The Amazon/MGM era of James Bond has taken a significant step towards getting the next iteration of Ian Fleming’s famous secret agent to the big screen.
They’ve announced Denis Villeneuve as the director of Bond 26.
Villeneuve is a name that many film fans will know and love, with the French-Canadian filmmaker being behind the recent – and very successful – Dune adaptations, as well as some of the most well-regarded movies of the 21st century, from Blade Runner 2049 to Arrival (for which he received an Oscar nomination for Best Director).
His appointment should be cause for celebration; he’s one of the most distinct directors of recent memory, offering movies filled with striking visual grandeur, nerve-shredding tension, as well as a flair for directing subtle and stirring performances from his casts.
He is unquestionably an excellent filmmaker, so why am I left with a sense of doubt over his selection to be the next Bond director?
Put simply, I think the stature and appeal of Villeneuve as an auteur filmmaker threatens to overshadow what will be the introduction of a brand new actor as James Bond.
First things first: I love Denis. Making a difficult text like Dune into a mainstream cinematic success was a miraculous feat, and I’ve been a keen follower of his work since Prisoners caught my eye with its hypnotically dark atmosphere.
I am also a James Bond fan. It was the first franchise I can remember falling in love with, and I have always enjoyed coming back to it for several reasons. There’s the action, the cars and the gadgets, the corny one-liners, but it is also a fascinating time capsule.
Being over 60 years old allows the series to act as a reflection of the moods and preferences of movie-going audiences across generations.
It is also a franchise that has, from quite early on, always been open to reinvention, and a lot of that comes from the casting of a new actor as Ian Fleming’s James Bond 007.
When it comes to a new Bond, the build-up to the reveal has always been a hot topic of conversation, just as it is right now.
And the reveal itself is even more contentious. Daniel Craig, who is now regarded by many to be the best Bond behind Sean Connery, became the centre of a ‘Craig Not Bond’ campaign that complained Craig was too blonde when he was announced in 2005.
Craig went on to make the role his own with Casino Royale, which was directed by Martin Campbell, who had also been at the helm for the debut of Pierce Brosnan’s Bond in 1995’s GoldenEye.
Timothy Dalton’s first Bond – The Living Daylights – was directed by the steady hand of John Glen, who had directed the three previous entries in the franchise.
Roger Moore’s introduction – Live and Let Die – was likewise directed by a franchise veteran Guy Hamilton.
These are all directors who had proven chops either in the genre or within the franchise – journeyman directors if you will – and paved the way to let the personality of the actor selected to enter the gun barrel.
Craig would go on to work with more prestige filmmakers in his run as Bond as he became more hands-on with the direction of the series (like Oscar winner Sam Mendes and Emmy-winner Cary Joji Fukunaga) but only once his take on the character was firmly established.
There is something to be said about handing the keys to someone less distinguished and focus instead on a steady pair of hands who can deliver action and let the Bond brand do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to marketing.
Someone like Mission: Impossible’s set-piece specialist Christopher McQuarrie or The Hunger Games’ stylish Francis Lawrence – or dare I say even a return to Martin Campbell – would certainly cast less of a shadow for the new actor and be no less capable of providing the necessary Bond flair.
There’d certainly be less baggage and expectation.
I fear that the narrative now could become less about what an actor could bring to the role of James Bond, but more about what that actor can bring to Denis Villeneuve’s James Bond.
The casting of Bond for this new era still has a chance to provide something fresh and exciting, and I can’t wait to see who Villeneuve picks to lead his film.
But already, there’s speculation as odds are slashed for his Dune star, Timothée Chalamet. While I feel that is unlikely, it’s clear people think Villeneuve could shake things up.
Yet, I can’t help but feel both the casting and the film itself won’t be that dissimilar to what we’ve seen before. Villeneuve’s aesthetic (grounded, precise, atmospheric) isn’t miles away from what Mendes or Fukunaga brought to the table (Villeneuve has even worked with Mendes’ regular director of photography, Roger Deakins, multiple times before, too).
Those hoping for a Bond that airs more back towards a campy tongue-in-cheek tone after the harder-edged Craig era will most likely not be getting that with Villeneuve.
I’m also a little disappointed that Villeneuve isn’t escaping franchise filmmaking for his post-Dune project.
Bond 26 will follow after his third Dune movie – Messiah, set for release next year – with his previous credit before Dune having been the legacy sequel Blade Runner 2049.
While it has been largely exciting to see him play in these worlds, it’s a shame that one of the most visually striking filmmakers of the past 25 years isn’t providing much in the way of original storytelling.
All this being said, I will undoubtedly be there on opening weekend to see what Villeneuve has cooked up for this new era of one of my favourite film franchises.
But it would seem that the time when a Bond era would be more defined by the casting than any other factor could be at its end.
Do you have a story you’d like to share? Get in touch by emailing jess.austin@metro.co.uk.
Share your views in the comments below.
