Saturday, April 27, 2013

An Open Letter of Apology to Jeffrey Deaver

An Open Letter of Apology to Jeffrey Deaver

Let's start out with the admission of my guilt:  I was wrong!.  There, I have said it (or written it).  I waited three years from it's publication to read Jeffrey Deaver's authorized James Bond novel, Carte Blanche,  because I, stubbornly,  refused to allow myself to buy into the notion that anyone other than Ian Fleming could write a good Bond spy novel.  I foolishly believed that reading a Bond novel written by anyone but Fleming was, somehow, a betrayal of the legacy; that reading a non-Fleming work was buying into a cheap attempt to cash in on the Bond-starved fan base's desire for ANYTHING Bond.

So why the change of heart?   What motivated my sudden interest in finding out what all the fuss was about?   Why now?  The answer is simple and can be summed up in one word:  Skyfall.   After watching (and re-watching) Skyfall, I found myself redefining what it meant to be close to Bond's source material, which is the standard I always judged Bond material by.  Skyfall is not named after, nor is based upon, specifically, any Fleming work; however, it is truer to the character, essence and spirit of the original work than any number of Eon Film productions which take their titles directly from Fleming novels.  So I found myself faced with the possibility that someone other than Fleming could still do justice to Bond and Fleming's monumental legacy.  On that basis I cautiously picked up a copy of Deaver's Bond novel from 2011 and cracked the cover with an open mind.  Am I glad I did.

In Deaver's contemporary setting we meet a younger Bond, in his 30's, who still carries his "00" status but within a re-tooled agency more fitted to the post 9/11 world than to the Cold War of Fleming and the early films.  Bond's directive seems to be broader and his role more suited to identify and eliminate threats to the country by extraordinary means" than his historical "license to kill" directive.   The adventure brings him to Serbia, London, Dubai and South Africa in an attempt to uncover and foil a terrorist strike whose complexity unfolds as the novel progresses, climaxing with an exciting plot twist.   Deaver returns back to the Fleming tradition of using contemporary world settings as a backdrop for third party madmen and financially driven terrorists to flourish as they create their own brand of  Chaos.  Severan Hydt and Nial Dunne hearken back to the days of Dr. No, Goldfinger, and even Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

No Bond book or movie would be complete without its iconic female characters and Deaver's is no exception.   Whether's it's a fixture, like Ms. Moneypenny, or a newcomer like Bheka Jordaan, the Female characters, and there are many, are strong, dynamic, three-dimensional women.  These woman are not mere wallpaper, but integral parts of the story.  They are the new breed of Bond Girls and I think they are here to stay.

The book is also rich with some staple characters, such a the M, Felix Leiter, Mary Goodnight, and a retrofitting of the classic "Q" character in the rich, energetic Sanu Hirani.  The presence of these foundational, source characters do a lot to anchor the reader in the fact that even though the setting and the agency have been updated, that we are still in the world of Ian Fleming's James Bond.  Deaver's treatment of these characters are fitting tributes to the iconic characters.

No treatment of Carte Blanche would be fair and complete without a discussion of Deaver's treatment of Bond himself.   The novel rises, or would have fallen, on Deaver's interpretation and presentation of the character.   In an interview about this very topic Deaver discussed the difficulty of finding the balance between the Fleming Bond of the original novels and the Bond of film.   The public's exposure to fifty (50) years of Bond films makes the film presentation of the character far more familiar; however, which film Bond was Deaver to present: Connery? Craig? Moore? or, maybe, Dalton or Brosnan?  Finally, Deaver is an American writer and Fleming wrote in a distinctly British tone.  Could Deaver capture a British tone without the work becoming satirical?

So how did Deaver overcome these issues in order to create a viable Bond true to the Fleming legacy, that would still satisfy movie aficionados?  He accomplished this in two ways.   First, he stayed very true to the basic nature of Bond; light on the gimmicks, serious but with a sense of humor, flawed, a loner, passionate with a strong moral center, unmatched skills, and intellect.  He also left enough of the character's edges undefined that the reader, if familiar with the Bond films, could individually plug in their favorite James Bond and the story would still work.  I actually experimented with this concept in the midst of my reading by consciously envisioning Roger Moore's Bond in the lead, despite the fact that I was naturally envisioning Daniel Craig as I read, and, I must admit, I was able to comfortably do so.  This is the gift of artful writing and I could see this work being easily converted into a screenplay for a future Bond motion picture.

