One piece I've never understood is the printed shirt Daniel Craig wears in Madagascar in CR. I don't remember there being a trend for loud, printed shirts 10 years ago. Even if it was, it goes against good taste and doesn't suit Bond's personal style at all. This shirt is amongst the worst things Bond has ever worn.
As much as I hate that image of Bond, the first one after DC's introductory pre-title sequence, the garish shirt is actually appropriate for his likely cover in a stake-out, posing as an expat watching/gambling in a Mongoose vs. Cobra match in Madagascar. I think it's comparable to Brosnan and his printed shirt/half-bared wife-beater in Cuba, or a better comparison, the clothing style of the obnoxious tourist he punches out at the Cuban resort.
There are many others wearing solid shirts in the Madagascar scene, and Bond would have fit in just as much dressed like them without resorting to wearing such an awful shirt. When Bond is wearing clothes for a cover in the novels, there's always some of his personal taste in the clothes. Brosnan's Cuba outfit is almost as bad, and there's really no excuse there either.
Yes, awful for Bond to wear on both counts, which is one of my main points, that with Bond there has been an established conceptual standard and any diversion from that has proven irksome for us viewers. I don't want to make excuses on behalf of the production, but in those moments there must have been some artistic decisions made and it would be interesting to learn what those were; sometimes mistakes that result despite of the best planning only become obvious when it’s too late.
But again to play devil's advocate and to look at the "real world" situations of those scenes from CR and DAD, what high dressing standards were there to uphold in those locations, even in careful consideration of being inconspicuous? How would you expect an "innocent" foreign bystander to look like in a third world setting? The solid shirts worn by the collective have nothing to do with what was appropriate for anyone else to wear; it's a stake-out where no one is supposed to look like they're all associated with one another, not a trip to the mall by a group of tween girls. Had Craig, for example, dressed in Madagascar the way he later did when he was mistaken as a parking valet in the Bahamas, he would have obviously looked like a plain clothes security professional.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
Dalton wasn't particularly well dressed in both his films
Not to excuse the way wardrobe dressed Dalton, but I remember reading in the earlier official EON books by Sally Hibbin and I think in “Dressed to Kill,” it was indeed Dalton’s input for Bond to sport RTW suits to disassociate his interpretation from the dapper version of the character instituted by the film series. Of course, we know it’s because he thoroughly dredged the depths of the Fleming books and sought to tap the complexity of the literary character and the nuances of his lifestyle, attitudes, internal conflicts, etc.
Short of knowing the actual interpolations Dalton made in that analysis, what we do know is that Fleming kept the tailoring details of Bond’s wardrobe as ambiguous as possible in contrast to that of other characters and he barely hinted about the Savile Row origins of Bond’s suits from OUTSIDE the Bond books. Very often, Bond is dressed down in the books; cinematically, would there be a fashion equivalent for sandal-accented ensembles? A sockless Dalton wearing a shapeless blazer in LTK’s “farewell to arms” scene and the tie-less look in the climax is an acceptable translation of literary Bond’s casual blue Sea Island shirts or to the extreme, the Elmer Fudd hunting clothes worn in FYEO. The deliberate effort is contrasted against the suits worn by M’s bodyguards and more so by the gentlemanly British agent working with Hong Kong Narcotics.
Did it work? Was it appropriate? For Dalton's chosen interpretation of Bond, yes, just as Craig took the same liberties to borrow from Bond’s literary roots in each of his 3 movies so far by dressing according to the situation (as said, garish expat shirt for Madagascar stake out, denim jeans in Jamaica and Bolivia, manly bar outfit chic for Turkish coastal resort, etc.) However, see how EON took note of audiences’ disapproval with Dalton’s “authentic” approach by putting Brosnan in suits as possible (St. Petersburg action scenes, infiltration of Tomorrow, speeding in an oil pipeline), to reassure us that the Bond of old was back, like Connery dressing up nicely for the most mundane situations (on Goldfinger's jet enroute to Kentucky, preparing to watch the Junkanoo with the Largos, infiltrating Willard Whyte’s penthouse). This strategy was intermixed with Craig's dressing down, with him dressing up for Istanbul and running through London's crowded tube stations, etc., possibly because in large part there was a clamour to bring back "classic Bond" while Craig's tenure is still on.
The problem with the suits in LTK isn't that they're ready-to-wear suits, but that they're poorly fitted and are flashy and ultra fashionable. The ready-to-wear suits in The Living Daylights make more sense since they're not fashionable and less assuming.
Poorly fitted, I agree, which wasn't out of the ordinary for those times. As I said, it was Dalton's attempt to de-emphasize Bond's sartorial standards; his intentions explained, the results we've seen, no further explanation needed on that count, because it is what it is.
But flashy and ultra-fashionable? That I cannot understand. Can you please elaborate how they were so, and which LTK Bond outfits were flashy and ultra-fashionable? How are canvas "Vans" style deck shoes any different in spirit from say, the leather sandals worn by Literary Bond, regardless of their popularity? From what I understand, Bond packed for this particular trip to attend a wedding and perhaps take in some R&R on his own time.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
As much as I hate that image of Bond, the first one after DC's introductory pre-title sequence, the garish shirt is actually appropriate for his likely cover in a stake-out, posing as an expat watching/gambling in a Mongoose vs. Cobra match in Madagascar. I think it's comparable to Brosnan and his printed shirt/half-bared wife-beater in Cuba, or a better comparison, the clothing style of the obnoxious tourist he punches out at the Cuban resort.
There are many others wearing solid shirts in the Madagascar scene, and Bond would have fit in just as much dressed like them without resorting to wearing such an awful shirt. When Bond is wearing clothes for a cover in the novels, there's always some of his personal taste in the clothes. Brosnan's Cuba outfit is almost as bad, and there's really no excuse there either.
Yes, awful for Bond to wear on both counts, which is one of my main points, that with Bond there has been an established conceptual standard and any diversion from that has proven irksome for us viewers. I don't want to make excuses on behalf of the production, but in those moments there must have been some artistic decisions made and it would be interesting to learn what those were; sometimes mistakes that result despite of the best planning only become obvious when it’s too late.
But again to play devil's advocate and to look at the "real world" situations of those scenes from CR and DAD, what high dressing standards were there to uphold in those locations, even in careful consideration of being inconspicuous? How would you expect an "innocent" foreign bystander to look like in a third world setting? The solid shirts worn by the collective have nothing to do with what was appropriate for anyone else to wear; it's a stake-out where no one is supposed to look like they're all associated with one another, not a trip to the mall by a group of tween girls. Had Craig, for example, dressed in Madagascar the way he later did when he was mistaken as a parking valet in the Bahamas, he would have obviously looked like a plain clothes security professional.
If Bond was trying to dress like an expat who was familiar with the area, I would have expected him to not dress so much like the ignorant tourist, JW Pepper. JW Pepper actually wears a similar shirt in Thailand. If Bond were dressing like an expat, he probably wouldn't wear something at such odds with his personal style. It's like Bond's trying to fit it with other people, but then he doesn't fit in with everyone and doesn't hold true to himself. I agree that the shirt he wears under his light grey suit would not have been good either. My guess as to why Bond was dressed in such a garish shirt was to make him stand out from the crowd so that we as viewers of the film wouldn't have trouble spotting him.
