simonlife

I can’t evaluate this movie like I would any other Bond movie. It deviates too much from the Bond archetype for me to place a premium on the classic elements (gadgets, etc.). Don’t get me wrong; I don’t mean to chastise the film in any way. I just think it would be prudent to acknowledge the movie’s peculiar context before wandering into nitpicky comparisons with its predecessors. To me at least, it is clear that this particular installment in the series appropriately violates the established paradigm in order to depict, as one interpretation, the beginnings of Bond’s career.

I enjoyed the film. I really did. Don’t bother to ask me about specifics just yet; I dropped seven bucks for a Monday night showing, six more for popcorn (I hate my life), and two hours of my study time, all to be merely entertained, and if you discount the popcorn and taxi fare back to Collegetown, I can gladly say that I got my money’s worth in Hollywood, blockbuster goodness. As your average, mainstream moviegoer, I think that’s what matters the most.

Pierce and Danny Boy

Let me say first that Pierce Brosnan will always be my favorite James Bond. He bears all the qualities I believe Bond is supposed to embody, and the way about him is marked by an unmatched gallantry and aplomb. No necktie readjustment will ever be as sexy as his. If I were gay, I would so hit that. I think. Nevermind.

During the months preceding Casino Royale’s premiere, I had trouble warming up to the idea of this Daniel Craig character taking on the role. He may be tall (I don’t know this for sure), but he isn’t dark and handsome in the way that Pierce was. In fact, Craig wears a perpetual sneer on his face that would otherwise lead me to perceive him as a villain. Also, he may be fifteen years younger than Pierce, but he still looks older than my dad, and that’s no way to cast someone who’s supposed to be a youthful, recalcitrant MI6 enlistee. Whatever the case, he doesn’t look like a Bond to me.

Nonetheless, Craig’s inability to satisfy my own preconception of Bond bothered me less and less as the movie progressed and as he demonstrated more and more that he wasn’t trying to be the man that Pierce (or the others) contrived. The Bond in Casino Royale projected subtle hints of immaturity and childishness in his demeanor, which was completely appropriate given his supposed inexperience, and his script consisted of dialogue too elementary and lacking in wit in some places to be fit for any of the more veteran Bond portrayals. Needless to say, it was discomforting to see James Bond in this representation of his infancy, all reckless and capricious as compared to his future self, but it’s not clear that his imbalanced character is necessarily supposed to please us.

In cringing at his undeveloped professionalism, I think we are entertained.

Human Afterall

To see Bond yield naturally to his emotions was awkward, but it was also humbling and kind of like watching a man of any specialized profession pull into his driveway at the end of the day, hug his kids, and kiss his wife on the cheek. Little deviations from expected behavior like that remind us that uniforms and tuxedos and sophisticated ways of talking are only second to the humanness that inheres within.

Do we need to see that side of Bond? No, not really. After I saw my first Bond film (Roger Moore, I think), it didn’t occur to me that Bond was too debonair or skilled in his craft. I easily accepted his character and just assumed that that’s the way he had always been. We don’t always need to be aware of the origins of our superheroes to appreciate them, because it’s their popularized likeness that we remember and attribute to the name.

Still yet, I foster a special fondness for films like Casino Royale, because frankly, it’s just kind of cool to take a certain phenomenon, be it a person or idea, and just see where it came from. Not that Bond was a complete novice to begin with in this particular film, but a prefacing context like that, akin to Smallville maybe (never seen it), carries an appeal that at least entertains one’s curiosity. Overall, I think EON did a respectable job of outlining Bond’s maturation into a man deserving of the 007 codename.

Also, Vesper’s character was charming and kind of cute, but that doesn’t have anything to do with anything.