Why Casino Royale is the best Bond ever...

Ugh. Dig a little deeper man. It highlights all the reasons why the film is rubbish, one or two points aside.

I find his analysis deep yet gritty.

Just needed more shake cam when highlighting Fleming quotes.

I made my response on the yt site, its a typical case of internet era pretension that completely ignores context, originality and creativity (the latter two are completely absent from CR). The best/greatest Bond has to come from the first 5 imo because from that moment out only LTK every really messes with the formula (CR's route of excluding some while Bournifying others doesn't remotely qualify imo). Best bond for me is OHMSS the ultimate evolution of the film and the last to add to the mythos with total success, with the greatest Bond being Dr No - here it is a case of 90% of what is Bond being created from scratch with few precedents or resources to rely on so its not just the greatest Bond but one of the greatest movies of all time.

I became a Bond fan because of the Roger Moore formula. If you love those variables, CR could never be the best Bond ever. I still appreciate it for what is is though and it was a welcome change after DAD.

lachesis wrote:

I made my response on the yt site, its a typical case of internet era pretension that completely ignores context, originality and creativity (the latter two are completely absent from CR). The best/greatest Bond has to come from the first 5 imo because from that moment out only LTK every really messes with the formula (CR's route of excluding some while Bournifying others doesn't remotely qualify imo). Best bond for me is OHMSS the ultimate evolution of the film and the last to add to the mythos with total success, with the greatest Bond being Dr No - here it is a case of 90% of what is Bond being created from scratch with few precedents or resources to rely on so its not just the greatest Bond but one of the greatest movies of all time.

Hehe, I must have been agreeing with you, scorp ian.

bitchcraft wrote:

I became a Bond fan because of the Roger Moore formula. If you love those variables, CR could never be the best Bond ever. I still appreciate it for what is is though and it was a welcome change after DAD.

If you love James Bond variables, CR couldn't be the best Bond ever.

I don't know how anybody couldn't consider Casino Royale the best Bond movie. I mean David Niven, Peter Sellers, Orson Welles, music by Burt Bacharach and Herb Alpert ... oh, that Casino Royale.

I might be a bit late to reply to this video as lachesis has already given a good case against it but I think this Youtuber might be overthinking the film just a tad bit. The whole "breaking down his masculinity" thing seems to be his own projections onto the film as it's quite clear it's just an attempt at "gritty" action and not much more. The Bond in that film screws up frequently not because his manliness keeps getting in the way but because he's an insolent amateur with little charm and a habit for breaking into his boss' flat. If the film is really meant as a critique of Bond's masculinity then Babs and her crew totally failed in presentation and have only coasted along due to humanity's current obsession with being armchair psychologists.

I actually really like it.
I have said before that I am not interested in the categories "good" or "bad" when it comes or preference or taste. His thesis statement is that the Bond franchise hinges on masculinity and so CR is the "best" film because it illustrates, questions, and constructs this issue best (which is a fair deal, you can like it or you can hate it; but he has done his homework).

I really love that he shows how the film first constructs Bond as Bond; takes him apart and then shows him as strong and powerful agent again. Of course it is no coincidence that the torture scene is what it is. This is a threat to his masculinity. And I love his point that this is Bond without his gadgets.
I say he is without his gadgets because that is Fleming's Bond (the torture scene). Fleming's Bond didn't have fancy gadgets. And he points out that Fleming's imagination was so much more refined than what we see on screen. No "sharks with laser beams on their heads", but a direct threat to Bond's masculinity.
This is not only about constructing Bond, this is about questioning who is "Bond"? Does he need the visual markers from the filmic formula or isn't he a character of Fleming? Following this analysis I'd say CR oscillates between both media.
And I do love that he points out the role of the strong women. It It does not mean that Bond is stupid or weak. It only means that women are not stupid and weak, or decoration, but counsellors and friends.

And, COME ON, Bond is about

M A S C U L I N I T Y

Please. It has always been and always will be. And there's nothing wrong with it. Men's Studies are not less complex than Feminism. Or less interesting. Or less important. Or less whatever.

Bond is at his most emasculated in CR, so I find that hard to believe...

But I do appreciate your levelling of gender politics, which has become rarer in your breed.

