While the jury is still out, may I have a word?
Before I get started, a little disclosure: I’m approaching this discussion not only as a James Bond enthusiast, but as a crime writer.
When you create a character, you develop a very particular picture of that person. You know their mannerisms, temperament, background, strengths and weaknesses. You know how they walk into a room, react under pressure and interact with the world around them. Eventually, your characters become rather real to you. Entrusting someone else with bringing them to life is therefore no small matter. Casting is an interpretation of a character, and it can make all the difference.
Which brings me to James Bond. There is apparently a new 007 in the making, and the internet has been having a collective meltdown over who will inherit the tuxedo, the Aston Martin and the licence to kill. Names are being thrown around, Instagram is producing breaking news faster than the studios can deny it, and we’re apparently supposed to believe that Jack Lowden has already been selected. Except that, as far as official announcements go, the jury is still out. While Amazon MGM takes its time making up its mind, I thought I’d offer my own two cents.
My candidate? Henry Cavill. Yes, I know he’s been mentioned before. He’s also been overlooked before, and I still think he would make a rather convincing James Bond. Here’s why.
Whatever happened to the seasoned gentleman?
Think about the Bonds we’ve had over the decades: Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig. Five different interpretations, each bringing something distinctive to the franchise. Connery had commanding physical presence, Moore effortless sophistication, Dalton an intensity that hinted at a man who understood the darker side of his profession, and Brosnan combined elegance with an unmistakable air of danger.
Then came Daniel Craig. Let me be clear: Craig delivered. His films brought action, mystery and emotional complexity, while his portrayal introduced a more vulnerable dimension to Bond. He was convincing as a physically formidable operative, and his interpretation gave the franchise a distinct identity. Nevertheless, I always felt his Bond was rather more of a permanently angry soldier forced into a tuxedo than the sophisticated intelligence officer I associate with Ian Fleming’s original character. I could almost picture Fleming raising an eyebrow on more than one occasion.
Looking at some of the names currently circulating for the next Bond, I’m struggling to see the same qualities that made the earlier interpretations so convincing. Some contenders look as though they’ve just dropped out of military boot camp and are waiting for someone to issue their first proper uniform. This isn’t about age or wrinkles; it’s about presence. Bond needs gravitas, authority, composure, physical confidence and that slightly unsettling ability to make you wonder what he’s thinking. Good cheekbones are not a substitute for character.
A little history, if you please
Here’s where my argument takes an interesting turn, particularly since I’m currently living in Portugal. Have we forgotten who helped inspire the original James Bond?
One name that repeatedly comes up in the history of Ian Fleming’s creation is Duško Popov, a Serbian double agent during the Second World War who operated between German intelligence and the British. Multilingual, sophisticated, athletic, wealthy, charming and reportedly quite the ladies’ man, Popov also spent considerable time in Portugal.
During the war, Lisbon and the Estoril coast became important centres of international espionage. Portugal’s neutrality made it a fascinating meeting ground for intelligence agents, diplomats, businessmen and people who were not necessarily what they claimed to be. Popov frequented the Estoril Casino, and his famous baccarat encounter there became closely associated with the inspiration for Fleming’s first Bond novel, Casino Royale. Fleming himself stayed at the Hotel Palácio in Estoril in 1941. Their wartime worlds intersected in this extraordinary little corner of Portugal.
There is some debate about precisely how much of the fictional Bond was modelled on Popov. He certainly wasn’t the sole inspiration, but the historical connection is compelling. Popov wasn’t a fresh-faced action hero. He was a sophisticated, worldly intelligence operative who understood that information, observation, charm and appearances could be just as useful as a weapon. He could move between social circles, conduct dangerous business and maintain an air of effortless normality. That is the sort of background I want to see reflected in James Bond.
Enter Henry Cavill
I keep coming back to Cavill. He has the physical stature, athleticism, old-fashioned British gentleman quality and ability to wear a suit without looking as though he borrowed it for the evening. His performance as Napoleon Solo in The Man from U.N.C.L.E. demonstrated precisely the sort of suave, understated charm I associate with classic Bond. He also has the action credentials to make the physical side of the role convincing.
More importantly, he doesn’t need to look perpetually angry or permanently ready to punch someone. He can be charming, amusing, intimidating and dangerous without making a production out of it. That distinction matters. I don’t necessarily want another reinvention of James Bond; I want an interpretation that remembers the character’s origins.
What I would like to see in Bond 26
With Denis Villeneuve directing, there is an opportunity to bring back some of the atmosphere and sophistication that made the earlier films so memorable. Give us intelligent storytelling, international intrigue, beautiful locations, complicated characters and villains who are genuinely formidable. Give us a Bond who can sit across a baccarat table, exchange a few pleasantries, recognise that something isn’t quite right and quietly take control of the situation. Most importantly, let him wear a tuxedo properly.
I’m not asking for a museum piece or a nostalgic imitation of Sean Connery. Each Bond should bring something of his own to the role. There is, however, a difference between reinventing a character and forgetting what made him iconic in the first place.
For now, the casting rumours continue, the bookmakers are busy and Instagram seems determined to announce a new 007 every other Tuesday. I’ll wait for the official announcement, but my vote, if anyone in the production department happens to be listening, remains with Henry Cavill.
After all, if we’re going to revisit the world of a fictional British intelligence agent whose origins are so closely connected to the espionage history of Portugal, perhaps we should remember the real men who helped inspire him. If you happen to be passing through Estoril, take a look at the Hotel Palácio and the Casino. You never know who might be watching.
“The name’s Frog. FrogDiva’s Frog. Licence to Croak.”
One last thing before you sharpen your pitchforks…
Before you crucify me for having an opinion, may I suggest going back to the source? Read Ian Fleming’s original James Bond novels. Revisit the character he actually created, rather than judging the casting through the lens of whichever film adaptation happens to be your favourite.
I’m approaching this as a crime writer. I know the difference between a character and an interpretation of that character. You don’t have to agree with my choice of Henry Cavill. You don’t even have to like him. Just argue with me about the Bond Ian Fleming wrote, not simply the Bond Hollywood has given us.
If you still disagree afterwards, by all means, we can have a perfectly civilised argument over a martini.
Shaken, naturally.
