We’ll get to his criticism of reality show famewhores in a minute.

First...

Can we admire how good he looks through the lens of half of my obsession, Sam Taylor-Wood? Because while we mostly talk about her in the context of her marriage and child-bearingness with Aaron Johnson, she is a proper artist. And she photographed Daniel Craig for the new issue of British GQ. The pictures are gorgeous. He’s been looking a little harsh lately. Her camera, it fixed that. I love the light. I love how she caught him in a moment of softness, in sharp contrast to how cantankerous he seems these days every time he gives an interview.

Is a high five the expected reaction? Am I supposed to cheer, “Word up, Daniel!” to his comments about famewhoring?

“I think there's a lot to be said for keeping your own counsel. It's not about being afraid to be public with your emotions or about who you are and what you stand for. But if you sell it off it's gone. You can't buy it back - you can't buy your privacy back. Ooh I want to be alone. F*** you. We've been in your living room. We were at your birth. You filmed it for us and showed us the placenta and now you want some privacy? Look at the Kardashians, they're worth millions. I don't think they were that badly off to begin with but now look at them. You see that and you think ‘what, you mean all I have to do is behave like a f***ing idiot on television and then you'll pay me millions’. I'm not judging it - well, I am obviously.”

Yes, he’s right. Yes, they’re shameless. Yes, they are rich from being shameless. But ultimately, they’re all courting the same audience, aren’t they? Daniel Craig makes mass market movies. And Celebrity is a Venn diagram. Daniel Craig isn’t an independent circle. Where else do people like Daniel Craig and Kim Kardashian intersect in addition to the audience? We don’t talk enough about how Hollywood publicists, the ones who represent the A List stars, also represent the twatty reality ones too. There’s a new book out called How Famous People Make Money by Jo Piazza. The author posits that about 10 years ago, the demand for Celebrity exceeded the supply, thus the birth of the Reality Star. I agree with the hypothesis. There was no coup d’etat . There was no new regime installed to rewrite the industry. The industry created these fake losers.  The same industry that also continues to support the legitimate players. A very simple analogy would be a company that produces both high end, luxury handbags and other items while also selling cheaper goods, all under the same umbrella.

The question is - and I don’t know the answer, I’m just asking you to think about it another way and maybe we can discuss it later during the liveblog and you can tell me I’m dumb - whether or not Daniel Craig, the $4,000 alligator tote, is allowed to criticise the $30 pleather one without blaming the Big Boss, ultimately, for making it in the first place...?

Famewhoring and celebrity strategy weren’t invented by Jersey Shore and those assholes on The Hills. The basic principles of famewhoring where introduced to us by the Movie Star Machine. The reality stars just came along and modified it - to grotesque proportions, certainly, but that doesn’t absolve the originators, and the modern movie stars they work for, from the inception.

I wonder if it isn’t too obvious to be all like, f-ck the Kardashians, hate them so much, blah blah blah without actually addressing a system that made them a success in the first place, the same system that helped those like Daniel Craig.

For example - they say they hate getting papped and they wish the paps would leave them alone. Fine. But the paps make most of their money from the magazines. Not just the trashy ones but the celebrity friendly ones. Like PEOPLE. So PEOPLE publishes the pap shot and 6 months later also gets an exclusive interview with the person hating the pap shot. No, they don’t have the right to tell the magazine what photos it can and can’t print, but they do have the right to say that they’re not speaking with a publication that actively supports the paparazzi industry.

Daniel Craig can’t actively remove himself from a toxic ecosystem that keeps pushing for a level of engagement he’s not comfortable fulfilling. He wants to act. He wants to make movies. He has to live there. How then does he justify his choice? He justifies it by hating on elements of the system - paps, media, Ebola Hilton - without actually addressing the rot in the infrastructure. Like all celebrities, he’s applying easy blame.

Ultimately though, as Sarah from Cinesnark said to me the other day, all it is is complaining. Daniel Craig’s Kardashian criticism is a big fat Whine. Like, for you and me, parts of our jobs can suck and we have to live with it, but for celebrities, there shouldn’t be any sucking. At all. That’s what I’m hearing when I read about Daniel Craig sh-tting on Kardashian. And f-ck him for making me write an entire article where I don’t get to sh-t on Kardashian.

And just once I wish we could get him to talk about his wedding/marriage - or NOT talk about his wedding/marriage - without so much hostility.

“We got away with it. We did it privately and I've got a lot of people to thank for that. But that was the point, we did it for private reasons. Because we didn't want it f-cked up, because that would be sharing a secret. And the whole point is that it was a secret. A secret is a secret in my mind. Look, I'm in love. I'm very happy. And that is as far as I'm prepared to go. Life is long, life goes wrong and I don't want to say something now that might be thrown back later.”

Even his happiness has to have an asterisk, non?

So no, I’m not high fiving myself over his awesomeness. All I can think about is why he’s such a misanthrope.

To see one more photo of Craig from British GQ, click here.