Dave Galanter
December 1st 1969 - December 12th 2020
He was loved.

Golden, Silver, and Bronze Ages >> View Post
·
Post By
Menshevik

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,617
In Reply To
Paladin

Location: Prague, Bohemia
Member Since: Tue Apr 06, 2010
Posts: 1,660
Subj: Re: casino royale 1967 (and R.I.P. Sir Sean Connery)
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 at 04:24:54 pm EST (Viewed 75 times)
Reply Subj: Re: casino royale 1967 (and R.I.P. Sir Sean Connery)
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 at 02:31:20 am EST (Viewed 76 times)



    Quote:
    Hmmm, funnily enough, Peirce Brosnen is my least favourite Bond, though not really through any fault of his own. By the time he became Bond, the movie Bondian elements has become such a stereotype that he couldn't help but become a caricature of Bond. What people had come to expect Bond to be.


Actually, I think the first two Brosnan films, especially GoldenEye, were very good at addressing how out of touch the "Bondian standard elements" had become in a changed society since the 1950s, so I would call Brosnan's Bond more self-aware and self-reflective than a caricature. Of course, this self-reflection is triggered by some vicious, but on-target zingers addressed to 007 by the new M and Trevelyan...


    Quote:
    Roger Moore was my first Bond as well. I do like him, but in my old age I came to see how miscast he was.



    Quote:
    I've always felt that both Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton were able to demonstrate the grittier aspects of Bond from the novels. I still remember in "the Spy who loved me" how the police officer describes Bond as just as ruthless and cruel as the gangsters he defeated. Only Bond happens to be on the good guys side.



    Quote:
    One element of the Bond from the novels that I've felt none of the movie Bonds got right was the lonliness of Bond. In the novels, he just as often doesn't get the girl as he gets her. Like in Moonraker where the female agent just rejects him. To me, the novels present him as a much colder and heartless as things go on, but the films avoid that, maybe for good reason.


Actually, I see quite a bit of the loneliness of Bond in the first two Brosnan films. In "GoldenEye" there you don't get a sense that James and Natalya are terribly passionate for each other, and when you consider that Alec Trevelyan clearly got under James Bond's skin with his observations about him womanizing in an attempt to forget about the ones he couldn't save, you get a feeling that he may be feeling a bit leery about starting another affair. (This is somewhat underscored by the fact that Natalya Simonova is dressed in clothes that do not at all show off her pretty body pretty much throughout the entire film). And in "Tomorrow Never Dies", the significant romantic subplot is undermined by the way M (supported by Moneypenny) urges Bond to seduce Paris Carver, which makes 007 appear like a gigolo and not as glamorous as seducing all those Bond Girls had appeared to be in earlier films. To add to Bond's misery, he then discovers that Paris still was important to him and she gets killed, reaffirming what Trevilyan had told him in the previous movie. It is also interesting that in both those films Bond kills for personal motives - in GoldenEye the fact that Trevilyan betrayed his friendship seems more important than the threat he poses to the world, and in Tomorrow Never Dies he (not so) cold-bloodedly kills Kaufman for murdering his lover (even though he possibly could have provided useful information about Carver).




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 82.0 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2021 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2021 Powermad Software