Vodka Martinis, a swift dose of easily-escaped torture and the unbuckling of some spherical breasts are the stuff of most pubescent boys’ dreams. Or certainly they are once they have seen a Bond film. For half a century, the British spy has grappled, spanked and murdered on screen to the delight of the cinema-going public.
It is almost laughable to ask why these films are successful; the heady cocktail of derring-do action, exorbitant luxury and breathless romantic clinches is enough to stimulate the urges of any warm-blooded being. But perhaps what is interesting is the level of expectation that surrounds each new instalment of the series, not excepting ‘Quantum of Solace’, opening in Mexican cinemas on Friday 14th November. It’s the second film starring Daniel Craig and for the first time in the series, the story picks up directly from its predecessor ‘Casino Royale’.
Clearly, it’s one of several attempts by the producers to reinvent the franchise and keep the public interested. Gone are the fantastic and coincidentally useful gadgets and the dire quips that accompanied them; Craig plays his ‘half monk, half hitman’ Bond with an equal dose of menace and Shakespearean profundity.
After all, it’s been 46 years since ‘Dr No’ was released in 1962, with six different actors playing Bond. Each one has it played it differently: Connery’s charismatic thug was followed by Moore’s wry gentleman, before Dalton’s affected hero and then Brosnan. If you watched him croon hoarsely in ‘Mamma Mia’ recently, or can remember his absurdly posh scientist in ‘Mars Attacks!’ you will realise for all his commercial successes Pierce Brosnan truly is a caricature of a Briton. With that in mind, it is probably best not to mention George Lazenby at all.
Whatever your opinion, everyone has their favourite Bond. Often it was the one you grew up with and Craig is no exception today. Much like when he was introduced as the ‘Blonde Bond’, the paparazzi pressed their attention on Timothy Dalton when he took on the role in the eighties. Quite similarly, his introduction in ‘The Living Daylights’ was a revamping success and was followed by ‘Licence to Kill’, a darker tale in which Bond leaves the Secret Service to seek revenge for the torture and mutilation of his CIA counterpart Felix Leiter. The public were not amused.
When a hero like Bond has been entertaining you for that long, you’re entitled to your opinions about the series. It seemed that many people didn’t like what they saw as a change to the established formula. ‘Licence to Kill’ was filmed here in Mexico and lacked many of the British trappings of the previous films. There were no Aston Martins and no rich countesses to regale. Moreover, the villain was a South American druglord called Sanchez who was so realistic that he lacked the megalomania and therefore the presence of previous Bond villains.
Ironically, this back-to-basics, darker Bond is just what the producers are trying to achieve with ‘Quantum of Solace’. Perhaps they have learnt from ‘Licence to Kill’; the Aston is looking sleeker than ever and no doubt Judi Dench will provide some classic British gravitas as Bond’s boss M. But there are parallels that remain. Bond sets out to bring justice to the sinister organisation that betrayed his Casino Royale lover. As before, he pits himself against established authorities- here the CIA- as he tries to save some pocket of Latin America from villainy once again.
Instead of druglords, now Bond faces Mr White’s powerful contacts bent on overthrowing regimes, blackmailing innocents and murder, stern murder. The reintroduction of a sinister evil organisation, much like Blofeld’s SPECTRE, is an exciting prospect: Bond is only as good as the enemy he faces.
Yet you cannot help but wonder what the public will make of all this. ‘Casino Royale’ reintroduced Bond to our screens as a taut brute ready to take on the modern world. But it also left him at a crossroads, finishing with the character’s own introduction- Bond, James Bond- a line that didn’t even make it into the final cut of ‘Quantum of Solace’. Our expectations have only been doubled with wondering where this film will leave him, and when he will be back again.
The pressure is on for director Marc Forster to take Bond to the next level, delivering something new that will still entertain the old fans. I doubt he will try to repeat an old formula that was long exhausted by the time of the invisible cars and absurd fencing matches of ‘Die Another Day’. Not only do we need to see this Bond truly tested, but deep down we also want to find out who Craig’s Bond really is. Will his personal agenda come before his Queen and country’s? Is this a man who will abuse women or protect them at all costs? It will be fun to find out.
In the end, the Bond films will always be successful. He’s like an old lover you cannot help but see again: exciting, charming and excellent in bed... yet unfulfilling too. Looking back at the old films, you struggle to name a favourite, or one that supersedes the others. Perhaps that’s because there are so many to choose from, and opinions are so easily divided. Or maybe no one Bond experience is perfect- each film adding new details to the pantheon of our hero’s adventures- and that is why we are always so hungry for the next instalment.
Ultimately, the films are probably the most thrilling brand of sheer escapism on our screens... and only that. There’s a reason why a Bond film never got an Oscar for Best Picture, Director, Actor or anything else except for special effects. However, it is still a brand which we cannot help but remember fondly: it’s no wonder we keep going back for more.
