Suddenly James Bond has momentum with Denis Villeneuve getting the director’s job, but is he the right choice?
After years of waiting for tangible news, aside from a change of ownership, we’re suddenly hit with the confirmation that the next iteration of 007 has a director. That man is Denis Villeneuve, one of the most prestigious and acclaimed blockbuster specialists working in the modern era. The man who gave us Prisoners, Arrival, Sicario and two Dune movies is now tasked with kickstarting a whole new era of James Bond, a franchise that felt like it was ready to be put to pasture.
The question is, can Villeneuve reignite this beloved franchise? With Amazon now taking creative control, Bond is no longer under the watchful eye of Wilson and Broccoli. Whatever you might think of how Daniel Craig’s era ended, it can’t be denied that under MGM and Wilson and Broccoli (who were passed the proverbial Bond torch) there were high points. There have been some great reboots of the character and the previous two in particular, both helmed by Martin Campbell, are two of the franchise’s best. GoldenEye was a great vehicle that allowed Pierce Brosnan to shine, whilst Casino Royale is comfortably a top five in the pantheon that eschewed any doubts the fans had over the short blond fella taking on the role.
Purists may tell you Craig’s era ventured a little too far away from the glamour associated with not only previous movie iterations but the style and allure of the source material. It was often deathly serious, and the lighter moments with Craig, despite him being gifted with comedy, always felt forced. The push for more continuity from film to film also became unnecessary dead weight. It bogged down both Quantum of Solace (which was a mess) and Spectre in particular and we were still linking back to Casino Royale by the time Craig’s last film came along. All this really did was remind us how great that opening swing for him was, and how the raised paled, aside from Skyfall. The flipside with Skyfall was perhaps in that film’s decision to scrape some of the enigma off of JB.
Inconsistency was hardly a new thing, of course. Every other Bond of more than 2 films had highs and some dubious lows. The less said about Die Another Day and its titular theme song by Madonna, the better. If that atrocity is now earworming you, I apologise.
So, just what can Villeneuve bring to the table, and what should he avoid? Some directors just seemed to perfectly fit the franchise, without even necessarily having to be what you might call top tier. John Glenn always got the remit, as did Guy Hamilton and Martin Campbell, to name a few. Others, like Marc Foster, Lee Tamahori and most recently, Cary Fukunaga, never felt comfortable in a world of that scale (the latter did take over a messy situation to be fair).
Denis Villeneuve represents something a little different, even more so than Sam Mendes. He’s one of the biggest names in the business. He’s delivered consistently critically acclaimed movies, but ones which also dip into the same genre waters as Bond. You wouldn’t say that of Mendes’ work prior to Skyfall necessarily. No, Denis knows how to handle huge scale and the hefty weight of expectation. He’s dared to take on the might of a Blade Runner sequel and two Dune movies, based on the infamous novels often dubbed unfilmable.
His preference to do as much work practically as possible also bodes well for a franchise that could have been in danger of following blockbuster trends like an overabundance of CGI. Villeneuve has consistently shown a mastery of setpieces throughout movies. Bond films live and die on this, and it’s often why they back themselves with the best of the moment, stunt guys. However, it often shows when a director has to entirely hand over those duties, without necessarily knowing themselves how to construct set pieces. Villeneuve is an auteur who, no matter the content of a scene, seems to know exactly what he’s doing. On that front, he’s one of perhaps two directors most perfectly attuned to deliver a top-quality and spectacular Bond movie (the other being Christopher Nolan).
Occasionally directors have been too caught up in the scale of a sequence. Go big or go home. You do need those iconic big stunts, but likewise some of the best action sequences are more intimate. You need only look at Sean Connery’s frantic and brutal train carriage brawl with Robert Shaw in From Russia With Love. Villeneuve can do sandworm levels of scope and expansive scale as well as anyone, but as seen in Blade Runner 2049, he can produce thrills in a more confined intimate space, be it the opening tear up between Ryan Gosling and Dave Bautista, or the incredible sea wall battle. It has the inherent threat of darkness and drowning in unwieldly seas as two replicants battle, but it’s up close and personal. A thrilling sequence. Villeneuve is able to cover both ends of the scale with aplomb.
