A reason for Casino's success?
Lazenby880
LondonPosts: 525MI6 Agent
A few months ago I read the collection of essays in Clive Bloom’s Spy Thrillers, in which Michael Woolf details ‘Ian Fleming’s Enigmas and Variations’.† This is just one in a long line of critical analyses of Ian Fleming and the Bond phenomenon, however it is a rather interesting investigation of the author. One of Woolf’s main points is the differences between the Fleming originals and the literary character on the one hand and the motion pictures on the other. Consider this:
“The Bond of the films is a radically different figure in a number of well-documented ways but the crucial distinction is in the character’s attitude to the present and future and its concrete manifestation in objects produced by modernist technology. The film Bond is at home with, and identified by, his association with technological accoutrements.
In complete contrast, the Bond of Fleming’s novels belongs to the present lived through the past: the location wherein the primary mode of perceiving the present is through a sense of nostalgia for the past and a correlated sense of loss in the present. A constant thread running through the novels is the notion that the modern world is essentially barbaric teetering uneasily on the edge of apocalypse” (Woolf 1990: 88-9).
I wonder if this is *one* reason for Casino Royale’s success: throughout the film, although especially in the Montenegro and Venice scenes, there exists an atmosphere of melancholy nostalgia. There is a retro look to the picture, a more classic approach which seems to eschew the incessant modernism of its immediate predecessor. Then there is M’s lamenting the end of the Cold War, and there pervades the picture a feeling that the past was a more stable time, a time when we knew who our friends were and, more importantly, who our enemies were. There is, I feel, a sense of loss in the present, as if no-one can quite fathom the threat that exists in the film.
Also in Casino Royale is the undercurrent of barbarism: the organisation-funding of terrorism *feels* relatively real; the world of Bond teetering on an anarchic edge. Imbued with a constant fear and danger, this is something we have not really seen before. Yes, we see mobile phones and laptops, however, in stark contrast to the cinematic past, modern technology and whiz-kid gadgetry do not define Bond; he relies on his skills and wits, despite making mistakes. Bond may not be uncomfortable with “technological accoutrements”, however they do not provide the almost sole identification for his success as a secret agent.
Stripped of the clichés and permeated with a deep sense of nostalgia and loss in the present, is a large part of Casino Royale’s success due to falling on the alternative side of Woolf’s distinction?
† M. Woolf (1990) ‘Ian Fleming’s Enigmas and Variations’ in C. Bloom (ed.) Spy Thrillers Basingstoke: Macmillan
“The Bond of the films is a radically different figure in a number of well-documented ways but the crucial distinction is in the character’s attitude to the present and future and its concrete manifestation in objects produced by modernist technology. The film Bond is at home with, and identified by, his association with technological accoutrements.
In complete contrast, the Bond of Fleming’s novels belongs to the present lived through the past: the location wherein the primary mode of perceiving the present is through a sense of nostalgia for the past and a correlated sense of loss in the present. A constant thread running through the novels is the notion that the modern world is essentially barbaric teetering uneasily on the edge of apocalypse” (Woolf 1990: 88-9).
I wonder if this is *one* reason for Casino Royale’s success: throughout the film, although especially in the Montenegro and Venice scenes, there exists an atmosphere of melancholy nostalgia. There is a retro look to the picture, a more classic approach which seems to eschew the incessant modernism of its immediate predecessor. Then there is M’s lamenting the end of the Cold War, and there pervades the picture a feeling that the past was a more stable time, a time when we knew who our friends were and, more importantly, who our enemies were. There is, I feel, a sense of loss in the present, as if no-one can quite fathom the threat that exists in the film.
Also in Casino Royale is the undercurrent of barbarism: the organisation-funding of terrorism *feels* relatively real; the world of Bond teetering on an anarchic edge. Imbued with a constant fear and danger, this is something we have not really seen before. Yes, we see mobile phones and laptops, however, in stark contrast to the cinematic past, modern technology and whiz-kid gadgetry do not define Bond; he relies on his skills and wits, despite making mistakes. Bond may not be uncomfortable with “technological accoutrements”, however they do not provide the almost sole identification for his success as a secret agent.
Stripped of the clichés and permeated with a deep sense of nostalgia and loss in the present, is a large part of Casino Royale’s success due to falling on the alternative side of Woolf’s distinction?
† M. Woolf (1990) ‘Ian Fleming’s Enigmas and Variations’ in C. Bloom (ed.) Spy Thrillers Basingstoke: Macmillan
Comments
A great point about nostalgia for the past...and a fear of what the future might hold. The world is more dangerous and terrifying than ever; we need a more serious, ass-kicking 007 now more than ever...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My apologies, I should have clarified that I meant success on an artistic level.
Too much talk of money is rather vulgar.
It's a good point and well-argued, I was just being cheeky. Thanks for bringing it into the general CR conversation.{[]