With Casino Royale on the horizon, my anticipation just keeps growing for 007’s next outing. While honestly, I would have been perfectly happy keeping the same Bond I’ve been watching for years for at least one more outing, there’s still a great measure of excitement in seeing a new interpretation of the character. Daniel Craig will be the sixth Bond and the fourth man in my lifetime to play 007, and I welcome seeing the actor try to bring new wrinkles to the time-honored role. What’s interesting is to ponder whether this next Bond film’s fortunes will be hurt by the fact that the actor is replacing a Bond who has been very popular. Unlike when Pierce Brosnan took over the franchise, Craig will have to face up to simply being different from a beloved placeholder for 007. When his predecessor had to step up to take the 007 mantle, there were whole new sets of problems facing the franchise.
After the disappointing box office of License to Kill, James Bond was at his lowest point ever. For the first time in over two decades, the British Secret Agent had not only had his rare box office failure, but worse had seemed to have finally become irrelevant. With the world celebrating the end of the Cold War, why would audiences embrace a character that had always been a part of that world? The fight to prevent nuclear war between the world’s superpowers had been a key element in so many of Bond’s adventures, and yet here he was, with seemingly no one left to fight. Coming up with a socially relevant enemy in License to Kill had also done him no good either, as many audience members thought that fighting drug dealers and hoods was beneath the world’s greatest agent.
Not helping was the public perception of Timothy Dalton. His hard-edged, more human Bond didn’t gel with 007 fans, who had been used to the glamorous fantasy of the series. Without fan support, there’s simply no way to hold on to such a coveted role. Summarily, though he was contracted for another outing, Timothy Dalton opted not to be shaken and stirred for a third time.
An exhaustive search for a new James Bond was beginning. Names such as Liam Neeson, Mel Gibson, Sam Neill, Hugh Grant and Lambert Wilson were thrown around, but in the end the man who had all but wrapped up the role in 1986 before unforeseen circumstances forced him out, would finally get to put on his tux and get to fire his Walther PPK. By far the public’s number one choice, Pierce Brosnan seemed perfect for the role, but would he be able to survive in these rocky political times? Would the public come back to Bond, even after giving them the man they wanted? Fear should have been the last emotion the Producers of 007 would have felt as they released their next Bond adventure. Without a doubt, 007 was back and in a big, big way.
Goldeneye Starring Pierce Brosnan, Izabella Scorupco and Famke Janssen. Directed by Martin Campbell.
With License to Kill coming up short in so many ways in the public’s perception, the film makers of Goldeneye must unveil a tremendous weapon for James Bond to wield in order to win back his fans: nostalgia. More powerful that any gadget that Q could produce or any laser constructed by SPECTRE, Goldeneye is built on the foundation of giving fans the Bond moments they have always loved.
An opening battle with time tested Soviet foes feels right at home in this universe, even as the world outside the theater had the U.S. and Russia becoming allies. A pre-credits stunt involving Bond jumping over a cliff to catch a falling airplane recalls images in the mind of the amazing aerial stunt-work performed in The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker. Moments later, Bond’s Aston Martin flies around hilly roads just as Sean Connery did early on in Goldfinger, and then an assassination plot involving a double and a femme fatale happen faster than you can say Thunderball.
By giving fans exactly what they would want, Goldeneye immediately received much of the goodwill back that had been lost in the previous era, and the man who would benefit most from this warm reception was Brosnan himself. From the outset, it was obvious the actor had all the tools to make him the next great 007. To some degree it was as if Brosnan was able to be the roguish charmer of the Connery Bond, as well as display the sophisticated wit of Moore’s Bond. Brosnan was the best of both worlds.
He was also a suitable man of action, as he was able to display time and again, making his foes look laughable at times. Even Roger Moore could look stiff at times, especially with hand to hand combat scenes. No Bond could probably supplant Sean Connery in this department, but these scenes seemed to bring out the inner brawler in Brosnan, able to hold his own against formidable opponents such as Famke Janssen’s Xenia Onatopp or Gottfried John’s General Ourumov.
The plot is classic Bond as well. A weapon called Goldeneye, a satellite that emits an electro-magnetic pulse the magnitude of a nuclear weapon, has fallen into the hands of an international terrorist named Janus. Not knowing whom this Janus is, Bond must infiltrate his organization to try and learn his identity. Using contacts in the underworld and battling deadly foes, Bond’s adventure takes him from Moscow to Cuba, trying to find Janus before a major city faces the consequences.
While Goldeneye does a wonderful job of being a throwback, the film also displays the willingness to look forward as well. This was a new beginning for Bond, and can be looked at as a step into building a bit more modern franchise. First and foremost example of this is with Bond as a character in this movie. For the first time, 007 seems more self aware of his situation. Comments are made about stopping megalomaniacs, and other of the film’s quips regard the revolving door of women and vodka martinis in Bond’s life. This is a more world weary Bond, keeping women at bay in regards to his feelings in order for him to survive and do his job. Perhaps Timothy Dalton’s contribution to the character shines through a bit, as Bond shows a rare moment of vulnerability to the film’s resident Bond Girl Natalya Fyodorovna Simonova (Izabella Scorupco).
Another huge step is the introduction of Bond’s new superior in Judi Denc’s M. Making M a woman is a huge move. M says early on how she regards Bond as a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur” and “a relic of the Cold War”. She’s a harder character than previous M’s, and without a doubt shares the spot with Bernard Lee as the most memorable person to hold the role. Casting Judi Dench is a shot of genius in this film and hopefully she will keep the role for at least another decade.
