The Future – A New Director, A New Bond…

Director; Baz Luhrmann, famous for directing last years "Moulin Rouge", and the Leonardo Di Caprio film "Romeo And Juliet", has spoken out about projects he would be interested in directing sometime in the future. He spoke about what the next decade could mean for his career, and provided the following infomation, on the possibility of directing a future Bond:

“I think to myself I’d love to do a James Bond film!” "Wouldn’t that be fun? But I have to think not really what I want to do, but what do I need to do to continue making life rich so that I can grow in the journey. I think if I ever let go of that (way of thinking), I might be worried. Now, that could manifest itself and it might be that I NEED to make a James Bond film. That could happen. I REALLY need to make a James Bond film. Anything could happen.”

Baz, has spoken about the possibility in past, in an interview that was aired upon the release of "Moulin Rouge", he said "there has been a musical element lacking from the Bond films", and that he thought he could bring that back. Whether – we could expect Bond out-singing his foes in Bond 21, seems unlikely, however in the end it comes down to what the public want, and if the producers would allow a change to famous Bond formula.

On another note; if Baz were to get his wish, and direct a future Bond, then it could seem likely that "Ewan McGregor", who a few days ago was tipped to be the next Bond, by former-007-actor: Sir. Roger Moore, who spoke of him as "very good looking", and telling the press that he has the right qualities for the part, and could bring a fresh approach to the character.

Bond at the BAFTA's…

At 8:00pm (GMT), last Sunday, the BAFTA's (The British Academy Of Film And Television Awards) began being broadcast live across the United Kingdom. The awards are very similar to the American "Oscars", and include awards such as:

Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Movie, etc. This year the event was crammed full of 007 celebrities. Stephen Fry hosted the event which included guests such as: Robbie Coltrane, Dame Judi Dench, Vic Armstrong, Michael G. Wilson, Barbara Broccoli and Halle Berry.

Robbie Coltrane was not up for any award this year, however the same could not be said about Dame Judi who was awarded with the prize for "PERFORMANCE by an ACTRESS in a LEADING ROLE". Eon productions were given a special award for 40 years of James Bond. Michael G. Wilson gave an impressive speech on the history of the production company, however Barbara Broccoli, seemed to stay rather quiet.

Both Halle Berry and Dame Judi Dench presented awards, while Sir. Richard Attenborough presented the "MICHAEL BALCON AWARD for British Contrbution to Cinema" to Bond-Veteran and action genius, Vic Armstrong. Before Vic came to claim his award a montage of video footage depicting his career was shown, it included interviews with Harrison Ford, who spoke of his days with Vic on Indiana Jones, and Pierce Brosnan, whom said that Vic was the backbone to the Bond films. On another note, it looked like Pierce was in the costume or special effects department of a film set, I would assume it was Bond 20, as the awards are not finalised until very close to the event, therefore the video may have been a last miniute tribute to the Bond legend.

However the highlight of the event for Bond fans, must have been the Bond spoof made by Pierce Brosnan (James Bond) and John Cleese (Q, not R). It began with a mixture of scenes from previous Bond films, then moved on into what looked to be a quickly made up Q-Branch, complete with a PC showing the image of "a red tinted" Aston Martin V12 Vanquish. Q equipped 007 with a bow-tie, Omega Seamaster watch, and a host load of jokes about speeches dragging on, and the extremeley British BAFTA host – Stephen Fry. Unfortunatley unlike what many had speculated there was still no mention on the title of Bond 20.

For a full list of winners visit the official BAFTA website (you can also find the times of international broadcasting of the BAFTA's, in the press-releases section).

BAFTA Ceremony To Include Bond Special

From The Daily Mail;

Pierce Brosnan has been working undercover on a top secret mission. The Bond star has teamed up with John Cleese in a bid by the British Academy to outdo Hollywood’s Oscars.

Brosnan and his Bond co star Cleese, who plays gadget inventor Q, shot a spoof segment at Pinewood Studios, which will be shown at the Orange- British Academy Film Awards in London on Sunday and broadcast by the BBC.

