On Watching Theology, Joe, Duke, and Melissa take a single film and examine it closely, looking at the assumptions and ideas in the story. Every episode considers the theological, philosophical and thematic elements of a film, listening closely to what the author has to say, and interacting with those ideas. (It's more fun than it sounds).

Joe watches too many movies. He grew up in central Washington, earned his B.A. in Education and Fine Art, an M.A. in Theology and is currently completing an M.A. in English Literature. He's smuggled film classes into each degree. He is interested in writing, theology and hopes to one day compose the ultimate Joe Versus the Volcano commentary track.

Melissa has a B.A. in History and an M.A. in English with an emphasis on Film Studies. She has taken classes on everything from silent to romance to post-colonial films and much in between. Her research and interests lie mainly in feminist film theory, women in film, Hitchcock and the studio era. At the end of the day, however, she just loves films; from Notorious to Die Hard!
Duke enjoys the way movies can tell stories like no other medium. He is an amatuer critic that loves the atmosphere of the theater and the taste of overpriced popcorn. He loves a good story and appreciates the effort and skill of good story tellers. He is a nerd at heart and a sucker for heist movies. He hopes to see every good movie and lampoon every bad movie ever made before he dies.

Contact the hosts at mail@watchingtheology.com for more information.

Show DescriptionWatching Theology

Casino Royale (2006)

Watching Theology April 1st, 2008

[NOTE: Explicit Content] It may never have occurred to you before, but James Bond is a troubled old man. Being a glossy hit man may have some drawbacks, such as the inability to keep a conscience and a slightly troubled Freudian nightmare of a view on women. We put Casino Royale and Daniel Craig's Bond on the couch for thirty good minutes of free psychotherapy and ask whether the need for "realism" is killing comic book heroes.

Watching The Directors next edition: April 1 - Mira Nair
April 22 - Woody Allen (1966-85)

Next WT edition: April 15 - The Wicker Man (1973)

Bond fan? You must join the Hollywood Saloon for their comprehensive 3-part Bond movie series. Part 1 (1962-71), Part 2 (1973-89), Part 3 (1995-2006)

Print This Post | Email This Post | Digg This! | Download MP3 | Play in Popup

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 1st, 2008 at 10:49 am and is filed under , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One Response to “Casino Royale (2006)”

Christov April 2nd, 2008

Warning: This post contains a long run-on sentence with many commas ;), on the other hand, it reveals one of pillars of secret knowledge upon which human society is built…

Pros:
No New-Moneypenny (from the Brosnan films - looks like a cut-rate, younger Judy Dench)
Grittier, not prettier

Cons:
Judy Dench's M
Blond?
Made me feel like I need to spend more time at the gym

I enjoyed this movie, never have expected a James Bond cinematograph to harmonize very well with the Ian Fleming texts. As to this Bond being a blunt instrument, I think I recall that term, also spoken by the character, M, in Die Another Day, as she briefs that double-agent female character who looks as if she's made of marshmallow fluff and cinnamon - I don't remember her name. The point is that Dench's M is consistently wrong about Bond, and that it makes no difference which actor plays which characterization of Bond.

The other thing I was thinking in regard to this film is that it faithfully presents one of the big truths about life on earth -
The world system, to the extent that human beings manage and arrange it, is managed and arranged by and for those of average to high average intelligence and interests, and, when those who fall within the average range of measured intelligence, ethos, and mores encounter someone who doesn't fit the categories with which they are familiar, and that they have contrived in such a way that their own sensibilities are flattered, instead of making a new category, tend to mislabel the one who comes from somewhere off their chart, and to misapply his or her aptitudes to suit the ends of the dominant mediocrity.

So, to sum up, this version of 007 is a lot like the famed Codemonkey from the soulful ballad of the same name.

Leave a Reply