Daniel Craig - Fleming's Bond?
Loeffelholz
The United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I'd be very grateful for any comments on the article:
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/articles/daniel-craig-the-literary-bond/
Thanks in advance...and I hope you enjoy it! {[]
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/articles/daniel-craig-the-literary-bond/
Thanks in advance...and I hope you enjoy it! {[]
Check out my Amazon author page! Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
No doubt that Craig's oo7 is salve to the fans of the literary James Bond. Those Bond fanatics who have read the novels tend to be older Bond fans, and not the younger generation for whom reading something other than graphic novels seems to have become a distasteful "lost art"!
Unlike my younger self, who insisted that Sean Connery WAS James Bond I have come to accept that Cinema Bond is a charecter that can be played many ways. I have come to enjoy rather than dread the various interpetations of the charecter - and searching each performance for the level of relevance to the fellow IF created.
So when DC was cast I was suspicious, but in the end delighted. Bond is more than a physical description. As Loeffelholz so adeptly points out Bond is also a look of danger, authority and coldness. That cruel mouth that IF mentioned so many times, maybe isn't as much a description of a facial orifice - but a reminder that Bond has a cruel streak - maybe a repressed one, that enables him to function as a "blunt" tool of goverment, a man who can be counted on to kill when the need arises.
I was struck how much DC looked like the Bond pictured on my ancient Signet paperback of "Casino Royale" right down to the haircut, and the minute he walked out of the titles of "Casino Royale" in 2006 and stared us in the face, I immediately knew that this was one actor that had the Bond "attitude" right even if he didn't have the perfect Hoagy Carmichael looks!!!!
TOP JOB LOEFFELHOLZ!
P.S. Artist Richard Chopping who painted most of Fleming's original designs for the first hardcover novels - despised IF, in part because Fleming was so damned particular. For the cover of FYEO, which featured James Bond's eye peering through a hole - IF had chopping change the blue colour of the eyeball a couple of times to insure the right shade. One can speculate that Bond's blue eyes were in the end his most important feature for Ian Fleming. VIVA DC!
-{
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I look forward to more of your writing
Ditto, Great job and all the rest, Loeff's or should I say, Mark :v
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your article Loeffs (although I did wince at the use of 'blonde' to describe a man; perhaps this is a British English thing). You put things into context articulately, and you argued your case very well.
Buggered if I know what a 'cruel mouth' is, anyway.
I did read a little note on the internet from a non-Bond fan who had seen Casino Royale after hearing that Craig was too different and it wasn't a proper Bond film. He said: "it had bangs and they called the chap 'Bond'; seemed like a Bond film to me", which seems a good way of summing it up.
-Roger Moore
I was just trying to give some cohesion to random thoughts buzzing round in my head since 2005. Hopefully it made a bit of sense, whatever your opinion {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Always wondered what that was too...makes me think of the old Cruella DeVille from 101 Dalmations.
I believe that Casino Royale rates right at the top of the interpetations of Fleming's work. To my mind it is in the same class as FRWL and Dr. No as the best of oo7. The other two have an edge only because they were made in Fleming's lifetime and are more contemporary with the "Literary" Bond.
While I rate CR up there with the classics, I am still uncertain how QOS is going fair in that line-up. It's still in gestation, got a fine cast and director ..... but the script sounds to my unhearing ears ( I am trying to avoid spoilers) like a LTK redo! I believe sticking with updates of IF's novels - in the order they were written - would have been the bolder and smarter move.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
As a female I have to say Craig is not remotely attractive to me
I knew he could act superbly, but for some the physical characteristics of Bond are so intertwined with the soul of the character, I was not surprised at the back lash Craig received. However, now, with the success of CR I am confident that he has won over (at least for now) quite a few of the sceptics.
I am of course totally biased with how I feel, as I find Craig very attractive, and I haven't read any of the novels, so I am of course totally in the minority, as I have no-one to compare too, (in a literary sense) I can only try and emphasise with those who had a real image from reading the books. I can only compare this with the novels by Lee Child, as I've read each and everyone, and I have a very specific idea of what the hero looks like and if the film producers cast someone who in my opinion doesn't resemble him as I see him, then I would be in uproar.
However, I at least hope with Craig, his acting abilities have gone someway to tip the balance in his favour, (with height and hair etc) and has brought some of the Flemming's idealistics to the big screen.
