This is certainly one of the hottest topics among Bond fans and very relevant for the series going forward. I want to get a clearer picture of this. I was thinking about this now that I want to watch OHMSS with my girlfriend and tell her that this is that one time that Bond cried, making this a bit of a shocking movie like it was for me when I first saw it. And then I thought, well at least if you count the first 20 movies, because he also cries in CR, SF and NTTD.
So emotional storytelling is at the core of the Craig era, but it gets heavily criticized by many fans, including me. Emotional storytelling was however nothing new in the Bond films prior to Craig, but the length in which the Craig era wanted to go was definitely something very new. So I would like to compare how the first 20 movies approached this compared to the Craig era.
Part 1: First 20 films
Now prior to OHMSS, there is little emotional storytelling as far as our main character is concerned. Conneryâs Bond is very much the coldest and most enigmatic of them all, but he certainly does have his more down to earth slightly emotional moments in all of his first four films (saying to Honey that he is scared in DN, his reaction to Kerimâs death, his reaction to Jillâs death, him telling Domino about her brother). In YOLT he seems even more emotionally distant but that might also be because of Conneryâs performance.
Then OHMSS is of course the film with the most emotional core of the first 20 films. Itâs a tragic love story, but itâs done in such a superb subtle way. Weâre not told by anyone in the film that Bond lives a sad life, his life choices arenât questioned, weâre not being read his psychological report, weâre not being told how his character is the result of a traumatic childhood. Heâs just basicallyâŚConneryâs Bond. Cool and confident as ever. But itâs Conneryâs Bond slowly becoming a changed man and choosing a different life in the end. And itâs done with such a great show-donât-tell approach that in my opinion is masterful storytelling and filmmaking. Louis Armstrongâs We Have All The Time In The World is romantic but also ironic and tragic. Because Bond doesnât have all the time in the world, he can never have that with his job. Even if he does want to settle down, his past will always come back to haunt him, reflected in the best possible way with the main villain of three out of the first five Connery films (four out of five if you count DN where Blofeld did not feature but was of course the leader pulling the strings behind the scenes). The film is not overly dark or melodramatic, itâs very much a fun Bond adventure in many ways with all the charm and fantasy elements. But itâs all shattered in that final scene, no big epic dramatic death scene, just a very cold heartbreaking ending. It feels like the climax of all the first 6 Bond films, after the fun, fantasy and Bondâs unbreakable character, it just falls apart in this one moment. Itâs like Bond finally feeling the consequences of his life as a 00 agent.
ThenâŚDAF happens. And itâs the complete opposite of OHMSS. Blofeld is back, but thereâs no direct mention of the events of OHMSS, no emotional storytelling. Then many films into the Moore era Blofeld is back again in FYEO, but now it seems as though weâre following the OHMSS timeline and not the DAF one. In addition, in DAF Blofeld is played by someone who played a different character just two movies prior in YOLT (a film which featured Blofeld) and in FYEO Blofeld has the same voice as Largo in TB. Is this bad storytelling? Definitely, itâs a complete mess. I guess you could sort of explain things away. Iâve heard the theory somewhere that none of the ââBlofeldsââ in DAF is actually the real one, and that the real one was just into the wheelchair this entire time behind the scenes. But to be fair, a lot of things were outside of EONâs control here. Lazenby left before they could make the OHMSS sequel, and carrying over Lazenbyâs emotional arc from OHMSS back to Connery in DAF wouldnât have worked. I guess they could have done it if they didnât bring back Connery and maybe had Moore for DAF, but still it wouldnât have made the necessary emotional impact. And then of course there was the whole Mcclory issue which prevented Blofeldâs return and more of an emotional payoff later down the line in TSWLM. And last but not least, continuity and building a story over multiple films was not the producerâs priority at the time. So yes, what came after OHMSS is not emotional storytelling done well, but to be fair a lot of this was outside of EONâs control. The original script for DAF wouldâve been a clear sequel to OHMSS if it starred Lazenby and it wouldâve made for one of the most emotional Bond films ever.
