License to kill

Note: Minor spoilers if you have not seen Casino Royale, but no major details.

Did you know that British secret agents really do have licenses to kill? As I think many of us Bond fans have long suspected, though, it doesn't quite work the way it does in the films. Here's a little more detail on the statute:

"The secretary of state can authorize persons to commit acts abroad for which they may not be held liable under British law. By implication, that includes all criminal law relating to the use of lethal force. Only two constraints are listed. It must be the case that the acts are 'necessary for the proper discharge of a function of the Intelligence Service' and that their 'likely consequences will be reasonable' with respect to their purpose."

I didn't tally an official body count when watching Casino Royale last weekend, but I can say with some confidence that there are several killings committed by Bond that would have a tough time passing credulity for both of these categories. The very first one in the film, though, would pass muster, I think, because it's specifically ordered by M, 007's boss. The killing Bond commits on the runway also would safely qualify, I think.

In the films, Bond's license to kill generally seems to be ongoing, but in real life, this kind of exemption from legal liability is only granted in six-month periods. Agents are not given any reprieve from the laws of other countries, though, so they're in hot water if they commit a crime and get arrested outside the U.K.

The law in question officially granting authority for criminal activity to secret agents was passed in 1994, but this practice was commonplace and clandestine prior to its becoming law. The article seems to indicate that MI6, 007's branch of the service, wasn't even officially recognized as an agency of the government until fairly recent times.

"Prior to 1994, agents acting outside the British Islands would officially have been exposed to ordinary U.K. law. However, the Intelligence Services Act codified what had essentially been de facto internal policy regarding covert action abroad. No MI6 officer has ever publicly admitted to (or been charged with) killing an enemy of the state, but a few assassinations are believed to have taken place during World War II and the early Cold War. Officially, SIS banned the internal origination and approval of assassinations in the 1960s. In any case, contrary to popular imagination, paramilitary action has long been carried out almost wholly by British Special Forces or foreign third parties, not by MI6."

In Fleming's novels, Bond uses his license to kill 38 or 39 times. (Apparently there is some uncertainty regarding one of the killings.) Daniel Craig's Bond, on the other hand, easily takes out more than half of that total during Royale alone.

Casino Royale reviewed

I'm going to risk overhyping Casino Royale in sharing my thoughts now that I've seen it. I went in with high expectations based on the great reviews I'd seen, and those expectations were exceeded. That is a rare event for me when seeing a much anticipated movie.

Royale is an exceptional and spectacular film, and it is easily one of the best Bond movies ever made. I'm going to allow some time to pass before I reflect on exactly where it stands against the previous films, mainly because I suspect it may be better than all of them.

This is a beautiful and brutal movie. The cinematography is elegant, the action sequences are extraordinarily well produced and the dialogue and character interactions are refreshing and vivid. Even as a longtime Bond fan, I will confess that these are attributes that have been missing from the series for a long, long time. If I knocked anything about Royale, it would be that it opens a little clumsily up until the end of the title sequence. It is top notch the rest of the way.

Once you see the movie, I think you will know what I mean when I say that comparing Daniel Craig to anyone except Sean Connery would be comparing apples to oranges. He brings elements to the character and person of Bond that have never been on screen before. Especially during the first hour of the film, he is a physical force and a man possessed. I was stunned by how he moves and by how consumed he appears with succeeding in his mission. Never does Craig seem along for the ride from one one liner (or sexual conquest) to the next: He is immersed, toe to scalp, in being a young, arrogant and powerful secret agent. It works. Boy, does it work. Craig has quickly made the character of Bond his own in a way that no one other than Connery has, and he may well surpass even Connery if given the time, the films and the solid writing needed to do so.

If you are willing to see some minor spoilers, keep reading. If not, stop here.

The last several Bond films have seemed to me to be insistent on contributing signature elements and trademarks to add to the canon of 007 excitement. They have largely failed, and those attempts have come off as mere tribute and even parody, at times, of the earlier movies.

This is not the case with Royale. The torture scene that has generated a lot of discussion prior to the film's release is original, creative and realistic, and it is intense in a way that Bond films rarely are. It is a modern answer to the laser aimed at Connery's crotch in Goldfinger, but it isn't derivative. It may even become more iconic with time. I found myself wincing and entralled simultaneously in watching it.