In the final analysis, Jeffrey Deaver delivered a well written, intriguing, exciting, gritty, James Bond Novel that made it hard to put down.  I found myself sad to finish it and, equally sad with the knowledge that Deaver will contribute no other novels to the Bond Collection.  William Boyd's Solo, the next authorized James Bond novel, will return the Cold War Bond.  If he is able to capture the essence of the character nearly as well as Deaver, the book will be a huge success.


  • ISBN-13: 9781451620696
  • Publisher: Simon & Schuster
  • Publication date: 6/14/201

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

The Five (5) Most Disappointing Films

The Five (5) Most Disappointing Films

In preparation for my last blog post, The Top Five (5) James Bond Films Of All Time,  I went back and watched the entire catalogue of Bond Films again.   What struck me most was how disappointing so many of them were.  I use the term "Disappointing"very consciously because, while I loved all of them when I saw them originally, and don't think any were truly bad,  I was disappointed by many of them in my recent viewing.  This is why I choose not to use the term "Worst" in this positing; it is too pejorative for my taste.

So what has changed from my original perspectives on the works?   I think my disappointment stems from a combination of several factors; namely:

1.  I have aged and, hopefully, matured and so have my tastes.  The more juvenile the content of some of the Bond films, the less I connect to them .  Bond started out as chauvinistic, gritty, adult themed series and devolved into a quasi-comedic, teenage action series as the films departed from the Sean Connery Era.  This was disappointing.
2.  I have become so much more familiar with the written word of Ian Fleming that the more a film varies from the essence and character of the source material the less I regard it;
3.  In the pre-Daniel Craig era, I think, my expectations had diminished so much that I stopped holding the films out to high standards.  The question became "Is this a good Bond movie?" and not "Is this a good movie?" when judging the series.  The Daniel Craig films reminded me that, at its heart, the Bond films, originally, were good movies that held their own as such and that is how they should be judged.

With those fundamentals being laid out, here is my list of the most disappointing James Bond films in the Eon Productions Era:

5.  The Living Daylights (1987):     The fact is that there are elements of Timothy Dalton's portrayal of James Bond, in his first appearance as the iconic 007, that are redeeming.  His edgier than Moore interpretation of the character was actually refreshing, but not refreshing enough.  I struggled over determining which of the two Dalton Bond Films was more disappointing.   In the final analysis, after seeing The Living Daylights, I was so disappointed that such a great opportunity to transform and resurrect the franchise was squandered, that it was hard to be more disappointed by subsequent films in the Dalton era.   The essential defects revolve around an identity crisis for a franchise in transition.   I think the move to a grittier Bond was a smart contrast to Moore's light-hearted hero, but the complexion of the rest of the film is not entirely in sync with this posture.  Joe Don Baker's, over the top, campy, ridiculous performance as Brad Whitaker is among the worst in the film franchise's history.  Maryam d'Abo's performance, like much of the film, is just flat as the Cellist Kara Milovy.  Is this a terrible film-no; but the opportunities squandered at this critical time in the franchise's chronology is what is so disappointing.

4.  License to Kill (1989):     While this film is better than it's predecessor, mostly due to a grittier, more Fleming based portrayal by Timothy Dalton in the lead role, the film just never really manages to impress.  The plot, with loose ties to several Fleming sources, revolves around Bond seeking revenge for a brutal attack on CIA Agent and friend, Felix Leiter and his wife, by henchman of Robert Davi's Villain, Franz Sanchez, who's performance is one of the admirable parts of the film.  Despite strong elements the film never seems to find it's own identity and, despite the minimization of the camp of earlier films, the film seems to just be moving along without any real enthusiasm.  The fact is that, despite the flaws of Moore's last few Bond Films, he still brought his own charm to the character.  In fact, his later films relied too much on that charm and not enough on other elements.  The Dalton films lack dimension and character as films and Dalton disappoints because the foundations of his Bond portrayal lend themselves much more closely to the Fleming, Connery and, later, Craig, interpretation of the character but he never builds on that strong, fundamental attachment to the original character.

