What is BlogalongaBond? Find out here.
Before we go on read this from The Incredible Suit. I reference his Live and Let Die piece a couple of times.
Yet again, for the second consecutive BlogalongaBond assignment, I am technically a month behind. The reasons for my unacceptable tardiness are threefold. Firstly the less than dynamic duo of procrastination and laziness, have repeatedly thwarted my plans. Secondly I have been at least a little bit busy. And finally, as other bloggers have noted, BlogalongaBond is becoming something of a chore, largely due to the depressing arrival of a certain Mr Moore.
For a particular breed of Bond fan, Roger Moore represents all that is disappointing about the character’s cinematic outings. How long has it been since a 007 adventure that lived up to its full potential? How many years and projects have been letdowns because of the identity crisis which Moore’s commercially successful casting only deepened? With Live and Let Die the franchise embraces the formula of silliness established in Diamonds are Forever, so that it begins to feel like a franchise as we know them today, with the perfect salesman to pitch the same old idea to audiences for over a decade.
As the films become more formulaic, so does my writing…
The Bond:
Our great and glorious leader, The Incredible Suit, has already covered Roger’s failures very well and also explained why Lazenby’s legacy meant it wasn’t entirely his fault that James Bond would move further and further away from Fleming’s original creation. He also qualifies his criticisms by saying he likes Roger Moore.
I too like the man and the actor. He was the Bond I grew up with, the Bond endorsed by my parent’s generation. He handles a one liner with the care, professionalism and skill of a grand English butler. His undeniable wit somehow makes lines from Tom Mankiewicz’s script work, such as “Don’t worry darling, it’s just a small hat, belonging to a man of limited means, who lost a fight with a chicken”. But re-watching Live and Let Die this time it was his insufferable Englishness that was also the worst thing about the new Bond. The first Englishman to play him overcompensates by adding “darling” to everything and merely raising an eyebrow in the face of thuggish danger. He is far too fluffy for Bond, even if he can do the humour and the love scenes excellently.
The Girl:
Speaking of love scenes, let’s talk about the girls. Well there’s only really one worth talking about, despite Rosie Carver’s bumbling prominence at points. Jane Seymour’s Solitaire is in many ways one of the most intriguing romantic interests of the series. But in others she is mere eye candy. Seymour’s performance is occasionally so moronic it seems transplanted from a modern
video game and is nevertheless secondary to her stunning looks, which defy
description. She simultaneously convinces as a sexy, all knowing master of the
cards and a recently deflowered, vulnerable virgin but not because of any conscious acting on her part.
Then there’s her character, Solitaire. The interesting thing about her is that her powers for predicting the future through occult, voodoo card reading nonsense are never properly or logically discredited. The script leaves the issue hanging,
thrusting the film further into the blaxploitation genre so popular at the time. Or rather it doesn’t. An explanation is provided. Bond does shatter her gift but not by exposing scientific trickery or her own deception. He simply steals her innocence. And thus Solitaire becomes a fascinating case study and symbol for all the women Bond “encounters” (I mean penetrates). On the one hand he freed her from imprisonment, awakening her adult self to the pleasures of life. On the other, who knows what damage might’ve been done?
The Villain:
Apart from Moore’s nonstop “darlings” the most frustrating thing about Live and Let Die is the terrible waste of an adversary that should have been formidable and refreshing. Initially Mr Big/Kananga and his henchmen are a welcome, realistic change from a succession of Blofelds, ending with Charles Gray’s posh version with a fondness for drag. But again The Incredible Suit insightfully and amusingly points out the fatal flaw of the bad guys here, which is, mainly, their inability to fatally wound our hero. Granted Bond makes it through all his missions looking unfeasibly suave but here the plot is driven by botched assassinations, to such a damaging extent that suspension of disbelief is catastrophically challenged, even for a Bond film, and plenty of fuel is provided for scathing parodies such as Austin Powers in the future.
Of course the other key thing about the villains in Live and Let Die is that they are all black. There’s no doubt that there are elements of the film that would be racist by today’s standards, perhaps including its representation of black murderers and criminals as rather inept and useless. The whole production jumps fully onto the blaxploitation bandwagon to give Bond a new flavour to go with his new face. Despite the fact that I’m bemoaning the film’s lack of grit and menace if it had pushed things further it may have looked far more dated today and been more than borderline racist. So I guess what I’m saying is, every cloud…
Other:
Live and Let Die boasts Paul McCartney’s title track, which probably remains the best of the whole series. Its score, even minus John Barry’s brilliance, is also outstanding in places with its echoes of the theme song and distinctive influences from black culture.
Does anyone else now find the boat chase sequence overlong and incredibly dull?