Also akin to Goldfinger is a brief chase scene midway through the film. While it echoes the manner in which Connery wrecks his Aston Martin by being decieved by one of Goldfinger's clever traps (a mirror that reflects his own vehicle's headlights), leaving the lovely and strong-willed Eva Green strapped to the asphalt in the middle of the night for Craig to nearly run over is a stroke of creative brillance. I never saw that coming, and I felt myself gasp when it happened. Royale is full of these kinds of new thrills, not with poor imitations of earlier movies.

Not long after Craig signed on as Bond, I began wondering if the Bond series was nearing its end. Die Another Day was a loud and overdone movie, in my opinion, and the move to hire Craig and reboot the franchise smacked of desperation to me. No longer. I left the theatre last night feeling like the story of Bond is nowhere near a conclusion, but only beginning. I cannot wait to see where the series heads next, because it will clearly be fresh and uncharted territory.

More Royale, Craig props

Casino Royale may be in danger of excessive hype, but I'll weigh in with my thoughts tomorrow. Here's another rave review, entitled "Jackpot," from the Boston Globe:

• "In Daniel Craig, the Bond franchise has finally found a 007 whose cruel charisma rivals that of Sean Connery."
• "The new James Bond is quick and muscular, and there is nothing remotely camp about him."
• "No slight to Connery, Timothy Dalton, or Pierce Brosnan, but there’s something to be said for casting an actor of depth and creative daring as Bond. Craig hardly overplays the role, but he gives us proof of the young 007’s arrogance and immaturity, shows him tempered by mistakes, and even lets him fall in love with believable reluctance followed by commitment."

A Better Bond Than Connery??

Will Daniel Craig be the best Bond since Sean Connery? I think maybe he will, and I'm not alone. Some in the media have even gone as far as saying Craig is the best Bond ever now that the film has opened. I think that's bold, and I'm not about to make that claim without having even seen Casino Royale myself. I do like what I have seen of the film via previews, but it will take one heck of a performance to eclipse Connery's long shadow in the franchise.

Can he ever top Connery? That may be the challenge, as this story pointed out:

“[N]o matter how good Craig might prove to be in the role, he may never be able to surpass Connery’s defining performance in many fans’ eyes. 'From all the reviews, I think [Craig] will be the best Bond since Connery,' [said one fan.] 'But Craig is interpreting a character that was formed by Connery. All the others have had to follow that template, and whoever follows Craig will have to as well.”

Nonetheless, I am thrilled that Casino Royale's debut is finally here. Will anyone dare say it is the “Best Bond Since Goldfinger,” the Bond against which all Bond films are compared? (I personally prefer Thunderball and From Russia With Love.) Some have already said, as expected, that Royale is the best since Goldeneye, but tracing back all the way to 1964 for what many consider the signature 007 movie is a longer distance to travel. We'll see soon. I'll post my personal review on Saturday.

Best Bond Since: Moore?

Will Daniel Craig be a better James Bond than Roger Moore? This is a question that will likely take the passage of some time to answer fully. It isn’t fair to compare the two actors when Craig’s debut film has not even launched yet and Moore has seven contributions to the franchise.

That said, I don’t think the media will be likely to make the “Best Bond Since Moore” claim because Pierce Brosnan has been so widely loved in the role. I do think he may ultimately be a better Bond than Moore, though. Why? He’s young enough and rugged enough to look the part. Moore really wasn’t even with Live and Let Die in 1973, and it didn’t get any better as he grew older. I think Craig has the opportunity to operate in Sean Connery’s determined, sophisticated and clever shoes while still incorporating some of Brosnan’s not-as-goofy-as-Moore-but-still-clever wit.

Will any critics claim that Casino Royale is the Best Bond Since For Your Eyes Only? That’s not likely, even though I would argue that it is Moore’s best film by far, because FYEO is 25 years old at this point. Regardless, it may very well be true. Looking objectively at the series in recent decades, I think the best films, in chronological order, are: FYEO, The Living Daylights, Goldeneye and The World Is Not Enough. Octopussy might perhaps merit an honorable mention, but it pales in my mind with the rest of this class. So does Tomorrow Never Dies, even though it is a respectable entry. I fully suspect that Royale will be better, based on what I have seen, than Daylights and TWINE. It is likely to outclass Goldeneye, if you ask me, but that is a taller order.

