Reboot? Remake? Retro? Which direction should the series take next?

[MrKiddWint]

@dalton

I can’t really claim to be anything beyond serviceable in any knowledge of films, how they’re made, structured, etc, which is why I tend to bow out of some of the more “in the weeds” discussions about filmmaking

And boy do I love those weeds. As everyone can tell, I have a strong formalist bent, which emerged after my deep interest in the content of films was well-established. I try to keep both approaches in balance, but will admit that a formally interesting film will keep my attention, while a film whose content I am in sync with, but whose formal properties I cannot abide, will be watched much less.

It only occurred when writing my last post that my favorite Fellini film, FELLINI ROMA, like SP, has a nighttime tour of the empty streets of Rome, and I used your response as an excuse to share one of my favorite sequences (topped only the papal fashion show, which is Fellini at his best).

@dalton

My feeling on NTTD, and SP for that matter, is that it just would feel as though there is more at stake if the world that Bond and the rest of the cast are operating in actually looked like the world it is meant to be

As far as NTTD goes: I do not like the movie, and, with you, do not feel that anything real is at stake. To me, the film seems constructed to serve the purpose of telling a story at the conclusion of which CraigBond dies. The threat, the villain, the use of previous Craig Era characters/tropes are all deployed to build to Bond’s sacrificial moment. I felt similarly about CONCLAVE this year: an intricate plot designed to lead to a big reveal to “shock” the audience. The movie was a beautiful contrivance, but the plumbing was apparent.

As I have already noted, SP’s posited danger of inescapable surveillance is a true threat for me, so I do feel something is at stake, or at least enough to hang a story on. As for the film, the narrative of a programmed human being coming to life and shedding his conditioning is the core story for me, upon which an espionage plot has been hung–similar to NOTORIOUS, which is a love story kitted out with the trappings of a spy tale.

SP has always struck me as being fable-like, with a direct, streamlined plot, where Bond goes from A to B to C in a linear fashion. The film’s depopulated images seem appropriate for an espionage fairy tale, along with the use of tinting, which reminds me of such techniques in silent cinema.

I also realize that this fable-like quality can be experienced as underwriting, and the manipulation of the images as artsy-fartsy tomfoolery with what should be straightforwardly be presented as reality as it can be found in the world. The abstractions/stylizations that pull me into the movie can equally repel viewers from it.

[dalton]

@MrKiddWint

me, the film seems constructed to serve the purpose of telling a story at the conclusion of which CraigBond dies. The threat, the villain, the use of previous Craig Era characters/tropes are all deployed to build to Bond’s sacrificial moment.

I couldn’t agree more with this statement. It’s almost as if they got to the end of SP and then realized, “didn’t we all agree to kill Bond off some years ago?” And, from that, an entire film was built around that idea. And then, given how they completely ditched Danny Boyle’s idea and reworked it yet again, any chance for actual development of characters other than Bond, the crafting of a villain that could hold a candle to even the weakest of the Bond villains to date, or even a film that had any semblance of excitement to it whatsoever was put together solely to lead to the moment in which Bond lays down his life for some so-called noble cause.

NTTD pretty much wrecks entire Bond franchise in the span of a couple of hours. It kills of Bond as well as his top ally in Felix Leiter. It makes M into the true villain of the piece and furthers the embarrassment of the Blofeld character that had begun in the previous film. The only characters that really come out of it with any dignity left intact are Q and Moneypenny, which is humorous since they are now the ones kind of leading the literary franchise now, with Q getting his own spinoff and Moneypenny leading the Double-oh Section in a James Bond novel that has nothing at all to do with James Bond.

Who knows, maybe this was all a plan to leave Q and Moneypenny left standing as the heroes of the franchise since the fan community had pounded the table for years and years that you couldn’t have a “James Bond film” without either of them.

[secretagentfan]

@MrKiddWint

But where is the anger? Anger-fueled revenge needs some display of anger, but it is not present in Craig’s performance. The film shows that Bond received a tape from Dench M instructing him to kill Sciarra, thereby positing it as Bond’s motivation–following instructions as he was indoctrinated to do.

I see CraigBond‘s anger in his acting out against his orders, confronting almost everybody with a barely contained aggressiveness. And the moment he finds Franz (the conveniently and cleanly burned out part of the family picture) he goes off on his rampage with no regard for his actual profession and his orders.

You argue, as I assume, that CraigBond shows no open display of anger? My impression is that CraigBond is constantly angry, often silently chewing on it, always quick to release it into violence.

