I appreciate what you're saying, but there is a difference between, perhaps, the tedium of reality and the spark of fantasy. Although I think Bernard Lee fit the M described in the novels perfectly, both in habit and temperament, I still think he made for the more interesting character. He simply had more depth and personality, often expressed in the subtleties of his performance.
The whole Bond universe rather falls apart when one thinks about it vis a vis reality. The idea of a super-tall, oversexed, Western- European Caucasian being an international "secret" agent and not sticking out like a sore thumb pretty much everywhere except a handful of westernized countries is rather ludicrous to start with. His height alone would make getting about in military vehicles a challenge. That he uses his real name even after being identified by the Russians and SPECTRE is even more silly. So, while Brown or Howard -- two actors I generally find tedious, I'm afraid -- might have been more "realistic," I don't know that I would find either best.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Having actually worked under British officers at certain times (from all three services) when I was stationed on a NATO base, I queried them about the Bond films and got some very interesting answers. They had read the novels and seen the films of course but what was interesting was that as much as they liked Lee as M, they more or less thought the actor himself never seemed to be of "officer" material. When I pressed them on this, they said he would be more convincing as an enlisted man and one of them referenced Lee's role as the sergeant in The Third Man. The always thought Trevor Howard made a more convincing officer (and would have made a great M). When I saw Brown play Adm Hargreaves in TSWLM I noticed that character and asked a couple of the officers about him and they agreed he would make a convincing M.
Interestingly, a couple of those officers reminded me of Brown and Howard and even spoke like them. I supposed that colored my perception of M in the films after that and when Brown began playing M I found him very convincing and started picturing him in the novels rather than Lee. So as much as I thought Lee was a good actor and did a good job in the role as the first M, I preferred Brown when he came aboard.
An interesting perspective! I always preferred Lee, as he seemed the embodiment of the literary M to me, but I definitely see your point, re: officer bearing.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Bernard Lee was pretty bossy in TMWTGG, but then again, he was pretty damn funny.
Lee could bring the comic timing when the material called for it
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I wrote this on another thread but will add it here as it is relevant to the subject being discussed. I watched SP for the 5th time y'day. I enjoyed the film for most parts, however its repeat value took a slight dip because of the following reasons:
a) C and M exchanges felt like speed breakers. For e.g. just after the car chase, you would expect the scene to move to Austria, but we get bogged down with C's initiative in Tokyo
b) After discovering the Blofeld location at L'american, you would want Bond to get on with the assignment. But then things are again bogged down by C and M discussing the relevance of 00s
All these looked ok in the first few viewings. But when it comes to watching a film for the nth time, these things may feel like speed breakers. And then I appreciated the roles of Lee and Brown where they worked in the background effectively in most films
If they want to give M a longer role, may be make in a part of Bond's direct mission (like Q in OP and LTK; M in TWINE) rather than on a parallel story line which eventually connects to Bond's mission as expected .... In SF too, we had M giving lectures to the committee as to why her dept is relevant 8-)
Bond on his own and M fighting for the dept is probably done to death now. Just thinking about it gives me headaches (not to mention Newman's score which added to the torture at times)
(not to mention Newman's score which added to the torture at times)
Newman's score wasn't the worst IMO (see: FYEO), but it added nothing either, sort of like Serra's score for GE.
You don't feel that when you are watching the film for the first 2 or 3 times as you are in the exploring mode and impressed by many of the other things. Once you know everything about the film and go to enjoy it one more time, the shortcoming strike you )
Which is one of the reasons why I admire the older films which have tremendous repeat value
(not to mention Newman's score which added to the torture at times)
Newman's score wasn't the worst IMO (see: FYEO), but it added nothing either, sort of like Serra's score for GE.
You don't feel that when you are watching the film for the first 2 or 3 times as you are in the exploring mode and impressed by many of the other things. Once you know everything about the film and go to enjoy it one more time, the shortcoming strike you )
Which is one of the reasons why I admire the older films which have tremendous repeat value
I take it all in, and the repeat value is mostly better in older films because they let the artists make the movies more- now it's all studio interference because of the enormous budgets. Still, QOS & SP will be my go-to Craig Bonds. Lots of replay (QOS like 10 or more times now).
