According to Reuters, The producers of the next James Bond film will announce who will take over the coveted role this Friday, October 14th. No other official word has been given as to who this will be, but several sources--including the patently unreliable 'Daily Mail'--have indicated that the role will go to British actor Daniel Craig. ("Layer Cake," "Road to Perdition")
*Insert half-hearted golf clap*
Indeed, it's great that the producers have chosen a relative unknown who will not overshadow the role itself. It's also fantastic that the man is indeed a legitimate English actor with actual acting skill. For a Bond fan, this bodes well for the growth of the character on-screen, and could be a precursor to grittier, better-written Bond fare in the future.
However, one cannot ignore the fact that this man, while certainly talented, is not instantly acceptable as Bond. Why? He's unnattractive. After reading/researching comments made by educated, heterosexual females, the overwhelming opinion I've seen is that Craig is regarded as 'smarmy' and--simply put--not handsome.
This is not a good thing, considering Bond is, at the very least, attractive. Let's not forget that the mythos of Bond has him as a ladykiller who can 'get any woman' just by walking into a room. Is there a reason to change that part of the character? Most filmgoers enjoy the persona of Bond--they've just grown tired of the over-the-top scriptless action that has dominiated the series lately. Are producers abandoning the very iconic nature of Bond himself? Hopefully not. Remember when filmmakers decided to abandon the sex appeal of an established icon by casting Samuel "frog eyes" Jackson as "Shaft?"
Another questionable aspect of this supposed choice is that the producers wanted to go in a "younger" direction for Bond. Craig is not really a "spring chicken," he's 37 and looks likes a guy in his 40's. If, however, they meant "younger than Brosnan,"(who is 55), then yes, they've succeeded. This remains to be seen, obviously.
One thing to be wary about if this choice becomes a reality: The last time the producers chose a gritty British actor who could actually ACT, the public got two the two films starring Timothy Dalton. Real Bond fans know he was about as close to the source material as possible, but the general public did not accept him, and he ultimately flopped. Could we be headed down the same path?
On Friday, these questions will probably be answered. As Bond fans, we can only hope the team behind Bond (sans the genius Broccolli) will make the correct choice. The world waits to see if the producers will screw up a franchise that has grossed $4 billion since 1962. Full commentary on Friday.
