James Bond is NOT Daniel Craig! Daniel Craig is NOT 007! James Bond is tall, dark, handsome, debonair and always on top of things, whatever happens. He rarely runs but is always there, one step ahead of the villains who have names like Stavro Blofeld, Jaws, Rosa Klebbor Hugo Brax. The only platonic relationship he has is with his boss's secretary, Miss Moneypenny, who always knows when he has arrived by his hat sailing through the air and landing on the hatstand in the corner of her office. He gets begrudging orders from his handler, 'M', and gets tooled up by 'Q'. 'Q' always appears to be annoyed with Bond because of his casual attitude towards the wonderful gadgets he makes for him, which usually save his life or get him out of a sticky situation later in the film. He introduces himself as "Bond. James Bond" and likes his Vodka Martinis "shaken - not stirred." Films have titles like Goldfinger, For Your Eyes Only, Live and Let Die or The Man With the Golden Gun. The Bond Girls, a proliferating species that he meets along the way, have double entendre names like Plenty O'Toole, Pussy Galore and Holly Goodhead - many of which turn up dead.
The film always starts with a strident but appropriate song by a leading singer of the day and naked female bodies writhing across the screen in chiaroscuro. This is after some amazing feat carried out by Bond that often has no bearing on the film in question. And the two things that ALL proper Bond films have is the opening blood-dripping gun barrel scene and the explosive ending before Bond is contacted by 'M', or Mrs Thatcher, for a report on the operation as he is getting down to business with the female who has survived the mayhem.
When Cubby Broccoli was in charge there was no real problem. James Bond was Sean Connery, and, with reservations, Roger Moore. The films fell into an easily recognised rhythm and were loved by the cognoscenti. It wasn't until new wave actors came along and felt that they must add something to the Bond cadre that the oil began to leak out of the Bond motor. They wanted Bond more touchy-feely. To have some proper relationships. Cubby was still able to keep the essentials in place but after his daughter, Barbara, took over the Beretta, 007 began to change and ended up as Daniel Craig.
Daniel Craig is a wonderful actor but I repeat, not James Bond. This fact was driven home to me over the holidays by the happenstance of seeing Defiance immediately after being bored rigid by Quantum of Solace. I think Felix The Cat would make a better fist of it than Craig. He never seems to stop running. All the humour and nonchalance has gone from the character of Bond and been replaced with ???? What's more, it is derivative of all the other Bond films only with added CGI. It has also been contaminated with the Bourne films and delivers Bond as a dour clone of Matt Damon. What the Fleming franchise needs is a humour transplant. More lines like, "No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die," delivered with glee by Goldfinger himself, Gert Frobe.
I have a scientific method of sorting through the films up for BAFTA awards. I pile them up around the TV and shove them in the slot as I find them. I sat through The Dark Knight and wondered who the Dark Knight was. Was he Batman or a clone? I watched the latest Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and was disappointed when it wasn't as good as the Ford-Connery oeuvre, been amazed at the lack of talent displayed by George Clooney and Brad Pitt in Burn After Reading and wondered what all the fuss was about Mamma Mia! Frost/Nixon was interesting but only narrowly scraped in under the cloak of entertainment and I found the apologia, W, for War President Bush, sad. Angelina Jolie proved herself an actress of merit in Eastwood's Changeling. It's a pity that Eastwood's other production, Gran Torino, won't be out in time for BAFTA selection as it is rumoured to be major Oscar material. I tried Brideshead Revisited but failed to get past the front door. The same with I've Loved You So Long.
The Escapist with Brian Cox was watchable but it has added nothing to the well exploited American escape movie. Another film based on the Holocaust is The Reader with Kate Winslet baring her all and growing old, thankfully not in that order, and Ralph Fiennes. It's a slow-grow story fleshed out with the passionate scenes at the beginning but well worth seeing. Worth a nod, maybe?
I've still got a mountain to climb as far as the BAFTAs are concerned but so far Craig's Defiance is the stand-out with Changeling running it a very close second. I must confess to a sort of vested interest in Defiance. It reminded me of my childhood. That said, Defiance has everything an action film should have: a leading man with a bit more going for him than an itchy trigger finger and a death wish, a fighter who has ideals and would prefer to sort out a situation with intelligence and understanding, and played by an actor who, in a dramatic scene where his band of Partisans raid a Nazi hospital to get badly needed drugs for his people in the forest, will allow the director to keep him in the waiting lorry while his men do the dying because he doesn't feel well. I don't think there are many 'heroic' actors who would have been agreeable to that.
