Screen tests open in London for cinema's most scrutinized role
Final screen tests for the next James Bond are now taking place, and the audition process is unfolding in London. The part is among the most consequential in film, attached to a series that has endured longer than nearly any other in cinema. Bookmakers, drawing on reporting by The Hollywood Reporter and other outlets, have placed Jack Lowden and Callum Turner at the front of the field, each with apparent strengths and drawbacks.[S1][S2]
Lowden's case rests partly on his work in the Apple TV series Slow Horses, where he portrays River Cartwright, an MI5 agent. That part has long been read as a de facto audition for Bond, since it puts drama, action, romance and stunts on display. His character carries a quieter, more ordinary air than 007, which makes Lowden an everyman option and, in the view of the piece, a fresher direction for writers to explore.[S1]
Turner, by contrast, appears almost purpose-built for the role, which is both his strongest selling point and a possible weakness if producers favor someone less predictable. He is described as handsome, suave and posh, and would likely outscore Lowden on sheer sex appeal. Jack O'Connell and Josh O'Connor are also said to be in contention, their similar names prompting the wry suggestion that press leaks may have conflated the two and that only one is truly testing.[S1]
Why the decision reaches far beyond the audition room
Playing Bond involves much more than combat, banter and handling a Walther PPK. Commentators on the sidelines may miss qualities that the producers certainly will not: although 007 is a rule-breaking maverick on screen, the performer behind him must be an exemplary team player. The job is a huge commitment that calls for the highest professional standards across more than ten years, and the actor will remain a Bond even when not filming, so the franchise must be able to count on him not to bring it into disrepute.[S1]
In practice that means choosing someone unlikely to make divisive political statements, become entangled in messy domestic disputes or embark on public benders. More subtly, it means finding an agreeable brand ambassador who treats fans with respect and throws himself gamely into the media circus surrounding every Bond release. Ideally he should also not behave badly behind the scenes, since that could make the roughly nine-month production of a Bond film harder for everyone involved.[S1]
Such considerations apply to any leading role, but they weigh far more heavily for Bond given the character's iconic status and the expected commitment of four or five films. The last thing the Bond team wants is a scandal resembling the one that hit Marvel after Jonathan Majors was cast in a multi-film villain role, a mess that led to an announced movie being scrapped. Majors' part was only a villain within an ensemble, not a lead present in nearly every scene.[S1]
A cautionary precedent from the franchise's own history
The veteran Bond producer Cubby Broccoli once described the casting of George Lazenby for 1969's On Her Majesty's Secret Service as the biggest mistake in 16 years, saying the actor simply could not handle success and had been so arrogant. Lazenby appeared in only one Bond film before Sean Connery came back to the part. Broccoli's daughter Barbara, who headed the producing team on Bond until last year, told Variety in 2022 that casting Bond amounts to a 10- or 12-year commitment and that not everyone wants to take that on, since it involves far more than turning up for a couple of months of filming.[S1]
