The new Bond movie has reignited the somewhat banal arguments that swirl in conversation circles throughout the world. In Italy, they're bolting espressos and comparing their Bond girls to the French Bond babes. In Beijing, they're contrasting Dr. No to License to Kill and scrutinizing the idiosyncrasies of Moore and Connery over dim sum.
Me, I'm trying to uncover the secret to drinking as much as Bond does, and never displaying the resulting intoxication. So far my ensuing demeanors have been, well, viciously shaken and slurred. But, in my borrachera I had an epiphany. I then, and now, know what makes Bond, even when stripped of his fancy vestments and toys, Bond.
Picture our generation's Bond: Pierce Brosnan, in all his Irish glory. He possesses three characteristics: a sturdy build, piercing eyes and a face that is simultaneously youthful and weathered. The other two successful Bonds (Connery and Craig thus far) display similar characteristics. Why? Be¬cause a Bond's potential for success hinges on these three characteristics.
Consider Roger Moore. He failed because he became too aged and unshapely, which rendered him ultimately unsuccessful.
Timothy Dalton had the piercing eyes and build, but was too youthful, too inexperienced and frankly, too '80s (mainly in the sideburn arena).
Lazenby lost because his eyes lacked the piercing quality and he somewhat resembled Spock. (Google image him and you'll see the resemblance.)
Connery established the trinity for 007 success, all the other Bonds needed to do was follow suit. Two Bonds did, three did not.
What about Daniel Craig? He's only been in one Bond film, albeit a great one. How will his sophomore appearance serve to answer whether he is a successful Bond?
In my mind, Daniel Craig has already done more than enough to establish himself. His character in "Layer Cake" was quintessential Bond, therefore he became Bond for me in 2004, when "Layer Cake" was released, and solidified his Bond role in "Casino Royale."
The next Bond film is routine for Daniel Craig. He can sport the tux, he can wield a weapon and he can woo the crowd. Add a solid script and you have another success for James "Blonde" Bond.
But this is all appetizer talk; let's move on to the real meat of the Bond discussion, "Quantum of Solace."
For some reason, my reflec¬tion on the Bond series and the potential of the blonde Bond's "sophomore" appearance has me recalling the SNL sketch "The Chris Farley Show." This is how it plays out in my mind.
Chris: You, uh, you remember when in "Layer Cake," you played the suave guy, the, uh, no-nonsense, drug dealer. And you made oversight mistakes and then uh, resolved them but in the end they came back and haunted you? You remember that?
Daniel: (semi-smarmy) Yes Chris, that sounds familiar.
Chris: And then, you were "in Casino Royale" and played the same character and passed if off as James Bond and it worked because, uh, the script was good and uh, your car was nicer and uh, you did that scene where you came out of the water and stared at the one girl on the horse. Remember that?
Daniel: You're talking about the scene with Caterina, of course. Yes Chris, I think I would remember that.
Chris: Ya . . . That was awesome! (laughter ensues) So now what?
My thoughts exactly, Chris. Now what? All "Quantum of Solace" has offered expectant Bond-philes is an ambiguous trailer, a ridiculous title and the discordant caterwaul of a song by Jack White and Alicia Keys. (What genius paired them together?) The song ("Another Way to Die") is absolutely irrelevant and ill-composed. There's nothing Bond-esque in this amalgam of Jack White's bluesy dissonance and Alicia Keys' inimitable wail. The only acceptable portion of the song is the all too brief piano riff.
I won't even stoop to compare this dross to "Live and Let Die" by Paul McCartney and Wings, a song that served to set the bar for all other Bond songs. The music supervisor may have recognized the frame¬work for a Bond musician: that the musician must be established and musically viable, as well as slightly off-keel. But, the supervisor went outside of the motif and opted for a postmodern crossbreeding, resulting in a deformed composition that only Moby would enjoy.
Despite all its hype, which has me intrigued, I'm not quite sure this Bond movie will meet the standards established by "Casino Royale."
Sure there will be plenty of action sequences piled on top of each other and a subtle exploration of the quantum of solace theory (the amount of comfort two people need for love to thrive). But can the script deliver? Or will "Quantum of Solace" become the next "Bourne Ultimatum"?
To be honest, I'm not entirely certain this Bond flick will be worth the two-year wait.
Sure, it has the Bond girls, the Aston Martin and the license to kill, but it also has the "sophomore" curse. It's becoming fairly apparent that the first movie a new Bond does (with the exception of Timothy the Ignominious) is by far their best and its successor pales terribly in comparison.
A friend once told me that drug dealers sell you their premium goods first, get you hooked and then sell you the dregs. Daniel Craig has the potential to be a great Bond, that is, comparable to Connery and Brosnan, but he also has the potential to become a sack of blond schwag.
Be the first to comment on this article!