By Jason Apuzzo. • The big news from yesterday – the 50th anniversary of Sean Connery’s original casting as James Bond – was that after endless turmoil at MGM the new 007 film Skyfall, the 23rd film in the series, has finally begun shooting. The production team held a press conference (see here and here) to mark the occasion, rolling out new Bond director Sam Mendes along with Daniel Craig and some of Skyfall’s impressive cast, which currently includes: Javier Bardem as the villain, Albert Finney, Judi Dench as M, French actress Bérénice Marlohe as the new Bond girl, Naomi Harris as a ‘field agent’ (not as Moneypenny, as some websites are erroneously reporting) and Ralph Fiennes – who, if rumors prove true, might be making an appearance as Blofeld (a great idea, if it happens).
Not much that wasn’t already rumored about the film was confirmed in the press conference, except that Mendes threw cold water on rumors that he’s somehow taking the emphasis off action in this new Bond film. Frankly, I didn’t believe those rumors in the first place, due to the tight control that the Broccoli family has always kept on the Bond series. There was no way the Broccolis were going to suddenly change their formula just for the sake of Mendes, no matter what kind of august cast he brought with him. Bond producer Michael G. Wilson (stepson to legendary Bond producer Albert Broccoli, and half-brother to Barbara Broccoli) has literally been on the set of the Bond films since Goldfinger, and has seen Bond directors come and (mostly) go, so I never believed that he was all of a sudden going to be endorsing a George Smiley-style version of Bond out of Mendes.
So with all of this talent floating around Skyfall (a good name, by the way) – and there is a lot of talent floating around this production – why am I not feeling more excited? Regular Libertas readers already know the answer to that question: my sense is that the Bond series is, once again, adrift.
As a case in point, as excited as I was about yesterday’s press conference, and about the new film’s impressive cast and great list of locations (Shanghai, Istanbul, Scotland, et al) and about seeing Bérénice Marlohe trotted out in a red dress, etc., I was distinctly bored by the official description of the storyline:
In SKYFALL, Bond’s loyalty to M is tested as her past comes back to haunt her. As MI6 comes under attack, 007 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost.
Does any of that sound very interesting? It certainly doesn’t to me – making the usual allowances for the producers trying to keep the description spoiler-free. But the description really should’ve read something like this:
In SKYFALL, an insane billionaire Russian video game designer, who lives in a levitating palace surrounded by genetically designed Thai supermodels, devises a first-person shooter game that mesmerizes the world’s youth into attacking Western bankers. 007 must be hauled away from a secret mission in Cozumel investigating fraud in the international lingerie market to fight this terrifying menace.
That, my friends, would be a Bond film to remember. In the very least, it’s the type of Bond film they would’ve had the good sense to make in the 1960s or 1970s, during the series’ heyday.
Aside from the one-dimensionality of Daniel Craig, part of the problem with the Bond series of late is that it just doesn’t seem very fun or cathartic anymore. The series has lost all of its cracked humor, warped characters and vaguely campy sensibility. It’s become earnest and ‘serious’ when it should be fun.
And when I think of ‘fun,’ the name ‘Sam Mendes’ – alas – isn’t the first name that comes to mind.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’ll repeat here what I’ve been saying for some time: the Bond series should be handed over to Michael Bay and Michael Fassbender, or some combination of talent that can approximate what Bay and Fassbender would bring to the series: i.e., a director who can bring spectacle, sexiness and humor back to the series, and a leading man actually suited to the part, who doesn’t look and act like a baked cauliflower (i.e., Daniel Craig).
So is there anything to look forward to with respect to Skyfall? Sure. There are rumors that Ernst Stavro Blofeld may be appearing in the film (likely as the super-villain pulling Javier Bardem’s strings), which would make sense as the role Ralph Fiennes would play. I think this is the one bold stroke that might help the series a great deal, assuming Blofeld became a recurring character again.
Frankly, Blofeld has always been a much better character in the novels than in the films – with only Donald Pleasance in You Only Live Twice bringing the humor and psychotic intensity to the role that it demands. As much as I love Telly Savalas, he was horribly miscast in the role, playing Blofeld like a Long Island mafia don in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service; and Charles Gray was much too smooth and genial for the role in Diamonds are Forever. Fiennes, by contrast, has basically already been playing a variation on Blofeld in Harry Potter for years. Shave his head and put a scar on his face, and I think he’d be perfect. Here’s hoping that’s more or less what they have planned …
In the meantime, I’ll hope for the best, re: Skyfall, while other spy series (like Mission: Impossible, the Jack Ryan reboot or the forthcoming Man from U.N.C.L.E.) compete for my attention. You can watch the entire Skyfall press conference here, and you can see some good photos from the event here.
