Is Bond too "Director-Proof" to benefit from Sam Mendes?

In the wake of rumours linking Oscar-winner Sam Mendes with directorial duties on the 23rd James Bond film, British newspaper The Guardian asks whether or not a director will ever be able to leave his or her own personal stamp on a series with such a tried-and-tested dependency on formula.....

By Xan Brooks:

If you've ever wondered what Moonraker might have looked like had it been directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky, or what Robert Bresson would have made of Diamonds Are Forever, then a roundabout answer may just be in the offing. Sam Mendes, the classy, respectable Oscar-winner behind the likes of American Beauty and Revolutionary Road, is reportedly "in negotiations" to direct Bond 23, the latest instalment in the 007 franchise.

A swift review of the Mendes back catalogue raises some tantalising prospects. Will Bond suffer a tragicomic mid-life crisis in suburbia, or perhaps steer his Aston Martin off on a harum-scarum road trip in search of the perfect place to raise a family? Or will he simply throw punches, defuse nuclear devices and run amok in a tuxedo, the same as it ever was?

No prizes for guessing the answer to that one (not even two tickets to the inevitable Leicester Square premiere). No doubt the news that Mendes is in pole position to direct a Bond film spells good news for Mendes and Mendes's accountant. But it is unlikely to even ruffle the hair of the man himself. James Bond, it transpires, is not just bullet-proof and critic-proof. The evidence suggests he's director-proof as well.

In recent decades both Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino have lobbied to direct a Bond picture, only to find their overtures graciously ignored. Both, I'm guessing, felt that they could bring something new and fresh and personal to the series. Both (again, I'm guessing) were turned down precisely because of this. Bond's producers (formerly Cubby Broccoli; latterly Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson) have no need of something new and fresh and personal because they figure that their property is good enough as it is, thank you very much. Certainly they have no desire to deliver it into the care of some rogue agent who might, I dunno, make Bond homosexual or cast Agnès Varda as his love interest. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Mendes, a smart man and a shrewd operator, is doubtless aware of this already. In signing on to direct Bond 23, he temporarily relinquishes any claims to be an auteur to become the equivalent of a shop-floor manager – on set to ensure that the actors hit their marks and the producers' brief is fulfilled to the letter. That's how it has been with every Bond director, from Terence Young through to Marc Forster, because on Bond movies it is the producer who calls the shots.

What would Moonraker have looked like had it been directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky? Or David Lynch? Or your aunt with the gimpy leg? My suspicion is that it would have wound up looking exactly the same as the Lewis Gilbert version.

Would it be incorrect to say that Spielberg got turned down. He was thinking about it when Lucas came up with "better idea" the result that was unleashed in 1981. ;)

I've been pondering this Mendes question heavily. Its the first time in the series history that we've had a real "big name" director as it were. On the other hand, Babs runs such a tight ship I'm not sure if we'll notice. Hopefully he can bring some class, charm and masculinity back to things.

The real question will be how the second-unit stuff goes. The Forster scenes in Quantum of Solace are among the most distinct in the series, for better or worse, so I think that Mendes' input will be detectable (especially if he gets Deakins on board to shoot it).

But yeah. It's the meshing with the action stuff that concerns me the most, because that was the biggest problem with the last film.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I've been pondering this Mendes question heavily. Its the first time in the series history that we've had a real "big name" director as it were. On the other hand, Babs runs such a tight ship I'm not sure if we'll notice. Hopefully he can bring some class, charm and masculinity back to things.

Yup. Bond is a producer's franchise. Can't imagine Mendes will get as much creative control as he would on any other film.

groucho! Your avatar is distracting! I'm drooling!

Wait? What's this thread about?

Oh....

Anyways, I think the fact that Forster's hand was very clear in QoS means that Mendes directing will have weight, I'm thinking for the better. I thought Forster's effect on QoS was what made it such a wonderful looking film, whatever the complaints about it are.

Mendes is sure to leave his mark.

lalala2004 wrote:

groucho! Your avatar is distracting! I'm drooling! .

;)

lalala2004 wrote:

Mendes is sure to leave his mark.

He better, if not they might as well hire another hack director.

Though I am not into the story, Road to Perdition was a gorgeous piece of cinema and he drew a fantastic performance from Craig, whom I took notice of through this film. Wait, something wrong with that sentence, ah the perils a non-native English speaker have to go through

groucho070 wrote:

Though I am not into the story, Road to Perdition was a gorgeous piece of cinema and he drew a fantastic performance from Craig, whom I took notice of through this film. Wait, something wrong with that sentence, ah the perils a non-native English speaker have to go through

The point was made ;-) I daresay your grammar isn't incorrect so much as old-fashioned. (Then again, I'm the most lax English teacher when it comes to grammar you'll ever meet)

The idea of Mendes having worked with Craig before excites me, too. They'll likely work together really well and feed off each other. One hopes, anyway!

I'll give this dude a shot. Said something about wanting to change the dynamic. Whatever that means I hope its for the better.

Makeshift Python wrote:

I'll give this dude a shot. Said something about wanting to change the dynamic. Whatever that means I hope its for the better.

What he meant was changing the dynamic to the Babs Approved New Direction officially:

EON PRODUCTIONS PRESENTS
JUDI DENCH
IS
IAN FLEMING'S
"M" IN
"NEVER TRUST TWICE"

Co-starring Daniel Craig as James Bond

I heard something about Bond going up against a villain who "already won".

