House of Eratosthenes

Producers have revealed some of the secrets about the latest James Bond film, due for release later this year, including the inner turmoil that drives its suave superagent hero and its title: “Quantum of Solace.”

As titles go, it’s not as mellifluous as “From Russia With Love” or “Goldfinger.” But Daniel Craig, returning as Bond after 2006’s “Casino Royale,” says he likes it.

“It has grown on me,” Craig told reporters on the film’s set at Pinewood Studios near London on Thursday. “It doesn’t trip off the tongue. But why should it?”

You can find a plot summary here…

Betrayed by Vesper, the woman he loved, 007 fights the urge to make his latest mission personal. Pursuing his determination to uncover the truth, Bond and M (JUDI DENCH) interrogate Mr White (JESPER CHRISTENSEN) who reveals the organization which blackmailed Vesper is far more complex and dangerous than anyone had imagined.

Forensic intelligence links an Mi6 traitor to a bank account in Haiti where a case of mistaken identity introduces Bond to the beautiful but feisty Camille (OLGA KURYLENKO), a woman who has her own vendetta. Camille leads Bond straight to Dominic Greene (MATHIEU AMALRIC), a ruthless business man and major force within the mysterious organization.

On a mission that leads him to Austria, Italy and South America, Bond discovers that Greene, conspiring to take total control of one of the world’s most important natural resources, is forging a deal with the exiled General Medrano (JOAQUIN COSIO). Using his associates in the organization, and manipulating his powerful contacts within the CIA and the British government, Greene promises to overthrow the existing regime in a Latin American country, giving the General control of the country in exchange for a seemingly barren piece of land.

In a minefield of treachery, murder and deceit, Bond allies with old friends in a battle to uncover the truth. As he gets closer to finding the man responsible for the betrayal of Vesper, 007 must keep one step ahead of the CIA, the terrorists and even M, to unravel Greene’s sinister plan and stop his organization.

Video follows…

Faaaaaaan…tastic. I’ll be there on opening day, doin’ the Mervyn’s open-open-open thing. Official site here; more here and here. Interviews and video clips here. Rumors are flying around, and I’m inclined to think they’ll collapse, that the superspy is going to wed.

James Bond is by far the most beneficial contribution to western civilization that originated outside of the U.S. of A. And it’s not because he makes men feel good about themselves…it’s because he makes someone feel good about themselves.

Because the truth of it is, if this movie franchise showed off how suave and sleek and daring and resourceful and strong the male of the species could be, by actively and constantly ticking off the ladies, I personally wouldn’t be so supportive of it. Here’s what everybody’s missing: James Bond is exactly what we all say we want but cannot find, which is a truly positive role model. Yes, his sex life is irresponsible, and he drinks a lot…used to smoke a lot too…but that’s all trivial stuff. Whenever there’s a megalomaniac somewhere in his orbiting space station, or his undersea fortress, or his dirigible, and he’s plotting to blackmail the United Nations with stolen nuclear weapons or blow up Fort Knox or irradiate the Caspian Sea, it might be a good idea for someone to hop on in there and make sure it doesn’t happen, maybe.

Bond This is a real hero. On the surface, cosmetically, Bond lives for himself. That defines the character. And yet…if it really defined him to the marrow of his bones, wouldn’t he just kind of yawn and scratch his ass while circuses in East Germany were blown up, and the banking system of London was wiped out with electro-magnetic pulse? So…he seems to live for himself, but the twist is that he really doesn’t.

Contrast that with the “typical” hero, which, I submit, is an equally puzzling dichotomy, but turned around in the exact opposite direction. They seem to live for others but in reality, live for themselves. There have been so many and they’ve all faded from memory so quickly — which is my point — but where to begin.

Your typical movie hero is designed to gather glittering compliments about being a constructive role-model for the little kidlets, from people whose adoration is most valued by the leftwing pinhead Hollywood jetset, which is more leftwing pinhead Hollywood jetset. This type of hero promotes a collectivist society, although necessarily in a thickly subtle way. What is going on in the hero(ine)’s personal life, what people think of him/her, over a long term or over the span of a few seconds at some social event — this is presented as crucial dramatic tension, on par with the sinister plot the typical forgettable hero is trying to foil.