For twenty odd years I've done my bit to sort out the goers from the gonnas. Every year it's the same. The films and actors I choose are ignored, thrown out in the first round of balloting. It's got so bad that the Post Office runs a special service just for actors begging me not to vote for them. I sometimes wonder if there is a secret cabal that gets together around this time of the year to examine who I've selected, have a good laugh and then make sure that those films and actors don't make it to the second round. Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to do me down.
Maybe this year I'll play it crafty. Select the films and actors I don't think are worth an award, which would let my favourites through to the second round and then - I think I'll have to work on that. I've got until the 8th January to decide who my lonely vote will make or break in the coming year.
Read Ingrid's column every Tuesday at Den Of Geek. Last week's is here.
30 December 2008
Craig's other roles
Posted By jimm 1 December 30, 2008 04:01:31 PM
Craig is not Bond! But can he fit into the Jewish role he has played in the new film Defiance? Decide for yourselves, all trailers can be found at www.defiancemovie.co.uk
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By twosheds 1 December 30, 2008 04:49:27 PM
I totally agree with this. Craig is an excellent actor. He's right for straight drama. He's right for action. He's just not right for Bond.
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By Davros 1 December 30, 2008 05:14:55 PM
I so wholeheartedly concur, CRAIG IS NOT BOND. Quantum of Solace is not a Bond film.
I don't know what the producers of the franchise are playing at with Bond, it wasn't broke with Brossy Bond, why did they feel the need to screw it all up.
Quantum was the 1st Bond film since I started watching Bonds that I didn't bother to go see.
We need rid of Craig & we need rid f this touchy feely pretty boy Bond with emotion & get back t some fun Connery / Moore type adventures. Failing that the franchise will not be around for another 40 years.
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By theshadowalker 1 December 30, 2008 07:50:37 PM
I must be getting old, 'cause I can remember when people were saying more-or-less the same thing about Sean Connery's original casting (...too Scottish! ...and Bond's not a thug! ...blah, blah, blah). Who was it that the novels' fans wanted again? David Niven, I believe.
Not to mention the vitriol that was directed at Tom Baker (...too silly! ...and the Doctor should be Edwardian, not Bohemian! ...blah, blah, blah) during his first year in Doctor Who.
And I heard the same, again, when Patrick Stewart was cast as Picard (...too bald! ...and he's not Kirk! ...blah, blah, blah).
The names may change, but the arguments are, essentially, the same.
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By Discrespective 1 December 30, 2008 10:49:01 PM
Yeah Daniel Craig Not Bond But Yeah Dude That's The Idea ! Casino Royale, Quantum Of Solace Are Prequels To The Bond Movies We Both Love ! The Spy Who Loved Me, From Russia With Love, The Man With Golden Gun, Goldfinger, Diamonds Are Forever, Live And Let Die Etc. Etc. These Daniel Craig Movies Are Set Way Back In Days Before Bond Knew He Was Bond, Ages Before Whatever It Is That Made Bond, Bond. Watching The Two Movies Together We Are Starting To See This Incredibly Slow Progression Of Someone Going From Cold, Calculated, Cunning, Cynical Person To Complete Psycho ! That What These Movies Are About, They're Not About The Bond We Know. They're About Bond Finding Out He's Not Who He Thinks Is And World Isn't As Perfectly Simple As He Thought It Was, Difficult As That It Is To Accept. These Movies Are About The Making, The Breaking Of Man, And When That Man, Is Bond, James Bond, It's Best Thing Ever ...
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By Mugly 1 December 31, 2008 09:38:57 PM
Ok I'll concede he is not the bond of old, but then these latest movies were a look back at the beginning and it works for me, I actually like these last 2 over the remmington steel guys. But if not craig then who?
The: Craig Is Not Bond Bandwagon...
Posted By sorkinfan 1 January 1, 2009 02:00:24 AM
...left two years ago, loaded up with flat-Earthers and other assorted idiots with single-track minds.
Whoever's ghosting this column clearly hasn't even read the damn novels.
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By xaraan 1 January 2, 2009 04:18:26 AM
Well, this is something I've never seen before... Someone that came up on the old Bond wishing things were still like that and not happy with change. From the point of view of someone that never liked any Bond movie all that much until Casino Royale, Craig is Bond to me. Craig's Bond is how I picture a british special agent; I don't picture the really cheesy guys going through the really cheesy movies that we've seen up to Casino Royale. Sorry; but the way they did the old Bond doesn't work anymore. He belongs in the past and you can still buy his movies on DVD. I never wanted to go see a spy thriller and end up at a comedy with stupid one liners. And since the new Bond is making better money than the Bond has in a while; I think the people stuck in the past will have to keep clinging to their old DVDs.
