Henry the Seventh?

As expected, the transfer of creative control from Barbara Broccoli to Amazon/MGM means we now have something quite unusual for the modern Bond franchise - actual news to report! It's definitely a bit of a change, but it’s one we’ll have to get used to. The big news is that David Heyman and Amy Pascal are going to produce the film. Heyman would appear to be a safe pair of hands. He's British and no stranger to billion dollar franchises after working on all those Harry Potter films. Amy Pascal is slightly more of a worry given her involvement in a number of pointless Spider-Man spin offs. She does have experience of the Bond franchise though as she was at Sony for some of the Craig films. This at least provides some continuity. The hiring of these veteran producers does indicate that Amazon is taking this seriously.

The rumour mill seems to be that Alfonso Cuarón will direct the film. Cuarón directed Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and Gravity with Heyman as producer so it would appear that Cuarón was Heyman's pick. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is widely regarded to be the best Potter film and Gravity was a stupendous cinematic experience. Cuarón also directed the interesting and fairly well regarded dystopian film Children of Men. He's no journeyman and picks his projects carefully. He wouldn't do a Bond film unless he felt he could do something special with it. The only fear with Cuarón is that he might take it too seriously - which is a charge you could lay at the last film No Time to Die. I don't want another dreary Bond film where Bond is angst ridden or conflicted over his profession and I don't want real world politics in the film. This next film is going to have to be the modern version of GoldenEye (or Casino Royale even) to invigorate the series after such a long break.

Which brings us to the biggest question surrounding the next film. Who is going to play James Bond? I can't help thinking that the field of candidates is weaker now than it would have been had they recast the part after Spectre (rather than pointlessly drag the Daniel Craig era out for another five years just so they could make No Time to Die). If you were casting the part of James Bond in 2015/16 you would have had Aidan Turner, Dan Stevens and Henry Cavill all eight years younger than they are today. You also would have had the option of Tom Hiddleston (who isn't my Bond cup of tea but was popular and well known and enthusiastic to play the part), a 35 year-old Rupert Friend and a 40 year-old Michael Fassbender. A lot of the candidates today are people I've barely heard of and tend to find deeply underwhelming and unsuitable when I research them. I’m talking about actors like Harris Dickinson, Josh O'Connor, Paul Mescal, and Callum Turner - none of whom seem to be a fit for the role, in my opinion.

I can't say the prospect of Jack Lowden as Bond appeals to me much either. Nicholas Hoult is about the right age and a good actor but I don't sense any great demand for him to play Bond. He missed out on Batman and Superman so if they could find better choices for those roles (Pattinson and Corenswet) you'd think they could find someone better than Hoult to play Bond. A popular choice with bookies and fans seems to be Theo James. While he’s not the worst candidate, I’m not fully convinced by him. I still tend to think of him as the smug villain in the Inbetweeners film and he's one of those actors who is good looking in a bland generic boy band sort of way. James, in interviews, has suggested he isn't interested in the part anyway. So who would I choose as Bond? Well, I'm perfectly open to some relative unknown who might be a pleasant surprise. There must be some fresh talent out there who would be good and look the part. Among the more familiar names, I’m not opposed to Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Some fans hate this idea and would throw themselves out of the window if he was cast but I'm not against it myself.

I know Taylor-Johnson often looks like a bit of a plonker in pictures with his stupid hairstyles, beard and pouting but if you shave that beard off and give him a haircut he could pull off the Bond look and he's not a bad actor either when given the chance. He can also be very charming in interviews and would be a good ambassador for the series. The most logical and safe thing to do though, and it wasn't something I was necessarily in favour of in the past, is to just give Henry Cavill a three film contract. Cavill is sort of where Pierce Brosnan was in 1986 or 1994. The obvious person to play Bond. The argument that Cavill has aged out of the role doesn't really wash because he's about the same age that Brosnan and Dalton were when they signed on. Given that the production of these films is now likely to be more consistent and regular there's no reason why Cavill can't do three or four films. It isn't as if Cavill is going to look like Wilfred Brambell when he's 45. Daniel Craig already looked ancient by Skyfall but they still got a couple more films out of him.

Now, I understand the argument some fans have against Cavill. I have shared some of these sentiments myself and still do to a degree. Cavill is too bland, too safe and too predictable a choice, can't act, is too wooden etc. You could have said the same things about Brosnan in 1994 though and he turned out to be fine (have you noticed how Bond fans suddenly seem to love Brosnan again now that Craig is gone? - they slagged him off endlessly post-2005). One of the things people tend to forget about Cavill is that nearly all of his big roles have required him to act with an American accent. If he was playing Bond he wouldn't have to worry about that and could use his own accent for a change. And it isn't as if he's some bungling actor out of Samurai Cop. Cavill had plenty of charisma in the Mission Impossible film and The Witcher. It is impossible to judge Cavill's Bond credentials in Argylle because he's barely in the film and has a stupid haircut. I can't comment on The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare because that film was so terrible I couldn't get last ten minutes.

So, while it wasn't something I was completely onboard with in the past I can now see how it would make sense for Amazon to play it safe and cast Cavill. He is clearly the most popular choice with the general public. You'd assume too that a talented director could entice a good performance out of him. It may be the case that Henry Cavill wouldn't fit what Alfonso Cuarón (if he is chosen) has in mind or that perhaps they want to go younger. Maybe they have someone better and less well known lined up and Cavill is not even on their radar. If that is the case then that's fine and could work out. The tradition with Bond films in the past was that the director would conduct the screentests and so be involved in the process. I don't know what the plan is this time. Are they going to conduct months of interviews and auditions? You would assume they'd want move more quickly and have already secretly narrowed down their choice when it comes to the Bond actor. In conclusion then, I don't have the faintest idea who will play Bond in the next film so I have no idea why you are asking me or why I'm even talking about it. I wouldn't read too much into the bookies either. They still have laughable suggestions like Eddie Redmayne, James Norton, Lucien Laviscount, Pedro Pascal, Lashana Lynch, Idris Elba and Jamie Bell clogging up their boards.

- Jake

HOME

FORUM