Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Updates:

Related films

Related people

An open letter to Peter Morgan

News broke last week that ‘Frost/Nixon’ and ‘The Queen’ writer Peter Morgan is to join regulars Robert Wade and Neal Purvis in scripting the next James Bond movie. With the damp squib of ‘Quantum of Solace’ still fresh in his mind, Tom Huddleston decided to pen an open letter to Morgan laying out a few friendly dos and don’ts...

Dear Peter,

While we at Time Out are thrilled that you, one of our country’s most talented and inquiring screenwriters, have accepted the challenge of penning the next James Bond movie, there are a few salient points we feel you might like to keep in mind while writing what will inevitably become one of 2011’s most important and, we hope, enjoyable movies. We trust you accept our advice in the friendly spirit with which it’s intended…

Please give the characters room to breathe
Perhaps the greatest stride writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and erstwhile colleague Paul Haggis made with ‘Casino Royale’ was giving Bond and his companions a real sense of life, depth and emotional conflict. We’re used to Bond the wisecracking automaton, but with an actor like Daniel Craig in the role this approach is a terrible waste. ‘Quantum of Solace’ reduced Bond to little more than grunts and sneers – a smart thug who faces off against a loquacious but rather pathetic villain. You’ve already proved your worth as a master of verbal sparring in your previous scripts, so we’re sure you’ll have the murderous banter down pat. The challenge will be to make us care about Bond again.

Please respect your audience
There’s no doubt that the best of Bond is revealed when there’s a strong storyline packed with twists, switchbacks and double crosses: just think of Sean Bean’s deception in ‘Goldeneye’, or Vesper’s betrayal in ‘Casino’. As long as your action sequences are gripping and your characters convincingly motivated, there’s no crime in keeping the viewer guessing.

Please don’t waste your Bond girls
Another of the great pleasures offered by ‘Casino Royale’ was the chance to see Bond confronted by female characters who could hold their own: not just Eva Green’s scheming Vesper, but Judi Dench’s fractious, commanding M. Dench was the best thing in ‘Quantum’, but she was let down by Olga Kurylenko’s fiery but underused Camille. It’s a lesson the makers of Bond have been long in learning: these women can be more than just eye-candy. A strong female lead doesn’t just centre the film, she allows writers and audiences a chance to get to the core of Bond himself.

Please don’t remake the Bourne series
Both ‘Casino’ and ‘Quantum’ were clearly inspired by the downbeat realism of the Bourne trilogy, but while the former balanced gritty action sequences with a wry streak of self-deprecating humour, the writers and director of ‘Quantum’ seemed content with an endless parade of repetitive shakycam punch-ups in grimy locales. So, while action is clearly the lifeblood of the series, remember that Bond always benefits from a moment of levity amid the mayhem.

Please show us something we haven’t seen before
It’s hard to think of anywhere Bond hasn’t been (Antarctica? Everest? Leamington Spa?), but one of ‘Quantum’ director Marc Forster’s better accomplishments was picking some stunning international locations, from the seedy streets of Panama and the barren Atacama Desert in Chile to the grandiose opera house at Lake Constance in Austria. While the old Bonds were increasingly confined to traipsing between MI6 and Moscow battling the same faceless, jabbering Russkies, the global nature of the new films’ mysterious conspiracy means that Bond can now head just about anywhere, and beat up just about anyone.

Finally, we await the Bond producers’ choice of director with bated breath. Some interesting names have been rumoured, though we understand Danny Boyle has officially denied all knowledge and Christopher Nolan is busy with all that Batman business. But the Bond films have never been about the big-name directors; in fact, with names like Ian Fleming, Roald Dahl and Paul Haggis, you could say it’s one of the few major film series where the choice of writer actually matters more than the choice of director. Which is where you come in, Mr Morgan.

Good luck!

Yours in anticipation,

Tom

Author: Tom Huddleston

Bookmark
|
Print
Send to a friend

User comments on this story

Will said...

No more blowing-up-of-the-evil-lair cliches, please.
And bring back Daniel Craig's spiky, crew-cut hair from Casino Royale. The combed-down look in Quantum of Solace was horrible. Posted on Aug 03 2009 02:58

Report as inappropriate
Bobby said...