3.  A View To a Kill  (1985)     This last installment of the series starring Roger Moore came, at least, one film too late.  Named after an Ian Fleming short story of the same name, this film has nothing to do with that source work.   Once again, the further the Bond films stray from the source material, in substance and in essence, the bigger the disappointment they are, in my humble opinion.  Christopher Walken's portrayal of Max Zorin is the most redeeming part of the film.  While many critics commented on Moore's portrayal of Bond as a 57 year old as problematic, I think the real failure was not to address the aging Bond within the context of the film, rather than dismissing the obvious and having him portray Bond as much younger character with little credibility.  Tanya Roberts, Grace Jones, and Richard Kiel represent the epitome of bad acting and camp and do nothing to support this installment.

2.  Moonraker (1979):     Christopher Null of FilmCritic.com said everything that needs to be said about this film,  "Most rational observers agree that Moonraker is without a doubt the most absurd James Bond movie, definitely of the Roger Moore era and possibly of all time".  Once again the significant variation from Fleming's source material combined with campy, comedic gags, over the top gimmicks, and two dimensional characters really disappointed.  One of the most significant criticisms of  the film is that it suffers from an identity crisis.   While the film was released in the Star Wars era the effort to have the film compete with that genre transformed Bond, even if only for this film, from a trendsetter to a wannabe in the film industry.  Moonraker could have been an exciting, action packed Moore portrayal if it tried to stay true to what made Bond movies so beloved.

1.  On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969):     This film is the greatest Bond Disappointment of all time.   The source material is the second book in what has become to be known as "The Blofed Trilogy".   For many literary critics the written source is the greatest of all the Fleming Bond books, perhaps setting any film interpretation up for failure.  Despite the fact that the plot is very close to the original Fleming work of the same name, the execution is where the film falls short.  George Lazenby, sandwiched between two Sean Connery appearances falls flat in his portrayal of Bond.  His character does not have the grit or depth of his predecessor, and lacks the charm of his successors.  The fight sequences are not well choreographed, the music is more suited to a 70's romance, and the film-making is "B-Movie" quality at best.  I have tried to watch and re-watch this film over the years with an open mind but it does not improve with age.  Perhaps I judge this film too harshly, but I loved the novel and I loved Connery as Bond and this installment diverges so far from either of those that it may not be the worst but it is the most disappointing, by far.





Thursday, April 18, 2013

The Top 5 Bond Films of All Time

The Top 5 Bond Films of All Time

In 1977 my parents took me to the, now demolished, Westbury Drive-In Movie Theater in their Country Squire Station Wagon to see my first James Bond Film, The Spy Who Loved Me, with Roger Moore.  It was a transformative experience for me that commenced a 35 year relationship with the character and culture of James Bond.  Along the way, aside from becoming a huge fan of the written works of Ian Fleming and his Estate's hand picked successors, I reveled in viewing each and every one of the films several times over the years and, whether, in theaters, on television, VHS Tape, DVD, or Blu-Ray, I must confess, that I enjoyed them all.   

Now, in contemplation of the 50th Anniversary of the movie franchise, I went back and watched them all over again.  I must confess, that while they all have merits, I was truly surprised at how many of the films I was critical of in their portrayal of the characters and their execution of the storyline.  I think this is partly a product of maturity, and partly a result of becoming so much more familiar with the source material of Ian Fleming.  As I have come to appreciate the writing of Fleming, it has colored by bias towards the films that are closer to this source material.

With that foundation being laid out, and considering only the Eon Productions Films, here is my breakdown of the top five (5) James Bond films of all time:

5.  Goldfinger (1964):      Goldfinger finds itself highly ranked on virtually everyone's list of Best Bond Films.   Sean Connery, by this third film, is completely comfortable in the Bond persona and it shows.   Gert Frobe shines as the lead villain, Honor Blackman steals her scenes as Pussy Galore, and Harold Sakata sets the standard for henchmen that will become the archetype in and out of the Bond genre.  It features the classic Shirley Bassey theme song, which all subsequent Bond theme songs are compared to.  The film is well paced, has a good sense of humor, and retains some key aspects of the source material. Everyone seems to love this film, including me.

4.  Dr. No (1962):     This film masterfully sets the stage for the longest running movie franchise in the history of the world.   Sean Connery's balance of humor, intellect and masculinity captured the essence of the Fleming character and won the affections of movie-goers around the world.  While much of the Fleming novel was modified to accomplish the goals of making the film more "family friendly" than its racy source material it insured subsequent installments of the film series.  While the storyline varies from the original work in ways that are negative, the limitations of the times, the budget, and film making of the era make them understandable.