@MrKiddWint

the Orphan Trilogy is about the making of a state-sanctioned assassin who follows orders–a human drone.

While DenchM uses Bond‘s past as an orphan, I don’t see him as a successfully trained agent at all. He even starts CR as someone who disregards his training and has to be put on a leash with that electronic device (later in SP repeating that idea with the SmartBlood, both of which he quickly gets rid off).

CraigBond is the perfect example for an agent who rejects being trained and should be thrown out. His trauma is not about being used as a killing drone, his trauma is about being stopped from acting as a killing drone the way he sees fit personally.

@MrKiddWint

White, who knows whereof speaks, says Bond is “a kite dancing in a hurricane.” Not exactly a description of an anger-fueled person making decisions about pursuing revenge, but rather a roboticized man controlled by other people’s directions and outside forces.

I would interpret that differently: Bond is driven at that point to revenge DenchM and himself (Vesper) by finding Franz and killing him. But he is so sure he can do it that Mr.White makes fun of that arrogance: You think you are tough? You are as helpless as I am.

@MrKiddWint

The choice on the bridge is between Mallory (his training/job) and Madeleine (his humanity). Mallory does not symbolize revenge-as-motivation as far as I can see.

I agree that Mallory is not symbolizing revenge here - but he is the choice of a system which has to be obeyed (and does not want Bond to finalize his revenge by killing Franz). The final kill, however, would alienate Bond from Madeleine (whose father he did not stop from performing a final kill - himself) who a few hours ago told Bond she would not go along with his revenge mission. By choosing not to kill Franz, throwing the gun away and crossing the bridge towards Madeleine, CraigBond lets go of his anger and wants to start fresh.

Again, his training, if it had succeeded, would have made this choice very easy, and he would have given Franz to M immediately.

But CraigBond is and remains a loose cannon, someone no intelligence service can count on. And that’s the main difference between him and the other Bonds (even Dalton).

One more thought: this discussion made me look at and appreciate the Craig era anew. It will remain a less entertaining one for me, but I recognize it as an experiment with a different, more stylized and artificial perspective on its hero. That seems to be the reason why other people are shown less and remain only talked about. CraigBond is the Me-Era of Bond.

[dalton]

@secretagentfan

I would interpret that differently: Bond is driven at that point to revenge DenchM and himself (Vesper) by finding Franz and killing him. But he is so sure he can do it that Mr.White makes fun of that arrogance: You think you are tough? You are as helpless as I am.

The “kite dancing in a hurricane” bit is, while on its own an awesome line, just a bit of trailer dialogue that’s meant for nothing more than to make Blofeld seem like this uber-powerful villain that can’t be stopped.

They had to use dialogue like this because, of course, they’d spent zero time establishing Blofeld as any kind of a threat to Bond.

[secretagentfan]

It really demands a laid out bigger threat - but after the meeting in Rome and Hinx badly trying to kill Bond the threat unfortunately is not laid out in a very scary manner.

I feel Silva‘s amused throwaway remark that he can overthrow governments with his computer farm on the island is much scarier than the repeat in Oberhauser‘s compound.

[dalton]

@secretagentfan

It really demands a laid out bigger threat - but after the meeting in Rome and Hinx badly trying to kill Bond the threat unfortunately is not laid out in a very scary manner.

It also never really made sense to me that they’d do the SPECTRE meeting, at least the one with Bond in attendance, that early on in the film, and all just to reveal the villain for a first time when they then had a second reveal for the villain planned later in the story. That whole film is just oddly structured.

[Dustin]

The situation here is relevant: Bond is captured and bound to a chair, Silva could do whatever he wants with him. And he’s showing intimate knowledge of SIS files, even the assessment report M got before declaring Bond fit for field duty.

Oberhauser is nothing in comparison.

@dalton

It also never really made sense to me that they’d do the SPECTRE meeting, at least the one with Bond in attendance, that early on in the film, and all just to reveal the villain for a first time when they then had a second reveal for the villain planned later in the story. That whole film is just oddly structured.

It doesn’t even make sense how Bond broods on the burnt photograph. Officially, Oberhauser died with his son. Why ever would Bond suspect something fishy there? And when he sees Oberhauser at the conference it shouldn’t be his first idea this is the guy he knew 30 years ago or longer.

Even if he recognises him right away, would he really buy Oberhauser growing up to lead an international crime syndicate? Or suspect right away that he’s behind the death of his father?

