Is James Bond relevant anymore in 2021? That question is more or less posed directly in No Time to Die, the twenty-fifth entry in the longest running film franchise. What role exactly does the iconic British secret agent, specially skilled and with a licence to kill, have in this day and age? Certainly his character has been interrogated almost since conception, his casual alcoholism, misogyny, racism, and dubiously consensual sexual escapades discussed at length and can’t help but show him as antiquated. “A relic of the Cold War” as Judi Dench’s M identified him in 1995's GoldenEye -which in some ways is very true. Ian Fleming wrote the first James Bond novel, Casino Royale, at the height of Western-Soviet tensions in the 1950s. The characters’ identity was very much informed by that world, and one could argue that once the wall came down, James Bond was already outdated. Yet here we are, nearly sixty years into this franchise and Bond endures, ever that power fantasy symbol of Cold War era masculinity. And then No Time to Die comes along.
This is the first new Bond film in six years (it would have been only five -but COVID), and it is the last to star Daniel Craig as the inimitable 007, whom he’s now played longer than any of his predecessors (fifteen years). And it shows. He is visibly worn, tired, and a bit strained in the film, a theme that has carried over since 2012’s Skyfall of Bond being past his prime. Quite frequently, he is positioned relative to a younger generation, inheritors (in one case, literally so) to his skills and stamina and place in the world of espionage. Craig had to be coaxed back for this final outing, having expressed on multiple occasions that one of the prior Bond films would be his last -and I think it says something that unlike those, he’s more gracious about this film, more openly proud of it. No Time to Die is designed around his exit from the franchise, as well as to a quieter degree where the franchise stands and how it can evolve. That is what makes it the most intriguing of this recent run of Bond movies.
It’s not the best; though it does do to emulate them, borrowing the sincere romantic angle of Casino Royale, the meditative tone of Skyfall, and the exciting opening credits sequence of both (the melancholy title track sung fittingly by Billie Eilish). Cary Joji Fukunaga directs, the first American to helm a Bond movie, from a screenplay he worked on with Bond regulars Neal Purvis and Robert Wade; and touched up by, as per Craig’s request, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, who improves anything she has a hand in. She happens to be the first woman credited on a Bond screenplay since From Russia With Love in 1963, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence given the nature of this movie.
No Time to Die shines a spotlight on Bonds’ relationships with women in a way no other Bond film has, exploring to some degree the effects he has on them and those strains of toxicity in his behaviour towards them. In another first for the series, this film has a returning Bond girl, Lea Seydoux’s Madeleine Swann from Spectre, and it opens on a flashback to her childhood wherein her mother is killed by a mysterious assassin for the death of his own family at the hands of Madeleine’s father. Cut to 2015 Matera, Italy, where Madeleine is once again targeted by elite killers and the one man she trusts doesn’t trust her. Bond, while visiting the grave of Vesper Lind (from Casino Royale), is ambushed by Spectre and immediately assumes (as had been the case with Vesper) that Madeleine betrayed him. And yet she clearly hasn’t. As they flee, Bond lets the enemies fire their machine guns into his bulletproof car without retaliating, simply letting Madeleine stew in the traumatizing tension of the moment. If this were Connery in the 60s, a scene of Bond letting the villains pummel them a bit to scold his love interest might be played for humour. But here it is framed for what it is: sadistic -and it leaves an image of Bond you’re not likely to forget.
The movie doesn’t let Bond off the hook for this, and it lets his ego take a few bruises. His number 007 has been assigned to a new agent Nomi (Lashana Lynch), and he is denied some of his classic chauvinism when the one woman he flirts with in the course of the story is not interested. More significantly, he is made to take responsibility for the harm he caused Madeleine. And he does so willingly, he’s not past redemption -putting aside his pride once he learns she truly had nothing to do with the assassination attempt. She becomes a key source of motivation for him, earning her forgiveness a major priority. This and a series of other circumstances humble Bond, he grows and learns.
Perhaps some of it owes to Bond on a subliminal level being aware this is his last mission. The stakes are certainly high enough: a mad supervillain using weaponized nanotechnology (initially developed by MI6) to commit mass genocide. The nano-bots are transferred from person to person as a kind of pathogen that infects and kills anyone who comes into contact with them. It is not Spectre behind this though –indeed they are one of the targets. But the film has an obligation to work them in and it’s one of a number of things that needlessly convolutes the plot. It’s never entirely clear where the narrative is heading at any given point, the focus is constantly shifting. Aside from his establishing appearance in the flashback, the films’ villain Safin (Rami Malek) doesn’t appear till more than an hour in, while his nameless organization and Spectre battle it out for Bond’s primary adversary. In the midst of this chaotic structure, the graver themes that Fukunaga is aiming to address, such as corruption within systems of security, terrorism and the ends it pushes people to, are weakened considerably until they are forgotten in lieu of classic Bond hyper-villainy. There’s the sense that in this film being Craig’s last, the production is trying to juggle way too much. It wants to have deep geo-political themes, an intricate, multi-layered plot, classic Bond obstacles but a critical commentary on classic Bond behaviour, a grand scale, a humourous edge, a fulfilling personal story, and a worthy sense of finality. But it can’t manage them all coherently, and as such you’ve got numerous inconsequential plot points like a massacre in Cuba passing without much fuss.
Safin also doesn’t make for much of a villain. Malek has a great look for a Bond nemesis, and it’s probably why he was cast, but he’s a very underwritten character whose motives aren’t terribly clear, and Malek’s acting choices are dim and contrived. In returning as Blofeld, Christoph Waltz is likewise underwhelming, a mere tool for the plot and Bond’s character journey, dispensed with as soon as this purpose is fulfilled. But by contrast, Craig is giving his best performance as Bond since Casino Royale. Where he spent much of Spectre bored, he has noticeably more investment in his performance this time around. Besides, No Time to Die has the highest concentration of strong women of any recent Bond film; starting with Seydoux’s reprisal of Madeleine, a substantial improvement from her last appearance to the point of being one of the movies’ stand-outs. The relationship between her and Bond is handled surprisingly well and she manages to fulfil a classic archetype without being redundant –the story belongs to her almost as much as Bond. Lynch is a welcome addition and foil to Bond, while Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw, and Rory Kinnear remain likeable staples as Moneypenny, Q, and Tanner respectively. And Ralph Fiennes has settled well into the role of M, despite ethical lapses the film brushes away. One of the things this movie succeeds at is emphasizing Bond’s exploits as a team effort –with everyone at MI6 playing a part in the final act. Jeffrey Wright comes back too as CIA liaison Felix Leiter, getting one of the films’ more affecting beats, and there’s even a small Knives Out reunion as Ana de Armas appears as Bond’s temporary partner in Cuba.
No Time to Die views itself as the culmination of a story begun in Casino Royale. It’s unusual for the Bond franchise to tie a set of movies so closely together, though it is far from seamless. And yet there is something special in how it brings Bonds’ story through these five movies to an end, and a very fitting one at that. The long climax is like much of the movie, a bit messy both in its’ themes and action (plot-wise, I mean -the action sequences throughout the movie are generally quite good). But eventually it comes to a critical point in Bond’s choices, whereby the film redirects one last time for a powerful denouement. For a film that began by highlighting a very uncomfortable side of Bond, it ends with a Bond we once again empathize with, who has atoned and sacrificed and earned his legacy. Further, he and the film itself, points the way forward. There can indeed be a future for James Bond, it argues, and more than any other Bond film, demonstrates how.
Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/jbosch/
Comments
Post a Comment