Not to excuse the way wardrobe dressed Dalton, but I remember reading in the earlier official EON books by Sally Hibbin and I think in “Dressed to Kill,” it was indeed Dalton’s input for Bond to sport RTW suits to disassociate his interpretation from the dapper version of the character instituted by the film series. Of course, we know it’s because he thoroughly dredged the depths of the Fleming books and sought to tap the complexity of the literary character and the nuances of his lifestyle, attitudes, internal conflicts, etc.
Short of knowing the actual interpolations Dalton made in that analysis, what we do know is that Fleming kept the tailoring details of Bond’s wardrobe as ambiguous as possible in contrast to that of other characters and he barely hinted about the Savile Row origins of Bond’s suits from OUTSIDE the Bond books. Very often, Bond is dressed down in the books; cinematically, would there be a fashion equivalent for sandal-accented ensembles? A sockless Dalton wearing a shapeless blazer in LTK’s “farewell to arms” scene and the tie-less look in the climax is an acceptable translation of literary Bond’s casual blue Sea Island shirts or to the extreme, the Elmer Fudd hunting clothes worn in FYEO. The deliberate effort is contrasted against the suits worn by M’s bodyguards and more so by the gentlemanly British agent working with Hong Kong Narcotics.
Did it work? Was it appropriate? For Dalton's chosen interpretation of Bond, yes, just as Craig took the same liberties to borrow from Bond’s literary roots in each of his 3 movies so far by dressing according to the situation (as said, garish expat shirt for Madagascar stake out, denim jeans in Jamaica and Bolivia, manly bar outfit chic for Turkish coastal resort, etc.) However, see how EON took note of audiences’ disapproval with Dalton’s “authentic” approach by putting Brosnan in suits as possible (St. Petersburg action scenes, infiltration of Tomorrow, speeding in an oil pipeline), to reassure us that the Bond of old was back, like Connery dressing up nicely for the most mundane situations (on Goldfinger's jet enroute to Kentucky, preparing to watch the Junkanoo with the Largos, infiltrating Willard Whyte’s penthouse). This strategy was intermixed with Craig's dressing down, with him dressing up for Istanbul and running through London's crowded tube stations, etc., possibly because in large part there was a clamour to bring back "classic Bond" while Craig's tenure is still on.
The problem with the suits in LTK isn't that they're ready-to-wear suits, but that they're poorly fitted and are flashy and ultra fashionable. The ready-to-wear suits in The Living Daylights make more sense since they're not fashionable and less assuming.
Poorly fitted, I agree, which wasn't out of the ordinary for those times. As I said, it was Dalton's attempt to de-emphasize Bond's sartorial standards; his intentions explained, the results we've seen, no further explanation needed, because it is what it is.
But flashy and ultra-fashionable? That I cannot understand. Can you please elaborate how they were so, and which LTK Bond outfits were flashy and ultra-fashionable? How are canvas "Vans" style deck shoes any different in spirit from say, the leather sandals worn by Literary Bond, regardless of their popularity? From what I understand, Bond packed for this particular trip to attend a wedding and perhaps take in some R&R on his own time.
I was specifically talking about the suits in LTK. They have the baggy cut that GQ was pushing at the time, which would not have been at all to the tastes of a military man like Bond. The suit jackets have wide lapels with a very, very low gorge and low button stance, styles pushed by the fashion brands of the times. The trousers had triple reverse pleats, another fashion statement. More traditional suits at the time had double pleats, with forward pleats being from the most traditional brands like what Dalton wears in TLD. The suits look like they're from an Italian fashion house, not an inconspicuous high street brand. If Bond wore a tie, he'd look like the Wall Street investors of the era. His shirt looks cheap and is definitely American. None of these things are a look for Bond. Only the moccasins are appropriate for Bond.
There are many others wearing solid shirts in the Madagascar scene, and Bond would have fit in just as much dressed like them without resorting to wearing such an awful shirt. When Bond is wearing clothes for a cover in the novels, there's always some of his personal taste in the clothes. Brosnan's Cuba outfit is almost as bad, and there's really no excuse there either.
Yes, awful for Bond to wear on both counts, which is one of my main points, that with Bond there has been an established conceptual standard and any diversion from that has proven irksome for us viewers. I don't want to make excuses on behalf of the production, but in those moments there must have been some artistic decisions made and it would be interesting to learn what those were; sometimes mistakes that result despite of the best planning only become obvious when it’s too late.
But again to play devil's advocate and to look at the "real world" situations of those scenes from CR and DAD, what high dressing standards were there to uphold in those locations, even in careful consideration of being inconspicuous? How would you expect an "innocent" foreign bystander to look like in a third world setting? The solid shirts worn by the collective have nothing to do with what was appropriate for anyone else to wear; it's a stake-out where no one is supposed to look like they're all associated with one another, not a trip to the mall by a group of tween girls. Had Craig, for example, dressed in Madagascar the way he later did when he was mistaken as a parking valet in the Bahamas, he would have obviously looked like a plain clothes security professional.
If Bond was trying to dress like an expat who was familiar with the area, I would have expected him to not dress so much like the ignorant tourist, JW Pepper. JW Pepper actually wears a similar shirt in Thailand. If Bond were dressing like an expat, he probably wouldn't wear something at such odds with his personal style. It's like Bond's trying to fit it with other people, but then he doesn't fit in with everyone and doesn't hold true to himself. I agree that the shirt he wears under his light grey suit would not have been good either. My guess as to why Bond was dressed in such a garish shirt was to make him stand out from the crowd so that we as viewers of the film wouldn't have trouble spotting him.
Bond would need a hat and a camera hanging from his neck to complete the ignorant JW Pepper tourist look, not including shorts with pasty legs and a thick mid-section. As for attempting to not be at odds with the personal style of a security agent, the result will look exactly like that, of a plain-clothes security agent in a stake-out. Ultimately, fashion sense was inconsequential to the operation, at least not as much as touching your ear-piece. In the greater scheme of things, it's not that egregious of a fashion crime that Bond couldn't redeem himself from.
Ultimately as well, fashion sense on the part of the viewer is an individual issue but one must make a decision whether to size-up Bond to our expectations and camp there, or to look beyond that to see what exactly the film-makers were trying to convey; in the case of CR, it was a radical reboot via the very first Fleming story about Bond. It was Bond-begins, how crude (to Bond standards) he was before he became the Bond we're all familiar with, deconstructing everything about the character that's been accumulated up to that point only to later update him in the familiar tuxedo, all within the span of one movie. From that wider perspective, the garish shirt in the beginning accomplished what it was designed to accomplish, it worked.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Bond would need a hat and a camera hanging from his neck to complete the ignorant JW Pepper tourist look, not including shorts with pasty legs and a thick mid-section. As for attempting to not be at odds with the personal style of a security agent, the result will look exactly like that, of a plain-clothes security agent in a stake-out. Ultimately, fashion sense was inconsequential to the operation, at least not as much as touching your ear-piece. In the greater scheme of things, it's not that egregious of a fashion crime that Bond couldn't redeem himself from.
Ultimately as well, fashion sense on the part of the viewer is an individual issue but one must make a decision whether to size-up Bond to our expectations and camp there, or to look beyond that to see what exactly the film-makers were trying to convey; in the case of CR, it was a radical reboot via the very first Fleming story about Bond. It was Bond-begins, how crude (to Bond standards) he was before he became the Bond we're all familiar with, deconstructing everything about the character that's been accumulated up to that point only to later update him in the familiar tuxedo, all within the span of one movie. From that wider perspective, the garish shirt in the beginning accomplished what it was designed to accomplish, it worked.
