Revisionistic

My last post talked about how far from the ticket line I'll be when the new Sherlock Holmes movie comes out, but the movie itself does give us a good jumping off point for a topic which divides movie-goers, and readers. Revisionist takes on classics can be great, refreshing beginnings for things decades-old. They can also be kryptonite for many hardcore genre fans. To say that there are some who didn't welcome 2006's Casino Royale with open arms may come as a surprise for those from my generation, but some people didn't like the movie studios fucking with James Bond. I am not one of them. Casino Royale was great and it helped wake people up to what James Bond's life would be like in reality. Laugh if you want, but Casino Royale was more realistic than any other Bond film yet. There's so much camp and tongue-in-cheek material in the 21 Bond films that proceeded Casino Royale, that the series needed an injection of seriousness.

Bond's ability to avoid death will never be realistic, but his personality is much more realistically portrayed by Daniel Craig than by, say, Roger Moore. James Bond can be divided into three sections: book Bond, movie Bond, Daniel Craig Bond. Book Bond, as originally envisioned by Ian Flemming consists of Bond being as careless with life and death and women as in the movies, but there is a classiness that Flemming tries to illustrate about Bond's lifestyle that he hopes cannot be denied by anyone. Bond is a serious person, he just likes his daily doses of martinis and sex. Movie Bond is much more carefree. He throws caution to the wind, but not because he must, he does it as a boast. He knows he'll be winning, and he never looks like he's actually trying. Daniel Craig Bond knows exactly what he needs to do, doesn't really enjoy every minute of it, and struggles to overcome the odds. Sometimes he loses, badly. I shudder to think what his balls looked like for the few weeks that followed his rope torture at the hands of Le Chiffre. I don't think Vesper Lynd was getting much action in their hotel room in Venice.

I am okay with the new Bond. Some people would complain that the new Bond isn't the true Bond. The new Bond is too serious and there's no joking around, no Q and no banter with M about the spies' desire to use a Beretta instead of the Walther. After decades of indulgence, I welcome the change that Daniel Craig's Bond has brought us. When everyone knows the ins and outs of a certain type of character, it's nice to have a chance to examine the reality that movies tend to hide. Westerns are a good example. Unforgiven is a revisionist western. Most westerns have the hero drawing and shooting his pistol with ease - faster than anyone else in the West. These types of iconic heroes can't age or get hurt. Unforgiven reminded us that that was all bullshit. Outlaws were subject to the same ailments as us normal folk. They lose their eyesight as they age, their joints creak and they lose range of motion. No way someone's going to draw a pistol at the same speed at 70 that they could when they were 27. But to the people who are most likely to follow stories like Bond's and Eastwood's, middle-aged men, the realities are elements better left out of these tales. These heroes aren't supposed to age or grow infirm.

I'm not saying I want to burst bubbles or steal peoples' enjoyment, but sometimes a healthy dose of reality is what's needed to keep something from getting stale. I like Unforgiven, but I also like Silverado. These movies are at odds with each other, but what really makes and Unforgiven and Casino Royale stand out is that they're not spitting in the eye of their predecessors. They know from whence they came, they're just out forging new territory, like any animal does when it has grown and is ready to leave the nest and start its own life.