This is interesting: I’ve run across a French trailer for the upcoming film Casino Royale, which producers hope will reinvigorate the 007 franchise with a new actor in the lead and a new realism in the storytelling (I understand they’ve ditched Q and the gadgets in favor of good old-fashioned fist-fights.) An English-language version has yet to be released, so if you don’t speak French — and I don’t myself — you’ll just have to guess at what’s going on. Not that this is so difficult; it’s a trailer for a James Bond film, after all.
I personally think the Bond movies ran out of creative gas decades ago, even though I dutifully plunk down my $7.50 every time a new one comes out. I can’t remember who suggested it — Quentin Tarantino, maybe, or perhaps some random blogger — but I agree with the idea that the only way you could really make this Cold War-era character work again in this post-Cold War world would be to do Bond as a period piece, set in the late-50s/early-60s mileau in which the original novels were written. That’s why I got very excited when I saw that the first few scenes of this trailer were in black-and-white — I thought for a moment that someone had actually dared to do something truly different with Bond. (I think a black-and-white Bond movie, even if not an actual period piece, would be awesome.) But then it shifted into color and the familiar theme started and it was all business as usual. Disappointing. Still, it doesn’t look too bad, and the new guy appears to have the proper combination of suave and menace. I’m not sure about his blond hair, though. There’s reinvention and then there’s just plain wrong.
Take a look and see if you agree:
I’m glad to hear about the new realism. The past few Bond movies have really gone over the top with high-tech gadgetry and outlandish settings. Spy stories are most intriguing when they depict the underworld that’s right under our noses, in the world we think we know. That’s why I, too, was excited to see the Noirish opening of the trailer. Even in color, however, I would welcome a Bond who kicks ass the old fashioned way. Let’s hope this one lives up to expectations.
P.S. The ill-starred George Lazenby film On Her Majesty’s Secret Service was one of the better Bond movies in my opinion because it didn’t overkill the gadgetry. And because Telly Savalas was such a great villain. And because there were plenty of really good looking girls.
Hmm. Looking at it with no sound and a fuzzy monitor, it doens’t look any different than the dozens of action films put out every year. If it wasn’t for the logo, I wouldn’t have known it was a Bond film.
Robert, total agreement about realistic spy stories. My favorite Bond film is actually one of the least outlandish, From Russia With Love. Things started going downhill after Goldfinger locked in the now-exhausted formula of the Big Final Set Piece Gun Battle Between the Army and The Villains.
I haven’t seen OHMSS in years…
Anne, it does have kind of a Bourne feel to it, doesn’t it? I’m hoping that’s just the way the trailer was cut, but it’s probably not…
http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/casinoroyale/
the url for the Sony English trailer –
albeit it looks like the Bourne films have defined action sequences for the time being, aside from that, visually it looks well enough shot that it could pass for Noir if the color was stripped from it. I think the production design looks great, love the feel and hope that it revives what once was a fun series.
Thanks for the address, Cheno – the source from which I took that French trailer made it sound like an English one wasn’t out yet, and I didn’t have time this afternoon to verify.
I agree the production looks good, very down-to-earth and gritty. But I hope they haven’t done the Bourne-style shaky-cam during the action scenes. I hate that incomprehensible crap. The Bourne movies actually confounded me because I liked the stories and performances, but hated the way they were shot and edited. Guess I’m just an old fart that’s not down with the new-fangled ways of doing things…
well being a cameraman….
I like the shaky-cam type stuff if it works with the story. I actually liked it in the Bourne movies as the camera literally put you in the middle of the action as though you were a character although I’ve talked to more that don’t like that style than do. I’ve only seen clips from the Constant Gardner but the handheld camera work in that film bothers me more since it’s more of a drama than all out chase / action film like Bourne is.
Definately isn’t an epic style but if the story dictates, I think it is effective. On the technology side though, we’re able to use lighter cameras and with digital editing make heads or tales of all the footage now shot for action pieces so in a way it’s progression. In another, if it ain’t broke… eh?
My problem with shaky-cam is that it generally (not always – depends on how it’s used) makes what you’re seeing less comprehensible. I couldn’t follow half the action sequences in the Bourne movies, and as a viewer and a writer interested in following the plot, I find that extremely annoying. Placing the viewer “in the action” may be a more realistic or naturalistic depiction of how it would feel to be under fire or whatever, but for me it’s worth losing a bit of the verisimilitude in order to know what the hell is going on.
Shaky-cam tends to make for poorer storytelling, IMHO. The constant jitteriness and zooming and smash-cuts seem less exciting to me than they do incompetent.
(I’m not saying the camera people for these films are incompetent, as I’m sure they’re not; shaky is just a style of work. But still, you get my point…)