Sitting in a tufted chair amidst the plush surroundings of the London hotel Claridge's, Daniel Craig alternates between easy, relaxed chatting and furrowed-brow deep discussion. Topics include his controversial new film, "The Golden Compass," the state of media intrusion on people's lives - both public and private - and how to make the next James Bond film as good as the last, 2006's "Casino Royale."

Clad in a fitted gray cardigan over white shirt, black tie and trousers, Craig, 39, is more animated, friendly and, thankfully, less intense than his Bond persona. At Claridge's to promote "The Golden Compass," opening Friday, the actor is enjoying a break from rehearsals of the as-yet-unnamed 22nd cinematic outing of unkillable British secret service agent 007.

In "Compass" - the first installment of a planned movie trilogy based on the hugely successful "His Dark Materials" novels by Philip Pullman - Craig plays Lord Asriel, an explorer who is uncle to feisty Lyra Belacqua (played by newcomer Dakota Blue Richards), the young girl on whom the epic tale of self-discovery and self-realization centers.

Though some critics accuse Pullman's novels of having anti-religious undertones, the popularity of the books among readers both young and old helped attract a stellar cast to the reported $180 million movie retelling, including Nicole Kidman as the mysterious Mrs. Coulter, Eva Green as the witch Serafina Pekkala and Sir Ian McKellen as the voice of the brave armored Polar bear Iorek Byrnison.

And while Lord Asriel and James Bond share a similar taste for danger, the same can't be said for the actual time each character spends on screen. Though brief, Craig's appearances in "Compass" are crucial to the plot.

You're not actually in the film for very long, are you?

Daniel Craig: [Laughing] No, no. It's not my story - it's Lyra's. She's the star of this movie. We actually did shoot a little bit more that never made it into the finished film, though.

Were you aware of the books before they approached you to do the movie?

I'd read them when they first came out. [They're] not your typical fantasy novel. And I started reading these and thought, "Oh, this is something really different."

Were you worried that the novel's themes would be diluted?

Adapting a book is a minefield. I've been a fan of books and seen the adaptations and thought, "F-, they've screwed this up!" But that's different for everybody, and you can't go into making a movie without saying, "We have to make this clear, and clear to a lot of people that haven't read the book." Otherwise, what's the point of doing it? Saying that, I'm sure there will be some disappointed people.

The ending of the movie is different from the book.

Yes. We actually filmed it as it is in the book, but it didn't make the cut for a number of reasons. One, it would have been a pretty downer way of ending the film. And two, they want to make another two films, so better to leave [this] with a cliff-hanger. But I think the film works as an entity on its own, because it gets across all the key ideas that Pullman put into the books.

Was Philip Pullman heavily involved with the production?

Heavily enough, yes. But he was cool with it 'cause it had already been adapted for the stage - London's National Theatre did it. So he'd already given this up as a story to somebody else. And I think he has a confidence about him - which he should have, because obviously he is very skillful - to do that. And it was no longer about writing, it was about filmmaking.

It's a reunion of sorts for you with Green [Craig's co-star in "Casino Royale"] and Kidman [who acted with him in last summer's "The Invasion"].

And the costume designer, and the set designer and the lighting cameraman - I'd worked with them all before. But I think that's 'cause I've been around a bit. [Laughs]

How was it working with director Chris Weitz ("American Pie," "About a Boy")?

He was great. He'd done a huge amount of work beforehand - and needed to. And I think he did a lot of fighting about what stays in, [as] the filmmakers had been very nervous about the religious content - for good reason. You don't want to alienate the audience, but on the other hand you have to address it because it is an integral part of the story.

My personal opinions about it are that the books raise a great and very interesting debate. ... I think the books have a very high moral standard, I really do. And Chris had to deal with all of that and find clever ways of making it work and keeping people happy.

So now it's back to Bond?

Yes, I'm rehearsing now. Actually, I've been sitting here picking the calluses off my hands as we speak. That part of the process has started again!

You did a lot of your own stunts in the last one.

Tried to do, yeah.

And this one?

That's the plan.

Are you ready for all the media scrutiny again? Can you ever be?

I doubt that you can be because you're constantly sucker-punched. The privacy thing for me is the key. But it's not about protecting myself, because you can't come and give interviews without talking about your movies and saying, "This is what I am and who I am." But family and friends - they didn't choose my career. Their privacy is sacrosanct.

Aside from the personal intrusion, the general media scrutiny was very high for your Bond debut, and you proved yourself - the film was a huge hit, the biggest Bond ever.

It's done all right. [Laughs] But therein lies the rub.

Because now it's double the pressure?

Weirdly enough, it doesn't feel much different than the last time around. I'm not getting quite so much abuse from the English tabloids - but that could still change! [Laughs]

But the pressure is there. If I only make a couple of Bond films, I'd like to be able to look back on at least one of them and think "Oh, that was a good [one]."

I know that sounds like a simplistic way of looking at it, but in terms of moviemaking, we want to make something that looks beautiful, looks stylish. I want this to be a Bond movie, and Bond movies, to me, are "Dr. No" and "From Russia With Love" - they had a style about them that was amazing and different.

Can you look back at "Casino Royale" and enjoy it as a "good Bond film," or are you still too close to it?

I was very happy with the outcome. I saw it on the small editing screens with no sound effects, no music of any sort and watched it from beginning to end and thought, "The story works." At that point I thought that we were going to be okay. 'Cause when you start adding the music and the special effects, the movie starts expanding out - and it did. [It] pulled together in a way that I don't think people were expecting.... That was where we set the bar. Now we have to go for it again. And hopefully go higher.

источник