Opinion — Casting One’s Characters More Fun than Casting Stones

A talk-radio blowhard accidentally opened up an interesting topic.  During all of Sony-Kim Jong Un silliness a secret was revealed. British actor Idris Elba was (is) under consideration to be the next actor to play James Bond in the incredibly popular franchise.  Not quite yet a household name, Elba has a growing list of successful small (“The Wire” and “Luther”) and big-screen (American Gangster and Thor) roles. He is at least as popular as Daniel Craig was when he was tapped for the sacred spot.

Anytime the role has been up for grabs, there has been debate. It’s all part of the 007 spectacle.  And years after one actor or another has landed the role, the debate raged anyway.  There are the Sean Connery purists.  He was good.  He was also the first and the one who established expectations. The fans who accepted Connery, eventually accepted Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan and now Craig.  Each performed as Bond multiple times and has earned Bond producers a serious fortune.  But what about Bond’s creator?  Which one was the truest to 007 creator Ian Fleming’s vision?  And because Craig is bowing out after one more epic adventure, who should be anointed?

Idris Elba As Bond?

Any choice would have been challenged.  We have our favorite Bonds.  And if you are basing it on the books, who knows how you have imagined the icon — a hero of your own imagination.  In this case one of the objections is that Elba is Black.

One person argued that if Fleming had intended Bond to be Black he would have said so, alluded to it in one of his early 007 novels. I agree with that. Given that Bond was loosely and flatteringly based on the author himself, I suspect the Bond in Fleming’s eye was white.  In fact, if Fleming had his way, David Niven would have been James Bond. I would have liked that as well. I loved watching David Niven. He might not have been as gymnastic as the others, but he would have projected the most sophistication. As it is we’ve adjusted to the tough, serious Bond of Connery as well as the tongue-in-cheek Moore and the dour Craig.  So far, after a few moments of adjustment, I’ve liked them all, including Brosnan who seemed a blend of Connery and Moore.

More to the point, though, since when did we abide by the original creator’s suggestion in any movie based on a book or series?

Lucy Liu Is Watson

If any fictional, crime-fighting literary character could out-icon Bond, it would be Sherlock Holmes. What say ye about Benedict Cumberbatch’s modern take on the world’s most famous detective? From a pipe-smoking, bookish private eye, we have a wonderfully outlandish and flamboyant narcissus in current day London.  Or, we might look at his incarnation in the American TV version, where a less stylish but more annoying narcissus solves murders in New York with help of his best friend Watson who has become for this 21st Century series a lovely Chinese woman. Jack Reacher, the newest best-selling superhero in books, is described as being 6’5”, size being a factor of no little importance to his character’s tough-guy profile. Reacher is being played on screen by the diminutive Tom Cruise.  Reacher’s creator, Lee Child, has said publicly that he likes Cruise in the role. So?

So, Elba is a fine British actor, great looking, and he has proven his screen presence.  How can he not be a prime candidate?

But there is an interesting question here.  How faithful should (can) films be to the books on which they were based?  I imagine a number of writers have thought about who they would cast to play the characters in their novels.  Of those whose books (and heroes and heroine) went to Hollywood, how many authors were satisfied with the choice of actors and actresses?  Robert B. Parker was said to have been extremely unhappy with Robert Ulrich’s TV series portrayal of popular Boston private eye Spenser. I’ve done some fantasy casting for my Shanahan series.  For years I imagined Paul Newman in the role of the elderly semi-retired private eye. He did make a great film about an older P.I. (Twilight). Just not mine.  Clint Eastwood has also come to mind. Shanahan in the forthcoming Killing Frost is a somewhat disabled 72.  (Eastwood is 86). I’ve also imagined Ed Harris, who is only 64. That’s not a huge stretch for a talented actor and gifted make-up artist.  Throw Morgan Freeman into the mix and I would be hard pressed to choose which one I’d pick for the Shanahan role

P.S. Rumors are afoot suggesting Cumberbatch is in the Bond sweepstakes as well.

Film Pairing — Jail Time With The 25th Hour And The Shawshank Redemption

In the 25th Hour, the character played by Ed Norton has 24 hours before he must begin his seven-year sentence for drug dealing.  As the time nears, he engages in a long and scathing rant against every group of human beings he can identify, each ethnic group, religious faith, and each social class in New York City’s vast and diverse population before he realizes they are not responsible for who he is or what he has done.  Norton is the central character in Spike Lee’s post 9-11 masterpiece, but we get a serious look at a trust-fund high school teacher who is torn by fear more than principle in his desire for a street-wise, underage, needy student.  Philip Seymour Hoffman is the repressed professor, one of Norton’s best friends.  Norton’s other close friend is a successful and ethically challenged Wall Street trader, who sees fit to judge others’ ethical behavior. Barry Pepper gives us a preview of his future role playing a real-life sleaze in Casino Jack.  The underrated Brian Cox plays Norton’s father, whose life has been inadvertently put in jeopardy by his son’s actions.  Rosario Dawson, Norton’s girlfriend, completes the superb ensemble cast who examine taking responsibility for one’s actions with regard to others, those close to you as well as the larger society in which you live.  The 2002 film was based on the book of the same name by David Benioff, who also wrote the screenplay.

Most films, even many of the good ones, eventually fade away.  Some films, much like the 25th Hour gain respect and audiences as time passes.  The Shawshank Redemption is one that while it was highly regarded by critics in 1994 when it was first released, it didn’t do well at the box office.  Since then it has continued to garner praise and viewership, doing very well on cable and especially well on DVD 18 years later.

