Showing posts with label Liam Neeson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liam Neeson. Show all posts

Friday, December 26, 2014

To Bond or Not to Bond



One of the big stories in the news this past week has been the leaked Sony emails. Among this leaked info has been the idea that actor Idris Elba has been suggested as a candidate to someday play the part of James Bond. This has caused a lot of differing opinions in various places online, including some controversial statements regarding Elba’s race, among other things. 
            As a writer of spy novels, and a lifelong fan of the Bond novels and films, I thought I’d chime in and offer my view on the subject.
            So, the question is, should Idris Elba be cast in the role of James Bond?

            My answer is no, but the answer has nothing to do with the color of Elba’s skin.
            Do I think Idris Elba is capable of playing Bond? Absolutely. At least if we’re talking about one version of Bond.
            Let me explain that last statement.
            James Bond has always been among my favorite fictional characters. He’s right up there on the list along with Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, Captain Kirk, Batman, and Indiana Jones. But Bond is different from all those others. 007, you see, would probably appear twice on the list if there really was an official list. Yes, sometimes you do live twice. I love the literary Bond, and I love the cinematic Bond, and those two are no longer really the same character.
            Ian Fleming’s Bond novels were all written in the 1950s and 60s. That Bond is a World War II veteran turned British agent, very much a Cold War character. The movies, however, really only featured Fleming’s Bond for the first fifth or so of the film franchise’s history. The early Sean Connery movies came pretty damn close to being faithful adaptations of the books. But then, something changed. James Bond became a cinematic archetype and began to adapt and change according to the time in which each individual movie was produced. The Bond of the Roger Moore era was very different than that of Connery (and George Lazenby), and he underwent yet another metamorphosis when Timothy Dalton (the great, underrated, truly awesome Bond) took over the role, and shifted personality and attitude again when the part fell to Pierce Brosnan. Then, in the early 2000s, the current Bond, Daniel Craig, started his term of office and the series underwent a complete reboot, starting over with a fresh continuity. So we have, on one hand, the set-in-stone original James Bond, loved by those who have read the novels, and forever preserved in words as his creator, Ian Fleming, intended. And then, on the other hand, we have the cultural phenomena of the Bond film franchise, experienced by far more people than have ever read the books, immensely successful for half a century, and capable of adapting to the changing times without losing (most of the time) the essential elements of what made the character so popular to begin with.
            I happen to be a big fan of the novels’ James Bond, and also of the movies’ Bond, and, honestly, I’m unwilling to commit to liking one more than the other.
            Now here’s the key to the question of whether or not Idris Elba could play James Bond. If we were talking about straight adaptations of Fleming’s novels, period pieces set in the 50s and 60s, there’s no way Elba could portray the character. The social and political conditions of the world at that time would not have made it possible for a black man to do the things that Bond had to do in those books. In that time, his interactions with the other characters would have been totally altered by his race. He could not have gone to the same places, dealt with situations in the same way, or done his job the same way a white agent could have. Sad, perhaps, but history nonetheless.
            But we’re not talking about the Bond movies being period pieces. They never really have been and they probably never will be again, which is fine, because, as I said earlier, Movie Bond is not Book Bond. He’s grown into something else, a franchise of his own. And the world now is different than it was in the 50s and 60s, in mostly good ways. Could a man with the skills to be a competent British secret agent do his job well in the 21st century regardless of whether he’s a black Englishman or a white Englishman? Yes.
            I think Idris Elba would make a fantastic James Bond. He’s an amazing actor. I’ve binge-watched all of LUTHER and enjoyed everything else I’ve seen Elba in and I think he’s one of the best actors working today. I don’t care what color he is, I can absolutely imagine him walking into M’s office after a quick, “Hello, Moneypenny,” and standing in front of his supervisor listening to the details of his latest mission while inserting the occasional wisecrack into the conversation, then flying off to some exotic city to face a nasty megalomaniac villain, seduce a few beautiful women, and fire a few dozen rounds of ammunition and cause a handful of explosions before the movie ends.
            So why, then, did I just say I don’t think Idris Elba should be cast as Bond?
            It’s simple. The clock is ticking and it can’t be reversed.
            The next Bond movie, SPECTRE, is being made right now. It’s not coming out for a year. From everything I’ve heard or read, Daniel Craig is going to do at least one more after that. That will take three years. If Craig quit after that one and another actor (hypothetically, Idris Elba) was cast in the part, it would probably be three more years before that actor’s first Bond movie was released. So, best case scenario, we’re talking about 7 years before we’d see Idris Elba acquire his license to kill.
            Elba is 42 right now. In 7 years he’ll be 49. Do the math. He’d be pushing 50 when he became Bond. Sorry, but that just doesn’t work.
            How old should James Bond be? Old enough, I think, to have been a military officer, lived some life, gained some scars, and learned how to best use his specific skills, yet young enough to be physically capable of the dangerous grind of risking his life over and over again (not to mention “keeping the British end up,” as Roger Moore quipped in one of his finer moments). His is not an easy or safe job. Maturity and fitness is the necessary combination to make a successful Double-O agent. I’d say that means at least in his thirties but not far past fifty. With that in mind, thinking of the actors who have portrayed Bond, we have this: Connery and Craig both started in their thirties. Dalton and Brosnan were in their early forties. Roger Moore, the latest starter, was 45 (and stayed too long, into his late fifties). Brosnan left the role at 50. Connery came back for one last movie at 53, but the story included the theme of him being an older agent who had to prove he still had what it took to do his job. An actor still playing Bond at 49 is okay if he can still make it work, but 49 is no age to do your first Bond movie. I don’t want a talented actor who would be so good in the part just coming into it when he’s on the edge of being too old for it.