[dalton]

@Dustin

It doesn’t even make sense how Bond broods on the burnt photograph. Officially, Oberhauser died with his son. Why ever would Bond suspect something fishy there? And when he sees Oberhauser at the conference it shouldn’t be his first idea this is the guy he knew 30 years ago or longer.

Even if he recognises him right away, would he really buy Oberhauser growing up to lead an international crime syndicate? Or suspect right away that he’s behind the death of his father?

None of that made any sense either. And the ridiculousness of the photograph that he’s given from SF just happens to be a major clue to who is behind all of it, and it just happens to have that character burned out of the picture. And it just so happens that Bond recognizes this person from a distance some 30+ years later. And it just so happens that Bloferhauser grew so bitter of his “brother” that he decided to become a worldwide criminal mastermind, despite the fact that we don’t ever see him doing much in the way of criminality, since SPECTRE itself hasn’t been up to anything that we’ve seen and it’s utterly unbelievable that he’s been behind the events of the previous three films.

[Stbernard]

The only time CraigBond is angry imho is in the car in NTTD

[jamesb007nd]

Yes, but that’s because every time he asks for a really fast modern car he gets saddled with the DB5… for the umpteenth time… again.

[sharpshooter]

When he’s surrounded by the gunmen he’s fully willing to die right then and there. I don’t think we’ve seen a Bond that emotionally shellshocked before. A layered moment I really like is when Bond returns to MI6 and puts out his hand to greet Madeleine, acting like she’s a random professional he just met, and she leaves him hanging. We know it’s mainly because of the virus, but at the time he doesn’t.

[secretagentfan]

I like that moment, too.

In fact, I see many great moments in that film. If they had only been part of a great story.

Sometimes I am reminded of producers who pepper me with ideas which just don’t gel with a story, and the really good producers can see that and withdraw these ideas.

The others demand me to put those in. And that’s usually where things go south.

[MrKiddWint]

First, please pardon my delay in responding.

@secretagentfan

You argue, as I assume, that CraigBond shows no open display of anger? My impression is that CraigBond is constantly angry, often silently chewing on it, always quick to release it into violence.

That is our disagreement. Unless one is Hou Hsaio-Hsien, filming an actor silently doing anything is almost impossible. I am with @Stbernard:

@Stbernard

The only time CraigBond is angry imho is in the car in NTTD

@secretagentfan

I don’t see him as a successfully trained agent at all.

Bond is not (allegedly) successfully trained until the end of SF/beginning of SP, with the latter film chronicling the unravelling of the training.

@secretagentfan

(later in SP repeating that idea with the SmartBlood, both of which he quickly gets rid off)

The getting rid of the SmartBlood (more the ignoring of it) requires the connivance of Q. SP shows the increasing sophistication of MI6’s surveillance of their agents.

@secretagentfan

CraigBond is the perfect example for an agent who rejects being trained and should be thrown out.

Bond is not being rebellious for rebelliousness’ sake. His humanity slowly awakens, and eventually rejects the training. The Bond of earlier films was based on the premise that a person could be a state-sanctioned assassin, and remain/become a well-adjusted, lavish-living human being. As just noted in another thread, the evolution that resulted in CraigBond films started with DaltonBond and ran through BrosnanBond.

@secretagentfan

an experiment with a different, more stylized and artificial perspective on its hero.

I think the perspective is realistic. Considering the rising number of cases of soldiers/military personnel being diagnosed with PTSD and other mental illnesses, showing that the training does not work, and, in fact, probably cannot work as depicted in earlier Bond films, is not artificial in the least. To be an effective and obedient state-sanctioned assassin, a person needs to be a psychopath, a sociopath, or a robot. Tough to make such a person the hero of a film nowadays (when they would more likely be the villain/antagonist).

[secretagentfan]

@MrKiddWint

Unless one is Hou Hsaio-Hsien, filming an actor silently doing anything is almost impossible. I am with @Stbernard:

Hmm, is it? Many actors - and I include Craig - are great when they are silently simmering with emotions. Some of them can show a full range of them - the art is in making the audiences see the actor think.

Of course, if the story is well told, it doesn’t matter what the actor really thinks about (the paycheck? the next lunch? hatred against the director?). The audience brings the interpretation.

As one of the great silent moments in film acting I always go back to Nicole Kidman´s theatre scene in “Birth”.

