The "more realistic" James Bond delusion

I started that one but haven't finished it yet. This channel has some interesting bits of analysis I've watched before. He did a Moonraker to 2001 links comparison analysis not too long ago that touched on some ideas I've had before.

Couldn't be arsed watching the whole thing, but yeah, no one should go into these films thinking they're in any way realistic in their depictions of action, espionage etc. There was a lot of "realism" fetishisation in the early days of Craig that's a tad silly when you consider what the franchise is all about. Just get tanked and enjoy the ride.

Sure, there are franchise entries that have 'a foot' in the real world - FRWL, for example.

But then, you've the likes of hotel staff knowing Bond by name (whatever happened to the 'secret' part of 'secret agent', lol?) and offering him 'your usual suite' (even in the Dalton films). And even the Craig era has its rooftop chases, train-top punch-ups etc. which I somehow doubt your average field agent is involved in.

hegottheboot wrote:

I started that one but haven't finished it yet. This channel has some interesting bits of analysis I've watched before. He did a Moonraker to 2001 links comparison analysis not too long ago that touched on some ideas I've had before.

I posted it before I watched it so I wouldn't forget and I did so based on liking some of his previous analysis. The Kubrick ones were good for example but this whole bit was boring and pointless.

I did find him saying that Craig's Bond is unlikable interesting because I feel the opposite and that's what really makes his movies for me. of all of them he seems the most human by far

Craig's Bond is the most realistic and human in the sense he's all the shittest people you know rolled into one grumbling lump of a man.

I'll have to check out this video Sarai! Thanks for sharing. Sounds right up my alley.

CJB wrote:

Craig's Bond is the most realistic and human in the sense he's all the shittest people you know rolled into one grumbling lump of a man.

Boy, post of the year! There's no 'joy of doing' in his Bond (something I felt some of the time with Brosnan, except maybe with the RC car in TND), just somebody executing rather automatically what he is trained to do.

It's strange to me still how Connery's Bond can come off as somewhat detestable when discussing the girl with Kerim, yet I still remain fully engaged afterward. It doesn't stick or stink like it could with a less charismatic -- well, charismatic is a loaded word, let's say compelling -- portrayal. There's a lot of attitude in Connery's portrayal, which comes through even with 'someone's probably lost a dog,' and it is usually quite appealing.

It's like Craig is playing to no audience, not even the characters in the scenes, almost like he is reading the script for the first time aloud, without context. There's just an utter disconnect there, and that just magnifies my issues of the visual end, as I see him as looking completely and utterly wrong in every damn frame.

Well said. I still don't know who Craig's Bond is really made to appeal to. Be wary of meeja types now uniformly praising him as the best Bond ever.

Thanks to whoever bumped this. Been meaning to check it out.

Trev wrote:

Boy, post of the year! There's no 'joy of doing' in his Bond (something I felt some of the time with Brosnan, except maybe with the RC car in TND), just somebody executing rather automatically what he is trained to do.

Rubbish. Bond's glee at discovering Christmas in Kazakhstan, or wondering around the casino with the specs, or his room service in Hong Kong, along with his interactions with Peaceful, enjoying Frost by the car, his interactions with Wade in TND and latter end of GE, the smiling approval of his phone fingerprint scanner working in Carver's office... the joie de vivre is undeniably palpable.

Trev wrote:

It's strange to me still how Connery's Bond can come off as somewhat detestable when discussing the girl with Kerim, yet I still remain fully engaged afterward. It doesn't stick or stink like it could with a less charismatic -- well, charismatic is a loaded word, let's say compelling -- portrayal. There's a lot of attitude in Connery's portrayal, which comes through even with 'someone's probably lost a dog,' and it is usually quite appealing.

In the case of the dog line, perhaps it's due to his tapping into the everyday dynamics between boss and employee- the former sweating the small stuff and the employees groaning at it. As for Bond and Kerim's discussion of Tanya, it's the charm in his performance combined with the nature of the honeytrap operation. It's adult territory and they aren't patronising their audience by assuming we'd side with Tanya, at that stage, on the basis of her gender. After all, she could very well be playing Bond, and the stakes are high.

Trev wrote:

It's like Craig is playing to no audience, not even the characters in the scenes, almost like he is reading the script for the first time aloud, without context. There's just an utter disconnect there, and that just magnifies my issues of the visual end, as I see him as looking completely and utterly wrong in every damn frame.

This is a perfect assessment and I'm glad someone else feels the same. It perfectly encapsulates my issues with Craig's acting: there's a huge disconnect between what's on the page and his delivery and it all sounds so performed and not embodied-- which taps into the 'first read without context' idea you propose. I feel it's as though someone pulled him up on his diction after QOS especially and he's made a conscious effort to articulate every sound in every word but it doesn't work. CJB's observation that Craig sound's like an overgrown baby when he says "you no the whol stow-ee' in SF never fails to amuse.