Yes, it was effective to show that Bond was crude before he was turned into the Bond we were more familiar with. But that's a whole other problem I have with Casino Royale. Bond's tastes (particularly in dress) would have been learned first in public school and then in the military, not at the age of 38.
The problem with the suits in LTK isn't that they're ready-to-wear suits, but that they're poorly fitted and are flashy and ultra fashionable. The ready-to-wear suits in The Living Daylights make more sense since they're not fashionable and less assuming.
Poorly fitted, I agree, which wasn't out of the ordinary for those times. As I said, it was Dalton's attempt to de-emphasize Bond's sartorial standards; his intentions explained, the results we've seen, no further explanation needed, because it is what it is.
But flashy and ultra-fashionable? That I cannot understand. Can you please elaborate how they were so, and which LTK Bond outfits were flashy and ultra-fashionable? How are canvas "Vans" style deck shoes any different in spirit from say, the leather sandals worn by Literary Bond, regardless of their popularity? From what I understand, Bond packed for this particular trip to attend a wedding and perhaps take in some R&R on his own time.
I was specifically talking about the suits in LTK. They have the baggy cut that GQ was pushing at the time, which would not have been at all to the tastes of a military man like Bond. The suit jackets have wide lapels with a very, very low gorge and low button stance, styles pushed by the fashion brands of the times. The trousers had triple reverse pleats, another fashion statement. More traditional suits at the time had double pleats, with forward pleats being from the most traditional brands like what Dalton wears in TLD. The suits look like they're from an Italian fashion house, not an inconspicuous high street brand. If Bond wore a tie, he'd look like the Wall Street investors of the era. His shirt looks cheap and is definitely American. None of these things are a look for Bond. Only the moccasins are appropriate for Bond.
Regardless of how in-step with fashion tastes Dalton's wardrobe was and all the details therein, to the non-fashion expert/movie viewer, the artistic effect he was trying to convey, worked. Most people are not going to pause the video to count the pleats on his pants. Brosnan's GE (5K£?) suits were also from an Italian fashion house but their intended effect was not exactly the same as the intended effect of Dalton's LTK wardrobe, was it? As for Bond's "traditional" look, weren't both Connery's and Moore's suit styles relatively rakish and markedly divergent from the traditional military-man cuts of their time? Being careful here to avoid mixing cinema and literary Bond themes and motifs, cinema Bond in the earliest days was engineered to look fashionable but not conventional; it's all in the intended effect and with regard to the Dalton era, I don't think most people picked up on how flashy Dalton dressed, but rather on how dressed-down he was, which was exactly what was intended.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
Bond would need a hat and a camera hanging from his neck to complete the ignorant JW Pepper tourist look, not including shorts with pasty legs and a thick mid-section. As for attempting to not be at odds with the personal style of a security agent, the result will look exactly like that, of a plain-clothes security agent in a stake-out. Ultimately, fashion sense was inconsequential to the operation, at least not as much as touching your ear-piece. In the greater scheme of things, it's not that egregious of a fashion crime that Bond couldn't redeem himself from.
Ultimately as well, fashion sense on the part of the viewer is an individual issue but one must make a decision whether to size-up Bond to our expectations and camp there, or to look beyond that to see what exactly the film-makers were trying to convey; in the case of CR, it was a radical reboot via the very first Fleming story about Bond. It was Bond-begins, how crude (to Bond standards) he was before he became the Bond we're all familiar with, deconstructing everything about the character that's been accumulated up to that point only to later update him in the familiar tuxedo, all within the span of one movie. From that wider perspective, the garish shirt in the beginning accomplished what it was designed to accomplish, it worked.
Yes, it was effective to show that Bond was crude before he was turned into the Bond we were more familiar with. But that's a whole other problem I have with Casino Royale. Bond's tastes (particularly in dress) would have been learned first in public school and then in the military, not at the age of 38.
As a larger fan of the books than the movies, the whole Bond origins thing including his public school roots and the military bearing that should be evident, is a glaring issue. However, considering with what the producers are given to work with, I'm a bit more forgiving for the narrative sleight-of-hand they executed with the reboot. In my perfect Bond world, Dalton and Brosnan would have magically continued in their respective tenures (5 films each, continuing from where they respectively left off), magically I say because these would be two mutually-exclusive events. But would the series have survived, considering that its longevity rests on audience box office? That's why it would have needed that element of impossible magic.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Poorly fitted, I agree, which wasn't out of the ordinary for those times. As I said, it was Dalton's attempt to de-emphasize Bond's sartorial standards; his intentions explained, the results we've seen, no further explanation needed, because it is what it is.
But flashy and ultra-fashionable? That I cannot understand. Can you please elaborate how they were so, and which LTK Bond outfits were flashy and ultra-fashionable? How are canvas "Vans" style deck shoes any different in spirit from say, the leather sandals worn by Literary Bond, regardless of their popularity? From what I understand, Bond packed for this particular trip to attend a wedding and perhaps take in some R&R on his own time.
I was specifically talking about the suits in LTK. They have the baggy cut that GQ was pushing at the time, which would not have been at all to the tastes of a military man like Bond. The suit jackets have wide lapels with a very, very low gorge and low button stance, styles pushed by the fashion brands of the times. The trousers had triple reverse pleats, another fashion statement. More traditional suits at the time had double pleats, with forward pleats being from the most traditional brands like what Dalton wears in TLD. The suits look like they're from an Italian fashion house, not an inconspicuous high street brand. If Bond wore a tie, he'd look like the Wall Street investors of the era. His shirt looks cheap and is definitely American. None of these things are a look for Bond. Only the moccasins are appropriate for Bond.
Regardless of how in-step with fashion tastes Dalton's wardrobe was and all the details therein, to the non-fashion expert/movie viewer, the artistic effect he was trying to convey, worked. Most people are not going to pause the video to count the pleats on his pants. Brosnan's GE (5K£?) suits were also from an Italian fashion house but their intended effect was not exactly the same as the intended effect of Dalton's LTK wardrobe, was it? As for Bond's "traditional" look, weren't both Connery's and Moore's suit styles relatively rakish and markedly divergent from the traditional military-man cuts of their time? Being careful here to avoid mixing cinema and literary Bond themes and motifs, cinema Bond in the earliest days was engineered to look fashionable but not conventional; it's all in the intended effect and with regard to the Dalton era, I don't think most people picked up on how flashy Dalton dressed, but rather on how dressed-down he was, which was exactly what was intended.
Brosnan's Brioni suits were from a different kind of Italian brand than the LTK suits. Brioni is a luxury clothing brand, not a fashion house like LTK's Stefano Ricci. Brosnan's Brioni clothes touched on fashion at the request of Lindy Hemming, but the clothes overall were not fashion forward. They were, however, too luxurious for Bond. Dalton wore his suits in LTK in a way as to not draw attention to them, so most people, especially at the time, wouldn't pay any attention to them. That doesn't change that the suits would not have been something in keeping with any part incarnation of Bond, cinematic or literary. Connery's 1960s suits were the least fashionable of all the Bonds. They were only fashionable in the narrow lapels and on occasion waistcoats with a straight bottom. Other than that they were straight out of the 1950s with a fuller cut and pleated trousers, and they were very similar to what Fleming wore himself. Compare them to what Roger Moore was wearing in The Saint at the time for something more fashionable. Lazenby and Moore in his first two Bond films wore much more fashionable and flashier suits, but they were still from London tailors like where the literary Bond would have purchased his suits. Compare that to purchasing expensive suits from an Italian fashion brand for LTK and Dalton is further from the origins.
