Shaken and stirred

It seems to me that Daniel Craig is a James Bond who could easily outshine Sean Connery - at last. He’s pretty, when necessary - vulnerable, delivers the humour (and there's not too much of that), much more physical and, mostly, he’s nastier - perhaps more than all the other film Bonds put together. As Ian Fleming said, spying is a dirty business and Craig is certainly as hard as nails when it comes to killing and taking punishment.

He’s also the first, I think, to show that the sexual side of Bonds work - and it is definitely business - is dysfunctional.

Did I enjoy it? Well... Yes. I had to steel myself for the violence and more than that Craig’s extraordinary inclusion of pain into Bond’s lexicon of emotions. As Mark Kermode has said we feel Bond’s pain. I did enjoy it but its a massive change of style.

At last he’s not a super human - definitely breakable, so we sympathise but not too much. I don't see Craig's Bond as a role model for any more than the most disturbed. And there’s the risk for the producers. I think traditionally folk have bought tickets to see Bond films for the machismo, the gadgets and the wry, sorry I mistyped that , I meant misogynistic, humour: that audience will be disappointed. A character who shows superficial charm is unlikely to last on screen unless very compelling. I think Craig is very compelling, and some, so I think the films, teh character and even. sorry to mention them, the commercial partners - Omega Watches, Sony computers, Ford cars and all - are safe in his hands.


Popular Posts