I'm pretty sure that Mendes is not a benefit (Revolutionary Road/America Beauty) I love America even if Sam doesn't , but I am willing to be proved wrong here, even hopeful.
In the meantime B23 is not Babs proof. We're stuck with that. She might even bring back the blue speedo.

I am not a behind-the-scenes-of-a-film buff... but I thought it was the directors job to bring out good acting from the cast, among other things. That could help.

groucho070 wrote:

Though I am not into the story, Road to Perdition was a gorgeous piece of cinema and he drew a fantastic performance from Craig, whom I took notice of through this film. Wait, something wrong with that sentence, ah the perils a non-native English speaker have to go through

The order is the only thing off here... might read better if it was: of whom I took notice through the film. Or, if you don't want to use whom, you could say who grabbed my attention. If they do the action, it's who... if you do the action and they are the subject it's whom. I don't like 'of' at the end of a clause. (I'm picky even though I'm far from an expert. )

If you want to know the fancy names for the grammar bits, check out this page: http://www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/who_whom.html or http://web.ku.edu/~edit/whom.html

Makeshift Python wrote:

I heard something about Bond going up against a villain who "already won".

Ah, then it's EON.

Sharky wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

I heard something about Bond going up against a villain who "already won".

Ah, then it's EON.

*slow clap* Sometimes I love you, Sharky.

groucho070 wrote:

Would it be incorrect to say that Spielberg got turned down. He was thinking about it when Lucas came up with "better idea" the result that was unleashed in 1981. ;)

I think this version isn't entirely correct. Spielberg was in fact turned down. It was on a mutual vacation with Lucas - not long after finding out he would not be doing a Bond - that Lucas pitched him the idea for Raiders.

lalala2004 wrote:

groucho! Your avatar is distracting ! I'm drooling!

Wait? What's this thread about?

.

LaLa, your avatar as usual is distracting ;) Who is that oh so coy femme?

retrokitty wrote:

If you want to know the fancy names for the grammar bits, check out this page: http://www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/who_whom.html or http://web.ku.edu/~edit/whom.html

Thanks for the gammar tips RK. I mean that. I just wing it but I know I would benefit from spending an hour or so brushing up on the actual rules. It would make all the various and sundry written communication one must do in life, so much more natural and effortless, not to mention coherent.

I really hope kids these days are being taught basic grammer in shcools. Its not that complicated.

Quoted from the linked article in first post
==

Quote :

No doubt the news that Mendes is in pole position to direct a Bond film spells good news for Mendes and Mendes's accountant. But it is unlikely to even ruffle the hair of the man himself. James Bond, it transpires, is not just bullet-proof and critic-proof. The evidence suggests he's director-proof as well.

Is this author not paying attention. :sleep: Did he not see that last two films. The Haggfish (exporting old Mi6 PK terms of endearment) stamp was all over the last two films as were Forster's art house pretentions all over the last film.

Quote :

Mendes, a smart man and a shrewd operator, is doubtless aware of this already. In signing on to direct Bond 23, he temporarily relinquishes any claims to be an auteur to become the equivalent of a shop-floor manager – on set to ensure that the actors hit their marks and the producers' brief is fulfilled to the letter. That's how it has been with every Bond director, from Terence Young through to Marc Forster,

Quote :

because on Bond movies it is the producer who calls the shots

.

Yes the producer may call the shots but the current Queen Bee producer is derranged. She is more than happy to accomodate the stylings of her chosen hireling if they help to advance her subversive anti-Bond agenda :shock:

I have nothing but faith in Mendes, with Deakins on board as well this is beginning to look good (behind the scenes anyways).

tiffanywint wrote:

lalala2004 wrote:

groucho! Your avatar is distracting ! I'm drooling!

Wait? What's this thread about?

.

LaLa, your avatar as usual is distracting ;) Who is that oh so coy femme?

You'll figure it out. I'm fairly predictable ;-)

lalala2004 wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

lalala2004 wrote:

groucho! Your avatar is distracting ! I'm drooling!

Wait? What's this thread about?

.

LaLa, your avatar as usual is distracting ;) Who is that oh so coy femme?

You'll figure it out. I'm fairly predictable ;-)

OK I'll give it a good think, but she keeps looking right at me. So distracting.

tiffanywint wrote:

lalala2004 wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

lalala2004 wrote:

groucho! Your avatar is distracting ! I'm drooling!

Wait? What's this thread about?

.

LaLa, your avatar as usual is distracting ;) Who is that oh so coy femme?

You'll figure it out. I'm fairly predictable ;-)

OK I'll give it a good think, but she keeps looking right at me. So distracting.

Maryam d'Abo isn't it?
Oh sorry, I interjected. Pardon me Tiff and LaLa. :oops:

danslittlefinger wrote:

[Maryam d'Abo isn't it?
Oh sorry, I interjected. Pardon me Tiff and LaLa. :oops:

If that's D'Abo, then I'm a convert. Nice to see she graduated senior prom. Permission granted to board the ferris wheel and play smoochie with Dalts.

tiffanywint wrote:

danslittlefinger wrote:

[Maryam d'Abo isn't it?
Oh sorry, I interjected. Pardon me Tiff and LaLa. :oops:

If that's D'Abo, then I'm a convert. Nice to see she graduated senior prom. Permission granted to board the ferris wheel and play smoochie with Dalts.

I'm probably wrong, usually am. :|

As for Mendes, he needs to pull out whatever magic he can, in my mind, to create something as good as CR.
I remain optimistic that he will.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Its the first time in the series history that we've had a real "big name" director as it were.

The Up Series and Once Were Warriors are about 18 times better than American Beauty. Just for the record.