...oh and avoid having obvious looking sets (now i will learn it was a real hotel : ) ..just looked like the film took place in movie land. Posted on Jul 05 2009 12:28

Report as inappropriate
Bobby said...

just slow it down...keep it gritty, and dont have him doing daft things like jumping from a plane, Silly. Posted on Jul 04 2009 20:37

Report as inappropriate
Edward L. said...

I'm a big Bond fan and I thought Quantum of Solace was amazing. I had no problem at all with the fast cutting, and re: the Bourne comparisons, Bond films have always both set fashions and reflected them; it's worth remembering that the rooftop chase sequence in The Bourne Ultimatum was pretty similar to the one that came twenty years earlier in The Living Daylights. As for the new screenplay, because Bond had found some peace within himself by the end of QoS the next film could be a bit more light-hearted (if they want it to be), but I'm pretty sure that QoS will come to be seen as one of the greatest achievements of the series. Posted on Jul 04 2009 19:48

Report as inappropriate
Brian said...

Hi Mike G. With regards to Eddie Izzard - I'm still waiting for the Jam Trousers! ;-) Anyway, I think I've already spent too much time on this discussion. All the best to you and let's look forward to Bond 23. If we don't like it, at least there's still Bond 24, 25, 26 ..... Posted on Jul 02 2009 12:05

Report as inappropriate
Mike G said...

Didn't say that! Said the article suggests it. But I'd agree; it wasn't as focussed or disciplined as really good thing are. Too many cooks probably. Not just my opinion (youtube.com/watch?v=R_BfEoFFNqo, see comments); and look up, read the article! You're here to comment on an article that called QOS 'a damp squib', just 'grunts and sneers', and specifically on how to do it better next time.
Has he been in the deep jungle recently? How about something to do with illegal deforestation, not glamorous but this is real end-of-the-world stuff. Falls for beautiful ecologist orphaned by evil traders in cahoots with corrupt government raping the earth of its resources and our children of their future, goes all soft in disgust at corruption of all government/big business, turning rabidly renegade in an AWOL bid to kill them all, bring down the government and/or ruin the evil organisation (as Bond today could no doubt command a huge salary as a 'private contractor', he must legitimately contain some righteous rage). But better stop now: athough I like the death-wish scene in License to Kill when he rips up the drug bags, and it seems like he's emotionally committed, this is starting to sound too much like Michael Crichton's State Of Fear, made with Steven Seagal involved.
...and how did Q always know to give Bond only and exactly what he'd need!? Very lean, as Mr Izzard said. Posted on Jul 02 2009 08:15

Report as inappropriate
Brian said...

Mike G, hello again. You say that QOS is one of the poorer Bond films. That is your opinion. The box office take ($577 million) does not agree with your opinion. Sure, the early Bond films are great fun but they were bang up to date for their time (and Peter Hunt's fast cutting was the source of some raised eyebrows at the time). If you want to highlight scenes in QOS that dispay 'lack of control in the production' well I can counter that with scenes in all the early Bond films. How did Grant know to be on board the Orient Express in From Russia With Love? Who was filming the magnet helicopter in You Only Live Twice? As for these tedious Bourne comparisons, isn't the helicopter scene in From Russia With Love not just a variation on Hitchcock cropduster in North By Northwest? QOS is the second highest grossing Bond film. You have your opinion, which is fine, but it seems to by out of step with contemporary cinema audiences. Posted on Jul 01 2009 12:32

Report as inappropriate
Mike G said...

Hi Brian, but sorry, it's not about me, but how to place a movie in the world that recaptures some of the thrill, involvement and fun we got from the early ones, when they first appeared, and - which is more difficult - make it sell for today. The old movies had style, and that's the model - I'd argue it hardly matters whether they honoured the source, even then. The point of this article is that QOS was poorer than some others, so what advice can be offered (the idea of a secret meeting to talk quietly during an opera was absurd - they'd be clearly heard, and very much shushed - as was leaping from end of act 1 to end of act 2 in seconds - that's artisitic license, but many will know it's wrong, and so it insults the audience and reveals an lack of discipline and control in the production - compare that to Forster's 'Stay'). But if QOS was OK, then you have no problem.
Most would agree 'Taken' was a more compelling story and action film than QOS (with little Bourne-style editing, and brutally swift no-nonsense action), and perhaps that OSS 117 (a spoof, but a joy for early-Bond fans) had masses more style. Today's Bond should put them together: I've an idea for a pitch, it's OSS 117 meets Taken. Then again, that's what all the early films were. Then again, you'd have thought Marc Forster, with his measured, sophisticated style, would have been a good choice.n a good choice. Posted on Jul 01 2009 10:07

Report as inappropriate
Brian said...