Now with Moore, we do get our fair bit of subtle but effective emotional storytelling. Thereâs of course the mention of Tracy in TSWLM and FYEO is probably the most emotional of Bond films along with OHMSS up to that point. And itâs interesting how FYEO is kind of Bond being haunted by his past and the whole theme of revenge. That is why Bond finally getting his revenge on Blofeld in the pre-title scene is just such brilliant storytelling. Many people might think of this pre-title scene of clearing up some loose ends unrelated to the rest of the story, but thematically itâs very much related. Bond doesnât want Melina to go down the same path as him, even though Bond himself doesnât question his decision to kill Locque in cold blood as an act of revenge. This is the path that he has chosen for himself. He canât go back to have this quiet life that he dreamed of with Tracy, he doesnât have all the time in the world. He has to get the job done, even if itâs done in a very dirty way. But he doesnât want Melina to become the same as him. Again, itâs done subtly. There are no in-your-face lines about Bondâs hard life or tragic past, the movie doesnât tell us to feel sorry for the man, but you canât help but do especially when we see him bring flowers for Tracy. Subsequent Moore films do show Bond as being a bit more down to earth than he was during the 70âs. There was definitely an attempt with John Glen to go a bit more back to OHMSSâ approach to the character, rather than the sarcastic DAF approach which was used mostly in the early Moore era. No OP and AVTAK arenât exactly very emotionally driven films, but thereâs definitely a difference in the completely crazy way Bond risks his life to save both Octopussy and Stacey in a way that is not relevant to him accomplishing his mission. I somehow donât see the very sarcastic Bond of the early seventies Guy Hamilton movies going so far as he did there. It certainly makes the finales of those John Glen films more dramatic.
Now Dalton in TLD in my opinion feels like a smooth continuation of what came before, with the only difference being that Daltonâs Bond feels a bit more intense and romantic, but itâs not like we havenât seen these sides of the character in the Moore era (TMWTGG, TSWLM and OP are good examples). LTK is really where the emotional storytelling takes forefront, this time a revenge mission involving Bondâs best friend. Now again, like with the whole Blofeld thing, the continuity of the series hurts the film a bit. David Hendison is great as Felix Leiter, but at this point the character was portrayed by a different actor each time. Hendison did of course play Felix previously alongside Moore, but we just saw a very different version of Leiter during Daltonâs first film. I think this makes it hard to really have that emotional investment in the character that this film needed, but I think it works for us hardcore Bond fans, it definitely does for me anyway. LTK also makes a mention of Tracy, which also works for the film theme of this particular film, because Bondâs best friend suffers a similar fate to Bond in OHMSS. And we see Bond as we would have seen him if DAF had been a revenge-themed sequel. And itâs great, Bond is at the coldest heâs ever been, heâs rogue for the first time (back when this was something fresh and original) and Dalton delivers a magnificent emotionally satisfying performance.
The Brosnan era takes a very interesting turn after this, and I am very certain this was because of Barbara Broccoliâs influence taking over as head producer alongside Michael Wilson. The Brosnan era, more than ever before, wants to tell us who Bond is. GE in many ways was revolutionary for the series, but it also had this familiarity to it. It did feel like a logical continuation of what came before in the 80âs. But we had Bond facing a former friend and fellow 00 agent as the main villain. Never before has the relationship between main character and main villain been this dramatic, and it works brilliantly. We learn about Bondâs parents and in a rare moment for the first 20 films we have a moment where his life as a 00 agent is questioned during the beach scene. I also do think itâs a bit of a shame that the original line of Trevelyan directly mentioning Tracy was cut from the GE script, as I think this wouldâve brought an extra interesting layer to these charactersâ relationship. But at the same time the film isnât necessarily more dramatic than it should be. Bond is still very much a mystery character here, the character is as cool and cold as ever. The film is a lot of fun. And something that I love about the Brosnan era is that Bond is able to move on very quickly from hard-hitting emotional moments. Subsequent Brosnan films all have their down earth hard-hitting moments (TND with Paris Carver, TWINE with Bond and Elektraâs relationship and betrayal and Bond being captured for months in DAD after which heâs accused of betraying MI6), but Brosnanâs Bond seems like heâs man living the moment, he can move on without being haunted. His life choices are sometimes questioned, but heâs never someone the films want us to feel sorry for. Heâs a hero of our wildest imagination, not a victim or psychological case study.
