From twinkling charm to ruthless thuggery

nyone who thinks that the new Bond film Casino Royale has already been overpublicised has failed to grasp the nature of the phenomenon. True, with still two weeks to go before general release, one would be forgiven for thinking that this was not the 21st 007 flick but the first for 21 years, such has been the fuss. But fans of the genre will only be grateful for the glut of copy to be pored over until the thing actually hits the screens. If you're into stills of exploding buildings, speeding cars and an actor looking menacing in expensive clothes. you just can't get enough., Besides, this film needs help. Purists have been complaining that Daniel Craig looks wrong to play the lead, largely because he has fair hair, although they seem to be broadly in
favour of restoring a mean streak to the character. I for one really couldn't care less about Craig's hair colour, and he certainly looks like a ruthless thug, and a sinister edge to the film after all that twinkling charm from
Pierce Brosnan will he no bad thing. My only concern about Craig is whether he can act. All the magazine features and interviews over the last few months have mentioned Our Friends in the North, in which, 10 years ago, Craig played the pointless recidivist "Geordie". They do this in order to remind us of his credibility as a serious dramatic artiste, and perhaps it works on everyone but me. Unfortunately,! remember Our Friends in the North as laboured, sentimental tosh, distinguished only by fine performances from Christopher Eccleston and (not surprisingly) Peter Vaughan. Craig himself sticks in the memory as a large hunk of uncured ham, and I only hope he's learnt sonic poise and technique in the last decade. For, perhaps oddly, you do have to be a decent actor to play James Bond: and so far, only George Lazenby in OHMSS has supplied the negative proof of that thesis.
So the jury's out, and the publicity machine is working overtime to make sure the cinemas are packed with
Bond fans for six weeks before Christmas. Perhaps the most obliging contribution so far was in this week's Mail on Sunday, which devoted the whole feature section of its listings mag, "Night and Day Live", to a comprehensive puff, even labelling it "Exclusive Collector's Edition" (that should have been a plural possessive, but never mind), with "50 stunning on-set pictures". In fact, though, the souvenir's front cover sold it short, for a lot of effort had gone into filling all that space for the benefit of schoolboy obsessives. There were, as you might expect, lavish spreads devoted to the dime "Bond Birds", and behind-thescenes stuff about the
special effects, and so forth. But there was also a gripping section about Bond's clothes, shoes, lighter, pen arid other gizmos, all of them available to you or me in special edition form from their manufacturers, and mostly costing about 3,000 quid. if you're that much of an enthusiast I suppose you might proudly sport the Omega Seamaster watch "as worn by", knowing that fellow fans will probably recognise it.
But what's the point in forking out for a Brioni dinner jacket just because Daniel Craig appeared in one in the film? Nobody's going to notice. You're going to have to tell them, and then how sad will you look? That's even more true of the Lobb's shoes. But then maybe all you want to do is feel as much as possible like James Bond, without the need to be spotted for his sartorial double.
Well, good luck. I shall not be investing in any of this kit, nice though much of it is. It was embarrassing enough being seen with that souvenir Mail on Sunday.
Nick Thomas