Monday, January 12, 2015

Six of one and half a dozen of the other

Speaking of James Bond, if you asked how may actors have played the character on the big screen, most people will quickly be able to name four. Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig. Find a keener follower and you might get two more, Timothy Dalton and George Lazenby. But you would need to meet with an anorak to find there are half a dozen more. You see, the first time the first instance of Casino Royale was released in 1967, David Niven played the role of a retired spy who came back to MI6 as M and assigned the moniker James Bond 007 to six different people in the satire. For those interested in trivia, the six actors are Peter Sellers, Terence Cooper, Daliah Lavi, Joanna Pettet, Barbara Bouchet and Ursula Andress. Right. Now that I am done connecting the title to this piece, let's get down to what this piece is really about.

Whatever happened to Bond's fancy gadgets? In the last few movies 007 has not had them. If anything there has been an effort at demystifying some of the cryptic codes. M is revealed to be Olivia Mansfield. Q is now openly Quartermaster rather than the head of division Q. And in the last movie, Skyfall, when Q meets 007 in a museum, the only toys he hands him are a gun and a radio. Clearly, Daniel Craig relies on muscle where Pierce Brosnan relied on remote controlled BMWs with wire cutters, and rocket launchers and what have you.

So what happened? Did all the genius of Q division die with the elderly Desmond Llewelyn in 1999?
I have a theory that might explain this change.

James Bond is marketed as the ultimate male wannabe fantasy. They say men never really grow up, only their toys get more expensive. And Bond's toys were the most expensive of all. In fact some of them were un-gettable for us plebians back in the day. Remember Goldfinger whence Sean Connery drove a 1965 Aston Martin DB5 complete with a radar navigation screen that pinpointed the car's location on a map. Or his car phone in From Russia with Love in 1963. Or Pierce Brosnan's phone with a camera built in, or a camera hidden in a ring.

You get the picture. These objects are not fantasy material anymore. Our minivans have GPS in them and try buying a phone without a camera built in. And if you car or phone does not already have these items built-in, we can buy most of them on amazon.com for about $19.99. The only thing we can't buy is the passenger ejection seat for our cars - though admittedly that would have been really cool to have. I would have gladly pushed the button on more than one occasion.

Now consider the parkour sequence in Casino Royale. I would love to be able to do that - but let's be real, I can only fantasize about that sort of physical prowess. Here's another example. There were probably a number of suave debonair men in our parents' generation who appreciated the subtlety of a martini shaken, not stirred. You and I probably don't give a damn. And neither did Daniel Craig if you want to check out this clip.

EON productions knows what they are doing and the Daniel Craig movies are going back to basics. EON is working on sticking to the marketing platform - of Bond personifying what every Alpha male wishes to be. EON is going back to the basics.

Well done, Mr. Bond.

1 comment:

Mohit said...

I really like Daniel Craig's interpretation of Bond. However, I have a slightly different take on the absence of tech aids. You see, a lot of science fiction/fantasy movies being made today do not really ambitiously imagine a future (two glorious exceptions - Inception and Interstellar). When you don't have that vision, gadgetry will fail to go beyond what we already know of. So while sci-fi movies pushed the envelope with +20/+30/+50 year visions, Bond movies neatly sat somewhere in the middle of the present and a +20 vision. Today, there's no one else to really push the envelope, and Bond's going back to its roots.

But again, I love this version of Bond over any other version. My Bond movie count stands at 14/23