The short film is part of a special tribute celebrating 40 years of movies featuring Ian Fleming’s famous hero.

In it, Q instructs Bond on his latest mission attending the British Academy Film Awards. He’s seen handing Brosnan a bow tie and self-destruct device in case the speeches drag on.

The film, which was a closely-guarded secret, is of Q instructing Pierce on what he’ll need for the awards, a spokesperson on the Bond set told me.

Brosnan was to have attended Sunday’s event, but he’s recovering from surgery on his knee following an accident on the set of the latest 007 adventure, which has the working title of Bond 20.

Every year, the producers of the Oscars devise elaborate film segments to be shown during the ceremony which are often more talked about afterwards then the winners.

‘We’ve seen what they do at the Oscars and there was a feeling that our show can be a bit stale, but I think the combination of the Bond anniversary and host Stephen Fry, who was brilliant last year, will give us a lift,’ an executive connected to the awards told me.

‘The Oscar people will be looking to us for a change, not the other way round.’

The Bond salute will include an appearance by current 007 star Halle Berry.

That's great news for Bond fans! Hopefully, we'll find a way to get the special online for everyone to see.

Halle Berry Wins 'Silver Bear' Best Actress Award

Actress Halle Berry has won the Best Actress award for her role in "Monster's Ball" at the 52nd Berlinale international film festival held in the German capital Berlin on February 17, 2002. Berry will of course appear in Bond 20 as 'Jinx'.

Berry was also sporting a new haircut, which she told the media had been cut for her role in Bond 20. However, as forum user 'Mister Asterix' pointed out while this is Berry's haircut for Bond 20 it is not necessarily the same style.

A big thanks to 'Tyler' for alerting us to the news!

'Allow me to introduce myself, Mr. Bond…'

Written by: Jord Schaap

“Allow me to introduce myself, Mr. Bond.
My name is Osama Bin Laden.”

The position of 007 after September 11th

Between the day Dr. No premiered in London on october 5th 1962, and september 11th 2001, James Bond saved the world nineteen times. During this period, a clear pattern of madmen striving for world domination and mass destruction began to evolve. No less than four times crazy power maniacs attempted to destroy the planet, using sophisticated laser weapons or chemical poison-gas. Five times evil masterminds tried to provoke war between nations by kidnapping submarines, intercepting space missiles, destroy war-ships or setting off nuclear bombs. Two times madmen blackmailed western governments by the threat of nuclear holocaust, or the use of biological weapons of mass destruction. And four times insane criminals attacked centers of economical importance to gain control over gold and oil supplies, the use of solar power technology and microchip production.

Sounds familiar? After september 11th it certainly does.

Because the horrible events of this day not only changed our perspective on safety and world affairs for ever, they also meant the inexorable end of the Bond stories as we knew them: filled with unthinkable and unimaginable events. On september 11th, the Spectre-scenario became reality. A cynic thought, and certainly something we never imagined to happen. But it is inevitably true.

Evil masterminds appeared to exist for real. Not only are they driven by furious fundamentalism, hate and anger, but also the initials of Blofeld’s illustrious organization apply to them, as they are seeking for Terrorism and Extortion, using horrible methods of blind violence. They are terrorists Bond always fought.

David Morefield, editor of the Ian Fleming Foundation, described one of the thoughts shooting through his brain when he saw the passengers jets crash into the proud symbols of western freedom and democracy:

“Geez, it looks exactly like it does in the movies.”

It is more than sarcastic, but it does. An assault on the world’s biggest financial and economic center; a terrorist organization which even has a Spectre-like name, a villain leader who goes by the name of “the Commander” instead of “Number One”, and even a You Only Live Twice-like base camp called the Tora Bora complex. It seems like after september 11th, James Bond will have to operate on a different note.

