This Friday, EON Productions revealed the next actor lucky enough to take over the reigns as the world's most beloved secret agent: A relative unknown English actor named Daniel Craig. Whisked up the Thames river in an introduction ceremony that rivaled that of a Jay-Z release party, Mr. Craig splashed upon the scene as the new 007--blond locks and all.
This choice has many true Bond fans on the fence. One the one hand, it's a daring choice to go with a relative unknown, rather than someone who would overshadow the role (such as the rumored Hugh Jackman or Clive Owen, to an extent). It's also refreshing to have an actor of English background rather than Scottish and/or Irish. Lastly, it's always fantastic to recruit an actor who can actually ACT to take over the role. However, there are problems with this choice that could lead to a dark financial road for the Bond franchise in the future.
First and foremost, the man isn't really the definition of handsome. Show his picture to a random group of women without telling them who he is, and they won't even raise an eyebrow. Recent news articles dealing with this new Bond have alluded to the fact that he's been called "attractive" at best.
Of course, this doesn't seem like a problem on the surface, but--as strange as it may seem--Bond's lack of good looks may cause a deeper shift in the character/franchise that one would first think. Choosing to go with a more rugged, non-suave type may result in the following:
1) There is a disticnt possibility that the female audience of Bond films, while already quite marginalized, will be all but elminated. It's hard enough for them to sit through an action-packed guy-fest of sex and guns, but the saving grace for them up until now is that there wouldn't be a lack of eye candy being served up by the leading man. Craig's presence may eliminate that appeal.
2) Believe it or not, this choice may alienate the regular straight guys who love Bond movies (like yours truly) in a backhanded sort of way: Up until now, Bond has been a suave, handsome guy who could basically get laid by simply walking into a room. He's not an everyman--he's what every man wishes he could be. Bond movies are escapism. The novels were inherently an escape for their author, Ian Fleming, when he wrote them. They have become a billion-dollar escapist franchise for our culture; A window into a fantasy world that we wish we could live in, if for only 2 hours. The men in the audience ENJOY seeing a good-looking guy bring women to their knees every 10 minutes in these movies--they don't want to see a regular-looking guy trying to do the same. As strange as it may seem, they won't buy it. If they wanted to see a run-of-the-mill guy land a supermodel, they'd watch "King of Queens." If only at a subconscious level, this choice by the producers may alter the appeal of Bond for both genders.
3) Lastly, if we are to assume #2 is true, then it could be the sign of a change in the Bond franchise altogether. Let's assume for a moment that the producers KNOW Craig isn't the suave ladykiller type, and they made the choice intentionally. Let's assume they made that choice to point the character in a more rugged, everyman direction, and farther away from the suave, elitist type. The result? Less sex. Less sleeping around. Less misogynism. Less suaveness. Less tuxedo-wearing charm. In other words, a more "politically correct," darker Bond.
Why is this necessary? In an episode of Futurama, the lead character, Fry, once made a comment about TV programming. When a character claimed that TV should be "clever and unexpected," he replies, "But that's not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared." While this is an exaggeration, to be sure, it applies subtly to the Bond franchise. Audiences will accept changes, tweaks, and minor alterations. They'll accept a shift here or there, and even a fresh story that may or may not involve world domination. But, in the end, they really come to see the same old Bond they know and love. Sure, he can have one martini instead of two. He can make 5 quips instead of 4. But he better sure as hell be the Bond Ian Fleming and Cubby Broccolli made into an icon for the last 40 years. The inherent nature of a franchise is that, while it can evolve and be made more fresh in many ways, the key elements should never change drastically enough that it jars the audience into the unknown. For generations, Bond has been a part of our culture--a household name. This change may, inadvertently, make James Bond a stranger all over again.
On a side note, shortly after Craig was introduced, EON also announced that his first movie--an adaptation of the first Bond novel, Casino Royale--will not include the characters "Q" or "Monneypenny." When asked why, the producers pointed to the fact that neither character appears in the novel, and that the movie they are planning is an "new start" of sorts. In many ways, they may be trying to have the Bond character be "re-born," and show the audiences his gritty beginnings as a secret agent.
I for one can't argue with those peripheral character choices--even though the second reason may lead to the "jarring" effect described above. The general audience member and Bond fan will probably be accepting of the absence of these two characters, but they may not be as forgiving when it comes to a potentially different Bond altogether. They may not be willing to see a "Bond origin." The good news is that, if the producers are indeed sticking to source material, "Casino Royale" is NOT an origin novel, so-to-speak. It is indeed Bond's first escapade, but, thankfully, there will be no "training" segments and/or other origin cliches: "Casino Royale" opens with Bond already being the Bond we all know and long to be.
Of course, all of this hesitancy and apprehension may turn out tobe unfounded--which would please me to no end. The issues discussed here are merely speculative opinions about what this change could do to the franchise. That being said, they are apprehensions based on precedents set in the past: Audience members were NOT enthralled with a good actor playing a gritty Bond when Timothy Dalton took over, and the layman found GoldenEye a bit 'talkie.' This doesn't mean that the studio should shy away from taking another risk--let's just hope this risk turns out to be a good one. If not, you can expect a 60-year old Pierce Brosnan riding up the Thames in a speedboat in 2007.
Good luck, Mr. Blond!
