Brian De Palma, maybe ?

Ricardo C. · November 2010

I think it's about time such versatile and stylish director should take on Bond ! He's really the perfect canidate. I know the producers really want their directors under their thumbs but Brian seems to know how to appease the mainstream producers.

AdamOmega · November 2010

Brian did a great job with Mission: Impossible but I'm still not 100% sold on the idea. As of late, it seems that his recent work has gone down in terms of quality, and after seeing Black Dahlia I'm not so sure. But who knows? Maybe a Bond film is just what he needs. I think he'd be a solid consideration after Sam Mendes takes a shot at it.

007 · November 2010

David Yates, who did the recent Potter films, would be interesting.

superado · November 2010

As discussed about Tarrantino, it would be great for EON to make a paradigm shift towards using big name "auteur" directors, since they seem reluctant for varying reasons like budget and control, but I think anything is possible after they've made the leap with CR. I think Brian DePalma is a very good director, but Mission Impossible is one movie that I think was a blunder of an opportunity for a stand-out and reinterpretation of an old property. Afterall, he was able to make Untouchables several times better than its source material, even if just for its style, but without making that the end in itself (unlike Lee Tamahori in DAD.) Blowout for its storytelling, Scarface for its edgines and Carlito's Way for it's soul, round off DePalma's abilities to make a very interesting interpretation for Bond. Maybe it's the raising of such a bar is the corner that the producers are trying to avoid painting themselves in.

One solution, would be, since the Bond franchise is closing in on 50 years and is running the risk of getting tired IMO, is to sign on auteur directors for film couplets or trilogies that span a complete story arc (like what they're already doing with Bonds 21-23), and cycle through a new Bond actor with one, or the most, two arcs that may even involve two separate auteur directors. Seems like nowadays, more of the mainstream audiences are becoming aware of director personalities, unlike before when it seemed it was only the artsy or nerdy segments of the movie going public that appreciated directorial distinctions. Not only will this gain legitimacy for the Bond producers to become something more than moguls of the modern cinematic circus, but it will actually help them reconcile artistic integrity and sophistication with the popular elements of contemporary cinema appreciation (just see how the public reacts to a new movie or old property taken on by J.J. Abrams or Peter Jackson).

blueman · November 2010

De Palma seems to suck life from such genre films, at least for me he does. No thanks.

Ricardo C. · November 2010

blueman wrote:

De Palma seems to suck life from such genre films, at least for me he does. No thanks.

I find that ironic you feel that way. There isn't a vast difference between De Palma and Tarantino. They are both auteurs who find inspiration from B-grade explotation and art house films. The key difference between the two, IMO, is De Palma is more successful at elevating what would be lower grade material to respectable art. His greatest work combines Hitchcockian suspense and polish with voyeurism.

Ricardo C. · November 2010

superado wrote:

. I think Brian DePalma is a very good director, but Mission Impossible is one movie that I think was a blunder of an opportunity for a stand-out and reinterpretation of an old property.

I'd really chaulk it up to the lousy screenplay. De Palma's direction was up to par to with his own standards.

Though in reality, I'd admit a De Palma Bond film would be a dream. He's been in this business for over 40 years and has made a good amount of films that really set standards for future film makers. No way would be able tolerate being under the thumb of EON.

superado wrote:

One solution, would be, since the Bond franchise is closing in on 50 years and is running the risk of getting tired IMO, is to sign on auteur directors for film couplets or trilogies that span a complete story arc (like what they're already doing with Bonds 21-23), and cycle through a new Bond actor with one, or the most, two arcs that may even involve two separate auteur directors. Seems like nowadays, more of the mainstream audiences are becoming aware of director personalities, unlike before when it seemed it was only the artsy or nerdy segments of the movie going public that appreciated directorial distinctions. Not only will this gain legitimacy for the Bond producers to become something more than moguls of the modern cinematic circus, but it will actually help them reconcile artistic integrity and sophistication with the popular elements of contemporary cinema appreciation (just see how the public reacts to a new movie or old property taken on by J.J. Abrams or Peter Jackson).

The problem is you'd still have keep the director on a tight leash. The Batman film franchise, for example, has been aloud all sorts of tonal changes because the series has never been closely identitfied with one definitive image. Bond is a lot more tricky because there has been a lot of movies. I would like EON to hire auteur directors but they have to make sure they don't stray to far away from a certain tone.

Brian De Palma, maybe ?

Comments