I AM A BOND VIRGIN. Or rather, I was until I decided to succumb to Daniel Craig’s scrappy and sullen version of 007 in Quantum of Solace, the latest installment in the series, and the first Bond film I’ve ever watched in its entirety, though I’d flirted mildly with Sean Connery and Roger Moore on late night TV. Unfortunately, I think I chose the wrong Bond to go all the way with. Gone is the suave, martini-drinking, womanizing gentleman. Craig’s incarnation is a brooding, troubled, humorless man, mourning the death of his lover, Vesper, from Casino Royal, and bent on revenge. The morning after, I feel used, confused and mystified by all the fuss.
I cannot be blamed, however, for not knowing what I was getting into. If a sequel should be able to stand on its own, provide enough back-story to bring anyone who enters up to speed, this one disappoints. Without my debonair and well-versed movie companion to fill in the blanks, I might have mistaken Bond’s grim countenance and violent tendencies as psychopathic rather than romantic—which is not what I was expecting when I agreed to spend 106 minutes with him.
And beyond this under-developed revenge plot, there are at least two other perplexing subplots (or are they the primary plot?—it’s hard to tell). There is the requisite villain, Dominic Greene, played by Mathieu Amalric, who is designing an ecological disaster for profit, and who is—in turns—in cahoots with the CIA and with the British government. And there is Camille, the obligatory Bond girl played by Olga Kurylenko, who is not a romantic interest, but has her own score to settle with a corrupt Bolivian General, who is also in cahoots with Greene. It never becomes clear how these different plots really interconnect, who the real bad guys are, or who is constantly trying to kill Bond and why.
Perhaps narrative clarity is not the point of a Bond movie, but I am not sure that the dizzying action sequences really make up for a plot full of holes or for a depressed, charmless Bond who kills with impunity, and does not seem to get any relief when he achieves his convoluted and forgettable goals. Indeed, despite the high octane special effects and bombast, all that is threatened, all that is avenged, and all that is saved seems negligible because of characters who remain one dimensional, one note and unsympathetic throughout.
I suppose that die-hard Bond fans, more interested in the continuing saga and the exploits of the character, might be willing to suspend their judgment and disbelief as a matter of habit. They, after all, are already sold and willing to accord him the benefit of the doubt. Or they might suggest that Craig’s Bond is a reflection of our time—macho, tragic, ruthless, lacking empathy and affect—an antidote, perhaps, to the “sensitive man.” Too bad that in the process he also had to lose all sense of style and wit, which alone might have made Her Majesty’s rogue agent worth a second go.
Tess Fragoulis is a novelist, literary journalist and producer of the music series Strictly Acoustic.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Once again, a critic has attempted to stab a knife into the armoured body that is James Bond. To no avail. This weekend, theatres around Montreal were packed to the rafters and the after-film buzz from those that saw the film was positive.
The box-office gross since the film opened a week ago internationally has already exceeded its US$200 million production cost. In a bit of marketing savy, it was the only major film to open in North America this past weekend, almost ensuring a larger take than would otherwise.
Whatever the recipe was that created this film, it obviously has struck a chord with the public. Instead of trying to pick apart plot holes and character flaws, why not illuminate us all as to why this formula works? I’m still waiting for the answer as to why The Da Vinci Code sold in excess of 20 million copies worldwide while significantly superior books lay moldering on bookstore tables.
Leo, you are so right, up to a point. Daniel Craig is great but quoting 007′s box office numbers is a somewhat demeaning defense. Craig’s tortured reading of the legend deepens and at the same time explodes a character concept that had, until his appearance in the glorious tux, become a risible stereotype. Give Craig his due: he’s great, he’s an actor. As always, James Bond proves an action movie can also be date material. Count me in!
The dude is an international spy/assassin. Think about the kind of personality that (1) is attracted to that job, and (2) evolves out of doing it. Now do you really consider it suspended disbelief to accept that he doesn’t really find any relief in knocking off his enemies?
As a long time Bond fan ( 1967) I have seen both good and bad films from the 007. None have every been great as a stand
alone films. What is great is we get to watch a fantasy world
that we as adults can play in for the price of a nice suit and a good Martini. This one misses that element and is therefore not a bond film in my world. As far as judging a
film on popular attendance I will point out how many people voted for ” W ” four years ago and how brilliant the Masses were.
Andrew McCrae
P.S Maybe someone could pick a real Bond film for Tess F.
Well, this is turning into a saucy debate.
My point on attendance was to show that, despite what the critics say about the film itself, the public has (1) either chosen to ignore them, which challenges what we all are trying to do here or (2) has found something in the film that is attractive enough for them to drop between 10 and 15 dollars to sit through a screening from beginning to end and, further, comment positively after the lights come up.
I have to admit that, having spoken to one Provicial Court judge and one law professor who saw the film, plus taking into account the massive theatre attendance, I tend to think it is the latter. And if it is, how is it that critics have missed out on what the magic ingredient is that the public finds so compelling?
Since the massive hype for Craig’s Bond began some months ago (The Tudors, CBC??) we’ve caught a few earlier Bonds on post-news TV. When I tuned into Timothy Dalton in Licence to Kill, his caterpiller eyebrows, late Elvis sideburns and vacant smirk made me squirm. But the minute he opened his mouth (after 20 minutes of action) and that Irish accent poured out, I started paying attention. I’ll say it again, action men in great suits is a fantastic concept. Bond will never die as long as he keeps looking good. And if this is sexist… sorry.