I would have to say that FYEO and Goldeneye are the highlights of the James Bond film series since 1981. Royale should be safely in good company among those films and possibly even higher. We’ll see very soon.

Best Bond Since: Dalton?

I said earlier this week that Timothy Dalton (right), a talented actor with ample stage and film experience, might have been the right Bond at the wrong time. That's probably true to an extent. Is history about to repeat itself with Daniel Craig? I personally don't think so, but here are my thoughts on why the comparison might be apt.

Dalton replaced Roger Moore, who arguably stayed a little too long in the role and certainly took James Bond in a campier direction than his predecessors. Perhaps as a reaction to Moore and an intention to turn the series toward a more serious direction, the producers tapped Dalton for 1987's The Living Daylights, which I consider a reasonably solid contribution to the franchise and a vast improvement over A View to a Kill, Moore's swan song. I think where Dalton's faults ultimately lay were in his approach to the role: He was too serious where Moore was not serious enough. Dalton was a believable secret agent, but he lacked for the sophistication and playfulness that are trademarks of the Bond film series. In my opinion, he was a Boy Scout turned ruthless secret agent who offered plenty of grit but not enough cool. Bond needs a good bit of both.

Is Craig walking into the same situation? Not exactly, but it is fair to say that each actor who has replaced a "legend" as James Bond has struggled to fill 007's shoes. George Lazenby replaced Sean Connery and failed so miserably that Connery returned for one last film. Dalton's demise was not completely related to his performance, but he too did not escape Moore's shadow for long. I certainly consider Pierce Brosnan as a legend in the role, and for my money he is second only to Connery as Bond. At the same time, Brosnan is passing the torch to Craig at a time when the film series has strayed to far toward Moore territory again. Die Another Day did not showcase space stations and laser rifles, but it did display Brosnan windsurfing and driving an invisible car.

Here's where the difference lies for me: Craig just isn't Dalton. Both are talented actors, but from what I've seen so far, Craig exudes a level of cool and sophistication that Dalton never possessed. Some have called his arrival the introduction of Steve McQueen to the character of James Bond, and I think that's a fantastic move for the series. I think Craig will have a shot to have a lengthy run as Bond, but the proof will be in the pudding beginning this weekend.

Will Casino Royale be better than The Living Daylights? Well, I don't think any media will be likely to make the comparison because 19 years after its release, Daylights doesn't command a major presence in the franchise's canon. I imagine Royale will be a better film because of the efforts that have been made to reboot and improve the franchise itself, but don't overlook Daylights on the whole if you are looking to catch up on Bond films you've missed.

The Best Bond Since: Brosnan?

Obviously, Daniel Craig (left) won the title of Best Bond since Brosnan as soon as he landed the role (since he's the only one since Brosnan at this point), but how will he compare? My guess is that the media will spend most of their time describing how different Craig is in the role compared to Brosnan, not whether he is better or worse.

This may be an unfair analogy, but perhaps Brosnan's portrayal can be seen as a more serious version of Roger Moore's Bond, who brought more than his share of campiness to the role. Brosnan's films are full of double entendres and quick quips throughout, but he never approached some of Moore's silly shenanigans. (Have you watched Moonraker or A View to a Kill recently? I hope not.) Brosnan also brought a ruggedness and credibility to the character of Bond that Moore rarely exhibited.

If it's true that Brosnan is a more serious take on Moore, perhaps Craig will emerge as a more realistic (but not necessarily more serious) take on Connery. Connery is my favorite Bond, now that I'm farther removed from the Moore movies of my youth, and to see Craig follow this route would be most welcome, in my opinion. Connery was plenty serious until his last film, Diamonds Are Forever (yes, I'm disregarding Never Say Never Again), and that served him well. He exhibited a well-timed sense of humor while focusing on getting his job done on behalf of the Queen, and he was sophisticated and credible throughout his original run in the series. That said, no one is still buying that megavillains have hidden launchpads and space ships capable of capturing astronauts in flight. In other words, perhaps Craig will bring a level of realism to the role that will actually be real: a story that is compelling and could actually happen in the real world.

Where does that leave Casino Royale in relation to Goldeneye, Brosnan's first movie? I think it is all but assured to earn the title of the Best Bond Since that 1995 film, but will it be better? My guess is yes, but we'll have to wait until this weekend to know for sure. More to come...