The box office results are in - the dancing penguins beat the new James Bond this weekend, but just by a beak (or was it a flipper?). However, the quantitative researcher in me must qualify that report with an important detail: Casino Royale was on fewer screens than Happy Feet, and on an average revenue per screen basis Casino Royale was actually the winner.
Numbers aside, what interested me was how different this Bond is. He gets angry, grows despondent over the death of a paramour who's done him wrong (don't worry, I'm not giving the plot away), even breaks into his boss's elegant Thames-front flat (BTW, who knew M was married?). At this early point in his career (Casino Royale is apparently the opening salvo in Ian Fleming's series) Bond isn't suave, effete and elitist, he's in the fray, all on his own (where's Q?). A dark character in many ways. Reconciled to the danger of his work, but not yet mature enough to find humor in it.
An interesting WSJ article (reg. req'd) last week described how the Bond legacy is managed by the original film producer's offspring, and how they struggled to update the concept this time around:
With "Casino Royale," the Broccolis pushed Bond in a different direction -- largely abandoning the flashy, playboy-with-gadgets approach of recent years in favor of a more emotional tone.
During the script-development process, Sony executives wondered aloud whether the stripped-down "Royale" needed more in the way of gadgets and Bond's double-entendre lines. Despite the inclusion of a few gizmos, including a homing device implanted in Bond's arm and some shots of strategically-placed Sony products, "Royale" lacks the tricked-out cars and covert weapons of past films.
The producers refused to add more. "We felt we needed to make a change in the series," Ms. Broccoli says. "So...we thought, let's just go back and make a Bond film as though there'd never been any made before."
So was it just creative license that drove Bond's evolution? Or is broader cultural context at work here? The anti-gadgetry theme particularly caught my attention. The world's never had more gadgets - perhaps we're tired of striving for more?
I know how much you all love to express your opinions, so vote now for what you think of this new Bond. Tell the producers whether they got it right - or whether you can't be bothered to care.
Sadly, Miss Moneypenny is MIA. We heart Miss Moneypenny.
I love Daniel Craig as Bond and think he actually tops Sean Connery’s performance. Craig is harder and tougher but still has that unmistakably bondesque twinkle in the eye.
One thing I didn't particularly like about the movie, Casino Royale (which I did enjoy overall) were the rather contrived and unsubtle product placements throughout, particularly Heineken. I thought Heineken's Casino Royale TV spots were a real let down. And I fundamentally question the brand's involvement/association with Bond.
I wrote a little rant on this before I had seen the movie. Seeing it didn't change my mind.
http://fredriksarnblad.wordpress.com/2006/08/03/a-heineken-please%e2%80%a6shaken-not-stirred/
Nice blog! Lots of interesting thoughts and observations. I’ll check back again soon for more.
Posted by: fredrik sarnblad | January 09, 2007 at 12:27 AM