Whenever they cast a new James Bond, there is always speculation that this time they’ll pick someone other than a white male Brit. Yet, they keep going back to the same formula. Could there be a black James Bond? How about a chick? What about one with an Indian accent? Good question.From a story telling perspective, there is no reason that Bond couldn’t be replaced by pretty much anybody. It’s not like the role requires a person of a particular race or gender. The only requirement seems to be nationality because he is a British secret agent. So presumably, anyone could play the role if they brought enough of the other traits. But therein lies the rub.
When you look at what James Bond is, Bond is more than the storylines he tells. Bond represents the masculine ideal. He is essentially everything men aspire to be wrapped up in one stylized package. That suggests that certainly things can’t really be done with the character. For example, you can’t really cast a female James Bond. Sure, in the modern world of action heroes, you get lots of scantily clad females bouncing across the screen. But let’s be honest, those films are aimed at young males who see these women as eye candy. Bond isn’t that. Bond is meant to have broad appeal across age groups and genders. Bond is a hero that males are supposed to see themselves as. If they cast a woman to play Bond, they would lose most of the male audience except for the eye-candy set. They would also lose the female audience who see Bond as the ideal man. They might turn out for the first film with Jane Bond out of curiosity, but they won’t come back for more.
The same problem arises if Bond is made gay. Even fewer men will see the film if Bond is gay because they get no role model and no eye candy. And women may have gay friends, but they aren’t going to see an action film staring a gay hero. . . they don’t really watch action films in the first place.
The other thing Bond represents is an idealized view of Britain. He’s what Britain wants you to think the country is about... ignore the binge drunk girls lying on the sidewalks please. He represents
What does this mean for ethnic minorities? Well, right now, Britain is in a tizzy over Poles and Romanians, and seems to see them as some alien “non-white” invaders who are destroying Britain, so I get the feeling that casting anything other than a whiter-than-white James Bond wouldn’t sit too well in Britain. But outside of Britain, I think the world would be pretty accepting of a black James Bond, so long as he seemed upper-crust enough.
In fact, let me suggest a guy who I think would have made an excellent James Bond: Colin Salmon (pictured above). You might know him from Resident Evil, Alien v. Predator and even a couple of James Bond films -- Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day. He’s got the right accent, the sense of class and he’s very, very British. Would he play in Britain? Not sure. Would he play in the “racist” US? Absolutely.
Thoughts?
That would rule, actually. He's a great actor.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, Tell me about it. I'd love to see him play James Bond. I've liked him in everything I've seen him in.
ReplyDeleteI think I would have the same problem with it that I have with the show "Elementary." It just seems like a blatant cash in on somebody else's character. You could make a fine film, I suppose, but it is a different character. Kind of like making Ben Franklin, Bonnie Franklin, I suppose :)
ReplyDeleteWell, that is the question, Jed. Could you do something other than a white, male Brit? I think you could do a black, male Brit, but I don't think you could do much more than that.
ReplyDeleteEven then, I think the first film might be a bit of a circus as the question of just trying to cash in would be raised. In later films, it probably wouldn't be a problem, but the first time would be. That's why, if they ever do this, the smartest thing would be to do it while the series is on a high, so as to minimize the idea they are just trying to use controversy to boost ratings.
Given that the original stories are now so far removed as to be unrecognizable, I think you could quite easily do a black male Bond. It would require, IMO, the character to be portrayed as very conservative. This would also be true to the original Bond. A second criteria is that the racial angle wouldn't be in your face - ala Men in Black 3 and Wild Wild West.
ReplyDeleteColin Salmon would do a decent job as Bond --I like him-- but I'm generally not a fan of change for its own sake, to "shake things up". Too gimmicky.
ReplyDeleteI'd rather they adapted, or created, a new-to-the-screen action/adventure character for Salmon (or whoever) to play, so he (or she) can define it (as Connery did with 007), rather than follow in the footsteps of a well-established, iconic character who is already pretty well set in the public's mind as a certain thing, done well (a.k.a. "if it ain't broken, don't 'fix' it").
And I thought a blonde Bond was a stretch...
ReplyDeleteI don't think Bond needs to change races to gain broader appeal or anything. When I went to see Skyfall the theater was packed and most of the audience was black.
*Shrugs* All that being said, if the filmmakers want to make the next Bond black, they should cast Idris Elba (black English guy, though I've never heard him speak with an English accent). Like Daniel Craig and Sean Connery he has physical presence.
I beleive it is Cracked that has a theory up that Bond is a generic ID for said secret agent and so he isn't the actual same person from adventure to adventure. This allows all the stories to exist covering the span of decades. That said, I think Bond should be Bond and if they want to change race or gender, then make a 006 or 008 movie instead.
ReplyDeleteI'm with the Back on this one. Changing Bond for the sake of the change would just be a gimmick. That said Colin Salmon would be an awesome choice for a new British agent character maybe as a spin off of Bond....or his partner in regions or locales wear having an agent of African descent would be a major advantage....such as remake of Doctor No or Live and Let Die.
ReplyDeleteon a side note....the spammer, can something be done with him>
I think it's interesting that so many people went straight to the "don't change for change's sake" angle, even though that wasn't how the question was framed. We do fear change. LOL!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure whether to say that I would welcome or simply be nonplussed about a black Bond. My initial reaction wouldn't be to assume a move to broaden appeal or anything like that. (Though considering Hollywood, maybe it should be.) I would be admittedly jazzed by an (East) Indian Bond.
As to a gay Bond, I think Andrew is absolutely right. I encountered a lot of negative reaction to the scene in Skyfall where Silva was coming on to Bond and Bond played along. I think Bond was forgiven, but my goodness! The funny thing is, I could easily see Connery's Bond reacting to Silva in the same way--and who would question Connery's sexuality?
Tryanmax - I'm didn't take it as a "fear of change" issue per se. They made Miss Moneypenny a hot young former black female field operative in Skyfall. And the Cumberbatch modern Sherlock is great, and overcame my misgivings. But, as Backthrow puts it so well, I'd rather they create new characters and let them develop their own personnas and legend.
ReplyDeleteK, I agree. A black James Bond would need to be very conservative. If there was the slightest hint of someone Will Smithing it or Samuel L. Jacksoning it, that would probably kill the franchise.
ReplyDeleteBackthrow, I'm a big fan of that theory when it comes to most reboots. For example, there was no reason to make Star Trek "Star Trek." It could just as well have been "Punk Kids In Space" without abusing the "Star Trek" brand. But I'm not really talking about change for change sake, I'm just wondering how far the character could be changed without losing the original character. I think Salmon could do it pretty seamlessly. In fact, I think he would have been better than many of the other names there were mentioned for the role.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, He was in Prometheus and I liked him there, but I don't think I'd want to see him as Bond. To me, he doesn't come across "high class" enough. He seems better cast in tough guy roles than suave tough guy roles.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I'm not saying change for change sake, I'm just wondering how far they could go in casting without losing the original character.
Shawn, That's an interesting theory, though I don't see any need to harmonize all the films.
ReplyDeleteTy, We're under constant spam attacks. A couple get through every so often. Sorry about that. I will delete them when I see them though.
ReplyDeleteIf they won't cast him as Bond, and I doubt they will, somebody really should give Salmon his own Bond-like series. That would probably be a hit.
Jed, don't forget, they made Felix Leiter black, too. I seem to recall a bit of kerfuffle when Dench became "M" and we all seemed to weather that one okay. Now, how long must we wait until there is an Asian "Q"?
ReplyDeletetryanmax, We do fear change... the evidence is everywhere. LOL!
ReplyDeleteHonestly, my first thought if they made the change would be that they are just trying to create controversy because that is exactly the kind of thing Hollywood does to trick people into turning out -- change something they like to get everyone to notice.
But beyond that, my bigger question is just if these kinds of changes are possible without damaging the character. As I say above, I don't think making him gay or female or Muslim would work because it violates fundamental parts of his character. I don't think casting a black actor would cause the same problem, so long as the actor fits the profile closely enough.
tryanmax, Let me add this, I wonder what makes people feel that Bond must be white? Is it that a white actor made the role iconic? Is it a sense that British=white?
ReplyDeleteI can see why you can't change the race of historical figures or someone like a Nazi soldier, but this doesn't seem the same to me.
Jed, To play devil's advocate, however, they change Bond every time they recast him. He was Sean Connery, but then he wasn't and he's been changed several times since.
ReplyDeleteI guess my question is, what makes him white? I can see why he needs to be male and British and protestant and straight and suave, but I'm not sure I see the need for him to be white.
tryanmax, There are still many people who grouse about M being made a woman. I like the choice because I think she bring a toughness to the role that the other guys who followed Bernard Lee didn't have. Lee, though, easily remains the best.
ReplyDeleteIn theory I agree but changing his race would, by necessity (given the issues of race that a Black Bond would have grown up around in 20th century UK), change his back story and thus his character.
ReplyDeleteNow if they want to focus on 007 and have an heir to a retired James Bond who is Black that would be great. He or she would be a whole new character.
An Indian Bond who is grateful for what the UK has done for him or her and thus pledges life and limb to Queen and Country would be fascinating.
Floyd, I suppose it would depend on who the Indian is. Hollywood seems to like Indians who are "harmless" like Vijay from Octopussy and Jahrvi from Short Curcuit (who was actually a white actor). I think they would need to find someone who is much more British and comes across as more suave and violent.
ReplyDelete"Next Generation Double O"? lol
ReplyDeleteI think that specific recasts would work, but that a "spin-off" would work better. Bond's not the only British spy in the world...
Heck, Matt Damon managed to convince people he was Jason Bourne (ick). (and the Jeremy Renner spin-off seemed to work with audiences - of course w/o Damon, I was an easy sell)
You know, rather than doing another British spy, I'd like to see an American spy. There seem to be a dearth of those guys, except as bad guys.
ReplyDeleteWhile there is no written rule, Bond has to be white. Britain is the capital of WASPs in the west which Bond represents. Ian Flemming is quoted as saying that he got the name from a ornithologist named James Bond, "this brief, unromantic, Anglo-Saxon and yet very masculine name".
ReplyDeleteThe franchise has had plenty of diversity in its other characters, which I have always loved. I think making that big of a change would forever alter the franchise. I don't know if it would be for the better. If you put in a conservative black man, then he would be criticized for being an oreo and not black enough.
Andrew - You are correct, of course, that every time you change the character, he is really no longer Bond. Hence, for me, that is why the only "true" Bond was Connery. However, I do realize Bond (and Holmes) are "franchise" characters. Hey, in addition to Moneypenny, they made Felix Leiter (a raife thin straw haired white Texan) black in Quantum of Solace. But why I don't really like the idea remains much as Floyd said: once you change the race (or sex or whatever) you change the backstory, and thus change the character. So, personally, I'd much rather see a black 0015 who was trained by 007 (who woul;d be in his 90's by now anyway.)
ReplyDeleteI think the main reason why Bond's race would seem to be important to most audiences (even today), besides familiarity with how he's been presented on-screen, is because he's basically a 'retro' character, even though his adventures always occur in modern times. He's 'old England', which doesn't just mean a 'stiff upper lip' and 'for queen and country' demeanor/ethos, but also a WASP-y background. The only difference is that he's more openly hedonistic and prone to violence while wearing his genteel sheen.
ReplyDeleteEngland, the world, his co-workers and enemies may change with the times, but James Bond remains almost completely the same. Even though there are differences between the actors playing the role since Connery, they are very minor differences within a very narrowly-defined role and look, and usually are a matter of personality rather than physical appearance (look at all the people who initially blew a gasket over the casting of the (not very) 'blond' Craig).
M, Q, Moneypenny and especially Felix Leiter can change without much uproar because they are peripheral characters in Bond's adventures. Moneypenny and Q haven't figured in the series for a good stretch, so their recasting hasn't been jarring. M had been played by underwritten placemarkers between Bernard Lee and Judy Dench; Dench did well, but I think most people are relived that 007 now doesn't have to report to 'Mom' anymore. Lee's M was gruff, but was also both a quasi-father figure and was probably a man who was much like Bond, especially in his younger days (dangerous missions, sleeping around with beautiful women, heavy drinking, gambling), before getting stuffier with age and a desk job, so they had a particular understanding that someone like Dench's M couldn't duplicate. I think the new M will bring some of that back.
As far as the movie series goes, Felix is a shapeshifter, going from Jack Lord to a dumpy middle-aged man to Rick Van Nutter to another middle-aged guy to Richard Basehart's second-in-command to some young guy who became Matthew Fox's future TV dad and then back to Commander Lee Crane, before disappearing for several years, only to emerge as Jeffrey Wright. Also, Felix is American, thus 'melting pot', so you can buy almost anyone cast in the role. If Jack Lord had remained with the series, or if the producers had stuck closely to the books' description of Leiter (a tall, thin Texan with straw-blond hair, one hand replaced with a prosthetic hook/claw early on) in their casting choices, changing him later would've been a bigger deal, but still not very much.
I agree with Andrew that Colin Salmon is about as different as you could go with Bond (except perhaps for Floyd's 'Indian Bond' idea), while still remaining 'Bond', except that he's already appeared as a different character in the series (which can be done (and has been) with supporting players, but not the star), and, while he doesn't look it right now, is (at 51) too old to start playing the role at this point, even if Craig quit tomorrow.