@MrKiddWint

Bond is not (allegedly) successfully trained until the end of SF/beginning of SP,

Why do you think that? The training should be finalized before the order to do the two killings for the 00-licence. At the end of SF, with Bond claiming to look forward to his new assignments “with pleasure”, it does not appear to me that he finally has concluded anything but the Silva mission.

@MrKiddWint

SP shows the increasing sophistication of MI6’s surveillance of their agents.

Does it? If the SmartBlood can be so easily outsmarted, SP only shows the lack of sophistication of that surveillance.

@MrKiddWint

His humanity slowly awakens, and eventually rejects the training.

At which point? Does his humanity awaken after Vesper´s death? After delivering Vesper´s lover? After almost dying of Moneypenny shooting him? After having M die in his arms? After choosing Madeleine instead of killing Franz? After finding out he has a daughter? Maybe that makes him more human, I guess, since he is ready to bow down to Safin just to save Mathilde, and finally sacrificing himself for his family. But none of this makes me think he rejects his training. In fact, he uses his training to stop Safin´s plans, being the highly efficient soldier once again.

@MrKiddWint

To be an effective and obedient state-sanctioned assassin, a person needs to be a psychopath, a sociopath, or a robot. Tough to make such a person the hero of a film nowadays (when they would more likely be the villain/antagonist).

I am not sure I would agree with that conclusion. Of course, being willing to kill others for the greater good on a repeated basis needs people who can overcome the moral imperative not to kill. But is that psychopathic behavior? Or someone who can control his emotions? If Bond - even RobotBond in your view - never ever felt anything when killing he probably would be a psychopath, especially if he enjoyed his job. But Bond never does - and never did in his previous incarnations, not even in Fleming´s novels.

On the other hand, the much more psychopathic/sociapathic behavior one displays when dressing up as a bat while beating up criminals due to a traumatic incident in one’s childhood, has never alienated mass audiences. So those heroes are apparently always compatible.

[dalton]

I thought they did a decent job of portraying Bond as a bit of a psychopath in CR. Moments like that smile he gives right after blowing up the henchman at the airport come to mind.

[JCreath]

This question may have been asked and answered already and I just missed it… isn’t Bond technically a covert agent? Why would you necessarily see a bunch of civilians getting saved when these would be covert missions for the most part?

[MrKiddWint]

@secretagentfan

Many actors - and I include Craig - are great when they are silently simmering with emotions

I do not see the simmering–just the silence.

@secretagentfan

As one of the great silent moments in film acting I always go back to Nicole Kidman´s theatre scene in “Birth”.

I’ll take Maria Falconetti for $500, Alex.

- YouTube

@secretagentfan

At the end of SF, with Bond claiming to look forward to his new assignments “with pleasure”, it does not appear to me that he finally has concluded anything but the Silva mission.

We disagree.

@secretagentfan

If the SmartBlood can be so easily outsmarted, SP only shows the lack of sophistication of that surveillance.

I think SP shows that autonomous acts committed by a human being for the benefit of another human being can still be effective.

@secretagentfan

At which point?

For me, the awakening occurs over the course of SP.

@secretagentfan

Of course, being willing to kill others for the greater good on a repeated basis needs people who can overcome the moral imperative not to kill. But is that psychopathic behavior?

Yes. Psychopathy is characterized by a lack of guilt/remorse (among other traits), and lacking guilt/remorse is how a person overcomes the moral imperative not to kill.

[dalton]

He’s a covert agent, but he operates in what essentially a heightened version of the world that we live in. When he’s in places where he would encounter the general public, that place should be populated. It shouldn’t be completely empty like the streets of Rome during the chase. Things like the casino and Venice segments of CR, the opening car and foot chases of QoS, the opening of SF as well as the subway sequence, etc. This is what I’ve been talking about. They don’t need to show Bond literally saving a person and then posing for a selfie with them and going about his way, but just showing that the world Bond operates in is populated with people instead of them all just magically disappearing every time he walks into the room, which is what it felt like in SP and NTTD.

[Dustin]

This was a highlight of CASINO ROYALE’s Venice for me, the fact it’s packed with people of all sorts and Bond nearly doesn’t catch up with Vesper and White’s guys. A rare moment of reality any Venice visitor knows by heart.

[MrHinx]

For the ultimate realism, Vesper should have stopped at St Mark’s Square for a coffee and, when presented with the outrageous bill, had to resort to using all the poker winnings to settle her charges (as Bond and Gettler quietly seethe in the background).