Bond, whom I would ideally describe as more of a hero than an anti-hero, is also IMO quite fascinating. However even though he is morally ambiguous (which I quite like as some of my favourite Bondian qualities, such as his sexism, are his flaws), he doesn't turn me off in the same way that Jack Bauer does. JFF said it better (although I have more tolerance for Bond's dark side than he does) but I have always felt that playing Bond requires a delicate balance. The actor needs to have both 'sympathetic' and 'flawed' character traits. Although the performances differed in quality, this balance IMO was provided in every Bond film ever made (save for LTK.)
Firstly, I think you're way off base on the LTK point, but we've been down that road before.
Secondly, I don't know why it is that you insist on not even recognizing the literary 007 tradition when you talk about what Bond should be and basically view a strongly literary-influenced interpretation to be illegitimate. (You haven't explicitly said this, but it's certainly what you imply) It's like you don't even care that the literary 007 exists, and that a lot of people want to see the literary character strongly resemble him.
Me, I just love Bond. I prefer the character to be more like the literary version, but I find it very easy to watch and enjoy a Moore film. The fact of the matter is that its Bond, whether it be the lighter version characteristic of Moore or the more literary-influenced version characteristic of Dalton. There's not one set thing that Bond SHOULD be, because Bond has been so many things. I don't see why we can't appreciate them all instead of badmouthing a certian actor or portrayal in order to promote our own agendas and make ourselves look better, smarter, more expertly, etc.. I did this with Moore for a while until I realized what I was doing, and I regret doing that because Moore is most certainly an entertaining Bond who made a significant impact that must be appreciated.
I thought I read this somewhere, but I believe Ian Fleming originally wanted Roger Moore to play him and I've heard that authors who modeled after Fleming for Bond also said that Roger was closer to his adaptation than Connery!
I thought I read this somewhere, but I believe Ian Fleming originally wanted Roger Moore to play him and I've heard that authors who modeled after Fleming for Bond also said that Roger was closer to his adaptation than Connery!
Firstly, everyone from Sid James to Carey Grant to David Niven to Richard Burton is said to have been preferred by Fleming for the role. We'll never know exactly who he wanted, because so many people say so many different things. If I was to speculate based on what I have read in the novels, what Fleming wrote or said about Bond outside of the books (he once compared Bond to a young Henry Cotton), I think it's really impossible to say who exactly he would have envisioned for the role, beacuse he wrote so many different things about Bond and gave him so many different traits, some of which are paradoxical. (Fleming's own universe is almost as diverse as the cinematic one) He apparently didn't envision Bond looking like Connery, but Connery won him over to the point at which he gave Bond a Scottish heritage in YOLT, so something tells me that at least the spirit of Connery's performance is something he felt fit within the realm of the spirt of the character.
Secondly, I could definitely see a case for Moore appearing more like the Literary 007 being made (sans the hair color, which is too light), and there are textual references that can be made to support this view. Moore certainly looks more like a 1950s American Film Star in the mold of Clark Gable or Gregory Peck than Connery did, although I would say that his mentions that he looks like Hoagy Carmichael or out-of-text mention of Henry Cotton ambiguates the issue somewhat. I would also say that Moore's demeanor is Flemingesque. (Observe the scenes at the casino and at the dinner table with Kristatos in FYEO; that's definitely some very good Fleming done by Moore) But it terms of the full, multi-dimensional spirit of the character (the dark side, the impulses, the thoughts, the things that drive him, the relationships with women, in addition to many other aspects), I would certainly say that Dalton nailed Fleming nearly perfectly (although his demeanor is a little off at times in TLD, where I think he is a bit more wirey than Fleming's character), and that Connery and Brosnan both did excellent jobs in these regards. I think Moore had perfect capability of doing this, and he showed flashes of it, but the films chose to go in a different direction.
