All the Bond we love and don’t love, shaken, not stirred
Nearly fifteen years ago, the world was introduced to Daniel Craig as James Bond in Casino Royale, the sixth actor to portray the iconic British secret agent (I’m not counting David Niven). Casino Royale portrayed Bond as a gritty, brutish, and most importantly, emotional character. It was a product of the time, a post 9/11 world where terrorism was no quipping manner and audiences desired “realism” over campiness, hence the popularity of the Bourne movies leading up to Royale. And now, the Daniel Craig era comes to a close with No Time To Die, his fifth film as Bond. No Time To Die is the perfectly fitting end in just about every manner, tying in all the familiar role-players from the previous films while finally bridging Craig’s emotional brutality with the campy, spy game action of previous Bond films. The opposing sensibilities don’t always gel. So the question is — will all audiences enjoy the precarious balancing act that director Cary Joji Fukunaga squeezes within a bloated 2 hours 45 minutes? No, definitely not. Like me, many will leave the theater entertained but also confusingly disappointed. However, No Time To Die’s value will appreciate over time. Even a week after viewing it, my acceptance and understanding of the film has grown.
There are bold choices, then there are bold Bond choices, and No Time To Die is full of both. If you’ve seen 1969’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, starring George Lazenby as 007, you probably know what I mean. No Time To Die takes a lot of inspiration from that film, even going so far as to reuse the melody (and lyrics) from its theme song, “We Have All the Time In the World.” It also embraces many of the characteristics that solidified James Bond as the indelible spy series, including gadgets, quips, M, Q, and a specially made cocktail. And of course, there’s an over-the-top sillily named villain, Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek), who is planning to, um, well, do something evil. To be honest, his motives and end goals are murky at best. Luckily he’s not the story’s focal point.
That distinction belongs to the romance at the heart of No Time To Die, between James Bond and Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux). Perhaps it’s their comparably icy personalities, but the chemistry between the two characters is not what I’d expect for THE ultimate love that Bond upends his life for. Don’t get me wrong, they are sexy as hell together, share a similar outlook on life, and can compare notes on family trauma. Plus, Seydoux is a tremendously gifted actor and is as good here as she was in Spectre. Yet, I found Bond’s relationship with Vesper (from Casino Royale) and even his non-romantic chemistry with Camille (Quantum of Solace) to be more engaging. Note: I have been and still am a big Quantum of Solace defender. Unfortunately, it’s tough to completely buy into the emotional turning points of No Time To Die when they all directly involve Bond’s attachment to Swann, and there are many. It may be one of the writers’ most polarizing choices to devote an epic Bond finale to a monogamous romance. While the story hits the expected emotional beats, it still occasionally feels like an avoidable crutch. I guess No Time To Die is indeed Bond’s swann song, after all. Eh eh?
The second biggest challenge No Time To Die faces is balancing all those classic fun Bond clichés with the intense emotional drama. It’s apparent Fukunaga is a big fan of the 1960s and 1970s Bond films, and the appropriate clichés are served up throughout, albeit fleetingly, as if we expected them as par for the course. The problem is that until now the Craig films haven’t truly embraced the series’ classic spy silliness, so a gadget-equipped car, or a classic Bond line, have little context in this 007 universe, and they’re existence needed further development before being tossed around willy-nilly. The script is up to the challenge either way, and Bond screenwriting veterans Neal Purvis and Robert Wade get substantial assistance from director Fukunaga (True Detective) and Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Fleabag). One of the film’s highlights is an exciting scene involving guest star Ana de Armas as fellow spy Paloma. The tone is vastly different from its adjacent scenes, and this occurs numerous times throughout the film. The same can be said for scenes involving Lashana Lynch as another 00 agent. Lynch and Craig have cheeky back-and-forth, providing levity betwixt heart-wrenching drama. It was like jumping between a hot tube and a frozen lake. I’m assuming the abrupt tonal transitions will smooth over a bit with multiple viewings, but despite an ample running time, it comes off scattershot and jarring upon first viewing. I wasn’t alive when On Her Majesty’s Secret Service was released, but I imagine audiences had the same objections. Or maybe they just didn’t like Lazenby.
And so, the Craig era comes to a fitting, exciting, and initially disappointing conclusion. Like Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, Daniel Craig’s run as James Bond will function as a universe on its own, separate from all other Bond films and storylines. This is the first time we’ve been forced to think this way, to this extent. The more this and its implications are understood, the more No Time To Die feels like a satisfying conclusion. It just takes a while to get there, long after the 165 minutes have ended. But don’t worry, because…
…we have all
the time
in the world…
