Happy Birthday, Martin Campbell

The director of two Bond films is 67 today. Helming two of the best, he deserves our praise and gratitude!

The history of Bond actors (in brief)

When Eon first cast another actor as Bond, lots of folks said it couldn’t be done. If there had been an Internet back then, there would have been ConneryISBond.com. Even with the primitive (teehe) technology available in 1969, a lot of people managed to make their complaints heard. To this day, I run into people who have never seen anyone but Connery in the role, or have reluctantly viewed later movies and found them wanting—mostly, found them wanting a certain Scotsman.

But Lazenby’s casting, unsuccessful though it was, did an interesting thing: It freed Eon. They didn’t feel they had to cast ‘Connery light;’ audiences still came to see a Bond movie without The Man. So they felt confident in changing the game utterly, and casting Roger Moore; long on their list, and an actor absolutely nothing like Sean Connery.

But confidence is a funny thing. Once Moore proved a hit, Eon was reluctant to change. There is no doubt that Moore was way too old to play 007 in A View To a Kill, but I’d argue he was long in the tooth by Octopussy, even though that is a much better movie. Seven movies is probably just too many.

Letting go of Moore finally taught the Bond producers a lesson in letting go; a lesson that perhaps Pierce Brosnan believes they learned too well. Lots of fans (like me) believe that Brosnan had a fifth excellent Bond in him, but it was not to be.

What’s interesting here is the way that Eon was able to move from one actor to the next. Dalton made one successful and one less-than-stellar (financially) movie, and some of us stand by his portrayal. But from Dalton on, the producers have been able to look at each actor as truly a new era, a new Bond, a new interpretation, and allow the movies to shape the actor, and the actor to shape the movies.

Could Pierce Brosnan have made Casino Royale? I believe so. I believe he could have made an outstanding Casino Royale. But he couldn’t have made this Casino Royale; the one Daniel Craig made. It would have been a Brosnan movie, with whatever you feel is good or bad about that. CR is Craig’s movie through and through; I mean, yes, it’s Ian Fleming’s, it’s Martin Campbell’s, it’s Paul Haggis’s, but it’s really Daniel Craig’s. He’s been allowed to interpret the character, to be in his own place with 007, and that has made all the difference.

Director for Bond 22?

/film, which previously reported that Martin Campbell won’t be returning to direct Bond 22, now reports on the shortlist of potential directors for that film.

…a supposed list of directors that the producers are considering for the next film. The list includes Tony Scott (Man on Fire, Domino), Alex Proyas (I Robot, Dark City), and Mark Forster (Finding Neverland, Stranger Than Fiction, Monster’s Ball), who is the supposed front runner.

This story gets different spins in different places. Cinema Blend says that Campbell was hinting he’d come back for 22, and then offers the same list of potential replacements. The source is Latino Review, which has a pretty good track record on these things.

Campbell on Casino Royale and Bond 22

Friday’s USA Today had an interesting interview with Casino Royale director Martin Campbell.

Two interesting points. First, Campbell confirms that a future, more robust DVD release is planned, and acknowledges that Sony is milking the fans. Which, nice.

Yes, we are doing a commentary. I think (the studio) tends to milk these things (with Bond films). When I did GoldenEye, I did it with the producer (Michael G. Wilson). We’ll probably do it with (the producers). There may be some deleted scenes.

Next, will Campbell come back for Bond 22? He doesn’t say no.

After GoldenEye, I was asked to do subsequent Bonds, but I declined because it felt as if I’d be repeating myself. But this one is based on a Bond that’s more interesting. To be honest, I would just say I’d never say never.