»
Main Page
Media May be James Bond's New Enemy
By Sunny Edwards Oct 23, 2005, 23:01 In adapting the cold war James Bond novel "Casino Royale" to make sense in an updated present day setting, the director and production representatives have conceded that the focal Soviet spy organization enemy in the book will have to be replaced with a more realistic modern society villain. If art imitates life, than changes are strong the organization that emerges as James Bond's formidable foe could be the AP wire service or CNN news network In classic James Bond fashion, actor Daniel Craig arrived via speedboat with wind blown hair and modeling a Brioni designer suit to the press conference scheduled by Sony Pictures to be announced as the heir to the coveted role of super spy James Bond. The powers behind the closely guarded, highly successful James Bond film commodities did everything in their power to cast the most highly focused, brilliantly shining spotlight on their hand-picked star. Martin Campbell, the high profile director of "The Legend of Zorro" who is attached to direct Craig in his premier as Bond just as he guided his predecessor Pierce Brosnan in his 007 premier, embraced the new franchise star for the media, hugging him in a show of support for the cameras. Campbell not only struck the right poses for the cameras to show his adoration for Daniel Craig as the new Bond, he verbalized his sentiments to perfection in an interview the next day with Latino Review in which he confirmed Craig as the best choice. Statements from the films publicists assured the media that Craig not only would be a great successor to the Bond legacy, but that he had always been their top choice and there had never even been anyone close to threatening that top dog position. Barbara Broccoli, one of the franchise producers and daughter of the late Cubby Broccoli, stated the only reason Craig hadn’t been officially named as the new Bond 18 months prior when Brosnan was released was that no script existed until now and Craig needed to give his blessing to the script before he’d consent to do the role. Producer Michael G. Wilson gave a detailed interview in the days following the announcement of Craig as Bond. He suggested that Craig had been selected in April and endorsed by Sony Pictures president Amy Pascal because "he has a kind of intensity, and a sexuality, and a roguishness." Campbell also hit the Craig campaign trail during his Latino Review interview, refuting the idea that any other actor but Craig had ever been approached regarding the chance to play Bond. Clearly, the production team and executives of the Bond portfolio are doing everything possible to cast a positive light on the announcement of Craig as only the sixth official actor to play the undercover sleuth. Because of an unforgetting media, all the right moves by the Bond executives aren’t proving enough to a make an even keel arrival for the new Bond star. Just like Bond has changed actors, the way news is reported has changed. The news, it seems, is proving to be worst enemy for the actor Daniel Craig and the publicity machine charged with making him larger than life. In the modern age of the Internet, high speed communication, and multi-media news, Craig enters the world of Bond in the shadow of clouds and doubt unlike any previous Bond actor has ever endured. It is public knowledge that no less than three actors were offered the role of James Bond prior to acceptance by Craig. Craig is not the first "non first choice Bond." Archived news and former studio executive confessionals have revealed that few if any of the five previous actors to have played Bond were the top choice at the time. Before Australian George Lazenby accepted the part in 1969's "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," the role was first offered to American Adam West. Even original Bond Sean Connery was not a top pick. Producer Cubby Broccoli was adamant about wanting Cary Grant for the role but had to settle for Connery after Grant, James Mason, and Roger Moore passed on it. Among the top choice actors to turn down the chance to play James Bond over the years: Burt Reynolds, Patrick McGoohan, and Robert Wagner. It took years for these facts to surface thought. Each Bond actor was allowed by the media to assume the role under the appearance that they were the top man for the job. For Craig, the situation is different. Campbell the director knows where his bread is buttered. He is playing the good company man publicly endorsing Craig as his ultimate Bond. Yet with the instant accessibility provided by the Internet and various news depositories, it is easy to see that for weeks on end, in interview after interview Campbell was adamant that he had targeted an actor between the ages of 28 and 31 as his top choice to introduce the character of James Bond from a youthful, fresh, and vantage that shows the agent’s origins. That is a far cry from the nearly forty, handsomely weathered Craig. Coming between those two news events is the fact that of the field of actors being considered that fit Campbell’s description (Australian Alex O’Lachlan, 28; Australian Sam Worthington, 29; and American Rikki Lee Travolta, 30), one announced he was not interested in the role two days before the production team abandoned the story of pursuing a young Bond as if it had never existed. Nor will the media sweep under the rug the fact that Clive Owen was publicly pursued to play Bond long before Craig became the first and only choice. Variety, a respected entertainment trade publication, reports that the film producers lost out on the chance to have Owen sign on to be Bond when they refused to include gross profit points in any contract offer. Hugh Jackman is another pre-Craig “Casino Royale” footnote that simply won’t be forgotten in the modern media age. In the days that media was less impartial and investigative and before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began its broadcasting payola inquisitions, it was commonplace for reporters not questions new statements that contradicted past ones, especially in the fluffy world of entertainment journalism. Yet today with so many players in the entertainment news game, reporters compete to be the first to reveal the sorted truth and contradictions. In August, two months prior to Craig’s unveiling as the only actor ever considered for Bond, it was announced that Australian Hugh Jackman had turned down a three picture offer to play Bond. Despite the old line efforts to wish away the past offer to Jackman with statements that Craig was the only actor offered the part; Cinema Eye, Movie Hole, Coming Soon, Ireland’s Public Service Broadcaster RTE, Sydney Morning Herald, The Hollywood Reporter, and many other news groups are undeniable sources of news to the contrary. When asked by CNN about statements in the official press release announcing Craig as Bond, Craig stated, "I hope there's an element of truth in it." During the press conference, Craig let it slip that like Owen, Travolta, and Jackman, he too had to consider the type casting ramifications of playing Bond and did not accept instantly. Daniel Craig could well redefine the James Bond franchise and take it to a new level of excellence. On screen, the script and director can control what the audience sees and hears. It is in the real world that Craig is at the disadvantage, not because he is any less talented or less attractive than any of his predecessors. Sean Connery and Roger Moore only had to worry about charming on-screen adversaries the likes of long legged Pussy Galore. Craig has to earn his charm stripes facing off against the likes of long legged Entertainment Tonight temptress Mary Hart and x-ray eyed 60 Minutes fact driller Barbara Walters. » Sign up for Movie Vine Newsletter updates! » Email this article to a friend ...................................................................... © Copyright 2004-2008 by MovieVine.com OWNER/FOUNDER Wendy Shepherd - StudioMatrix.com Privacy Policy |
|
