This Time, There's No "Q" In Prequel
With the announcement of Daniel Craig as the new James Bond also comes the news that his inaugural vehicle, Casino Royale, will reveal Bond's first adventure as a Double-O agent. Thus, the Bond movies join the Batman, Superman, Star Wars, and Star Trek franchises (among others) in rewinding to a point where everything old is new again.
Still, the James Bond character has never really been bound by the same sense of continuity. Bond is defined by his mannerisms and habits, not by externalities like costumes, powers and equipment, or political settings. Although Ian Fleming's original novels did have some internal continuity (for example, the end of You Only Live Twice sets up the beginning of The Man With The Golden Gun), the movies abandoned that early on. Bond's ill-fated marriage is perhaps the movie series' only bit of character development, unless you count Timothy Dalton's or Pierce Brosnan's dealings with Bond's sexist beginnings.
Of course, it's appropriate to make Casino Royale a prequel, since it was Fleming's first Bond novel (1953). Bond's origins were explored more deeply in print by John Pearson's 1973 novel, James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007. Pearson's conceit was to blend fact and fiction, not least by having Fleming argue to M for a class of suave, sophisticated agents who could penetrate the upper levels of society where the world-altering decisions were made. (In Pearson's timeline, however, Casino Royale was Bond's second Double-O adventure, with a trip to Jamaica reminiscent of Dr. No being the first.) Fleming's role as Bond's chronicler would then provide natural cover for such an agent -- "hiding in plain sight," as it were.
The new movie probably won't have such a playful attitude about Bond's role in the greater espionage picture. Billed as darker and grittier than its predecessors, it will apparently downplay the Q Branch gadgets that often threatened to overshadow the real spy work. This makes sense, since Q himself didn't appear on the big screen until the second film, From Russia With Love. Early in both the books and movies, Bond also wielded a Beretta pistol and drove a Bentley, as opposed to the more familiar Walther PPK and Aston Martin DB5.
A prequel may also mean grounding Bond in a certain geopolitical age, which at this point in history could be the post-Cold War era of the early 1990s -- quite a paradigm shift from the climate which informed the character for so long. However, making Craig's movie a period piece could also acknowledge that the character works best only in a swinging '60s context. Bond's caretakers obviously want him to be appealing across the decades, but he's not exactly cut out for infiltrating Al-Qaeda.
Finally, if the new Casino Royale spawns its own sequels, that will no doubt raise the question of where (or whether) the other twenty Bond films from Eon Productions fit in the timeline. Will Craig's 007 allude to Goldfinger and Thunderball while he searches for the Hildebrand Rarity? More to the point, will the producers want to remind audiences of those adventures if Craig isn't able to fill his predecessors' tuxedoes?
These are questions the Bond producers may feel comfortable leaving unanswered. Unlike many other long-running series, the Bond films have been successful without resorting to much introspection or saga-building. Prequels necessarily raise these kinds of questions, though, so it will be interesting to see how such a timeless character got his start.
Still, the James Bond character has never really been bound by the same sense of continuity. Bond is defined by his mannerisms and habits, not by externalities like costumes, powers and equipment, or political settings. Although Ian Fleming's original novels did have some internal continuity (for example, the end of You Only Live Twice sets up the beginning of The Man With The Golden Gun), the movies abandoned that early on. Bond's ill-fated marriage is perhaps the movie series' only bit of character development, unless you count Timothy Dalton's or Pierce Brosnan's dealings with Bond's sexist beginnings.
Of course, it's appropriate to make Casino Royale a prequel, since it was Fleming's first Bond novel (1953). Bond's origins were explored more deeply in print by John Pearson's 1973 novel, James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007. Pearson's conceit was to blend fact and fiction, not least by having Fleming argue to M for a class of suave, sophisticated agents who could penetrate the upper levels of society where the world-altering decisions were made. (In Pearson's timeline, however, Casino Royale was Bond's second Double-O adventure, with a trip to Jamaica reminiscent of Dr. No being the first.) Fleming's role as Bond's chronicler would then provide natural cover for such an agent -- "hiding in plain sight," as it were.
The new movie probably won't have such a playful attitude about Bond's role in the greater espionage picture. Billed as darker and grittier than its predecessors, it will apparently downplay the Q Branch gadgets that often threatened to overshadow the real spy work. This makes sense, since Q himself didn't appear on the big screen until the second film, From Russia With Love. Early in both the books and movies, Bond also wielded a Beretta pistol and drove a Bentley, as opposed to the more familiar Walther PPK and Aston Martin DB5.
A prequel may also mean grounding Bond in a certain geopolitical age, which at this point in history could be the post-Cold War era of the early 1990s -- quite a paradigm shift from the climate which informed the character for so long. However, making Craig's movie a period piece could also acknowledge that the character works best only in a swinging '60s context. Bond's caretakers obviously want him to be appealing across the decades, but he's not exactly cut out for infiltrating Al-Qaeda.
Finally, if the new Casino Royale spawns its own sequels, that will no doubt raise the question of where (or whether) the other twenty Bond films from Eon Productions fit in the timeline. Will Craig's 007 allude to Goldfinger and Thunderball while he searches for the Hildebrand Rarity? More to the point, will the producers want to remind audiences of those adventures if Craig isn't able to fill his predecessors' tuxedoes?
These are questions the Bond producers may feel comfortable leaving unanswered. Unlike many other long-running series, the Bond films have been successful without resorting to much introspection or saga-building. Prequels necessarily raise these kinds of questions, though, so it will be interesting to see how such a timeless character got his start.
posted by Tom Bondurant @ 12:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home