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By tutsrevenge 1 January 2, 2009 10:17:41 AM
I totally agree with this column. Craig is not a very good bond, just because i've been predisposed to better i.e Pierce Brosnan. Not to say that he isn't a good actor in his own right.
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By twosheds 1 January 2, 2009 03:46:20 PM
And since the new Bond is making better money than the Bond has in a while; I think the people stuck in the past will have to keep clinging to their old DVDs.
Hmmmm. PoTC3 and Spiderman 3 were amongst the most profitable films of the last 3 years. Do you think they were amongst the best?
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By twosheds 1 January 2, 2009 03:49:41 PM
To the commenter who began a flame post by declaring that he would not even read this article: your post has been removed. The comments thread is for discussing articles, not article titles, which are often written by the editors.
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By Eurytus 1 January 2, 2009 04:27:45 PM
"Hmmmm. PoTC3 and Spiderman 3 were amongst the most profitable films of the last 3 years. Do you think they were amongst the best?"
Which has absolutely nothing to do with his point. His point was that since the Craig Bond films are easily more profitable than the previous ones the makers will have no urge whatsoever to head in a different direction.
Nor should they. All those now extolling the virtues of Brosnan seem to forget that he only made one good Bond film and in Die Another Day perhaps made the worst Bond film of all time.
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By twosheds 1 January 2, 2009 05:05:30 PM
His point was that since the Craig Bond films are easily more profitable than the previous ones the makers will have no urge whatsoever to head in a different direction.
This I can't argue with. Money talks - but it doesn't make great films, or great Bond films. If Eon put out another Bond film as bad as Quantum Of Solace , they might find themself subject to the law of dimishing returns: I was hyped up for QoS because Casino Royale was a great action film (if not necessarily a great Bond film). Likewise Spiderman 3 's predecessor was - in my opinion - one of the best superhero movies ever made. Even PoTC2 , while not living up to the original, was a hell of a lot better than PotC3 (which promised the - ultimately wasted - return of Geoffrey Rush). You get to trade off of a previous good movie just once . After that, you had better start coming up with the goods again.
I'm far from anti-Craig. I'm on record all over the site as a big fan of his (as Ingrid clearly is too), and if he's gonna star in a great series of action movies that intend to trade under the 007 brand, I can't help but be interested. I'll miss Bond; I'll miss 007 movies too (these, instead, are Bourne movies, and I only liked the first in that overblown trilogy). But I still want to know.
However, QoS hit big because of Casino Royale 's quality. It's a turkey not because of Craig, but because it's poorly-written and the formula it screws up isn't even the one belonging to the 007 franchise. So I'll be wanting some very good buzz for Bond 23 before parting with any cash for it.
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By Davros 1 January 3, 2009 04:06:43 PM
You know it really bugs me how Craigy boys Bond films are stated as making more money & yet inflation doesn't come into this??? How ridiculous is that.
Also if you look back on the Brossie films every film he made did financially better than the previous, so it was only natural that Casino Royal would follow that trend.
Its true that Brossies bonds weren't the best Bond films ever, but that is purely down to the writers & ultimately the producers who are carrying on this series of film with a tremendous amount of goodwill from the public but their not bringing anything great to the franchise, name the last memorable Bond villian, has to be Jaws probably, possible MayDay.
Look at the way the Simpsons will frequantly parody the Bond films with a spot of 60s style Bond music, because Bond now doesn't have its own style to parody.
Also I just cannot believe the gun barrel walk that has started every single bond film has been relegated to the end of the film. I hope they stick with this while Craiggy is Bond & bring it to the beginning one they get a proper Bond again. Rant over!!!
P.S. Why this site now allow paragraphs & sentencing???
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By quacker27 1 January 3, 2009 07:58:39 PM
I just don't understand why some people every new James Bond to be a Sean Connery clone. Yes, Sean Connery is the best Bond and yes, he did make the character an icon (although even he didn't follow the book character perfectly). But no one else is going to be a better 'Sean Connery' then Sean Connery, they'll just be a poor imitation. So why not embrace a new direction? While neither Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace are perfect films, they are both very entertaining. And while Daniel Craig is far from the 'Connery' Bond, he is far better then the caricature that was the last few Pierce Brosnan Bonds. My only complaint with Craig is that I think they strayed to far into 'boarder-line superhero' territory in some of Quantum of Solace's action sequences. Other then that he is not Sean Connery, but no one would be. And any one who doesn't see Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace as HUGE improvements over the travesty that was Die Another Day, well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By Hamish 1 January 4, 2009 04:58:07 PM
It could be worse. Just think what might happen if RTD took over at the helm.
