The appeal of the Bond films, and reflections on the portrayal of Bond
The
Bond films have had an immense impact on the shape of nearly all the action/adventure
films which have followed them. The series developed the concept and style of
"seriously delivered ironic escapism" well beyond anything that had
been produced up to that point, set the benchmark for other productions, and
made others seem camp or lacking by comparison.
It is
difficult to analyse or define the exact nature of the appeal of the Bond
films, but for me the essential factor (certainly in the earlier films) is
their knowing approach to the telling of a ridiculous tale which is seriously
told. This "seriously jocular" approach carries the base material to
a higher cinematic plain. The books were well written adventure stories which
were fun and engaging, but their cinematic interpretations managed to combine
adventure with a knowing self-mockery and complicit humour, adding an element
of wit and entertainment missing from the original material.
Exotic
and ridiculous situations are set up with great care, attention to detail and
atmosphere, and above all with due regard for the serious development of
character and storyline. Then, after considerable effort to be convincing,
clever dialogue or even simply a reaction from one of the characters, suggest
that the makers and actors are well aware that this is all just a bit of concocted
fun after all, and are willing to share the joke with the audience.
This
is, I think, a key element in explaining the appeal and success of the early
Bond films – the audience is party to the joke, while Bond’s adversaries are
not. The audience wants to identify with the hero, and in a sense the Bond
films allowed the audience to be involved with him and the plot through
conspiratorial humour.
In this
respect the producers chose the perfect incarnation of Bond in Sean Connery. Connery
was a master of effortlessly conveying ironic remarks which only the audience could
truly or completely understand due to its fuller knowledge of events and
characters in the film. He managed to combine perfectly lightness and
seriousness. He achieved a sense of authenticity and humanity through a series
of carefully observed reactions and "ticks", yet regularly reminded
us that what we are watching is an elaborate joke – be it through the dialogue
itself, the way it’s delivered, or just a look.
As the
series progressed it must have been difficult to maintain the quality of the
writing, and indeed the jokes, though still present, became largely just that –
jokes, rather than witty and knowing reminders that this is all a set-up
created for our entertainment. Of course, the original style does not suit
every actor and those who went on to play the role played to their own
strengths, but with the gradual disappearance of this "knowing"
humour, the series became weaker and increasingly dependent on other factors.
The films may have remained enjoyable, but they are undoubtedly less witty and playful
than they once were.
Even
the general ambiance of lightness and fun was diluted to a great extent in the
more recent additions to the series. Essentially, they remained fantastic tales
told seriously with flashes of fun and humour to indicate they should not be
taken too seriously, but over the years there have been attempts to incorporate
greater psychological depth in the principal characters (and the storylines). Of
course, if the audience doesn’t care about the fate of the principal character
the whole exercise becomes somewhat pointless. It is essential, then, to have
the central character show human characteristics which can inspire empathy.
This can be achieved by means of showing reaction to a particular situation,
revealing inner feelings and attitudes. However, in Timothy Dalton’s and Pierce
Brosnan’s outings, and especially in the Daniel Craig cycle, there was an
attempt to dig more deeply into potential character flaws or personal
weaknesses in Bond, giving him greater psychological depth.
I seem
to remember reading that for Fleming, Bond was always intended as a fairly
non-descript "hook" for a good story. I think the same theory might
apply to the films. Clearly it would be damaging to the film NOT to have Bond
show human characteristics, but it can be equally damaging, given the original
premise of irony, fun and entertainment, to dig too deeply into the psyche of
what was intended to be an instrument of entertainment.
The
early films have a unique flavour and style, and it was with these films that I
grew up. It is perhaps unfair to compare the later Bonds which played to the
strengths of the lead actor, but I think it is fair to say that while the early
Bonds were innovative and led a virtual revolution in cinema entertainment, the
later films have become somewhat derivative not just of themselves, but of the
very films which were inspired by the style of the Bond originals.
Much
though I enjoyed the later films, and Daniel Craig’s human hero, for me these were
not Bond films. They were engaging action adventures whose main character was
called James Bond, but this was not the Bond I grew up with and supported for
years. I recognise this is a generational issue but it is also an issue of
integrity and recognition of the qualities millions of fans admired for
decades, qualities that were cast aside in favour of a Jason Bourne intensity
and gravity, indeed one might even call him Bourne-again Bond.
Clearly,
modern cinema-goers were willing to accept the Daniel Craig iteration as the
definitive and psychologically more developed version of Bond, but I found this
derivative and forced. I think
it was a fundamental mistake to try to make Bond’s backstory the focus for the
films. The character is simply not complex or strong enough, and to create a
personal link between Bond and Blofeld borders on soap opera and diminishes
Blofeld’s criminal psychological profile to that of a jealous step-brother (of
sorts)!
In my opinion,
Bond was at his best and most original when he fulfilled his mission
professionally and entertainingly, and the films were delivered with
conspiratorial humour and witty playfulness, while Bond himself was made
incidentally human, responding to events and people, and whose backstory and
character were not the focus of the storyline.
My thanks for
taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
No comments:
Post a Comment