Little Storping-in-the-Swuff: James Bond

When Sean Connery strolled onto the screen in 1962′s Dr No, James Bond was already a popular fictional character. Behind the scenes, Fleming had been unconvinced by the casting, but the producers were hoping the success of this debut would ensure it became the first of a series of adaptations of the novels. Connery had a daunting task. But if he’d failed, the project would have been forgotten.

It wasn’t, and, after 20 blockbusting films and 44 years later, an actor has stepped into the role Connery originally defined, and this time he’s being asked to begin it all again, to convince us not just that he’s Bond, but that in him lie the origins of the agent we all feel we know so well. Without any of the trademarks or the formula we recognise, Craig was asked to create a new character that already existed; to pursuade us not that he’s Bond, but that he will be Bond. That never happened to the other fellas.

Each time a new actor stepped into the role before, whether they took things up a notch (Moore) or pared things back (Dalton), the essential formula was carefully preserved with all its familiar trappings, and you felt you could get the true measure of each new Bond only by how they looked in a DJ, how they ordered a Martini, and how they uttered the line “Bond. James Bond.” It was only with Lazenby they dared to try anything new or different in adapting the novel in which Fleming married off Bond: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. With its downbeat ending it wasn’t in the mold of the five films that preceded it, and the Connery was brought straight back in for the next one, a thought that must have been present in Craig’s mind when he considered taking the role.

But there’s one reason why Craig’s been a success: he can act. There’s no doubt in my mind that Daniel Craig is the best actor to take on the role. Good actors have played the part before (as well as some clothes horses) but none as good as this man. They assembled a good cast for this film: Judi Dench, Eva Green and Mads Mikkelsen are all terrific, and contribute in no small measure to making it a drama as well as an entertainment. But the success of Casino Royale rests on the shoulders of one man: Craig. Daniel Craig.

It’s a while since I read the book, and I’d always thought they couldn’t do that scene (with the chair with the cutout seat) apart from anything else.  It’s also quite a short novel, essentially just three acts; the film, by contrast, is the longest Bond yet.

Well, all the essential elements are there, including the eye-watering torture scene (albeit somewhat shortened). The writers have done an excellent job (and I suspect a lot of the credit here goes to Due South and Million Dollar Baby writer Paul Haggis) shaping a well paced, dramatic story with some emotional depth.  It’s excellent to be watching a Fleming story again, and the modern setting works extremely well.  The plot has been adapted to fit a post 9/11, rather than a cold war setting, but for all that it makes little difference to the motivation of the protagonists and it achieves an edgy relevance that the book may have had fifty years ago, but which would have been lost in a period adaptation.

As in the book (which introduced the character), the Bond we know isn’t fully formed yet, although this is played up in the film, with teasers that play on our expectations of the character we know so well.  But all of the details; the little scenes of confrontation, the first encounter with Leiter, even the correct recipe for the Vesper Martini made full use of the source material. The epic card game at the centre of the story is made the centrepiece of the film, too, with time allowed to build the tension and explore the dynamics between the players in that room.
Show ▼

I’m surprised by it, but despite the reinvention of Bond as a totally 21st century spy, this really is a true adaptation of Casino Royale, and it’s terrific.

Bond has rebooted.

All I will say for now is that this is, in my opinion, the best Bond film for 25 years.  Visit Little Storping over the next few days for more detailed analysis, but in the meantime: see it, see it, see it.

I now have in my possession a copy of the Casino Royale soundtrack album (although I haven’t yet listened all the way through).

In small letters on the reverse, in much the same way many products say “suitable for vegetarians”, is the legend “This album does not contain a Chris Cornell recording”.  I am entirely sympathetic with the many music lovers out there who presumably scrutinise each purchase they make to avoid coming into contact with the man’s work.

However, given that the score is interspersed with the theme (co-written by Cornell), perhaps it would be more appropriate to give a warning along the lines “may contain traces of nuts”, as often found on the back of packs of salted, er…peanuts.

I find all the different releases of “You Know My Name” make it difficult to work out if I still hate is as much as before but I think I may have warmed to it a bit. It’s got quite a good theme, but I find the jarring, thumping chorus hugely irritating still, and Cornell’s voice too.