• Meanwhile, Tom Cruise’s Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol seems to be on a smooth glide-path to its arrival in theaters come December. The Mission Impossible series has become one of 007’s major competitors, having basically stolen the James Bond formula – right down to its international locations, high-tech spycraft and boffo, signature stunts. Tom Cruise’s dangling outside the Burj Khalifa in MI4 (see a new featurette on that stunt) is precisely the sort of thing that used to be done in the Bond series, but alas no more.
In any case, word came recently that MI4 will actually be opening early in IMAX theaters to take advantage of the 30 minutes of IMAX footage in the film. I think that’s a great idea. In other news, the film has a new trailer, new pics are out, MI4 director Brad Bird (of Pixar’s The Incredibles) is talking about the film, the film has two new posters (here and here), and Tom Cruise will be personally premiering the film in India, where some of MI4 was shot.
• The Clint Eastwood-Leonardo DiCaprio J. Edgar will be opening shortly, and I’ll have more to say about that in days ahead. For now, suffice it to say that a colleague who recently saw the film told me that my script review of J. Edgar accurately captured the film.
For now, you can check out a horde of new production stills from the film, see the film’s striking new posters (see right), a big NY Times interview with DiCaprio, a Hollywood Reporter feature on the film, and THR interviews with Clint Eastwood and also DiCaprio.
• Some major news recently was that the Die Hard series will be returning – and headed to Russia. The film will be called A Good Day to Die Hard and it has a February 14th, 2013 (Valentine’s Day) release date. Some casting rumors are already surfacing about who will play John McClane’s son, although Mary Elizabeth Winstead is indicating she probably won’t be returning to play McClane’s daughter.
I’m not really sure how much juice the Die Hard series has at this point, but taking John McClane global may be the best way to bring the series back. We’ll see.
• Michael Fassbender had been in contention recently for the plum role of Napoleon Solo in Steven Soderbergh’s The Man from U.N.C.L.E. – but now, unfortunately, it looks like it may be going to Bradley Cooper … and suddenly my enthusiasm for this project has dropped beneath the floorboards. Bradley Cooper?! Why does anybody cast this guy for anything? In any case, somewhat rescuing things is that Joel Edgerton is apparently in contention to play Solo’s Russian partner Ilya.
• The closer we get to Tinker, Tailor, Solder, Spy’s release in December, the more excited I’m getting. To fully savor the moment, I probably should go back and watch the Alec Guinness-BBC adaptation, but I doubt I’ll have time for that in the near future. In any case, Tinker was just recently nominated for a British Independent Film Award, the film opens the Stockholm Film Festival on November 9th, some new production stills are out, there’s chatter that we may be getting a George Smiley franchise out of the film, and The New York Times recently ran a big feature on the making of the film. Looking forward to it.
• On the Cold War Ring-a-Ding-Ding Front, Roland Emmerich wants to do a movie called Happy Birthday Mr. President about Marilyn and JFK – who would be brought back to life digitally for the film, creepy as that seems. “I’m totally into that,” Emmerich says about resurrecting long-gone celebrities. Is it just me, or is Emmerich seeming completely insane these days – like the mad scientist Rotwang from Metropolis? Just a thought.
Otherwise, The Playboy Club was unceremoniously dumped by NBC after suffering from low ratings. I don’t know why I find that funny, but I do. Oddly enough it was Hugh Hefner himself who offered the best analysis of the whole debacle, saying that the show “should have been on cable, aimed at a more adult audience.” No kidding! As a side note, a great little retro-60s website called Ultraswank recently did an interview (see here and here) with an actual Playboy hostess from that era, so feel free to pour yourself a dry martini and check that one out.
In related news, 5 more scripts have been ordered for ABC’s Pan Am, and it seems that the show may survive – at least for a little while longer. And doesn’t Mad Men start shooting again soon? That cast must really be expensive by now …
• On the New Projects Front … Leonardo DiCaprio may soon be starring in the Japan-based, Cold War thriller Satori (based on the Don Winslow novel), among several new films announced having retro-/neo-Cold War subjects. Another such film – a big one – is Hunter Killer, the new submarine/Navy SEAL/rogue Russian general thriller that will now be directed by Antoine Fuqua, and star Gerard Butler and possibly Sam Worthington. And speaking of submarines, David Duchovny has joined Ed Harris and Natascha McElhone in Phantom, an indie thriller about a Soviet sub during the Cold War. (What’s up with Ed Harris and Soviet movies, these days?) And in other news: Warren Beatty’s Howard Hughes movie has been picked up by New Regency, and Top Gun 2 has new screenwriters.
