Daniel Craig’s Screen Test Dinner Suit

33

Happy 52nd birthday to Daniel Craig!

In 2005 Daniel Craig performed his screen test for the role of James Bond, which was the scene in From Russia with Love where Bond encounters Tatiana Romanova in his hotel bed. This has been the standard audition for all James Bond actors.

Behind the scenes with Daniel Craig during a screen test for Casino Royale. Casino Royale (2006), © 2006 United Artists Corporation and Danjaq, LLC. Photo sourced from Thunderballs.org

A key part of this screen test is being half-dressed in black tie, though usually the auditioning actor leaves his shirt on; Craig removed his. Craig’s physical appearance is much different in this screen test than he is in Casino Royale. He leaner but still looks fit. His hair is considerably longer, giving him a more classic Bond look, but his hair doesn’t quite have the volume to pull it off like Pierce Brosnan did.

The only items of his outfit that we can see in the screen test are black dinner suit trousers and black shoes. The trousers have a flat front and a traditional cut with gently tapered legs. The waistband is trimmed in silk, signifying the trousers as being from a dinner suit when there’s little else to go by from this photo. They likely have a silk stripe down each leg, but the sides of the trousers are not visible in this photo. The hem is plain with a half break.

The maker of the trousers—and the dinner suit they are a part of—is unknown, but they could possibly be from Brioni as Brioni still had a relationship with the Bond series during this time.

The black calf shoes are either derby shoes or monk shoes; it is difficult to tell from this photo. They have a chiselled toe, which likely signifies that they are English in origin.

When Daniel Craig was announced as James Bond on 14 October 2005, a close-up photo of him in the quintessential Bond dinner suit was also released to help convince the public of his suitability for the role. This photo was likely taken at the same time as his screen test and shows his top half fully dressed in a black dinner jacket. If the gun and watch can be identified as the same as in the screen test, it could further signify that the photo of a dressed Daniel Craig was taken at the same time as his screen test and consists of the rest of the outfit in addition to the trousers.

His dinner jacket is a high-quality piece, and this further suggests that it is from Brioni. The black dinner jacket is very similar to what Craig wears in Casino Royale. It has grosgrain-silk-trimmed peaked lapels, and in the close-up photo it is easy to see the handsewn Milanese lapel buttonhole.

The dress shirt is likely from Turnbull & Asser and is made of a white cotton twill. It has a spread collar that could possibly be the Classic Turnbull & Asser collar. The front is pleated and has white mother-of-pearl buttons down the placket. The shirt’s cuffs appear to be barrel instead of double cuffs as they aren’t “kissing”, but the double cuffs may have been fastened in a barrel manner so cufflinks wouldn’t be front and centre in the photo.

Craig’s bow tie is black satin instead of grosgrain, and its thickness is reminiscent of Turnbull & Asser’s hefty bow ties, meaning it could be from them.

Everything considered, the outfit that Daniel Craig wears in this photo makes for an especially Bondian introduction.

33 COMMENTS

  1. Lets have a “Come to Jesus” meeting;

    So since this is the standard screen test why do you think they gave it to craig instead of cavill? I heard Campbell thought his body needed work.

    Too young?

    What do you gentlemen think?

      • Why assume Bond was “immature” in Casino Royale? He may have been a new Double “O”, but was already a Commander in the R.N.V.R., which would have made him round about 40 years old. A recent FOI requested from the MOD regarding average age of promotion in the RN states that the average age of promotion to Commander/OF4 is currently 42 years old.

  2. The shirt and bowtie likely are T&A. In an interview with Rowland Mackenzie at T&A he had this to say:

    “We had an idea of who was going to play the role, because obviously we’d
    seen the six actors who were potentially going to be, they’d been chasing for the part. Each actor was brought in individually. We measured them up and then we made the sample shirt obviously for the tests.”

    Hoping next week is an article on the other screentests! 🙂

  3. I do wish Craig kept his hair a bit longer for the films. He looks pretty good here.

    Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace looked good, it was Skyfall and Spectre that I don’t think works. Longer hair (not super long, just not cropped) would make him look more youthful.

  4. A lot of comments of the last two months are directed either against Craig’s Bond or Craig himself. It’s really boring and repetitive. We already know where every regular commenter stands here. No need to hammer home the point regularly.
    This website isn’t craigisnotbond.com (don’t know if this one still exists or not). Showing that much hate is really weird. I don’t think either Dalton or Moore have ever been treated this way here.

    Nobody is forcing you to go and see the next Bond movie or to read an article about the last suit Craig was spotted wearing if you know you will hate it in advance.

    I know most people just criticize Craig’s shrunken look -which I never liked either- but some really go too far with their Craig bashing. Not everyone hates Craig here. It’s first a blog about Bond style and nothing else.

    I myself have my favorites amongst Bond actors as everyone has, but I try to be objective and to recognize to every Bond actor his personal qualities -about their way they played their characters as well as about their sense of style.
    It would be nice if some grow up a bit for a change and do the same.

