Mike Moore winning the Palme D’Or? It seems so bizarre that it is hardly surprising that in all the stories about Fahrenheit 9/11 preceding the festival, nobody had really suggested this as a possibility, despite the film being in competition. I can’t wait to see the film: I loved Bowling for Columbine, and am sympathetic to all but the most outrageous of Moore’s politics. Yet I also fear it may be terrible. Columbine I thought stood head and shoulders above Moore’s other work because he successfully reigned in many of his worst impulses. Moore has a weakness for hyperbole and half-truths that has brought down many of his other films and books, but despite the best attempts of the right to discredit Columbine, nobody really poked any serious holes in it. There is plenty of scope for a really devastating attack on George W. Bush without bending the truth, but I fear Moore’s anger and the praise heaped on him post-Columbine may have gone to his head. I can see Fahrenheit 9/11 descending into hysteria, conspiracy theories and factual error. Let’s hope I’m wrong: for all his faults, Moore popularises the left and has the kind of cross-cultural reach that usually only the right can achieve.
The jury, of course, was headed by Quentin Tarantino, who created a minor storm early in the festival by reiterating his desire to make a film of Ian Fleming’s Casino Royale. His plan (as he has outlined before) would be to take the character back to the basics, sticking to the novel, and setting it straight after On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, with Bond still grieving the death of his wife Tracy. He’s said this before, but alas I am 95% sure it will remain just a pipe dream. Eon (the custodians of the cinematic James Bond) are far too timid to let it happen. After the 60s Bond films – the best of which still await a proper critical reappraisal that recognises their enormous merits and influence – Eon have pretty much run the character into the ground by taking no risks whatsoever. They shouldn’t be so afraid – it would work and could be “cordoned off” from the regular series so as not to confuse audiences. Here’s my thoughts how it should be done:
- Prepare two Bond films, one big budget crappy film like they’ve been making recently (lets call it Tomorrow Never Dies Enough Another Day), and a low budget Casino Royale with Tarantino at the helm.
- Brosnan is fine for both and deserves a shot at something more substantial before leaving the role, but if he doesn’t want to do both you could blood a new actor (Hugh Jackman, say) on the big budget film and let Brosnan bow out with Casino Royale. You couldn’t use the new actor on Casino Royale because this is supposed to be a clear one-off: when he came to do the next one it could cause confusion. Another option – independent of who does Tomorrow Never Dies Enough Another Day – would be to get Dalton back for Casino Royale.
- Tomorrow Never Dies Enough Another Day comes out in the cinemas first to give it a clear run and recoup its higher costs.
- Casino Royale comes out second, maybe 6 to 9 months later. Call it Ian Fleming’s Casino Royale, to emphasise it’s literary credentials (kind of like Coppola did with his Dracula movie).
- Release Casino Royale in an art-house distribution pattern (acceptable because of its lower cost).
- Set the film in 1969 and shoot it period.
- Opening gun-barrel logo should be the original from Dr No, complete with Bob Simmonds and the weird sound effects. The intention here is to clearly delineate the film from the regular series (with its modernised logo), and to immediately establish that this is a return to the series’ roots.
- The pre-title sequence should be the conclusion to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, re-shot as close to the original as possible with the new Bond. Investigate using computer technology to place him in the original film with Diana Rigg – this might have to be rejected ultimately (either because it looks silly or because it is insulting to Lazenby) but it’s worth further thought.
- Opening credit sequence is Louis Armstrong’s “We Have All the Time in the World.” Various possibilities here – a straight Binder tribute, a montage of 60s Bond clips as in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, or some sort of reworking of the love montage from that film.
- Film follows the novel as closely as possible. Tarantino has shown he is smart enough to do it right.
- An adult rating is desirable to keep the kids out. We can afford not to have them – this is low budget, remember.
- The next big budget crappy film (The Eye is Not Golden Enough, perhaps) returns to the regular pattern, but with the usual two year break between Bond films giving it the chance to stand alone.
The idea of such an approach is to allow the one-off to stand alone and not threaten the regular series. The amount of publicity surrounding Tarantino’s involvement, plus the built in branding of this as a “special” Bond described above, would mean audiences would be clear on what was going on. Ah, to dream…