The news that Mathieu Amalric, star of The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, has been cast as the next Bond villain may not be such a great sign for Bond 22. Nothing against Amalric––in fact, just the opposite: the best actors have a tendency to show up in the worst Bond films. Here’s five bits of evidence to support that thesis; tell us what we’ve missed/why we’re wrong in the comments.
1) Max Von Sydow, Never Say Never Again
A lot of 007 purists barely acknowledge this “unofficial” Bond film, which was made outside the auspices of the Ian Fleming-sanctioned production company behind the rest of the franchise. But we have to include Von Sydow on this list, as the actor, who coincidentally plays the father of Amalric’s character in Diving Bell, was the source of an initial rumor that Almaric would be taking on the role of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, played by Sydow himself in Never.
Never came out the same year as Octopussy, but made less money; it’s essentially a rehash of the far-superior Thunderball. Sean Connery came back to play Bond after a 12 year hiatus, whilst Von Sydow takes over the recurring character of Blofeld, head of the villainous SPECTRE, previously played by Donald Pleasance, Telly Savalas and others. Wikipedia has a chart comparing the various Blofelds across the seven films in which they appear, which pegs the Pleasance and Savalas incarnations as a clear inspiration for Dr. Evil. Von Sydow’s characterization of Blofeld broke from that mold, and reactions were/are mixed. At Not Coming to a Theater Near You, Leo Goldsmith mocked Von Sydow’s “Dracula accent and silly haircut,” but The Bond Film Informant praises Von Sydow for making Blofeld “cool, calm and bearded.”
So, like father like fictional son? Somehow I can see Amalric rocking the “cool, calm and bearded” thing a little more easily than the “creepily impetuous Siamese cat-careeser” thing, but we shall see.
Word just came down the wire that Marc Forster has been hired to direct the next James Bond movie. According to Variety, the FInding Neverland director will “start work shortly” on a script polish with Paul Haggis, who wrote the (I think) very good Casino Royale and directed the (I think) very bad Crash.
It’s an interesting choice, considering Forster’s films a) tend have a lot of showy/Oscar bait-y roles for actors. and b) he has not previously directed anything resembling a franchise or mega-budget action film. But what does it mean? Reports surfaced earlier this year that Bond 22 (according to IMDb, it’s still untitled) will be a “direct sequel” to Casino Royale. The hiring of Forster could be an indication that the film take Casino’s “Bond is only human” angle even further, thus requiring a director who knows how to focus on an ordinary interpersonal drama set within an extraordinary circumstance (ie: Stranger Than Fiction). Still, the film’s primary IMDB “plot” keyword is “weaponry“, so I can’t imagine we’re talking about *too* much character drama.
If you’re a Bond fan (and, really, I think anyone who claims they get zero pleasure from these films is a dirty liar), you should check the Bond & Beyond group here at Spout. Or, if Forster’s casting has you super psyched (or super skeptical) about the sequel, you can start a new group devoted to Bond 22. Either would be a good place to talk about one of my favorite mashup videos, embedded above.
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