In appearance, I think the Literary 007 is a more ruggedly handsome figure in his early-late 30s whose appearance has been tainted by years of smoke, heavy drink, and stressful living, but he has an aura/hint, if you will, of refinement, which can be seen in how he carries himself, how he cleans up, how he dresses, etc.. I think Dalton, Connery, and Lazenby had the appearance down cold (I would actually argue that, in terms of appearance, Lazenby was the closest), but Moore and Brosnan had the refinement thing down for sure and definitely looked like guys in their late-30s who have had qutie a few drinks and wrinkling situations in their days. (Although Moore was entirely too old in his last films, which he still did a good job in)
There's enough source material in Fleming to make a case for any of them being the best interpretation of Fleming, depending on what you prioritize and identify with. In my own experiences with the novels, some of the themes that commonly come up with his thoughts, feelings, motivations, actions, demeanor, personality, etc. I think have molded the character into, at the foundation, being something certain, and Dalton IMO (and an opinion that's shared with, I would guestimate, a majority of the Bond fan community and punditry) captures this spirit better than anyone else.
Secondly, I don't know why it is that you insist on not even recognizing the literary 007 tradition when you talk about what Bond should be and basically view a strongly literary-influenced interpretation to be illegitimate. (You haven't explicitly said this, but it's certainly what you imply) It's like you don't even care that the literary 007 exists, and that a lot of people want to see the literary character strongly resemble him.
I'm only talking about what I like. You do the same thing in (even more) strong language. I am ignoring the literally tradition, mostly because I haven't read the books, but also because I don't like one of the Bond performances that is particularly faithful to Fleming.
Me, I just love Bond. I prefer the character to be more like the literary version, but I find it very easy to watch and enjoy a Moore film. The fact of the matter is that its Bond, whether it be the lighter version characteristic of Moore or the more literary-influenced version characteristic of Dalton. There's not one set thing that Bond SHOULD be, because Bond has been so many things. I don't see why we can't appreciate them all instead of badmouthing a certian actor or portrayal in order to promote our own agendas and make ourselves look better, smarter, more expertly, etc.. I did this with Moore for a while until I realized what I was doing, and I regret doing that because Moore is most certainly an entertaining Bond who made a significant impact that must be appreciated.
I'm not 'badmouthing' anybody in order to promote any agenda or to make myself appear 'better, smarter, more expertly, etc..' ?:) I said this on another thread, but the truth is, I enjoy all of the Bond films. Even my least favourite Bond films are not among my all-time least favourite films. This is a specialist Bond site, so when I talk about Bond films and Bond actors (in comparison to each other) I may express passion (against certain films and actors.) I don't think there's anything wrong with that. There would be something wrong if I did that on a general film site or in public, which I never do. Plus, it's all very well to say that 'There's not one set thing that Bond SHOULD be' but on a specialist Bond site, such as this, everyone has preferences. I adore Bond but I don't think I have to be as all-embracing (of all the films and actors) on a specialist Bond site as I would be on a regular film site or when speaking to a non-Bond fan in my day-to-day life.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
I thought I read this somewhere, but I believe Ian Fleming originally wanted Roger Moore to play him and I've heard that authors who modeled after Fleming for Bond also said that Roger was closer to his adaptation than Connery!
Firstly, everyone from Sid James to Carey Grant to David Niven to Richard Burton is said to have been preferred by Fleming for the role. We'll never know exactly who he wanted, because so many people say so many different things. If I was to speculate based on what I have read in the novels, what Fleming wrote or said about Bond outside of the books (he once compared Bond to a young Henry Cotton), I think it's really impossible to say who exactly he would have envisioned for the role, beacuse he wrote so many different things about Bond and gave him so many different traits, some of which are paradoxical. (Fleming's own universe is almost as diverse as the cinematic one) He apparently didn't envision Bond looking like Connery, but Connery won him over to the point at which he gave Bond a Scottish heritage in YOLT, so something tells me that at least the spirit of Connery's performance is something he felt fit within the realm of the spirt of the character.
Secondly, I could definitely see a case for Moore appearing more like the Literary 007 being made (sans the hair color, which is too light), and there are textual references that can be made to support this view. Moore certainly looks more like a 1950s American Film Star in the mold of Clark Gable or Gregory Peck than Connery did, although I would say that his mentions that he looks like Hoagy Carmichael or out-of-text mention of Henry Cotton ambiguates the issue somewhat. I would also say that Moore's demeanor is Flemingesque. (Observe the scenes at the casino and at the dinner table with Kristatos in FYEO; that's definitely some very good Fleming done by Moore) But it terms of the full, multi-dimensional spirit of the character (the dark side, the impulses, the thoughts, the things that drive him, the relationships with women, in addition to many other aspects), I would certainly say that Dalton nailed Fleming nearly perfectly (although his demeanor is a little off at times in TLD, where I think he is a bit more wirey than Fleming's character), and that Connery and Brosnan both did excellent jobs in these regards. I think Moore had perfect capability of doing this, and he showed flashes of it, but the films chose to go in a different direction.
