Bond "anachronistic"?

[Undertow]

Matt Damon had some words about the character James Bond at his UK premiere of the Bourne Ultimatum which you can read here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6948445.stm

Here are some snipets: "The Bond character will always be anchored in the 1960s and in the values of the 1960s,"

"so anachronistic when you put it in the world we live in today,"

"Bond is an imperialist and a misogynist who kills people and laughs about it, and drinks Martinis and cracks jokes."

Your thoughts on either Matt Damon, the comparison of Bond and Bourne, or your thougts on Bond being outdated.

 

[Archie Goodwin]

Bourne was written strictly as an assassin. Bond was written with a license to kill, but that was part of a larger, traditional spy role of gathering information. Additionally, the Bourne stories are those of a man looking for redemption, at the end of the 3rd movie you find out that the man who became Bourne was a true believer who volunteered for the program. Bond is also a true believer, who volunteered, but he is not searching for redemption.

 

[AlanC]

The character of Bourne is also somewhat tied to the late '70s/early 80s. He's no more timeless than Bond is.

I wish they would start making Bond as 60s era period films. Embrace the anachronism!

 

[Twitch]

Bond was outdated as soon as Roger Moore started playing the character as with a tongue in cheek attitude in self parody. That tarnished the whole franchise. As for having 60s values and all that, that's not so unheard of. any of the real 40+ year old members of the in-field intel community would be anchored in in Cold War attitudes even today.

Bourne is a completely different guy but the action theme of both franchises is what keeps viewers interested. With either it's a "what's he gonna do now!" attitude from viewers which translates in $$.

The Bond series has found it necessary to become more techno-motively creative with gadgetry with each successive movie. It's what viewers have fixated on somewhat. Thankfully Casino Royale reset the clock on some of that. It got to where the plot was secondary and gadets ruled. When Bourne has wrapped up 24 movies in the same vein we'll be able to complare things.

Till then it's simply 2 great action-oriented concepts for the big screen. With eithier you can equally zone out and escape in the mayhem.

 

[J. M. Stovall]

The character of Bourne is also somewhat tied to the late '70s/early 80s. He's no more timeless than Bond is.

I wish they would start making Bond as 60s era period films. Embrace the anachronism!

Now THAT would be fun!

 

[nyx]

I don't know about anachronistic. Pierce Brosnan's take on Bond was still classy and elegant, but he also could ride a modern motercycle with a girl handcuffed to the front of him at top speed (one of my favorite scenes in any Bond film, even though Connery was my favorite Bond). Spying is a universal occupation--it didn't just fade out with the Cold War.

In 20 years the technology used in the Bourne movies will seem antiquidated as well, I'm sure.

 

[Brian Sheridan]

As a Bond expert, I have to argue that the character of James Bond is timeless, much like that of Sherlock Holmes, Nero Wolfe, etc...

It has survived first by being totally different from what was being made at the time (the first 3 Connerys) and then appealing to what the audience are looking for when they are made (the Moore years). It is soooo easy to knock Roger Moore's Bonds but they made more money and were seen by more people that Connery's films. Sure, they totally did not survive the test of time (not much from the 1970's did) but the series would have been dead without them. It is funny how you like the Bond you grew up with and not necessarily who did the best job in the role. Connery-era people complain about Moore. Moore-era people complain about Dalton. Both complain about Brosnan. Brosnan fans hate Craig. No one but hardcore Bond fans like "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." There is comfort, however, in the predicatability of the movies. Bond might be played by different actors, in different styles, but we can count the heart and soul (or the martinis) always being the same.

Brosnan came along at the right time and his movies reflect the go-go 90's. The Brocalli's always put all of the money on-screen. They, however, realized the post 9/11 Bond needed to be different - so in comes Daniel Craig with a film I would say is probably one of the best in the series. Critics and audiences agreed.

The Bourne movies use more from Bond than they do from Ludlum's novels. The third installment is being raved about but I think the film has some major weaknesses. The use of all handheld camera shots is nauseating. Did the director says "let's see if we can get away with this?" We are promised we learn about who Bourne is - we do not. We are told his name and how he joined Treadstone but we never learn what drove him to it. And what was his relationship with Julia Syles character? It is something else that's glossed over. Maybe if Bourne said more than 3 words at a time.

