cherchez la femme
I saw Casino Royale. It’s long. It’s convoluted. It’s rangy. It’s implausible. Daniel Craig is the best Bond we’ve had since Connery, if not better as a darker, textured and flawed Bond, at once both beautiful and ugly. The bad guys are badder, too — not in the campy “I will rule the WORLD!” sense but in the claustrophobic “I’m a disturbing sociopath” sense. So on the whole it’s a welcome rebirth for the franchise, but I’d be happier if they’d taken the opportunity to tighten up the implausible bits just a little. I mean dumb things like “uh, so gosh it’s lucky for Bond that the bad guy happened to run out of bullets at just the right moment.” There’s just no reason for that kind of thing in a movie that otherwise takes itself seriously and my eye-rolling habit is bad enough as it is.
One bit I haven’t quite teased apart is Eva Green’s well-played role as Bond’s romantic object. The filmmakers (or Ian Fleming?) certainly developed her better than most of Bond’s women, but for all the lip service paid to her independence, intelligence, and strength, most of the movie nonetheless sees her playing the usual helpless pretty appendage to Bond’s strong hand. And not just in the action sequences, but in the story’s arc, where she could plausibly play a substantial role.
Ah, but then plot twists at the end reveal her to be of stronger character than we were led to believe, and not quite so two dimensional. In line with archetypes of woman, she in fact becomes the tacit prime mover of the whole movie, and by virtue of her virtue, the mother of Bond’s subsequent career as soulless killer and womanizer. My goodness, it’s almost … literary! But archetypes aside, I still can’t decide if she in sum winds up being more or less dimensional than Bond himself, more or less flattering to notions of sexual equity.
Hmm. It’s a Bond movie and I’m looking for thoughtful reflection on gender roles. Funny! But seriously, it may be more sophisticated than I’d give it credit for on the surface. Being skeptical of Hollywood’s capacity for thought, I’m gonna put that down to Fleming’s handiwork until I hear otherwise. Anyone have any other thoughts on this?
November 25th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
On a related note, you can see… umm, all of her in The Dreamers. It’s an interesting movie outside of all the sex, though i’m not sure if I actually enjoyed it or not.
But boobies is boobies, and I shant complain about that!
November 26th, 2006 at 7:36 am
At the end, after the betrayal, M the female exonerates the selfless heroic dead lady by explaining the obvious to a befuddled Bond. I guess I do not see sexist issues in this revival Bond as they were in the 60’s. However, it think it was the producers and screenwriters rather than the author, even then.
It is a heavy-duty action flick, and Bond is a tough martial artist more than the earlier Bond who used nimble minded surprises and a sense of humor to disarm his opponents.
A final thought from an obsessive Bond fan. Connery’s Bond is still the closest to the written character in my opinion. This Bond is the best of the imitations, and an interesting character but with few inscrutable qualities. I will see the next one, but probably on DVD.