Potpourri
A collection of various and sundry bits of info:
- According to my work PC’s idle process, the system has been on for 4824 hours, or almost exactly 201 days. I guess I should reboot the thing, but at this point I’m sticking it out as long as I can just to see if I can surpass a year. I’m not sure why, but this waxes my ego quite a bit.
- I’ve been tasked with running some mock interviews for Davis College graduates in the Computer Networking program there. That’ll be fun.
- I read my first James Bond novel last Friday. It was The Man With The Golden Gun, which I chose because it was perhaps my favorite Bond flick. It turned out to be almost nothing like the movie, but I guess I should have expected that. I decided to read the reviews of it on Amazon after I began reading it (the natural order of things as I see it), only to discover that it is widely considered one of the worst Bond novels in the series. I still managed to enjoy it regardless.
Incidentally, this was the last Bond book by the original author, as Ian Fleming died while the book was just about finished. I’ve since read the first Bond novel, Casino Royale, so I’ve accidentally started at the end and then started over at the beginning of the series.
So far, I’m quite pleased with the books. They read very quickly and keep interest the entire time. I intend to read through the whole series, which at this rate should give me something to do until May.
It’s also inspired me to go back and re-investigate my long dormant fascination with the Bond franchise. The last film I saw was The World Is Not Enough, and I finally broke about a decades worth of disinterest in the films by watching Casino Royale (the new, Daniel Craig one) this past weekend. I was pleased with it, though not ecstatic; 7/10. I’ll definitely be checking out some of the old classics like Goldfinger and Live and Let Die soon.
Out of curiosity, anyone here a Bond fan?
I read the Bourne trilogy by Ludlum. Horrible, just horrible. The Bourne movies are about a man with no knowledge, but with skill, instincts, and (for a while) Famke Janssen. Good movies.
The books are about a man with no knowledge, no instincts, and no Famke Janssen. Not even for a while. He’s pulled into a maelstrom of circumstances beyond his blah blah blah, fails repeatedly at everything he attempts, and even the author takes him to the woodshed over how traumatized, fat, old, and bald he (Bourne) is. All the while EVERY SQUARE CENTIMETER of terrain covered in the books has, minimum, four pages of establishment.
Ohhh.. BOND. Woops. I’m kind of disappointed by Bond movies, even ones I initially liked and own (Goldeneye, The Living Daylights).
I’m glad to have a good excuse not to read those now. The Bourne books are one of those things everyone recommends, but I say I’ll check them out some time for lack of any otherwise good reason not to, despite having no interest in them.
I’m a believer that if you go into a Bond movie expecting a good movie, you’ll be thoroughly disappointed. Bond flicks are an amalgamation of niches that people watch for one reason; some watch for the cars, some for the girls, some for the gadgets, some for the guns, some for the globetrotting. I mostly count myself in that last category.
Even then, probably 1/5 of the films in the series are borderline unwatchable, 1/5 great, and the rest range from tepid to mediocre in appeal. I enjoy the series for its comic-book characterization of certain villains and its historic association with the Cold War era of our history that is quickly vanishing. I guess you could say I like the idea of James Bond more than I like the actual James Bond product.
I can characterize the series as having been overall good until they ran out of Fleming books to bastardize. After Moonraker in ’79, it’s pretty much hit or miss, with mostly miss on the menu. Probably the best Bond movie since then was Austin Powers, and I only say that half-jokingly.
In that way I think they are a very reliable product. You know what you will get with each movie, and you listed them. Emphasis should definitely be placed on these elements because they are the main organs of the franchise, the head, neck, arms, and legs.
But they are not the character of any of the movies. Bond is. It is not enough to throw a cool car, a pocket wristwatch rocket launcher, a famous model, a Marxist Snidely Whiplash, a French slum, and a pasty Brit on film and call it a Bond movie. More camera time and more careful consideration should be shed on the meaning of several elements:
- In a world where automatic weapons settle most disputes, Bond still carries a tiny little pistol. Ignoring the middle-school-giggle inducing subtext, what does that mean about Bond? Is it contempt for his enemies? Pride in his own abilities?
