Radical Romantic Comedy

I found the movie 10 to be more of a radical romantic comedy in that it followed "the basic framework [of] boy meets, loses, [and then] regains girl...." (Page 72)

George and Samantha have had a relatively stable relationship until George turns 42.  He looks back on the last two years as if he’s dying since he says he's an invalid now. We see him in a midlife the night of his party as he renounces the adage "Life begins at 40" since he feels life has ended. He loves living vicariously through his neighbor since he's constantly observing the sexual activity that goes on there and he’s not satisfied with his own sex life which is part of the reason he’s a peeping tom. And being young is a recurring theme in the movie.  He tells a therapist he would settle for being at least thirty and would even consider trading places with his gay co-writer’s partner if it mean being young and virile once again. He’s become obsessed with age and looks that he goes off to find Jenny, the one who can restore his manhood.

Samantha is not the traditional woman since she knows what George uses his telescope for and is able to accept it without making a big deal about it. She's a strong willed woman who’s able to bring up the issues that bother her and can see sex for what it is without being naive about it. As the viewer, you get the sense that she knows George would stray from their relationship.  For when George sees Jenny and follows her to the church, the song that Samantha sings in the background  says it all:

Why is it I never doubt him

Then I've known all along

Now and then the very best of men must roam

Sure I get lonely without him

But a man, right or wrong

The more you bind him

The less you find him home.

Samantha isn’t one to fool and you would be damned if you tried to pull a fast one on her.  She’s a progressive woman for her time - a romantic who is also realistic.

George seems to be stuck in the 50’s - 60’s era and really isn’t the “man” out of the three main characters.  Jenny is just the huntress Samantha is.  George isn’t the hunter – he becomes the hunted. He daydreams of running into Jenny and having this romantic encounter filled with passionate and emotional sex when it’s typically the woman who fills this role. The roles are reversed in this movie. It’s Jenny who puts the moves on him and is ready and willing to sleep with him. When George realizes it’s not her first time sleeping around and that he won’t be her last, he’s disillusioned with the whole idea, just like a woman would be. There’s nothing romantic about it anymore and he’s no longer that naïve about women, young or older. He’s sort of matured at this point.

Jenny’s comfortable with her sexuality that she’s able to share an intimate moment just like a man can, which brings to mind 2011’s Friends with Benefits and the possibility for a woman to be sexually involved with a man without the strings attached. Friends with Benefits is indicative of today’s modern women who is not always looking to be in a relationship, or married for that matter, and that they can still be respectable women just like men without adding the extra baggage to their lives. But it’s the man in the 60’s and even of today’s time that are expecting to have their cake and eat too without expecting for the woman to do the same.  It’s a double standard that continues to play both in movies and in real life.

Casino Royale - great remake

Stories like Casino Royale reflect a time of patriotism, paranoia, and a social calling from your native country. Whether it's written 60 years ago or today, stories that reflect society and the unresolved dilemmas of the time are usually a good selling point to make money in the film industry.

Storytellers have used the film industry as a means of reaching main stream audiences in order to ignite that spark of patriotism. Unlike today where you see promotional clips of future movies coming out, back in the days you saw advertisements for war bonds and how cool and patriotic it was to support the U.S. during WWII.

Movies like Me and My Gal starring Judy Garland, could be seen as America's way of enticing its moviegoers to join the army. Being a famous actress, having Judy Garland play the young devoted girl who entertains and distracts you from being surrounded by death and destruction was a smart move. The same goes with 2011’s remake of Captain America – prior to becoming the noble and heroic man in the film, Chris Evans is forced to go on tour trying to get people to enlist in the army.

Most of the movies today are remakes of older ones, whether it’s an updated version or a spoof off of the old ones, the props and storyline are updated to keep up with the times in order for us to relate to the movie. It’s great to see a remake when it’s done right, when the plot reflects current issues that are relatable to most generations and the storyline is entertaining. But I think to some extent we’ve become immune to the idea of any new plots because we’re constantly rehashing history. From which wars took place and which country sided with the antagonists or protagonists to focusing on a nation that played out a role that should have never taken place. Or is it supposed to be that way in order for us to not lose sight of what’s happened in the past? Or have we not really learned from past experience?