In appearance, I think the Literary 007 is a more ruggedly handsome figure in his early-late 30s whose appearance has been tainted by years of smoke, heavy drink, and stressful living, but he has an aura/hint, if you will, of refinement, which can be seen in how he carries himself, how he cleans up, how he dresses, etc.. I think Dalton, Connery, and Lazenby had the appearance down cold (I would actually argue that, in terms of appearance, Lazenby was the closest), but Moore and Brosnan had the refinement thing down for sure and definitely looked like guys in their late-30s who have had qutie a few drinks and wrinkling situations in their days. (Although Moore was entirely too old in his last films, which he still did a good job in)
There's enough source material in Fleming to make a case for any of them being the best interpretation of Fleming, depending on what you prioritize and identify with. In my own experiences with the novels, some of the themes that commonly come up with his thoughts, feelings, motivations, actions, demeanor, personality, etc. I think have molded the character into, at the foundation, being something certain, and Dalton IMO (and an opinion that's shared with, I would guestimate, a majority of the Bond fan community and punditry) captures this spirit better than anyone else.
Very nice assessment, Klaus, thank you.
"...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.....
Just in case anyone is curious, here is a link explianing some things about Dalton's tenure, notably the lack of commercial success in LTK and his departure fromt he role.
Firstly, everyone from Sid James to Carey Grant to David Niven to Richard Burton is said to have been preferred by Fleming for the role.
Ironically, I had rather liked David Niven as "Sir" James Bond. His portrayal was quite a different take on the usual Bond role - a little more old-fashioned and a deadlier wit. It's too bad that he was only featured in the 1967 version of "Casino Royale".
I do like LTK, but quite frankly, it seemed more like a movie version of "Miami Vice" than a Bond flick. I feel that was the main problem. Could Dalton had survived LTK? Of course. If Eon Productions had not waited six years to do the next Bond film.
If MGM had put up the bucks to give LTK a proper advertising campaign, it would have been just as successful, if not more successful, than TLD. Internationally, it made almost as much money as AVTAK with a significantly weaker US tally, which says something about its popularity internationally.
LTK is arguably the most Flemingesque Bond film ever made. It takes a number of plot points straight from a number of Fleming stories, and it shows Bond in full Fleming character with, IMO, the best performance of Bond to date by Dalton. I'll chalk it at #2 on my list.
Just in case anyone is curious, here is a link explianing some things about Dalton's tenure, notably the lack of commercial success in LTK and his departure fromt he role.
Some fascinating reading, Klaus. Thank you! I really enjoyed the additional articles, including the 'Nessie'-like spotting of Ian Fleming in FRWL. That mysterious figure standing next to the train has always puzzled me!
I agree with some of the points of drash and emtiem.
I didn't like it that Dalton's portrayal did not have a humorous witt, and he didn't exude extreme self confidence. Plus, they were trying to make Bond into a one-woman guy.
After growing up watching Roger Moore stop the universe from exploding while delivering one-liners, never looking worried, never really breaking much of a sweat in fights, and seducing several girls per film ... all with ease, it was unnerving seeing Dalton show genuine concern or fear in his face in simple life-and-death situations. I'd think to myself, lighten up man, you're James Bond.
Comments
I thought I read this somewhere, but I believe Ian Fleming originally wanted Roger Moore to play him and I've heard that authors who modeled after Fleming for Bond also said that Roger was closer to his adaptation than Connery!
