Bond: Back To Basics

I saw the new Bond movie Casino Royale a couple of days ago. Rather impressive, I’d recommend the movie without any reservations. What’s most impressive is the remarkable repositioning of Brand Bond, and the deftness with which this has been effected.

I’m a complete Bond-fan, though in all fairness, that statement needs some shaking (not stirring) for there are all kinds of conditional clauses and flavors in it. For instance, while I’m a big fan of Sean Connery, the Bond films of that era seemed just that bit tacky in comparison to what happened post Goldeneye, which marked the Pierce Brosnan era. I still love Goldeneye and have watched it on DVD quite a few times. I still remember the first time I watched the movie in the Regal cinema; and the action sequence prior to the title had me announcing to anyone who cared to listen (and going by the number of irritated ‘shushhhhhing’ noises, that was a lot) about how I’d gotten my money’s worth already, and how the rest of the movie was now a bonus! Since then, despite my interest in movies fading rapidly into non-existence, a new Bond movie was something that relatives and friends felt safe about booking a ticket for me without asking. I’ve subsequently read about how the Brosnan-Bond era was marked by the focus shifting from Bond to gimmicks, gizmos, effects and production values, but have been completely untouched by these views – the fantastic gadgets, larger-than-life effects and the spectacular treatment are in my view, completely consistent or even mandatory for a character like ‘Bond, James Bond!’ I loved the old Q, and then the new Q and all the gadgets that they’d proudly show off, even the invisible-car, though that one went a bit over the edge. And I haven’t felt like seeing the Connery-Bond movies, though I have them all. The most I could say has been to wonder out loud on how Connery would have done wonders with the production values that are possible today, and how its unfair to compare Brosnan and Connery. We will not sully our lips with the other faux-Bond’s!

Sounds suitably complicated? It ought to, we’re talking of James Bond here, aren’t we?
I didn’t know what to expect with the new Bond, he didn’t have the suaveness of Brosnan in the stills, and what’s worse, he looked like he was Angie Jolie’s brother in the pout department. Hadn’t seen any previews, trailers or audio-visual either. So went in with no expectations, so to say.

Sadly, I missed the first few minutes, those that introduced Bond before he acquires his ‘double-O’ status. And boom, into his first assignment as 007. And I must confess that it was incredible, beating even Goldeneye by far. An incredible foot-chase, no gadgets, gizmoes, just one hell of a chase. Which brought out the flavor of the new Bond clearly – a loner of the alpha-male variety, easily able to hold his own with the Rambo’s and the Commando’s of the world. And the rest of the movie completely drove this point through and through, right till the end. Here’s a Bond who’s probably not going to endorse Reid & Taylor!

Another notable deviation had to do with how you get to see a whole lot more of Bond-skin that Bond chick-flesh. Not too good for the non-metrosexual male audience, pretty good for the ladies, and going by the bemused looks on the faces of the ladies after the movie, seems to be a winner. After all, half the world, including the movie-watching population must be women, and the earlier Bond movies weren’t exactly flattering to womankind. If Casino Royale has rebooted the Bond franchise, then imho, the credit goes to Daniel Craig.

There’s no Q. There are no fancy gadgets. I didn’t even glimpse an Omega, though it did get a mention, in the next breath as, horror of horrors, Rolex! Bond doesn’t give a damn about how his martini is made. Vesper Lynd looks like Margaret Thatcher may have in her youth, and possibly even talks like her, though she manages to size up Bond to his tuxedo! But she can emote, and she has much more to do than just be ornamental - the conversation when they meet for the first time is, well, excellent, and she gives even better than she gets. The ornamental woman hasn’t been totally done away with, though altogether too brief by usual Bond standards…. ah well!

The whole movie is a whole lot more gritty than the usual Bond-flick, and also has much more of plot and mind than the almost entirely mindless extravaganzas of the last decade. It’s unfair to compare, and yet impossible not to, so can only conclude with the immortal words, ‘It’s different!’

And long live the difference. Here’s looking forward to Dan Craig.