Press hacks doubt Sam Mendes will deliver what the fans want
Sam Mendes may have problems directing new James Bond movie and could have to battle for his 'vision' if past Bond films are a guide, says Tim Robey of The Telegraph
It's a full year since Sam Mendes was first put in the frame as a potential Bond director, in which time MGMâs financial woes derailed the production schedule, allowing 007âs more possessive fans to forget their immediate beef and prematurely mourn the whole franchise.
Now itâs back on, but theyâre still not happy about the (reconfirmed) Mendes appointment. âItâll be all middlebrow and safe!â seems to be the standard assumption. The Bond they want is gleeful, sly and viscerally over-the-top, qualities itâs fair to say havenât been much in evidence in Mendesâs movies to date.
Bond, though, is simply not a directorâs franchise. Fans on message boards love to rail against the last one, Quantum of Solace, and throw a lot of blame at Marc Forster, the Swiss helmer of Monsterâs Ball, Finding Neverland and other literary Oscar-bait, whose face-value credentials for the job were every bit as elusive as those of Mendes.
The argument goes that you need a real action-directorâs pair of hands, and that Martin Campbell, who rebooted the series twice with GoldenEye and Casino Royale, is the right type of guy. Directors with artistic pretensions tackle Bond at their peril and everyone elseâs.
Because their names carry unexpected pedigree for the task of a mass-market blockbuster, Forster, and now Mendes, become convenient stooges for whatâs actually a producerâs logistical nightmare â and responsibility.
Itâs about marshalling an army of second unit/assistant directors, stunt co-ordinators and effects technicians. In the Brosnan years, people such as Roger Spottiswoode and Michael Apted may have had the helm, but most of the standout set-pieces were famously masterminded by Vic Armstrong and his team.
Sure, directors of Bond movies have their work cut out to get the actors and story into shape, but they have less autonomy to foist any particular vision of their own on to the screen than in most other franchises this side of Police Academy. You could pick apart the auteur theory on the evidence of editor-turned-director John Glen, who directed the last three Roger Moore instalments, then made the terrific first Timothy Dalton one, The Living Daylights, and then followed it up with surely the nadir of the entire series, Licence To Kill.
This proves my point: who directs a Bond movie has almost nothing to do with how good it is. (A further dent in the just-use-Martin-Campbell argument is available to anyone whoâs actually tried to watch GoldenEye lately, Famke Janssenâs ace villainess honourably excepted.)
So imagining that Mendes will somehow attempt to turn Bond into Revolutionary Road II or The Cherry Orchard: Dawn Inferno is a mugâs game. He wonât be allowed.
Whether his instalment is praised or pilloried will be down to the entire creative team, the script, the editing, effects, production design, score, and the harmony of all those elements, as it always is â and, as usual, it'll be mainly the producers', not Mendes's, concern to foster that harmony.
Oh, and the casting. Rumours are abroad that Simon Russell Beale is currently being considered for a role. Heâd love to be a baddie. Iâd love him to be a baddie. The petition starts here.
Discuss this news here...