After a thrilling Saturday spent at ARU, as a treat I went to the cinema to see the newest James Bond, ‘Casino Royale’. I know that it has been out ages and I am probably the last person in the country to see it but I don’t get out much… I lost track of time while watching it – it certainly moves on apace – and as usual the FX and stunts were pretty good. But I don’t know if I will watch the next one or not because of a few things that struck me as I was watching this one.
One reason definitely to see the next film is Daniel Craig himself – very nice for these eyes to look at anyway. The way he plays Bond is much truer to the books – at least as I remember reading them a long time ago. His Bond is hard and dark, not a very nice person and one who uses his charm (and everything else) to get what he wants. ‘Casino Royale’ is a prequel in that it explains how Bond becomes like this early in his career as a ‘00’. The film is a darker, perhaps more realistic film – depending on what your idea of real life is like – and not the entertaining fantasy romp we have got used to. So I came out less entertained and more provoked to thought than I would expect to be. It’s rated at 12 with parental guidance, which surprises me in retrospect. Not that it is excessively violent (see ‘Starship Troopers’ for gore and violence, and body parts scattered around) but I wonder what insidious effect the hardening process that Bond goes through and the sort of person he is at the end, which sequence is all about revenge, has on the viewer.
For the first time in a film I became very conscious of ‘product placement’ and once I spotted what was going on it became difficult not to notice. Every electronic gizmo has the name Sony on it, usually very obviously so. And although Bond drives his usual Aston Martin, he also hops into a few other makes as well. The car parks are littered with brand new Range Rovers, Fords and Jags (especially Jags), and MGs. Again it is probably not excessive compared with many films but it is noticeable. And the opportunity to get money for product placement might, I guess, be a reason why the film is set now rather than say back in the 1960s or 1970s which in a way would fit better with the chronology of the character and the other Bond films.
Maybe I am particularly tuned into such visual things as I have just started a dissertation about what the physical environment of a church or sacred space says about what happens in it, and the interrelationship between the two. Do you have mixed messages when you use 21st Century Common Worship eucharistic liturgy in a medieval church last re-ordered slightly by the Victorians? (And does it matter anyway?)
Perhaps a challenge that ‘Casino Royale’ sets us is to think about Christian ‘product placement’…
One reason definitely to see the next film is Daniel Craig himself – very nice for these eyes to look at anyway. The way he plays Bond is much truer to the books – at least as I remember reading them a long time ago. His Bond is hard and dark, not a very nice person and one who uses his charm (and everything else) to get what he wants. ‘Casino Royale’ is a prequel in that it explains how Bond becomes like this early in his career as a ‘00’. The film is a darker, perhaps more realistic film – depending on what your idea of real life is like – and not the entertaining fantasy romp we have got used to. So I came out less entertained and more provoked to thought than I would expect to be. It’s rated at 12 with parental guidance, which surprises me in retrospect. Not that it is excessively violent (see ‘Starship Troopers’ for gore and violence, and body parts scattered around) but I wonder what insidious effect the hardening process that Bond goes through and the sort of person he is at the end, which sequence is all about revenge, has on the viewer.
For the first time in a film I became very conscious of ‘product placement’ and once I spotted what was going on it became difficult not to notice. Every electronic gizmo has the name Sony on it, usually very obviously so. And although Bond drives his usual Aston Martin, he also hops into a few other makes as well. The car parks are littered with brand new Range Rovers, Fords and Jags (especially Jags), and MGs. Again it is probably not excessive compared with many films but it is noticeable. And the opportunity to get money for product placement might, I guess, be a reason why the film is set now rather than say back in the 1960s or 1970s which in a way would fit better with the chronology of the character and the other Bond films.
Maybe I am particularly tuned into such visual things as I have just started a dissertation about what the physical environment of a church or sacred space says about what happens in it, and the interrelationship between the two. Do you have mixed messages when you use 21st Century Common Worship eucharistic liturgy in a medieval church last re-ordered slightly by the Victorians? (And does it matter anyway?)
Perhaps a challenge that ‘Casino Royale’ sets us is to think about Christian ‘product placement’…