He’s occasionally a white guy, but great pains are taken to ensure that he’s usually not — and nobody notices.

Everything, and I do mean everything, s/he does is something that is hip, or more to the point cannot be considered un-hip. One painful vision that comes immediately to mind, is a “Walker, Texas Ranger” deep into his fifties, heading out to a honky-tonk bar with his much younger friends and groovin’ to the modern country music with the much younger kiddies already ensconced therein. Blegh. See, like a sophomore in high school, he had to do it. The character is uber-cool, and would be compromised if ever caught — just once — failing to climb on to whatever bandwagon came along.

Another example…the Legally Blond girl. The fairer sex, I notice, is particularly victimized by this overwhelming deluge of “entertainment” vessels in which the so-called “real” contest between good & evil, has to do with reforming our unfair, stratified world into a more egalitarian society. Here, we’re going to become better people by acclimating ourselves to the idea that there can be — *cough cough* — woman lawyers. Zowee, there’s a paradigm shift for ya. That is the surface drama: Will Reese Witherspoon be able to prove herself worthy, or not? And if she can’t, one gets the sense that, oh horrors, no woman will ever be able to practice law again. Oh dear, just like G.I. Jane, she’s fighting for all her sisters.

Except, you see, she isn’t. Because it’s always an important part of the story that at the end of the movie, just before the closing credits roll, everybody thinks the wunderfeminist is a beautiful, great person. This is mandatory. Always, always, always…or nearly always…we see, at the final curtain, the goal the entire time was more about achieving a certain social status than about getting anything done.

And these hero(ines) are always uninspiring and forgettable. Frankly, I feel a little silly citing them. But they’re important because they represent hundreds that are just like this. On the surface, they’re about promoting a utopia where everyone has opportunity, but by the climax we see they are all about themselves — since, if they were able to break those glass ceilings and tear down those barriers, but nobody knew, it would all be a futile exercise.

I can’t help but think James Bond has succeeded, well above & beyond whatever he did during his time, the cold war era — because we are so hungry for this. The upside-down hero. The exact opposite of what we see all the stinkin’ time. For James Bond will, we know beyond any doubt, save the world…or at least a part of it…millions of men, women and children he has never met and will never meet, who probably do things differently than the way he’d ever do them. And yet, he has no social status to earn, or to save. He doesn’t exist within a social status. The message you glean from between the lines, is that his personal life is rather abysmal, tortured, maybe even…boring.

Here’s something to think about.

In roughly half the Bond movies that we do have, at closing credits some mention is made about bringing James Bond of Her Majesty’s Secret Service, some of the glory he does deserve. Knight of the Garter, “Order of Lenin,” etc. These are the Bond movies widely accepted as the most forgettable.

Do NOT take my word for it. You have 21 Bond movies you can analyze to try to prove me wrong…you’ll see I’m not. The very best Bond movies are the ones where he’s left swapping spit with his leading lady, who will become his steady until — well, at least next Wednesday or so. But the important thing is, nobody has a clue about what he just did, or how close the world came to certain annihilation. And nobody cares that nobody knows. James Bond…knight in the shadows…man without a name.

You see, our fascination with Bond isn’t really about him saving the world, or being a male superstar filled with positive masculine attributes. Our fascination with him is that he’s sufficiently engaged in the world to affect large, positive changes in it, while simultaneously existing outside of it. This is exactly what the xXx movie, and its sequel, were trying to do…ineffectively.

The now-tedious bad-boy tries to be hip. That just destroys the formula there. Existing outside the social structure doesn’t mean being a hoodlum; hoodlum is a social status. Our hunger is for people who care more about what they do, than about what anyone thinks of them. And yet Hollywood keeps shoveling to us big ol’ piles of that other kind of guy or gal, the hero who has to keep looking over his shoulder to make sure everyone just saw what he did.

As long as they keep doing that, we’ll keep appreciating, and loving, James Bond 007, Licensed To Kill.

And they can’t stop.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

The New Bond Movie TitleFriday, February 1st, 2008

The New Bond Movie Title
Friday, February 1st, 2008