Bond re-thought for the twenty-first century

Rating: 8/10 (18 December 2006)

When I reviewed the Timothy Dalton Bond film "Licence to Kill", I mentioned the curious parallels between the Bond movies and the TV series "Dr Who". Both started in the early sixties, and enjoyed considerable success throughout the sixties, seventies and early eighties. In both cases, the series extended by having a succession of actors play the main character, and both series seemed to go into a decline in the late eighties, appearing to come to an end in the same year, 1989.
Both formulae were revived in the mid-nineties, with greater success in the case of Bond than of the Doctor. Although Pierce Brosnan's first three Bond films aroused much more interest than did Paul McGann's "Doctor" movie, by the time of "Die Another Day"- a tired rehash of used Bond plots- the franchise was in trouble again. There was so much recycling going on it should have been awarded the Oscar for Most Ecologically Friendly Script.
When "Dr Who" was revived in 2005, I was surprised by the casting. I could not imagine Christopher Eccleston, a gritty, working-class actor from the English North-West, in the role. In fact, both Eccleston and the revived series proved to be a great success. I was equally surprised by the casting of Daniel Craig, another gritty, working-class actor from the English North-West, as Pierce Brosnan's successor. Much of the speculation as to who would get the part had centred upon Clive Owen and Jason Statham. While Owen made a disappointing action hero in "King Arthur", I was impressed by Statham in the otherwise unimpressive "The Transporter", thinking him a hero worthy of a better film. Craig, however, proves to be as successful in this role as Eccleston was in his.
The film is set right at the beginning of Bond's career, his first mission after achieving his "OO" status. This should have made it a sixties period piece, set immediately before "Dr No", but is clearly set in the present day. (There has never been much attempt at continuity between the Bond films). Bond is assigned to pursue Le Chiffre, a corrupt banker providing financial services to terrorists. Bond frustrates a plan by Le Chiffre to destroy a prototype airliner and thereby to make a financial killing by depressing the shares of the company that built it. This failed scam was financed using funds embezzled from a ruthless Ugandan rebel group, who want their money back. To repay the Ugandans, and thus save his life, Le Chiffre needs to win it back in a poker game. It falls to Bond to try and stop him, with the aid of a beautiful secret agent named Vesper Lynd. The title is derived from the casino in Montenegro where the game is played. (Incidentally, it should be "Casino Royal", "casino" being a masculine noun in French).
The one thing that links this film to the Brosnan era is the presence of Judi Dench as Bond's superior "M". Some of the Bond traditions have been retained. There are chase sequences (the "free running" sequence through the building site was particularly hair-raising), the familiar music, the specially written theme song, the beautiful Bond girl and the exotic locations, in this case Madagascar, the Bahamas, Venice and what was supposed to be Montenegro. (The part of Montenegro was played by the Czech Republic, which made me wonder why they didn't simply set the film, as well as shoot it, in that country).
In other respects, the producers have gone back to basics, rethinking the franchise for the twenty-first century. The big difference between "Casino Royale" and most earlier Bond films is that it is much more serious and less flippant in tone. Gone is John Cleese's "Q" character with his array of gadgets (no bad thing). Gone are the witty quips and one-liners in which Brosnan and Roger Moore used to specialise. Gone are the fantastic plots, which always seemed to revolve around a mad tycoon with ambitions for world domination. Craig's Bond is a hard man doing a hard job, perhaps even harder than Connery's original Bond. Although the plot does not quite qualify as social realism, it is a lot more realistic than most Bond films, tapping into modern concerns about terrorism.
In the past I always took the view that the Bond franchise depended upon a balance between excitement and tongue-in-cheek humour. When the balance was upset, by sliding either into excessive jokiness (some of Roger Moore's outings) or into excessive seriousness ("Licence to Kill") the result was generally a less-than-successful film. "Casino Royale", however, succeeds where "Licence to Kill" failed. Bond may be a hard man, but he remains sympathetic and retains our interest. One reason is that whereas Timothy Dalton in "Licence to Kill" was simply out for personal revenge (leading "M" to revoke his licence), Craig's Bond remains onside. He wants to stop Le Chiffre's schemes, but not for selfish personal motives. On the contrary, he believes passionately in his cause - the fight against terrorism and those who support it. (Very much a cause for the twenty-first century).
Craig also receives good support from Eva Green as Vesper, which means that the downbeat ending works better than it did in "OHMSS", the only previous Bond film to attempt something similar. In that film, there was so little chemistry between George Lazenby and Diana Rigg that I was left not caring about what happened to either of them. In this case, the relationship between Craig and Green is much more complex- initial dislike warming into respect and finally love, before the sudden, shocking denouement.
When I reviewed "Tomorrow Never Dies", I said that Brosnan was the best Bond since Connery. On the basis of "Casino Royale", Daniel Craig might just be the best Bond, full stop. 8/10