All these looked ok in the first few viewings. But when it comes to watching a film for the nth time, these things may feel like speed breakers. And then I appreciated the roles of Lee and Brown where they worked in the background effectively in most films
#
Maybe the problem is that you have seen it for the nth time. I go see a film once, twice if its a Bond and then let it lie until the DVD comes out...
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
I appreciate what you're saying, but there is a difference between, perhaps, the tedium of reality and the spark of fantasy. Although I think Bernard Lee fit the M described in the novels perfectly, both in habit and temperament, I still think he made for the more interesting character. He simply had more depth and personality, often expressed in the subtleties of his performance.
The whole Bond universe rather falls apart when one thinks about it vis a vis reality. The idea of a super-tall, oversexed, Western- European Caucasian being an international "secret" agent and not sticking out like a sore thumb pretty much everywhere except a handful of westernized countries is rather ludicrous to start with. His height alone would make getting about in military vehicles a challenge. That he uses his real name even after being identified by the Russians and SPECTRE is even more silly. So, while Brown or Howard -- two actors I generally find tedious, I'm afraid -- might have been more "realistic," I don't know that I would find either best.
You have a valid point in respect to your observations and as I said, Lee was a fine actor. However, one's personal experiences tend to color one's views and my experience working with those officers in that NATO division felt very similar to how Fleming described working under Admiral Godfrey and the atmosphere of those NID offices during the war, which I'm sure he used when writing about Bond working at the Service HQ and under M and to me personally and to the officers I spoke to - not anyone else - Brown seemed to fit the role better and they also mentioned Jack Hawkins would have also been fine (not surprisingly, as he was actually in the SOE in WWII). As far as reality vs fantasy, having worked with those officers made Brown seem more real to me and though it's a fact that much of the Bond universe is fantasy, the bones Fleming built the layers of fantasy on were from his real experiences and people he worked with and knew. I've talked with many vets who worked in similar circumstances over the years and though they acknowledge the fantasy of Bond, they also talked about working or meeting people who resembled characters from Fleming's novels during their service.
You have a valid point in respect to your observations and as I said, Lee was a fine actor. However, one's personal experiences tend to color one's views and my experience working with those officers in that NATO division felt very similar to how Fleming described working under Admiral Godfrey and the atmosphere of those NID offices during the war, which I'm sure he used when writing about Bond working at the Service HQ and under M and to me personally and to the officers I spoke to - not anyone else - Brown seemed to fit the role better and they also mentioned Jack Hawkins would have also been fine (not surprisingly, as he was actually in the SOE in WWII). As far as reality vs fantasy, having worked with those officers made Brown seem more real to me and though it's a fact that much of the Bond universe is fantasy, the bones Fleming built the layers of fantasy on were from his real experiences and people he worked with and knew. I've talked with many vets who worked in similar circumstances over the years and though they acknowledge the fantasy of Bond, they also talked about working or meeting people who resembled characters from Fleming's novels during their service.
I wrote this on another thread but will add it here as it is relevant to the subject being discussed. I watched SP for the 5th time y'day. I enjoyed the film for most parts, however its repeat value took a slight dip because of the following reasons:
a) C and M exchanges felt like speed breakers. For e.g. just after the car chase, you would expect the scene to move to Austria, but we get bogged down with C's initiative in Tokyo
b) After discovering the Blofeld location at L'american, you would want Bond to get on with the assignment. But then things are again bogged down by C and M discussing the relevance of 00s
All these looked ok in the first few viewings. But when it comes to watching a film for the nth time, these things may feel like speed breakers. And then I appreciated the roles of Lee and Brown where they worked in the background effectively in most films
If they want to give M a longer role, may be make in a part of Bond's direct mission (like Q in OP and LTK; M in TWINE) rather than on a parallel story line which eventually connects to Bond's mission as expected .... In SF too, we had M giving lectures to the committee as to why her dept is relevant 8-)
Bond on his own and M fighting for the dept is probably done to death now. Just thinking about it gives me headaches (not to mention Newman's score which added to the torture at times)
I'm inclined to agree with how M is used in SF and SP. I love Fiennes as an actor but I don't think Bond can be upstaged and feel that it was too odd having M confront C. I agree with you that the merger does feel more pedestrian; obviously they want to blend in the secondary characters but London is a bit of a grim setting. In the next film there'll be discontent in the office when they decide to close the office canteen down- or maybe somebody will be dipping their nib in the office ink
Keeping the focus squarely on Bond rather than diverting back to the London base feels like the right thing to do.