Thanks Loeff for a great article, my education is continuing!
I can agree with a few of your points, Lexi.
The sum of Craig's acting, persona, intensity, etc. is superb. However, as you've mentioned about the works of Lee Child, many including myself have afixed a definite image of the literary Bond and it's not Craig. To be fair, it's not any of the others either entirely, though Dalton for me went at it at the right direction, so to speak. I was one of those truly aghast at Craig's selection, but now am a mixture of accepting and won over, or won over in the the right amount to be accepting
What else I do want to be clear on, is that I don't consider my internalized image of Bond as some sacred cow...as I feel I am being as absolutely objective as possible based on the data (if that were possible since imagination is largely a subjective exercise). But it's just that, Craig Bond and Literary Bond are not one and the same, nor do they even significantly overlap. I hope that soon I can make a follow-up post on this thread that succinctly explores and compares the key character qualities of Fleming's and Craig's Bond, but that will need some more review of the material.
Casting Bond is like casting Bilbo Baggins: both inhabit fictional worlds, Fleming's may have more identifiable trappings but I've always considered what he wrote as fantasy, certainly more than anything like reality. Best one can hope for in any context is to capture/interpret the spirit, IMO. Craig works as Bond, more so than any of the others except Connery. Subjective as heck, yep. :007)
On bein’ sexsay, Bond in the books predatorily acted on his sexual appetites as the opportunity arose, but never did he seem to presume being a babe magnet; critically this could be the difference between taking the stance of the self-aware hunk or one who's remotely conscious in anything of being attractive, and that in an unconventional way. On “unconventional,” it’s a bit complicated with Craig; since we all seem to be in agreement that he’s not handsome in the conventional standard that Bond is portrayed to be in the books, I think he could have successfully leveraged the subtext of being attractive, yet there’s an unmistakable effort for him to project attractiveness; in keeping with the literary Bond’s traits, Dalton again comes to mind who was devoid of conceit and self-awareness when interacting with women, but is this also the case with Craig?
On top of this, literary Bond appears to be generally indifferent and aloof to the passer by and on occasion dark and brooding per the "saturnine" and "ironic" descriptions given to him by Fleming. As mentioned, only Dalton has largely taken this route and maybe because he didn't balance it out with the "sardonic," he missed the mark and failed to make the character appealing enough, among other things. Literary Bond does live the high-life, which is another aspect that I feel Dalton didn’t convincingly convey. However, the rest and Craig in particular interest for the moment didn't have a problem conveying this taste for the “best,” or at least the journey there (this is tailored!). But most importantly, in the context of his profession, the literary Bond is cunning and insightful, yet restrained and disciplined. Again, since DN, in contrast Bond on the screen has been an unpredictable and impulsive maverick, often clinching the winning move as a rule by going against convention; unfortunately, this continues with Craig and in turn is unlike the literary Bond.
I think if done right, a close take on the literary Bond despite its inherent challenges can be interpreted cinematically in an interesting and appealing way without having to make any wholesale compromises as it's been done IMO since DN. Laurence Harvey's persona in the few movies I've seen him in, approximates Bond's IMO. Then there's Alain Delon as mentioned. On the other hand, a nice example of the perfectly balanced "interpretation" of the Bond traits (as it happens) is Michael Caine's Harry Palmer, which has just the right mix of sardonic irreverence, introspective indifference and "cool." This could have been intentionally done Bondian since those films were produced by Harry Saltzman and there was a conscious attempt to do a "real Bond" (the literary and cinematic standard of the time, more so than today) in spite of its extremely anti-bond source material.
Then there’s the controversial Bond begins aspect of CR, though I understand the need to make certain emphasis on being cocky and green in order to get that across in a movie in an interesting and compelling way. However, I hope most of that is behind Bond by the time of QOS. Higson’s take on Young Bond, I think, pays great respect to the character even though we’re shown episodes of awkward beginnings, yet conveyed in such a way that preserves Bond’s fundamental nature and personality. In Young Bond, there’s another aspect of the character that’s given effective treatment, which is Bond’s privileged status despite the character’s underdog circumstances and this was effectively done so far without pandering with some life-changing resolve (like some dumb, rookie foolishness that caused someone to die, ala Spiderman).
