007. Heaven?

James Bond is not back in business people. I saw Quantum of Solace the other night and was rather disappointed. I mean, it was a generally good action film. Blockbusting fight scenes and set pieces, some great effects and beautiful shots of silhouettes through fire in a buring desert hotel and all, but there was something... missing.

And after much consideration I have discovered what. Bondage. No, not some dirty, kirky sex scenes (although these were notably lacking as well), but the essence of Bond: the wit, the charm, the slight cheesiness that makes Bond Bond: Bondage.

Think of old Bond films, when Bond wades through the black ocean waters in a wetsuit, crawling across the beach and then stripping off to reveal and tuxedo underneath, in which he suavely slips into a cocktail party. Or when he jumps or skis off something or other and his parachute opens revealing a British flag. Now that's Bond. He's so cool he doesn't need muscles. He doesn't have to be able to beat baddies up with just a fist while they wield axes or missile launchers; he just has to use a gadget/his brains/a witty joke to get out of a sticky situation. The new Bond is just a gun-toting shadow of his former self.



So when the husband and I saw Casino Royale back when it came out, he (a Bond aficionado) was outraged at Daniel Craig's Bond's rawness and roughness. "He's not suave, he's not cultured," he complained endlessly. I reassured him that this was all part of the plan. Casino Royale, I explained, was the Batman Begins of the Bond franchise. It shows his beginnings, his genesis. How a betrayal by the woman he loved made him reject women as objects of worth and form a shell around his persona where he could detach himself from anything emotional or painful. In Casino Royale, Bond couldn't care less if his martini was shaken or stirred. But after this betrayal he changes, becomes the cool as a cucumber spy we all know and love. He becomes, in the final scene of the film, Bond, James Bond.

So we entered the cinema with baited breath, expecting to see the Bond we used to know, shameless womaniser, cultured European and witty charmer. But along comes Craig, still muscly (I guess we can't do anything about that though, can we?) but still angry, still brutish and still not witty. There are admittedly a couple of "amusing" lines in Quantum, but that's it. Literally two. The rest of the film is a mixture of Bourne-inspired fight scenes and automobile chases.
There is nothing inherently charming or British about Bond anymore. And unless the producers return Bond to his former incarnation, I can't imagination the franchise will stick around much longer.

W.

In fear of my life, I admit: I don't hate George Bush.

I went to see W last night. I was expecting a Michael Moore type laugh-a-minute film, but that wasn't it at all.

Overall, I found the movie quite boring; it was pretty much a biopic - but who wants to see a biopic about a man still alive and about events which occurred less than ten years ago? Not me.
Josh Brolin is completely excellent as Bush. Not only has he captured the mannerisms exactly, but he is funny, and quite likeable. In my opinion the film tries to portray the complex relationship between George Bush Sr and Jr, both powerful statesmen (obviously) but also confused in their relationship as father and son. Unfortunately, the portrayal lacks any depth and basically swings around from Sr being the one to blame, to Jr and so on. And I'm not saying I would have wanted more depth - no, no. In fact the father-son moments were, in my opinion, the most boring parts of the film.





Most compelling were the White House scenes, where I could simultaneously enjoy guessing who was supposed to be who and laugh my head off at Thandie Newton's portrayal of Condoleeza Rice. Surely it was a joke performance?? Newton looked like a puppet on a string; a figure straight from Team America! I spent an alarming amount of time cracking up at her imitation of Rice's speaking voice instead of concentrating on why exactly America went to war with Iraq.

And now for the political analysis: I seem to differ from the rest of the world in my views, but I was a supporter of the Iraq war (at least initially). I will admit, I am not too involved, or even interested, in politics, with the exception of my West Wing obsession. But I remember back in 2003 that I believed it was necessary to invade a hostile country if it was certain they had WMDs.

I know it has since been revealed that the intelligence regarding the location of, nay existence of, WMDs was shady to say the least. And obviously I don't support a war based on false evidence. However, according to the film (again, I am unsure of how much of it is actually true) Bush and some of his advisors really did believe that Iraq posed an imminent threat to global security. I have not a single doubt that Bush acted for the correct reasons. It seems that either he was misled or his advisors and their intelligence providers got it wrong. Dramatically wrong.
This does not exonerate Bush. Obviously his administration was in a bad way if they were receiving false intelligence AND believing it. But Bush, as President, cannot have been expected to research the matter himself. He relied upon advice from those highest in their fields. That their advice was wrong, does indeed refelct on Bush, but it should not make him hated by all living beings. I truly believe (and not just because of the film) that he was trying to do the right thing.

I also believe that that alone is not enough. A President should be better than everyone else nd not make such mistakes.

A moment in the film seemed to bring it home to me. At one point, Bush is asking his advisors who is searching for the WMDs in Iraq. They all point at each other, saying the responsibility was passed to someone else. Bush fumes, "Why wasn't I told?" etc etc. But then he shouts out, "Who is in control here?" (or something along those lines) And although noone answers, it is painfully clear that the one who should be in control is Bush himself. That he has lost command of the entire operation.

I thought the ending of W was thought-provoking, and I definitely believe that Oliver Stone has portrayed Bush as decent but flawed. Brolin charms the audience, and although Bush may have choked on a pretzel, he somehow has always charmed me.