I wrote this on another thread but will add it here as it is relevant to the subject being discussed. I watched SP for the 5th time y'day. I enjoyed the film for most parts, however its repeat value took a slight dip because of the following reasons:
a) C and M exchanges felt like speed breakers. For e.g. just after the car chase, you would expect the scene to move to Austria, but we get bogged down with C's initiative in Tokyo
b) After discovering the Blofeld location at L'american, you would want Bond to get on with the assignment. But then things are again bogged down by C and M discussing the relevance of 00s
All these looked ok in the first few viewings. But when it comes to watching a film for the nth time, these things may feel like speed breakers. And then I appreciated the roles of Lee and Brown where they worked in the background effectively in most films
If they want to give M a longer role, may be make in a part of Bond's direct mission (like Q in OP and LTK; M in TWINE) rather than on a parallel story line which eventually connects to Bond's mission as expected .... In SF too, we had M giving lectures to the committee as to why her dept is relevant 8-)
Bond on his own and M fighting for the dept is probably done to death now. Just thinking about it gives me headaches (not to mention Newman's score which added to the torture at times)
I'm inclined to agree with how M is used in SF and SP. I love Fiennes as an actor but I don't think Bond can be upstaged and feel that it was too odd having M confront C. I agree with you that the merger does feel more pedestrian; obviously they want to blend in the secondary characters but London is a bit of a grim setting. In the next film there'll be discontent in the office when they decide to close the office canteen down- or maybe somebody will be dipping their nib in the office ink
Keeping the focus squarely on Bond rather than diverting back to the London base feels like the right thing to do.
The supplementary story lines usually work better in TV series where the events need to be stretched and adequate coverage could also be given to such stories to generate interest. In a 2 hour film, such deviations could act like speed breakers
The lectures that the Ms gave in SF and SP on the relevance of their department and 00s appeared more like an excuse to answer Bond's critics. However, many of those watching these films are likely to be Bond fans who don't need to be reminded of such things
In a two hour film such as Bond, the focus on the main plot should be enough and the lead actor should be able to carry the film easily. There is no need for additional pillars to support him .... In the 2nd half of SF, Bond was overshadowed to an extent by both Silva and M. In fact, I was waiting for Silva to come on to the screen than watch Bond and M drive around and chat about what qualities make a good agent
His M wasn't as good as Bernard Lee's or Judi Dench's (and probably Fiennes' given some time) but he wasn't a bad actor either.
I think already Fiennes has created a nuanced character and made M quite sympathetic- after all, he'd be the one left carrying the baby if Bond really chose to leave. Ultimately M would pay rather than Bond, which is the problem I have with SF and SP. It doesn't feel like there are any repercussions for Bond and that he can just get away with anything. To be honest, I found M more interesting than Bond in SF and SP. In SP I actually cared more what happened to MI6 than Bond, whose obsession with personal vendettas as opposed to missions now feels stupid and reckless.
Having actually worked under British officers at certain times (from all three services) when I was stationed on a NATO base, I queried them about the Bond films and got some very interesting answers. They had read the novels and seen the films of course but what was interesting was that as much as they liked Lee as M, they more or less thought the actor himself never seemed to be of "officer" material. When I pressed them on this, they said he would be more convincing as an enlisted man and one of them referenced Lee's role as the sergeant in The Third Man. The always thought Trevor Howard made a more convincing officer (and would have made a great M). When I saw Brown play Adm Hargreaves in TSWLM I noticed that character and asked a couple of the officers about him and they agreed he would make a convincing M.
Interestingly, a couple of those officers reminded me of Brown and Howard and even spoke like them. I supposed that colored my perception of M in the films after that and when Brown began playing M I found him very convincing and started picturing him in the novels rather than Lee. So as much as I thought Lee was a good actor and did a good job in the role as the first M, I preferred Brown when he came aboard.
Good stuff. Howard was earmarked to play M in Warhead, Connery's aborted Thunderball remake in the 1970s. He played a similar role in that duff Opium movie of the 60s, it had Princess Grace, Omar Shariff and Yul Brynner and it bombed.