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By chamelious 1 January 5, 2009 12:31:09 PM
I disagree, he's the new bond. He's exactly what bond needed. No more invisible cars and surfing away from nuclear explosions and whatnot. The Brosnen bond was a superhero, Craig's bond is just a man. We all like a character we can relate to.
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By realmeister 1 January 7, 2009 02:44:30 PM
I agree with the last comment. Craig is just a man. That was part of the allure to me with Sean Connery. Once Moore and Co took over, it was more about the gadgets than about the man himself. I hope they come up with better scripts though and develop Craig into the suave agent that Connery portrayed. Right now he's more of a brute than anything else, but I understand that these are "prequels".
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By nowittyname 1 January 7, 2009 05:14:29 PM
Okay, for all of you "Connery is the only Bond" types out there, I have only one thing to say: Diamonds are Forever. Watch it, I dare you. Watch it without vomiting, I challenge you. Oh, make that two things: Never Say Never Again.
Having said that, I'll give you that Connery did make 3 out of only 5 really good Bond movies ever made: Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and Goldfinger. (The other two being Lazenby's OHMSS and Craig's Casino Royale. Living in Japan, I'm still two weeks away from an opportunity to see Quantum.)
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By BijouBob8mm 1 January 8, 2009 03:44:08 PM
Most Bond fans agree on one thing: There are basically two 007s, the one found in Ian Fleming's novels and the one found in the movies. (And it could be argued that second fellow sometimes has some severe mood swings between grim and jovial.) Early on, those two chaps had a lot in common. But, like the rest of the world, the world of filmmaking has changed and (for better or worse) so has its product. Even our imaginative entertainment is a bit bleak.
I don't hate Craig as Bond, speaking strictly in terms of his performance. Granted, they could have taken the time to darken his hair to make it match that of his literary counterpart. (After all, they took the time to fit Connery with a hair piece when he was wearing 007's shoulder holster.) In CASINO ROYALE I think Craig had moments where he captured the feel of Fleming's creation. Based on that, I don't know if we can completely blame/credit Craig for the current incarnation of the film franchise, as he's not doing the writing, directing and editing. (And it is in this last department that I think QUANTUM OF SOLACE really suffered.)
After the show, when you hear people talk about how QUANTUM reminded them of the Bourne movies, it could be considered cause for concern. Those of us who have followed 007 for quite a while remember when James Bond was the film franchise everyone else tried to emulate. The Bonds were innovative, not imitative. That being said, QUANTUM OF SOLACE does entertain, and does provide a good degree of closure to its predecessor, CASINO ROYALE. (Especially the final sequence.)
Unfortunately, you only get one chance to make a good first impression and most of QUANTUM's flaws occur early on. Specifically, the first two major action sequences/chases. Executed and edited with a rapid pace that make them seem like a prolonged blur, this could have been shot with stuntmen and peppered with a few frames of Daniel Craig's face here & there and no one would know the difference. My first thought was that, having hit the middle-age mark, it could have just been me having a problem with it. But when teens in the audience complain they can't tell what the hell is going on, that pretty much tells me the editor needs to cut back on the caffeine. Thankfully, the film finally allowed itself some time to breathe before the over-produced and over-edited action overshadowed the performances. (Just a slight bit of nitpicking, but it seems odd to have the traditional gun barrel opening now inexplicably at the end of the movie. When the film started, more than a few audience members initially thought it was just another trailer.)
They say fashion never goes out of style, but trends come and go. Unfortunately, QUANTUM is more trendy than stylish. Overall, it's an anti-climactic follow-up to CASINO ROYALE. Three seems to be a magic number for Bond, with Connery's third film (GOLDFINGER) being a high water mark for his era, and Moore's third outing (THE SPY WHO LOVED ME) being one of his most memorable turns. Hope the same holds true for Daniel Craig. Rumor has it that his third turn as 007 will see some of the more vintage Bond elements brought back to the screen. Let's see if the third film has them getting a handle on it.
Re: The Ingrid Pitt column: Craig is not Bond
Posted By PainkillerJames 1 January 10, 2009 03:51:24 AM
Craig is Bond. They have taken Bond in a new direction. Gadgit Bond is highly unbelievable and doesn't really have a place in today's movies. He was too corny and hoakey, where Action Bond is what the majority of people want to see nowadays. He's believable and is something the masses can get behind. The change is good and is what the franchise needed.