- In The Living Daylights, Bond drove an Aston Martin right in to Moscow, and parked it next to whatever comrades were driving back them, if they could drive. These cars made Smart cars look like Towncars. Again, is that contempt? Does he feel he’s THAT GOOD a secret agent that he can drive a hot car into some Soviet dump and NOT be noticed? Or does he know he will be noticed, and knows it won’t matter, because Soviets are morons (to him)?
- Ever notice that women disappear in between these movies? They don’t come back after any of these sunsets he inevitably rides off into. Maybe it should be a bigger part of the movies. Is he (crudely) a pumper and dumper? Do they (gulp) disappear, Argentina-style? Is he a Talented Mr. Ripley-style manipulator? Or just a softie, falling in love with every woman he meets, much like Ricky Nelson’s Travelin’ Man? Does his China-doll down in old Hong Kong wait for his return?
- Probably the most abused conceit of these movies involves the magic gadgets that are ONLY there to get him out of that one single impossible circumstance. I do believe they suck the character right out of Mr. Bond. Why be clever getting out of that Burmese prison when you have a pack of smokes that burns through 80 ft of solid steel? Stuck in a well in Manchuria? Your contact lenses serve as jet packs when mounted to your shoe heels. Please. Send him to Sudan with a box of drinking straws and poison-tipped darts. I don’t think he needs to acquire a MacGyver mullet here, but just show some originality, cleverness, or genuine ability of some kind. A special-ness.
- Jetting back and forth is interesting, but have you ever noticed that Bond seems perfectly at ease everywhere except British soil? Does he work for someone else? Does he secretly harbor a great disdain for his countrymen? If it’s trouble with authority, so be it, but make it actual TROUBLE. Is he a magnificent son of a bitch to his superiors?
I have only questions about Bond, but the answers would help change him from a silhouette viewed through a rifled barrel to something more. I don’t think I should want James Bond for a friend. I think he should be unpleasant in many ways. Misogynistic, boorish, condescending, contemptuous, prideful, overbearing, manipulative, violent, sneaky, resourceful, tenacious, masterful, something!
He’s nearly a mascot for British Intelligence Cereal, fortified with Stiff Upper Lip and vitamin B6. The milk is not enough to drown this cereal in! Free wolf whistle, from China, with love, in every box. For your mouth only!
To this post I say…bravo. :)
I really get where you’re coming from here, and it’s all true.
For the films, Bond is mostly a one-dimensional character. For all of these fantastic things that go on in his life, we know there has to be some pretty interesting things going on in his head that we as an audience aren’t privy to, but wish we were. I think the early Bond movies recognized this and played with it a little; they acknowledged that people would love to know how James Bond really feels, but in true secret-agent fashion, that information is ‘classified.’
Of course, it didn’t take long for this to devolve from hinting-at-a-side-of-Bond-we-don’t-see to deliberately-treating-Bond-as-a-soulless-cartoon. One of the biggest things I saw cited in reviews for Casino Royale, and which I can agree with now that I’ve seen it, was how the film humanized Bond; answered some of these questions about who he is and how he feels. Movies set at the beginning of his career would unquestionably have to do so in order to establish the narrative to follow. Unfortunately, from what I’ve heard, Quantum of Solace eschewed this method in favor of more explosions and product placement. I’m cautiously pessimistic about the third Daniel Craig Bond vehicle as a result.
Reading the books has been satisfying for me in that it pretty much gives you all those answers. In the Casino Royale novel, Bond spends some time recuperating after torture and comes to the conclusion that the whole affair of nation-versus-nation is all kind of a child’s game, and one that doesn’t particularly appeal to him. His drive shifts from patriotism to more of a moral battle against SMERSH, as he discovers that they are the ‘mafia’ fueling really inhuman counterintelligence between countries, and preventing “white-collar spies” from going about their “cowboys & indians” in relative peace. I gave the book credit for this.
