It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The idea of actors as sort of Stepford Wives is so depressing, tho. Rehearsing interviews? A horrible idea. I'd rather they make "mistakes" than become bland and boring. Some people are more or less natural performers - which is not the same as being actors. I wouldn't want actors having to actually act all the way through interviews, though, if they are not the natural performers and spokesmen.
Good interviewers do good jobs - do their research, make intelligent questions, and so on. It's unfortunate that so many people who do interviews aren't good at it. It doesn't always have to be serious, either, being silly or asking silly stuff can work well sometimes - depending on the kind of silly it is, and maybe on the actor and/or their mood, or the previous relationship between interviewer and interviewee. With both serious and silly approach (or a combination) people skills are needed to have some understanding of what is okay with whom and when in the first place, and when to maybe take something further or not. Challenging the interviewee, pushing in the right way (while understanding when not to) can also produce great results. (There's obviously more chance of doing that in a longer interview than in a couple of minutes.) I sometimes catch myself admiring the interviewer (in both video and print media interviews), thinking "wow, she/he is good" or "that was clever" while watching or reading... but that doesn't happen often.
I'd rather the interviewers were required to do some training on how to do their jobs than actors having to become some sort of programmed robots or performing monkeys (no disrespect for the monkeys intended, and I feel sorry for them, too) for the sometimes pathetically incompetent media.
It will be interesting to see where the dust settles on Craig's Time Out interview. Should EON have scheduled so many set interviews (apparently there were others) with a very exhausted star? Should the interviewer been more fair about noting Craig had just finished an exhausting shoot, and was joking? Unfortunately Time Out editors are likely elated at the tons of press they got from what may have been gotcha journalism. But Craig should have been more careful. He's been in the business too long not to know better. I don't for a minute think he doesn't give a damn. He gives a damn.
But this stuff really happens all the time. Even if the original source (print or video) has the words unedited and in context, and it's not bad at all (not offensive etc.), other media outlets and social media will still jump at anything and then the thing gets twisted in that process, and most people never see the original source, just a condensed version: a headline, a soundbite, a misquote, and then it's the "shocking"="more newsworthy" version that spreads like wildfire and that people are likely to remember and assume to be the truth. It's a very common occurrence.
If an actor has to consider every word and phrase in each interview in terms of "how could this look if taken out of context, or changed in some way - like a word or half a sentence left out, or..." - well, they won't be able to say anything but bland blah blah. It just gets ridiculous very quickly.
Yes, that particular case was unfortunate, and the choice of words used was bad, but it was the media who really screwed up there in my opinion. I know I'm being naively idealistic, but I'd still like the media to present the facts as well as they can, and it pisses me off when they clearly don't. Unless we just get the bland robot actors that kind of things will keep happening - the media, the social media, etc. will take care of it. The media will surely find something "offensive" if they are so inclined - and they tend to be, because it sells. There's a big market for shocking and offensive. Apparently people crave to be appalled and angry at famous people. I don't know the psychology of it, but I find it interesting.
Agree with your points. And you're right about print vs video. There was another big blow up over a morning interview that Craig just did, where the interviewer was apparently an idiot. BUT - this time it was on video, and Craig came off looking reasonable, and interestingly the endless replay in the print media is also tough on the interviewer and not Craig.
There is a build em up, and knock em down attitude toward the famous. Bond comes with another layer of this attitude as there is a lot of envy of the actor who plays Bond as it is such a great iconic role. But it sucks up all the energy in a Bond actor's career while doing it, and he also becomes an object of all kinds of resentment. Still, every actor seems to want to play him.
Really? When did this happen or are you refering to the bo salecta piss-takes?
Yes... except I'm not so sure everyone would really want to play Bond, but if asked in an interview who would say it's too tough a job, I wouldn't want it? ;) I also assume many actors don't really follow all the crap that goes with the job, and don't fully realize what it's like - especially nowadays; I'm sure the circus and attention is tougher in many ways now than it was for previous actors in the role. But also, very few actors ever get to play truly iconic roles, and it's an honor and a challenge, so I'm not surprised actors want roles like that.
I suppose there is a lot of envy and resentment at successful, wealthy people in general, and I suppose mocking them is a way to cope. I couldn't say if it's worse for Bond actors, but my guess would be not really. Maybe more in the UK than elsewhere. Otherwise, I think everyone famous just gets it. Some far, far worse than Craig - if one looks beyond actors, well, Craig has surely had an easy ride compared to, say David Beckham circa 1998-2002... that kind of stuff might really make a person wanna slash their wrists, it was utterly brutal and barbaric, and he was only in early to mid-twenties at the time. A tough young man to manage to get through all that pretty much in one piece, few do, and nobody should have to. So it's all relative. Craig is fine, and will be fine, and the dust will settle just fine. In general I think he's also doing a good job promoting and all that.
