As I was watching Casino Royale, I noticed myself (of course) comparing the movie to the book. However, I was surprised to see the film's representation of Le Chiffre. Based on our discussion of 'typical' Bond villains, I was expecting to see the sweaty, gross, and--as I believe Fleming put it--the "globular" Le Chiffre. Even though the actor did have the expected non-normative feature that we expect of any Bond villain (his extremely foggy eye--a cataract?), I must admit that I was a bit disappointed in his appearance. I was expecting to be disgusted! Yet, I was distracted from Le Chiffre's weeping and even from his eye by his perfectly coiffed hair and impeccable suits.
This made me think of how good and evil are presented to us as viewers. When we're little, we often see extreme versions of physical portrayals of character traits in order to help us determine the difference between good and evil. For instance, we knew the Wicked Witch of the West was 'bad' because she was green, had warts on her nose, a scratchy voice, and was generally ugly. Of course, Glinda the good witch only shined with goodness in comparison--with a little help from her pristine pink ball gown.
I know Bond films are far from children's films, but I can't help but wonder about the filmmakers' decisions to depict the villains with a bit of glamour. Although I've only read one of Fleming's novels, I feel like he wrote Le Chiffre--and maybe all of his villains--with a clearer idea of raw ugliness that was meant to translate into pure evil. I think the preservation of some of the actors' beauty is an interesting topic to think about, and I believe it can 'mess with' how we interpret certain situations in the films.
No comments:
Post a Comment