Well, the focus here is on the current project NANCY. And the RHYTHM SECTION is probably tied up in the financier problems - no use trying to stir up a journalist asking questions about it. Better to focus on the current project for the London Film Festival.
But a very sensible quote from BB is in this article which will probably assure many here:
“Bond is male,” she said. “He’s a male character. He was written as a male and I think he’ll probably stay as a male.
“And that’s fine. We don’t have to turn male characters into women. Let’s just create more female characters and make the story fit those female characters.”
Yet another article that leaves a key word out of it’s headline quote in order to make it absolute and therefore more clickable.
The word ‘today’ was absent in the Danny Boyle headline turning his statement into something it wasn’t. Now we have The Guardian leaving out the word ‘probably’ and using ‘journalistic license’ to somehow reinterpret her answer with the word ‘never’.
Tabloid journalism is alive and well, even in the Guardian. They should be honest about it and make their logo red.
Sure, BB - as every shrewd PR-specialist - always tries to leave something to speculation. But the rest of the quote makes it very obvious that she does not intend to change Bond´s gender and rather invent new female characters.
I think the probably was more covering her back in case. I assume she’s a believer in the entertainment superstition that saying something will never happen is guaranteed to make that exact thing happen.
Tbh I’m still bemused why The Rhythm Section didn’t come up. It’s an exact example of what BB is saying is the right way to do that - Jane Bond would be tokenism, Stephanie Patrick is potentially a role actresses can keep making their own for generations.
Very likely all of the above, with emphasis on the latter.
The Rhythm Section is currently right in the middle of the hottest part of development hell, the neighbourhood where the nearly finished and ready-to-release films reside. And nobody can really tell if and when it will see its premiere. Given that sorry state of affairs it’s probably doing all involved players a favour not to mention the production; at least until further notice.
But if the problem is lack of funds then surely a little media attention could help things. Building some anticipation and demand for the film could make it look like a more appealing investment opportunity.
The difficulty in business matters is that they rarely concern just funds but nearly always a whole range of related issues.
A couple of people agree to combine their efforts to make a film. A body is formed to do this and all agree to a specific set of obligations: who does what with whose funds and who gets what out of the venture in the simplest of terms.
Now if one of the players isn’t able to fulfill his/her obligations that automatically influences all other associates. That alone can already involve a legal nightmare. Getting the train back on track often then needs means beyond just more money. Associates have to agree, new partners may mean a different share of profits (bad) or even influence on the product (worse) - in short, it’s all a veritable nightmare and can really prevent a film from meeting its audience near-indefinitely.
And that’s not even taking into account work that still has to be done on the production, people whose paycheque hasn’t been written yet, or the whole taxes and fees thingy.
Mind you, all this can be sorted. But there’s a reason it takes its time and experience teaches it probably works best with as little noise as sensibly possible.