Playing the part of Bond appears to be an albatross as we all want a say and whoever takes on the role has to carry and navigate the shark infested we own you mentality offandom
You can't make the comparison journalism since then has changed, the interviewers are hipsters and ask ridiculous questions these days was Brosnan or Moore ever asked such stupid questions as
Will you pout, go on?
How many of each sweaters did you use?
did you keep any?
would you come back as a baddie?
This is the first time we see Bonds home. eh no! LALD and Dr No
It was clear she knew nothing of Bond or paid any attention to the film. Dan is not there to chit chat. He is there to talk about the film.
Why not use those 5 minutes to ask
What was it like working with Sam again?
Is Waltz the best nemesis Bond has come up against?
What was the new car like to drive?
These are the things the journo's of Brosnan Craig era would have gotten away with asking. Dan's PA is behind the camera arms are being waved to cut the interview as it was a pointless waste of time. Why when there are other serious jounos waiting to see him in the same sitting would you allow the time to be used to continue such nonsense. Clearly Dan would rather spend that time with another journo asking questions about the film.
What are EON and Sony to do, vet questions before they can be asked? that's against free press you can't do that. Or are they to sit and train Dan how to play along with such nonsense. no way when you doing 20 interviews in one sitting with 5 minute windows with the worlds press with others waiting, you say ENOUGH, NEXT!! and you don't grant the media outlet who put forward such stupid questions an interview again.
This Morning who were behind that interview should be embarrassed and ashamed, when it cut back to Philip Schoefield he comments "she tried to get him to pout, she tried" so collectively they tried to ridicule the man.
You said
"hire media staff to work with their actors before hand and rehearse them with every conceivable scenario of questioning"
No you simply do not accept such stupidity when time is money, and there are others desperate to ask questions relating to the film that he is there to promote. Daniel does not deal with that interview badly, he simply does not encourage the line of questioning and asks her to move on.
Dan does not suffer idiots that is clear. I would like to see evidence of similar stupid questions to Moore or Brosnan and how they handled it?
Connery would have slapped her called her stupid and walked off.
Yes, and if you heard him on BBC Radio 4 last night talking John Wilson, an intellectual with intellectual questions, with knowledge of Dan's career and speaking about the theatre you can tell Dan is relaxed because he engages more with the intelligent questions being asked.
Link here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06j6t8r
His interview with an Entertainment Weekly writer, during the filing of Cowboys and Aliens. got especially testy. The writer asked about DC's wedding ring, and DC said that that was private and wanted it kept that way. And a moment later, the writer came back on to the subject of DC's marriage to RW. And DC said, "Now, I gave you a line in the sand and you still insisted on crossing over it!"
Yes. I'm actually surprised how amiable and patient most actors (and others) manage to be almost always, and how well they usually handle not only stupid and unprofessional, but even downright rude interviewers. Like, um, some idiot tries the nothing-to-do-with-the-movie/personal-and-painful line of questioning at a premiere... an actor gives the moron the look, suggests the person goes and thinks of better questions, and immediately moves over to the next reporter. Perfectly handled. They shouldn't have to just put up with anything.
Maybe would have slapped her but not walk off, after all he handled pretty well his intreview with Barbara Wallters.
He did slap her but stayed till the interview finished. So Sean Connery in own way is surprisingly patient.
He made her see, he wouldn't tolerate offensive questions or would tell her in a polite way when she was acting snarky but the interview was finished propertly.
Like when she asked him about being ok with slapping woman or being chavaunist.
How Bond would find it impossible to get car insurance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3288436/Every-woman-wants-one-night-Bond-Tracey-Cox-Daniel-Craig-s-007-s-cheesy-chat-lines-steamy-bedroom-antics-leave-shaken-stirred.html
Why Daniel, is the Bond most women would like to spend a night with.
successful at gambling having won £65 million, so I don't think his Bond
is worried by insurance. :D
is it not implied that Bond slept with MP?
An exhibition about Bond's first appearance, in the daily express .
But let's all focus on the slash the wrists comment.
Robert Hardy, is obviously not a Daniel fan ..
" Daniel Craig isn't a good actor, but he is good at jumping "
http://www.pressreader.com/philippines/philippine-daily-inquirer/20151030/282759175533879/TextView
Amusing. I sort of agree. But Craig is still a decent Bond and infinitely better than Brosnan in the role.
Super stars but with their other films. The public don't seem as enthusiastic
to go see them ? As it was a long time after Bond that Sir Sean became a modern
Icon, with many big hits.
Or ddo you believe Matt Damon is a draw? Certainly not. His latest is a good film, that's it. Could be with somebody else and nobody would care. Had C&A been a good to great film, it would have been a hit. People werde ready to like it, but it was shit and got, what it deserved.