|
|
|
The man with the muzzle
Writing introductory essays on movies stamped as blockbusters coming out in money-making seasons (such as pre-Christmas) becomes an unsavory and banal exercise. Especially when the movie for which the writer is flexing his verbal-muscles doesn’t hold much interest apart from being another updated conversion, serving as a bottlenecked passage to make way for newer episodes. And so, the question arising from this rambling is: will Casino Royale be yet another mindless blockbuster?
This original installment by Ian Fleming, creator of James Bond, came out as a novel in 1953. And its latest visual materialisation occurred on the 17th of this month in the US.
Casino Royale, apart from its fairly low-key controversies, fabricates the beginnings of James Bond in a decidedly different environment. The film is believed to be Bond’s maiden mission before his ‘Double O’ days. And when he is elevated to his ‘license to kill’ status, his first mission brings him on the trail of the terrorist. Soon, he entangles himself in a high-stakes poker game at Le Casino Royale which becomes the focal point for both the terrorist organisations and MI:6 — the secret service cell which houses Bond.
This Bond holds all the action elements of its forefathers with the added twist of raising the stakes for both the government and the terrorists. In a clever setting on the teaser trailer heralding the arrival of Bond some months back, the most prominent aspect which shuttles through is the film’s ambient ’60s quality with the voodoo film-making techniques of today. The film reeks of Dr No and From Russia with Love.
From the sky-high action sequences where Bond is catching up to the villain who jumps buildings to the collapsing architecture, the film screams of primeval physical action. It is safe to say that in this Bond movie, actual things are blown-up and computer-generated effects are kept to a minimum. Also, there was a shot in the teaser showing James Bond execute a perfect murder in grim black-and-white cuts, showcasing this character as a more prominent killer than the parodies his predecessors became.
A summarised Bond of yesterday sailed away with cleaver-punch lines while stripping through various one-night stands with unknown women sandwiched evenly between his harrowing escapes from perilous grounds, and one formidably robust assassin. It’s a classic Bond formula and it worked well for almost all of James Bond’s 20 movies. According to Entertainment Weekly’s behind the scenes article, producer Barbara Broccoli states that the film is “not a prequel or a period piece or anything like that — it’s set today, right now”. If the official statements are to be believed, Casino Royale will play the part of officially rehashing the Bond-timelines, eliminating previous films from the Bond rooster.
At one time, Quentin Tarantino had hoped to direct the film with Pierce Brosnan in the lead. But as retooling goes, everything goes, including the lead actor who demands $42 million in salary. Brosnan believed that it “was an honest fee in terms of how much blood, sweat and tears I put into the role”. Tarantino says: “I would have liked to do Casino Royale with Pierce. But once I heard Brosnan isn't going to be doing any more Bond films, that killed it as far as I was concerned. He's really proven himself to me as the James Bond for this generation. He can really pull off that ’60s thing that Casino Royale would have. It should be more like the original book.”
Reintroducing Bond after the phenomenal success of Pierce Brosnan’s superior Die Another Day (the highest grossing Bond movie in the franchise, totaling more than $430 million worldwide in box-office receipts alone) spells bad press and clowned headlines from a mile away. Sadly, most of the hate from ardent Brosnan fans has been targeted towards the current lead, Daniel Craig, the current secret-agent donning the suave tuxedo — the allegations being his hair-colour and features.
However, Craig and Martin Campbell, the director of Casino Royale who also introduced Pierce Brosnan to the role in Golden Eye, should be proud. Early reviews of the film have by and large been enthusiastic. Bond 22 is already on the way.
From the close-up at the end of the Casino Royale teaser, many people must be wondering where they saw Mr Craig before. Layer Cake, his British import, isn’t as popular as Munich was here. And no one would actually recall the 38-year-old actor’s fine performance in The Road to Perdition (he played Paul Newman’s son, John Rooney) and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider unless they actually think about it. Apart from these notable roles, the actor has been around for quite a while.
Craig has been the primary target of fiery-attacks of a certain section of fans who claim the actor is ‘too ugly’ for the role. However, he hasn’t been disheartened by these amateurish personal remarks — which according to this writer have almost no relevance, apart from getting news coverage.
Craig is quoted by Wenn: “I didn’t expect this backlash. You take it in, you can’t help it. I’ve been trying to give 110 per cent since the beginning but after all the fuss, maybe I started giving 115 per cent.” He says: “Sean Connery set and defined the character. He did something extraordinary with that role. He was bad, sexy, animalistic and stylish, and it is because of him I am here today. I wanted Sean Connery's approval and he sent me messages of support, which meant a lot to me.”
Apart from Connery, he also has the support from almost all the other bonds — Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan. And I hope that George Lazenby, the one-time Bond from On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, has also sent his regards. — Farheen Jawaid
|
|
|
|