I was specifically talking about the suits in LTK. They have the baggy cut that GQ was pushing at the time, which would not have been at all to the tastes of a military man like Bond. The suit jackets have wide lapels with a very, very low gorge and low button stance, styles pushed by the fashion brands of the times. The trousers had triple reverse pleats, another fashion statement. More traditional suits at the time had double pleats, with forward pleats being from the most traditional brands like what Dalton wears in TLD. The suits look like they're from an Italian fashion house, not an inconspicuous high street brand. If Bond wore a tie, he'd look like the Wall Street investors of the era. His shirt looks cheap and is definitely American. None of these things are a look for Bond. Only the moccasins are appropriate for Bond.
Regardless of how in-step with fashion tastes Dalton's wardrobe was and all the details therein, to the non-fashion expert/movie viewer, the artistic effect he was trying to convey, worked. Most people are not going to pause the video to count the pleats on his pants. Brosnan's GE (5K£?) suits were also from an Italian fashion house but their intended effect was not exactly the same as the intended effect of Dalton's LTK wardrobe, was it? As for Bond's "traditional" look, weren't both Connery's and Moore's suit styles relatively rakish and markedly divergent from the traditional military-man cuts of their time? Being careful here to avoid mixing cinema and literary Bond themes and motifs, cinema Bond in the earliest days was engineered to look fashionable but not conventional; it's all in the intended effect and with regard to the Dalton era, I don't think most people picked up on how flashy Dalton dressed, but rather on how dressed-down he was, which was exactly what was intended.
Brosnan's Brioni suits were from a different kind of Italian brand than the LTK suits. Brioni is a luxury clothing brand, not a fashion house like LTK's Stefano Ricci. Brosnan's Brioni clothes touched on fashion at the request of Lindy Hemming, but the clothes overall were not fashion forward. They were, however, too luxurious for Bond. Dalton wore his suits in LTK in a way as to not draw attention to them, so most people, especially at the time, wouldn't pay any attention to them. That doesn't change that the suits would not have been something in keeping with any part incarnation of Bond, cinematic or literary. Connery's 1960s suits were the least fashionable of all the Bonds. They were only fashionable in the narrow lapels and on occasion waistcoats with a straight bottom. Other than that they were straight out of the 1950s with a fuller cut and pleated trousers, and they were very similar to what Fleming wore himself. Compare them to what Roger Moore was wearing in The Saint at the time for something more fashionable. Lazenby and Moore in his first two Bond films wore much more fashionable and flashier suits, but they were still from London tailors like where the literary Bond would have purchased his suits. Compare that to purchasing expensive suits from an Italian fashion brand for LTK and Dalton is further from the origins.
Again, you yourself are providing the strong points of my arguments. On Connery, yes his suits were more traditional compared to the Saint’s, but still relatively fashionable than the other British characters depicted in his Bond movies…as intended by the producers.
Visually, who would have thought that Dalton’s LTK suits were from an expensive Italian fashion house? In fact, the general consensus is that his suits were anything but expensive. That’s the whole point, which is what was intended to be conveyed, that the suits of Dalton’s Bond were visually unremarkable just as the literary Bond’s wardrobe was, for which BTW, there is no internal evidence in the books of being from Savile Row or of similar origins that Fleming, despite of borrowing from his own experiences, he for whatever reason chose to not specify in contrast to level of detail he wrote for his villains like Goldfinger, Count Lippe and Largo…which is the whole point of Dalton’s interpretation of Bond’s wardrobe… again, as intended by the producers.
I apologize in advance, but no one in the audience except maybe yourself will try to determine whether Brosnan’s GE suits were from Savile Row or an Italian Fashion house, or for those astute to have read that the suits were indeed Brioni, whether they were of a fashionable or traditional cuts…all details and minutiae lost on the audience except for rendering the general impression Chrisisall pointed out, that Brosnan was a damned clothes horse! …which, again, was the intended effect of the producers that solidly registered with the audience. In the end, none of those other details you brought up matter.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Regardless of how in-step with fashion tastes Dalton's wardrobe was and all the details therein, to the non-fashion expert/movie viewer, the artistic effect he was trying to convey, worked. Most people are not going to pause the video to count the pleats on his pants. Brosnan's GE (5K£?) suits were also from an Italian fashion house but their intended effect was not exactly the same as the intended effect of Dalton's LTK wardrobe, was it? As for Bond's "traditional" look, weren't both Connery's and Moore's suit styles relatively rakish and markedly divergent from the traditional military-man cuts of their time? Being careful here to avoid mixing cinema and literary Bond themes and motifs, cinema Bond in the earliest days was engineered to look fashionable but not conventional; it's all in the intended effect and with regard to the Dalton era, I don't think most people picked up on how flashy Dalton dressed, but rather on how dressed-down he was, which was exactly what was intended.
Brosnan's Brioni suits were from a different kind of Italian brand than the LTK suits. Brioni is a luxury clothing brand, not a fashion house like LTK's Stefano Ricci. Brosnan's Brioni clothes touched on fashion at the request of Lindy Hemming, but the clothes overall were not fashion forward. They were, however, too luxurious for Bond. Dalton wore his suits in LTK in a way as to not draw attention to them, so most people, especially at the time, wouldn't pay any attention to them. That doesn't change that the suits would not have been something in keeping with any part incarnation of Bond, cinematic or literary. Connery's 1960s suits were the least fashionable of all the Bonds. They were only fashionable in the narrow lapels and on occasion waistcoats with a straight bottom. Other than that they were straight out of the 1950s with a fuller cut and pleated trousers, and they were very similar to what Fleming wore himself. Compare them to what Roger Moore was wearing in The Saint at the time for something more fashionable. Lazenby and Moore in his first two Bond films wore much more fashionable and flashier suits, but they were still from London tailors like where the literary Bond would have purchased his suits. Compare that to purchasing expensive suits from an Italian fashion brand for LTK and Dalton is further from the origins.
Again, you yourself are providing the strong points of my arguments. On Connery, yes his suits were more traditional compared to the Saint’s, but still relatively fashionable than the other British characters depicted in his Bond movies…as intended by the producers.
Visually, who would have thought that Dalton’s LTK suits were from an expensive Italian fashion house? In fact, the general consensus is that his suits were anything but expensive. That’s the whole point, which is what was intended to be conveyed, that the suits of Dalton’s Bond were visually unremarkable just as the literary Bond’s wardrobe was, for which BTW, there is no internal evidence in the books of being from Savile Row or of similar origins that Fleming, despite of borrowing from his own experiences, he for whatever reason chose to not specify in contrast to level of detail he wrote for his villains like Goldfinger, Count Lippe and Largo…which is the whole point of Dalton’s interpretation of Bond’s wardrobe… again, as intended by the producers.
I apologize in advance, but no one in the audience except maybe yourself will try to determine whether Brosnan’s GE suits were from Savile Row or an Italian Fashion house, or for those astute to have read that the suits were indeed Brioni, whether they were of a fashionable or traditional cuts…all details and minutiae lost on the audience except for rendering the general impression Chrisisall pointed out, that Brosnan was a damned clothes horse! …which, again, was the intended effect of the producers that solidly registered with the audience. In the end, none of those other details you brought up matter.
