Okay. So here's what's got me frothy.
SPOILERS
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Okay. So here's what we know. Bond's "lesson" is that he shouldn't trust anybody. This is a bit of a simplification and ignores his ethical crisis and that whole love thing, but it seems good enough for M, and that's good enough for me. Talking about Mathis on the boat at the end: "You don't trust anybody, do you, James?" "No." "Then you've learned your lesson." But why does M trust Bond?
He's just been promoted and has already shown a tendency to overstep his bounds in every conceivable way. First the embassy incident, then he tracks down M's name and address and breaks into her home and laptop.
He then leaves for the US without telling anybody and continues to exploit M's lax security (this is itself a bit puzzling). In Montenegro, when Vesper refuses to stake his buy-in to rejoin the tournament, he's given extraordinary help from a foreign agent, and in return agrees to relinquish the target of his investigation.
He doesn't return the money. He resigns from abroad, immediately (one thinks the natural course of his mission would require a return to London to be debriefed). Later, he is witness to the death of another government agent and accuses another asset (Mathis) of betrayal. He appears not to offer evidence of the first, and to be unable to prove the second.
And, for all that, M, who jokes that she could have him killed, wishes he'd defected, and regrets promoting him too quickly, welcomes him back with open arms. There's not even talk of a conditional reinstatement.
Now, granted, this isn't damning evidence. Bond's contact with the US is especially ambiguous because of the maddeningly vague political situation we're presented with. Casino Royale clings to the idea that M's identity is itself secret (which I think was true in the 50s, but certainly isn't now), and offers no comment on the state of the relationship between the SIS and the CIA. Bond is arrested in Miami, perhaps under suspicion of terrorism and assaulting a police officer, and we've got no idea how he's extricated--whether it was done specifically by US security forces or whether diplomatic channels were required, and, if so, to what extent. We've got no real idea of when the film takes place beyond post-9/11, so there's no real basis for speculating on the effect the Iraq war (for instance) might have on SIS's opinions of overreaching young agents soliciting foreign aid. Nor is it explained why Leiter knows about Bond, but not the reverse.
This may of course all be spelled out with excruciating clarity in the sequel, in which case I can only cry about the pacing.
Also grating is Vesper's mythical Algerian boyfriend. It doesn't bother me (although perhaps it should) that MI6 didn't do any background work on whether Lynd had any prior connection to Le Chiffre. But tacking this on at the end as the explanation for Vesper's betrayal seems unnecessary and confusing. Who is he? How long ago was he kidnapped? Why was he kidnapped? What reasonable belief did she have that he was still alive, or that collaboration with SMERSH could save his life?
Did she love Bond, and if so, how did her love for him intersect with being "very much in love" with this boyfriend? Unlike the novelized Vesper, she continues her betrayal after falling in love with Bond, and kills herself not to save him, but, well, perhaps to deal with the guilt of her betrayal. It isn't really clear. It isn't clear what she'd have done if Bond hadn't destroyed the building, and if she hadn't been trapped in the elevator. Would she have run off with SMERSH to her Algerian boyfriend? What was she afraid of: the emotional or the legal consequences of her treachery?
Oh. And what was the deal with the finger-sucking?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
All of the above may make it sound like I didn't enjoy the movie. I did. I didn't have very high expectations, but they weren't disappointed. The score, the two martini orders, Mathis's useful corruption, even the prematurely used "hologram of love interest in the path of oncoming vehicle" (was that Man with the Golden Gun or Live and Let Die?). Felix Leiter may be an actual character this time around instead of an absurd redneck caricature. All were very good, and, sadly, would be perhaps much better if I weren't intent on thinking about this so ridiculously hard. |
