Article by William - Sydney Morning Herald - October 14th, 2006
An Aussie villain might just leave Bond both stirred and shaken;
WILLIAM McINNES.
Sydney Morning Herald
10-14-2006
MY NAME is Boring, James Boring, er, Bond. Did you know there's a new James Bond? A new dinner-jacketed fantasy hero to eat up space in the media for a while.
The great joke about James Bond is the whole character relies entirely on the idea that Britain matters. That it's the centre of things. That it's a world power, and idiotic plans for world domination can be resisted by it in the form of Sean Connery's toupee, Roger Moore's eyebrow, George Lazenby's boofheadedness, Timothy Dalton's whatever Dalton had and Pierce Brosnan's prim lips and neat hair. The new incarnation, Daniel Craig, wants to do it by being more real. Hello! Most real British spies that mattered all seemed to be either gay, alcoholics or work for the royal family. But mostly they pretended to be English and worked for the Russians.
James Bond's lasting franchise appeal rests simply upon the less endearing elements of human beings' love of the dollar. The whole character is a warmed-up Cold War pop icon and really isn't that attractive. Audiences, though, will be told that the Bond creation is a firm favourite with the tradition of entertaining people with style and excitement. That means Benny Hill double entendres, a couple of ski chases and stunts with doubles who look nothing like the actors. It is sad, but not that odd, that this creaking monster is still given credence, with its misogynistic backhanding of woman and reality. Escapism is all very well, but really ...
How can you take seriously anybody who struts about in a sky- blue towelling pants-suit a la bald Connery in Goldfinger or a fellow who waddles about a Copper Art-appointed apartment in a safari suit (who else but Moore in Live and Let Die?)
My father thought Connery was all right: "He's the sort of bloke who would belt you in a game of rugby but then have a beer with you afterwards."
You'd probably have to pay for the beer, though.
I know it's just entertainment. But what would draw people to see yet another adventure? What new plan for world domination could there be? There is always a plan for world domination. And arch- supervillains. But why do these knobbish types concoct all these great schemes, only to blow it the very moment they are about to push the button by turning to our old friend Bond and babbling on about how they are going to do it all? Just press the blooming button, mate.
And why is it that all the super-villains are men? Oh sure, they have a few woman who are nasty. Some even are fed to sharks or whatever. But no, no biscuits for a woman who wants to dominate the world. You can't have a woman pressing the buttons.
Sadly, it's a retro male fantasy at work in overdrive. Men rule the world. Men want to destroy the world. Only a man can save the world.
It wouldn't matter so much if it were just a piece of fluff, but we are told that this new James Bond is going to be more real. What does that mean?
It doesn't really matter, of course. Bond isn't even British. He belongs to that American idea of the British hero which is based firmly in the clutches of old-studio Hollywood. So Britain doesn't really have to matter, for this Britain is owned by America and America knows that it can make anything matter. Or seem to matter out there in the megaplexes.
But more real? Does that mean Bond will be like the Britons I come in contact with? Will he be some irritatingly cheerful oik at an intersection who wants to wash my windscreen. Or some white- socked, sandal-wearing tourist who smugly chortles about Freddie Flintoff?
Of course, that's not real. Will the new Bond be like Tony Blair? An ingratiating, adept, clever "friend" to the Americans? They can own James and Tony. No, that's too cynical.
What I would really like to see is an Australian Bond villain. Somebody who loves the sound of his own voice and who has that mad, sweeping imagination which otherwise would be titled delusions of grandeur.
Some people would point at John Howard. No. Howard wouldn't want to dominate the world, just Australia. And Bond couldn't give a toss about Australia. And though I can imagine Howard would bang on, I don't think he'd ever forget to press the button.
Kim Beazley? He has enough trouble trying to dominate himself, let alone the world, although he could perhaps waffle and prolix Bond into submission.
No, my pick for the perfect antipodean Bond villain would have to be Alan Jones. He could hector our super-spy to death. Lecture him about a vodka martini being shaken, not stirred, indicating a weakness because the ice in a shaken martini dilutes the strength of the vodka. "It's an outrage that can't be tolerated." Give Bond a good dressing down. "Simply not good enough!"