    I apologize to Matt if that post seems a bit too pedantic or aggressive. It wasn’t my intention. Of course you can delete it if you think it doesn’t appeal to you.

    • I agree, it’s upsetting to see the constant bashing of Craig. Obviously he’s a different take on the character but he’s also a very successful take. So it’s incredibly odd to me that people act like he has ruined Bond. I’m pretty sure that he has the 3 most successful Bond films ever. People like him. Nothing has been ruined, that’s for sure.

    • I completely agree. I hate it even more when such Craig haters don’t even attempt to find the fun and good in Craig’s portrayal of Bond. Whatever he does, no matter how nice of a suit he would wear, no matter how clever of a one-liner he would say, “Nah. Hate him. I wish he quits Bond ASAP” without even looking at it, not even a chance. Same with people who think Tom Ford suits = terrible, just because Craig wears it in such a manner. They’re beautiful suits on their own!
      Bet you they’ll probably start negging a zoom-up image of a photo they thought was Craig’s suit, but was actually Connery’s, because “they’re so blinded by inconsolable rage they don’t care who they hurt.”

      • Criticisms of an actor or films are not synonymous with ‘bashing’ or ‘hatred’. Craig has been good in other films and had some good moments as Bond. Likewise, I know people who like Craig as Bond and it doesn’t make me think any less of them. But I do think his Bond films suck.
        The things are separable. E.g. I really liked the Dalton films without thinking Dalton’s Bond was well-dressed or that everything in those films was in done well. I also liked the Moore, Brosnan, and Connery films although I can see why people might disagree on the merits or demerits of those different takes. But what is different is that it feels like the Craig films marked a radical break from the series in ways that will have long-term costs.
        Perhaps a parallel is Batman Forever. This was a dramatic change in direction from the Burton Batman films and the change seemed very clever and successful at the time but set in motion trends that doomed the franchise and are obvious in hindsight. I’m not sure if the Craig films are as blatant as that (or note the more recent example of Star Wars). But it may be symptomatic when the Bond character indicates he doesn’t “give a damn” about his martini, much less being a 00-agent, in every single film. If criticisms are also explained away by the producers as always being due to mysterious anger then people are sealing themselves off from precisely the sort of feedback that may be needed for improvement.
        I think the zoom-up image photo test is worthwhile because who is wearing the suit probably does color our interpretations of fit and so on. I often find if I cover up the face of cloth models in men’s catalogs suits and other clothes that I thought were ugly and too shrunken seem less bad.

  5. Craig’s movies made a lot of $ compared to the older Bonds because (a) movie tickets keep getting more expensive, and (2) there are more people on the planet than there were 40 years ago, and more of them go to the movies. In spite of that, Craig has definitley ruined the image of James Bond as a cooler than cool, humorous, classically handsome, traditionally tailored hero/aspirational figure that most of us older fans remember fondly.

    • Here we go with the humour again. He was never written that way by Fleming and not portrayed that way in the first few films. Yes there were light hearted moments (the duck disguise in Goldfinger and the improbably impeccable (and bone dry) dinner suit under the wetsuit but just about all efforts to be out and out humourous fell drastically flat for me. “Excuse me I was out walking my rat!” Nah Sean, you’ve blown it mate, time to step aside, doff your wig and get back to working on growing that podgy belly.

      • I thought we had all agreed that book Bond and movie Bond are slightly different creatures, both sartorially and temperamentally!

      • Don’t insult my intelligence – your point is quite obvious: you think that movie Bond should adhere more to the stoic, dour characterization of the books. I submit that part of what accounts for the extraordinary success of the early Bond movies was the combination of style, adventure, and humor. I find Craig’s angsty humorlessness grating, and i suspect I am not the only one.

  6. My point was showing a bit of objectivity and respect to all of the Bond actors here in everyone’s comments. Apparently, it’s a concept you will never understand. As well as to myself. Don’t talk about me insulting your intelligence while it’s more the opposite.
    If you had the politeness of reading my comment carefully you would have noticed I never mentioned anything about the books. I find them to be rather cheap litterature myself. It’s another commenter who mentioned them.

  7. Le Chiffre, I feel no obligation to show respect to Craig’s interpretation of James Bond. Both sartorially and temperamentally he is the antithesis of the hero I grew up with since I was five years old and my aunt took me to see Dr. No for the first time. The James Bond I grew up with was urbane, witty and resourceful as well as brave, knowledgeable and impeccably tailored. Craig is a rude, unhappy, angst-ridden thug in a shrunken suit. For most of my life I looked forward to the next Bond movie, fully expecting to see our hero save the world in style while traveling to exotic locales and wearing some beautiful tailoring. Now I tremble every time a Bond movie is announced, wondering what new indignity, sartorial and otherwise, will be visited on the hero of my childhood. Ironically, back in 2006 Barbara Broccoli and Michael J. Wilson decided to model the rebooted Bond franchise after the Bourne movies in an attempt to be hip and relevant. Does anybody even remember Jason Bourne now? Does anybody care? How many blogs are there dedicated to the semiotics of Jason Bourne, let alone his tailoring? I simply can’t wait for the Craig era to be over, but I don’t hold out much hope for what will come after wards.

