So what if Daniel Craig is not the best James Bond?
Léa Seydoux would have you believe she bonds with the best. The French actress declared Daniel Craig is top choice among all the men who ever sported the 007 tux, while promoting Spectre as the new Bond girl earlier this week.
"I grew up with Daniel. So my Bond is, of course, Daniel... He's very intense and we love him and he's the best Bond for me." Seydoux's comment went viral even as India gets ready for the latest 007 adventure on November 20. Her words have stirred the debate all over again. Who is the best Bond ever? Seydoux's vote for Craig (operative words: "for me") comes with the add-on that she grew up in the Craig era, duly underlining her choice might be a generational thing. Just as old-timers, who didn't care for political correctness while assessing a pulp icon like James Bond, would dig Sean Connery's rakish charm. Or many who grew up in the '90s would perhaps relate to Pierce Brosnan's almost Bollywoodish antics while defining what the Brit superspy stands for.
The case for Craig has primarily rested on the actor's ability to essay the dark intensity that crept into the character after he took over with Casino Royale in 2006. James Bond in the Craig era is neither a pulp icon nor a superspy. His MI6 agent is far from the spectacular hero of yore who sipped his vodka and wooed the babes with as much relish as he saved the world.
Craig's Bond is in tandem with the world we live in. His 007 is a fallible hero - a fighter who somehow manages to survive against all odds. His triumph over the enemy, when it comes in the end, is not without leaving an indelible scar. Craig's Bond cuts a realistic picture for a generation that likes its cinema served with believability.
The idea is a far cry from what we have seen Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton or Pierce Brosnan do. If James Bond has been the longest serving pop icon in Hollywood history, circumstances shaping the protagonist have differed over time.
That is the reason it seems absurd comparing actors who have played the role. We need to look at each actor's portrayal of Bond keeping in mind the sheer disparity in the social and political backdrops that buoyed his respective screenplays, as well as the idiom of entertainment that ruled the era he worked in.
So, hypothetically if Craig auditioned for Bond in the '70s, he would probably be playing out the character with the same over-the-top alacrity that Roger Moore did. Ironically, while Craig's projection of a human Bond has scored, the franchise faced flak when it experimented with the prototype the first time. Way back in 1969, George Lazenby was cast as the second Bond after Sean Connery temporarily quit. When Lazenby's film On Her Majesty's Secret Service released, he failed to have the same impact despite essaying a realistic Bond, one that was closer to what author Ian Fleming had envisioned than Connery's performances. Lazenby ended up a one-film Bond. Connery (whom Fleming had termed "an overgrown stuntman") returned as 007 in 1971's Diamonds Are Forever, his overpowering presence very much in place.
We talk of a possible Black Bond or a gay Bond in future. The truth is such a swing will happen only when the larger audience wants it and not depend on whether such characterisation bests all that we saw in the past, or the star portraying such a unique Bond acts better than the others before him. Come to think of it, Craig himself was unique - to the point of being written off initially. When he was unveiled a decade ago, most hardcore fans had reservations about a blonde Bond.
From there, Craig has today become powerful enough to coproduce Spectre. In showbiz, such power gives an actor the authority to dictate filmmaking terms, and it comes only with popularity. In turn, popularity makes it easy to acquire the "best" tag in any mainstream race.