The Bourne character is perfect for our time though - paranoid, highly caffeinated, tight-lipped, confused, angry, and lashing out at the world.

Why do we still need James Bond? Because we need a hero who wears a suit and tie, eat and drink the best things in life, can beat the villian because he is the good guy without any motives, and then get the girl. Movies offer us escape from a world where none of those things can seem to happen anymore. The media has seen to it that all our heroes have clay feet and everyone has a hidden agenda or motive ($$$). I don't want a documentary about the world being out of control. Bond is just Bond - as he should be. The movie world is big enough to have both Bourne and Bond.

 

[Starius]

I have to ask this, as a bond expert, do you just sort of ignore the fact that David Niven was the first person to play James Bond and paired off against Woody Allen in a rather slapstick comedy version of Casino Royale?

Not trying to be conflictive here, because I am a James Bond fan myself. But technically, it did start out as a joke version of itself in the movies if you do take this film into account.

Personally, I don't feel that the Bourne movies are even close to the same league as the Bond films.

 

[Brian Sheridan]

I have to ask this, as a bond expert, do you just sort of ignore the fact that David Niven was the first person to play James Bond and paired off against Woody Allen in a rather slapstick comedy version of Casino Royale?

Not trying to be conflictive here, because I am a James Bond fan myself. But technically, it did start out as a joke version of itself in the movies if you do take this film into account.

Personally, I don't feel that the Bourne movies are even close to the same league as the Bond films.

David Niven was not the first person to play James Bond. You are getting your Casino Royales mixed-up.

Technically, the first actor to play "Jimmy" Bond was Barry Nelson for a 1954 CBS-TV adapatation of Casino Royale (the first Fleming novel) on a show called "Climax." It was a dud with Bond "americanized" for TV. It had no action, only the card game although Peter Lorre was quite good as Le Chiffre.

The producer who bought the rights to Casino Royal (Charles Feldman) then turned around and produced the Bond spoof "Casino Royale" in 1967. Sean Connery starred as Bond in Dr. No in 1963. CS (1967) has no connection to the official series and prevented the Broccali's from using that book until last year. On top of that, it is just not a good movie.

You may have been confused by the fact Ian Fleming didn't like Connery as Bond and thought Niven more suited Bond's British upper-class snobbery. Fleming never saw the 1967 CS and came around to liking Connery, even adding in one of his novels that Bond was "half Scot."

What is funny is that the character was created because Fleming was anxious about getting married and named him after a famous ornitholgist because he "wanted the simplest, dullest, plainest-sounding name" he could find. Remember characters of Fleming's youth had outrageous names like "Bulldog Drummond" and "Fu Manchu."

 

[Starius]

David Niven was not the first person to play James Bond. You are getting your Casino Royales mixed-up.

Technically, the first actor to play "Jimmy" Bond was Barry Nelson for a 1954 CBS-TV adapatation of Casino Royale (the first Fleming novel) on a show called "Climax." It was a dud with Bond "americanized" for TV. It had no action, only the card game although Peter Lorre was quite good as Le Chiffre.

The producer who bought the rights to Casino Royal (Charles Feldman) then turned around and produced the Bond spoof "Casino Royale" in 1967. Sean Connery starred as Bond in Dr. No in 1963. CS (1967) has no connection to the official series and prevented the Broccali's from using that book until last year. On top of that, it is just not a good movie.

You may have been confused by the fact Ian Fleming didn't like Connery as Bond and thought Niven more suited Bond's British upper-class snobbery. Fleming never saw the 1967 CS and came around to liking Connery, even adding in one of his novels that Bond was "half Scot."

What is funny is that the character was created because Fleming was anxious about getting married and named him after a famous ornitholgist because he "wanted the simplest, dullest, plainest-sounding name" he could find. Remember characters of Fleming's youth had outrageous names like "Bulldog Drummond" and "Fu Manchu."

Ahhh I was thinking the Niven film was older than that for some reason.
I had no idea bout the 1954 tv version though. I'd be pretty curious to see that now, just for the oddness of how it sounds.

The name's Bond.... Jimmy Bond.

Wow, that just does not sound right.

 

[Brian Sheridan]

The name's Bond.... Jimmy Bond.

Wow, that just does not sound right.

It doesn't and thankfully he never said it.