Another thing I also love about this movie is how characters are added that start a type of mini-continuity for Brosnan’s Bond. With Felix Leiter getting disabled in the previous entry, Joe Don Baker steps up as Bond’s CIA contact, Agent Jack Wade. This character is awesome, as Baker plays up his laid back persona as the anti-Bond, dressing in parkas and Hawaiian shirts and driving a broken down compact car instead of a top-of-the-line model. I’m very much saddened that Wade does not appear in The World is Not Enough or Die Another Day, as he brings some nice levity to the entries he appears in.
Another terrific character is Robbie Coltrane’s Valentin Zukovsky, a former KGB Agent now working underground in the black market. Again, this character is mostly a tool of levity for the picture. Zukovsky has a wonderful dynamic, as he was supposedly a rival to Bond when he was an agent, but Bond still shows a degree of respect to Valentin. They’re rivalry is playful, but still tension filled, making for memorable sequences in the picture.
No Bond film would be complete without Bond Girls and Bond Villains, and Famke Janssen’s Xenia Onatopp gives you both. Ranking with the best henchmen of the entire series, including Oddjob and Jaws, Xenia is an unstoppable force of sexual ferociousness and unbridled evil. Being choked to death by a woman’s thighs never looked so inviting, as the femme fatale actually climaxes by killing men in this way. Janssen is so over the top that she is probably the film’s most memorable character and definitely the most imposing of the film’s heavies.
I had actually planned on covering Brosnan’s first two entries as 007 in this column, but Goldeneye is a rich enough experience that it was able to fill an entire column. The movie was a terrific experience upon its release in theaters in 1995 and it’s still a great one now. By embracing what had come before them and also taking a distinct direction into future entries, Goldeneye was able to quench the thirsts of audiences that have always loved Bond and one’s that wanted something new. The result was a film where the box office was enough to eclipse Moonrake’s hold as the highest grossing 007 picture ever. Goldeneye is more than just box office numbers though, as the movie stood as the best Bond since The Spy Who Loved Me, and was able to give Brosnan the start to an incredible run as the world’s greatest Secret Agent.
So believe it or not, I do get mail every once in a while about this column, and I figured I’d start to publish the emails as a way to say thanks for writing as well as a way to get my pathetic, lazy self motivated to write these guys back. So without further ado, this is the first official edition of Mail Bag!
This week we got a letter from Brian Paige about my Timothy Dalton column who writes,
I wouldn’t really say that For Your Eyes Only failed to find an audience, nor Living Daylights. Living Daylights did slightly better at the box office than the last Moore outing A View to a Kill did. For Your Eyes Only did a bit weaker box office than the Moore outings before and after it (Moonraker, Octopussy), but I should think it’s mainly because there isn’t all that much you can hype in that one. It’s kind of a bland, uneventful Bond movie aside from the absurd killing off of Blofeld in the opening scene…such a lame death for a long running heel.
That said, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service certainly did make less than the Connery outings. It made about 22 million, whereas You Only Live Twice before it made 43 million and Diamonds Are Forever made 43 as well. That’s a scary drop off. I think in addition to the audience rejecting Lazenby as a Connery wannabe, the film was very bleak and downbeat. Before this film Bond always foils the villain’s scheme, kills the bad guy, and gets the girl. In OHMSS he does kinda foil Blofeld’s plot, but Blofeld has his wife killed and basically escapes at the end.
I agree with you that OHMSS is one of the best in the series. In fact if Connery had been in it I would say it is the best, but Lazenby (or anyone else really) doesn’t quite work in some scenes. The scene with Bond packing up his stuff after quitting for instance…we see him reminisce and the themes from previous movies play, but the thing is that was Connery we saw in those films and not Lazenby so it doesn’t ring true.
I personally find it odd that the events of OHMSS never figure into the series much after it. Something like Blofeld killing Bond’s wife should have been a massive plot development, but after the first 5 mins. Of Diamonds Are Forever the series basically forgets it (I will give a nod to FYEO, where Bond is grieving over her grave at the beginning). Aside from a brief mention in Spy Who Loved Me where XXX mentions his dead wife, it really never affects Bond as a character in any way.
As far as Craig goes, I dunno what kind of Bond he will make. I do appreciate the trailers I’ve seen though, it seems more serious than the last couple of Brosnan ones. I’m not sure people like serious Bond movies though, so I’d expect this film to not necessarily flop at the box office, but do quite a bit less business than the Brosnan era.
Brian Paige
Thanks for writing in Brian. Well as far as The Living Daylights goes, I think the movie is generally considered a failure because of its association with Timothy Dalton. The movie did OK Box Office, but wasn’t enough to really set the world on fire. It also wasn’t enough of a success that the producers considered License to Kill a one shot failure. Dalton just didn’t have the staying power as Bond with audiences and while curiosity about a new 007 may have given it OK numbers, time hasn‘t been kind to The Living Daylights and it’s been worse to License to Kill.
I will say that I disagree about For Your Eyes Only. While the movie isn’t big on spectacle, that was kind of the whole point. There was a sense that Bond had gotten too big and film makers wouldn’t be able to top it. So they decided that they wouldn’t even try and went with a kind of reset button. The movie probably resembles the Moore adventure closest to Ian Fleming’s character from the novel. I personally think the movie is just below The Spy Who Loved Me (my favorite Bond film), though I admit its not as fun as the completely over the top Moonraker.
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is awesome, so I pretty much agree with you there. The movie’s reputation seems to grow every year, but I think that because of the nature of the Bond franchise, to cite that he’s been married and give too much emphasis on it would take away from the escapist tone of the movies. Maybe those looking for another “low key” 007 entry to compliment Casino Royale could do much worse. I can’t wait for Casino Royale and my own personal Bond marathon keeps going at my house right up to the movie’s release this weekend. Hope it’s awesome and everyone goes out to support the new movie. So that’s it for this week. More 007 Shaking and Stirring next week!
Picture Credits: jamesbond007.net, impawards.com
