The Fake Life - Love movies? We do too!

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

The Spy Who Bored Me

A couple of weekends ago, I went to a wedding, and as is usual amongst my group of friends, the topic of conversation turned to movies, or more accurately, Casino Royale. Of course, we took the predicted course and began debating Bond movies and then, even more predictably, listing our favourite Bond girls. We were all happy discussing the merits of Daniella Bianchi and Caroline Munro, but then we were struck by a crushing blow as our girlfriends both said in unison "We hate Bond movies."

The arguments were the same ones we've had a thousand times before. Girls: "They're completely misogynistic." Boys: "You say that like it's a bad thing." But a couple of days after I thought about it a bit more, and why I was actually defending Bond movies. I think it's partly the nostalgia factor, and that I grew up with them, but also because I'm sure there's some wayward gene inside every British male that rears into defensive mode whenever Bond flicks are attacked. But then it hit me even more. Beyond the nostalgia and the inherent stubbornness where 007 is concerned, do these movies really deserve defending?

I should probably say now as a disclaimer that I'm not including Goldfinger in this argument because it really is the one major exception, but more on that later. In any case, I thought about my point a little more and sat down to watch what people consider one of - if not the - best Bond movies, From Russia With Love. Unfortunately, it just proved my point, as I turned it off after forty minutes. Why? Because I was really bored.

This is the thing. I'm never really turned off by the whole misogynistic deal in 007 flicks, because I think it is a whole part of the wish fulfillment thing that Ian Fleming had in mind when he was writing the original novels. And really, the movies have a lot of pretty strong female characters, even if a high percentage of them do end up having the living daylights shagged out of them and being given seven double-Os. What bothers me is that most of them have a real languid pace, and as such are more kind of a travelogue than a well-structured flowing story.

In a way, I can understand it. After all, tying into the wish fulfillment again, Bond has always been about travelling to exotic locations and the likes. I appreciate that. But they only seem exotic for a very short time before the lack of interesting photography and pacing has choked the spirit out of the location and the picture. In Russia, Bond travels to Istanbul, and there are some great locations, the coolest of which is the underground reservoir. But then they go to this gypsy camp to hideout, they get attacked, and it's all really dull, taking twenty minutes or so to establish that a Russian is trying to kill a Turk. These guys obviously never took story economy 101.

A good comparison to make is Indiana Jones, or rather, Raiders of the Lost Ark. The Indy movies are almost proto-Bond, arising no doubt from the fact that Spielberg had desired to direct a Bond flick until Uncle George stepped up and said "I'll do you one better." They have the excitement, the exotic locations, even the teaser action sequence before the story begins. But they also have a very well-written structure, and make sure that the locations and actions are driven only by the needs of the story.

As I said before, Goldfinger is the big exception. It's an incredible film, and is fun in every sense of the word without ever being dull. There are Bonds which also manage to keep at least a portion of consistent fun before giving way to the strain of the structure, but these are few and far between, and like Ben said in his DVD review, they tend to be more of the weird ones.

The one thing I'll say about Bond movies is that they're amazing if you have the ability to skip chapters. They truly do have a lot of memorable stunts, great action scenes, and a lot of hot women and funky gadgets. It's just a shame you have to sit through a lot of chaff to get to them.