The theme is used extensively in the soundtrack to good effect. The soundtrack will be released on 13th Nov, 3 days before the film comes out, but you can already preview tracks on Sony’s website. It’s a bit unfriendly to Firefox (on Linux, at anyrate) but will let Firefox users play the tracks even if you can’t select them or see the titles.

It’s good. There’s less electronic stuff than on David Arnold’s previous scores although it still gets more bombastic than John Barry’s work. I shall go and place my order right now.

Besides the use of the theme in the cues, the soundtrack will not feature the title song at all. The only other Bond soundtrack I know of where this happened was the second “Tomorrow Never Dies” CD, released with extra tracks that hadn’t been recorded when the first CD came out. Sheryl Crow’s song was missing, although k. d. lang’s end titles song survived. In the case of this “Casino Royale” soundtrack, there probably isn’t room for the Cornell song (and it’s no loss); the CD is packed with music (25 tracks, despite there only being 18 listed on Amazon at the moment – Amazon also seem to have stuck the proper cover on the 1967 film’s soundtrack which is odd).

Beware of looking at the track listings, though, as the title of one track is a MASSIVE SPOILER.

Could this be the worst Bond song ever? I’m trying to remember just how much I hated “Die Another Day” when it first came out (I mellowed after I saw how it was used in the titles) to work out whether I can really say this is the worst Bond song ever, or whether I’ll like it better once I’ve calmed down.

Update: Paul Dunphy on CommanderBond.net has posted with the views from the CBn forum:

Some see it as it as a brave step for the franchise: ushering in a new era, others wonder why an American rock artist was picked at the height of his mediocrity to work on a cock-rock song that is meant to relaunch Britain’s greatest universal export, but sounds more fitting for the end credits of a Spiderman film.

Some see it as the spiritual sister to Wings’ 1973 classic Live And Let Die, others believe it’s as aggressive as a wet fart; that it’s an asinine, lyrically-cliched, fetid turd of a song with no remotely memorable hook and no discernible link to the musical world of James Bond.

It’s certainly not Live and Let Die. But there is a discernible link to the James Bond theme if you listen carefully enough. Anyway, I don’t think he likes it, and I don’t blame him.

There’s a splendidly way out rumour over at MI6.co.uk suggesting that Bond 22 (now titled Four Beddings and an Assassination, presumably) will be written by Richard Curtis of Blackadder and Hugh Grant romcom fame. This follows news last week that Notting Hill director Roger Michell will not direct after all… Well, it’s still got to be better than letting Purvis and Wade get their hands on it.

After rumours that Goldfrapp and Tina Turner were to record the title song for Casino Royale it has finally been confirmed that the song will be written (with David Arnold) and performed by Chris Cornell, and entitled “You Know My Name”. It is unusual for the song to have a different title to the film, although whether the film’s title will feature in the song at all (as in The Spy Who Loved Me‘s Nobody Does It Better) or not (as in Octopussy‘s All Time High) is not yet clear.

I’m not sure who Chris Cornell is, so at the moment I’m a bit disappointed not to be getting a Goldfrapp Bond theme.

EON have announced that Bond 22 will be released on May 2nd 2008, ending speculation that they were going for a 45th Anniversary “007 in 2007″ follow up to Casino Royale. The release will, however, be in the month of Fleming’s centenary.

It didn’t used to take so long for the next film to come out. Although 2 years is a big improvement on the 4 preceding Casino Royale or even the 3 preceding Die Another Day, the first four films were released a year apart.

• Bond 22 will star Daniel Craig (it is rumoured the pre-title sequence follows directly from Casino Royale and has already been shot).
• It will be based on an original idea by producer Michael Wilson, who hasn’t been involved in writing since Licence to Kill.
• It is rumoured that Neil Purvis and Robert Wade, who worked on the the last four Bond movies as well as Johnny English won’t be back. Hurrah.
• Nothing further has been confirmed about the possibility of Tom Stoppard working on the screenplay for Bond 22.
• Notting Hill director Roger Michell is rumoured to be directing.

There is also a rumour that the film will be titled Risico. This is one of the five unused Fleming short story titles along with The Hildebrand Rarity, Quantum of Solace, The Property of a Lady and 007 in New York. The plot from the short story Risico has already been used (in 1981′s For Your Eyes Only). Since 1989′s Licence to Kill the film’s titles have not been Fleming’s, until this year’s still to be released Casino Royale, which will use Fleming’s plot.