THE OLD NEW BOND OR HOW A SUPERMAN HITS THE GROUND
Forty years ago, Umberto Eco wrote his famous essay on the narrative structure of the Bond stories, where he compared Ian Fleming’s novels to a basketball game between Harlem Globetrotters (the team famous for spectacular play and juggling with a ball) and a small provincial team. No doubts there who is going to win so the pleasure will be derived from observing what brilliant tricks and strategies Globetrotters will use, how close they will let the opponent get and to what extend will that team be humiliated. At this point one should ask whether Bond’s adventures are worth reading or watching on a silver screen, if you know in advance that 007 is going to defeat the villain, drink his, stirred not shaken of course, martini and renounce the phenomenon of world’s ignorance with a beautiful woman. From my point of view they are not. However, for my being not representative, I am not a suitable person for such a survey: I was not able to watch any Bond till the end, not even those with much beloved Sean Connery, and especially not those with Pierce Brosnan, mainly because of too aggressive product placement advertising. All of them, nevertheless, possessed one unquestionable advantage, namely, flawlessly produced trailers, allowing you to get acquainted with the plot and save on cinema tickets. For the real Bond fans my words will be a blasphemy or possibly some ignorant rubbish since for them the dilemma ‘to watch it or not?’ does not exist. Probably, they are waiting on the tiptoes for the forthcoming premiere of the 21st movie of the series, in which Bond, James Bond, goes back to the roots since Casino Royale is an adaptation of the first of Ian Fleming’s novels on the adventures of 007, this one published in 1953.
Everything indicates that, in the context of Bond series, Casino Royale will be a turning point. A lot is going to change, most of all Bond himself, writes Tom Roston in the November issue of Film (11/2006). Up till now, the main role was given to, as follows, Sean Connery, George Lazenby (the biggest mistake in this company), Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan. All of them, and not for no reason, were dark haired: Fleming modeled his character on the screen image of Cary Grant, who actually did not agree to play Bond even after the success of Dr. No series with Connery. The sixth actor playing Bond is the blond Englishman Daniel Craig, who, since his access to the role was made public in October 2005, has been forced to repel the attacks of the press and fans of the series. Tabloids wrote at length about his alleged love affairs and the headings maliciously paraphrased famous Bond lines (like My Name Is Blond, James Blond). Those protesting against the selection of the actor argued that among his gentleman predecessors this one is too ordinary, too short, too stiff in his movements and, in general, he is a pig-eyed blond headed guy lacking tact. The Broccolli family, producers of the series, had no doubts about this choice. After some work on the set Martin Cambpell, the director, also lost his doubts, even though in the beginning he saw Ewan MacGregor for the role (among the potential candidates mentioned were: Clive Owen, Jude Law, Hugh Jackman, Eric Bana and Orlando Bloom, the last seeming a bit problematic as for his young look he would possibly experience difficulties in ordering a martini without showing his ID to confirm his age first).Campbell changed his mind after Paul Higgins, the director and screenwriter of the Award winning Crash, had joined the project. He modified the screenplay and to this new version Craig was apparently perfectly suited (and to the next too – the decision has already been made to engage Craig in the next Bond, the production of which is to begin in May, 2007).
The screen adaptation must have required significant changes with regards to the literary original, most of all, modernizing for Fleming’s novels from the 50’s and 60’s were written into the Cold War context. The villain connected with the communist organization SMIERSZ would be an anachronism today, so in Casino Royale movie LaChiffre is going to be a banker for the world terrorists, moreover a gay, which may bring some more people to cinemas. A departure form the sexism of earlier Bonds will take place: Vesper Lynd, played by the French Eva Green is not going to be just a body and a background for the agent but, on the contrary, a fully fledged female character. After all, she is one of the few women Bond ever loved.
Nonetheless, Bond himself will undergo the greatest change. While on the final pages of Casino Royale novel Mathis, Bond’s French friend, asks him to live among people, but : “…don’t disappoint me, becoming human too. We would lost a wonderful machine!” he says. In the movie the opposite direction was taken – the main character is to be more human. It was rightly noticed that the excess of state-of-the-art technological gadgets overwhelm 007 turning him into a superman and his adventures into a spectacular fairy tale. The new Bond is going to be more violent and real, which means the end of fighting scenes where not even a button from Bond’s jacket gets loose. There is going to be blood, sweat and dirt (Craig himself brought numerous bruises form the set, at length described by the press). Possibly, an even greater revolution is to come, since the producers signed a contract with a large brewery, which may result in 007 holding, instead of a glass of martini or champagne, a pint of beer. These are all only speculations. Soon we shall know to what extend this refreshing touches on the convention and humanizing of Bond will be a success, or – what I, being unbiased, do not wish – whether this nearing the ground will not end in the superman’s painful fall.
Katarzyna Wajda
Translated by Anna Skrajna
Discussed journalsFilm