• Even after a so-so box office performance, it looks like an X-Men: First Class sequel may still be moving forward. New screenwriters are working away on the project; plus, James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender are out talking about a sequel, and Hugh Jackman talks about his amusing First Class cameo here. All I ask is that they keep the James Bond-JFK early-60s vibe, and not go late-60s hippie.
• There’s a new documentary out about former CIA director William Colby called The Man Nobody Knew. I can’t recommend enough this fascinating interview with Colby’s son Carl (the film’s director-producer) conducted by The Atlantic’s John Meroney and Sean Coons, so check that out, and you can also read the THR review of the film here. I’m very much looking forward to seeing this film about one of our great masters of spycraft.
• In other Cold War News & Notes: as Libertas readers know by now the de-balled Red Dawn is set to be released next year; the directors of the new Cold War thriller The Double are out talking about their new film, and star Topher Grace is talking about the film, as well (see Joe Bendel’s recent LFM review of The Double); Stephen King is out talking about his new JFK-related thriller; the Margaret Thatcher movie The Iron Lady has a new poster and a new production still out, and the film’s screenwriter is denying that the film is a “left wing fantasy” (she’s got a tall hill to climb on that one); Barry Pepper recently won an Emmy for The Kennedys, a series which is now on Blu-ray (and you can win a copy of the Blu-ray set here); catch the latest Call of Duty trailer; and, finally, The Darkest Hour has a cool new poster out.
• AND IN TODAY’S MOST IMPORTANT NEWS … there’s been no more word about that great rumor of a Danger Girl movie starring Milla Jovovich, Sofia Vergara and Kate Beckinsale. But in hopes that there is a scintilla of truth to the rumor, today we present Sofia Vergara from a recent pictorial she did for Vanity Fair. Let’s really hope they make this movie in 3D!
And that’s what’s happening today in the Cold War!
[UPDATED: In the few hours since posting this, word comes now (via Collider) that Warner Brothers will be producing a Russian spy-centered film called Londongrad, based on the book The Terminal Spy about the mysterious 2006 poisoning death of ex-KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko. Michael Fassbender is apparently circling the lead.]
Posted on November 4th, 2011 at 1:36pm.
“In SKYFALL, an insane billionaire Russian video game designer, who lives in a levitating palace surrounded by genetically designed Thai supermodels, devises a first-person shooter game that mesmerizes the world’s youth into attacking Western bankers. 007 must be hauled away from a secret mission in Cozumel investigating fraud in the international lingerie market to fight this terrifying menace.”
That … is … an … instant … classic! I seriously laughed out loud when I read that.
Yeah, and about Bradley Cooper … “Wedding Crashers” was on TV recently, and it wasn’t until I caught a scene with him in it that I thought “this guy has absolutely nothing to offer.” Joel Edgerton will really help add flavor to that cast.
This Cold War stuff is great, but how much of it is going to examine how degrading communism really is? How many “Lives of Others” are there going to be as opposed to a shallow TV show that simply has the look of the era?
What I do know is these updates are awesome … as always, great work, Jason.
Thanks, Vince, I appreciate it. It occurs to me, actually, that I perhaps should’ve encouraged Libertas readers to come up with their own Skyfall descriptions. I was just trying to catch the spirit of the Bond formula – which is pretty easy to grasp, actually! So if anybody has their own Skyfall plots, please feel free to put them in the comments section here … as they’ll likely be better than what we got yesterday.
How many of these films will deal with the awful legacy of communism? Probably not enough of them, but Hoover does – somewhat. Red Dawn does as well, and I assume Tinker, Tailor will in a more limited way. The Double isn’t too keen on the Soviets, either. Here’s the issue, though: we’re getting a lot more anti-communist stuff (even of the shallow variety) than we ever used to. Essentially, the Soviets are becoming the new Nazis in cinema – and it’s about damn time.
And yes, somebody needs to explain the appeal of Bradley Cooper to me. I’ve asked Govindini and she had no ideas on the matter, so maybe some enterprising female LFM reader will come forward with an answer?
Well, your Bond plot description sounds better than Moonraker, A View to a Kill, and Die Another Day, at any rate. I am very excited about this Bond project, although I hope it is still connected to the first two Craig films, it would be great if Blofeld is the head of Quantum. Personally, I prefer the Bond films to avoid campiness altogether, which is why I love the early Connery films, OHMSS, FYEO, and Dalton’s and Craig’s interpretations, although Quantum of Solace left much to be desired. At least Skyfall has a fantastic cast, let’s hope Mendes makes the most of them.
