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.
