007 and Tradition

As is my tradition, I went to see the new Bond film on opening night.  There’s always something exhilarating about seeing a new movie with a packed house, but I’ve always found it to be especially so with Bond films.

And the reason is that the audience is different.  Sure, you get your typical date night couples, the people who go every Friday night to see the latest, well, anything.  But with a Bond film, as with any genre film, you get your rabid fans as well.  And the 007 fan base is particularly remarkable in its ability to transcend generational lines.

I have seen the last four Bond films on opening night.  And though it is a fairly young tradition for me, compared to the well-dressed elderly couple I saw on Friday night who have probably been doing this for the last four decades, I feel very much a part of something special.

Complicating matters is the way the Daniel Craig reboot has toyed with tradition.  Craig’s Bond is emotional and impulsive.  He’s far more comfortable using deadly force.  Moneypenny and Q are nowhere to be found.  And as Roger Ebert complains, 007 drinks beer.

To me, these are fairly unimportant concerns.  Casino Royale breathed new life into a franchise which, after the high of 1995′s GoldenEye, got worse and worse with each subsequent film.  How does Bond become the Bond we know is an interesting question.  Was he always this way?  With the reboot, the filmmakers decided he wasn’t.

And I’m generally comfortable with the upheaval of tradition so long as they work their way back to it, at least some of it.  Unlike Ebert, I’m perfectly happy if they continue to at least try to have plots that make sense.  I like that they are trying to put Bond in the real world, dealing with real world concerns.  I look forward to Bond becoming Bond.  And he seems to be well on his way, if the last scene in Quantum of Solace is any indication for where they’re going.

But if Bond remains Jason Bourne-lite (and he will always be “lite” because unlike Bourne, Bond must think before he reacts), I’m worried the franchise will permanently uproot itself from an important tradition — and its fan base.

Many other critics and fans have complained about the director’s instistence on using the “shaky cam” and quick cuts, especially during the action scenes.  I personally like this style — in other movies, especially the Bourne saga.

But part of the Bond tradition is showcasing exotic locations, fancy cars, and gorgeous women.  To properly appreciate these things, the audience needs to actually see them.  The camera needs to stop, focus, and let us enjoy the spectacle.  Think Honey Ryder walking onto the beach of Crab Key.

Back to opening night: Bond films used to begin with the famous gun barrel opening.  And, at least on opening night, the audience (in my two experiences) applauded as Bond casually walked to the center of the screen, turned, and fired.

Casino Royale cleverly made the gun barrel opening an actual part of the film’s plot.  But it was a bizarre experience, as a fan who has seen every Bond film several times, for the movie to start without it.

Going into Quantum, I expected the gun barrel to be back at the top of the film.  I was suprised to see it at the end of the film instead.  I can think of only two logical explanations for this choice:

(1) The pre-titles teaser in Quantum is actually a direct continuation of the events from the first film.  The gun barrel may remove us from this reality.

(2) The filmmakers used the gun barrel at the end of the film as a punctuation mark, as if to say “Bond is now Bond.”

In which case, I look forward to the classic opening at the start of Bond 23.

And yes, James Bond will return on this blog.