James Bond Will Return

Bond producers Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have said: “Due to the continuing uncertainty surrounding the future of MGM and the failure to close a sale of the studio, we have suspended development on Bond 23 indefinitely.”

It was the word “indefinitely” that made me wonder if anyone was really all that bothered. With all the talk of delays and the arguable dissatisfaction with Quantum of Solace comes the inevitable talk of rethinking the franchise. I was under the impression that the franchise had been rebooted quite successfully. It would surely take a lot more than one weak instalment to necessitate yet another back to basics reboot. I came to conclusion that I was bothered and that I just wanted the producers to make the next film better.

Quantum of Solace managed the impressive achievement of being the only official Bond film to date to not feature the character of James Bond in anything other than name. I’ve mentioned before that The International (starring Clive Owen, who was heavily rumoured to be taking the role of 007) was almost as good, and whilst it was a particularly unremarkable film it is comparable since both it and Quantum of Solace were heavily derivative of the Bourne films; both were directed by largely humourless German directors; both contained very driven protagonists similarly with no sense of humour, and both were concerned with evil multi-nationals using either the environment or the economy to propel the interests of terrorism. World domination, just not with sharks and frickin’ laser beams.

A little note at this point on Bourne. I can’t really continue without addressing the success of this franchise…The Bourne novels by Robert Ludlum, which I haven’t personally read, are by all accounts thrilling, gripping, can’t-put-them-down-they’re-so-fucking-good spy yarns. 2002’s The Bourne Identity was all of these things. Directed by one of my favourite filmmakers, the immeasurably talented Doug Liman (who had previously made Swingers and Go!) this film had intrigue coming out of its ears, a superb soundtrack; it was pacy, well edited, featured the ever-gorgeous Franka Potente and above all it reminded audiences that this genre could be presented in a way that made it all appear vaguely plausible. In fact it was so good that two years later they remade the film almost shot-for-shot. And again in 2007. As I’m writing this I can’t remember in which order The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum come. I know they’re both quite indistinct and directed by Paul Greengrass who fails to excite me on any level, and I know that the second one featured nearly all the exact same set pieces as the first film (including Bourne fighting a hitman in someone’s kitchen and a car chase through the streets of a major European city) done in a slightly less diverting way (was it supposed to look like a documentary?). After Bourne learns who he is the mystery was lost and by the time the third film came round my interest had evaporated.

The producers for Bond obviously didn’t feel the same way. They felt panicked enough to try and emulate the style of the Bourne films for some of Casino Royale which wasn’t necessarily a problem because they could use this style for the scenes in which it counted; namely the stunt sequences, fight scenes and other explosive bits. The rest of the film could then rely on Fleming’s original story and the sterling work the screen writers had done in getting all this on screen (such good dialogue) and also through Bond and Vespa’s relationship (Vespa herself is by far and away the most fully realised Bond girl ever – to the point where it’s hard to describe her as such). With Casino Royale there were two films in one and you almost don’t notice it because it was so well marshalled by Martin Campbell (who had previously relaunched the franchise with GoldenEye 11 years earlier).

When I heard the events of Quantum of Solace would take place directly after Casino Royale ends I thought this would be an exciting idea, even the suspect title didn’t especially bother me because it was taken from a Bond short story Fleming had written (even if James Bond features absurdly briefly) and it suggested that Bond would be caught up in grieving for Vespa’s death (and by “grieving” I mean “killing a lot of people”).

So what went wrong with Quantum of Solace? It was fairly slick; one of the shorter Bond films clocking in at 106 minutes (compared to the usual 2 hours), it had decent locations (even if a few were recycled from Casino Royale) and familiar characters. My prime concern as mentioned above was with those characters; Bond seemed weirdly absent, as though he could have been played by a stuntman. The villain was equally as anaemic and the Bond girl almost an utter non-entity, so much so it seemed this film was half the film Casino Royale had been. This was a desperate shame because there was room in Quantum of Solace for more character, especially of Bond. Daniel Craig proved that he could fully embody Ian Fleming’s spy in Casino Royale and now that this novel’s storyline has been thoroughly exhausted by both Casino Royale and its sequel let’s just move on…

…As long as the tone and flavour of the next film are that bit more inspired. As Casino Royale proved, there’s room for Bourne style antics inside a more satisfying story. It might not be a bad idea for Craig to leave some of the more dangerous stunts to the actual stunt men this time – although it’s great to know he’s game for leaping across roof tops, it does slightly limit what can be achieved, especially if the script originally called for something even more exciting. We’re all knowing viewers and are aware the actor might not have been dicing with death in quite the way the character seems to be (if a freak accident occurred it would be a shame to lose such a talented actor – an accident that might not happen if a professional were involved). Certainly I remember not being especially excited by the involvement of Sam Mendes (Revolutionary Road) but then it’s been argued that Bond films are essentially director proof and it’s great news that Peter Morgan (who did such great work on political screenplays such as The Deal and Frost/Nixon) will be co-scripting.

