I have written about possible Bond directors on a couple of occasions, but now Sam Mendes has ruled himself out of “Bond 24” it’s a good time to bring the subject up again. While there are lots of names doing the rounds, there is only one that stands out for me: Kathryn Bigelow. There is however a problem, it isn’t what you may think, it isn’t her sex, its her nationality! Born in San Carlos, California, she is too American. Yes that’s right, no director from the home of cinema has ever helmed a movie from cinemas most iconic franchise. The closest was Irvin Kershner, who made Never Say Never Again, but this was not part of the Bond, EON franchise.
If the producers can overcome fifty years of history and hire Bigelow they need to insist she brings Zero Dark Thirty and The Hurt Locker writer Mark Boal with her. They also need to dispense with the intelligence of Mendes, the grit of Marc Forster and the slick of Martin Campbell and produce a simple, dirty and possibly even dumb action movie. Having celebrated the 50 year milestone with gusto and splendour it would be impossible to top it, it would be foolish to try. I am not suggesting Bond becomes a purely action based franchise, but this is the time to make a one-off 90 minute genre movie.
The plot possibilities are endless but a few thoughts on where they should go: stick with the minimal use gadgets, scale back the plot to something simple and personal, keep Moneypenny and M’s role to a minimum. Two possible outlines that would work in the spirit of the character and in line with some of the stories from Ian Flemings novels would involve Bond on his way home from a mission, shown in the obligatory pre credit sequence where he is either, A: distracted by something he sees happening and decides to investigate or B: is called to the aid of a friend who needs Bonds help. A setting for the film is obvious, America. Bond hasn’t spent any significant screen time “stateside” since Licence to Kill in 1989.
I fear none of this will happen, as the filmmakers will fall into the usual trap of trying to make a bigger and bolder movie than what went before. Only time will tell, the one hope, they did listen to me once (in my dreams).
I wouldnt be opposed to Bigelow doing it. She could probably handle it well. But I think going the “dumb” action movie route wouldnt be the right thing to do if your goal is to get her. Not really her style I dont think.
I say give the next one to Joe Cornish, though, and let him have a go with it.
firstly, dumb action is a compliment not an insult. although Bigelow has done other things in recent years she is still one of the best action directors around.
I can’t see Joe Cornish directing a Bond film
I didn’t say “dumb action” was an insult. In fact, I didn’t even interpret it one way or the other. I more took “dumb action” to mean an action movie that is more pedestrian. Just saying “dumb action” isn’t really Bigelow’s thing. Dumb action is more like John Woo or James Cameron or Zack Snyder or Michael Bay and so on.
Bigelow just doesn’t work well in that area. She’s tried it several times before and ultimately failed with most of it. The only one I wouldn’t call a failure was Point Break, and I felt that was just decent, nothing great.
The aforementioned directors focus on action and build around it. Bigelow works best when she has political intrigue or something like that to focus on and just dabble some action in there. She’s adept at handling action in that sense, but not so much in going all out action.
That’s not saying she couldn’t handle a Bond film. I’m just saying, it would be a much better Bond film if you used her for a grittier, more dramatic and intrigue-filled Bond film sprinkled with action, rather than a “dumb action” movie.
I think Cornish could potentially be brilliant for a Bond film of that nature, though. He’s proven he can handle both action and comedy, and even blend the two well in a good balance that would be great for a Bond movie. He’s also smart enough of a writer to be able to do the “dumb action” without making it shallow. But he’s not too heavy-handed that he can’t just have fun with it and let it be “dumb” but good. Not to mention, he’s a huge Bond fan, so would ultimately have great respect for the character and lore….and that goes a long way.
I didn’t say you did say dumb action was an insult, I wanted to prefix my comment to make sure you didn’t I thought it was to give context to what I was saying. Sorry for any confusion. I would differentiate between good dumb action and bad dumb action. John Woo (and Ringo Lamm) made good dumb action in Hong Kong and bad dumb action in America Avatar aside, James Cameron makes good dumb action. Zack Snyder and Michael Bay are mixed bags with some good and some bad. Although Point Break is her only true dumb action movie, it for me ranks as one of the best. This combined with supremely well handled action scenes in other movies tells me she is the right person for the movie I envisage.
My point is that at this moment in time unless they can top Skyfall, the next Bond film needs to be a short, simple and tight movie. Given the parameters of the character, an action movie would be a good way to achieve this. I don’t get the love for Joe Cornish, as I see it he has made one movie that is overrated at best
Agree. Dumb action isnt Bigelow. But she’d be an interesting choice. Edgar Wright after Scott Pilgrim? Too much? 🙂
I would pick Edgar Wright over Joe Cornish, but can’t see him doing a Bond film either.
Hmmm. I have a few issues here. First off, as a European, I am insulted by the US being called the home of cinema, when we all know that it started with a few very important Frenchmen. Of course, I’m no going to deny that Hollywood rules box offices everywhere these days, but it definitely didn’t start like that!
Also, I get why you would want the producers to tone down a bit for the next installment in the franchise, but I don’t think that we should swing through to the other extreme though. Finding a balance between the two would probably be the best thing.
I don’t know who I would want to helm the movie, and find that balance. Maybe later I can come up with some articulate analysis of possibilities 🙂
Although as you say America wasn’t the beginning of the cinema, it certainly became its home. By the way, I am also European, well as European as an Englishman can be!
“Toning down” and “finding a balance” would be the worst thing they could do it would make it the poor relation to Skyfall, that is why producers always try and do bigger and better and that is why they need to do something completely different.
But don’t you think that going for just formulaic action would make it an even porrer relation? I’m not trying to be bothersome or anything here, I’m just trying to understand 🙂
Only if done poorly. A well made action film may be formulaic but it is no less relevant than any other movie. A Bond movie is the perfect vehicle for an action movie and Bond is the perfect character to do it with. All they have to do is strip away all the baggage. Think of it like a band who follows their most successful album with a live album or an acoustic album instead of doing the same again or trying to top it.
I had an idea on how it could be done a few years ago: http://wp.me/prVbF-60 this won’t work now as it is too close to the end of Skyfall but the idea remains. Having said all that, if they can make a better movie than Skyfall, go for it!
Ow, okay, now I see where you’re coming from. That analogy really clears it up. Thanks!
I am definitely behind this movement. Great site by the way, I am now following. I recently started my own blog and would love for you or anyone to check it out.