Mike G, if you have read You Only Live Twice by Ian Fleming (and not just basing your opinion on You Only Live Twice the movie by Roald Dahl) then you would maybe appreciate just how 'in character' Bond is in Quantum Of Solace. You also mention the male/female repartee. I think this was abundant in spades in QOS. Only you may also be missing the point that the male/female relationship story (not love story) in QOS is with Bond and M. And Mark Hazard - you're not from the West Midlands by any chance? Posted on Jun 30 2009 22:07

Report as inappropriate
Mark Hazard said...

There is only ONE rule, and it will be the hardest rule to follow: USE FLEMING. Not just a line or character name. USE A FLEMING STORYLINE. All the best Bonds come from Ian Fleming's mind. This is why Casino was so much stronger than any 007 adventure in years. This is why Quantum wasn't. Take the plot of Live And Let Die. Update it to 2009. What do you get? Where could you set it? Go back to Ian. He knew Bond. He was Bond. Adapt him and you will have a great film. Posted on Jun 30 2009 20:17

Report as inappropriate
Mike G said...

Once Bond knows he's good, he can afford some self-deprecating humour (Bourne, never). Think of the wedding in You Only Live Twice. Bond, in QOS, was wounded, like Bourne, so was out-of-charater, a fine principle, but it didn't really work out. And Good male/female repartee has always been part of the fun. See the The Thin Man for inspiration (just seen this for the first time, and I undestand why it has its reputation, and five sequels).
A Most Important (for the director) Rule One: less micro-second frantic editing, let's see the real action (Bourne's gone too Michael Bay). How not to do a car chase, 'The Rock', or QOS opening, instead see The Burlars (1971) or Man With the Golden Gun. Show the event. Posted on Jun 29 2009 05:08

Report as inappropriate
CHUCK said...

To Peter Morgan
Just do your best, please don't listen or agree or bother by Tom Huddleston. James Bond is not a comedian, or pretty model like Brosnan...just give Bond good stories like Casino Royale. We don't want our heroes doing same crap formula like Brosnan and Moore again. Posted on Jun 25 2009 16:59

Report as inappropriate
Sam said...

Randy, for me Casino Royale freed the franchise from the formulaic "A bond must have X, a bond must have Y" constrictions that had reduced it tonothing. Let's not try and force that list down another director's throat. As for the article I think it's spot on. Maybe a bit too perscriptive but good tips. The Bond of the books made mistakes but was pretty ruthless. I liked that combo better than the invincible comedian he became in some of the films. Casino Royale was funny sometimes at Bond's expense and in spite of him. This was good. Very good. Posted on Jun 25 2009 16:45

Report as inappropriate
Randy said...

Bring Q back (along with gadgets). Bring some humor back. And, let's put the gunbarrel thingie at the front where it belongs this time. Posted on Jun 25 2009 15:21

Report as inappropriate
Brian said...

One only has to look at the pre-title fight sequence of OHMSS (hand-held camera, viscious blows) to see where Bourne got his inspiration. The car chase in The Bourne Identity is clearly influenced by The Italian Job (Minis) and A View To A Kill (Paris car chase, going against on-way systems etc). The current Bond films are recapturing Bond of old, not Bourne. Great examples of pre-Bourne fist-fights in Bond include From Russia With Love (Grant Vs Bond on Orient Express), every fight in OHMSS, Diamonds Are Forever (lift fight), Licence To Kill (Bond Vs Ninjas), Goldeneye (006 Vs 007). And anyway, how many guys want to be Bourne? Posted on Jun 25 2009 12:31

Report as inappropriate