Conclusion:
Perhaps the real reason I was reluctant to jump into the BlogalongaBonding saddle again was because however disappointing Moore’s films are, his Bond is not all bad. It isn’t Fleming’s Bond but thankfully it is not a rehash of Connery’s either. Fans that share my view of the series will want to preface every review of a Moore film with a rant about him. Yes they still enjoy parts of his films, yes he is fun but he doesn’t do the character justice and his light hearted years wasted too much time. But for BlogalongaBond we have to get that out of our system here and try to think of something new to say about why the rest of his films baffle, confuse, irritate or, indeed, delight.
Battle of the Bonds: Michael Fassbender vs. Daniel Craig
Ok so I know technically Michael Fassbender isn’t a Bond but there was no way I was calling this anything else. If you’ve seen the new X-Men film you’ll know Fassbender essentially gives a super powered performance of our favourite suave secret agent. My review points out as much here.
Critics up and down this green and pleasant land are saying they’d like to see Fassbender play Bond in future. Some are even calling for the head of Daniel Craig now, just two films after Craig successfully rebooted cinema’s longest running franchise to acclaim from commentators and audiences alike. But the problem is Casino Royale was almost six years ago. Since then we’ve had the action packed disappointment of Quantum of Solace, in which Craig was still good but hampered and limited by a mostly naff script. We’ve also had the crisis of MGM delaying the release of Bond 23. All the while Craig has been ageing, the poor thing.
I am a huge fan of Craig’s interpretation of Bond but even I have to admit that he’ll be under pressure if Bond 23 doesn’t vastly improve on Marc Forster’s Quantum of Solace. Sam Mendes is at the helm and the signs are good but then most of us Bond fans were saying that on the web about the last one. Forster was supposedly a director who could tell a story but we were left with some decent action at the start, which felt like it was still part of Casino Royale, followed by a disappointing story with flashes of average action that was an unsatisfying epilogue to the reboot at best.
Because of the delays then, as well as the unstoppable onslaught of human decay, Fassbender has the edge on youth. His career is also shifting into a top gear; at a time when Craig’s is also attracting big enough projects that could tempt him away from Bond should the 23rd instalment prove be a sinking ship.
Enough build up. Let’s compare a few necessary requirements for an actor playing a 00 agent. Bonds do battle.
FILMOGRAPHIES
Fassbender:
300 (2006)
Eden Lake (2008)
Hunger (2008)
Town Creek (2009)
Fish Tank (2009)
Inglorious Basterds (2009)
Centurion (2010)
Jonah Hex (2010)
X-Men: First Class (2011)
Jane Eyre (2011)
Craig:
Casino Royale (2006)
The Invasion (2007)
The Golden Compass (2007)
Flashbacks of a Fool (2008)
Quantum of Solace (2008)
Defiance (2008)
Cowboys and Aliens (2011)
Dream House (2011)
The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (2011)
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
Round 1 – Acting Chops
Going from both men’s biggest hits and breakthroughs to the mainstream in 2006 (300 and Casino Royale) to the present day, it’s probably Fassbender with the more impressive list. There were meaty roles for him in Hunger, Fish Tank and the upcoming Jane Eyre. Hunger in particular alerted directors everywhere to his talent. The film carries a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and is “anchored” by Fassbender’s performance, according to Empire Magazine. Working with Quentin Tarantino is no bad thing for a CV either.
Craig on the other hand followed up his cold and commanding debut as Bond with the critically panned The Invasion with Nicole Kidman and average kids film The Golden Compass, which was supposed to launch an all conquering series to rival Harry Potter. Flashbacks of a Fool was a favour to directing friend Baillie Walsh, in which he gave a performances as a washed up actor fallen from grace. It was good but not the main role in the film, as the rest was told in flashbacks to childhood and in any case it wasn’t a big hit. He pulled off an impressive accent in Edward Zwick’s Defiance and generally convinced as a leader. Only recently has Craig got some really appetising projects on the go though, working with the likes of Spielberg for Tintin, David Fincher for Dragon Tattoo and Harrison Ford and Jon Favreau for Cowboys and Aliens.
Verdict: Even with that lull for Craig, it’s difficult to separate the abilities of these two.
Round 2 – Sex Appeal
I am definitely the wrong person to ask about this. But there’s no doubt that Bond has to be able to inspire a certain longing in the ladies, with a mere gesture or flirtatious glance. Both actors have charisma and cool credentials. Fassbender dresses up smart in the latest X-Men, as well as donning casual hard man leather jackets and camp superhero costume, cape and all. In Fish Tank his character’s raw masculinity was irresistible to mother and daughter alike. Inglorious Basterds saw him with slick and precise hair and a uniform. After starring as Mr Rochester as Jane Eyre later this year, further legions of women will join the ranks of his swooning admirers, with the earliest recruits hooked by the sight of his muscular and barely clothed physique in 300.
