The Troubling Turbulence of the Daniel Craig Bond Films (part 1).

I have been a lifelong fan of the James Bond film series, thanks mostly to coming from a family of Bond fans (all the family members with XY chromosomes anyway). It’s far from my favorite franchise but I have always at least maintained a casual interest. However, what tripped me up was the reboot series starring Daniel Craig.

Craig’s debut film, Casino Royale, while an instant classic amongst many Bond fans, immediately rung hollow for me. Few things make me lose interest in a franchise product quicker than the words “gritty reboot”. I am of the opinion that if a franchise has been going for decades than it is safe to assume that it is doing something right, and that completely upending the formula for the sake of chasing mainstream trends is the best way to smother it to death.

But now, four movies into Craig’s tenure with the fifth and final entry coming soon…

…And given the benefit of seeing the new direction play out, Craig having some of the best entries in the whole series to his name, I have to admit…

…

…

…That I was one hundred percent right.

That’s not your usual vernacular.

That’s better. But yeah, while some good has come of it I believe that the general philosophies that have driven the Daniel Craig Bond era have done more harm than good for the future of the James Bond franchise. Why? Well you better keep reading and find out, eh?

…Please come back.

First, Let’s be clear; in spite of my initial misgivings, Casino Royale is a masterpiece. It is not my favorite Bond movie, but it is probably the best, as well as one of the greatest spy movies of all time. It is engrossing from beginning to end, overflowing with both compelling character work and some of the most thrilling action scenes of the 2000’s. Every action scene is gritty and visceral, hitting that perfect line where I feel like I need to catch my breath by the end of each one without feeling outright exhausted. All the characters are great, particularly Eva Green as the complex and tragic Bond Girl Vesper Lynd and Mads Mikkelsen as the weaselly but unspeakably creepy and intimidating villain Le Chiffre. The movie also made the wise decision to retain some of the best elements of the Peirce Brosnan era, notably the incomparable Dame Judi Dench as M and composer David Arnold, whose scores are always exhilarating if lacking in subtlety. And while the more book accurate cold-blooded James Bond is a thoroughly uninteresting idea to me, I’ll be damned if Daniel Craig doesn’t make it work, especially given that he doesn’t stop at just being superficially darker (Dear Timothy Dalton; take notes). His Bond is a fresh 00 agent, an immensely skilled but arrogant and cocksure man whose arc sees him becoming the professional agent we all know and love through brutal defeats and emotional hardship. I know that sounds simple, but it is really compelling in execution, by far the most interesting arc 007 has ever gotten on screen (save perhaps another Craig movie down the line but we’ll get there). Seriously, if you haven’t seen this movie just do it, even if Bond isn’t to your taste.

And then Quantum of Solace happened.

The Bond series has a weird problem with direct sequels. This is not just an issue with the Craig films, any time a Bond movie has a direct follow up it is pretty much guaranteed to be a flaming disaster that drags the good movie it is following along with it. I think specifically of Diamonds are Forever, a uber-campy mess that I can actually quite enjoy on its own, but it is ruined by the fact that it is a direct sequel to the beautiful and tragic On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. For context, imagine if Gone with the Wind was directly followed by The Great Race.

Quantum of Solace has a similar problem. Any forgiveness I could give to this movies faults, of which there are many, is negated by the fact that this film is wrapping up the hanging threads left by Casino Royale, and it wraps them up so badly that it retroactively hurts the previous good movie. This is the risk of a more ongoing narrative, especially in a series like Bond where the films are made one at a time with no real thought given to future productions. Add this to the fact that Quantum went into production during a writer’s strike, resulting in large swaths of the script being written by director Marc Foster and Daniel Craig himself, and you have a recipe for a stinker. And the results speak for themselves, with the mysterious organization from the previous film being revealed to have been led by some stupid goober that wouldn’t be a threat to Johnny English let alone James Bond, and revealing the desperate, tragic story of Vesper Lynd to have just been the manipulations of some guy who apparently romances women into betraying they’re country as his 9 to 5. Because what better way to wrap up the story of such a strong and complex female character than to remove any and all agency from her choices? Also the villain plan of the movie turns out to be making backdoor deals to gain a monopoly on Bolivian water, which kind of represents the problem with more realistic Bond; yes, this is something that happens in real life, but it doesn’t make for terribly exciting stakes for an action movie. I don’t know, maybe this could have worked, but this movie executes every idea it has as badly as possible, so whatever.

