The news that Bond 23 has been delayed "indefinitely" while MGM gets its financial house in order (or not) is both good and bad news, Eyewear thinks. On the one hand, the culturally significant British franchise is now (for better and worse - it glamorises evil; but also sends up evil and glamour) a part of the calendar, and to see it just peter out would be sad (it needs to go out with an exploding oil rig, underwater domed HQ, or erupting volcano). On the other, the Craig series has run out of steam, and needs retooling anyway. The Bourne trilogy demanded a response, and Bond answered, with a similar aesthetic - but an angry, avenging Bond - very Old Testament, to Brosnan's smiling New Testament Bond.
This back to fundamentals was intriguing, but quickly lost fuel, in its second installment, with a bizarrely underwhelming climax in an eco-friendly hotel. It seems time for a new Bond - one either younger (like the new Doctor Who) and more 21st century; or a more retro Bond (as Tarantino had suggested, set them in the 60s) - or, perhaps most compellingly, a black Bond (see The Wire for an idea of who they might cast). I think Clive Owen has lost his shot at the role. But there are several others who might get the series back on track. Fiennes the younger? We need a less dark, less post-9/11 Bond. The new decade demands more of a Cleggish Bond, in fact - positive, Eurocentric, monogamous but with a past.
This back to fundamentals was intriguing, but quickly lost fuel, in its second installment, with a bizarrely underwhelming climax in an eco-friendly hotel. It seems time for a new Bond - one either younger (like the new Doctor Who) and more 21st century; or a more retro Bond (as Tarantino had suggested, set them in the 60s) - or, perhaps most compellingly, a black Bond (see The Wire for an idea of who they might cast). I think Clive Owen has lost his shot at the role. But there are several others who might get the series back on track. Fiennes the younger? We need a less dark, less post-9/11 Bond. The new decade demands more of a Cleggish Bond, in fact - positive, Eurocentric, monogamous but with a past.
Comments
As to who the new Bond could be, we do need a Connery look-alike, I think. The Connery look was what made Bond, Bond to me. The other Bonds looked too out of place. Connery physically had the right balance between hard man and gentleman, that the character needs.
But certainly, the rebooting of Bond as Bourne mark two has not been successful, though I do think Craig is the better actor the series has had. I’ve seen him in a number of films, and he is more versatile than any of the Bond actors.
And to add an intriguing suggestion, why not have a Bond who is American. After all, America is, unfortunately, in the throes of moribundity, just like England was in the 80's (while at the same time taking a performance-enhancing drug called Thatcher).
The American actor perfect for this venture is Tony Shalhoub. Somehow, it also seems perfect for 2010, which is polyglot and multicultural. Shalhoub must transcend his role as Adrian Monk and somehow, at the same time, recall the fanatical meticulousness of that character to create an enigmatic and strangely magnetic role. I think he would fit in the role far better than Pierece Brosnan ever did. Brosnan, while a fine actor, was not the best bond.