I'm supposed to read an argument from the Norton Field Guide to Writing this week, and I looked at all of them, but they all seemed too depressing, so I went to another chapter (on evaluations) and read a 2008 New York Times movie review by A. O. Scott. The film he's reviewing is Quantum of Solace. By a TOTAL coincidence (really!) today is the 50th anniversary of James Bond on film, too, so I figure this is what I'm supposed to do.
My dad is a HUGE James Bond fan, has all the movies (and the books), which means I've grown up seeing them, so this looked interesting. But the first thing I noticed, probably because I'm working on my draft, was the way Scott wrote his review -- he's basically following the same pattern I was told to use for my paper. He begins by explaining his "critical paradigm," which, it turns out, is a checklist of all the things you expect to see in a Bond film, then he evaluates (I won't be doing that, just analyzing) how well the film does at meeting each item's audience expectations.
Well, according to him, it has hits and misses on things like action and gadgets, but he comes to a halt with the checklist when he reaches the category of "babes." This is because in this film, Bond is just not interested. Scott writes, "what gets in the way is emotion. 007's grief and rage [. . .] are forces more powerful than either duty or libido" (738). I saw the film, and I think he's right, but then he goes on to say, "Mr. Brosnan was the first actor to allow a glimmer of complicated emotion to peek through Bond's cool, rakish facade," and this was where I came to a halt.
No, Mr. Scott. It was Timothy Dalton who did that, in Licence to Kill. This is the film where Bond is out to avenge his friend Felix, remember? Even before that in the film, Felix's new bride makes a comment about how Bond should get married, and the look on Dalton's face is not a typical Bond look (which would be a smile and shake of the head, I guess). Instead, he somehow manages to convey that there is a TRAGIC EVENT in his past -- presumably his own wedding, in On Her Majesty's Secret Service -- that means he will never get married . . . again (don't ask me how he does this; look at it for yourself!). If that ain't a complicated emotion, what is?
Pierce Brosnan? Pah! Don't make me laugh.
BTW, my vote for best Bond is Connery, Dalton second, and Craig third. Roger Moore makes me cringe, and Brosnan (I've liked him in other things) just doesn't grab me as Bond.
Way back at the beginning of the semester, Dr. Toffee said that we should tell people what we were working on, because talking about it would help us think things through, and because the people we talk to might have some ideas that would help. My draft is finished now (we had the peer review yesterday), and my reviewer wasn't very helpful, so last night I talked to my parents about it. I know, right? I was totally surprised when this actually helped.
My dad is a big fan of westerns, and he had a lot to say about anger in westerns and about Cowboys & Aliens. According to him, heroes in westerns (at least in the ones he thinks are good) tend not to get angry very often, and when they do, it usually leads to the climax of the film. Then he made my mother laugh when he said that in C&A, Harrison Ford seems to be channeling John Wayne at times; he's always irritated by something, but it's clear that he has power. Dad said I should watch El Dorado (and maybe I will).
My mom came up with an example of Daniel Craig being like John Wayne, and this one I had seen, because it's in The Quiet Man, which she watches every St. Patrick's Day. She reminded me about how John Wayne gets angry with Maureen O'Hara, but doesn't show real anger in front of men until near the end of the film. This seems like the scene in Cowboys & Aliens that I mentioned in my last post, now that I think about it.
So, what I got out of this discussion is that, for men in westerns at least, showing anger in front of men makes you look weak unless it's a rare occurrence. And that's helpful. I wasn't happy with how I wrote about Doc, but from this new viewpoint I think I can do a better job. Doc does come off as weak, because he is angry all of the time, but he can't do anything about it. He's powerless, and it's not until he's gone through the experience of going after the aliens to get his wife back that he becomes strong enough to have some self-respect.
Time to start revising.
Image via WikipediaI thought some more about this last night. One thing that occurred to me is that two of the actors are what you might call iconic-- Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig (although he's a newbie at the screen icon game, compared to Ford). The characters that they are best known for are different kinds of "manly men." Indiana Jones, for example, is an adventurer, a problem-solver, and is sort of goofy when it comes to women. He's like Han Solo with a stronger character. Looking at James Bond, you can see more of an ideal man -- he defines the term "cool," he's another problem-solver (usually with extreme prejudice), and unlike the Ford characters, he has some weird kind of magnetism when he interacts with women. Bond has a lot in common with Jake Lonergan (sp?), while Ford's role in Cowboys & Aliens is not much like Indiana Jones or Han Solo, and when you think of it from that point of view, the differences are interesting. There is a lot of stuff about the father-son relationship here, all centering around him. I may go after that.
Image via WikipediaLast time, I mentioned that my brothers don't try to emulate (how's that for vocabulary?!) James Bond, and a girl in my class asked me how they could do that, anyway. Well, hell, I didn't mean that they should try to be like him in terms of his job! What I meant was more about him as a man than it was about him as a spy. I was thinking of things like his personal style -- in clothing, social behavior, and so on -- plus his confidence. It's as if the guys think that you either have these things or you don't: you can't develop them for yourself. And of course, I don't think that's true.
I even think that about his irresistibility to women-- after all, how many actors have played this role? And some of them aren't even good looking, imo (I can't stand Roger Moore, and while I like Daniel Craig's performances, I don't think he's all that in the looks department). But . . . they all manage to convey -- believably -- the quality (for lack of a better word) that makes the women they meet lose all their inhibitions. I'm going to stop here because I just had what might be a brilliant idea for my paper. I'll let you know if it pans out.
