Tuesday, October 11, 2005

DANIEL CRAIG--THE NEW JAMES BOND

Well, it looks like it is official. Brosnan is done as Bond and Daniel Craig is taking over. This is both good news and bad for me. I'm a huge Bond fan and would feel happy to sit through more gadgety, contrived-action-scene-laden crapfests but I feel like casting Craig is a bad choice if they want to keep going in this direction for the Bond franchise.

See, the Brosnan Bond films were cheesy, over-the-top, contrived and very unclever. That doesn't mean they weren't fun, but Brosnan's mature pretty-boy look fit them fairly well. However, Craig here is not a traditionally good looking man. Sure, he's attractive, but not attractive in the same way Brosnan, Moore, Connery or even Lazenby was. Now, this doesn't have to be a bad thing, in my opinion.

Ultimately, I would love to see the Bond franchise reinvented in the image of the classic Fleming novels. Bond was not a "hero" but was, in fact, a dynamic, exciting, but quite harsh and even cruel character. Evidence of this can be seen in the film Dr. No which has a scene where Bond kills a man who just might have spotted him. Ursella Andres' character winces as Bond coolly explains it had to be done. This was a character who knew what he was doing, recognized the immorality of it and did it anyway.

They call this aspect of character depth.

You may have heard of it. ;)

Depth, coincidentally is what has been missing from every Bond movie for the last ten years (and maybe longer). However, in the original Bond books, depth is plentiful as novels require. So, if they were to hire Constant Gardener scripter Jeffrey Caine to write the next Bond film, we'd end up with a very realistic, harsher Bond who understands the very important moral aspects of what he does for a living--yet does those things anyway. He doesn't have to be cold or disconnected from his emotions, but he doesn't have to be a cry-baby either. We just need to see this choice he makes.

And Daniel Craig is just the good, solid, real actor who can pull off that kind of depth.

I just hope the producers of the Bond franchise are smart enough to realize Bond is due not just for a new casting choice but for a whole new flavor.

No more contrived chase scenes. No more absurd stunts. No more getting amazingly hot chicks into bed--well, maybe we can keep that aspect, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know the difference between cheesy, stupid writing (The World is Not Enough, anyone?) and solid, real, believable writing.

Hey, I can hope, can't I?

In the end, I like Daniel Craig a lot. I just hope they change the franchise to better fit him.

2 comments:

  1. I am of the humble opinion that depth and James Bond do not go together. However, perhaps you are right that an element of depth would go a long way towards reviving the series. We shall see. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at my view of this new development at www.cultureasaurus.blogspot.com.

    Naim

    ReplyDelete
  2. Did you see "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"? That movie goes pretty deep for a Bond film and it's pretty damn cool, in my humble opinion. Ultimately, it just depends on whether they want to keep churning out light, silly, but borderline fun Bond films or if they want to reinvent things. I'm hoping for the latter.

    ReplyDelete