Connery has been known to complain about some of the silliness of the character - but apparently he never refused to deliver that silliness. He phoned it in during YOLT, but he entirely toed the dialogue line all through DAF and later NSNA. And YOLT was still a huge success; the various script versions for OHMSS apparently mirrored that by steering far into the same territory. It’s very doubtful we’d ever have seen the comparatively faithful film we know had Connery not walked away.
Bit windy round these parts, today. Might be Mrs Jim’s Sprout Surprise, which is much like a Bombe Surprise but without cream and with… sprouts. Something to do with my cardiac health, although since there is still a timebomb in it, not sure that holds.
Still, might still be here for Christmas and my traditional billion-calorie, eleven steps Christmas Day; I prefer the words “sybaritic gourmand” rather than “indolent fatso”, in case you were minded to think otherwise.
Talking of things destined to expire just before Christmas, shall we prise open the Flap for Today on the Badvent Calender? Oh, why not? What’d you do were I not to? Enjoy yerself, I guess
Oh look, it’s The Still Not-Quite-There Drive Towards Universal Female Emancipation! Hello, The Still Not-Quite-There Drive Towards Universal Female Emancipation! Merry Christmas, The Still Not-Quite-There Drive Towards Universal Female Emancipation!
Sets the mind all a-go-go; are the more appealing and more convincing relationships Bond has in the films the ones where he is more at a distance, mutually respectful and even avuncular (albeit that can lead to being Mansplainer di tutti Mansplainers), than when we’re asked to believe there is a genuine romantic attachment?
Where should this go for Bond 26?
A meaningful and truer romance like Tracy or Vesper
A more distant but attracted initially professional relationship like Camille or Goodhead
Just in it for the grumblies like Stacey or Goodnight
I’m trying to view this from the female perspective: if their encounter has a deeper meaning for Bond it’s usually because they end up in the freezer. So that’s not really worth having - albeit it may be a form of consolation prize.
Dirty uncle James seems like fun, but it only works with a specific chemistry that I don’t think we’ll see in BOND 26.
Remains just in for the ride for the rides and professional distance turning into millimetres. I simply think the last may work best for a blank canvas.
It‘s the jealous sulking like a schoolgirl which ruins it for me. No amount of winking fish can save it.
As for that drive… I actually think a deep and meaningful relationship is what spoils all the fun in Bond. Let’s face it: the best women can expect from him is ending in a rubber boat, for weeks because the idiot does not want to be saved, leading to fast starvation and cannibalism (that’s why no female counterpart who is not called Maude Adams appears twice).
And creating even a mildly interesting female character would take too many scenes away from Bond (isn‘t that what the Mi6 crew already is for?).
And it would bloat the running time again to be over 2 hours. Enough with that.
Also: we all know any relationship for Bond won‘t last. So why not just have a feisty, fun and of course intelligent Bond WOMAN spar with him and then take off in her own rubber boat?
I tend to prefer it when Bond hooks up with a fellow agent/adventurer who goes into the relationship with the same expectations as Bond: maybe a little more than “a sweet distraction for an hour or two,” but all in the name of fun and no more. So Holly, Anya, Pam and Octopussy for example. If there was anything appealing at all about Jinx, I’d probably throw her in there as well.
One thing I do like about the Dalton/Craig films is their tendency to keep the number of dalliances down, so it’s possible to believe Bond at least feels something for the woman, as opposed to Roger’s “It’s been four hours already, bring on the next chick.” I thought Dalton/Bond’s romance with Kara was kind of sweet and I’m glad they spent so much time on it, but ultimately I felt like he must have broken her heart later, off-camera. Pam was a good match except, as SAF notes, for that left turn into CW show teen angst at the end. I always kind of wished Roger had bowed out in the arms of Octopussy even though I knew neither was the marrying kind. The worst may have been Solitaire who was not only too young for Bond but also likely completely incapable of looking after herself once he dumped her on a curb somewhere.
The problem with “a meaningful and truer romance” is that you can only pull that off so many times. Even the Madeleine storyline took something away from the Bond/Tracy romance IMO, even though I know Craig Bond never even met Tracy. And it’s a given that true love for Bond will end with him or her dead; there’s no future in this franchise for a happily monogamous Bond.
So I’m voting “initially professional.” Whether the woman is another agent or just a plucky adventurer type, we can watch the sparks fly as she and Bond work together, then grow close due to shared perils and travels and eventually end up in bed together, but with both of them packed and ready to go their separate ways once the credits roll. Bond romances should be the cinematic equivalent of a vacation fling.
I’m a massive fan of Camille, in that she’s a relatively fleshed-out character who has her own arc and plot, rather than the standard “dropped in for the ride” (fnarr, Jim!). Many have mentioned Pam, who again seems relatively “fleshed out” (fnarr), and while I don’t think Bouquet was much of an actress, I don’t doubt there was something substantial to Melina when she was written down on the page.