Many bond films have demonstrated the thrills to be had with Bond using his initiative rather than novelty gadgets, e.g. Goldfinger’s electric heater-in-the-bath scrap, and although Quantum of Solace was good for this approach (with the sublime moment when Bond hurls a guy from his motorbike merely by over revving the accelerator) it shouldn’t be to the exclusion of fun, iconic gadgets such as the Aston Martin DB5 or “Little Nellie”, and some advice for you Campbell – if you are going to feature a gadget-laden car, don’t neglect to actually use it; how much of a let down it was in GoldenEye when the BMW Z3 drove off into the sunset without us having seen the wonder of the “Stinger missiles behind the headlights…” that we were promised or Bond destroying his Aston Martin DBS in Casino Royale having only utilised the defibrillator and the slightly-supped-up glove compartment…

Some of the best Bond films have proved that the villain doesn’t need to look freakish to be 007’s match for eccentricity or charisma; Roger Moore was particularly fortunate to get a lot of the best villains e.g. Scaramanga and Zorin and poor old Pierce Brosnan whose villains were larger than life, were arguably the least successful (many of the Brosnan era villains were undermined by something unfortunate: Xenia Onatopp had a ridiculous, carry-on name; Janus/006 had an unnecessarily haughty accent and staff who frequently wouldn’t obey his instructions; Elliot Carver was possibly the least threatening damp-squib of a megalomaniac ever…).

There are plenty of little touches you could inject to advance the series and yet make a nod or two to what’s worked in the past. The next theme tune might benefit from a return to vocals from Shirley Bassy – the mighty Propellerheads who reworked the theme from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” on David Arnold’s Shaken and Stirred collaborated with her to great effect on the supremely enjoyable “History Repeating” and her voice would create that instantly recognisable Bond vibe. The Brosnan era films did such a great job in making me realise the possibilities for quality title sequences and they could be conceptually developed well beyond projecting different coloured texts onto semi-naked women holding water pistols (well, the projections anyway).

It was immensely satisfying to be shown Bond’s apartment in both Dr No and Live and Let Die, the introductory films of the two actors who’ve played Bond most often on the screen, and to see a little more of the private life of Fleming’s character. These moments are always especially intriguing passages in the books: Bond tends to enjoy the brief time he has off between assignments frequenting “Blades”, his private club in Mayfair and his flat off the Kings Road in Chelsea, with the odd visit to the golf course thrown in. Our spy actually consumes far more whiskey than any other alcohol and is rarely seen without an accompanying cigarette; indeed it would be difficult to be seen any other way when you smoke 60 a day on average. More could be made of our character through behavior that was shaped at Eton, Fettes College in Edinburgh, The University of Geneva, and Cambridge. There are probably endless ways to enliven and broaden the franchise, which is why it was unforgivable that Quantum of Solace turned out the way it did. As the Bourne films have proved, there’s no mileage in their approach. If there is ever this level of debate about Bourne 23 I’ll reconsider, right now I just hope MGM find some cash from somewhere.

One thought on “James Bond Will Return”

  1. To be honest with you, having sat and watched the majority of the Bond movies back to back over the space of a month or so last year I would offer the following additional commentary:

    Casino Royale had it right.

    End of discussion.

    Backing off the pace to allow for character development rather than simply maintaining a loose framework to support an eponymous hero figure to lurch from set piece to set piece made for a modern movie which stood heads and shoulders above the Bond-a-Likes and aligned the movie firmly with what (most) fans wanted to see.

    Of course the success of Casino Royale was also the undoing of the franchise. Faced with the prospect of big bucks I would suggest that the Bond team was swelled by studio execs and buffeted by constant requirements to be bigger and better. Whilst Campbell enjoyed relative peace and quiet to work on making Casino Royale the best it could be, Forster was forced to work around the success of the reboot… and he and the team got it badly wrong.

    In attempting to address the criticisms of Casino; “not enough action”, “too slow”, “too long”, they stripped out exactly what made the previous instalment a great film.

    I’d agree that Bond’s character could be explored more thoroughly but I doubt it will happen in anything other than the most transient, support the plot, manner. Bond has to remain plastic and malleable and the writers across the franchise have worked very hard to ensure that the amount of Lore is kept to a minimum thereby ensuring longevity for the series. No need for character continuity if you don’t reveal anything about your core character!

    I also doubt they can allow him to be anywhere near as flawed as the books show him to be as the US market simply wouldn’t accept a hero who’s anything other than heroic. I’d love to see a more Fleming Bond, drinking, smoking and screwing his way through the next movie but the studio simply don’t have the balls for it.

    I’d counter your advice re gadgetry as well. Sure, load the car up with as much as you want but expose me to another Die Another Day sequence where Bond uses EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING ON THE CAR IN THE SPACE OF 10 MINUTES and I’m outta there. Bond has always been at his best when the gadgets are understated both in terms of their design and their use. Let’s face it, the DB5 in Goldfinger is still iconic as “The Bond Car” and all that had was a bullet proof shield, an ejector seat and a couple of other little touches. Rather I would point Campbell (or whoever takes the helm) at the French Connection to see how exciting car sequences can be achieved without resorting to anything other than 5 wheels and an engine.

    I short I think we’ve seen the best and worst of the franchise in the space of 2 movies and I would hope the next installment manages to hit the middle ground. All they have to do is get an awesome story and then keep it simple… oh and smashing the hell out of a DBS always helps!

    Perhaps a head on with a Veyron would be adrenaline fuelled enough for the studio?

Comments are closed.