James Bond is part of our modern mythology. Part superhero, part id, Bond has chronicled our wish fulfillment fantasies since Ian Fleming’s first Bond novel appeared in 1953 -- fast cars, faster women, high-tech gadgets, encyclopedic knowledge, the defeat of evil in the face of insurmountable odds, grace, and wit.
Through the movies starring Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and now Daniel Craig, the Bond film has developed such a recognizable formula and traits that even people who haven’t seen the films know the details, that he likes his martinis “shaken, not stirred,” that he introduces himself by saying “Bond, James Bond,” that double-0 means he has a “license to kill,” that he must travel to at least three exotic locales in order to complete his mission, that each movie has a scene in which he gets new weapons (from a guy named Q) which will come in handy before the final scene, that “Bond villains” and “Bond girls” (both “good” and “bad,” and there’s always one of each) are specific character genres. Maybe one reason we love Bond is because each new adventure brings us more of the same.
Yet Bond is also a chameleon. Perhaps each decade gets a Bond that reflects it – a sexist, cold war Bond in the 60s, a “what, me worry?” leisure-suited Bond in the 70s, a multi-media Bond in the 90s. Fittingly, Casino Royale (2006) gives us an entirely new Bond placed back at square one of the Bond chronology. And that is what we recommend you pay attention to in this film – how Casino Royale can reject much of the Bond formula while still paying homage to it. Daniel Craig’s Bond, for example, is as unflappable as any of his predecessors, but he also bleeds and suffers more than any previous Bond. Likewise, Craig’s Bond is as much a womanizer as those who went before, but he also gets seriously monogamous in this film. This latter adjustment lends the film a much needed romantic facet, not seen since Lazenby in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service although other Bonds pretended at times to less blatant wolfish behavior. While the espionage and action exploits make him superhuman, the romance makes him human, someone you can really care about. And face it, as much as you may have liked Brosnan or even Connery, did you really care about their Bonds? Craig’s Bond sustains a lot of visible physical wounds (for maybe the first time since Sean Connery), but he also sustains clear psychic wounds. That kind of vulnerability is rare in a film Bond.
What Casino Royale also does well is ask (and answer) the question: who is James Bond? Enjoy the enigmatic nature of his ingenuity. People in this film are surprised that he is capable of thinking. They think of him as a “blunt instrument,” and he certainly acts like he is one. But the movie is full of sly, how-did-he-do-that moments.
Confession time: I love Bond. My favorite is Sean Connery. And I think Goldfinger is the peak of the Bond films. Casino Royale opened my eyes to a new Bond, one I like a lot. This film is a keeper, not just in the Bond pantheon, but on any shelf of best action films.
R. Findlay
Film Club Adviser