Lee was a bit 'below deck' in his films like The Third Man and that war movie, battleships, 1940 can't remember now. We forget just how posh authority figures were back then, like Noel Coward, Ian Fleming, yet of course one can't quite imagine a Connery type following that kind of man.
While he was nowhere near as good as Bernard Lee, I think his best appearances and performances are on Octopussy and The Living Daylights. He had more to do in those films, appearing in various places on both films and he felt like a good replacement to Bernard.
My least favourite, and I am sure we can all agree would be Licence To Kill. He went out on a whimper unfortunately, being such a mean spirited person to Bond and only appearing in two scenes and not at the end.
I've always really liked Robert Brown as M. As a teenager, in the height of my Bond mania, Dalton was my favorite Bond so naturally Brown's M was very present in my mind. I think the shining moment from his tenure is the licence revoked scene in Licence To Kill. He really nails it there. Bernard Lee will always be my favorite M but I think Brown did a great job filling Lee's shoes.
After my most recent viewing of TLD, I think he is best here. He has a nice little scene where he shows confidence in Bond, but not afraid to pull him off a mission if his heart is not in it as Bond was skeptical of Koskov's story about Pushkin bringing Smiert Spionem back. The final scene at the concert was great as well.
My Robert Brown rankings
1.) TLD - As mentioned above -{
2.) OP - A nice albeit unspectacular introduction. Some great stuff with the egg though "good god...".
3.) AVTAK - Gets to partake in some horsey fun, but thats about it.
4.) LTK - Minimal screentime and just very jarring relationship with Bond.
He's last on my official M rankings, but that's not so much about Robert Brown himself, but instead the strong company he is with.
Put me down as a fan of the Robert Brown M. I rank him right below Lee, actually as he was the current M during the period I was becoming a huge Bond fan.
He probably got fired after the events of LTK because of his aggressiveness and intolerable nature towards Bond and the M16, or willingly resigned as he felt bad about what happened. Hence, why Judi Dench replaced him in GE.
He's great in OP, with quite a large role.
In AVTAK he does not really do much other than fill the part for 'M', though I love his extended role at Ascot and France after the Eiffel Tower event.
In LTD he again performs up to the level of OP, but is little more tough.
Comments
The whole Bond universe rather falls apart when one thinks about it vis a vis reality. The idea of a super-tall, oversexed, Western- European Caucasian being an international "secret" agent and not sticking out like a sore thumb pretty much everywhere except a handful of westernized countries is rather ludicrous to start with. His height alone would make getting about in military vehicles a challenge. That he uses his real name even after being identified by the Russians and SPECTRE is even more silly. So, while Brown or Howard -- two actors I generally find tedious, I'm afraid -- might have been more "realistic," I don't know that I would find either best.
An interesting perspective! I always preferred Lee, as he seemed the embodiment of the literary M to me, but I definitely see your point, re: officer bearing.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Good point.
"Better make that two."
"Better make that two."
Lee could bring the comic timing when the material called for it
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"Better make that two."
Fiennes is like a friend whilst Bernard Lee is like a father at times.
a) C and M exchanges felt like speed breakers. For e.g. just after the car chase, you would expect the scene to move to Austria, but we get bogged down with C's initiative in Tokyo
b) After discovering the Blofeld location at L'american, you would want Bond to get on with the assignment. But then things are again bogged down by C and M discussing the relevance of 00s
All these looked ok in the first few viewings. But when it comes to watching a film for the nth time, these things may feel like speed breakers. And then I appreciated the roles of Lee and Brown where they worked in the background effectively in most films
If they want to give M a longer role, may be make in a part of Bond's direct mission (like Q in OP and LTK; M in TWINE) rather than on a parallel story line which eventually connects to Bond's mission as expected .... In SF too, we had M giving lectures to the committee as to why her dept is relevant 8-)
Bond on his own and M fighting for the dept is probably done to death now. Just thinking about it gives me headaches (not to mention Newman's score which added to the torture at times)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
You don't feel that when you are watching the film for the first 2 or 3 times as you are in the exploring mode and impressed by many of the other things. Once you know everything about the film and go to enjoy it one more time, the shortcoming strike you
Which is one of the reasons why I admire the older films which have tremendous repeat value
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Maybe the problem is that you have seen it for the nth time. I go see a film once, twice if its a Bond and then let it lie until the DVD comes out...