It would be worth the ticket.
WILLIAM McINNES.
Sydney Morning Herald
10-14-2006
MY NAME is Boring, James Boring, er, Bond. Did you know there's a new James Bond? A new dinner-jacketed fantasy hero to eat up space in the media for a while.
The great joke about James Bond is the whole character relies entirely on the idea that Britain matters. That it's the centre of things. That it's a world power, and idiotic plans for world domination can be resisted by it in the form of Sean Connery's toupee, Roger Moore's eyebrow, George Lazenby's boofheadedness, Timothy Dalton's whatever Dalton had and Pierce Brosnan's prim lips and neat hair. The new incarnation, Daniel Craig, wants to do it by being more real. Hello! Most real British spies that mattered all seemed to be either gay, alcoholics or work for the royal family. But mostly they pretended to be English and worked for the Russians.
James Bond's lasting franchise appeal rests simply upon the less endearing elements of human beings' love of the dollar. The whole character is a warmed-up Cold War pop icon and really isn't that attractive. Audiences, though, will be told that the Bond creation is a firm favourite with the tradition of entertaining people with style and excitement. That means Benny Hill double entendres, a couple of ski chases and stunts with doubles who look nothing like the actors. It is sad, but not that odd, that this creaking monster is still given credence, with its misogynistic backhanding of woman and reality. Escapism is all very well, but really ...
How can you take seriously anybody who struts about in a sky- blue towelling pants-suit a la bald Connery in Goldfinger or a fellow who waddles about a Copper Art-appointed apartment in a safari suit (who else but Moore in Live and Let Die?)
My father thought Connery was all right: "He's the sort of bloke who would belt you in a game of rugby but then have a beer with you afterwards."
You'd probably have to pay for the beer, though.
I know it's just entertainment. But what would draw people to see yet another adventure? What new plan for world domination could there be? There is always a plan for world domination. And arch- supervillains. But why do these knobbish types concoct all these great schemes, only to blow it the very moment they are about to push the button by turning to our old friend Bond and babbling on about how they are going to do it all? Just press the blooming button, mate.
And why is it that all the super-villains are men? Oh sure, they have a few woman who are nasty. Some even are fed to sharks or whatever. But no, no biscuits for a woman who wants to dominate the world. You can't have a woman pressing the buttons.
Sadly, it's a retro male fantasy at work in overdrive. Men rule the world. Men want to destroy the world. Only a man can save the world.
It wouldn't matter so much if it were just a piece of fluff, but we are told that this new James Bond is going to be more real. What does that mean?
It doesn't really matter, of course. Bond isn't even British. He belongs to that American idea of the British hero which is based firmly in the clutches of old-studio Hollywood. So Britain doesn't really have to matter, for this Britain is owned by America and America knows that it can make anything matter. Or seem to matter out there in the megaplexes.
But more real? Does that mean Bond will be like the Britons I come in contact with? Will he be some irritatingly cheerful oik at an intersection who wants to wash my windscreen. Or some white- socked, sandal-wearing tourist who smugly chortles about Freddie Flintoff?
Of course, that's not real. Will the new Bond be like Tony Blair? An ingratiating, adept, clever "friend" to the Americans? They can own James and Tony. No, that's too cynical.
What I would really like to see is an Australian Bond villain. Somebody who loves the sound of his own voice and who has that mad, sweeping imagination which otherwise would be titled delusions of grandeur.
Some people would point at John Howard. No. Howard wouldn't want to dominate the world, just Australia. And Bond couldn't give a toss about Australia. And though I can imagine Howard would bang on, I don't think he'd ever forget to press the button.
Kim Beazley? He has enough trouble trying to dominate himself, let alone the world, although he could perhaps waffle and prolix Bond into submission.
No, my pick for the perfect antipodean Bond villain would have to be Alan Jones. He could hector our super-spy to death. Lecture him about a vodka martini being shaken, not stirred, indicating a weakness because the ice in a shaken martini dilutes the strength of the vodka. "It's an outrage that can't be tolerated." Give Bond a good dressing down. "Simply not good enough!"
It would be worth the ticket.
posted by WilliamWatch at 8:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home