It is not worth it at this point to write a review of the latest film in the Bond series, James Bond, with Daniel Craig of protagonist. Note, however, that the duration (almost 3 hours, 3) is an extravagant and unnecessary indulgence, since the script or the many threads of this specific story could have been braided in less minutes. But this is not what matters. The theme is Daniel Craig and his farewell to the Bond saga. Craig, with “Casino Royale,” turned Bond masculinity into something different from his predecessors. Even though the directors and writers know that they are creating stories in an age in which homage (rhetoric at least) is paid to the value of women as a person and not simply as a disposable sex object, they do not cease to round out the characteristics of the alpha male. in the shoes of Daniel Craig. Curiously, this Bond is the omega man and not only because his wrist no longer wears the customary Rolex of yesteryear (this one wears an Omega), but also because he shows an emotional vulnerability that highlights his difference with Sean Connery or with Pierce Brosnan, let’s say. They demonstrated their masculine fiber by confronting evildoers and evils of all kinds with humor and, in addition, they took every good girl who crossed their path to the garden. Not so Craig’s James Bond. In each of the films that this actor has interpreted, there is an important emotional relationship with a strong woman, the kind that leave their mark, even if she is not a lover in all cases (remember the “bond” [lazo] between James and the M played by Judi Dench in “Skyfall”, for example).
In this farewell, Craig looks like an older man (ambiguous euphemism) because he is already in his early years and, at the moment, no cosmetic arrangement has been made. His girlfriend – the actress Léa Seydoux– she is about twenty years younger and continues in her role as Madeleine Swann (I don’t know if echoing the Proustian muffin and Swann, but in any case a name more in keeping with the times compared to Pussy Galore [chocho abundantísimo] of “Goldfinger”), with the addition of being a mother. The bad guy was bad in Madeleine’s childhood and now turns his evil activities into a threat of global reach. I insist, what ends up being more interesting to us is not so much how Bond is going to prevent the bad guy from succeeding, that he will prevent it, but what emotions motivate him. And it is these that effectively move him: the murder of his friend Felix, his infatuation with Madeleine and the suspicion that her girl is his (himself?) And is in imminent danger.
The conclusion of the story could not have been more apotheosis. The bad guy and his evils disappear forever, of course; but the price is a sacrifice that goes beyond the call of duty even for an MI6 cash. Bond, aware of his absolute vulnerability as a man, as a lover and as a father, sacrifices himself and, with his death (caused by a symphony of terrifying explosions), humanity is freed from the sorcerer’s cave and all its poisonous potions.
I have no doubt that there will be more 007 agents because there will also be other perverts who threaten the good progress of the world (Western, of course). And we will continue going to see their adventures and their heroic proposals, recognizing the dialogues that the novelty maintains with its many antecedents. It will not be the body of Daniel Craig that embodies the next agent, but his Bond will be the reference that changed the possibilities of the role model.
– – .
:quality(80)/cdn-kiosk-api.telegraaf.nl/cfaad65a-3db5-11ec-997b-0218eaf05005.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1 "Kevin’s debit card was in his pocket, yet thieves in Amsterdam could pay with it | Abroad")