Moving forward I think how the women are created/treated will be a reflection of that moment in time. Can Bond even be a dirty uncle anymore, unless we’ve decided from the earlier Sideswipe that we’re dropping Bond back into a true-to-the-source period piece?
There are aspects of the character that have to get jettisoned as time moves forward - Bond can’t be casually/accidentally racist, and I’m unconvinced he can be as borderline misogynistic as he’s been - if he is, than we must therefore settle for a character who is an anachronism or a bit of a joke; most certainly not the sort of hero a mass audience are going to sympathize with.
When it comes to the female characters, I think the series has done a pretty decent job over the years of not getting it entirely wrong. Sure, some have been a lot more interesting or three-dimensional than others, but I’d offer that Britt Ekland’s Goodnight was the last time we were served up a character more fitting as an extra in an Austin Powers film.
As aside - my friend DavidM - sorry for the confusion. I meant to say that I would happily defend OHMSS with you, backs together warding off all with our swords sticking out. And for you, Jim, that’s one last Fnarr.
Spot on. And also the pool jump. The whole ending would be more fitting to a 1980s romcom than a Bond movie.
Perfect example for the “initial professional” thing is Wai Lin (one of the best “elements” of the Brosnan era – along with Dr Kaufmann (who himself is a prime example of “initially professional”, but in a different way ).
Btw, just noticed that Michelle Yeoh ist the only actor or actress to win their Oscar after their involvement with Bond
OTOH, the Jinx relation also was “initially professional”, so we should be careful what we wish for
I liked the subtext running through FYEO that Bond was getting on in years and feeling it. It’s there in the PTS as he visits Tracy’s grave, and again as he opts to buy Bibi ice cream rather than bed her, but especially in his “been there, done that, you don’t wanna go there” speech to Melina about the dangers of seeking revenge. For most of the film, he’s a “good” uncle type, providing a protective and guiding hand. When in the last scene they end up in bed together it just feels wrong to me; he’s more a father figure to her than a mate. I’d have preferred it if Lisl remained his only conquest; I feel it would’ve added to the “I’ve got more yesterdays than tomorrows now” vibe of the film.
Except that whatever else they have going on, I don’t feel a romantic attraction between Bond and Wai-Lin, not even for a moment. They are rivals, they are partners and ultimately they risk their lives for each other, but romance? Not from my POV. When they ended up smooching at the end, I just thought “where did that come from?” Thankfully they only take it as far as the kiss.
There was a nice moment in MOONRAKER where Holly berates Bond for leaving her cold in Venice - to which he responds he almost fell over her packed luggage at the door.
That’s the spirit one might aim for, screwball.
Indeed. The only good example that might work today is CHARADE - but that was actually reversing the mechanics to a dirty niece/nice uncle one (supposedly because Grant was very aware he was 25 years Hepburn’s senior and not comfortable at all with it). And it was very clear these two were more than just a passing affair. Not what we’d expect from Bond.
What sort of Christmas present do you get the woman who has everything? That’s admittedly the sort of question that presupposes that the limits of “everything” are now replete, and that I am manifest within that to a degree of undeniable significance. Shorter version of question: what the chuffin’ bertram do I get Mrs Jim for Christmas this year?
All help gratefully received. Last Christmas seems only a weak whisper of time ago and her usual interests of jewellery, shoes, motor cars and expensive haberdashery cannot a) be inflicted upon you nor b) afforded, although that is not Cost of Living Crisis but because I like to spend all of my much money on me. Anyway, I want it to be a surprise, the sort of surprise that runs “Surprise! I’ve not got you any of that! Have some liar dice and a satsuma.” Suggestions welcome, as ever nailed to a pigeon and flung gaily into the sky.
As I contemplate the choices and seek to diminish the annual withering response of “That’s… interesting”, shall we tickle open the flap of today’s window on the Badvent Calendar? Any sort of displacement activity from actually parting with cash to no benefit of my own will be fleetingly pleasant, so let’s.
Oh! It’s The Hopelessly Naive Prattle That Violence Solves Nothing (Have You Ever Seen a James Bond Film?)! Hello, The Hopelessly Naive Prattle That Violence Solves Nothing (Have You Ever Seen a James Bond Film?)! Merry Christmas, the Hopelessly Naive Prattle That Violence Solves Nothing (Have You Ever Seen a James Bond Film?)!
I suppose it’s a commonly-held community assumption that the reason Licence to Kill didn’t do very well in even its “home” sympathetic audience of the UK, other than not being worth watching, was the certificate issued to it for its violence. This in the year of Batman and that Indiana Jones one where Kristatos turns into a skellington at the end. Licence to Kill is probably quite mild now (dunno, haven’t watched any of it in years) and although the Craigs went harder on some aspects, did they really take full advantage of what audiences may now accept as increased levels of violence?