Bond’s relationship with women is also explored in a lot more detail in CR. He makes a lot of misogynist statements about how women are just toys and can’t be trusted with real work in the world of espionage. His actions later in the novel betray these sentiments, and we see that he uses them as a cover for vulnerability. Contrary to the Connery’s interpretation of the character, Bond is sometimes terse with women, but never cruel or rude – at least not without purpose or regret. He generally carries himself with seriousness, but sticks to his stereotypical British habit of being overly polite to just about everyone he meets, making for a relatively affable character.
This and a ton of other aspects of the Bond character that you listed are made much more clear in the novels, I’m finding out. And they are usually done somewhat cleverly; not everything is laid on the line in simple passages of expository dialogue. There are aspects of the character that you are left to infer – to evaluate using your ability to pick up on patterns of behavior, much like a spy would.
A few other things –
-The Bond of the novels hardly uses gadgets at all. The gadgets were mostly an invention for the films, to provide Bond with a deus ex machina when necessary.
-It is somewhat clearly established in the novels that Bond never stays with a woman because his big philosophy about life is to live it to the fullest. He adores many women he meets, but hates the politics of relationships almost as much as the politics of international relations. Though there are many women he gets attracted to, he finds that no matter how wonderful they are, life palls in due time and he must move on.
-Bond frequently encounters bodily harm and near death. Unlike the movie Bond, who never gets hit with a bullet and never faces physical harm worse than a fist-fight.
-Bond is sometimes cocky, but usually not so much that he pulls ridiculous stunts like the instances you cited. I never cared much for the obvious denial of realism portrayed in the films, but I understand that people like me who enjoy well-rounded plots are not part of the target audience.
Sean, this is a very odd but interesting observation.
What, the uptime on my PC? I fail to see what’s odd about it!
It’s odd because it’s running Windows. (rimshot)
Close. It’s actually a beefed-up Kaypro running CP/M with a Windows emulator that I handcoded in assembly over the course of a weekend.
That probably explains the uptime, now that I think about it.
A Windows emulator that you coded yourself in assembly . . . that sounds like it would make an interesting topic for a future blog post. I know I’d love to hear more about it.
Me too :)
Per jmf, it’s Windoze. One would have figured a hiccup would have occurred long ago.
I’ve watched plenty of ‘em, since Spike used to have the “13 days of 007″ thing going on in December for a few years. Not a bad way to kill some time (and I’m an expert in that as we all know).
Do you have a favorite film? Or a favorite Bond actor?
Wouldn’t say I’ve got a particular favorite when it comes to the films. For actors, I’d say Connery with Brosnan as a close 2nd (maybe it’s just the influence of all that Goldeneye I played on the N64 as a teenager), though I must confess I haven’t seen the ones with Craig yet so I dunno how I’d rank him.
Moore was always my favorite, but I haven’t watch any of the films in so long that it may have changed. I liked all the actors, really; I think they all brought something different to the table. Moore was the most affable, Dalton the most serious (until Craig), Connery the most suave. Brosnan played the character well, but not distinctly – came off well-rounded, but didn’t find his niche like the other actors did. And I actually thought Lazenby wasn’t that bad either.
I can’t say I’m a Bond fan exactly. But I did enjoy the Pierce Brosnan films. I like Craig, but not as Bond.
I enjoyed GoldenEye, which I think many people from our generation did because of the game, but the other two Brosnan flicks (Tomorrow Never Dies & The World Is Not Enough) I thought were forgettable. Never saw Die Another Die.
What else has Craig been in besides Bond?
I saw him in Layer Cake and Munich. OK performances. In my mind, he can never replace Brosnan as Bond.
i gave up on bond around same time as you but im really here to wish you a happy birthday my dear brother!!!
Happy belated birthday Sean!