[Previous entry: "Studs Terkel turns 90"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Presentation Topics"]

05/16/2004 Entry: "QT wants to do 007"

I read a story today on Y'hoo news stating that Tarantino wants to direct a Bond flick, that of Casino Royale.

I am no gamblin' man, but I would be will to wage my lunch money that this will never come to pass.

This would not be quite so interesting if the book he wanted to film wasn't Casino Royale. Now, there's already a Sellers/Allen spoof of the book out there that was a miserable failure--to such a degree that most of whom involved hide their heads in shame at the very mention of that bomb. Yet, going back to the source, this is a novel (Fleming's first Bond) that portrays Bond in a light yet to be seen in any of the previous Bond films to date.

In Casino Royale, we see bond as being both ruthless and at times painfully weak. I had the pleasure of hearing read aloud a few months back on BBC. He is full of dark thoughts. He is misogynistic and several times refers to the leading lady, Vesper, as a bitch. He is captured and tortured, has his genitals crushed. Upon being rescued and after a long hospital stay, his first and foremost goal is to once again make love to Vesper, thus reconfirming by way of virility his very self worth. He has grown weary and loathsome of his profession and his killer-status.

On one hand, these charaters drip with the dark complexity that would make for a great Japanese manga. In that light, this novel would by right up Tarantino's alley.
On the other hand, a Tarantinoesque-yet-still-true-to-the-book realization of Casino Royale would be the death knell of the James Bond Franchise.

I don't know what the age rating back home of the last few Bond films were, but Bond films have always been films for boys and tomboys. Despite all the death and violence, Bond is an epic hero, like Ulysses. He will always survive, always prevail, has no age, is a gentleman, whom no woman--regardless how evil--can resist. He's wholesome goodness who never errs or falls to weaknesses in the face of duty. But that is simply not the Bond in Casino Royale. And if I know Quentin like I know his films, he'd never fold to adapt to that mold for the sake of the franchise.

Speaking of the 007 franchise: that's just what it has become. Is there anything worse than a hero-turned-product line? See Aerosmith or the Stones for example. Damn it, I don't want to have to equate 007 to Pepsi or Nikes. Or BMWs, for that matter. Oh bother, it's already too late!

Actually, a dignified end to to the Bond Franchise is what I am hoping for. We've had 30 years of good escapist time together. Quit milkin' it. Let it go. In that light, a QT might bring us in the right direction. Just as sure as I'm glad there's no Vol. 3 in Kill Bill, I'd surely also feel that after viewing Casino Royale, I'd just be glad to have those good memories and be satisfied that there's no sequel.

Of course, those that hold the rights, and those that have the most to win from each following Bond film would most like to have the string of films continue on forever. Wouldn't you? They would surely realize that a Tarantino deal would be a disaster for the line. That is why I am willing to bet Quentin will never ever get the deal.