Related to this are suggestions of military bearing in Fleming's Bond, which seems to be a fundamental aspect of the post-war social hierarchy in GB; it’s a trait played up heavily by “classic” movie Bond right up to Brosnan. It's important to note that Bond expresses this discipline more as part of his make-up (i.e., a natural expression) but not something he consciously asserts as we see his disdain for military types, bureaucrats and similar poseurs in the books (but check out Dalton's initial reaction to Kilifer!) Since I feel Dalton is the closest interpreter of the literary Bond and because this privileged bearing is a key character trait, it’s too bad that he overlooked or maybe intentionally ignored it altogether to really contrast his interpretation from the others; again, very unfortunate.
All-in-all, as far as Craig is concerned, this trait was intentionally left out in CR, but as mentioned I hope that’s not the case going forward and that we begin to see Bond who's a bit less smug and conceited and more convincingly authoritative (yet occasionally dissenting) as the senior member of the secret service that he’s supposed to be.
He should've took over from Moore with FYEO, he might well have forced the series into a whole different groove just by doing his unadulterated thing. I wonder if the producers realized that was a missed boat, and jumped ship with Brosnan for Craig so as to not miss it again... well, it makes me happy to think that.
EDIT: just finished watching OHMSS, and it occurred to me Laz hit on one element of Fleming Bond none of the others quite did: Bond flies off on wild and risky tangents a lot in the books over things both big and mundane, and only scrapes by cuz of the other parts of his personality kicking in and taking care of whatever the mess is. Laz has a certain wide-eyed wonder in OHMSS, perhaps real for him being popped from nowhere to Bond. And it really works as a part of Bond, Hunt captures this time and again from Laz, not sure it's acting but it's darn effective and very Fleming IMO. To date it's a singular Bond performance IMHO, and even with obvious rough edges vastly underrated (and preferred over Dalton's more accomplished but still schizo Bond
Supes' point on Craig's rebelliousness (vs the source material) is well made; this is a modern-day trait, I think, and it works as a means of bringing the character into the modern day. I share supes' hope that we see a bit more of the authoritative, 'establishment' guy in QoS. I think we will, but I've a suspicion that Eon is putting this particular trait on a very gently curving arc---they're not in any hurry to have our man completely 'arrive,' I think :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Yeah, I agree mostly with you and Loeffs that Dalton was between the rock and a hard place by really having no choice due to his own nature to go serious, yet within the framework of the formula that took till CR for a radical remedy. As far as the weird interaction with his love interests, it's unfortunate that he chose to "fill in the blanks" or rather, the gap from print to screen by interpreting Bond's emotional dimension with vulnerable fits and googoo eyes.
OHMSS, I agree is a testament for an actor without previous training or experience and to the artistic dedication of Peter Hunt. As you've observed, Laz's natural smugness occasionally peeks out, which did work itself out successfully in terms of confident resolve that reall distinguisued his action scenes. But largely, his inexperience and absence of "artistic conviction" that's really license for established actors to do things as they see fit, all worked out in providing Hunt with the putty he needed to craft his interpretation. Honestly, when someone says his acting is wooden, I cannot see it and sometimes think my own perception is off, but I find even the love scenes convincing and in context of the story about a Bond looking for a change in life and career, mostly in the form of a more meaningful, and permanent relationship, I'm impressed that an actor at that age and state of inexperience was able to pull it off.
Bond as a device to move things forward, is a determined, tough and very "blunt" fellow. He is aimed at a target by "M' and pretty much moves through the novels with a mixture of skills, from investigation (Moonraker) to killer (Live and Let Die) and even bait (From Russia with Love).
Fleming is also very evident in Bond's self-destructive smoking and drinking, and the sadistic way Bond is tortured and beat up in the course of a mission. The key to Bond has always been Ian Fleming's voice, not only in directing the plot, and his talented prose, but giving us opinions on everything from food to politics. It was Fleming who was the key to the sucess of the novels and the charecter of oo7- hence the very tired debate over Fleming "being" Bond.
When it comes to the films, the actors really don't have much to play with. The films have managed to reduce the Fleming "voice" to brand names "Aston-Martin", "Dom Perignon" or the formula for a Martini.