Why CR '06 is not Bond at all.
Answer: The film itself.

Kath wrote:

Men's Studies are not less complex than Feminism. Or less interesting. Or less important.

At best these things are navel gazing. At worst they're deliberately divisive and destructive.

FieldsMan wrote:

the guy who lauds CR as being the best Bond ever because it deconstructed Bond.

FieldsMan wrote:

Bond is at his most emasculated in CR, so I find that hard to believe...

Something can't be the "most of something" when it's (de)constructed. (De)construction means that something needs to be constructed first and then you take it apart. You do get the "most of it", but only on the peak of (de)construction.
The peak here, as far as I understand the video, are the gaming scenes. Bond gets his suit; Bond takes down the aggressors; survives poison; gets closer to Vesper when she's finally not "petulant" anymore.
And then we get the most definite attack on masculinity ever possible. Don't make me point that out. Bond being tied to a chair, naked, and... and...and is NOT his most emasculated position. It is the least. And we only see it in CR. Fleming wanted it in CR. This is, next to Vesper, the trauma that makes Bond Bond.
And, without going into the depths of Men's studies. We have something extremely extraordinary and debated here. Manly tears. That's why the camera focuses on his eyes during Vesper's death scene. He's at the brink of crying. I am pretty sure that he does actually cry; but I would have to check it out.
I am not entering the gender discourse here because these are murky waters; but in a traditional way of male gendering, tears are to be avoided at every cost. The man is a soldier, a fighter, a brave whatever. And he does not cry. Ever. This is Bond crying, of all people. He is not at his most emasculated here. You can't sell that to me. The shot of his muscled stomach does not change that.
And, I am not saying that this is a bad thing, right.

And aside, everyone who is able to put together a decent (de)construction gets my approval. The big difficulty is to spot this thing and he has seen it. He hasn't created it. That's not how it works. You must spot things that are already there.

FieldsMan wrote:

But I do appreciate your levelling of gender politics, which has become rarer in your breed.

I am sure that most specimen of that breed are very happy to be referred to as "breed"...

Erica Ambler wrote:

At best these things are navel gazing. At worst they're deliberately divisive and destructive.

I actually think that it is mostly men who have been involved with Men's Studies. Well, that doesn't necessarily weaken your point, I know.

FieldsMan wrote:

But I do appreciate your levelling of gender politics, which has become rarer in your breed.

That's a very separatist way of seeing things. Nothing worse than the sexes fighting each other. Who profits from it?

Kath wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

At best these things are navel gazing. At worst they're deliberately divisive and destructive.

I actually think that it is mostly men who have been involved with Men's Studies. Well, that doesn't necessarily weaken your point, I know.

Women used to be my main pleasure in life. It's terrible that things have come to this.

Erica Ambler wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

But I do appreciate your levelling of gender politics, which has become rarer in your breed.

That's a very separatist way of seeing things. Nothing worse than the sexes fighting each other. Who profits from it?

Yes, agreed!
That goes in the same direction as my contemplation about the gaze. Aggression and counter-aggression. The fight of the breeds? Survival of the fittest? Are we with Darwin now?

And, just another point. I am not talking about gender politics. This is purely about the fictional representation of a highly gendered (masculine) character. This is not about MEN. This is about Bond. What exactly are we talking about?

Erica Ambler wrote:

Kath wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

At best these things are navel gazing. At worst they're deliberately divisive and destructive.

I actually think that it is mostly men who have been involved with Men's Studies. Well, that doesn't necessarily weaken your point, I know.

Women used to be my main pleasure in life. It's terrible that things have come to this.

I'm not sure what we're talking about now. I meant, IIRC, Men's Studies as an academic discipline have been put forward by men. So, they are, more or less, writing "about themselves". You know what I mean? But I do agree that, in general perception, the manly discourse is often reduced to the two categories of the brute and the softie.

Kath wrote:

Men's Studies as an academic discipline have been put forward by men. So, they are, more or less, writing "about themselves". You know what I mean?

