in trusting people. He is betrayed and yet tries to rescue the traitor from a sinking elevator shaft underwater.
Craig as James Bond is also strangely, but pleasantly, psychotic! Bond has evolved!
The stereotypical Bond we know is almost a sub-human, male chauvinist who displays occasional bouts of humanity. The Bond in Casino Royale is engaged in the process of becoming a sub-human, male chauvinist who displays occasional bouts of humanity. He doesn’t start out like that. Situations beyond his control demand that he alter his behavior to protect himself. At the end of Casino Royale, Bond is vulnerable and he compensates for that with efficiency and cold-bloodedness. Something dies in Bond during Casino Royale. The growling but affectionate Rottweiler in him is replaced by another kind of beast; an ugly and cruel one. The Bond we see in the last scene is the Bond from the movies that have come before – ruthless, efficient, guarded, insensitive, promiscuous, clever and merciless.
Great movie … must see!
Anyone who plays James Bond has a lot to live up to. Considering the fact that some of the brightest movie stars of all time have played Bond - Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan - anyone who plays Bond not only has to match his illustrious predecessors but also needs to surpass them in some way. Sometimes these tactics don’t work. Timothy Dalton played Bond as well, but Dalton’s Bond looked more like a clumsy secret agent with a heart of gold. George Lazenby, the only Australian to play the role, was disastrous in his sole performance as Bond. Brosnan, an immensely talented actor, did the last four Bond movies. Yet his best performances did not stem from 007 story lines. Brosnan will always be remembered for his gritty performance as Rory O’Manion in the mini-series The Manions of America and The Matador and the TV series Remington Steele.
So does Daniel Craig live up to any of his predecessors? In one word, YES! Does he surpass any of his predecessors? Again, YES! So how does Craig manage to do this?
I watched the new Bond movie Casino Royale yesterday in a packed theater. When the movie finished, people stood up and applauded. It may have had something to do with the fact that the final line of the movie before the credits roll in is, “My name is Bond, James Bond.” And yet this single line conveyed the most important sense of the movie – that the Bond we had been critically eyeballing in Casino Royale was not really the Bond we had watched in various other movies spanning four decades. It is at the end of Casino Royale that we are finally introduced to James Bond as the stereotype of Bond to come.
Casino Royale was the first Ian Fleming novel published in 1953. In 1967 it was made into a movie starring David Niven as Bond and faithfully bombed at the box office, even though it also featured Deborah Kerr, Peter Sellers and Orson Welles. 39 years later, director Martin Campbell has got it right. The new Casino Royale is in one word – gritty. Making Casino Royale was undoubtedly an ambitious project because this is the movie that sets the stage for James Bond. It tells us about who he was, how he evolves and why he acts the way he does in subsequent movies. Given that people have now begun to associate Bond with semi-clad women, general promiscuous behavior and lots of mindless killing, the new Casino Royale faced the daunting task of challenging these pre-existing perceptions about Bond in the minds of worldwide audiences.
And it challenged these perceptions with great skill. People have gone to watch Bond movies in recent years to catch up on the latest gadgets and weapons in the spy’s repertoire, his newest female conquests and under-explored exotic locations. Most importantly, they have not gone to watch Bond films expecting something out of the ordinary from the central character. In Casino Royale we do not meet the stereotypical Bond. We do encounter a couple of gorgeous women, but we do not see a single gadget or a super-car which could put Hasselhoff as Knight Rider to shame. And this is pretty important – we also see James Bond killing brutally with his bare hands. Something which Bond almost never does.
The movie takes Bond back to his roots. Bond is not born into money; he just learns how to ‘perform’ like old money. He is essentially a working class man, who has the benefit of a superior education (from Oxford) which has allowed him to enter the crafty world of international intelligence. He is also not 007 at the beginning of this movie. He gets promoted to that status after securing two kills. His first kill is messy and brutal. It is clumsy and prolonged. His second kill is more efficient. But he is still rusty on chases. In Madagascar, Craig as Bond chases a bomb-maker through a construction site where his quarry is constantly outsmarting him. Bond clumsily follows and doesn’t display any grace whatsoever in the chase. But that’s precisely because he is still ‘green’. As the movie progresses Bond evolves into a smarter and more efficient fighter and killer. Craig pulls of the physical evolution with great skill.
The actor, Daniel Craig, internalizes Bond’s learning curve in his physical ability, body language and on-the-spot strategizing. The movie begins with Bond’s gruff and somewhat unpolished mannerisms, his messy fighting style and his ability to fall hard for anything in a revealing satin dress. This progresses into better clothes, efficient killing and calculated heart-giving by the end of the movie. In Casino Royale, Bond doesn’t display good judgment about people and isn’t discerning enough about his enemies and friends. He learns.
Daniel Craig as Bond is not polished, but he can pretend to be. He loves fast cars, but we see him driving a rented Ford. He doesn’t enjoy killing but kills with his bare hands if required. In short Craig introduces us to a Bond who is not exactly a playboy, still not sure of himself, can be extremely sensitive in his treatment of women (compare this with Roger Moore slapping his leading ladies) and almost naïve in trusting people. He is betrayed and yet tries to rescue the traitor from a sinking elevator shaft underwater.
Craig as James Bond is also strangely, but pleasantly, psychotic! Bond has evolved!
The stereotypical Bond we know is almost a sub-human, male chauvinist who displays occasional bouts of humanity. The Bond in Casino Royale is engaged in the process of becoming a sub-human, male chauvinist who displays occasional bouts of humanity. He doesn’t start out like that. Situations beyond his control demand that he alter his behavior to protect himself. At the end of Casino Royale, Bond is vulnerable and he compensates for that with efficiency and cold-bloodedness. Something dies in Bond during Casino Royale. The growling but affectionate Rottweiler in him is replaced by another kind of beast; an ugly and cruel one. The Bond we see in the last scene is the Bond from the movies that have come before – ruthless, efficient, guarded, insensitive, promiscuous, clever and merciless.
Great movie … must see!
posted by Vasundhara at 2:17 PM
2 Comments:
Well, as always maam, BRAVO! BRAVO! You have just converted me, i was a bit apprehensive about this movie but i guess, once i am done with CAT, i shall catch the movie. Your writing skills are sublime. Will keep checking for posts on your blog from here onwards.
Good review.Thanks..planning to see the movie soon. I am a huge fan of Daniel Craig and the understatement that he is. In fact,for me, he was the best performer in Munich but as is true with so many of Spielberg movies, it is really difficult for any cast to rise above the plot. None the less, Daniel Craig truly look like someone who believes in "Revenge is a dish best served cold"
Post a Comment
<< Home