An article reappraising Craig’s Bond up until Spectre
opal
Posts: 32MI6 Agent
I just found this article reappraising Craig’s Bond up until Spectre:
The title is a bit provocative (“Is Daniel Craig’s Version of James Bond the Worst of the Franchise?”) but the article is measured and reasoned. I think the title is just to get people’s attention. Here’s a quote from the article:
“That’s not what happened though. Daniel Craig’s Bond has instead, ignored the previous films, and taken on Bourne traits: his past is slowly revealed to us over the course of the four films, and we get the Bourne ultra-grittiness from those films. You could argue that the grittiness and authenticity actually comes from Ian Fleming’s novels and not Jason Bourne. I wouldn’t fully disagree, but if that’s true a) why did they not continue the Bond grittiness after they fully embraced it in the Timothy Dalton era, and b) why did 2015’s Spectre make Blofield so different from the books if they were supposed to be going for the feel of the books?”
And another quote:
“I, for one, don’t mind his casting. I think that Daniel Craig is a fine actor, and probably the most athletic actor to play Bond yet, BUT I can’t stand what the “powers that be” have made Bond into during Daniel Craig’s tenure, and for that, I consider his Bond to be the worst of the official series.”
The article makes its case under the following headings:
- They rebooted Bond and made him Bourne
- More than a government assassin–Bond kills for no reason
- Bond is always being watched remotely and second guessed
- James Bond, The Great Cuddler
- Not ready to have a License to Kill
- James Bond and the OO Program is now Obsolete?!
- The Marvel Model and Serialized Storytelling
Now that Craig has left the franchise, I think more reappraisals will appear.
Comments
That was an interesting article, albeit the author seems not to know that DC was filming a fifth installment. Some of his arguments are more to do with his personal tastes than any reasoned appreciation of storytelling. But I enjoyed it nonetheless.
Inside the article is this link
Which while it was written after SPECTRE does resonate still with me in the wake of NTTD.
Thanks for the link. I agree with most of that article, especially:
"It’s hardly surprising that Spectre — the very title of which is synonymous with serialization in the Bond mythos — bends over backwards to contort the Daniel Craig era into a coherent quadrilogy, as though these four films had always been intended to function like a discrete run of comic books that branches out from its core property. But just because something works for Marvel doesn’t necessarily mean that it works for everyone. It’s one thing to jump on a trend and another to rejigger your storytelling methodology altogether. And by teasing a broader mythology for no other reason than because they had to, the folks responsible for maintaining 007’s legacy have now retroactively tainted the best run of Bond movies since Sean Connery’s heyday."
I think I would have got more used to Craig's radical take on Bond if the films hadn't been intended to be sequels of each other. Somehow this serialization made Craig's Bond fade into the background as a memorable character. He became just another plot device.
Yes. I think the first two work quite well as a two-some. Skyfall as an entity bears no relationship to the first two. It is only in Spectre that the dots are joined and they are joined very badly. NTTD continues this trend. I'd also mention the need for a backstory which has relevance to the present - this happens in Marvel - I'm thinking in particular of Captain America #1 where Steve Rogers' best mate turns out to be his enemy.