But for the most part, Connery's suits followed some trends of the late 1950s like narrow lapels. The suits were not fashionable suits and hardly rakish, as you claimed. They were very similar to what Bernard Lee typically wore as M at the time, except M's suit in DN is more of an early 50s look than Connery's late 50s look. But in subsequent films, if you put M in a grenadine tie he would be dressed the same as Bond.
All of Bond's tastes in clothes in the novels came from the way Fleming himself dressed, except for the ties. It would follow that Bond would have visited a London tailor for his suits just the same as Fleming did. If Bond did purchase his suits ready-to-wear, they would have been from a traditional English shop, not an Italian fashion shop. You're right that the LTK suits don't look fancy, and that's because they fit poorly and Dalton wears them in a sloppy manner. But compare them to the suits in TLD, which have almost no hint of fashion since they were purchased ready-to-wear from British shops. Those suits IMO have the spirit of the literary Bond. They're the kind of suits one can purchase and wear for years. The problem with LTK was that the production was based in North America, so they couldn't get the same kind of suits that they got for TLD. Choices in America weren't so great at that time, since it was either fahionable Italian cuts or old-fashioned American cuts, and neither is better for Bond. And yes, Brosnan was a clothes horse. He wore the clothes well, and the clothes looked expensive. Very, very different from Dalton's Bond and with their own problems for the character.
The truth is, most people don't care about the way other people dress. Since you have no interest in the way Bond actually dresses, there's no point in continuing this discussion. Even some people who do care about the way Bond dresses don't care to understand it. Someone went to Anthony Sinclair in the last few years and asked for a suit just like Connery's. At the fitting that's what they got, a very full-cut suit. The man though Connery wore slim suits with flat front trousers and had the suit recut to be what he imagined Connery's suits to be. People often make out things to be something other than what they really are. I'm a very detail-oriented person and I'm really only interested in the way things truly are.
Brosnan's Brioni suits were from a different kind of Italian brand than the LTK suits. Brioni is a luxury clothing brand, not a fashion house like LTK's Stefano Ricci. Brosnan's Brioni clothes touched on fashion at the request of Lindy Hemming, but the clothes overall were not fashion forward. They were, however, too luxurious for Bond. Dalton wore his suits in LTK in a way as to not draw attention to them, so most people, especially at the time, wouldn't pay any attention to them. That doesn't change that the suits would not have been something in keeping with any part incarnation of Bond, cinematic or literary. Connery's 1960s suits were the least fashionable of all the Bonds. They were only fashionable in the narrow lapels and on occasion waistcoats with a straight bottom. Other than that they were straight out of the 1950s with a fuller cut and pleated trousers, and they were very similar to what Fleming wore himself. Compare them to what Roger Moore was wearing in The Saint at the time for something more fashionable. Lazenby and Moore in his first two Bond films wore much more fashionable and flashier suits, but they were still from London tailors like where the literary Bond would have purchased his suits. Compare that to purchasing expensive suits from an Italian fashion brand for LTK and Dalton is further from the origins.
Again, you yourself are providing the strong points of my arguments. On Connery, yes his suits were more traditional compared to the Saint’s, but still relatively fashionable than the other British characters depicted in his Bond movies…as intended by the producers.
Visually, who would have thought that Dalton’s LTK suits were from an expensive Italian fashion house? In fact, the general consensus is that his suits were anything but expensive. That’s the whole point, which is what was intended to be conveyed, that the suits of Dalton’s Bond were visually unremarkable just as the literary Bond’s wardrobe was, for which BTW, there is no internal evidence in the books of being from Savile Row or of similar origins that Fleming, despite of borrowing from his own experiences, he for whatever reason chose to not specify in contrast to level of detail he wrote for his villains like Goldfinger, Count Lippe and Largo…which is the whole point of Dalton’s interpretation of Bond’s wardrobe… again, as intended by the producers.
I apologize in advance, but no one in the audience except maybe yourself will try to determine whether Brosnan’s GE suits were from Savile Row or an Italian Fashion house, or for those astute to have read that the suits were indeed Brioni, whether they were of a fashionable or traditional cuts…all details and minutiae lost on the audience except for rendering the general impression Chrisisall pointed out, that Brosnan was a damned clothes horse! …which, again, was the intended effect of the producers that solidly registered with the audience. In the end, none of those other details you brought up matter.
But for the most part, Connery's suits followed some trends of the late 1950s like narrow lapels. The suits were not fashionable suits and hardly rakish, as you claimed. They were very similar to what Bernard Lee typically wore as M at the time, except M's suit in DN is more of an early 50s look than Connery's late 50s look. But in subsequent films, if you put M in a grenadine tie he would be dressed the same as Bond.
All of Bond's tastes in clothes in the novels came from the way Fleming himself dressed, except for the ties. It would follow that Bond would have visited a London tailor for his suits just the same as Fleming did. If Bond did purchase his suits ready-to-wear, they would have been from a traditional English shop, not an Italian fashion shop. You're right that the LTK suits don't look fancy, and that's because they fit poorly and Dalton wears them in a sloppy manner. But compare them to the suits in TLD, which have almost no hint of fashion since they were purchased ready-to-wear from British shops. Those suits IMO have the spirit of the literary Bond. They're the kind of suits one can purchase and wear for years. The problem with LTK was that the production was based in North America, so they couldn't get the same kind of suits that they got for TLD. Choices in America weren't so great at that time, since it was either fahionable Italian cuts or old-fashioned American cuts, and neither is better for Bond. And yes, Brosnan was a clothes horse. He wore the clothes well, and the clothes looked expensive. Very, very different from Dalton's Bond and with their own problems for the character.
The truth is, most people don't care about the way other people dress. Since you have no interest in the way Bond actually dresses, there's no point in continuing this discussion. Even some people who do care about the way Bond dresses don't care to understand it. Someone went to Anthony Sinclair in the last few years and asked for a suit just like Connery's. At the fitting that's what they got, a very full-cut suit. The man though Connery wore slim suits with flat front trousers and had the suit recut to be what he imagined Connery's suits to be. People often make out things to be something other than what they really are. I'm a very detail-oriented person and I'm really only interested in the way things truly are.
Look, if your objective is to show people here on this board how knowledgeable you are with Bond’s wardrobe, you’ve succeeded. But that does not change facts, particularly about the production’s intention of how to portray Bond in the individual movies. Please do not twist my words, or more importantly, facts in regard to Fleming’s writings and the Bond movies. The mountain of minutiae you’ve written about fashion details is just a smoke screen to hide your inability to reasonably and logically conclude your arguments.
Why would Literary Bond visit an Italian fashion shop? Where is that coming from?!? Can you prove that Literary Bond had his wardrobe tailored where Fleming himself went? Can you confirm the details of Literary Bond’s suits at the same level of detail you painstakingly noted about Connery’s suits? Fleming obviously provided Bond with some his own personal details, but can you prove that Fleming intended Bond’s tastes in wardrobe and lifestyle, as far as he intended the readers to understand, to exactly mirror his own? Considering the amount of detail Fleming belabored to add to develop his characters, particularly Bond, why did he as stated on record and in deed, leave the details of Bond’s wardrobe to a minimum, stopping short of providing the same level of detail he provided for the clothing and accessories worn by his other characters? So please focus on these “details,” …those are important details…that he left out!