Whatever the case is, the 2006 version of Casino Royale was a great remake since not only did the writers stay on course with the book, the storyline was relatable for the 50’s era and to today’s generation. And it was a success. Why can’t our own storyline be that way?

Bond and his villainous view

Who is James Bond? Is he the embodiment of hope? Or is he a troublesome figure for man and country? Or is he another human machine like the rest of us?  Or is he Christ?

These questions came to mind as I began delving deeper into Casino Royale. It may be a far fetched idea to see James Bond as a Christlike figure, after all Bond is an assassin. He doesn't go out of his way to cure people or dispense some worldly knowledge. Bond has a misogynistic view and he's an emotionless man, a trait that helps him to complete his assignments. He's willing to let others die if it means saving thousands for his country.

Yet in the movie, Bond dies and thanks to the help of Vesper, he is brought back to life. Just like Christ died and was resurrected, Bond came back a changed man.  Christ was revered, and his perspectives and words were profound and impactful on thousands of lives. And it is this superior knowledge of knowing what is right and what is wrong, knowing good and evil, forgiveness and resentment, that slowly puts Bond on the path to being a Jesus like figure.

Bonds' several near death experiences have such an impact on how he views who the villain is. He no longer sees his nemesis Le Chiffre as a villain, but more so as a pawn in the hands of the Devil. He feels sorry for Le Chiffre, just like Jesus had for pity on those that put him to death. His luck, or miracle of still being alive, causes Bond to question his own patriotism and whether it's worth risking his life for his country. More specifically, he questions who is the villain, since the villain can be anyone depending on your point of view.

As an agent, Bond is given a dossier with the facts of the enemy and has been provided with the necessary tools in order to defeat the "enemy." Yet he is without a voice in the beginning of the novel, obeying as instructed - once given the directive he's to get the job done. Period. 

Which brings to mind how we are as a society. When we're born, we are raised a certain way, being brought up with certain value systems and beliefs that are reinforced over time. Over the years these ideas become our own for the most part. When we begin to question who gave us this list of what to do, what not to do, what to believe in, what not to believe in, that this is your friend and this is your enemy, we may realize that we aren't human beings who are entitled to freedom of expression, freedom of choice. We are to some extent slaves to our superiors, from our parents to our employers, and even to our country, acting as robots doing what we are told to do. Like Bond we have become a machine.

Granted the need for some semblance of discipline is necessary to establish order in our daily lives, but it is this constant growing fear of not having control, of not having order that drives some power hungry people into madness. Hitler is a primary example.  He feared the Jews and wanted to eradicate them and he made it his life mission to do so.  It is the fear of the unknown that drives people to do some crazy things. When one deviates from the norm, even if they have good intentions, we see those individuals as a threat if their beliefs don't align with our own agreements.

The intentions are good, from passing a piece of state legislature to voting for a new president, but they may not be what we really expect them to be. We are presented with “facts” that are laid out for us to make our decision easier when in reality those facts are skewed in order to incite our opposition or our agreement with the agenda at hand.  It’s the lack of discernment, of not being able to put things into perspective that may get us into trouble.  We feed off of the information that is given to us and we lose sight that what we have in front of us may actually be assumptions and nothing more. We sometimes fail to see beyond the stereotypes, beyond our own scope of knowledge, that we don’t see things clearly.

It’s this perspective which Bond talks about that he finds troublesome, for “when one's young, it seems very easy to distinguish between right and wrong, but as one gets older it becomes more difficult.“  Just as Bond may be the good guy in our eyes and Le Chiffre the evil one, Le Chiffre sees Bond as the villain, a threat to Le Chiffre’s culture, his way of life. What we may be doing as a group, as a nation may not really be the right thing. Our intentions may be good but it’s the way we go about achieving those goals that becomes scary. Throughout history fear has been used as method of shifting the truth so that the “enemy” is seen as the enemy when opposite may be true. It’s the balance that is the key. As Bond points out, having people like Le Chiffre in the world brings out someone like Bond himself, one to balance the other. But is it as simple as that: the evil doers bring out the wise and the just?