            I also don’t want to wait those 7 years now that I’ve had to think about Elba in such a role!
            So I say we forget him as Bond and come up with something better than sitting around waiting for the Daniel Craig era to end so Elba can take his place behind the wheel of the Astin-Martin, because thinking that way is an insult to both actors.
            Hollywood, if you’re listening, let Idris Elba have his own espionage/action franchise now. I mean, right now, while he’s in his prime and at the peak of his career and the height of his popularity. If it’s written right, it’ll be as good as Bond. Maybe it will be better than Bond. And there’s no reason we can’t have multiple successful spy franchises running at the same time. Bond is not the only spy in town, and hasn’t been for a long time. We’ve got Mission: Impossible, the Bourne Franchise, and Liam Neeson’s TAKEN movies, all of which are very, very successful.
            So, no, I don’t think Idris Ebla should play James Bond. He’d be great, but the timing’s not good. He’s the right age now, but somebody else is standing in the famous gun barrel at the moment. So, rather than wait for a chance that may or may not come half a decade or more down the road, somebody please give this fine actor his own spy game to play? I’m pretty sure he’ll win.

And if anyone reading this wants to check out my take on the spy genre, here’s a link to my novel NOBODY DIES FOR FREE.




Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Four Non-Bonds

It's been a great week since the release of my spy novel, Nobody Dies For Free. The book's availability met with enthusiasm, I've had some good feedback from several readers so far, and I'm anxiously awaiting reviews. With the book getting attention, I've been thinking some about my favorite fictional spies and how they've influenced my work in general, and, in some cases, specifically the character of Richard Monroe, protagonist of Nobody Dies For Free. I got into that subject a little in my last entry where I talked about the influence of Ian Fleming and his James Bond stories as well as the movies based on his books. But 007 certainly isn't the be all and end all of fictional spies who have caught my attention over the years. So, today I thought I'd list a few espionage and thriller characters who I'm a big fan of.

George Smiley
Appearing in several novels by John le Carre, Smiley is not an action hero. He's a sly, scheming, intellectual agent. The most famous Smiley story is Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, which has been adapted to film several times. Smiley has been played by such extraordinary actors as James Mason (though the character's name was changed in that instance), Sir Alec Guinness, Denholm Eliot, and, most recently, Gary Oldman. 



Jack Ryan
Tom Clancy's character, Jack Ryan, might best be described as an unintentional hero. Ryan, a CIA analyst, often wants nothing to do with the violence and gritty intrigue of the espionage world, preferring a peaceful life as a father and husband while serving his country from behind a desk. But he usually finds himself in the thick of things. Clancy has written many Jack Ryan novels. There have also been four major movies, with a fifth coming soon. If asked to choose a favorite film version of the Jack Ryan stories, I'd be forced to give a double-sided answer. My favorite in terms of plot and delivery is The Hunt for Red October, in which Jack Ryan was played by Alec Baldwin, with a superb supporting cast that included James Earl Jones, Sean Connery, Sam Neill, Tim Curry, and Peter Firth. But my favorite portrayal of Jack Ryan was by Harrison Ford in Patriot Games and A Clear and Present Danger, which are both excellent.



Adam Carter
Of the characters I'm discussing today, Carter might be the one most unfamiliar to American audiences, but I think my British friends will know who I'm talking about. From 2002 until 2011, a magnificent espionage series called Spooks ran on British TV. Lasting for 86 excellent episodes, the show was a smoldering, suspenseful joyride of spy thrills. It was a powerful show and had the guts to very frequently kill off major, well-liked characters. Nobody was safe on this show, which sometimes made me want to hate it as much as I loved it.  
Spooks revolved around MI-5 supervisor Harry Pearce (played by Peter Firth) and the team of agents who worked under him. At any given time, the squad was led in the field by a Section Chief. There were five different Section Chiefs throughout the show's run and all were interesting characters. The one that makes my list today is Adam Carter (portrayed by Rupert Penry-Jones). The second character to hold the post, after Matthew McFadyen's Tom Quinn, Carter was a dynamic, energetic, courageous agent who worked hard to balance his obligations to his country with his responsibilities to his family, often with mixed results. Carter also lasted as Section Chief longer than any of those before or after him.
If anyone reading this has never seen Spooks, I highly recommend it. It's available for streaming on Netflix, but you'll have to look for it under the title it adopted for viewing in the U.S. Here, it's renamed MI-5.


Bryan Mills
You really, really, really do not want to mess with his family. It's not a good idea. Just remember, he has a very particular set of skills that makes him a nightmare for people like you. 
On paper, Taken sounds like a mediocre, possibly somewhat entertaining action flick that might star someone like Steven Segal. Simple plot: retired spy's daughter is kidnapped to be sold as a sex slave, so he goes to Europe to find her and get revenge on those who perpetrated the crime.
But if you take that premise and give it to producer Luc Besson and director Pierre Morel, and cast Liam Neeson in the lead role of former special operative Bryan Mills, you end up with what I think just might be the best spy/ action movie of the last few decades! I absolutely loved it. I rarely watch movies more than once within a span of just a few years, but I've seen Taken at least a half-dozen times since its release in 2008.
The sequel, Taken 2, was a very good action movie and well worth seeing, but not on the level of the first. I'm happy to have recently learned that there will be a third installment. As long as Liam Neeson wants to keep playing Bryan Mills, I'm willing to go to the theater and watch him teach some very bad people some very harsh lessons.