For someone who claims to be a “detail-oriented person only interested in the way things truly are,” you cannot accept statements I’ve made that are based on well-documented sources, from EON itself, which do not agree with your opinions. So, ultimately the way things truly are,” as far as you are concerned, is woefully based on your own, unsupported version of reality.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Again, you yourself are providing the strong points of my arguments. On Connery, yes his suits were more traditional compared to the Saint’s, but still relatively fashionable than the other British characters depicted in his Bond movies…as intended by the producers.
Visually, who would have thought that Dalton’s LTK suits were from an expensive Italian fashion house? In fact, the general consensus is that his suits were anything but expensive. That’s the whole point, which is what was intended to be conveyed, that the suits of Dalton’s Bond were visually unremarkable just as the literary Bond’s wardrobe was, for which BTW, there is no internal evidence in the books of being from Savile Row or of similar origins that Fleming, despite of borrowing from his own experiences, he for whatever reason chose to not specify in contrast to level of detail he wrote for his villains like Goldfinger, Count Lippe and Largo…which is the whole point of Dalton’s interpretation of Bond’s wardrobe… again, as intended by the producers.
I apologize in advance, but no one in the audience except maybe yourself will try to determine whether Brosnan’s GE suits were from Savile Row or an Italian Fashion house, or for those astute to have read that the suits were indeed Brioni, whether they were of a fashionable or traditional cuts…all details and minutiae lost on the audience except for rendering the general impression Chrisisall pointed out, that Brosnan was a damned clothes horse! …which, again, was the intended effect of the producers that solidly registered with the audience. In the end, none of those other details you brought up matter.
But for the most part, Connery's suits followed some trends of the late 1950s like narrow lapels. The suits were not fashionable suits and hardly rakish, as you claimed. They were very similar to what Bernard Lee typically wore as M at the time, except M's suit in DN is more of an early 50s look than Connery's late 50s look. But in subsequent films, if you put M in a grenadine tie he would be dressed the same as Bond.
All of Bond's tastes in clothes in the novels came from the way Fleming himself dressed, except for the ties. It would follow that Bond would have visited a London tailor for his suits just the same as Fleming did. If Bond did purchase his suits ready-to-wear, they would have been from a traditional English shop, not an Italian fashion shop. You're right that the LTK suits don't look fancy, and that's because they fit poorly and Dalton wears them in a sloppy manner. But compare them to the suits in TLD, which have almost no hint of fashion since they were purchased ready-to-wear from British shops. Those suits IMO have the spirit of the literary Bond. They're the kind of suits one can purchase and wear for years. The problem with LTK was that the production was based in North America, so they couldn't get the same kind of suits that they got for TLD. Choices in America weren't so great at that time, since it was either fahionable Italian cuts or old-fashioned American cuts, and neither is better for Bond. And yes, Brosnan was a clothes horse. He wore the clothes well, and the clothes looked expensive. Very, very different from Dalton's Bond and with their own problems for the character.
The truth is, most people don't care about the way other people dress. Since you have no interest in the way Bond actually dresses, there's no point in continuing this discussion. Even some people who do care about the way Bond dresses don't care to understand it. Someone went to Anthony Sinclair in the last few years and asked for a suit just like Connery's. At the fitting that's what they got, a very full-cut suit. The man though Connery wore slim suits with flat front trousers and had the suit recut to be what he imagined Connery's suits to be. People often make out things to be something other than what they really are. I'm a very detail-oriented person and I'm really only interested in the way things truly are.
Look, if your objective is to show people here on this board how knowledgeable you are with Bond’s wardrobe, you’ve succeeded. But that does not change facts, particularly about the production’s intention of how to portray Bond in the individual movies. Please do not twist my words, or more importantly, facts in regard to Fleming’s writings and the Bond movies. The mountain of minutiae you’ve written about fashion details is just a smoke screen to hide your inability to reasonably and logically conclude your arguments.
Why would Literary Bond visit an Italian fashion shop? Where is that coming from?!? Can you prove that Literary Bond had his wardrobe tailored where Fleming himself went? Can you confirm the details of Literary Bond’s suits at the same level of detail you painstakingly noted about Connery’s suits? Fleming obviously provided Bond with some his own personal details, but can you prove that Fleming intended Bond’s tastes in wardrobe and lifestyle, as far as he intended the readers to understand, to exactly mirror his own? Considering the amount of detail Fleming belabored to add to develop his characters, particularly Bond, why did he as stated on record and in deed, leave the details of Bond’s wardrobe to a minimum, stopping short of providing the same level of detail he provided for the clothing and accessories worn by his other characters? So please focus on these “details,” …those are important details…that he left out!
For someone who claims to be a “detail-oriented person only interested in the way things truly are,” you cannot accept statements I’ve made that are based on well-documented sources, from EON itself, which do not agree with your opinions. So, ultimately the way things truly are,” as far as you are concerned, is woefully based on your own, unsupported version of reality.
When did I say the literary Bond would visit an Italian fashion shop? I've only said things that go completely against it. That's why I'm so much against the suits in LTK. They look too fashion forward and Italian for what I believe Bond should wear. That's why I don't think Moore, Dalton and Brosnan should have worn Italian clothes.
I cannot prove that the literary Bond went to Fleming's tailor, but based on all the wardrobe similarities they share I think it makes sense that they would. I cannot confirm many of the details of the literary Bond's suits, only based on what fashions were at the time, mostly based on what Fleming himself wore. The literary Bond's tastes did not exactly mimic Fleming's (with ties being the only mentioned difference) but I don't think it's unreasonable to try to fill in the blanks with what Fleming wore because of all the similarities they did share. We do know a lot of the details of Bond's clothes, we just don't know where they came from. To me, this suggests that Fleming wanted Bond to dress anonymously. There's much that I cannot prove, and I haven't stated anything I haven't proved as fact.
Where have I gone wrong on "the production’s intention of how to portray Bond in the individual movies?" I've read every interview with costume designers, watched every DVD documentary and commentary, and spoken with providers of Bond clothes. I don't know where you think I've gone wrong. What statements have I disagreed with other than your own opinions on how you've come to look at Bond clothes? I'm happy to give clarification to anything I've said.
Bond would need a hat and a camera hanging from his neck to complete the ignorant JW Pepper tourist look, not including shorts with pasty legs and a thick mid-section. As for attempting to not be at odds with the personal style of a security agent, the result will look exactly like that, of a plain-clothes security agent in a stake-out. Ultimately, fashion sense was inconsequential to the operation, at least not as much as touching your ear-piece. In the greater scheme of things, it's not that egregious of a fashion crime that Bond couldn't redeem himself from.
Ultimately as well, fashion sense on the part of the viewer is an individual issue but one must make a decision whether to size-up Bond to our expectations and camp there, or to look beyond that to see what exactly the film-makers were trying to convey; in the case of CR, it was a radical reboot via the very first Fleming story about Bond. It was Bond-begins, how crude (to Bond standards) he was before he became the Bond we're all familiar with, deconstructing everything about the character that's been accumulated up to that point only to later update him in the familiar tuxedo, all within the span of one movie. From that wider perspective, the garish shirt in the beginning accomplished what it was designed to accomplish, it worked.
