In Defense Of Levity (For Bond)

So, this post isn't going to be my typical review-tangent that I've devised for this blog. I've been away for a while, been thinking for a while, and been trying to keep up with film news. For those who don't really know or aren't aware, I'm a huge HUGE fan of the James Bond series (both the books and the movies). I'd recently completed the new Wii version of "GoldenEye", and I'm currently watching The World Is Not Enough and am in the mood to watch Quantum Of Solace immediately after that. I've essentially memorized both films by heart, but am here to make note of the most glaring difference between the previous films in the Bond series, and the markedly different (more "mature") version present by Daniel Craig.
I greatly enjoy Craig as Bond, and the two films have had their moments (well, to be fair, Casino Royale is one of the best in the series). However, with the recent swirl of casting rumors for the next Bond film (Javier Bardem? Ralph Fiennes? Both very fine, accomplished actors, don't get me wrong), and the surprising, intriguing choice of director and writer (Sam Mendes and John Logan respectively), the question I keep asking myself is: where'd all the fun go?
I understand that following 2002's wrong-headed and overblown effects-spectacle that was Die Another Day, the series needed to be toned down considerably (this happened throughout the history of the series: after You Only Live Twice came the unbelievably accomplished On Her Majesty's Secret Service; after the cartoonish Moonraker came the underrated For Your Eyes Only), so toning down the series was never something unheard of in the series. The difference, however, is that the latest three-picture arc seems to focus on the inner-demons and psychological turmoil of the character that is James Bond. To be honest...that's...slightly boring.
Look, Casino Royale was successful because we saw a version of Bond hitherto unseen: fragile, cold, single-minded, and, ultimately, naive. It was the first film in the series since On Her Majesty's Secret Service to actually treat "Bond the archetype" as "Bond the real life character", and the result was excitement in watching Bond get hurt, make mistakes, and grow as a character. It was bold, exciting, and fresh. And within this rebooted series was still the sense of flippant fun that characterized the series (a parkour chase in a construction site? Only in a Bond film!)
Quantum Of Solace (and, I fear, the next film in the series) treated Bond as just another tragic, tortured hero for the Millenials. In that film, he doesn't sleep, he drinks too much, and he kills without hesitation, and there is a real feel to the violence (when he kills Mr. Slate, he coldly waits until we see that character bleed out). He's tortured, yes, and when he dumps Mathis---his friend who was literally tortured for Bond's sake---in a dumpster and steals his money, you realize, "Wow. What an asshole."
And that's a line Bond always managed to deftly walk. He is chauvinistic, arrogant, sexist, and, essentially, a boy in a man's body. He's selfish, callous, possibly sociopathic, and a murderer. But he does it with such charm and assurance and grace that he's likable; although we know he'll always get out of a jam, we still enjoy watching his means of doing so. And have enjoyed his escapades for the past 49 years, 22 films, and 6 actors. Bond should enjoy being Bond; his existence is almost entirely materialistic, almost anal in the detail to class, high-living, and showing off money and elegance.
So why Bourne it up? Why choose directors who have almost no experience in the action genre (look, Marc Forster is a good director, but he was entirely the wrong choice to direct an action film...especially a Bond film. The same goes for Lee Tamahori and Michael Apted. These are good directors with some great films, but their movies rank in some of the blandest or worst of the series). I have hope that Sam Mendes will give the goods with his Bond film (he did direct the very accomplished Road To Perdition, which also featured Daniel Craig and had some atmospheric composition and at least decent action), but I for one am tired of "pushing the edge" with the Bond series.
Daniel Craig's serious take on Bond was predated by over 15 years by Timothy Dalton, who gets a lot of undo flak for his take on the character. Dalton's take was the best balance of film-Bond and novel-Bond, and he was badass (just look at the opening to his first Bond, The Living Daylights: he doesn't even talk until he's done some implausible stunt and exploded a living human being. It doesn't get more badass than that!) Craig and Dalton approach the character the same way and with the same gravitas; the difference, though is that the Dalton films still manage to incorporate the staples of the series (gadgets, outlandish set-pieces, beautiful locations, Moneypenny, Q) while giving a more "real-world" feel to the plot. It was an attempt to make Bond more realistic and gritty, but there was still the fantasy, still the wonder and excitement and, damnit, FUN that characterized the best of the series! (Want an example of where the Craig Bond films should go to keep that balance? Just watch the extremely underrated Licence To Kill.)
Maybe it's the state of modern action films. We want our heroes conflicted and tragic. We want our action gritty and dirty and confusing. We want everything grounded in a reality we can understand. But when we do that for every film, what do we lose? Maybe it's the same difference between 1989's Batman and The Dark Knight: The Dark Knight is by far a superior film, but it's just not as fun, it's not the film I would watch at 1 in the morning after drinking. It's the difference between 2004's Punisher (a film that takes itself much too seriously) and 2008's goofy, fun, violent Punisher: War Zone. It's the difference between Iron Man 2 (which spent too much of its over-produced runtime setting up The Avengers and throwing in geek references that won't pay off until films that come out at least a year later) and Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, which was just so damn buoyant and in love with itself you couldn't help but be charmed by its self-contained sense of fun. Why does "serious" mean "tragic"? Why does "realistic" mean "gritty and violent"? Why does "good" mean "down-to-earth"?
I want my Bond to enjoy being who he is, and not be a humorless dick. When Craig says to someone in Quantum Of Solace, in a scene right after an ultimately disappointing and confusing boat chase, "Here, take her. She's seasick.", he says it almost derisively, as if making a pun were a chore. His character can't enjoy himself, and I think Craig (the actor) is feeling it too. He's stated in interviews he'd wanted a fun romp to end his tenure. And I want that too. Bring back the gadgets and the machine-gun-toting cars. Make that balance between fantasy and topical events that were explored so well in From Russia With Love, and GoldenEye, and Casino Royale, and Licence To Kill. Have fun!
I'll end with this: I hope Mr. Mendes realizes that Bond is fantasy. He's the ultimate male fantasy. A "mantasy", if you will (my next article on sea mammals will also use that word). He's best enjoy on the big screen, with the loud music, and with his theme blaring in the background. The Wii game I just played does this balance well, and was more enjoyable than the last film.
The most memorable Bond films are the ones that are fantasy. Surely, the stunts of the modern version of Bond can do better than a confusing rooftop foot chase, or a dumb-as-shit boat chase. Or a confusing as shit car chase.
I'd want to be as blown away as I was watching the parkour chase five years ago.
Or go all out: upstage the parachute jump from The Spy Who Loved Me.
Make something as immaturely fun as the tank chase from GoldenEye!
Something memorable!
Whatever you do, just bring back the fun!