The new Bond film is great. It really is more a reinvention/revigoration of the novel than the 21st film in the franchise. While Daniel Craig isn’t perfect as Bond, he is definitely the best match for the specific type this film is, since Sean Connery, and since this film is closer to the novels, Craig might well be the most authentic Bond so far.
The Bond films have always been part adaptation of the novels, part cultural reflection. Connery’s dangerously masculine, yet suave Bond, Moore’s foppish and clownish Bond, Dalton’s too grim and determined Bond, and Brosnan’s worldly and resolute Bond. (Since I haven’t seen In Her Majesty’s Secret Service, I won’t comment on Lazenby.) It is interesting that the brutality and mercilessness of the novels never entered the films until fifty years later, at a point where many other films have utilized similar brutality - Quentin Tarantino for one, who was even mentioned as potential director for Casino Royale at one point.
Craig’s Bond is tragic and brutal, but he is also given more material to work with in his presentation of Bond. The discussions between him and Vesper provide a rare insight into Bond’s mentality and the price and consequence of his job and life - always inseparable for Bond. Providing Bond with a psychology did briefly surface in the last of the Brosnan films Die Another Day, but it is first here that we see the full Bond. Not that Bond is fully developed, but we do get an idea of the sacrifices he has to make.
Stylistically, the film breaks away from earlier Bond films with tighter framing, jilted editing which creates a frantic pace in the first half of the film, a counterpoint to the poker tournament and the denoument of the second half of the film. Mainly, this works well but there is a pacing problem once Bond has won the tournament, since the film constantly seems to be on the verge of ending, yet continues.
However, what is most interesting about the film, to me, is not so much the stylistic reinvigoration (although it is very successful and much needed), but rather the representation of international politics in the secret agent world. Since 24 (a show I’ve never been able to get into, I find it much too self-important), stories of agents and their necessary actions have become more common, and Casino Royale takes place within that frame. For an interesting point of view on 24, see Slavoj Zizek’s comments in The Guardian. This new Bond film responds in a different way.
1. Actions Have Consequences
First off, while Bauer suffers consequences from his job, it is in a different way than Bond in Casino Royale. Bond is shown to be on the way to becoming a shell of a man, empty of emotions and unable to forge meaningful relationships with other people. This is even demanded by M, that Bond shuts off his emotions in order to be a proper agent.
Bond does this, but we see the consequences of his choice, and for the first time really in Bond films, his unpleasant actions are seen as just that: unpleasant. Vesper serves as a counterpoint to Bond’s resolute killings, when she breaks down after Bond kills two men. The tragic moment is emphasized by the film, rather than ignored, which means that we realize the darker side to Bond - he is a killer and that makes him less human. The film denies the possibility that people can kill for a cause they believe is just and not suffer. No matter what, actions have consequences and a moral and ethical dimension.
2. International Politics are Brutal
This may seem rather inane and obvious, but it really isn’t. Most secret agent films glorify much of the violence and action within the film, specifically by leaving many of the consequences out, thus tying these two points together.
The scene where Bond is tortured is far more brutal - both conceptually and visually - than any previous Bond film, and it is not alone in this. We see Vesper drown, from panic to actual death and no excuses are made for all these events - they are portrayed as necessary, part of the game, even fascinating in their brutality. But the situations are also relentless and insistent, moving from pure fascination to a kind of dreadful spectacle that we cannot turn away from. The unapologetic tone, offering us no real escape from the brutality, confirms the ruthless environment and places these events as the consequences of anti-terrorism.
The film never says that these consequences are undesireable, just that they are unpleasant. Here is probably the biggest overlap between Zizek’s point about 24 and Casino Royale: there is an acceptance of this as the new state of affairs, but Casino Royale points out that there will be consequences. This is expressed most succintly by M who says that the politicians don’t care what MI6 does, only what it is photographed doing.
The point is clear; a certain degree of brutality follows and must be accepted in our political environment. The film never denies that, but simply chooses to show us some of the consequences.
3. Trust No One
And the final consequence is that everyone is a potential enemy. M is willing to have Bond killed if he speaks her real name, there is no sympathy between them. Even when it turns out that Vesper was the traitor, Bond does not accept that this makes Mathis innocent: it might have been a double-blind. Even M is surprised by his suspicions, but accepts them as real concerns.
This deep mistrust is more than simple suspicion towards the system, the popular paranoia of The X-Files and similar shows, films, etc where the system is always out to get the protagonist, but where a tight-knit friends can trust each other (Scully and Mulder, Robert and Edward in Enemy of the State, etc). Bond trusts no one, which means he has no friends, no loved ones and no one to turn to. He is truly alone and this is shown to be the ultimate consequence of his life and job.