So to sum it up. The first 20 films take a more subtle approach to emotional storytelling and this is in my opinion the way that works best for Bond. The thing that mostly hurts it is the lack of continuity, no full sequel to OHMSS or consistency with the casting of key characters such as Blofeld and Felix, as well as changing actors for Bond himself (between YOLT and LALD, a crucial point in the series for emotional storytelling, we went from Connery to Lazenby back to Connery and then to Moore).
Part 2: The Craig era
The Craig era takes a bit from Brosnanâs approach, questioning Bondâs character, Bond having his emotional moments, telling a bit about his past. But the Craig era, apart from taking these aspects to a whole new level, also has a key difference. Bond in the Craig era is a victim, a tragic figure, a man the films want us to pity. Brosnan was not.
This starts with CR. Where Bond is portrayed somewhat of a victim of the system. It works with the story the film wants to tell. And at the same time, the character retains a lot of his charm and fun here. I always feel that CR still carries over a bit of Brosnan era lightness and style, maybe it helped that it had a director in Martin Campbell that had already successfully introduced Bond in a very tonally balanced film with GE. The character also has a very good character development on a level not seen since OHMSS, with Bond going from cold to emotional to cool and confident in that final scene. I do feel OHMSS does a lot of these things better and more effectively. I prefer OHMSS subtly over CRâs epic romantic tragedy, but it works and itâs a great reintroduction to the character. But I do feel that the level in which films like OHMSS and CR go with their emotional journeys should not be something that should become the series go-to approach. These films work because these aspects are rare, or at least were rare at the time.
QOS is, at least in my opinion, such a disappointing sequel. Iâve said this before in other threads, but it feels like the formula for the Craig era is the ââbecoming Bondââ arc. Bond has to become the character we all know and love through his character development in the film. QOS just basically resets the character to where he was in the beginning for CR and itâs again very much about how Bond is a victim of this life he has chosen. QOS however removes the character even further from how he was portrayed during the first 20 films, as the film only retains the harder and darker elements of CR, but not the lighter and fun elements. Nothing to suggest heâs now the cool and confident Bond we all know and love as CRâs ending implied, besides dressing a bit more appropriately Bondian. Combine that with the whole revenge angle and it makes the character feel so miserable to the point Iâm really not entertained anymore. The good thing about QOS however, is that it closes off the whole Vesper story and in doing so it doesnât ruin anything for the overarching story. Rather it actually established something interesting for the next films (that was never fully utilized). That means, love it or hate it, the film doesnât really damage the seriesâŚunlike the next films.
I absolutely loved SF when it came out. It felt like a return to form, a return to classic Bond. But that was because I ignored all the problems this film had. So after having a Bond that just became 007 during the first two films, we now have a Bond that is over-the-hill, an old dog. The film is so ridiculously badly written, yet itâs praised as one of the best in the series, with many praising its writing. I donât get it. Why did Bond decide to just chill out after failing the mission? It wasnât his fault after all. Why is Bond suddenly depressed after failing the mission? Why is M a complete idiot in this film? She literally sacrificed the lives of dozens of innocent people during the court scene, just sitting there while she knew Silva was coming. Silvaâs plan doesnât make any sense and his whole scheme besides killing M is completely abandoned midway for no reason. Q is a complete moron for making such amateur mistakes in his position. And worst of all, the film celebrates as if Bond actually accomplished something in the end, while he failed all of his objectives. He lost the drive, Silva succeeded in killing M and putting himself out of his misery, and he destroyed his childhood home, he didnât even get the girl. The only thing he accomplished is that he survived, but really Silva (or his SPECTRE superior Blofeld/Oberhauser as we find out in the next film) didnât want Bond dead. What is there to celebrate? What is there to smile about? The answer is: cheap emotional storytelling. The film goes into Bondâs childhood trauma, while also doing the whole ââbecoming Bondââ story arc all over again, properly finishing off with the gunbarrel at the end to mark him now being the real James Bond. Itâs the emotional drama that matters, not the plot. And I donât know but things like showing Bond very explicitly crying over M just feelsâŚvery out of character. When OHMSS had Bond being emotionally shattered it was shocking, something we never thought weâd see or ever see again. Yet in the Craig era it became part of the formula, as he cries again in the finale of NTTD. The film tries to hit the point too hard home that M is a mother figure to Bond, but this once again makes Bond feel too much a victim of the system he basically grew up in rather than the cold secret agent whoâs always in control like he used to be. And thatâs the thing I get with the Craig era, itâs like heâs never in control. Everything just happens to him, everyone seems to know who he is, everyone already knows everything about him. Thereâs no mystery anymore. Bond doesnât feel like a secret agent anymore. It doesnât even matter if he fails the mission anymore. Itâs not about Bond winning. Itâs not about the larger than life escapism any more. Itâs not even about the plot anymore. Itâs about a victim trapped in a system and the emotional storytelling that can be told with that.