I interviewed Barry Nelson about being the first to play Bond. He answered my questions with good humor, like the gentleman he was.

The CBS verison is available on VHS/DVD if you hunt around for it.

 

[Nick Charles]

Bond is timeless and a reflection of the cold war, and on more than one occasion he is called a masogonist dinosaur by M. But thats the bunk, he does his job and thats all we ask. Bourne is a blunt instrument of death, thats what he was trainned for. No body does it better, Bond, James Bond.

 

[Diamondback]

To me, Bond and Bourne are two very different characters, even though they're both headcases/psychological "walking wounded". Even then, the "book" and "movie" characters have almost as little to do with each other as the two across storylines.

SPOILER WARNING!

First, I'll start with Ludlum's Bourne as written. In Identity, Bourne is an amnesiac; he falls in love with the girl (a Canadian economist who proves every bit his intellectual equal, if not superior), then sets out for a final confrontation with nemesis Carlos the Jackal; he barely survives, largely due to her intervention, and regains some of his memories of his "real life" as David Webb.

In Supremacy, Webb and Marie are married, I don't recall if they have their first kid yet or not. She's attending a conference in Hong Kong and is kidnapped; an impostor has taken the Bourne name as his own, and hapless college professor Webb must assume the terrible persona of Jason Bourne to both clear his name and rescue his wife.

By the time of Ultimatum, Webb and Marie have two kids and a nice little island resort, but Carlos is back, along with a resurgence of the cabal that originally created Bourne. Yet another double-threat, but Carlos has specifically targeted Webb's family; unholy alliances and double- and triple-crosses abound.

I won't even discuss van Lustbader's attempt at a continuation, since it's not "canon" in my eyes and frankly tarnishes the series IMO. Bottom line is that all the way through Supremacy and Ultimatum, we're seeing a split-personality whose driving force is to protect his family.

Next, the Bourne movies as compared to the books. When they eliminated Carlos or an act-alike in Identity, and then killed Marie in Supremacy, the two story arcs about "archnemesis" and "protecting family" were lost, taking virtually the whole thing with them IMO. Not to mention the "David Webb" personality that Bourne was stacked on top of.

Bond novels: It is mentioned in the books that Bond is an orphan, basically M took him in almost as his own son after the death of his parents in a skiing accident. Also that Bond seems to be a "kiss of death" to any girl who gets too close: Vesper Lynd in CR, Teresa di Vicenzo in OHMSS, Fredericka von Grusse in Gardner's novels. About the only real human contacts 007 has are M, Tanner, Q and Moneypenny from MI6, and his elderly housekeeper. And he doesn't always sleep very well...

Movies: Timothy Dalton tried to be closer to the novels in depicting Bond as "walking wounded", but couldn't quite carry it off. Reference was made to the "suffering Bond" in GoldenEye also, between the line from Trevelyan about "I might as well ask you if all the vodka martinis
ever silence the screams of all the men you’ve killed. And all those women you failed to protect," and this little exchange with the girl:
Natalya: "How can you be so cold?"
Bond: "It's what keeps me alive."
Natalya: "No. It's what keeps you alone."

Just some food for thought. As I've referred to before, I had to do full psych workups on both characters for a class...

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

The Barry Nelson version of Casino Royale is included as a bonus on the DVD for the 1967 Casino Royale.

 

[Nick D]

I think Damon and the Bourne director have totally missed the point of the Bond movies, and the character of Bond. Are we supposed to hate Bond and think he's a bad person because of his license to kill and his wit?

And call me paranoid, but...James Bond, Jason Bourne...coincidence?

 

[Brian Sheridan]

And call me paranoid, but...James Bond, Jason Bourne...coincidence?

I noticed that too - wondering why Ludlum did that.

 

[Senator Jack]

Hooray for Harry Palmer. Too bad he didn't have staying power.

 

[Brian Sheridan]

Hooray for Harry Palmer. Too bad he didn't have staying power.

Both the books and the movies were top notch. It is hard not to like Michael Caine.

 

[MrBern]

I liked the director's quote:

British director Greengrass said: "The Bourne franchise is not about wearing Prada suits and looking at women coming out of the sea with bikinis on. It's about essence and truth, not frippery and surface."

 

[Senator Jack]

Read Colonel Sun. A Bond novel with catharsis! (Hooray for Kingsley Amis!)