Yes, it was effective to show that Bond was crude before he was turned into the Bond we were more familiar with. But that's a whole other problem I have with Casino Royale. Bond's tastes (particularly in dress) would have been learned first in public school and then in the military, not at the age of 38.
could not agree more, so fed up at the time with all the "becomes the Bond we all know" come on a middle aged man who spent nearly 2 decades in the military where he learnt to be an officer and gentleman!!
I don't want to get involved in any arguments because I recently enlisted in TP's "AJB-kumbaya-peace-and-enlightenment movement" and I don't want to violate my vows.
But 1. I don't know why they made Bond 38 in CR instead of, say, 30 and that might better explain a lack of sophistication; and 2. As career military he may not have had much experience in dressing in civilian clothes and that might explain the rather louche short-sleeved casual shirt in the Madagascar scene.
Can I join, will bring my own tamborine ) ) .GB was not referring to that shirt( could have just grabbed it off of some market stall in haste to cover a weapon ect) I mean in general he would even at 30 he would have sophistication ect contrary to what a lot of people think most military personnel are not knuckle dragging thugs and am speaking from 22years experiance. Have known 23 year olds with more style and sophistication than Posh and Becks and Nigel Havers put together! Peace and love to all )
I don't want to get involved in any arguments because I recently enlisted in TP's "AJB-kumbaya-peace-and-enlightenment movement" and I don't want to violate my vows.
But 1. I don't know why they made Bond 38 in CR instead of, say, 30 and that might better explain a lack of sophistication; and 2. As career military he may not have had much experience in dressing in civilian clothes and that might explain the rather louche short-sleeved casual shirt in the Madagascar scene.
I can explain your first point easily - It was Craig playing Bond in CR, not Brosnan - so 38 was the absolutely youngest they could have make him to be! )
Comments
Yes, awful for Bond to wear on both counts, which is one of my main points, that with Bond there has been an established conceptual standard and any diversion from that has proven irksome for us viewers. I don't want to make excuses on behalf of the production, but in those moments there must have been some artistic decisions made and it would be interesting to learn what those were; sometimes mistakes that result despite of the best planning only become obvious when it’s too late.
But again to play devil's advocate and to look at the "real world" situations of those scenes from CR and DAD, what high dressing standards were there to uphold in those locations, even in careful consideration of being inconspicuous? How would you expect an "innocent" foreign bystander to look like in a third world setting? The solid shirts worn by the collective have nothing to do with what was appropriate for anyone else to wear; it's a stake-out where no one is supposed to look like they're all associated with one another, not a trip to the mall by a group of tween girls. Had Craig, for example, dressed in Madagascar the way he later did when he was mistaken as a parking valet in the Bahamas, he would have obviously looked like a plain clothes security professional.
Poorly fitted, I agree, which wasn't out of the ordinary for those times. As I said, it was Dalton's attempt to de-emphasize Bond's sartorial standards; his intentions explained, the results we've seen, no further explanation needed on that count, because it is what it is.
But flashy and ultra-fashionable? That I cannot understand. Can you please elaborate how they were so, and which LTK Bond outfits were flashy and ultra-fashionable? How are canvas "Vans" style deck shoes any different in spirit from say, the leather sandals worn by Literary Bond, regardless of their popularity? From what I understand, Bond packed for this particular trip to attend a wedding and perhaps take in some R&R on his own time.
If Bond was trying to dress like an expat who was familiar with the area, I would have expected him to not dress so much like the ignorant tourist, JW Pepper. JW Pepper actually wears a similar shirt in Thailand. If Bond were dressing like an expat, he probably wouldn't wear something at such odds with his personal style. It's like Bond's trying to fit it with other people, but then he doesn't fit in with everyone and doesn't hold true to himself. I agree that the shirt he wears under his light grey suit would not have been good either. My guess as to why Bond was dressed in such a garish shirt was to make him stand out from the crowd so that we as viewers of the film wouldn't have trouble spotting him.
I was specifically talking about the suits in LTK. They have the baggy cut that GQ was pushing at the time, which would not have been at all to the tastes of a military man like Bond. The suit jackets have wide lapels with a very, very low gorge and low button stance, styles pushed by the fashion brands of the times. The trousers had triple reverse pleats, another fashion statement. More traditional suits at the time had double pleats, with forward pleats being from the most traditional brands like what Dalton wears in TLD. The suits look like they're from an Italian fashion house, not an inconspicuous high street brand. If Bond wore a tie, he'd look like the Wall Street investors of the era. His shirt looks cheap and is definitely American. None of these things are a look for Bond. Only the moccasins are appropriate for Bond.
Bond would need a hat and a camera hanging from his neck to complete the ignorant JW Pepper tourist look, not including shorts with pasty legs and a thick mid-section. As for attempting to not be at odds with the personal style of a security agent, the result will look exactly like that, of a plain-clothes security agent in a stake-out. Ultimately, fashion sense was inconsequential to the operation, at least not as much as touching your ear-piece. In the greater scheme of things, it's not that egregious of a fashion crime that Bond couldn't redeem himself from.
Ultimately as well, fashion sense on the part of the viewer is an individual issue but one must make a decision whether to size-up Bond to our expectations and camp there, or to look beyond that to see what exactly the film-makers were trying to convey; in the case of CR, it was a radical reboot via the very first Fleming story about Bond. It was Bond-begins, how crude (to Bond standards) he was before he became the Bond we're all familiar with, deconstructing everything about the character that's been accumulated up to that point only to later update him in the familiar tuxedo, all within the span of one movie. From that wider perspective, the garish shirt in the beginning accomplished what it was designed to accomplish, it worked.
Yes, it was effective to show that Bond was crude before he was turned into the Bond we were more familiar with. But that's a whole other problem I have with Casino Royale. Bond's tastes (particularly in dress) would have been learned first in public school and then in the military, not at the age of 38.
Regardless of how in-step with fashion tastes Dalton's wardrobe was and all the details therein, to the non-fashion expert/movie viewer, the artistic effect he was trying to convey, worked. Most people are not going to pause the video to count the pleats on his pants. Brosnan's GE (5K£?) suits were also from an Italian fashion house but their intended effect was not exactly the same as the intended effect of Dalton's LTK wardrobe, was it? As for Bond's "traditional" look, weren't both Connery's and Moore's suit styles relatively rakish and markedly divergent from the traditional military-man cuts of their time? Being careful here to avoid mixing cinema and literary Bond themes and motifs, cinema Bond in the earliest days was engineered to look fashionable but not conventional; it's all in the intended effect and with regard to the Dalton era, I don't think most people picked up on how flashy Dalton dressed, but rather on how dressed-down he was, which was exactly what was intended.
