It has been reported that Daniel Crag, the actor slated to assume the role of James Bond, does not like guns.
And why do we need to know or even care about this? Frankly, those that are going to see the new James Bond movie are going to see the exploits of the famed super spy and are not going to see the film in order to support the radical politics of some messily actor few have even heard of before now.
James Earl Jones doesn’t wear a black cape, a space helmet, or breathe through a respirator either. I doubt Anthony Hopkins was really all that much into cannibalism. That’s why it’s called acting.
Since Mr. Crag has spoken out against 007’s propensity towards violence but not the spy’s tendency towards promiscuity, does that mean he has no problem with womanizing? Shouldn’t he be as uncomfortable being around such lustfully named dames as Pussy Galore, Honey Ryder, and Molly Warmflesh?
If firearms bother Crag that much, perhaps he should stand by his principles and forego his place in cinematic history.
Just because James Bond uses a gun in his line of work does not necessarily mean the character is some kind of gun nut. It’s kind of a job requirement.
Compromise and appeals to universal brotherhood hardly work with scoundrels such as Scaramanga, Ernst Blofeld, or Oddjob. Thankfully, despite their outlandish plots and gadgets, the Bond films are realistic enough to realize girlie men are not going to save the day with wimpy protestations in favor of disarmament and pacifism.
Copyright 2005 By Frederick Meekins
No comments:
Post a Comment