3.  Skyfall (2012):      To call Skyfall a well made Bond movie is a disservice to everyone involved in its production.  Skyfall is a well made movie.  The acting of the Daniel Craig, Judi Densch,  and the supporting cast transcend the genre.  The direction of Sam Mendes is flawless.  The theme song by Adele is among the best in the franchise's history.   Javier Bardiem plays the part of, a most memorable, sinister villain without making a mockery of the role.  Finally, the plot is original and engaging but stays true to the foundational roots of the source work.  This is Bond at his best.

2.  From Russia With Love (1963):      Before the Daniel Craig era, I believed no Bond film could ever top From Russia With Love.  This film weaves all of the best elements of the Bond films and novels.  It is Connery's grittiest, most masculine performance as Bond.   The Cold War, espionage, sexual seduction, violence, exotic location, and SPECTRE are all interwoven into a top notch spy movie that holds it's own against any others of any series.  Daniela Bianchi, as Tatiana Romanova, is the most underrated Bond girl in the history of the franchise.  Lotta Lenya plays the part of Rosa Klebb masterfully and Robert Shaw is perfection as Red Grant.   Shaw's execution, without camp, and without being "over the top" as the antagonist is truly terrifying.   This is the best of the Connery Era.

1. Casino Royale(2006)/Quantum of Solace (2008):      I understand that many people list Quantum of Solace very low on their rankings of favorite Bond films.  The film is completely unrelated to the Fleming short story of the same name; however, I think it is a great movie.  I do believe that in order to really appreciate it you must view it in connection with Casino Royale-as, essentially, one film.  On that basis I have listed these two films as the Best of the Best.  If I was forced to separate them, Casino would still be #1, without hesitation.  Casino Royale marked the beginning of the Daniel Craig era in the Bond series by doing something bold and intelligent-going back to the first Bond novel penned by Ian Fleming of the same title.  Many people were a little Bond weary by the time the film was released, having believed the franchise was past its prime.  The critics also questioned the choice of Craig, a blond 007, to play the role.  They were so used to Bonds in the Roger Moore likeness that this complete departure seemed doomed to disappoint.  Craig shocked everyone by not only being a good actor, but by being a great Bond; for some, he is even considered the best (even Roger Moore says so).  His dramatic, engaging, earthy performance in the film captures the true essence of the character and the film.  This film is, by far, the closest film adaptation of any of the Fleming novels-it varies ever so insignificantly from the written source.  It is low on gimmicks and gadgets, strong on action, violence, drama, and real acting.  Most importantly, Craig's Bond is a three dimensional character.  Craig's Bond is imperfect, human, but still the best hope for Queen and Country.  This film gets better every time I see it.   One doesn't need to be a Bond fan to appreciate this as a winner.

The Five (5) Most Disappointing Bond Films Coming Soon!


Tuesday, April 16, 2013

JAMES BOND GOES "SOLO"

JAMES BOND GOES "SOLO"

After the overwhelming success of the latest installment of the James Bond film, Skyfall, Jonathan Cape, Ian Fleming's original publisher unveiled the title of the latest, authorized sequel to the James Bond legacy, Solo, by renowned author, William Boyd.  

Bond fanatics and purists were thrilled to hear the author talk about his meticulous research of, not only James Bond, but of his creator Ian Fleming, in approaching this work.  He was hand selected by the Fleming Estate to continue the storyline.  While all of the details are not revealed, here is a summary of what was disclosed:

  1. The book involves an unauthorized, Solo mission which takes place on three continents including a large concentration in Africa;
  2. The year in 1969 and Bond is 45 at the start of the novel;
  3. The book involves a new Villain and various antagonists;
  4. The book involves two love interests, or Bond Girls as they have come to be known.
On the 60th Anniversary of the writing of the first Bond novel, Casino Royale, the author has referred to this work as a "a real spy story", heavy on the espionage and low on the gimmicks.  For Bond purists this is refreshing and lays the groundwork for a possible film adaptation in the Connery-Craig tradition.

Mark your calendars, September 26, 2013 in the U.K. with an October 8, 2013 U.S. and Canadian release with HarperColins.  Major booksellers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble, have foreshadowed the release for sometime, including the release date and author, but both have listed the title as James Bond: The New Mission 10/8/2013.  As of this morning, neither site has update the listing.