The James Bond star visited Toronto in mid-October to promote his latest globetrotting adventure, Quantum of Solace. Here’s what he had to say.
The Varsity: Many actors appreciate working on a series because of the long character arc. Was that part of the appeal of playing Bond?
Daniel Craig: I didn’t look towards the long term. I only looked to the movie we were doing. The idea of taking the character on and doing a sequel only came about because we seemed to have unfinished business from Casino Royale. He’d fallen in love, had his heart broken, and had been betrayed, which was the message that we were trying to get across in Casino Royale. This betrayal had thrown him, because the man never loses at cards, never loses at love, never loses anything. He’s James Bond. And to just paper over in the next movie by going off and saying, “Oh yeah there was that girl once,” seemed to be the wrong thing to do. It’s James Bond—it isn’t Henrik Ibsen. You can’t apply the same rules. I’m enjoying taking it on and giving it some continuity.
TV: After the success of Casino Royale, is there less pressure, or more pressure with the follow up?
DC: It’s a bit of both. Put it this way, I’d rather be in this situation than the other—if we’d had a dud last time. I’m incredibly proud of what happened with Casino Royale for all sorts of reasons. It’s taken on a life of its own. We all sort of sat around saying, “Well that’s great we got one success, but what do we do now?” These are high-class problems.
TV: With all of the acclaim and attention, does it ever get tiresome to constantly dissect a role with reporters?
DC: It’s my responsibility to do that. I can’t present something like this on such a large scale and then go, “I don’t want to talk about it.” It would be childish and disrespectful to the people who are lovers of the franchise. And those people are my bread and butter now, so I have to be very respectful of that. Hopefully the work I put into it generates discussion.
TV: Was it easier to perform Bond’s stunts now that you’ve had some practice, or was it more challenging given the new film’s large scale?
DC: The challenge really rose this time, and I was grateful that it did. The trouble is that I volunteered last time, and unfortunately, they seemed to think that I could do it [again]. I just feel like I owe it to the part to get involved.
TV: Why do you think the Bond franchise has maintained its appeal?
DC: The honest answer has got to be that it’s not a particularly original character. The characters have existed forever. It’s a lone hero who’s trying to figure out the truth, and figure out what’s right and wrong. That goes as far back as probably anybody can remember. Something happened in the 1960s. Sean Connery and [original Bond producer Albert R.] Broccoli were responsible for setting a tone of movie making. If you look back at the early movies like Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and Goldfinger, when James Bond travelled, they [filmed] on location. They took the movie with them so that when you watched these movies, you were transported. Back then it was hellish to fly anywhere. I can’t imagine what it was like trying to get a crew [together]. It’s bad enough now. We struggle to do it now. And that tradition has [been] consistent throughout.
