Movie. Casino Royale, 2006. (HIx: 0)
This is a post-modern, post-Eleven James Bond.
Let’s see, plot summary. Bond goes to Bohemia; bang bang you’re dead; to Africa; bang bang you’re dead; to Miami; boom boom you’re dead; back to England. After a while he gets tired of running around all the time and shooting people, so he starts playing high-stakes poker. But during a break, he sees a man in the staircase: bang bang you’re dead.
There are lots of motiveless and connectionless bad guys; “terror” is ominously hinted at, and it is all over: Europe, Africa, America. But it is vague and traceless. (Hint: you can tell who the main bad one is: he weeps blood.) Money is the main motive apparently.
There are lots of motiveless and connectionless good guys. Actually, some of the good guys turn out to be bad also; or are they? at least, as Bond says of one of them that was rubbed out, “he is not known to have been innocent.” Money is the main motive apparently.
Black ops director “M” (Judy Dench) is female and a Christ-blasphemer.
Bond himself out-performs Spiderman, leaping from towers, swinging through windshields, performing Houdini-like tricks while hanging by a thread from a careening vehicle.
He does get banged up; but he is a cynic: there is no reason for his self-abnegation.
The abstracted fighter without family or especial loyalty can no longer even be called a freedom-fighter: the regimes he serves are themselves fast becoming police states, in the name of freedom. In this light, we can see that the apparently throw-away scenes with the teddy bear that frame the main story in Hunt for Red October are actually what anchors that story as heroic action for something worthwhile.
At length, Bond falls for a girl, and this makes him human — but does that really redeem the past?
The thumping droning unmusic background is even more mind-numbing than the senseless implausible interminable action-Jackson sequences. In short, this movie is insufferable. I was constantly tempted to pop the DVD out and send it back. But I stuck with it for the sake of our readers.
I think it illustrates Michael Hoffman’s analysis of the cryptocracy. It plants “memes” for torture, including of women; for lots of pointless killing on both sides; “terrorism” for no point but money; resisting it for no point but money: the goal of heroism is to ensure that many, rather than just a few, might spend their life safely pursing money and pleasures, only provided they don’t threaten to kill any other Epicureans.
A nation mesmerized by entertainment like this is well-prepared for the omnipotent and unrestrained savior-state to listen to their cell phone calls, frisk granny, and torture people in order, as Michael Corleone said of the arrangements for his assassination, “so I’ll be safe.” The viewer is trained to take on the air of worldly-wise, impotent cynicism: “oh yeah, I see through ‘them’ too; they’re gonna do what they’re gonna do.” Apathy, abulia, and amnesia, as Hoffman warned. “They” as a gray who-knows-whom out there. Might as well just enjoy the chips and beer while we can.
Nice post, Tim. I’m new to the site, so I have yet check out some more of the movie reviews here.
This movie was in Sandlin’s top 5 of 2006. I have found that it is difficult to find a reliable source for “good” movies. Just what are the standards for one who views this Bond flick as a top 5? Immodest women? I give it a 9. Blasphemy? a strong 7. Godawa has recommended some real duds too. I don’t feel like I’m redeeming culture by watching some of the movies that are recommended by those who share a passion for redeeming the arts. But perhaps what is recommended as “good” is not necessarilty being considered “redeeming”. But are these movies even edifying?
BTW, I noticed the comment about Dench being female. I take it you are not pointing out her sex, but rather alluding to the inpropriety of her being in a positon of leadership. If so, good for you. This is a criticsm that most avoid, and unfortunatley, not all Christians agree with its premise.
Nice post.
Comment by Joshua — April 7, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
Wow. Very well written and very enlightening. I have not seen the movie. Joshua made an interesting point, so I might as well ask: should I see it for the sake of staying “in tune” with culture?
Comment by Keith — April 8, 2007 @ 12:09 am
No! Get out of tune with our culture.
Comment by Tim H — April 8, 2007 @ 12:45 am
Joshua -
Those who speak about “redeeming the arts” typically have little sense of either redemption or art. For them, it is as if a protagonist’s coming to self-realization is the essence of redemption and, by implication, the highest form of art. A moment’s reflection is all it takes to see the shallowness of this position.