Connery/Young added the humor to Bond to give him a cooler "persona", a trait that became more and more important as the novels were stupidly discarded by the producers. By the time Moore took over the role of oo7, he found little with Bond he personally could identify with - except the sense of humor. Dalton as has been pointed out, tried to get back to the Fleming concept, but the scripts just weren't there.
Poor Lazenby, what a challenge he was handed, not only did he have to learn acting/filmaking - in the lead role. But the lunk-headed producers chose Fleming's most ambitious novel to train him on. It's a tribute to GL that he actually survived the ordeal!
Craig had the big advantage of a script whose second half was very well adapted Fleming. The doomed love story is still there, along with the card game and torture scene. Being a very good actor Craig was able to update oo7, but leave us with enough of the original book fellow that we can identify - the driven, battered, agent who shoulders his way through the plot. Craig creates other endearing traits like being able to hack into his bosses computer, learn her name and break into her flat. Craig's Bond, unlike Fleming's distains authority, but seeks approval.
Craig also shows the determined Bond - the fellow who once aimed at a target heads straight for it. I especially appreciate the Flemingisque way Craig's oo7 makes no effort to conceal his identity - being easily made as an agent all through the film, from being caught on camera killing Mollacka - to being "made" by Dimitrios, Carlos, Solange and LeChiffre.
The film version "Casino Royale" retains one of the best themes in any Bond film - that of personal betrayl. In the end Bond is really nothing more than a pawn in a larger game - all his efforts and pain going for "nought" ... as M sums it up "and now the trails gone cold again ..."
The literary oo7, is "nothing more than a siloutte". Craig's battered, determined oo7 in "Casino Royale" gets to the heart of Fleming's Bond via a superb script that retained enough of Fleming to allow Craig to get back to basics.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I can’t quite agree with your assessment. I don't know of any real danger of things getting dicey by allowing perceptions to naturally form about the Bond character beyond it being just a literary device, or as a puppet to parrot Fleming's opinions. You might as replace every mention of Bond's name with "Agent 007," who went to Jamaica, then to Crab Key, etc., devoid of any of the personality descriptions, but what will you have then? Certainly, you will no longer have the same interest or draw to actually care where the story goes.
On this thread it’s been said that there’s nothing much to go on to flesh out the character and there’s been discussion some time ago how Bond was intentionally written as a cipher to allow readers to wear Bond’s shoes, which Fleming admitted as being intentional. However, I don’t think the character is as blank as you conclude it to be and no matter how much Bond has served as Fleming’s borrowed body, the overall effect was a palpable personality, with enough flesh, blood and angst so to speak to fascinate and grab the reader’s imagination, well at least it does that for me. We fairly know how Bond looks, what he likes and dislikes, his tastes and outlook on life, and there’s even a character arc. We may learn more about the detailed appearances of other characters than Bond himself, but that's because we actually get to subjectively experience the events outlined in the 14 books through Bond’s own head at a level that can never be matched by the experiences that we merely see Bond undergo on screen.
I recommend checking out bits of The Ipcress File to see how the main character of a book can be written as a sillouette in the truest sense, devoid of anything unique to work in forming a personality.
There were also significant differences between Fleming and Bond, and comparing their contrasting temperaments is a good start. Much of Bond’s life is autobiographical, just as much is largely wish fulfillment, but nevertheless, the character took on a life of its own as I mentioned above, and readers wouldn’t necessarily need to know who or what Ian Fleming was about to appreciate the character (and maybe many readers at that time didn’t know much about Fleming, since today we have the advantage of varied retrospection).
I agree, and each actor achieved different levels of success in working with these parameters. I’ve always stressed the paradox of the Bond series’ success depending on mass appeal and venturing too much into the meaningful and cleaver lessened that. Therefore, even Craig despite the reboot, is required to drive an Aston Martin and I can guarantee the donning of a tuxedo into the storyline of QOS and beyond.
Yes, it will always be a major qualm to see Bond’s insolence to a head in CR, and this is another strong argument against Craig’s interpretation being close to Fleming’s Bond.
I still think Craig’s strongest contribution to the role is his intensity, but as for being irreverent and resourceful, that pretty much has become the staple to the film character. Similarly, it’s been Bond’s MO since GF to not really care about concealing his true role and would even intentionally show his hand to provoke his opponent and draw out whatever plot or conspiracy was underway.