Firstly, everyone from Sid James to Carey Grant to David Niven to Richard Burton is said to have been preferred by Fleming for the role. We'll never know exactly who he wanted, because so many people say so many different things. If I was to speculate based on what I have read in the novels, what Fleming wrote or said about Bond outside of the books (he once compared Bond to a young Henry Cotton), I think it's really impossible to say who exactly he would have envisioned for the role, beacuse he wrote so many different things about Bond and gave him so many different traits, some of which are paradoxical. (Fleming's own universe is almost as diverse as the cinematic one) He apparently didn't envision Bond looking like Connery, but Connery won him over to the point at which he gave Bond a Scottish heritage in YOLT, so something tells me that at least the spirit of Connery's performance is something he felt fit within the realm of the spirt of the character.
Secondly, I could definitely see a case for Moore appearing more like the Literary 007 being made (sans the hair color, which is too light), and there are textual references that can be made to support this view. Moore certainly looks more like a 1950s American Film Star in the mold of Clark Gable or Gregory Peck than Connery did, although I would say that his mentions that he looks like Hoagy Carmichael or out-of-text mention of Henry Cotton ambiguates the issue somewhat. I would also say that Moore's demeanor is Flemingesque. (Observe the scenes at the casino and at the dinner table with Kristatos in FYEO; that's definitely some very good Fleming done by Moore) But it terms of the full, multi-dimensional spirit of the character (the dark side, the impulses, the thoughts, the things that drive him, the relationships with women, in addition to many other aspects), I would certainly say that Dalton nailed Fleming nearly perfectly (although his demeanor is a little off at times in TLD, where I think he is a bit more wirey than Fleming's character), and that Connery and Brosnan both did excellent jobs in these regards. I think Moore had perfect capability of doing this, and he showed flashes of it, but the films chose to go in a different direction.
In appearance, I think the Literary 007 is a more ruggedly handsome figure in his early-late 30s whose appearance has been tainted by years of smoke, heavy drink, and stressful living, but he has an aura/hint, if you will, of refinement, which can be seen in how he carries himself, how he cleans up, how he dresses, etc.. I think Dalton, Connery, and Lazenby had the appearance down cold (I would actually argue that, in terms of appearance, Lazenby was the closest), but Moore and Brosnan had the refinement thing down for sure and definitely looked like guys in their late-30s who have had qutie a few drinks and wrinkling situations in their days. (Although Moore was entirely too old in his last films, which he still did a good job in)
There's enough source material in Fleming to make a case for any of them being the best interpretation of Fleming, depending on what you prioritize and identify with. In my own experiences with the novels, some of the themes that commonly come up with his thoughts, feelings, motivations, actions, demeanor, personality, etc. I think have molded the character into, at the foundation, being something certain, and Dalton IMO (and an opinion that's shared with, I would guestimate, a majority of the Bond fan community and punditry) captures this spirit better than anyone else.
I'm not 'badmouthing' anybody in order to promote any agenda or to make myself appear 'better, smarter, more expertly, etc..' ?:) I said this on another thread, but the truth is, I enjoy all of the Bond films. Even my least favourite Bond films are not among my all-time least favourite films. This is a specialist Bond site, so when I talk about Bond films and Bond actors (in comparison to each other) I may express passion (against certain films and actors.) I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Very nice assessment, Klaus, thank you.
http://www.ianfleming.org/mkkbb/afjbfaq/4.shtml
If MGM had put up the bucks to give LTK a proper advertising campaign, it would have been just as successful, if not more successful, than TLD. Internationally, it made almost as much money as AVTAK with a significantly weaker US tally, which says something about its popularity internationally.
LTK is arguably the most Flemingesque Bond film ever made. It takes a number of plot points straight from a number of Fleming stories, and it shows Bond in full Fleming character with, IMO, the best performance of Bond to date by Dalton. I'll chalk it at #2 on my list.
Some fascinating reading, Klaus. Thank you! I really enjoyed the additional articles, including the 'Nessie'-like spotting of Ian Fleming in FRWL. That mysterious figure standing next to the train has always puzzled me!
I didn't like it that Dalton's portrayal did not have a humorous witt, and he didn't exude extreme self confidence. Plus, they were trying to make Bond into a one-woman guy.
After growing up watching Roger Moore stop the universe from exploding while delivering one-liners, never looking worried, never really breaking much of a sweat in fights, and seducing several girls per film ... all with ease, it was unnerving seeing Dalton show genuine concern or fear in his face in simple life-and-death situations. I'd think to myself, lighten up man, you're James Bond.