I might be willing to give the script some leeway due to the aforementioned shitty circumstances of the writing, but I do not because the direction is equally awful. Quantum of Solace is a butt ugly movie. Compared to the grandiose cinematography of Casino Royale there is scarcely a shot in Quantum that isn’t claustrophobic and generally unappealing. It doesn’t help that this movie treats earth tones as a religion, with grays, browns, beige’s and dull whites permeating pretty much every environment. Even places from the last movie, like the MI6 offices, have been changed to be more dull and monochromatic. It says something when shots of characters walking through a desert are by far the most visually appealing material in the film. And I can’t show the editing, but take my word that it is horrific; frenetic, choppy and frequently breaking the rule of eye tracing so the quick shots can be a genuine pain to try and follow, especially in action scenes. Considering a big part of the Bond series’ appeal is the travelogue scenery porn, looking this ugly is about the biggest sin the series can commit. A series known for its elegant and classy action looks and feels like it takes place inside of a dirty bong.

The only nice thing I can say about this movie is that the cast is still on top form, with Craig and Dench still in top form in spite of the material, and Olga Kurylenko plays easily one of the best Bond Girls in the entire series, a major bright spot in the otherwise dreary mess. It is also by far the shortest of the Craig movies, which will seem like an incomparable mercy down the line. Oh, and David Arnold’s score is enjoyable as always.

So do I have a point beyond just wanting to be mean to Quantum of Solace? Well, yes. That being that this movie represents the first problem with the new philosophy of the Bond movies: if you’re going to all dark and realistic you have no choice but to make a great product. Let’s be honest; a large chunk of the old Bond movies are pretty mediocre. I could probably count the great Bond movies on one hand. And yet almost every one of them are very watchable flicks. Even the most underwhelming Bond movie is still a fun time with worthwhile elements. But Quantum of Solace is so stupid, so po-faced in its stupidity, so devoid of anything positive to latch on to unless you think that being serious and realistic automatically equates to quality (and I have met a distressing amount of people who do. Not a one of them making for engaging discussion I should add). 

And a cursory look behind the scenes reveals the problem; just like these fans, Marc Foster seems to have been a slave to the idea that “realistic” automatically equates to quality. So the claustrophobic cinematography and ugly sets? “more realistic”. The underwhelming stakes? “Realistic”. The villain who is neither interesting nor intimidating? “Realistic”. The systematic undermining of every compelling element of the previous films story? …Okay, that one probably comes more from the lack of an actual writer than the realism thing, but still.

I feel I shouldn’t have to explain the flaws in that logic. Casino Royale was also more realistic, but Martin Campbell thought through how to make that work to his advantage. He used the and darkness and grit to make the movie more exiting and emotionally engrossing. It’s impressive how Casino Royale zigs everywhere Quantum of Solace zags.

My point is that while this new style can make for better movies than the old, the simple fact is that you have to nail it or it just doesn’t work. Old Bond only needed to be a fun time to be worthwhile. New Bond needs to be thought provoking, breathtaking, audacious and above all an event. It can’t be just another Bond flick; it needs to blow your mind every time. And the problem is that if it fails to meet that high standard than it just ends up as a worthless product. And Bond should never be worthless, damnit. This style sets a really high bar, and I just don’t think the Bond series can survive long term having to reach that bar every time. And what is to come does not prove me wrong.

This is running really long and there are still two more movies and lots more philosophical problems to go over, So I’m going to show you mercy and split this one in half. Next post I will go over Skyfall, Spectre, pontificate on how No Time to Die looks, and complete my thoughts on the problems of the Daniel Craig Bond era. See you then.