|
| Name's Bond: The real Bond | |
| SOCIETY | | Anoothi Vishal / New Delhi November 15, 2008, 0:57 IST | |
As far as Bond goes, Daniel Craig is surely an unsatisfactory one. And this despite the fact that as far as looks go, his do tend to grow on you, at least once you have abandoned any preferred mental images of Sean Connery or even Pierce Brosnan.
While Connery has and will continue to win all opinion polls as the “best ever Bond”— certainly the most classy and suave 007 — even Brosnan, my own favourite, who completely reinterpreted the “sexist, misogynist dinosaur” character in the 1990s, has his fans. What Brosnan brought to his portrayal of Bond was a value system and world-view much more in sync with his times, despite the essentially outdated babes-and-guns formula.
He was the “metrosexual” Bond. Urbane and good-looking in a sleek, cultivated fashion that had you wondering whether he would ever get his sleeves dirty. But he was also witty, characteristics that all of us associate with the Ian Fleming character but those that the bulked-up Craig (who got into shape before Casino Royale) sadly lacks. In his most recent outing, Craig, in fact, reminds me of our own emotionally charged Sunny Deol, blood on his shirt and on his mind, but not much besides, including any notions of finesse.
But this is supposed to be a society column and not a movie review. And the reason why Craig, Quantum of Solace’s “emotional” Bond, has been invoked here is not to merely underline how far we have come from the original character. Instead, however, unsatisfactory you may find Bond’s most recent outing, you will agree that the character has been contemporarised in the least-expected manner.
If you can manage to catch a breath between those fast-paced, action sequences of Quantum of Solace, pause and think: The cold, suave and controlled Bond of the earlier flicks is clearly an anachronism in these times when it has become much more acceptable to wear your heart on your sleeve, play out your emotions, make mistakes — but own up to them in the end — and seek help. In short, it is a time to be a man, not a superman. No one expects that any more of even the heroes because this is a world where nothing, and no one, is infallible and where the mighties have fallen down very hard and very publically indeed.
If the Cold War was a time to propagate the myth of flawless, in-control supermen as much as super-nations, and the 1990s a celebration of the liberal-democratic-Capitalist ethic, the present is time for introspection, what with the mighty economies of the world faced with a downturn and the image of Western powers at an all-time low. An all-powerful hero would hardly fit in with such times.
Instead, it is a tormented protagonist, someone who has been weakened and hurt and wears those scars but battles on nevertheless, who is much more likely to strike a chord with his audiences. Finally, this is also a time not to downplay emotions. However much we admire Connery & Co’s classy, always-collected ways, there is no way we can really identify with them. A Barack Obama raises the emotional pitch with his “Yes, we can” refrain and it is to emotion and its power unleashed that we may have to turn to. Certainly, there is no shame associated with that any longer.
In his interviews, Craig has said that he wanted to reinterpret Bond, make him more relevant to the 21st century. It is doubtful that when he began filming he anticipated our many crises. And yet, in the end, he has managed to get it right.
|
|
Content Guide