I have to completely disagree with you about Blofeld’s casting. Although I love Donald Pleasance in numerous roles, he was horribly miscast as Blofeld, coming off as a whiny, hot-tempered mad scientist from a cheesy 1950s monster film, certainly nothing like the calm, methodical, brutal (and physically imposing) villian depicted in Fleming’s novels. Savalas is the only one of three Blofelds cast in the “official” canon who at all resembles Fleming’s villian, and at least he was a physical menace to Bond. As for Charles Gray in DAF, he came across as a campy goofball who was no threat at all, like too many other Bond villians during the 1970s and 1980s. Of course, the best Blofeld was Max von Sydow in Never Say Never Again, but I suppose that does not count.
I too am looking forward to Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, but I hope it avoids the dreadful moral equivalence between the Soviets and the West that plagues so much of Le Carre’s writing. We will see. It is great to see the Soviets function as villians now, even during the Cold War it seemed that Hollywood had an aversion to using Communists as villians (there were exceptions of course, the original Manchurian Candidate, Firefox, a few anothers). Anyway, great update as always!
Sean, thanks so much for your comments, which are as insightful as always. First of all, you’re quite right about Blofeld being a methodical and physically imposing villain in the novels (especially when you consider the fight scene at the end of the You Only Live Twice novel). Pleasance’s performance as Blofeld is certainly on the bitchy, neurotic side – but what Pleasance does capture is Blofeld’s insanity. I think that’s a crucial aspect of the character, and so I still think he’s the best. Apologies, incidentally, about forgetting von Sydow. I always think of Klaus Maria Brandauer as the main villain of that film.
But you don’t find the Connery films a bit campy? Are you sure about that? Even in their day, they were considered wildly over-the-top. Surely there’s nothing campier than Rosa Klebb with her spiked shoe …
Otherwise, I’m totally with you on the ‘spectre,’ so to speak, of moral equivalence in Tinker, Tailor. If I catch any of that crap in the film, my Diet Coke will immediately be launched at the screen.
“Surely there’s nothing campier than Rosa Klebb with her spiked shoe…”
Once I’d have thought that way, then I saw a program in which an actual ex KGB agent demonstrated how such things were used (in the same program ex CIA agents showed that if they’d actually managed to get the exploding cigar to Castro it actually could have killed him).
While I am not sure that Spike TV’s deadliest warrior program would ordinarily be your thing, I suspect you would find the KGB vs CIA and Spetznaz vs Green Beret episodes interesting.
Thanks, Andrew, it certainly sounds like my kind of programming …
The point I was trying to make is simply that the early Bond films featured things like villains in Mao suits stroking cats inside dormant volcanoes, or monosyllabic Korean bodyguards who kill people with steel-lined bowler hats – not the sort of thing one typically associates with cinematic realism. But that’s what I love about those films! It’s their personality – which is what the new films are missing.
Micheal Bay directing? No way. The mere thought of Shia LaBeouf as James Bond is the stuff of nightmares.
The idea wasn’t to have Shia play Bond! As I said, I think Fassbender would the best guy for that these days … which is why everyone other than the Bond people are courting him for spy movies. [Sigh.]
Good point, the later Connery films and many of the Moore films are so silly that the early ones look less so in comparison. Still, there is a clear division between certain films of the series as and others. Dr.No, FRWL, to a lesser extent Goldfinger, as well as OHMSS and FYEO, and the Dalton films have fewer gadgets, Bond is more of a character than a plot device, the villian’s plan is somewhat believable, the tone is more serious, etc. FRWL and FYEO are probably also the Bond films where the conflict between the Soviets and the West is most clearly felt. It is ironic that so many Bond films avoided Cold War politics, given the avowedly anticommunist nature of Fleming’s novels, besides the “Blofeld Trilogy”, the Soviets and/or the Red Chinese are the villians in all of the novels.
As for Rosa Klebb’s dagger-tipped shoe, one cannot blame the filmmakers for that one, that was the rare gadget that actually appeared in the novel first!
Look, I don’t ‘blame’ the filmmakers for any of that stuff – I love it! As I said, I prefer those old films because they’re much more fun and over-the-top. I wish the new films were more like them. Do you remember this exchange from Diamonds are Forever?
Plenty O’Toole: Hi, I’m Plenty.
James Bond: But of course you are.
Plenty O’Toole: Plenty O’Toole.
James Bond: Named after your father perhaps?
That’s the kind of thing I miss!