From what I’m told Craig is not a bad catch either. Certainly upon news of his casting as Bond and following the first viewings of those notorious blue Speedos, the females in my social circles could talk of nothing else in fits of giggles for days. Perhaps they’ll like the sight of him in a Cowboy hat.
Verdict: I really don’t know, they both seem to be handsome chaps and I imagine it comes down to personal preference. However if I had to make a decision, I’d say that Fassbender’s mixed Irish/German heritage makes him more exotic. Plus he seems taller. I hear that’s good.
Round 3 – Who would win in a fight?
Fassbender fought like a lion on speed in 300. And as I’ve said he had very little on. That’s impressive and a Spartan warrior takes some beating. However Bond doesn’t fight with swords, well not very often. He’s got to be able to beat a man to death with his fists, win shootouts and take out bad guys in witty ways. Fassbender did a lot of grunting and killing in 300 but where were the one liners? And in Inglorious Basterds he got shot almost immediately after some lengthy chit chat. Bullets are meant to swerve to avoid 007.
Or in Craig’s case, merely puncture his huge pecs. Craig has proven himself already as Bond, especially physically. His stunts and fight scenes have brought the series up to date. Some have criticised the mimicking of Bourne-esque action, which is valid for Quantum of Solace but off the mark for Casino Royale. In the past Craig has blown up enemies of Israel in Munich and taken on the Nazis in Defiance. Judging by the trailers he’s going to kick some Cowboy/Alien ass this summer too.
Verdict: Fassbender needs more time to learn the ropes but unless he’s got his metal moving powers still, looks like Craig will knock him out.
Round 4 – Staying true to Ian Fleming’s original
In X-Men: First Class Fassbender proves he can speak menacingly in Spanish, French and German. He is ruthless and suave and all action. He has a taste for the ladies and strong principles which he stands by. He is loyal. All of these qualities and more that Fassbender displays as the young Magneto, travelling the globe conducting his own private espionage, are those of Ian Fleming’s original spy. If Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson were ever bold enough to take Bond back in time, Fassbender would be perfect for another reboot. His British officer look in Inglorious Basterds, combined with his Magneto, creates a pretty cool version of James Bond licence to kill.
It’s unlikely the producers will ever take Bond into the past and a Cold War world again because they feel that would tarnish the earlier films which covered that ground already. Bond needs to find a way to carry on in the modern world whilst retaining the best elements of the original. And Daniel Craig’s version of the character found that path with Casino Royale. His more human and more brutal portrayal took Bond back to his literary roots with tremendous results.
Verdict: Impossible to split. Fassbender has the potential to be a classic Bond as Fleming imagined him but Craig has already proven himself as a Bond inspired by the books as well as the films.
So at the end of that battle we know nothing new. It’s a draw on points. Basically Fassbender might be a good Bond when Craig steps aside but for now he’s doing a good job. What happens next all rests on Bond 23.
What do you think? Would Fassbender make a better Bond than Craig?
Share this:
Like this:
4 Comments
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged 007, 14, 300, acting chops, action, analysis, Argentina, Bacon, bad, baddie, Basterds, Battle of the Bonds, better Bond?, bilingual, BlogalongaBond, blue screen, Bond, Bourne, Britain, bullets, Cape, cast, CGI, character, charisma, Charles, class, Cold, commanding, Comment, Community, cool, Cowboys and Aliens, Craig, Damon, Daniel, debate, Eden Lake, Erik, estate, Eyre, Fan, Fassbender, favreau, feature, fight, fight scene, film, filmography, first, Fish Tank, Fleming, Flickering, future, gadgets, German, globe, gossip, green screen, gun, Guy, Hildebrand, Hunger, Ian, imdb, Inglorious, irish, James, Jane, Jason, Jon, Kevin, kick-ass, Kierston, killer, lead, Lehnsherr, Liam, licence to kill, Magneto, Martini, Matt, Matthew, McAvoy, metal, Mexico, MGM, Mia, Michael, movie, movies, Mr Rochester, Mrt'sblog, murder, myth, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, one liner, opinion, original, past, professor, punch, Quentin, rumour, ruthless, Sebastian, sex appeal, sexy, Shaw, sidekick, Snyder, speculation, Spielberg, star, Steven, suave, suit, swerve, Switzerland, Tarantino, Tintin, Town Creek, Trim, trotting, uniform, Vaughan, versus, villain, vs, Wareing, who would win in a fight, witty, WW2, X, X-Men, Xavier, Zack