A few years ago, Esquire Magazine published an exclusive interview with Al Qaeda-leader Osama Bin Laden. Its headline read: “Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Osama Bin Laden”. Then, I laughed for the comparison with the famouse scene in which Bond’s eternal adversary presented himself: “Allow me to introduce myself, Mr. Bond. I am Ernst Stavro Blofeld”.

Ian Fleming repeatedly stated that the fun of writing the Bond stories was to confront the realistic, hard-line character of Bond with fantastic plots wherein evil madmen tried to take over the world, being based on exotic locations. The cold realism of an anonymous silhouette on her majesty’s secret service, confronted with unthinkable scenarios. It seems to me that after 9-11, these classic Bond plots will forever leave audiences with a bitter taste, since we are now confronted with the enormous harm and grief these scenarios cause for real. And in the real world, there is no James Bond to avert World War III, or an attack on the World Trade Center.

However, the real James Bond does exist, but in a different way. We can find his spirit back in the numerous fire-fighters who gave their lives, trying to safe the lives of people they didn’t know. We find his spirit back in the thousands of emergency workers, soldiers, civilians, victims and relatives who were directly or indirectly hit by the disaster.

That leaves us with a painful question: to which extent James Bond can still operate as we know him, fighting high-tech terrorists with fantastic mastermind plots, without feeling embarassed, because we know that these terrorists exist for real? To which extent the James Bond series, which was always was so attractive for its incredibility, has become too credible, too real?

For an answer on these questions we have to turn to the past. For what did Ian Fleming when he introduced the Bond character in a period in which Cold War repeatedly rose to a world-threatening high temperature? Did he place James Bond in the center of the Cuba Crisis? Did he make Bond infiltrate within KGB during the heights of Soviet-American tension?

No.

He could easily have done that, but instead, Ian Fleming made sure that his character always operated in the slipstream of history. In the Bond stories, Fleming refers only indirectly to political tensions, and the threats of Cold War. Of course he uses this tensions to create suspense and a sense of urgency in his novels, but James Bond never confronts any real-life character of Cold War. Fleming did this wittingly. In his last interview, a Playboy reporter asked:

“Smersh is Bond’s main adversary in your first novels. Why did you leave this concept from Thunderball, and instead invented the non-ideological conspirators of Spectre?”

Fleming answered:

“We can’t go on this way. We shouldn’t cut the Soviets in pieces anymore. So I came with Spectre, an international crime-organization with elements of Smersh, the Gestapo and the Mafia. It was better to have literary invention, than to have reality.”

In an other interview, the author stated that he thought it was too dangerous to place his hero in the center of current affairs too much; after all, James Bond is a literary hero, not a political figure.

So Fleming invented Spectre, and various evil masterminds who, only indirectly connected with the Soviet enemy, planned their at that time unimaginable plots of mass destruction. The only thing real in the Bond series – both literary and cinematic – was and is the threat of nuclear destruction. But even that has always been just a well-suiting way to fill the Bond stories with suspense and urgency; it was a flick of reality in a world of exotic locations, beautiful women, and unimaginable plots. As Malcom Muggeridge explains in his review of the Bond novels:

“Fleming’s squalid aspirations and dream fantasies happened to coincide with a whole generation’s. He touched a nerve. The inglorious appetites for speed at the touch of a foot on the accelerator and for sex at the touch of a hand on the flesh, found expression in his books.”

Ann S. Boyd, who wrote The Devil with James Bond, adds:

Don’t try to read any of the Bond adventures seriously! Bond is meant for fun, for escape.”

So the fantastic plots as we knew them were a form of escapism for us all. In the novels we saw a man like ourselves, bored, sometimes bitter, often discontented with his work, confronting an exotic world we could never imagine before. In the films we see the unthinkable happen right before our eyes; the moment Bond pushed the Aston Martin ejector seat button in Goldfinger, the Bond series chose to be fiction films definitively.

So what now, in an era in which the Bond plots aren’t fiction anymore? Should Bond take up arms against Osama Bin Laden? Should we see Al Qaeda in the position of Spectre?

