The Reel Critic

Author: Josh Wessler

MOVIE: Quantum of Solace
DIRECTOR: Marc Forster
STARRING: Daniel Craig & Olga Kurylenko

Somewhere along the way to the box office, James Bond lost his sense of humor. Well, not exactly. In the theatre where I watched "Quantum of Solace," there were plenty of laughs, though most were stifled - perhaps some audience members felt a bit self-conscious. As in a Roadrunner cartoon, we laughed when enemies were thrown off tall buildings and punched repeatedly in the face. Except, the flying fists were not comical in a satirical manner, but rather for their raw and unflinching portrayal on the screen. Not only a super-agent, the new Bond is a super-hero, whose impermeable gaze suggests skin of steel. He may not have fun, but part of the trick is that we can have fun at his expense.

In case CNN had not alerted you, these are not humorous times. While previous generations laughed giddily at their Batman comics, today's audiences know Bruce Wayne's tortured soul, ripped out by Heath Ledger's horrifying grin. "Why so serious?," he taunted us. "How could we not be?," we answered.

Whereas the James Bond of the sixties and seventies (and perhaps even the eighties) was quick-witted and strangely unassuming (who else would walk into the enemy's lair and pronounce, "the name's Bond?"), today's 007, played by Daniel Craig, is pathological. His love fueled the passions in "Casino Royale" (2006), while revenge motivates his crusades in "Quantum of Solace." The pretense is that things are not simple like they once were. The spy came in from the vold, and the world fractured into painful shards.

The latest Bond film lives simultaneously in the past and the present. It segues from "Casino Royale," which served as a prequel to all the other Bond movies produced before it. Still, the two latest films, both starring Craig, take place in a contemporary setting. As if history was at once lived presently and reflected on, a timeless and timely Bond finds himself enmeshed in a global environmental imbroglio that takes him to a politically unstable Bolivia. Although earlier Bond films clearly referenced the Cold War landscape, it is unusual for a Bond film to allude so specifically to people, places and current geopolitical situations. It is no longer sufficient to fight an ambiguous Bad Guy sitting in a faceless station stroking a cat (yes, that sounds like Mike Myers' Dr. Evil, but it was taken from some of the earliest 007 films).

Instead, Craig's Bond happens across a complex plot to overthrow a popularly-elected government and install a military junta with implicit backing from the CIA, among others. In contrast to most Bond films, there is no direct global threat in "Quantum of Solace." The enemy, it turns out, is not simply the Bolivian military or the brash and na've wing of U.S. foreign intelligence, but also a supranational corporation that specializes in ecological preservation. The impending crisis threatens human lives and political sovereignty, but there is no bomb about to explode the Earth. Sure, one could argue, the threat of neoliberalism is global, but it is not an issue James Bond alone can solve.

Crucially, Bond entangles himself by happenstance and proceeds in his investigations without the consent of the British government. Even his most loyal supporter, M (Judi Dench), head of MI6, begins to waver and doubt his efficacy. Because the recent films are prequels, the audience likely knows what Bond will become: a womanizing and supremely intelligent agent of a global war against communism. The cause, righteous or not, made the man. In today's films, we are left with an invincible character searching for justification. We know he will live, but what will he live for?

As world media travels increasingly further and faster, the visual pace of entertainment has similarly quickened. It is now cliché to note the fast editing styles of action flicks such as these, but notably, it is not always a detriment. In "Quantum of Solace," the visual flightiness becomes rhythmic and nearly poetic. A footchase on the ochre rooftops of Siena, Italy dances impetuously and hypnotically. The epic grandeur and tension of a scene set at Puccini's opera "Tosca" hints at Coppola's famous blend of opera and complot. Unlike Coppola, however, and most other great filmmakers, director Marc Forster avoids any break in the pace and spoils the chance for climactic build and cathartic release. The explosive end replaces self-reflection and vainly asks us to savor something we barely had a chance to ingest.

In one sense, M fails to rein in her rogue agent, though it becomes clear that if Bond is to maintain 007 status he must grow up and respect authority - no one knows exactly who the enemy is, much less a solitary British agent blinded by revenge. Ostensibly, Sean Connery's Bond once came from Russia with love, but we now know that the real love affair was with the Cold War itself. It fed his restlessness and satisfied his thirst for danger. In this post-binary, post-colonial, post-American, post-sovereign world, who needs James Bond? Judging by the box office returns, many of us still do, perhaps because we feel we are not "post"-anything, but instead living in many geo-political spheres at once.