TROUBLE-OH SEVEN
APR 23, 2010 – FIVE Gs HAVE ROUTINELY DEFINED the Bond series: guns, girls, gadgets, globetrotting, and gobs of greenbacks. The influence of the latter is in the names of the films – Goldfinger, Diamonds are Forever. It’s in the names of the characters – Moneypenny, Solitaire, Tiffany Case, Ruby Bartlett. It’s in the locations like Fort Knox, in the props like the jewel-encrusted Fabergé eggs, in the set pieces like the high-stakes poker games. It’s in the box-office numbers that routinely scrape the stratosphere every single time a Bond adventure makes its way to the multiplexes. And yet, money is the reason the living daylights have been knocked out of the next Bond installment. Apparently, the world is not enough to resuscitate the debt-ridden Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, the studio that has housed the franchise for nearly five decades.
A quantum of solace comes from the fact that, in the movie business, cash cows are rarely ever eyed with a view to a kill, especially those on her majesty’s secret service, who’ve may have been dispatched from Russia with love. They’re never left to die another day, even if you only live twice. The question, therefore, is not whether, but simply when. James Bond, after all, has withstood the onslaught of he-man heroes like Schwarzenegger and Stallone, who made you think that the world had moved beyond dapper-dandy spies whose killings were flavoured with killer comebacks. Then came the age of special effects, which made us wonder if a quaint relic of the Cold War outfitted with quaintly mechanical contraptions was relevant anymore. Had a world moved beyond a so-called super hero who didn’t possess a single superpower?
But Bond has persisted, mostly because he’s a habit hard to shake off. We may bemoan the diminishing cultural cachet carried by these adventures. We may look back at earlier Bonds and sigh that no one has ever come close to occupying the throne vacated by the magisterial Sean Connery. But the desire to watch out for – and then watch – the upcoming Bond movie is hardwired in our DNA, even in the case of people in countries where not a trace of English is spoken. We are but Pavlovian puppets whose pulse begins to quicken the instant that opening riff begins to play. And play it will. We are, after all, talking about a man who’s wriggled out of situations involving volcanoes, sharks and libido-threatening lasers. Surely he can clamber out of a vat of red ink.
Copyright ©2010 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
brangan
April 23, 2010
Was asked to do this tiny little piece for the Edit page…
LikeLike
APALA
April 23, 2010
“no one has ever come close to occupying the throne vacated by the magisterial Sean Connery” – Well I thought Daniel Craig came lot closer to the throne in “Casino Royale” – showing some insight into the otherwise killing machine / MCP Bond! He showed his vulnerability, the reason for his detached emotions later life ………. I really thought he really made it there (if they could have carried out a better show with Quantum of Solace (lame title), would have inched further towards at least reaching Sean’s magic! But I hope that they find the money to send this Bond again on mission(s)!!! Let’s see!
LikeLike
Manu
April 23, 2010
Daniel Craig brought a certain edginess to Bond but in that process we lost out some of the wittiness and fun.
I thought Bond franchise was a money making one. Still not enough to save MGM? surprised.
LikeLike
Venkatesh
April 23, 2010
“no one has ever come close to occupying the throne vacated by the magisterial Sean Connery” – you mean Roger Moore was a lame duck 007 don’t you ., now come on spit it out .
LikeLike
Rahul
April 23, 2010
Quite unlike your other piecess!,You withhold from expressing your own opinion about Bond, and are instead speaking on behalf of some average viewer.
LikeLike
Adithya
April 23, 2010
Daniel Craig did come a lot closer to Sean Connery. That is also because it was not a popular choice to cast him and no one had real expectations from the movie. But it rocked.
And like one of my friends said, Quantum of Solace just cannot be the last movie in the franchise! It’s like suicide. I hope some billionnaire fanboy pitches in to save it like they save football clubs.
LikeLike
Anonymous
April 24, 2010
I made a promise to myself that I’ll never say never again, but what are promises meant for if not to be broken — especially in the Bond universe? So here goes: A more fascinatingly woven, fantastically forward-looking Bond write-up, there can NEVER be.
And hey, I’m usually not a negative person, but I do suggest a -ve (after “who”) in para 2, line 2, in case Mr.Imperious is interested in spit-shining (t)his imperial “Fabergé egg” some more.
LikeLike
Ramesh
April 24, 2010
sean connery! Indian! speaks english with a scottish accent, is 80 years old and still thinks he’s bond. goes commondo under his kilt Indian!
LikeLike
satya
April 24, 2010
I have been a regular reader of your blogs.(though I can remember having commented only once)..I like all your writings..this one didn’t look like yours. Felt almost forced. Not sure why.
LikeLike
Aditya Pant
April 24, 2010
Sorry for saying this, but this one comes across as highly contrived, or “forced” as Satya says. First of your writings to have terribly disappointed me.
LikeLike
Harish S Ram
April 24, 2010
I think Brosnan comes as a close 2nd after the ever dependable Connery. The charm – oh man – am gay 😀
LikeLike
Priti
April 24, 2010
You shouldn’t have shoehorned all those Bond movie names in the piece. Its true, it doesn’t even look like your piece. Slightly lame and offers no opinion.
LikeLike
brangan
April 24, 2010
Venkatesh: I don’t think he’s a lame duck. (TSWLM is one of my favourite Bond movies. Killer title track too… Nobody does it better.) But in his regime, Bond became a bit too lightweight.
Rahul/Priti/Aditya Pant/satya: I’m not happy about this piece myself. I was asked to do something “lighthearted” in 400-odd words about the Bond-in-a-soup business. The grey cells weren’t particularly cooperative. However, this wasn’t meant to offer an OPINION. It’s just meant to be a lark.
Anonymous: I don’t think you’re surprising anyone by breaking your promises. The great thing about the Internet is that it allows anyone to be a bull in a china shop. All the (site) owner can do is watch helplessly as, among other things, one’s peace of mind is shattered to smithereens. Shatter away!
Ramesh: This series you’ve got going is quite good 🙂
LikeLike
Ramesh
April 24, 2010
i wish i coud take credit for the idea… goodness gracious me.
LikeLike
Anonymous
April 25, 2010
“bull in a china shop” – aha, anoint-ey pannitingala, “Murattu Kaalai” nu, lol. Ennodadhellam back-alley-bred brain Saar, sangeetham, ingeetham ellaam theriyaadhu, seriyaa puriyaadhu. Radha Ravi “Annamalai” la sollardha dhaane neengalum sollaringa? “Siva poojai la karadi nuzhaiyara maadhiri” nu?
Nuzhanjitom illa, odachidu-Om! But seriously (to borrow from dear friend raj), bull kellaam bayandhaa thozhil panna mudiyuma? Just write, I say. We are not at all interested in your peace of mind, only in a piece of your mind!
LikeLike
onlineshop
May 8, 2010
I still don’t think that Daniel Craig is a good James Bond, as he just looks like a guy with a lot of muscles and nothing in the brain. James Bond is all brain and doesn’t have any muscles.
LikeLike
KayKay
October 31, 2020
And…this miserable year keeps forcing me to say…’F*** YOU 2020!”
RIP Sir Sean Connery
LikeLiked by 2 people
Aman Basha
October 31, 2020
Just came across this and was wondering if BR gets to do a piece on Bond and Connery, it’s after all the 25th Bond film next.
RIP the first Bond and the father of Jones, Sir Sean Connery.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
October 31, 2020
Seconding Double Kay. In spades! 😦
LikeLike