Of course not. The Bond producers should make the same wise decision Fleming once made, and retreat Bond from the moralistic stage they tended to put him on for the last three films. Bond shouldn’t be too political, for this endangers his character and his own, fictional world. On the other hand, the end of Cold War caused a problem for the Bond series that seems to be soluted after September 11th. Without referring directly to the events, Bond will be a terrorist fighter more than ever. The threat of Cold War becoming too hot has been replaced with a new, worldwide threat: the danger of fundamentalism, of individuals acting against democratic nations out of blind anger.

Bond should be the third perspective secret agent; not acting on the stage of current affairs, but using background tensions and motives to stir up suspense in the Bond stories. He shouldn’t be judging, or become too moralistic, because in many ways he uses the same methods as his adversaries. As a member on the CBn-forum argued, when speaking of the North-South Korea tensions which play an important role in the upcoming film:

“This is a Bond film. Not peace negotiations.”

He couldn’t be more right. In one way, we always enjoyed the Bond films to escape reality. After the unthinkable world of the Bond films has become part of this reality, it’s up to the Bond producers to give Bond a new, significant place in the slipstream of history.

Jord Schaap © 2002

What's Wrong With The 21st Century James Bond

Written by: Jord Schaap

“It’s lost its chill”

What's wrong with the 21st century Bond

The scent of smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. Then the soul-erosion produced by high gambling – a compost of greed and fear and nervous tension – becomes unbearable and the senses awake and revolt from it.
James Bond suddenly knew he was tired. He shifted himself unobtrusively away from the roulette he had been playing and went to stand for moment at the brass rail which surrounded breast-high the top table in the salle privée.”

It was this setting where mankind met with James Bond for the first time. The quotation is the opening of Casino Royale, the first Bond novel, published 49 years ago. It’s the story Ian Fleming decided to wrote after he married, and after he found in the author’s name of a book called The Birds of the West Indies – written by ornithologist James Bond – a name that sounded “exactly flat and colourless enough” to serve for his literary hero-to-be.

Time for a little test. When reading the fragment, which picture rose in your head when you encountered the words “James” and “Bond”? The picture of Roger Moore? The face of Pierce Brosnan? Or even a vague, distant shape, turning out to be George Lazenby?

Let me predict the outcome: I’ll bet that the majority of you were thinking of Sean Connery. Or were thinking of nobody at all.

Because during the 40 years that the Bond franchise is running right now, there was only one film sequence that knew to catch that tense, sensitizing atmosphere that Fleming recalled in Casino Royale. It’s the famous Dr. No sequence wherein we see Sean Connery in a smoky casino, lazily introducing himself after lighting a cigarette, with that unique arrogant and somewhat tired expression on his face. This sequence breathes Fleming all over; the appeal to the senses, the tiredness, the boredom of Bond, not being on active service. We can almost smell the sweat, the greed, and the fear.

But nowadays, the name of James Bond isn’t attached with terms like “sweat”, “greed” and “fear” anymore. Let alone that the James Bond of the 21th century would let the “soul-eriosion produced by high gambling” become “unbearable” for him. Nowadays, the cinematic James Bond is – to freely interpret the title of a recent Bruce Willis film – “unbreakable”: No sweat, nausea, or tiredness for the creation of Ian Fleming these days, who doesn’t even smoke anymore, and got his Walther PPK replaced by a gun that would not be unbecoming Arnold Schwarzenegger.

New moralism

Am I being a cynic? Yes, of course I am, for I believe Pierce Brosnan and the Broccolli family have the best intentions in keeping Fleming’s heritage alive and up-to-date. But their efforts have more to do with shaking off action-filled competitors like Mission: Impossible, breathing in the neck of the Bond series, than with sincerely reviving and renewing the true spirit and meaning of the character presented so thoughtfully in Casino Royale.

