Sam Mendes jumps onto the James Bond gravy train

No, this isn't an April Fool's prank. According to both the LAT's Hero Complex and the Hollywood Reporter, Sam Mendes, the wonderfully cerebral and cultured filmmaker who once upon a time won an Oscar for "American Beauty," is in discussions to make the new James Bond film, which could go into production as early as this June. Daniel Craig would be onboard, reprising his role as Mr. 007.

While I'm also happy to see filmmakers practicing their craft, this is a bad decision in oh, so many ways, not to mention a depressing example of how hard it is for filmmakers to find any good studio material to work with. Not that I'm letting Mendes off the hook here. His career has been in steep decline, both in terms of critical as well as commercial success. In fact, if you look at the grosses on his five feature films, they form a graph that goes in only one direction -- straight down.

Mendes' biggest-grossing film was "American Beauty," his splashy Hollywood debut that made $130 million. His second film, "Road to Perdition," made $104 million. His next, "Jarhead," topped out at $62 million. "Revolutionary Road" only grossed $22 million while his most recent film, last year's road-trip comedy, "Away We Go," struggled to earn $9.4 million. Many critics would say the quality index on Mendes' films has gone just as precipitously downhill, with "Revolutionary Road," adapted from a brilliant Richard Yates cult novel, being an especially chilly, claustrophobic letdown.

It seems obvious that Mendes -- or more likely, his CAA agents -- decided it was time to grab hold of a commercial piece of material that could not only offer a payday but an opportunity to put up some respectable box-office numbers. But a Bond movie is a Bond movie. There's really no way to put a personal stamp on a series whose fans demand all sorts of familiar fare, from buxom vixens to high-powered action scenes. It's almost by definition hack work, the equivalent of hiring Irving Penn to do a photo spread for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. Even if Mendes does a solid, professional job, the resulting film will do little to change anyone's perception of his commercial touch (or lack of it).

I wish Mendes would go back to his roots and spend a year or two refreshing himself in the London theater, where he could work with great actors and regain some of his old bravado. Great directors thrive on challenges. When Martin Scorsese found himself in a rut years ago, he didn't look to Bond for salvation. He rejuvenated himself with a low-budget thriller called "After Hours," which led to "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "GoodFellas." When Darren Aronofsky flopped with "The Fountain," he didn't beg Warners to let him direct a Harry Potter sequel. He found just enough money to get "The Wrestler" made, which reminded everyone of his seemingly limitless filmmaking energy and intensity.

Say it ain't so, Sam. For someone of your talents, doing a James Bond movie is really the worst example of stooping to conquer.  

Photo: Sam Mendes. Credit: Ringo H.W. Chiu / For the Los Angeles Times. 

Comments

[David Lee]

Typical art house snobbery towards the Bond franchise. Did you rip Marc "Kite Runner" Forster for signing up last time? No. It's a shame his visually appealing but structually limp "Quantum of Solace" didn't live up to his reputation as a storyteller.

Perhaps Mr Mendes will have a better outing. Afterall, the action sequences are all handled by the 2nd and action units, leaving the director to... direct the actors!

Up until Potter came abut, the Bond franchise single-handedly kept the British film industry alive. Critics should give it a bit more credit.

[Laer Carroll]

Elitist twaddle.

[Chase Dunnette]

Really? How can you bash a director's impressive comedy "Away We Go" for only making 10 million when its widest release was a tad over 500 theaters? I actually wanted to watch it, but alas I live in Ohio and it never was in a theater I live close to. Not his fault it was a limited release.

[wcmartell]

Action films require a specific skill set - talents of a kind that are very different from Mendes'. Just by comparing the quality of CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM you can see the talents of Martin Cambell, who understands that a great action scene is a character scene... and the problem with a director like Marc Forster who does not understand how the genre works.

It's a common studio mistake to take someone from the indie or arthouse world and think that they will elevate a genre film... usually, they just don't have the basic skill set to make a genre film work, and you end up with crap.

I did breakdowns of two action scenes from CASINO in the May 2009 issue of Script Magazine and the July 2009 issue... focusing on how each action scene revealed characters and was all about character. I could not do that with QUANTUM because they werre just junk action scenes. Same writers, different directors.

A better choice would be Stephen Frears - a Brit who knows more than how to deal with actors, he also knows how to use filmmaking techniques to create emotions in the audience. Those basic skills that fellows like Hitchcock and Clouzot had.

- Bill

[John]

a small correction - Mendes has been back to theatre, albeit infrequently. Most recently he's put together a transatlantic theatre company for the Bridge Project, staging Winter's Tale and The Cherry Orchard in both New York and London.

[Greg]

Um...

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/bond-23-production-stalled

and

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/2010/01/04/bond_producers_put_number_23_on_hold/

Looks like not everyone is saying the same thing, so this may be highly premature.

Even assuming it is true, why should box office earnings be equated with adept artistry? Besides, Away We Go was an arthouse movie, its numbers would never be expected to be very high.

And haven't the likes of Christopher Nolan, Sam Raimi, Peter Jackson, etc. shown that you can bring a personal, creative touch to tent-pole, genre fare?

[David Lee]

Regarding the production stall, it did go on hold in October to resume in Februay. Writers and Producers said it themselves. As the ink is not dry on the Mendes deal yet, the timeline all fits. Once he's signed up, the wheels will start turning again.

MGM are the ones who are denying the hiatus. I wonder why??

Could it be that Bond is the only sure-fire franchise the lion has, and as it's up for sale, wants to increase its potential value by saying Bond is indeed on his way to the rescue?

A studio lying? Never!!!!

BTW, a bit of genius on the part of EON for getting Mendes as a 'consultant' for now to avoid MGM having a contractual trigger and therefore ownership claim on the movie. Sony have shown EON how a studio works in the 21st century. MGM have had more lives than Dr Who. Time to put a nail in the coffin for good.

[darin]

Mendes has never stopped directing theaters and he doesn't do it "infrequently". Next week, the first of two Shakespeare plays he directed opens here in Brooklyn. Say what you want about Mendes' films, but their problems have nothing to do with staying away from the theater.