No, I don't know what you mean. Men don't feel any connection with each other because of their gender; another man is just a stranger, friend, enemy or competitor. And despite the relentless propaganda, I don't believe the majority of ordinary women think of themselves as this hive-like organism connected by the possession of vaginas either. It's all Marxist mouth of madness bullshit.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Kath wrote:

Men's Studies as an academic discipline have been put forward by men. So, they are, more or less, writing "about themselves". You know what I mean?

No, I don't know what you mean. Men don't feel any connection with each other because of their gender; another man is just a stranger, friend, enemy or competitor. And despite the relentless propaganda, I don't believe the majority of ordinary women think of themselves as this hive-like organism connected by the possession of vaginas either. It's all Marxist mouth of madness bullshit.

This means most of all that sex defines who you are; who your peer group is; whom you are attracted to; and what you are supposed to be and then we can safely flash gender down the toilet. That's a backlash against gender studies. And this only works for heteronormativity anyway. Your argument is the very core of gender politics, I'd say.   Because, if you turn it the other way round, it becomes horribly prescriptive.

I simply mean that Men's Studies have been, to a large part, been put forward by men, such as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Brod,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Messner

Nothing exciting.

Erica Ambler wrote:

At best these things are navel gazing. At worst they're deliberately divisive and destructive.

I just think if men have been involved in the movement it is not deliberately destructive. They wouldn't hurt themselves, right? This just sounds like women are pointing fingers at men and considering that Men's Studies are somewhat grounded in Feminism this may seem very true. But, surprisingly, it is not (only) women who put this forward. I think it is unlikely that it is supposed to be an attack on men because it was supported by men. It's no big deal, I just think to some men at least it does not seem destructive or they wouldn't participate. Can we agree to that?

Kath wrote:

Your argument is the very core of gender politics, I'd say.    Because, if you turn it the other way round, it becomes horribly prescriptive.

DNA is exactly that: prescriptive. In the 2016 census, just 2.0% of the UK population aged 16 and over identified themselves as LGB.

If it's any consolation to those unable to accept the so-called heteronormative reality (millennials and the metropolitan elite), I expect the LGBXYZ figure to increase markedly in the next few years if only through preference rather than biology. What heterosexual hasn't listened to the recent discourse and felt that the opposite sex is more trouble than it's worth?

Kath wrote:

I just think to some men at least it does not seem destructive or they wouldn't participate.

Some men will do anything for a fuck, including betraying their own interests. It's that all-powerful biological imperative again. As Alice Thomas Ellis said, “There is no reciprocity. Men love women. Women love children. Children love hamsters. Hamsters don't love anyone; it is quite hopeless".”

Erica Ambler wrote:

Kath wrote:

Your argument is the very core of gender politics, I'd say.    Because, if you turn it the other way round, it becomes horribly prescriptive.

DNA is exactly that: prescriptive. In the 2016 census, just 2.0% of the UK population aged 16 and over identified themselves as LGB.

If it's any consolation to those unable to accept the so-called heteronormative reality (millennials and the metropolitan elite), I expect the LGBXYZ figure to increase markedly in the next few years if only through preference rather than biology. What heterosexual hasn't listened to the recent discourse and felt that the opposite sex is more trouble than it's worth?

I am not sure if numbers matter. The discourse does not change whether it refers to a majority or a minority. The term "heteronormativity", as far as I know, indicates sexual discrimination. Everyone who is not heterosexual is against the 'norm'. Norm means prescription etc. etc. etc. We are not to embrace a heteronormative society; but it is fine to accept a society that might be in its majority heterosexual. As long as parents accept that their offspring might walk a different path; there is nothing wrong with that.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Kath wrote:

I just think to some men at least it does not seem destructive or they wouldn't participate.

Some men will do anything for a fuck, including betraying their own interests. It's that all-powerful biological imperative again. As Alice Thomas Ellis said, “There is no reciprocity. Men love women. Women love children. Children love hamsters. Hamsters don't love anyone; it is quite hopeless".”

If they are successful at getting sexual intercourse they are following their interests, right?

Kath wrote:

 I am not sure if numbers matter.

They matter. Numbers are the basis of successful societies and democracies.

Kath wrote:

 We are not to embrace a heteronormative society.

Why? Because you say so?

Kath wrote:

 As long as parents accept that their offspring might walk a different path.

