…is a terrible headline but it approaches the truth more than the following ones filed by columnists over the last few hours:
For those who aren’t cued into the entertainment news (and don’t understand these particularly pointed headlines) Daniel Craig, the current actor to portray James Bond 007, stated in a “Time Out Magazine” interview shortly after wrapping the last Bond film, ‘Spectre‘ that he’d rather “slash [his] wrists” than play Bond again.
…except he didn’t say that.
Here’s the full quote if you want to understand the context of Craig’s bluntness:
TIME OUT: Can you imagine doing another Bond movie?
CRAIG: ‘Now? I’d rather break this glass and slash my wrists. No, not at the moment. Not at all. That’s fine. I’m over it at the moment. We’re done. All I want to do is move on.’
Craig muddies the water in those last two sentences but he’s clearly not done with the franchise.
No, he’s simply tired after playing the same misogynist for more than four years straight, one of which was dedicated to prepping for the next film, with no breaks for different projects scheduled in between his last two Bond films:
If he was clearly done with a film series he has disdain for, then he would have omitted the words “now” and the follow-up explanatory phrases “not at the moment” from that statement.
Also, if he were done with the franchise, then that would mean he was in breach of his contract, when he signed up for two more Bond films prior to Skyfall‘s release in 2012. Spectre, released in 2015, would be the first of these two films.
And that would mean a messy public suit filed by the Bond producers against him…
But, that doesn’t sell newspapers and doesn’t inspire clickbait headlines that lead to all these company’s sites. If they accurately repackaged that incredibly complex quote into a concise statement, it would sound something like, “Daniel Craig to take sabbatical before returning to Bond role.”
Ever since Craig stated this almost two-years ago and new rumors emerge to his current status as James Bond, every hacky columnist resurrects that damned quote against him and writes a snark-laced post that takes an empirical truth and reframes it around a narrative of an “entitled actor who turns down a stupid amount of money to stand in front of a movie camera for two-hours.”
My disdain for gossip and the rumor mill aside, the average news reader who consuming this is being deprived of the full-story and context to one isolated statement that doesn’t give an overview to what was said.
And they’re the ones to suffer because they’re being taught crappy news reading techniques which has given us so many poorly informed Americans.
This is my least favorite type of journalism because it’s barely counts as such, one where obvious legwork and years of cultivating a reputable house of sources is replaced by a some smuck commentator copy and pasting a single out-of-context quote into a rumor-fueled headline.
Despite clarification from Craig on the issue, it’s what I gather is the current status in this instance.
I hope that’s the case. Don’t make me look like a fool, Daniel…