Villeneuve has already admitted he’s a fan of the franchise, having grown up watching Bond’s adventures. He knows the lore and the expectations. It allows him to not merely adhere to formula but potentially find the right level of subversion in it. Too much will always alienate more fans than it allures, but this is a task the director has taken on already and mostly succeeded at. Despite his lack of a bonafide mega hit of peak Marvel levels, Villeneuve’s punching power is undeniable. He will get creative control, otherwise I’d wager, he’d never have taken on the job. How far that extends remains to be seen, and whether or not he has some say on the potential casting of Bond.
Every name under the sun has been linked. Some choices make aesthetic sense, like Henry Cavill, even if they feel a tad safe. If Villeneuve has a say in matters he’s not going to flip the script in a way that feels like too much of a subversion. As much as Aaron Pierre has every attribute to be a compelling action franchise headliner, he doesn’t really fit Bond. There could well be a relative unknown doing the rounds who may just slip into the role perfectly. Bond needs to be enigatic, mysterious, suave and look physically able – an underlying powder keg danger beneath the (likely to be toned way back) womanising.
I’d love to see someone like Josh O’Connor who’s started to get prominence but is still not a household name. He’s also got a certain unconventional ruggedness that would work. Bond is good looking but can’t be too constructedly pretty (Bond aint gonna have a perfect fade or look like he’s spent more time in makeup than Moneypenny). We need to believe he can just roll out of bed a bit worse for the wear, but gain admiring looks from across a bar, or also look a little menacing in the next moment. O’Connor may need to add a bit more in terms of physicality, but his ability to be charming and tell a story with minimal dialogue would be a big strength. If the tone stays truer to Craig’s era than Roger Moore’s, persay, then undoubtedly he could do that.
However, tone is going to be a big thing. This may well be where questions will remain about Villeneuve. We’ve just had the darkest run of Bond and if the films lacked something on occasion, it was a sense of fun. Does that mean we need the next Moonraker and every daft gadget under the sun? No, and God forbid they make the mistake that many a blockbuster has resorted to, in trying to ape the Marvel formula. Of course Villeneuve would never do that but he is renowned for very gritty and dark takes. I prefer David Lynch’s version of Dune, precisely for the fact it has a sense of fun, camp and quirkiness lacking in Villeneuve’s overly dry vision. On matters of craft and technical brilliance, it’s there for all to see, but could Villeneuve be a little too dour?
At times under Craig, Bond felt like it was being pulled too far away from being a 9-90 family rollick, losing the youngsters (and the old school purists). You could well say the same for other previous Bond films, notably Dalton’s, but this should be aimed at a broad spectrum and find a balance to satisfy everyone. It needs to evoke the great action adventures of yesteryear that would scare kids just enough (Raiders of the Lost Ark) but never lose their attention. If I show my kid Bond films, she’s more inclined to be bored out of her skull watching most of Daniel Craig’s era, than say the crocodile hopping silliness of Roger Moore…but by the same token going full Moore wouldn’t work for everyone. We need escapism but still with a sense of threat and a little enigma and edge for Bond himself.
Villeneuve needs to have more fun than he’s had so far in his impressive career, and to ensure he doesn’t lose the under 15’s because given the budget and the dwindling appeal of blockbuster cinema, some hedging of bets is required to make a film that might cross the billion mark. Tom Cruise has been belting out a fun blockbuster franchise with Mission: Impossible that has struggled in the final two films to make nearly enough money. Ultimately, if Villeneuve can kick Bond back into life, you want it to be more than a one off. He’ll most likely set a very high bar.
Is Denis Villeneuve the best man for the job? Who should be his Bond? Let us know on our social channels @FlickeringMyth…
Tom Jolliffe
