The Bond Identity

So I keep hearing lately about how James Bond, British Secret Agent 007, needs to be “rebooted,” restored to something more reminiscent of the character Ian Fleming created in his post-World War II novels. Talk of finding somebody new to write Bond stories seems to focus greatly on their delivering a suave spy “far removed from the gloss of 007’s cinematic incarnation, marking a return to the dark and complex nature of Fleming’s early works.” And paraphrasing director Martin Campbell, the September issue of Esquire magazine promises that Casino Royale (starring Daniel Craig) “will be darker and more grounded than any of the previous Bond movies. In other words, no sharks with laser beams.” No more Q, either, with his quirky array of electronic gadgets; or Miss Moneypenny, with her adoring glances.

But what might this change of tone really mean? If the transition can be reflected at all in Esquire’s two most recent Bond-related covers--the one shown here on the left from November 2002 (when Die Another Day was being released), and the one on the right from the September 2006 edition--it suggests that 007’s future will be, well, a bit less fun than his past. Certainly, the cover on the left is more suggestive of Pierce Brosnan’s portrayal of Bond as a stylish troubleshooter and trained assassin who takes his job rather more seriously than himself. The Craig cover on the right evokes, instead, a subdued malevolence, but little in the way of delight. (Simply click on the covers to enlarge them.)

Admittedly, the Craig cover fronts on a fashion-related issue, so it pays more attention to showing off the clothes; but that doesn’t mean it had to be so rigid in its styling. Unless, of course, that’s what we’re to expect from our man Bond in the future. Which, I think, would be a tragedy. After all, rigid targets are easier to hit, whether the people firing are terrorists on Madagascar ... or film critics in New York and London.