Be wary of those who offer “the” theory of art. Just as for the pure, all things are pure, so for the simplistic all things are simple. Both maxims are true, but only those who possess the former characteristic are commendable. Art is too complex a thing to admit of a simple essence.
To commend a movie such as “Casino Royale” is not only an aesthetic failure, but an ethical one as well. If Wittgenstein is correct in saying ethics and aesthetics are one, this follows immediately.
Comment by MRB — April 8, 2007 @ 2:44 am
Joshua– Welcome aboard.
Andrew Sandlin’s problem is that he is first a neo-con, second a Republican, and third a Christian. So a movie like this one gets the blood soaking his irises. Killing gets Republicans excited if it can be marshalled to the neo-con agenda. (I know; I once was one too.)
My previous church sponsored a conference with Brian Godawa. In response to a question from the audience, he admitted he had hardly seen any pre-1980 movies! Think about it: adjusting for the time-scale, this would be like a literature professor admitting he had not read anything written before 1940.
Those two men just about summarize the state of the evangelical church today!
Comment by Tim H — April 9, 2007 @ 9:00 am
I definitely need to show those comments to some of my friends.
I’d be interested in more articles on “redeeming culture,” because that’s something that’s emphasized a lot at my college. I know that one of the Bible prof’s requires his freshmen students to read Godawa’s book on movies and Hollywood.
Comment by Keith — April 10, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
Gag me with a spoon. Christians think that if they can show a theme of “redemption,” no matter how far-fetched, that that redeems the project. That book also borders on the pornographic in my opinion.
Comment by Tim H — April 11, 2007 @ 9:31 am
The next time I’m Virginia I’ll try to see to that.
I think its particularly funny when Neo (of the Matrix) is viewed as a Christ-figure. Wow.
Comment by Keith — April 11, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Yes, the next time I’m Virginia I’ll gag you with a spoon…
I’m running off of little sleep—forgive me.
Comment by Keith — April 11, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Joshua, I also wanted to comment on the statement “long on plot” in the review you directed us to. That is a wall-street way of saying “strong on plot.” But there are 10,000 junior high boys that could write a plot as interesting as Casino Royale, while also being more coherent. Andrew really needs to get out and meet a few people.
Comment by Tim H — April 13, 2007 @ 8:35 am
For the sake of information, the ten minute chase scene through a construction site in Madagascar featured a physical discipline which originates in France called parkour. The sport is a form of freestyle running where a person jumps, valuts, climbs, and runs using buildings, rails, and walls to pass obstacles in the fastest and most direct route.
Personally, I find it amusing that the French invented a sport about running away.
Comment by Michael T — May 18, 2007 @ 12:50 am
Yes, it is ironic given the great military tradition of the French. The retreat from Russia in 1812/13 was a debacle; but it was not yet known then that Russia is unconquerable on account of her cold and vastness. Indeed, Napoleon’s experience there is what should have brought that lesson home to future would-be conquerers.
Comment by Tim H — May 18, 2007 @ 6:51 am
Napoleon had his historical teachers. Charles XII of Sweden tried to assault Moscow, which led a disastrous defeat and exile. Before Charles XII, the Poles were able to conquer Moscow in the early 17th century. Their conquest didn’t last long, but they held it for half of a decade.
Comment by Michael T — May 19, 2007 @ 1:51 am
G. Khan seemed to do a tolerable job of the task, but his objective seems to have been rather different than that of later European invaders.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — May 19, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
The problem, what do you want out of a movie? There has to be a difference between critical analysis and enjoyment for enjoyments’ sake. How can even non-offensive movies (are there any?) be redemptive? Is that their purpose? Do you enjoy a good football game for its redemptive value? We enjoy great music because of what it does to us even though the story in say, an opera, (most) is ridiculous. C. S. Lewis criticized his contemporary teachers for failing to inculcate a love of reading in their students by asking them to look too hard between the lines. I guess it’s a high brow/low brow thing. I certainly enjoy and appreciate Tim’s insights (where else could you get such astute analysis?) but first sit back and enjoy the show. And if you want something redemptive, go visit you unsaved neighbors and invite them to come to Christ.
Comment by Jim Harris — August 6, 2007 @ 7:25 pm