As a larger fan of the books than the movies, the whole Bond origins thing including his public school roots and the military bearing that should be evident, is a glaring issue. However, considering with what the producers are given to work with, I'm a bit more forgiving for the narrative sleight-of-hand they executed with the reboot. In my perfect Bond world, Dalton and Brosnan would have magically continued in their respective tenures (5 films each, continuing from where they respectively left off), magically I say because these would be two mutually-exclusive events. But would the series have survived, considering that its longevity rests on audience box office? That's why it would have needed that element of impossible magic.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Brosnan's Brioni suits were from a different kind of Italian brand than the LTK suits. Brioni is a luxury clothing brand, not a fashion house like LTK's Stefano Ricci. Brosnan's Brioni clothes touched on fashion at the request of Lindy Hemming, but the clothes overall were not fashion forward. They were, however, too luxurious for Bond. Dalton wore his suits in LTK in a way as to not draw attention to them, so most people, especially at the time, wouldn't pay any attention to them. That doesn't change that the suits would not have been something in keeping with any part incarnation of Bond, cinematic or literary. Connery's 1960s suits were the least fashionable of all the Bonds. They were only fashionable in the narrow lapels and on occasion waistcoats with a straight bottom. Other than that they were straight out of the 1950s with a fuller cut and pleated trousers, and they were very similar to what Fleming wore himself. Compare them to what Roger Moore was wearing in The Saint at the time for something more fashionable. Lazenby and Moore in his first two Bond films wore much more fashionable and flashier suits, but they were still from London tailors like where the literary Bond would have purchased his suits. Compare that to purchasing expensive suits from an Italian fashion brand for LTK and Dalton is further from the origins.
Again, you yourself are providing the strong points of my arguments. On Connery, yes his suits were more traditional compared to the Saint’s, but still relatively fashionable than the other British characters depicted in his Bond movies…as intended by the producers.
Visually, who would have thought that Dalton’s LTK suits were from an expensive Italian fashion house? In fact, the general consensus is that his suits were anything but expensive. That’s the whole point, which is what was intended to be conveyed, that the suits of Dalton’s Bond were visually unremarkable just as the literary Bond’s wardrobe was, for which BTW, there is no internal evidence in the books of being from Savile Row or of similar origins that Fleming, despite of borrowing from his own experiences, he for whatever reason chose to not specify in contrast to level of detail he wrote for his villains like Goldfinger, Count Lippe and Largo…which is the whole point of Dalton’s interpretation of Bond’s wardrobe… again, as intended by the producers.
I apologize in advance, but no one in the audience except maybe yourself will try to determine whether Brosnan’s GE suits were from Savile Row or an Italian Fashion house, or for those astute to have read that the suits were indeed Brioni, whether they were of a fashionable or traditional cuts…all details and minutiae lost on the audience except for rendering the general impression Chrisisall pointed out, that Brosnan was a damned clothes horse! …which, again, was the intended effect of the producers that solidly registered with the audience. In the end, none of those other details you brought up matter.
But for the most part, Connery's suits followed some trends of the late 1950s like narrow lapels. The suits were not fashionable suits and hardly rakish, as you claimed. They were very similar to what Bernard Lee typically wore as M at the time, except M's suit in DN is more of an early 50s look than Connery's late 50s look. But in subsequent films, if you put M in a grenadine tie he would be dressed the same as Bond.
All of Bond's tastes in clothes in the novels came from the way Fleming himself dressed, except for the ties. It would follow that Bond would have visited a London tailor for his suits just the same as Fleming did. If Bond did purchase his suits ready-to-wear, they would have been from a traditional English shop, not an Italian fashion shop. You're right that the LTK suits don't look fancy, and that's because they fit poorly and Dalton wears them in a sloppy manner. But compare them to the suits in TLD, which have almost no hint of fashion since they were purchased ready-to-wear from British shops. Those suits IMO have the spirit of the literary Bond. They're the kind of suits one can purchase and wear for years. The problem with LTK was that the production was based in North America, so they couldn't get the same kind of suits that they got for TLD. Choices in America weren't so great at that time, since it was either fahionable Italian cuts or old-fashioned American cuts, and neither is better for Bond. And yes, Brosnan was a clothes horse. He wore the clothes well, and the clothes looked expensive. Very, very different from Dalton's Bond and with their own problems for the character.
The truth is, most people don't care about the way other people dress. Since you have no interest in the way Bond actually dresses, there's no point in continuing this discussion. Even some people who do care about the way Bond dresses don't care to understand it. Someone went to Anthony Sinclair in the last few years and asked for a suit just like Connery's. At the fitting that's what they got, a very full-cut suit. The man though Connery wore slim suits with flat front trousers and had the suit recut to be what he imagined Connery's suits to be. People often make out things to be something other than what they really are. I'm a very detail-oriented person and I'm really only interested in the way things truly are.
Look, if your objective is to show people here on this board how knowledgeable you are with Bond’s wardrobe, you’ve succeeded. But that does not change facts, particularly about the production’s intention of how to portray Bond in the individual movies. Please do not twist my words, or more importantly, facts in regard to Fleming’s writings and the Bond movies. The mountain of minutiae you’ve written about fashion details is just a smoke screen to hide your inability to reasonably and logically conclude your arguments.
Why would Literary Bond visit an Italian fashion shop? Where is that coming from?!? Can you prove that Literary Bond had his wardrobe tailored where Fleming himself went? Can you confirm the details of Literary Bond’s suits at the same level of detail you painstakingly noted about Connery’s suits? Fleming obviously provided Bond with some his own personal details, but can you prove that Fleming intended Bond’s tastes in wardrobe and lifestyle, as far as he intended the readers to understand, to exactly mirror his own? Considering the amount of detail Fleming belabored to add to develop his characters, particularly Bond, why did he as stated on record and in deed, leave the details of Bond’s wardrobe to a minimum, stopping short of providing the same level of detail he provided for the clothing and accessories worn by his other characters? So please focus on these “details,” …those are important details…that he left out!
For someone who claims to be a “detail-oriented person only interested in the way things truly are,” you cannot accept statements I’ve made that are based on well-documented sources, from EON itself, which do not agree with your opinions. So, ultimately the way things truly are,” as far as you are concerned, is woefully based on your own, unsupported version of reality.
When did I say the literary Bond would visit an Italian fashion shop? I've only said things that go completely against it. That's why I'm so much against the suits in LTK. They look too fashion forward and Italian for what I believe Bond should wear. That's why I don't think Moore, Dalton and Brosnan should have worn Italian clothes.
I cannot prove that the literary Bond went to Fleming's tailor, but based on all the wardrobe similarities they share I think it makes sense that they would. I cannot confirm many of the details of the literary Bond's suits, only based on what fashions were at the time, mostly based on what Fleming himself wore. The literary Bond's tastes did not exactly mimic Fleming's (with ties being the only mentioned difference) but I don't think it's unreasonable to try to fill in the blanks with what Fleming wore because of all the similarities they did share. We do know a lot of the details of Bond's clothes, we just don't know where they came from. To me, this suggests that Fleming wanted Bond to dress anonymously. There's much that I cannot prove, and I haven't stated anything I haven't proved as fact.
Where have I gone wrong on "the production’s intention of how to portray Bond in the individual movies?" I've read every interview with costume designers, watched every DVD documentary and commentary, and spoken with providers of Bond clothes. I don't know where you think I've gone wrong. What statements have I disagreed with other than your own opinions on how you've come to look at Bond clothes? I'm happy to give clarification to anything I've said.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
But 1. I don't know why they made Bond 38 in CR instead of, say, 30 and that might better explain a lack of sophistication; and 2. As career military he may not have had much experience in dressing in civilian clothes and that might explain the rather louche short-sleeved casual shirt in the Madagascar scene.
I'm AJB's L Ron Hubbard.
Absolutely true - but Moore and Dalton were not too bad either - it's just that their clothes were less timeless.
I can explain your first point easily - It was Craig playing Bond in CR, not Brosnan - so 38 was the absolutely youngest they could have make him to be!