With one noteworthy exception (which didn’t work out too properly in my view), no film within the James Bond collection has ever been directed by a marquee-name, rock-star filmmaker. And when you concentrate on it, that’s fairly a startling assertion. As a result of…why not? Quentin Tarantino? Christopher Nolan? Who on earth would wish to see a Bond movie directed by one among these losers?
The administrators of the Bond movies have largely been veteran craftsmen (like Terence Younger or Man Hamilton), or journeymen (like John Glen), and some have had a status aura (like Michael Apted or Lee Tamahori). Nevertheless it was solely when Sam Mendes was tapped to direct “Skyfall” that one felt the collection was instantly aiming larger than it had been. I used to be excited to see a filmmaker as gifted as Mendes take the reins, however suffice to say: Whereas a lot of the world loves “Skyfall,” I don’t. I’ve by no means understood the reverence for that movie. To me, Mendes did a easy, workmanlike job however undercut the Bond mystique by producing a film inflated with therapeutic backstory. To me, the movie couldn’t maintain a candle to what I consider as the best entry within the Bond collection (aside from “Dr. No” and “Goldfinger”), and that’s “On line casino Royale.” And “On line casino Royale” was directed by Martin Campbell, who had no nice observe document (and had made “GoldenEye,” a Bond film I believed sucked), so possibly this was all only a huge unpredictable crapshoot anyway.
And but, in recent times, the bizarre canyon that appears to exist between James Bond movies and the good, blue-chip artist-filmmakers who’ve expressed a ardour about directing them has begun to slim. When Tarantino first voiced enthusiasm about the potential of directing a Bond film, it seemed like a elegant mixture, virtually too good to be true. However that went nowhere.
The identical factor occurred with Nolan, although by that time it was actively reported that he needed remaining lower, which was one thing that the legacy producers of the Bond collection, Barbara Broccoli and her half-brother, Michael G. Wilson, merely weren’t going to permit. One mourned, on some stage, for the out-of-the-box Bond adventures, helmed by visionary filmmakers, that we weren’t going to get to see. But the message couldn’t have been clearer: Broccoli and Wilson had been the collection’ actual auteurs. They might not cede the management.
However all that has modified now, with the absorption of the Bond franchise into the Amazon MGM empire. I initially had disparaging ideas in regards to the potential of this merger to snuff what was left of the Bond legend. I didn’t — and don’t — wish to see the James Bond collection strip-mined and bought for components, changed into a streaming “universe” that converts Bond into content material and markets it into the bottom.
However the announcement, this week, that the brand new Bond producers, Amy Pascal and David Heyman, have chosen Denis Villeneuve, the director of the “Dune” movies, to make the very first Bond film for Amazon casts the scenario in a daring new gentle.
Villeneuve, at his greatest, is a implausible filmmaker, one with a sixth sense for investing drama with the standard of hazard. Have you ever ever seen Villeneuve’s “Prisoners,” from 2013? It’s a dazzlingly executed plunge into the abyss. And whereas I’m not a significant “Dune” fan, I do assume that the darkish majesty he has delivered to these movies is beautiful. Villeneuve has confirmed to be a grasp at constructing a world. And to make a terrific James Bond film for our time, you’ll want to think about and construct the world of Bond. You can also’t apologize for who Bond is — for what some regard as his dated qualities. If that’s your opinion of Bond, you most likely shouldn’t be making a James Bond movie. To a few of us, the cutthroat charisma of Bond’s retro macho mystique isn’t dated a lot as it’s timeless. What the Bond collection wants now could be a filmmaker who can convey that to life in a approach that reasserts the mythological magic of Bond.
That’s what Martin Campbell and Daniel Craig did in “On line casino Royale.” It was a film that got here nearer to the Sean Connery classics than any 007 movie in many years, and on the identical time it was a sophisticated and emotionally tough romance. I feel the colossal mistake that was made after “On line casino Royale” was deciding that Bond, on the finish of that movie, had gone chilly inside, so there was nothing left for him to have interaction in however his missions.
Within the ’60s, the truth that Bond was such a ladykiller, at instances virtually actually (in the event you think about what occurred to that woman painted in gold), additionally made him a culture-shaking novelty, as a result of the sexual revolution was simply taking off. That we’re now within the post-#MeToo period is meant to render that facet of Bond an anachronism. However I’d argue that what we would like from a James Bond film at present, exactly as a result of it is the post-#MeToo period, is a rediscovery of the hazard of Bond. A hazard that’s directly private and religious and attractive and lethal. That’s the standard Craig delivered to “On line casino Royale,” the place his Bond was a roughneck doing all he may to tame his instincts. I’ve an intuition that claims Denis Villeneuve may convey that off once more. He must return James Bond to being a modern sociopath in a dinner jacket.
After all, he’ll want the appropriate actor to do it. And to me, the actors who’re being talked about for the function — Jacob Elordi, Tom Holland, Harris Dickinson — could also be gifted dudes, however they’re too younger. They’re all of their late 20s. Sean Connery, when he first performed Bond, was 32 however appeared older; he possessed a been-around-the-block high quality. So did Daniel Craig, who first took on the function at 38. Right now’s film actors don’t appear to age (they’re all contemporary as daisies, which is one purpose why Brad Pitt’s weatherbeaten sexiness is so interesting), however James Bond, I’m sorry, can’t be a babe within the woods. So far as I’m involved, the actor who ought to play him is Josh O’Connor, who’s 35, and who has the type of skewed magnetism — good-looking in an offbeat approach, and a little bit of a ruffian — the half wants.
There’s no query that James Bond is at a crossroads. With new possession, he threatens to soften into oblivion. But the bitter fact is that he’s been melting away anyway. A lot as I hate to say it, I feel that the Daniel Craig collection, after the sophistication and modified time-machine glory of “On line casino Royale,” turned a series of disappointing follow-ups. The collection stored chugging alongside, however that’s all it did. I, for one, am past bored with seeing routine James Bond movies. However oh, would I like to see one which gave Bond again his high quality of hazard. That high quality comes from his paradox, the truth that he’s two issues directly: exquisitely civilized and licensed to kill. A humane brute whose conquering eroticism makes him romantic. If Denis Villeneuve does this proper, James Bond will go away us shaken once more, and stirred.