SP is the first film in the Craig era that really embraces all the classic elements, it feels for the most part fully comfortable being a Bond film and actually has Craigâs Bond being fully confident and cool for a change. He finally fully feels like Bond. But then the film makes so many crucial missteps, all for the take of once again: cheap emotional storytelling. Making Blofeld Bondâs stepbrother, having a woman psychologically evaluating Bond and questioning Bondâs life choices and him then finally quitting in the end. Nothing about Bondâs evil stepbrother being behind the events of the previous films makes any sense, itâs just more of SFâs cheap emotional storytelling.
NTTD is a combination of everything wrong with the Craigâs era approach to emotional storytelling and modern movies as a whole. Itâs once again ââbecoming Bondââ, itâs once again the villain having some sort of personal connection and being obsessed with Bond, itâs once again Bond making ridiculous mistakes (I mean was he really fooled by Blofeldâs deception in the pts?), itâs once again the over the top drama, itâs once again Bond being a victim, itâs once again Bond crying in the end. But the film also tries to make Bond more likable and less offensive, because that was what the movie industry was unfortunately obsessed with at the time. And now to make it more dramatic he even has a daughter, which effectively removes all the fantasy around the character and brings him into domestic territory, making him feel far too real. And I wonât even get to the ending, which is completely pointless and only drives the point home that this Bond would rather give up than live to fight another day. Heâs finally put out of his misery.
Part 3: Conclusion
Bond as a mysterious fantasy hero with the occasional subtle emotional moments vs Bond as the tragic victim. Subtle drama vs highlighted drama. The Craig era chose the latter, and this is very clearly highlighted by Barbara Broccoli in interviews including during the Everything or Nothing documentary, and it becomes clear that this is how she views and wants to have the character portrayed. But is this just another way of approaching the character or is it a fundamental betrayal of the character and what he stands for? I think itâs the latter. I feel that Barbara especially (but maybe Micheael Wilson also at times) just took things too seriously. I donât know if this had something to do with stuff like her disapproval of Bond video games or parodies like the Austin Powers or Johnny English movies and the fear of not being taken seriously. Itâs often said it was because of the times, current cinema trends and going back to Fleming, but Iâve never completely bought this as an explanation as to why the Craig era had to lean this hard into making Bond a tragic figure. I think it has more to do with what Barbara wanted the series to be ever since she took over as producer and what kind of cinema she likes, which is dramatic, emotional storytelling. Iâve seen some behind-the-scenes material from the Brosnan era, and itâs really the thing that she keeps emphasizing even back then. But this is not what Bond was ever supposed to be, not even in the novels. A lot of people have some ideas about the novels and about who the character is, and many people like to point to the darker and grittier elements. But the truth is that Bond has a lot of character development over the course of the books, thereâs no definitive way to portray Bond (not even Dalton did, he mostly portrayed Bond according to the earlier novels where Bond was much more of a dark serious character compared to later novels). And I would argue that going so far as the Craig era is effectively betraying what this franchise (both the books and films) stand for and that is escapism. Not too much looking to the past, not too much psychological struggles, an escape from everyday lifeâs problems such as family, paying bills or mental issues. Fleming wrote Bond as a way into a fantasy. Yes he did put some of his own struggles into the character, but the character was meant to be an escape from those struggles, being able to rise above that. A mysterious fantasy, not a tragic victim.
But what do you think? Obviously the Craig era approach was highly successful among general audiences, but it leaves the hardcore fanbase very divided. Was it at least better than some of the older attempts at emotional storytelling of the first 20 films with its messy continuity or did it go too far? What is the approach you think the series should and will take going forward?