Craig’s rendition should be assessed for what it is, leaving out as much bias as possible, avoiding school yard comparisons and the bestowing of virtues in absolute terms...at least when making an evaluation, which is not the same as liking him. Otherwise, what you get is a sacred cow that no one can really fault in your eyes.
I just think it's a trap to try and pin down Fleming's Bond beyond a very few cursory adjectives - the look of him, the thoughts and perceptions of him... Bond works best as a conduit for the reader, and that will always be as subjective as the individual readers themselves.
Bottom line, Craig works. And better than most. Doesn't suck.
Isn't it the genius of Fleming's skill as a writer that he is able to weave a compelling charecter using Bond as a conduit for opinions and observations that he no doubt shared and exaggerated for pure fun. Combined with the extraordinay plots he concieved, the result is unique. This is prehaps borne out by the poor reviews of the Faulks effort. While Fleming took a simple and prehaps "conventional" approach to writing, his native talent executed it with a level of skill seldom "seen" in literature.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Hmmm, are you unconsciously suppressing what otherwise is a vivid depiction of a fictional character to fit your "reality?" Just kidding, but it begs asking if you haven't sounded off yet, is Craig the literary Bond? Granted, I think he is a highly effective and convincing spy/agent and an interesting Bond, but I can't really make that leap even if, let's say, I happened to be the biggest Craig is Bond fan in the world.
Seriously, guys, if you haven't yet try out the audio books, because for me, the characters just pop out from the text. 7289, you inspired me to check out TSWLM, which is one of my favorites in terms of action. I'm going to my work out in a few minutes, so I'll be listening to that instead of the 80's music I originally had programmed. If I remember right, I think the version I have is by Rula Lenska, who I remember from some hair treatment commercials from the 70's and 80's.
It's a fascinating question, which is why I wrote the piece. Craig as Literary Bond is a mystery hidden within a riddle, wrapped in an enigma and framed as a paradox. He certainly doesn't look like Literary Bond (the specific physical traits), but he certainly suffers like his literary counterpart---moreso than any actor's interpretation since Lazenby.
I'm most likely not the biggest Craig is Bond fan in the world...but to me he feels more like Fleming's Bond than any other actor since early Connery, and IMRO he radiates a nebulous, nearly indescribable 'Inner Character Light' that is unprecedented in the film franchise. Part of this is Craig's idealized 'Alpha Male'-style toughness; another part is the confident self-assuredness of someone comfortable in their own skin. Another element, admittedly, is a script (CR) that knows what it aims to achieve.
And yes, of course, this is My Own Personal Subjective Opinion---worth exactly what everyone is paying to read it
It will be interesting to see---from QoS onward---how much Fleming his interpretation retains whilst Eon return to original, non-adapted storylines. If Quantum of Solace is, as the departed benskelly continually asserted, the true benchmark for Craig's viability, we should have some answers this November.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I tend to look at overall performance, and Craig's is solid throughout - unlike Dalton, and blame the scripts if you like but Bond simply doesn't behave the way he does at times, and thus the illusion shatters for me. Lazenby may not have had the acting chops to pull off what he attempted but he did convince me (better script and director helped loads). Brosnan like Dalton suffered from a wildly inconsistent take on the character (script/director issues galore as well), and Moore went famously all over the map, as was the style of the times.
For me, the only good interpretations of Literary Bond are the ones where everything - script, director, actor - come together, and that leaves out Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan IMHO, almost regardless of their individual talents. Them's the breaks. I can't quite doff my hat to what Dalton brought to the role as it was a flawed and fractured attempt, some of it was bang-on but some of it belonged on "Three's Company" (sort of the flipside of what Supes is getting at: one has to ignore the - IMO - fatal flaws to accept Dalton as Literary Bond, and I guess I find it easier to ignore Craig being blonde... different strokes).
IMHO and best if not perfect cases, Literary Bond = Connery in DN and FRWL; Lazenby; Craig. But to be fair, EON never really attempted a Literary Bond for Moore/Dalton/Brosnan (IMO). And that's not all that of a bad thing, as Cinematic Bond can be great fun (decent script/director attached of course).
Craig and Literary Bond intersected in Casino Royale, the real question is will they do so again!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond