My fellow columnist Nazar Aljassar made a compelling argument for why Idris Elba’s skin color shouldn’t impact the decision to cast him as James Bond. Indeed, although James Bond is traditionally Scottish, and although the last movie, “Skyfall,” gave Bond a childhood home, those small inconsistencies are really nothing in the scheme of the James Bond franchise. They’ve “retconned” things before. For instance, Timothy Dalton’s James Bond marries in 1969’s “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service,” a fact that’s never mentioned again. In 1979’s “Moonraker” Roger Moore goes to space in what is probably the most absurd plot ever. One finds it impossible to believe that Bond and the Bond of Craig’s dark, brooding 2006 “Casino Royale” are the same person. The Bond universe is rife with inconsistencies, so why shouldn’t Elba be Bond?
Here’s a reason: because Elba is actually, and already, good — even great. His roles span from the perfectly played business-minded Baltimore drug dealer Stringer Bell on HBO’s television drama “The Wire” to a military general in Guillermo del Toro’s 2013 robot-monster action flick “Pacific Rim.” I can attest that, awesome as “Pacific Rim” is, the majority of the performances in the movie were so clichéd and absurd as to verge on parody. In retrospect, I actually think it was parody. But the singular Elba magnanimously reached down from his lofty height and breathed some life into the wooden script.
Casting the popular and talented Elba would actually be a monumental inconsistency. The other Bond actors were relative nobodies when they took the role or dropped out of the public eye once they left it, mostly because they weren’t any good in the first place. Sean Connery’s casting as the original Bond was his “big breakthrough.” Daniel Craig, as the hilarious pre-“Casino Royale” website danielcraigisnotbond.com tells us, was initially viewed as “odd-looking” and “dour.” Roger Moore hasn’t starred in a notable movie since his last Bond film, 1985’s “A View to Kill.” Pierce Brosnan, as we all know, has diminished in recent years from his height as suave “Goldeneye” Bond to single-handedly operating the late-middle aged romantic film genre. On Timothy Dalton and George Lazenby, comment is not needed.
Elba, in contrast, is in the prime of his movie-making career. He’s 42 — perhaps a touch old for the Jason Bourne-esque James Bond of the modern age, but yet younger than Craig’s 46 — and he’s never been better. “Luther,” Elba’s fantastic British television series, is returning this year. Critics somewhat panned “Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom,” but praised Elba’s performance, calling it one of “extraordinary charisma.” He’s better-known than Connery and Craig were, and simply better than the rest. They all took the role of James Bond because, for them, it was the role of a lifetime. For Elba, I don’t think it is.
I’m both a big fan of Elba and a big fan of Bond, so Elba taking the role would delight me. But, on the other hand, Bond is somewhat beneath Elba. He can do more. His current situation reminds me of Alec Guinness’, the acclaimed dramatic actor who deigned to star as Obi-Wan Kenobi but “reportedly hated [it] so much, Guinness claims that Obi-Wan's death was his idea as a means to limit his involvement in the film.” His talent was wasted. He went into “Star Wars” an Oscar-winning Shakespearian actor, and came out a jedi — in league with Mark Hamill. You can’t make up such tragedy.
James Bond is perhaps a more demanding role than a jedi, but the same reasoning applies. If Elba were to become the next Bond, he’d have to work extremely hard to keep himself flexible. Actors have gone on from such roles before, and sometimes they have achieved dramatic excellence. Connery won an Oscar in 1988, but it was years after his tenure as Bond. Michael Keaton starred in the 1989’s “Batman” and just this year almost won the Oscar for Best Actor for “Birdman,” a movie about the phenomenon of when the actor becomes the role. It’s tough, but maybe Elba could stay relevant beyond being Bond. But, then again, maybe he’ll just stay James Bond.
007 is just not the role for a top-rate dramatic actor: the character development is usually stagnant, the scripts and plots are sometimes torturous, the character is sometimes used more for product placement than the exposition of acting talent, and, to crown it all off, after the role is finished, the actor is Bond forevermore. If the rumors are true about Elba getting tapped for Bond, and he accepts the role, I have no doubt he will make a fantastic 007. He might make the best one ever. But before he accepts, I would urge him to consider if he couldn’t do something more.
Brennan Edel is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at b.edel@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | YesterdaySuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 5 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
