Blonde Bond Is Bland

The unnaturally high media interest and hype that surrounds the James Bond franchise has always seemed a little puzzling to me, considering the fact that none of the instalments of the series have actually been historic blockbusters. Perhaps it is the tendency of the British media (and not just the tabloid one) to sensationalize every little insignificant move made by any Briton who is 'somebody' that is the cause of this aberration. The frenzied speculation among the headline-happy media about the identity of the new James Bond had, however, been silenced to widespread disappointment when Sony unveiled the little-known Daniel Craig as the latest spy with a licence to kill. Craig's apparent lack of charisma and a somewhat colourless persona had been a source of much anguish for Bond fans who were soon fervently wishing that Pierce Brosnan had never left the franchise. The reasonable ones among the legions of Bond fans were more guarded in their reactions and were content to adopt a 'let us see' attitude to the sordid affair. And now that 'Casino Royale', the centre of the entire debate, is out in the open, does the hype justify the actual product? Is Craig cut out to be the suave spy? Or did Sony make the stupidest blunder in the history of 007 filmmaking by dropping a successful Bond for a less-than-adequate replacement? Having watched the movie today, I can only say that Sony made mistakes not just in the casting department, but in the entire making of the movie.

Casino Royale is not so much a hi-tech, jaw-dropping follow-up to Die Another Day as it is a throwback to the brawny Bond movies of old. For one thing, there are hardly any hi-fi gadgets or irresistible gizmos to help Mr. Bond in his mission to stamp out terrorism from the world, nor any awe-inspiring action sequences. For another, 007 spends more time romancing the gorgeous Eva Green with the disarmingly pleasant smile than fighting the bad guys. At one point of time, he even resigns from his post because he cannot bear to 'lose any more of his soul' by indulging in mindless violence and murder. Hello? Is this the ruthless scoundrel that we have all grown to love to watch with amused incredulity? Why would Mr. Martin Campbell (the director, for the uninformed) want to thrust this weepy short-tempered mortal gladiator on to the viewers in place of the always-composed, elegant superhero that Brosnan had so nearly perfected? Is there any room for emotional realism in a concept as frivolous as James Bond? Clearly, the makers have got it all wrong.

Admittedly, Ian Fleming had always intended for Bond to be more of a human spy with discernible weaknesses than the untouchable immortal that has emerged through forty years of glamorized extravaganzas. But that isn't reason enough to abandon an eye-pleasing, crowd-pulling formula for something as pretentious as Bond shedding copious tears for his beloved. This is James Bond we're talking about; and James Bond is anything but pretentious. Ridiculously unbelievable he may be, but he never shows even a hint of aiming to be anything else. He is, after all, the very personification of cliche'd fiction.
And how does Craig, the object of all the pre-release cynosure, actually perform? Well, he certainly tries very hard, and gets the body language and voice intonations fairly well. It's his face and expressions that are the problem. Sorry, but Mr. Craig just does not look like an ultra-suave super-spy. Maybe the change in style that Sony were aiming at required someone like Craig who could look like a troubled, even tortured man who puts on a brave face for the world. But James Bond is not supposed to be such a man.

The news that Craig has been signed on to play Bond in the next instalment as well has definitely made me more than just a little uncomfortable. I certainly don't want to watch another mushy melodrama that has not the slightest touch of sensitivity, at least not with James Bond as the protagonist. Perhaps the guys at Sony will get some sense knocked into them before such a sad misfortune comes to pass. And while we're talking about sense, how about someone like Hugh Jackman as Bond? He certainly looks much less troubled than the admirable Mr. Craig.