    • Dan, you know very well by now that i share your point of view 100% so it’s not really worth repeating that. However, I can see the validity of the point being made above in that, at this stage in the game there isn’t really a lot to be gained by us all constantly re-statting our positions.

      The debacle around the current movie and the constantly, pointlessly shifting release dates (so much so that they have now ended up hoisted by their own petard) has shown me clearly that the state of the Bond movies is a collaborative effort and not limited to whatever leading actor they have in the role. I believe that the current producers are a disaster. Apart from anything else, Cubby would have had 2 Bond movies under his belt since Spectre. For reasons best know to themselves they have still to release 1, 5 years on! Their repeating of this hackneyed “Bond goes rogue” in each of Craig’s movies is ludicrous, Blofeld is actually Bond’s brother. Ridiculous. I could find more. The only good storyline from the Craig years is Casino Royale and that’s becuse it was source Fleming material. The rest have been poor and in time, I believe, will be seen as so. Poor and, to add insult to injury, taking 4/5 years to churn out. The producers have cooked the golden goose they were handed on a plate and it would be better for all concerned if serious people took over the reins.

      • David, I agree with your statement to the effect that “the state of the Bond movies is a collaborative effort and not limited to whatever leading actor they have in the role.” In all fairness Craig can’t be made the only scapegoat for the current state of the franchise – it’s just that he is the face of the franchise, and not a very likable one at that. Judging by some interviews, Brosnan also had some far-fetched ideas regarding the direction he wanted Bond to take (at one point he expressed the desire to have Quentin Tarantino direct a Bond movie) but he wasn’t allowed to stray too far off the reservation.

  8. I do agree with Le Chiffre that the bashing, in rather personal terms, of (pick the actor playing Bond) is a bit old. It reminds of, when I first got into Bond by seeing For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy in the theatre in the early ‘80s, having to listen to Connery-era fans complain about how Roger ruined the films and the character. I go back to my advice for someone on this site a few years ago about bashing the commercially-and-critically well-received Roger Moore era – don’t watch what you don’t like.

    I find pros and cons in all of the actors’ portrayals – the Craig films have, against all modern cinema odds, continued to be relevant and popular in an increasingly-difficult theatrical environment by offering big budget, PG-13, non-sci-fi/non-superhero action by a suited hero created in the 1950s and popularized in the 1960s. As the series has done before, the films adapted well to this era of story-telling with intricate, personal “arcs” and dynamically shot by some of the finest (in one case, THE finest) cinematographers working. Whether it is time for a change is a different question, but I continue to tout the last two Mission Impossible films as offering the type of escapism the Bond films offered prior to 2006. As for the delay in release, for apparent reasons both noble and financial, I hope the production takes the time, not usually available, to put a polish on the film that was not available with the usual-tight release windows (Thunderball, Golden Gun, TND, Spectre come to mind). Finally, the state of MGM deserves more attention for the extended production delays than it usually seems to get here, with bashing of the producers (some if it deserved, some not) taking precedence.

    As for the subject of this blog, it is quite amazing in this day and age that a non-villain protagonist is still a Suited Hero.

    • Christian, I agree with your reasoning except for the excessive delays issue. This may be partially the fault of MGM but there is, from what I have read, a large portion of responsibility on the actual Bond producers plus Craig himself seemed to set parameters in this regard. In my opinion, despite the protracted periods between movies, the results are very uneven and with the relativity that comes with a time passage, I believe that this will be more apparent when looking back on this era in a number of years time. The films which you mentioned like TND and TMWTGG; ok but Spectre?? It was released 3 years after Skyfall. How long do they need to produce and polish a movie. I think ego plays a huge role here and there has definitely been an agenda to stretch out the duration of Craig’s tenure with this spurious “he’s the longest in the role” claim despite the fact that Moore made 7 in 12 years and Connery the same number over 21 if one counts NSNA.

      • David – I do agree with you on Craig’s role and the evident influence he has on the producers. For Spectre, while its release was three years after Skyfall (a normal period of time for a modern, big budget franchise), it is my understanding that the production itself went from script-to-screen in 11 months, which is not a lot of time for such a large production these days. These delays to evidence that the producers seem to not know what they want to do, are consistently reactive to other franchises, and they do have a star that is pulling a Hamlet-act.

  9. I can see why certain Bond fans don’t like Craig, I can see both points of view really. But in the end Bond is made for the era he is in. Connery suited the 60’s, Moore was perfect for 70’s and early 80’s audiences. Dalton worked for the late 80’s on many levels, but not all because he was playing Bond tougher to give the likes of Mel Gibson a run. Brosnan was perfect for the transition out of the Cold War and especially in Goldeneye combined the best of Connery and Moore in my opinion. Tastes changed after the Bourne Identity and Bond had to change on some levels. I do think the Bond leaving the services is getting a little stale but let’s judge No Time To Die when we see it. I think the suits are a big improvement. I’d like to hear from others on this.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.