As for the Bond films of that era avoiding Fleming’s strong anti-communist stance, the producers made the decision to depoliticize the films (somewhat) in order to reach a larger audience. It’s a decision one can quibble with, but one can’t argue with the results at the box office. At the same time, I think it’s possible to take that strategy too far – which is precisely what’s happening nowadays. The films have become so denuded of politics, that Bond’s almost left with nothing to fight for.
Excellent article Jason. I have the sad feeling that unless Skyfall fails miserably the ship We’d all like to see come in, H.M.S. Bay/Fassbender, will sail off into the sunset. Although I’ve been very impressed with the supporting cast for Skyfall particularly with the addition of Albert Finney. Still the director is Mendes and James Bond is still Daniel Craig which is like replacing Aaron Rogers with me as quarterback for the Green Bay Packers.
I’m also cautiously looking forward to M.I.4. I want to like these movies and fill the void of disappointment of the Bond series. Unfortunately they’ve too have all been disappointments. The first was the best so far, the second was completely forgettable(except for the excellent Metallica theme song which I cannot find anywhere now) and the third had an excellent actor as villain(Philip Seymour Hoffman) who was completely under utilized with one excellent action sequence(the bridge scene). Come to think of it, M.I.3., could be a window into the fate of Skyfall with one exception. The exception is Tom Cruise who is an actually leading man with on screen magnetism. The parallels are a hack director, excellent supporting cast and mishmash of story. We’ll see.
Thanks, as always, JGJKT. Basically what MI4 seems to offering at this point are some great action sequences, great locations, IMAX, a good star, a little humor and sexiness thrown in. While the Bond series dwells on Bond’s (or, now, M’s) personal problems, Cruise climbs buildings, battles Russians and blows stuff up. So even though I haven’t seen the film, MI4 is already looking better to me than any Bond film in years. Time will tell …
I actually enjoy a less campy Bond. Some of the Connery films even had a few too many clever quips. I liked Timothy Dalton as Bond just because they seemed to be taking things more seriously. Of course, hiring Sam Mendes as director may be taking things too far, that guy is just a downer (I already left a similar comment a few months ago when you had a Bond update, but I can’t help taking another jab at Mendes).
If they decided to replace Craig someday (who I actually don’t mind), how about Sam Worthington? I think he could probably step into that role.
Thanks for your thoughts, Patrick.
I like Timothy Dalton, as well. In my opinion, he’s actually the actor who most resembles the Bond of the novels. I thought the films Dalton appeared in were the problem – not him. As far as having the Aussie Worthington play Bond, two interesting notes. First, my understanding is that Mel Gibson was offered the role of Bond prior to Pierce Brosnan – but Gibson turned it down. And apparently Hugh Jackman was offered the role prior to Craig, but also turned it down. So in essence, we could’ve had two Aussies – a pre-crazy Mel Gibson and Hugh Jackman – as the last two Bonds. I personally think that would’ve been better than what we’ve had.
But I’m not sure Worthington would work. I like him as an actor, but I don’t think he has the urbanity or sophistication to carry off the role of Bond. Perhaps when he gets older.
I must be one of the few people on the planet that grew tired of the stale bond formula and really enjoyed the franchise reboot of Casino Royale. The last few movies with Pierce Brosnan weren’t very entertaining to me. I liked the less campy, more serious bond in Casino Royale. There was actually an attempt at character development and some semblance of 3 dimensional characters. I was hugely disappointed with Quantum of Solace. The focus went back to multiple action sequences that were way too choreographed. I remember wondering if the director had even bothered to watch Casino Royale. Personally, I’d like to see Bond take on Al Qaeda or some form of muslim terrorists. Now that would be interesting, but it will probably never happen. It would hurt the film’s box office potential in certain regions of the world.
Tim, thanks for your comments. Perhaps I should make more clear here that I too enjoyed Casino Royale, although at the time I thought that Craig was a bit one-dimensional and needed to show more range – and perhaps a little charm. Unfortunately Craig hasn’t developed. I haven’t seen him improve as an actor, or expand his repertoire of stone-faced looks or deadpan delivery. He’s basically humorless and sexless. The latest example of this sort of thing, for me, was in Cowboys & Aliens. He was, to be blunt, a bore – and his dull performance really hurt the film, which was already mediocre to begin with.
Quantum took the Bond series away from what had actually been a promising re-boot, and one that at least touched on terrorism, in Casino Royale. It’s conceivable that terrorism will be touched on in the new film, in so far as they’ll be shooting in Istanbul and elsewhere in Turkey (although only, as I understand it, for the opening sequence) – but I doubt it. I think Mendes is too timid for something like that. With that said, I’ll still hope for the best …