That's for them to decide.   

Kath wrote:

 If they are successful at getting sexual intercourse they are following their interests, right?

Wrong.

Erica Ambler wrote:

They matter. Numbers are the basis of successful societies and democracies.

So, as long as we only harass a minority, it is all right?

Erica Ambler wrote:

Kath wrote:

 We are not to embrace a heteronormative society.

Why? Because you say so?

To rule-out discrimination.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Kath wrote:

 As long as parents accept that their offspring might walk a different path.

That's for them to decide.

Are you promoting discrimination? Suppression of the free will?

Erica Ambler wrote:

Kath wrote:

 If they are successful at getting sexual intercourse they are following their interests, right?

Wrong.

Why? It seems to befit your former observation:

Erica Ambler wrote:

It's that all-powerful biological imperative again. As Alice Thomas Ellis said, “There is no reciprocity. Men love women.

Kath wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

They matter. Numbers are the basis of successful societies and democracies.

So, as long as we only harass a minority, it is all right?

How can your say equal rights and equal opportunity is harassment of a minority?

Kath wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Kath wrote:

 We are not to embrace a heteronormative society.

Why? Because you say so?

To rule-out discrimination.

Again, protection of minorities is already enshrined in law. As is equal rights and equal opportunity.

Kath wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Kath wrote:

 As long as parents accept that their offspring might walk a different path.

That's for them to decide.

Are you promoting discrimination? Suppression of the free will?

No, but you are. Don't you think it's for parents to decide whether or not they accept what their children do?

Kath wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Kath wrote:

 If they are successful at getting sexual intercourse they are following their interests, right?

Wrong.

Why?

Because sex is often no more meaningful than sneezing. Whereas freedom of speech is the foundation on which all else depends.

Kath wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Kath wrote:

Your argument is the very core of gender politics, I'd say.    Because, if you turn it the other way round, it becomes horribly prescriptive.

DNA is exactly that: prescriptive. In the 2016 census, just 2.0% of the UK population aged 16 and over identified themselves as LGB.

If it's any consolation to those unable to accept the so-called heteronormative reality (millennials and the metropolitan elite), I expect the LGBXYZ figure to increase markedly in the next few years if only through preference rather than biology. What heterosexual hasn't listened to the recent discourse and felt that the opposite sex is more trouble than it's worth?

I am not sure if numbers matter.

Sorry Kath, but I'm not sure how you could dismiss numbers or statistics and then expect to have a serious discussion.

Control wrote:

Kath wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Kath wrote:

Your argument is the very core of gender politics, I'd say.    Because, if you turn it the other way round, it becomes horribly prescriptive.

DNA is exactly that: prescriptive. In the 2016 census, just 2.0% of the UK population aged 16 and over identified themselves as LGB.

If it's any consolation to those unable to accept the so-called heteronormative reality (millennials and the metropolitan elite), I expect the LGBXYZ figure to increase markedly in the next few years if only through preference rather than biology. What heterosexual hasn't listened to the recent discourse and felt that the opposite sex is more trouble than it's worth?

I am not sure if numbers matter.

Sorry Kath, but I'm not sure how you could dismiss numbers or statistics and then expect to have a serious discussion.

Because it's a discussion about principles.

Kath wrote:

Control wrote:

Sorry Kath, but I'm not sure how you could dismiss numbers or statistics and then expect to have a serious discussion.

Because it's a discussion about principles.

This is nothing to do with principles unless you mean the distortion of them. It's about attacking free speech to prevent dissent; about powerful lobby groups with thinly disguised agendas; about the universities' abuse of public money and tenured positions; about some minorities thinking equal rights and equal opportunities are not enough.

Suppression of free speech is the hallmark of authoritarianism. It's not liberalism in any previously accepted sense of the word.

In a world where you can be kicked out via e-mail for defending your work and yourself has the freedom of speech died a long time ago. You need to be demure and submissive.

When you have witnessed that people are given a job despite their ignorance about the basics, you conclude that it is submission and a "smile-to-everything-the-boss-says"-attitude you need instead of competence.
Freedom of speech. Tsss. Dragons, Santa Claus, the tooth-fairy. Unicorns.