Skip to main content

Stock Still Bond

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.

Comments

Jeffrey Side said…
I think we need to go back to the sixties as Tarantino said. Bond is not an effective character whilst set in these curiously politically correct times. He needs free reign to be himself, and he can’t in 2010.

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.
Unknown said…
Personally, I think Bond should be set in the 80's
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.

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".