This started as a response to a comment by butterfly in my previous post. Then I started thinking it should be its own post, so here we are. Butterfly said:
I confess a twinge of disappointment at the mention of the return of Moneypenny and Q. Part of the DC era that I bought into was leaving the silly stuff behind. I’ll reserve judgement till I see it though and hope its done in the spirit of CR and QoS.
I disagree 100% that Q & Moneypenny inherently represent “silly stuff.” We are all talking about the “new Bond;” well, one of the things he needs is stability. Building a real staff at MI6 that’s stable and recognizable is important to who and what Bond is. Interviewers ask me, how is Bond different from Bourne? (They all ask me that!) One important way is that Bond is part of the government, he has an organization behind him and a boss he reports to, whereas Bourne is fighting the government, an outsider fighting the organization. In Bond, there’s good guys and bad guys, and Bond is on the side of good; we can get excellent mileage exploring the ambiguities of that, but the fact is, there are two sides. By contrast, in Bourne, it’s one man against everyone else. There are no bad guys per se, the home agency IS the bad guy.
Plus, Bond is more of a person and less of a superhero when we recognize the organization behind him; when we see that, as M said in DAF, they do their jobs there.
One of the best things about the Brosnan years was building the sense that there was a real organization behind Bond; we saw that in Dr. No (I love that room full of radio operators), but somewhere it got lost. With Brosnan, we had not only Moneypenny and Q, but also Tanner and Robinson, and the overall effect was of a dedicated organization with a staff of which Bond is a part.
In CR, there was an obvious hole for Q when some nobody injected Bond’s arm with the tracer. MI6 is not served by staffing a bunch of anonymous nobodies. It’s too easy, too trivial, too all-the-movies-do-it. Bond is supposed to be special and different.
Do Moneypenny and Q have to be played for camp? Absolutely not, although a certain wit and amusement will be a pleasure to see. I am not looking for Moonraker, but I don’t think every Bond should be the Darkest Bond Ever.™ Humor is humanizing; in the Bond films that were not specifically comedic, we could get the sense that Bond was funny as a way of dealing with his own tension, he was humorous as a way of facing the darkness. Brosnan was deft at getting that across, and of course, Connery was the master of having a quip be a source of composure. There is no doubt inherent humor in the contrast between a gadget guy and a field agent, but where that humor goes is up to a strong script and good actors, and I’m sure Eon can come up with those somewhere.
6 users commented in " Thoughts on Q and Moneypenny "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackOne thing I have liked about the DC Bond is the increased role for Tanner. Fleming always talked about how Bill Tanner was Bond’s best friend in the service, and he was truly M’s right hand man. Moneypenny was a secretary, and despite being more than competent at her job she didn’t have authority like Tanner did.
And now, in the DC Bond movies, we see Tanner walking around with M and helping her directly, like a Chief of Staff would in real life.
I look forward to seeing Q and Moneypenny in upcoming movies, but not at the expense of losing Tanner. I’d love to see a scene with Tanner and Bond going out to lunch and discussing some office politics, in fact.
Michael Kitchen played Tanner in 2 of the 4 Brosnan movies, and the fans applauded for exactly the reasons you state.
I don’t know why you have liked Tanner in the Craig movies and not the Brosnan movies. Tanner wasn’t in DC “movies,” he was in only QOS. There is no reason on earth why there was a brand new character called “Villiers” in CR instead of Tanner or Moneypenny. It was a stupid decision, and undoubtedly they listened to fan complaints this time out.
They should have brought him back for QOS instead of Rory Kinnear. He’s more believable as a friend. No reason not to have Robinson either.
The delicate balance between continuity and newness has not, in my opinion, quite been achieved.
Tanner seemed to always have Bond’s back, even in DAD when the chips were down; I got the feeling that Tanner was on Bond’s side. The one thing QoS does have, and I think Deborah mentioned it somewhere else, is a sense that MI6 is a big organization with lots of staff, activity and bustle. Particularly in the scene when they trace the money to the Haiti hotel room, its cleat thats there is a big organization behind Bond. That was kind of cool to see.
Your comments are on target, Deb, but everyone’s shock at no Moneypenny or Q for QOS is misplaced–how could they be in the organization an hour after CR has ended without them? (Better yet, how did we go from Brioni to Tom Ford as couturier in 60 minutes?
What annoys me is how I liked Tobias Menzies as Villiers better than Rory Kinnear as Tanner. Bring back Michael Kitchen as Tanner and Michael Campbell as director with Forster in release.
What about the Dalton Era? Here’s a piece wherein Daltan gets to meet Connery, in IRAN!
http://klogtheblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/khomeini-and-khamenei-dialogue.html
I wanted to let you fans know that Pierce and his wife Keely wrote a post for our blog about the upcoming film, The Cove:
http://www.takepart.com/blog/2009/08/03/the-world%E2%80%99s-best-kept-secret-will-be-revealed-in-theaters-this-friday/
Leave A Reply