Koshcat, I'm not so sure Salmon would be criticized for not being black enough because he's also meant to be British, so he wouldn't be expected to be Shaft.
ReplyDeleteKoshcat and Backthrow, I think it's interesting that Bond has become a "retro" character. I don't think that was ever his intent when he was created or even throughout early years of the show. It's kind of fascinating that in a way, he's morphed into that. He's like a forever-young version of Frank Sinatra representing "old school" Vegas in a way.
Jed, I would rather not see 0015. I would rather see 007 or just something different. To me, the idea of a spinoff is just a reboot with so severe limitations.
ReplyDeleteIt is good to remember that Bond, as a character is over 60, and the films are in their 50th anniversary. Today, the original stories are largely unknown, so one could do damned near anything one wants to introduce the characters and stories to a new generation of fans. The problem is more with guys like myself. Luckily, I started to read the books at about the same time Dr. No was being released. Leiter was so peripheral in the film, he did not form a permanent image of the character in my mind's eye the way Connery, Bernard Lee, and Lois Maxwell did. I have long argued that a film always has a tougher time with fans of the book upon which it was based because they spot every little difference and have already formed their image of the character.
ReplyDeleteThinking back on it, I'd probably cast either Barry Pepper or the Russian ballet star turned actor who died (also in Witness and Die Hard.) I'm talking about coming close to my ideal image of how Leiter looked. As far as having a 0015, I'm not sure I follow your thinking on how that would limit a new character. I'm not particularly a fan of a totally recast Bond, but don't see (at least at first blush) where the problem is. Once you begin to define any character, you begin the limiting process which creates some problems from any episodic character. Fans expect the character to always behave in a familiar fashion.
ReplyDeleteJed, I think it's definitely true that people who read the books always have problems with the movies. And I suspect that people who started with only Connery probably have a similar problem.
ReplyDeleteMy first film I saw was Spy Who Loved Me and my first in-theater film was Moonraker, so I was pretty used to the idea that the series had drifted around a lot by the time I started watching it. So to me, this doesn't seem like a big deal at all, so long as the actor is right.
In terms of 0015 limiting it, the problem is that once you declare that you are in James Bond's world, you automatically bring in a certain set of rules which force you down certain paths. Your plots can't be too real or it feels like a different world. You can't be the best because Bond needs to be better. You can't put him on a team because Bond isn't on a team. Etc. Moreover, you can't get too close to the Bond character. Thus, even though you put this guy into a "suave superspy" world, you can't make him too suave or he's like Bond. All the little things people like ("Bond... James, Bond", the Astin Martin, the martini, the flirting with Moneypenny, the grousing-relationship with M) can't be done either or they feel like a rip off.
That's why I think it's better just to create a whole new concept -- MI6 Agent Smith 7, and then you can do anything you want with the character and the story.
Andrew said:
ReplyDelete"You know, rather than doing another British spy, I'd like to see an American spy. There seem to be a dearth of those guys, except as bad guys."
Well, Andrew, there's always Matt Helm, The Executioner and your old favorite, The Destroyer.
Andrew -
ReplyDeleteRe: American spies, we still have Ethan Hunt. (Seriously, Tom Cruise just signed up for a fifth Mission: Impossible film.)
And lest we forget, Felix Leiter was made black 30 years ago in Never Say Never Again. (I know, it doesn't count.)
I think Kevin Smith put it best in one of his podcasts: "They'll cast a black Bond for one movie, then they'll probably replace him with a f---ing robot or something." :-)
My issue isn't so much the creative decision, but the inevitable... [sigh]... conversation. Every website, every bloviating talking head and their mother, every race-baiter... we'll get stories about what this means for black culture, and maybe it was a mistake, or maybe it should've been done years ago, ad nauseam.
Backthrow, That's true, but none of them ever became household names really. I wonder why we don't have our own James Bond? After all, we were the biggest player in the Cold War!!
ReplyDeleteScott, That's true, but that's no reason to not do it. Personally, I like Craig a lot, but if he wasn't the guy, I'd prefer Salmon over someone like Clive Owen.
ReplyDeleteAnd I would bet that about 5 minutes into the film everyone would forget that he's black.
As for Hunt, the problem there is that he's not really an American spy, so much as Tom Cruise playing a generic action-hero-spy of nebulous nationality. But you are right, at least he is known by name.