I am sure Ian Fleming would have turned around in his grave when he learned that Bond doesn’t smoke anymore and drove a German car for three films. And the fact that the Bond producers consider to make his character “more American” to keep the attention of the American public for the coming years, would surely be nauseating for him.

What’s wrong then with Bond, apart from the fact that he should start smoking again?

It is the fact that every time many Bond fans see the new Bond film, they still walk out of the theatre with a vague nostalgia for the Orient Express, Ursula Andress and the industrial laser of Auric Goldfinger. Why? Because Bond lost it’s chill.

It is a bloody shame that nowadays, Bond fans and film critics have to feel pleased when they learn that James Bond will become physically hurt again for the first time in ages – as he indeed was for five minutes in The World is not Enough, wearing a small sling that even matched his suit. For God’s sake, Bond is a secret agent with a license to kill – sometimes not much more than a executioner on her Majesty’s secret service – not Superman!

In spite of Pierce Brosnan’s praiseworthy efforts to release Bond from the one-dimensional image Roger Moore gave him – an effort which Timothy Dalton took a bit too seriously – the current cinematic Bond lacks the attractiveness the character once had, the attractiveness of the Fleming novels and the early films.

Instead of truly trying to capture the spirit of Fleming, the current Bond films seem to seek their depth in moralistic themes, such as the emotional brother-like relation between Bond and Trevelyan in Goldeneye, the reflection on the dangerous powers of the media in Tomorrow Never Dies, and the presence of a melancholic, vulnerable, almost piteous villainnes in The World is not Enough.

Clearly, the present-day Bond has to set the good example. That this “new moralism” is totally out of perspective, is showed by the fact that Bond suddenly became anti-smoking: since he still shoots people, and hasn’t handed in his license to kill, I’m wondering how the producers want to explain that as a good example.

The Fleming Principle

So what was the attractiveness of James Bond? Kingsley Amis described it very well in The James Bond Dossier:

“Bond is lonely, melancholic, in some way ravaged, of similarly fine but ravaged countenance, dark and brooding in expression, of a cold or cynical veneer, and above all enigmatic, in possession of a sinsiter secret.”

In his review for the New Statesman, Paul Johnson called Fleming’s novels

“the nastiest books I have ever read. All unhealthy, all thorougly English: the sadism of a schoolboy bully, the sex-longings of a frustrated adolescent, and the crude, snob-cravings of a suburban adult. But the three ingredients are manufactured and blended with deliberate, professional precision.”

Both Amis and Johnson refer to a paradox that I’d like to call the Fleming Principle; it is the paradox of the good, moral secret agent who has to use filthy methods to fight his enemies. In Bond’s business, it is kill or get killed. So the Bond of Fleming isn’t the western hero we see in the Die Hards and the Lethal Weapons; in the Bond of Fleming we see a man like ourselves, who, longing for adventure, has walked into the trap of her Majesty’s secret service, and never managed to get out. So what does he do? He adopts some characteristics of his opponents. Bond fights the villains using pieces of villainy, but does that with a wink, and above all with style.

The rough with the smooth

Dutch television showed a documentary on the work of CIA in Afghanistan last week. In the documentary, an anonymous CIA-officer said: “If you want to live with the rats, you have to accept the smell from the sewer. If you want to fight the rats, accept that you have to go into the sewer.” Bond couldn’t have said it better. The essence of the charm of Fleming’s and Connery’s Bond was that little coat of political incorrectness. The smoking, the sexism, the roughness, the drinking, the killing. The novels and the early films didn’t deny that the world of Bond, although stylish and smooth, was in the end also the world of the sewer. This is the key to the success of the series: the paradox of Fleming, the rough with the smooth. It made the secret agent real, it gave him character, and through that people could imagine themselves in his situation: the true essence of Bond’s lasting attractiveness.