Might that be another angle for whenever the next one comes along - make it more violent, within the stretched limits of what the BBFC / MPA etc and the product placers approve?
Yes, within the limits of the current certification, push the violence harder
No, the balance is pretty much there when it comes to Bond violence and too much more will change Bond for the worse
No, and frankly it could be toned down a bit to appeal more widely
The violence is one of the things the Bond films usually nail pretty good. It’s stuff that can be watched as entertainment still - stylised to a degree that it’s clearly staged, while not turning into pørn. The great fights of the films are choreographed, shot and edited with gusto and amongst the best of stage fighting period. Even lesser films tend to have a few good moments during these. DIE ANOTHER DAY’s sword fight, QUANTUM OF SOLACE’s church scaffold fight, SPECTRE’s train fight are still highlights on par with the Red Grant fight or the one in Osato’s bureau.
Keep it that way, it’s the one part that hasn’t yet been drowned in the necessities of product placement or given in to outright splatter.
As for the Mrs Jim: some years ago I faced a similar dilemma and was pointed to the service of the nearby zoo. They have a program called ‘Meet your favourite animal’ and we’ve since met with Rhinoceri, Dromedaries and other assorted animals. Meet the alligator is constantly booked by, one supposes, the real life Smersh/Spectre entrepreneurs in need of amusing ways to manage the Human Resources department. But otherwise it’s a fabulous way to have an adventure. Warmly recommended.
So here‘s my pet peeve (one of the many I keep blabbering about): violence or let’s say hand to hand combat in action movies.
I can‘t prove it (nor do I care enough to make a scientific study) but during the last two decades fight scenes became stretched out what felt like endlessly.
Choreographed to the max like the dullest boygroup concert it became just the equivalent of action figures smashing into each other in the sweaty and sticky hands of an ADD-suffering kindergarten kid, with no ounce of realism left, resulting in no wound, not even exhaustion, which could keep the characters from standing up and do more pummeling. Heck, even knives to all the locations of the human anatomy are never fatal nor cause life-ending bleeding.
My prejudice stands: this is all due to video games. Or does one call it still computer games? I‘m too old to care.
The great thing about Bond films is that they don’t let those fight scenes go on too long (yet). Sure, Bond is never really hurt (come on, even those Safin bullets in the torso did not keep him from climbing a ladder - don’t try this at home, folks). But at least he is not Iron Man (yet).
So, keep the violence this way.
A touch of family entertainment sadism, funny, as in the good old times. When we all relied on the idea that the world would never really turn out so bad (although it had so many times before and will continue to do that).
The genius of the early Bond films was that they found a way to include death and mayhem in such a way that it didn’t saddle them with a “mature audiences only” rating (whatever it was called back then). Many of the fates met by characters in this series would be beyond gruesome in real life, but their outlandish presentation and the black humor that attended them, plus the fact that the worst of it always happened off screen, made it, as the critics said, “Sadism for the whole family.”
I think what hurt LTK was that they lost sight of this approach even as films like “Last Crusade” and “Batman” (and Lethal Weapon, etc) exploited it. LTK wasn’t just violent, it was also glum, and audiences were still not entirely ready to let go of their expectation that Bond films should be FUN. It was too much, too soon.
That said, I still think what really killed LTK was the worst marketing campaign any Bond ever had.
Anyway, my vote is keep things as they are: people should still die in Bond films, but we don’t need more gore, torture porn or horror movie style gruesomeness. Whenever the violence is ramped up, it’s usually with the aim of making things more “realistic” but I think at this point we all know Bond films will never resemble anything close to reality, so ultra-violence just becomes another flavor of fantasy, and a distasteful one at that.
I even doubt we - speaking figuratively for ‘the audience’ - want ‘realism’. To the contrary, we congregate in theatres around the world to leave reality behind for a brief time. It’s the major appeal of the cinematic experience, being able to see the train rushing head on at the screen without having to fear it’s going to crush the audience to strawberry jam.
Realism, that’s people tortured to death, burned alive and any number of other bestial depravities, and that stuff lands right on our phones - if we’re lucky; if not we are present or, worse, it happens to us. Especially action cinema shouldn’t try too hard to give us that experience.
I think the level is about right. And as someone who enjoys what are regarded as the most extreme of the series - QoS and LTK - I’d say they’re still within the bounds of the parameters of the series. For me, LTK’s biggest weakness is not the violence, but that the attempts to leaven it with “Bond humor” don’t work, leaving a sense of things being “more extreme”, the one-liner after the guy is impaled by a forklift an example. The two tones work against each other.
As for toning it down, I’m not sure what they would really mean in actuality. The last film to have the widest classification was GE, and yet when you sit and watch it, there’s a number of occasions when Bond seems to be involved in mass machine-gunning slaughter. Gruesome, no, but violent? I guess these things are all in the eye of beholder.
Frankly, I’m more concerned with the onset of CGI as the foundation for the “action.”
).