ScottDS, that issue was my biggest "concern" about it... let's talk about his race, and talk, and talk....
ReplyDeleteAndrew -
ReplyDeleteI think his nationality is a bit more than "nebulous" but I see what you mean. I imagine it's just implied at this point.
(He's Tom Cruise - where the hell else could he possibly be from?!) :-D
Scott, My point is more that with Bond, he's a "British secret agent." He gets his orders from a government minister. He does what he does for King/Queen and country.
ReplyDeleteHunt is more like a rogue spy who gets cryptic messages from someone sort of connected to one of the many agencies that is so secret no one even knows it exists... blah blah above Top Secret! There's really no sense that he actually has any loyalties.
rlaWTX, There would always be talk, but I would just tune it out. And I think that unless they were trying to milk it to create controversy, the studio and the actor would be smart to downplay it... "Best man for the job, the end... race didn't matter to us, why does it matter to you?" sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteKind of like Obama was supposed be... before he wasn't.
I agree 100% with the author: while Bond could not be a woman (Bond MUST reek of masculinity that is balanced by a feminine assistant, lover, commander, or opponent) a homosexual (same reason), or a non-Brit (no 'Muricans... sorry), there is absolutely no reason Bond couldn't be another race.
ReplyDelete(And yes, I do cotton to the "Code Name" theory... sue me).
Thanks 5minutes! I think that as long as he's got the other characteristics, race isn't really important to his character.
ReplyDeleteSo you're a "Coder Namer" are you? LOL! Actually, I have no problems with the theory, I just never really needed to harmonize the movies because I never saw them as related. So I never thought about it one way or another.
Andrew said:
ReplyDelete"That's true, but none of them ever became household names really. I wonder why we don't have our own James Bond? After all, we were the biggest player in the Cold War!!"
Because Bond was the first of this modern style of larger-than-life spy/hero in fiction (after the years of Sam Spade, Philip Marlowe and Mike Hammer... and pulp heroes like The Shadow and Doc Savage), and was lucky enough to arrive at the perfect time to be picked up and serialized in the then-new Playboy magazine, which was selling the masculine/hedonistic lifestyle that Bond embodied. Add to that the attention Bond and Ian Fleming got a few years later when FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE was publicized as being on JFK's reading list, and the further good fortune for the well-made early films and the last of the Fleming novels to coincide with the popularity of The Beatles and the rest of the British Invasion, and the rise of 'swinging London' in pop culture, while Hollywood lazily decided to compete with spy spoofs (notably the Dean Martin 'Matt Helm' films, James Coburn as 'Derek Flint' and the David Niven CASINO ROYALE) or dour spy dramas (THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD) rather than a credible U.S. alternative to 007 in the movies, doing most of that work on TV instead, with THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E., I SPY, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE and THE WILD WILD WEST. Too little, too late, as far as building a venerable movie series goes.
Backthrow, I have to say that I feel the same way about Hollywood -- lazy. I know a lot of people really like the Flint films and I know that the dramas like Spy Who Came In From the Cold won all kinds of awards, but I find little to like in any of those films. In fact, I've watched the Flint films several times and I've always found them to be quite pedantic and quite dull -- they mistake unusual for hilarious and they aren't anywhere near as smart or clever as they think they are. It's like they were written by hipsters as an inside joke and they didn't realize that their inside joke was obvious to all.
ReplyDeleteTV was where the more serious spies were, but I think they suffered from the limits of television at the time, in particular with having no ability to do longer stories.
Well, Andrew, I have to admit that I do enjoy the two Flint films (particularly OUR MAN FLINT). They aren't brilliant, not by a long shot, just mildly-amusing cinematic junk food on about the same campy level as the Adam West BATMAN, plus it helps that I'm a James Coburn fan, who elevates them to a level a bit above the Dean Martin 'Matt Helm' films like THE SILENCERS and MURDERER'S ROW. Some good stunts, I like the Gerry Goldsmith music, the sets/miniatures/effects are half-impressive/half-tacky. Now, if Flint had started out in fairly straight and exciting adventures, like the early Bond films, then devolved into what we see in OUR MAN FLINT and IN LIKE FLINT, like the Connery/Lazenby-to-Moore tone trajectory... I'd be pretty disappointed, LOL.
ReplyDeleteAs far as hilarious/clever, THE PRESIDENT'S ANALYST (also with Coburn) runs rings around Flint's antics, but that film was tackling a whole bunch of things, besides spoofing espionage.
True, the TV spies, as entertaining and popular as they could be, were never going to rival Bond, due to the format and especially the time & budget constraints they were under.