The opinion of the great group of Bond fans seems to reflect this idea; a recent poll of the American ABC-network showed that the early, ‘real’ and more Fleminguish films with Sean Connery are still the most popular Bond films; Goldfinger came away as most popular Bond film with 27% of the votes, the only double-digit score of the poll. From Russia, with Love followed with 9,4%, The World is Not Enough and Tomorrow Never Dies landed in the rear of the row with respectively 3,3% and a slim 2,8%.

The series almost never refer to Bond’s original cinematic and literary character as a cold, cruel and bitter secret agent anymore. The few references we do see, are vague and unnatural, like Tracy’s grave in “For Your Eyes Only”, and the totally improper use of the term “Goldeneye” as film title. Fleming would have laughed himself to death when he knew that the name of his summer-house was now used for a sophisticated arms system.

For the series’ producers, the question which unorthodox vehicle Bond should drive in the next film seems to be far more important than the question who Bond truly is, and what the consequences are of his profession. Because with every crazy vehicle he rides and every unrealistic gadget he uses, he becomes more remote from the flesh-and-blood character he once was.

Are the Bond producers afraid of travelling after the dramatic events of September 11th? Let them make Casino Royale into a film, and show us that Bond hasn’t lost its chill. A film without location changes, basic, Bond back in the casino where Sean Connery started the series forty years ago. Smoke and tiredness. With a nauseating scent of smoke and sweat. With a compost of greed and fear and nervous tension. With a James Bond who combines the rough and the smooth again, and therefore gets human, a true hero. Then, Bond will truly be back.

Jord Schaap © 2002

Hugh Jackman Happy To Be James Bond

Australian actor Hugh Jackman, most famous perhaps for his role in X-Men as Wolverine, has confirmed on the Austrlian TV show 'Today' that he would be more than happy to play James Bond once Pierce Brosnan retires from the series.

When asked about rumours he'd be the next Bond Jackman said, "What guy wouldn't want to be James Bond". And he's right. Who wouldn't want to be?

Sad news for Jackman though. Pierce Brosnan confirmed at the recent Bond 20 Conference that he's more than happy to stay on as Bond for at least one more film as a minimum.

Thanks to Clint from Moviehole for the news!

EON Productions Are To Receive Special Award

EON Productiions are to receive an award from the Film Critics Circle to commemorate 40 years of James Bond.

The award will be presented on February 13th. Organisers hope that familiar James Bond faces will be present.

Source: Ananova

Pierce Brosnan: 'Bond 20 is not my last Bond!'

Entertainment Tonight has interviewed Pierce Brosnan on the set of his new movie "Evelyn". During it, he mentioned "I am not going to get away without talking about Bond, probably…"

So, here's what he had to say with regards to future Bond films:

ET: Is there going to be something special with your next Bond film, since it's the 40th anniversary?

PIERCE: I think they are organizing something. I am not sure what they are going to do, but they will pull out all the stops — they always do for these pictures.

It never ceases to amaze me that people are waiting for a 'Bond' and they want to know when it is coming out. I can't believe that it's the fourth time I'm stepping in those shoes.

ET: Is it the last time?

PIERCE: I don't think it's the last time, no. I mean contractually, yes, I will have honored my contract of four [007 films]. But I would like to go again. I think there could be a fifth, sixth, seventh. But I am excited by this fourth one.

You can view the interview transcript here, and even watch some video clips from the interview.

Thanks to Tim from 'All Time High' for the tip off.

Pierce Brosnan Becomes Unicef Patron

Pierce Brosnan has become a Special Patron for Unicef in Ireland.

He says his aim is to help as much as possible in Unicef's ongoing war on child poverty.

Brosnan told Ananova: "This is something I have wanted to do for a long time, to give something back. I am especially interested in the tragic impact of who are always the innocent casualties of conflicts.

"In the last 10 years more than two million children have died as a result of wars. More than six million children have been injured or permanently disabled.

"My role will be to help Unicef Ireland in whatever way I can, to highlight this and to ensure that Unicef continues to be able to provide emergency relief and assistance to these children."

Brosnan's fellow Irish movie star Liam Neeson is also a Unicef patron.

Source: Ananova