You Know my Name

James Bond. A character first conceived of in a series of novels by British author Ian Fleming, he’s also the titan of action heroes with one of the longest running movie franchises in history. They were the only movies I was allowed to watch as a kid where a guy got chewed up by a sea drill or one of the characters was named Pussy Galore. Bond is way more PC now of course, which brings to mind one of the endearing characteristics of the franchise. The films vividly reflected the cultural and historical ambience of their times. Each one had such a unique and interesting setting that Bond’s character didn’t have to be ‘deep’- only exciting. Sexism and racism aside, you appreciate the camp as it were, and enjoyed what was typically a gripping and imaginative caper. Bond is so well known that he shouldn’t have to conform to anything but his own suave worldliness. Why then, does Daniel Craig’s Bond seem like such a misfit? He’s no Sean Connery, but he’s not bad.

2006’s Casino Royale finally appeared four full years after the Pierce Brosnan era ended with Die Another Day. The Bond we’re introduced to in the beginning wastes no time showing how he does business, violently attempting to drown an assassin in a public washroom sink. This of course, doesn’t faze Bond in the least and he “wouldn’t be very good at his job if it did”. Nothing out of the ordinary. Still, you can tell from the start we’re dealing with someone completely unlike Roger Moore. Shouldn’t he have said something like: “Just ignore that sinking feeling”? Daniel Craig reprised his role in last fall’s Quantum of Solace.

Instead of leaving his genius and wit to your imagination, Craig’s Bond is noticeably one screwed-up double-o. He’s reckless, vengeful, unfeeling, and prone to panic. Even M (a role that thankfully remains in Dame Judi Dench’s capable hands) thinks he’s a loose cannon. It’s a different approach, more John McCain than James Bond as we initially knew him. The movies reek of a push for realism, with crime lords or eco-terrorists as the chief bad guys, not Soviets or bald megalomaniacs with cats living in an undersea lair. That’s all well and good, but it’s just not…Bond, is it? Where’s his watch laser, or Q for that matter? Where’s the sub-swallowing supertanker? Where’s S.P.E.C.T.R.E? Do people feel we’ve somehow outgrown this sort of thing?

Maybe I’m being sort of pessimistic; after all, this is a depiction of the beginning of Bond’s career. It’s how he came to be. But it awkwardly seems to be to conforming to conventional 21st century action films. In Quantum of Solace, scenes such as the fight in the Haitian hotel or the car chase at the beginning could easily have been stuck in one of the Bourne films. It’s just a gritty and raw perspective, clearly intended for more mature audiences than films of the past. It’s well done in that respect, but dilutes Bond’s exaggerated universe. Why can’t the effort put into realism be invested in fantastical settings, schemes, or characters? The technology of our age is impressive, but it still pales in comparison to Oddjob’s hat.

What we’re seeing in the two recent films is a more three-dimensional character than the one driving his 1977 Lotus Esprit into the ocean. The movies used to be isolated incidents, with hardly any continuity of an overarching plot. I, for one, never really cared whether or not a Bond film made references to previous ones. They’re just entertaining. Casino and Quantum are episodic, like most movie series’, perhaps because Daniel Craig’s Bond is a different kind of protagonist than the one we’ve known for more than four decades. The humour inherent in Bond’s film legacy from Connery to Brosnan shifted from movie to movie, with some films like Goldeneye and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service shedding light on the character’s nature in less tactical situations.

In other words, they actually confronted Bond with emotional vices, such as dealing with the betrayal of a friend. The filmmakers of the two most recent Bond movies have embraced the coldly cunning air of Bond’s earliest escapades, something we never experienced before in the series. This adds the continuity that was lacking in the films of the 20th century, and though you can’t really say they needed continuity, future films that continue to make Bond himself more relatable to audiences may enrich the franchise as a whole. As long as it isn’t a shameless rehash of all that Bond stands for, it’s an okay direction to maintain.