Bond 25 will arrive in a Britain vastly changed from the one Spectre opened to in 2015.
Back then, the Brexit vote was but a twinkle in David Cameron’s rosy-cheeked eye. By November 2019, we’ll be several months into the aftermath of having actually left - an uncertain time for our global political standing and a touchy one for our national self-esteem.
On top of that, our most famous movie character will strut his stuff in a post-MeToo world in which - whether Bond traditionalists like it or not - a younger generation of viewers are increasingly bored of the stoic, womanising masculine archetype Bond represents. ‘Suave white man saves the day’ is hardly instep with the mood of the times, or the new commercial realities of an industry waking up to an appetite for diversity.
In short: the film needs a visionary at the helm, someone with the courage to reinvent the Bond formula guided by an intuitive grasp of the national mood. Like the one they just lost, Danny Boyle.
Citing ‘creative differences’, Boyle has walked away from the project, confirming the nagging sense many of us had that his appointment was simply too good to be true.
This was the man who had already captured the spirit of an age in Britain while giving us something to be proud of on the world stage, not once but twice – with Trainspotting in 1996 and the Olympic opening ceremony in 2012.
That, of course, coupled with the boldness and flair he’s exhibited across multiple genres from zombie horror (28 Days Later) to psychological thriller (127 Hours) to character study (Steve Jobs) meant, in funny kind of a way, he always felt too good for James Bond, in the same way Tom Hardy does.
It makes you wonder what those ‘creative differences’ with [producers] Michael G Wilson, Barbara Broccoli and Craig himself actually were, but it seems unlikely given Boyle’s career to date it had anything to with playing things too safe.
In any case, the conversation inevitably now turns to who can fill his shoes. Blade Runner 2049 director Denis Villeneuve expressed an interest, but isn’t available as he’s remaking Dune – a big enough task for anyone. The other much cited named is Christopher Nolan, but this would surely be a mistake. Nolan makes exciting but horribly portentous films. What is required at this stage in Bond’s history is not grandiose posturing and some overwrought time jumps but a thoughtful, character-driven reinvention.
Bond’s self-appointed guardians of Angry Online Men will bristle at this, living as they do in perpetual fear of a woke 007 written for social justice snowflakes, an emasculated cuck who thinks twice about killing anyone and is probably black or a woman to boot.
As fun as all that actually sounds, it’s not really what I mean. As well as coming at a tricky junction in British history, ‘Bond 25’ comes at familiar fatigue point in the franchise’s own cycle.
In 2006, Craig and Casino Royale were a necessary corrective to Brosnan and Die Another Die as rough-hewn handsomeness and proper fistfights replaced cheesy smirks and the nadir of 007 driving an invisible car. Brosnan himself was the answer to the Timothy Dalton-era swerve into Bond-as-sociopath, who before that was hired to straighten out the Roger Moore Carry On period. And on it goes.
In short, reinventing Bond - saving Bond from himself - has always been in the franchise’s DNA. It is how it survives. It is less a question of changing the fundamental facts of Bond’s life - lone wolf killer, forced to travel the world sleeping with women who are doomed to die - than choosing whether to interpret them as incredible lucky (Moore, Brosnon) or self-evidently tragic and full of despair (Dalton, Craig).
Because of where we are in the cycle - and because of the trickier wider context Bond 25 will appear in - this next step in the series is vital if we are to avoid the unimaginable horror of a world in which the films stop making money and cease to exist. Boyle felt like the right man to respond to that pressure with something fresh, surprising and good. Whether you're a Bond conservative or a Bond reformer, his departure should be a worrying sign.