Backthrow, I'm not saying I dislike the Flint films, I just think they're B-movies that are amusing, but not much more, with a reputation for being somehow special that isn't deserved. If Coburn weren't in them, I think they would be forgotten by now.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the TV spies were hit with some severe limitation they could never overcome. Today they could, with something like HBO, but not back then.
"So you're a "Coder Namer" are you? LOL! Actually, I have no problems with the theory, I just never really needed to harmonize the movies because I never saw them as related."
ReplyDeleteYeah... probably has to do with growing up as a Star Trek / Star Wars fan with plenty of time to focus on the particulars of those movies and TV shows (aka "I didn't date a lot"). I guess I have a need for consistency.
The Brits, however, don't seem to have that need. Hence Doctor Who's sort of "just don't worry about it" attitude.
5minutes, I think that with Star Wars and Star Trek the need for consistency is completely justified. They hold themselves out as a continuing story and it's hard for us to deal with stories that make no sense. So having these massive shocks in the story history is troublesome.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why the British didn't care about Doctor Who, though I think the first seven doctors were fairly consistent in their history to a degree. It's not until the new set that the history got completely written off.
If they went that way I'd agree with Anthony and would go with Idris Elba (Stringer Bell), he is younger, has the physical presence, he is a great actor and he's done the cross over thing by playing a Norse God already!
ReplyDeleteI don't think it would be a huge issue as long as they get the character right, I just don't see the need for it.
But the worst thing about a black Bond would be in the case that it sucked you wouldn't be able to say so without being called 'racist'! :)
Scott.
Scott, True, that would be a problem. What do you think about an Aussie James Bond?
ReplyDeleteAs long as it's not Paul Hogan.
ReplyDelete5minutes,
ReplyDelete"Aftanoon, mate. The naaam's Bond, Jaaaames Bond. And this, this is a kniiife."
Yeah, that would suck.
I was thinking more along the lines of Hugh Jackman.
Apart from George Lazenby?
ReplyDeletePart of me thinks the actor should still be British, but the part of me that grew up watching old movies were all the Australian characters were played by Poms thinks hell yeah get an Aussie to do it.
Hugh Jackman could do it, he does have the physical attributes and he is a great actor. I could also see Eric Bana or a younger Russell Crowe, even though he is shorter he has presence, but they are both great actors.
And yes no Paul Hogan.
Scott.
Scott, I didn't know Bana was Australian! Huh. Interesting. Crowe is a great actor. I like Guy Pierce too, but he would never fit as Bond.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that there seem to be so many top actor right now who are Australian. I guess you all are doing something right! :)
P.S. I forgot Lazenby was an Aussie!
ReplyDeleteYep Eric is an Aussie, he got his start as comic in a sketch show then did Chooper (his first dramatic role playing an infamous Australian criminal) which got him his roles in Black Hawk Down, Hulk and Troy. He is a great actor and the fact that you didn't know he was an Aussie shows that, he plays the role, not himself playing the role.
ReplyDeleteCrowe is great, maybe a bit old now to play the role (or too heavy?) and Guy Pierce while a great actor would be better as a Bond villain than Bond himself.
Andrew you write articles about Bond and forgot Lazenby was Australian? lol.
Scott.
Scott, It happens. My brain is getting old and has lots of mileage on it. :( I knew it, I just totally forgot it.
ReplyDeleteOne of the first times I noticed both Crowe and Pierce was in LA Confidential and I actually had no idea either was an Aussie. That was before IMDB and Wikipedia and I never watched any of the Hollywood shows, so I only saw them in the films. And both actors covered their accents perfectly. I was amazed that not only one, but both were Australian. And I've liked almost everything they've done since.
It happens to us all.
ReplyDeleteLA Confidential was a great movie, but I knew both of them before hand from their Australian work. Crowe mostly from Romper Stomper (if you want an actor to portray menace show them Crowe in Romper Stomper) and Pierce from a crappy soap opera.
But them movie also stared a young Simon Baker in a small, but vital role in his first movie. He also started in a crappy soap opera in Australia, he then went onto fame and fortune on American TV in The Guardian and The Mentalist.
Those guys would most likely take it as a compliment that you didn't know that they were Australian. It means that they can act.
Scott.
Scott, I saw Romper Stomper much later and I agree, Crowe does menace very nicely.
ReplyDeleteI agree about Pierce too, he would be better villain than a Bond. Of course, Crowe would make a great villain too.
Baker's star is definitely rising.