Based on a novella by Stephen King, called Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption, it made it to the big screen with Tim Robbins as a banker convicted of his wife’s murder and Morgan Freeman as the banker’s new prison buddy.  The film, released in 1994, is not fast-paced; but it is solid gold.  As a companion piece to the 25th Hour, we must again think about what it means to lock someone away for years and years.  What does this do to a human being?   Without being a “bleeding heart,” and clearly understanding that dangerous people need to be separated from society, the prison system, then and now, can and often is our democracy’s dirty, little secret.

In this case, we witness a man who has done no wrong on the outside, switches sides, it appears, on the inside.  And we witness a man, played by the incomparable James Whitmore, who has spent 50 years on the inside try to adjust to the unfamiliar world outside.  The Shawhank Redemption is about freedom and hope in the most confining and hopeless conditions.  However, it is not schmaltzy.  The film reminds us how difficult holding on to hope can be. 

The film was nominated for seven Academy Awards.

Recommending something to sip while watching these two intense films is difficult.  For the 25th Hour, we can pick up on the “going away party” with champagne freely flowing.  With The Shawshank Redemption, we might want to look at the great scene on the hot tar roof, where the convicts get an unusual gift, ice-cold bottles of “Bohemian” beer.

Film Pairing — Stone And Under Suspicion, Actors Shine

I’m embarrassed to admit that I’m drawn to the sport of boxing. I know it is a brutal, brain-bruising sport. But there’s something about it that few other sports can claim. Unlike football, for example, another constant concussion sport, boxing is one on one — one person’s fitness, endurance and strategy against another’s. There’s no way anyone can say, “we’d have won if we had a better quarterback.” One body and one brain engaged in a primal battle. It may be wrong and reflect the worst of human nature, or nature itself; but it is about as pure as it can get.

On the other hand, I’m not at all embarrassed to admit that I admire British actors and actresses more, generally speaking, than their American counterparts. I buy into the process of repertory experience, which usually means that actors develop considerable skills before celebrity is bestowed.

Bearing both of these thoughts in mind as I considered this double bill — Stone and Under Suspicion — I’m not necessarily saying these are among the best crime films ever made. They aren’t. But they meet two very important criteria worth noting. Each film is, at its core, a singular battle between two individuals, and these four characters are portrayed by American actors every bit equal to the best Britain has to offer.

The first, Stone (2010), is a claustrophobic little film. Even though Robert De Niro is one of the stars, I’d never heard of it. That he could effectively portray anyone was never in question. Here, he is a flawed bureaucrat in the criminal justice system trying hard to suppress his own demons while trying to cast out or at least sort out demons in others. We watch and appreciate. What was pleasantly surprising is the phenomenal job Edward Norton did portraying a kind of pure evil. The battle between the two as the convicted arsonist Norton attempts to convince De Niro, that he should be paroled is fascinating. Snake charming. Or a dance. The dance, as in Ali and Frazier, is everything. Milla Jovovich also stars.

Under Suspicion (2000) is less concerned about philosophy. The dance that turns out to be largely between Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman is simpler in the sense that there appears to be no larger truths involved. It is simply cat and mouse. Hackman plays a wealthy, powerful and talented lawyer in Puerto Rico, who is implicated in the murder of a young girl. Freeman, the top cop, calls him in to, of course, “clear up some details.” And just as most of the drama in Stone takes place in De Niro’s office inside a prison, most of Under Suspicion takes place in the Freeman’s office inside the police station. Though the film is essentially about the two men, actress Monica Bullucci, plays a significant role.

As I mentioned earlier I find these films especially interesting less because they have successfully realized the overall goal, but more because of the performances of the actors. The chance to see the cream of the American crop of actors in roles that allow them to show the depth of their talent isn’t as frequent as it ought to be.

To sip or not to sip: I’d watch the first film spirit free. But to cap off your evening in Puerto Rico — and you do get glances of it here and there — try my standby, rum and tonic with a twist of lemon. Not lime. Lemon. Well, lime if you must.

Film Pairing — The Gruesome Twosome

Many of us find stories about hit men and women interesting. In Bruges is one of my favorites. But serial killers? Less so, I think. Perhaps its because hired killers usually involve interaction between evil and lesser evil. Maybe even murder with a moral purpose. We know why this person is being killed. Dexter is a serial hit man and, as such, seems to get some sort of exemption. He kills bad people. We can argue the morality of it. But serial killers, people who kill for unknowable or unimaginable reasons, are another story. If this kind of motiveless killing, this kind of random victim selection, this kind of darkness exists in human souls how can any of us imagine we are safe from evil? Ever? This makes many viewers uncomfortable.

If you are willing to cross that line, here are two dark, but dissimilar films with this uncomfortable premise. They promise an edgy night at home.

Mr. Brooks exemplifies the notion that a pillar of the community can have, for some unknown, perhaps unknowable, reason a desire to create art with death as the medium. Kevin Costner plays the killer pillar and Demi Moore plays the cop. Many twists and turns here. Some say too many. However, for me the 2007 film holds together. One fascinating twist is that the fastidious killer has an admirer, a stalker. I suggest you make this the first feature of the evening. It is gruesome, but far less viscerally so than the second feature.

Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt are magnetic in this extremely dark tale about a serial killer taking it upon himself to punish those who have engaged in one of the seven deadly sins. The cinematography is magnificently depraved — rain, dimly lit and distressed interiors. A general sense of rot, decay and despair permeate the film. And while Seven pretends to pose a certain philosophical question, the answer will certainly not cheer you up. The story is tight, well constructed and diabolical. The end, even if you should guess it, is ingeniously and disturbingly fitting. Released in 1995 and directed by David Fincher, the film also features Gwyneth Paltrow and Kevin Spacey.

What’s a good drink to accompany a night of serial killers? Something warming and reassuring, maybe. Cognac. By the end of Seven, you might want to move on to something stronger.