You have a valid point in respect to your observations and as I said, Lee was a fine actor. However, one's personal experiences tend to color one's views and my experience working with those officers in that NATO division felt very similar to how Fleming described working under Admiral Godfrey and the atmosphere of those NID offices during the war, which I'm sure he used when writing about Bond working at the Service HQ and under M and to me personally and to the officers I spoke to - not anyone else - Brown seemed to fit the role better and they also mentioned Jack Hawkins would have also been fine (not surprisingly, as he was actually in the SOE in WWII). As far as reality vs fantasy, having worked with those officers made Brown seem more real to me and though it's a fact that much of the Bond universe is fantasy, the bones Fleming built the layers of fantasy on were from his real experiences and people he worked with and knew. I've talked with many vets who worked in similar circumstances over the years and though they acknowledge the fantasy of Bond, they also talked about working or meeting people who resembled characters from Fleming's novels during their service.
You have presented your PoV convincingly
I'm inclined to agree with how M is used in SF and SP. I love Fiennes as an actor but I don't think Bond can be upstaged and feel that it was too odd having M confront C. I agree with you that the merger does feel more pedestrian; obviously they want to blend in the secondary characters but London is a bit of a grim setting. In the next film there'll be discontent in the office when they decide to close the office canteen down- or maybe somebody will be dipping their nib in the office ink
Keeping the focus squarely on Bond rather than diverting back to the London base feels like the right thing to do.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
The supplementary story lines usually work better in TV series where the events need to be stretched and adequate coverage could also be given to such stories to generate interest. In a 2 hour film, such deviations could act like speed breakers
The lectures that the Ms gave in SF and SP on the relevance of their department and 00s appeared more like an excuse to answer Bond's critics. However, many of those watching these films are likely to be Bond fans who don't need to be reminded of such things
In a two hour film such as Bond, the focus on the main plot should be enough and the lead actor should be able to carry the film easily. There is no need for additional pillars to support him .... In the 2nd half of SF, Bond was overshadowed to an extent by both Silva and M. In fact, I was waiting for Silva to come on to the screen than watch Bond and M drive around and chat about what qualities make a good agent
I think already Fiennes has created a nuanced character and made M quite sympathetic- after all, he'd be the one left carrying the baby if Bond really chose to leave. Ultimately M would pay rather than Bond, which is the problem I have with SF and SP. It doesn't feel like there are any repercussions for Bond and that he can just get away with anything. To be honest, I found M more interesting than Bond in SF and SP. In SP I actually cared more what happened to MI6 than Bond, whose obsession with personal vendettas as opposed to missions now feels stupid and reckless.
Good stuff. Howard was earmarked to play M in Warhead, Connery's aborted Thunderball remake in the 1970s. He played a similar role in that duff Opium movie of the 60s, it had Princess Grace, Omar Shariff and Yul Brynner and it bombed.
Lee was a bit 'below deck' in his films like The Third Man and that war movie, battleships, 1940 can't remember now. We forget just how posh authority figures were back then, like Noel Coward, Ian Fleming, yet of course one can't quite imagine a Connery type following that kind of man.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
My least favourite, and I am sure we can all agree would be Licence To Kill. He went out on a whimper unfortunately, being such a mean spirited person to Bond and only appearing in two scenes and not at the end.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Craig 5. Lazenby 6. Brosnan
"Better make that two."
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
My Robert Brown rankings
1.) TLD - As mentioned above -{
2.) OP - A nice albeit unspectacular introduction. Some great stuff with the egg though "good god...".
3.) AVTAK - Gets to partake in some horsey fun, but thats about it.
4.) LTK - Minimal screentime and just very jarring relationship with Bond.
He's last on my official M rankings, but that's not so much about Robert Brown himself, but instead the strong company he is with.
He's great in OP, with quite a large role.
In AVTAK he does not really do much other than fill the part for 'M', though I love his extended role at Ascot and France after the Eiffel Tower event.
In LTD he again performs up to the level of OP, but is little more tough.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Craig 5. Lazenby 6. Brosnan
"Better make that two."
Both from New Zealand, we definitely have one thing in common. The 80's Bond films rank highly on our lists, all of them.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Craig 5. Lazenby 6. Brosnan