Published Nov. 16, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
Published Online Nov. 18, 2006 by Youth500
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Dec. 19, 2007)
As you read this, you are less than 24 hours away from a smorgasbord of males of various ages (and some females, too) drooling over fast cars, faster women, perfectly cut dinner jackets, gun battles and ridiculous innuendo-laced one-liners.
This could be Singles Night at the Palms Las Vegas, any night in Atlantic City or, heaven forbid, your date this weekend. But no, I speak of the latest James Bond flick, to be released nationwide Friday.
This latest baby of MGM, called “Casino Royale,” promises to revitalize and renew the venerable 007 franchise. A new plot, revised action sequences and even a brand-new Bond actor have been introduced.
There has been much controversy regarding the actor, blonde-haired Daniel Craig, who is said to be too far removed from author Ian Fleming's original image of Bond. Even so, many longtime Bond fans argue that any change would be a welcome one, given that many feel the quality of films had dipped to abysmal levels.
Although the Walther-wielding super-spy continued to generate box-office dollars into the late 80s and early 90s, the acclaim and popularity of the movies were a far cry from the 60s and 70s.
A number of factors likely caused this. The concept of a suave, debonair secret agent risking all for queen and country, and washing it down with a vodka martini, does not get old: It's almost timeless in entertainment value.
Other aspects of the movies, however, were, and to some extent, are dated. Prominent among these is the portrayal of women.
The proverbial Bond girl (such as Ursula Andress as Honey Rider — pictured) is the personification of ideal femininity, or at least the circa-1965 misogynistic idea of femininity. In the movies, she was expected to not think for herself, to always need a strong man for her protection and to always look good in very little clothing.
This image was reinforced in repeated screen adaptations of the admittedly dark novels. Women that tried to follow their own path or tried and act independently almost always somehow found themselves in great peril, and thus needed the male presence of Bond to help them solve the problems they had caused.
The idea was that a woman simply could not exist intellectually and powerfully for her own sake. Everything about her was somehow tied to male figures.
It's difficult to lay blame solely on the writers and directors of the films, or even Fleming.
In the pre-feminism days of 007's genesis, the prevailing view of society was that a woman was a delicate creature best suited to stay at home and cede control to the men in her life. The first Bond movies were released at a time when feminism still hadn't taken root; it was still lumped together with other so-called radical movements.
Any movie seeking to profit on sheer entertainment value could not hope to do so by embracing a philosophy so far removed from mainstream society as gender equality. This is just as true for a movie centered on an alpha male type of character.
There is nothing wrong with movies reflecting society, as long as they do so accurately. What was normal and accepted conduct 40 years ago is very out of place, and even downright offensive, in today's world. Women have made great strides and are in almost every way equal to their male counterparts in all facets of society.
To the credit of the minds behind the Bond films, attempts have been made to reflect this on the silver screen. The last Bond movie saw, for the first time, an equally efficient female counterpart acting independently and, for a time, against Bond in her own extensive counter-espionage activities.
Unfortunately, that portrayal was within a royally bad effort that was the target of a plethora of complaints regarding production and presentation. The negative aspects of the film became tied to the portrayal of such an independent and prominent female character within the 007 universe, which was a very unjustified and unfair connection to make.
The brains behind Bond probably know that change in certain aspects of popular films is necessary if the films are to remain popular in the future. The persona and world of 007 are, however, so ingrained in the minds of the audience that major change would likely result in another complaint fiasco much like the last flick.
As paradoxical as it may sound, the thing to do is to reinvent the franchise completely, which is what has been planned for “Casino Royale.”
By removing the traces to the Bond of yore, all expectations and ideas regarding the old character are also removed.
Thus, female characters' behavior and ideas will not be readily compared by most moviegoers, as the older movies will seem different enough to be about a completely different main character. At least that seems to have been the idea.
It's commendable that a franchise as venerable and popular as James Bond has seen fit to introduce change to keep up with a more enlightened viewpoint. Before heaping praise too highly, however, the finished product must be seen.
If the movie is successful in presenting new viewpoints in a well-finished and engaging product, it will truly have succeeded in bringing the eternal Bond to a new generation of fans while reflecting the society that they call their own.
If it fails, the franchise will have begun the painful journey to eventually become nothing more than an anachronism in the years to come.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment