Which film Bond is closest to the novel Bond?
sirso
Posts: 209MI6 Agent
Which film Bond is closest to the novel Bond?
Connery
Moore
Dalton
Brosnan
Craig
I was going to make this a poll, but couldn't find the buttons to do this.
Comments
DELETED
Connery - From Russia With Love (any of the first four could qualify, but FRwL feels more like a literary adaptation)
Moore - For Your Eyes Only (Live and Let Die follows more of the structure of the book, but the Risico section of FYEO is more faithfully adapted)
Dalton - Licence to Kill (includes the middle section of LaLd, and the second half of ..Golden Gun, therefor more fleming content than The Living Daylights)
Brosnan - Die Another Day
Craig - Casino Royale
Definitely not Moore, while he had the poshness, the "Mr. Know It All Guy" dry wits, he's far from the one in the books.
Definitely not Brosnan, although he had some aspects of it in The World Is Not Enough, but still not him
Connery? He'd told in an interview that he found the literary character a bit boring and created his own version of Bond, he added more coolness, suaveness and charisma into the character, of course this was also a wish fulfillment from Terrence Young whom enhanced Connery well.
Dalton? Partially, but he comes across as more irritated and anger prone than the literary Bond, he took the seriousness a bit far, I mean the Bond in the books was more of a careless with a touch of naivety, and full of self doubt, he's also a lot more vulnerable in the books, and often comes across as a bit frustrated, that's not what I've seen in Dalton's Bond, he's more just as his time, more action oriented and gritty, while he'd read the novels, he's still far from how Bond was portrayed in the books, the thing was, he's interchangeable regarding the attitude and behavior in the books, added that to the fact that he'd never went rogue in the novel.
Craig? Maybe, there's some aspects that I really see, like him constantly falling in love with every women he meets, cynical about his job, more insights into his psyche, but again, there's no self doubt, there's no naivety, the immature or childish part of the character was missing, Craig's Bond was full of confidence, sometimes comes off as a bit arrogant, the Book Bond hates killing, and while Dalton got this part, he'd just repeated where Dalton failed: Going Rogue.
So that left us with:
You forgot the actually most closest to the literary Bond, Lazenby.
His film was actually the most identical to Fleming, so there you have it.
There's a bit of naivety in his portrayal, he comes off more as unsure about his missions, he's a bit immature and there's a self doubt, and there's even a bit of "Mr. Know It All Guy" in him, though we didn't got to see the other aspects of the literary Bond in him just because he's just only in one film, but he almost got at least half of what I've observed in Bond in the books, something that the rest of the Bonds had overlooked or failed to portray at least.
But to be honest, I don't see any of the film Bonds in the majority of the books, one perfect example of this is a scene in Moonraker where Bond told Gala Brand about how flowers got hurt when they're picked while strolling around the park and he puts a flower in his lapel.
And he's also a bully in the books, he tends to be naughty and name calling some of the enemies, like how he told Goldfinger to go "**** himself" while he's strapped to a table saw.
And he's also engaging in Political discussions.
ah I misunderstood the question.
never mind.
Fleming’s Bond had a well-defined arc in his books (it’s one of the many things that’s lost in most of the continuation novels, which have a rinse-and-repeat quality borrowed, ironically, from the films).
I think Dalton did a pretty good job of capturing Fleming’s Bond from the later books, where’s he’s more and more jaded, bordering on complete burn out. The line about “if [M] fires me, I’ll thank him for it” is basically verbatim from the short story. In a sense, I think Dalton was playing a post-Fleming Bond, who has suffered and lost but gone on with the job anyhow. This explains the harder edge.
Brosnan occasionally played Bond like this at various points in each of his four films, but on the whole he was more heavily influenced by Connery and Moore than by Fleming.
Connery, as mentioned above, largely invented his own Bond. That said, there are heavy shades of Fleming’s Bond in the first two films, which is not surprising since they were both contemporaneous with Fleming, and hewed closely to the source material. By Goldfinger, he playing a different character, and by YOLT he’s playing a caricature of that character.
Craig’s version of Bond in Casino Royale has a lot of parallels with Fleming’s early Bond in the first 3 or 4 novels. He’s cold and dutiful, but he’s also a bit vulnerable and prone to operational missteps. Perhaps not coincidentally, this was Craig’s best performance. In his later films, he devolved into a cheap imitation of Connery which was, for me, increasingly dull.
If you believe Lazenby’s account of OHMSS, he was abandoned by his director during filming and left with nothing to rely upon but Fleming’s book. While he’s not always the most reliable historian, there could be something to this because there are shades of Fleming in some of the more dramatic scenes. But overall, Lazenby’s Bond comes off as much younger and more cocksure than Fleming’s Bond was at that point in the canon. More Connery from Goldfinger and Thunderball than Fleming.
Roger made no attempt to play Bond as Fleming wrote him. Instead, he followed Connery’s lead and created his own character.
To answer the question posed by this thread, on balance, Dalton gets the nod. Unlike every other Bond, his primary influence for both of his films was Fleming rather than one of the other actors to play Bond, or a self-invented take.
But Bond was also a bit cocksure in the books, he comes off as a guy who's immature and childish yet naughty, yes, he's a bit jaded which that Dalton and Craig got, and yes, specifically the later books, but they're not the Bonds that I see in the earlier books (Casino Royale to Goldfinger) to be specific.
When it comes to the earlier books, it's Lazenby, especially at the parts where Bond was naughty or yes, cocksure, actually Bond sounds a bit like Lazenby in that part of Goldfinger where he told Goldfinger to "**** himself!" Actually Lazenby is what I really see in this scene (Chapter 15 : The Pressure Room)
Oddjob's torment had stopped. Bond turned his head
slowly towards the voice and opened his eyes. He said,
'Goldfinger, there is nothing more to tell because there is nothing. If you will not accept my first bargain I will make you another. The girl and I will work for you. How about that? We are capable people. You could put us to good use.'
'And get a knife, two knives in my back? Thank you no, Mr Bond.'
Bond decided it was time to stop talking. It was time to start winding up the mainspring of will-power that must not run down again until he was dead. Bond said politely, 'Then you can go and —— yourself.' He expelled all the breath from his lungs and closed his eyes.
But to be honest, I really see none of them, none of the Film Bonds.
Bond in the books was naive and having self doubts like entering a room or he's in a strange place that he's not familiar, and there's a feeling inside of him that "I may not survive this, I may gonna die in this" type of feeling, he's not confident on himself, there's a feeling that he may give up or may failed the mission because he believes that he's not the best person for the job, the best example of this is when Bond started his mission and arrived at the Hotel in From Russia With Love.
He's also a bit critical when it comes to Politics and Contemporary Issues like his opinion about suffrage, the diplomatic relations of Japan and UK while discussing it with Tiger Tanaka in YOLT.
And him being a "Mr. Know It All Guy" like him telling Gala about how flowers got hurt when they're picked while strolling around the Park with her, then he put the flower that Gala picked before in his lapel, it's in the Moonraker novel.
Here's the full excerpt:
Triumphantly she found a bee orchis and picked it.
“You wouldn’t do that if you knew that flowers scream when they are picked,” said Bond.
Gala looked at him. “What do you mean?” she asked, suspecting a joke.
“Didn’t you know?” He smiled at her reaction. “There’s an Indian called Professor Bhose, who’s written a treatise on the nervous system of flowers.
He measured their reaction to pain. He even recorded the scream of a rose being picked. It must be one of the most heartrending sounds in the world. I heard something like it as you picked that flower.”
“I don’t believe it,” she said, looking suspiciously at the torn root.
“Anyway,” she said maliciously, “I wouldn’t have thought you were a person to get sentimental. Don’t people in your section of the Service make a business of killing? And not just flowers either. People.”
“Flowers can’t shoot back,” said Bond.
She looked at the orchis. “Now you’ve made me feel like a murderer. It’s very unkind of you. But,” she admitted reluctantly, “I shall have to find out about this Indian and if you’re right I shall never pick a flower again as long as I live. What am I to going to do with this one? You make me feel it’s bleeding all over my hands.”
“Give it to me,” said Bond. “According to you, my hands are dripping with blood already. A little more won’t hurt.”
She handed it to him and their hands touched. “You can stick it in the muzzle of your revolver,” she said to cover the flash of contact.
Bond laughed. “So the eyes aren’t only for decoration,” he said.
“Anyway it’s an automatic and I left it in my room.” He drew the stalk of the flower through one of the buttonholes in his blue cotton shirt. “I thought a shoulder-holster would look a bit conspicuous without a coat to cover it.
And I don’t think anyone will be going over my room this afternoon.
I mean those scenes where I couldn't really imagine and see any of the Film Bonds.
I wouldn't put much faith in Lazenby's account of OHMSS. The man is known for telling exaggerated, self-serving stories, whether they're about his acting or his womanizing. Here's are some excerpts from an interview with Peter Hunt:
Q: What was truly wonderful was the fact that the script went back to the original Fleming novel.
A: During the entire shooting schedule I had a copy of the paperback of the book, where I had written various notes and things, and I was very insistent that we stay with the story of the book....
Q: In Bondage, the magazine of the James Bond 007 Fan Club, Lazenby was quoted as saying that he wasn't directed in the film, and that you weren't even talking to him.
A: I don't know why he should say that, because it's quite untrue. You can't possibly have a new, young, guy who has never been an actor and not talk to him. You simply can't do it. I had to tell him where to go and what to do. The whole thing with him is that he changes his mind all the time. But he had to do what I wanted him to do. Indeed, we had long conversations during and before we even started shooting. I wouldn't have gone with him if Diana Rigg hadn't assured me that she liked him enormously at that time before we started shooting, and that she would do everything to help and work with him.
Q: He also noted how he and Rigg did not talk to each other.
A: I think it's a measure of the man's personality. He changed about all over the place, when it all went to his head. You must remember that he was an ordinary little guy from the backwoods of Australia and he was suddenly thrust into a very sophisticated area of filmmaking, and it was very difficult for him. I had to do certain things that directors have to do. For instance, one of the best things he ever did was when she's shot. We got up there at eight in the morning, I insisted he was on set, I sat him in the car and made him rehearse and rehearse all day long, and I broke him down until he was absolutely exhausted, and by the time we shot it at five o'clock, he was exhausted, and that's how I got the performance. He thought that was me being unpleasant to him, but I couldn't say, "Now, listen George, I'm going to do this because it's the best way to get you to react." Maybe I did things like that all the way through, because I knew how to get emotions out of him, but he didn't seem to think that that was fair.
***
And from a later interview:
...Lazenby criticized Hunt for not giving him the direction he needed, especially in the scene in which Bond mourns his wife's murder. Lazenby's barbs make Hunt laugh. "He got all the direction he wanted. That scene is beautifully played. Where did he think he got that direction? How would a wooden model know how to play like that?" responds Hunt. "I like to develop character and one of the great things people will say about On Her Majesty's Secret Service is that Bond, for the first time, is a real person. I don't care what George Lazenby says, he certainly didn't put that there. I did, together with my writers.
"...He was a very fortunate boy in so many ways—he was well looked after and he was excellent in the film. I think he was his own worst enemy," Hunt says. "While we were doing the film, he was awkward a couple times but no more than many others. He wasn't difficult to the point of impossibility or making one's life hell. He did everything I asked him to do—he followed instructions, was always cooperative, always, even if complainingly. He would have made a very good Bond if he had been more sensible."
Yes, but again, the portrayal, though none of the film Bonds had ever came closest to the literary Bond, I think he had some shares of playing some aspects of the literary Bond, as every Bond actors had or did.
I'm not on board with people saying that if a Bond actor play a serious version of Bond that would make him close to the books? Eh?
I mean why many people associate the Bond of the books as being serious? Sure there's an aspects of it, but he's not always like that, the Bond of the books still had a sense of humor, a gourmand/connoisseur, sometimes he's getting a bit naughty or bully or dare I say it, childish, sometimes he's a "Mr. Know It All Guy", he had different and explicit Political opinions and prejudices, he had self doubts and quite not confident of himself, sometimes he's desperate, read my post to see those excerpts I've got from the books, that one from Moonraker for example.
I do found him interchangeable in the books, he's not straight up serious or dour.
That's why I don't get the arguments that if a Bond Actor was serious means he's close to the literary Bond.
The thing was both Dalton and Craig played a serious Bond and people find them the closest, I mean sure while they've read the books, like what I've said before as any Bond actor did: Connery had read Dr. No and From Russia With Love, Lazenby had read OHMSS, Moore had read Goldfinger, I'm not sure what Brosnan read, but I think it's one of the key parts of understanding the role that you're going to play, every actor that gets cast in the Bond role of course, needs to read the books to understand the character, because if not, they couldn't portray the character like how it's supposed to be.
Think of Henry Cavill before playing the role of The Witcher, he made sure that he'd read the books before playing the character, that's the part of understanding the character, the same as Bond.
For me, the seriousness that both Dalton and Craig brought was just a correction in terms of the tone, it's needed, Dalton played a serious Bond after the fun, campy, and lighthearted portrayal of the Moore Era.
Craig played a serious Bond after the excessive over the top galores of the Brosnan Era (particularly Die Another Day), it's therefore needed at the time.
But that's not to say they're closest to the literary version of the character, they aren't.
Sure, while they've got some aspects of the book Bond, no one still ever comes close to the books, for me, the Bond of the Books is really different.
The only ones I can picture when reading the novels are Connery and Dalton.
It's not quite the same question, but when I read the books I probably most often picture Lazenby, because he feels more or less in the right period and his screen performance was a bit blank in all honesty, so that makes it easier to kind of overlay book Bond's characteristics on him.
Otherwise sometimes it's Craig; he feels the most like a real spy and also a real person- it's pretty hard to imagine a character who looks like Connery's rather robotic superspy having the kind of thoughts and emotions that Fleming's Bond has.
That Bond observes - wrongly - that flowers feel pain is another link it seems to Roald Dahl's short story in which an elderly boffin with a machine hears plants cry out when they are cut. Made into a Tales of the Unexpected episode with Harry Andrews in the lead role if I recall. Another Fleming tidbit was creating the entire Lamb to the Slaughter storyline for Dahl.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
In theory reading a Bond book ought to be the right thing to do but generally Lazenby and Dalton's roles weren't much loved by the public at the time because it helps to create a bit of your own persona for the role as the others did. When we read Bond books I do think we project our own persona onto the character without quite realising - without that Bond himself might seem a bit of a cypher. I agree with the different facets of Bond seen in the book and nobody's quite nailed it. Though I'd suggest the square jawed look of Bond on the Pan paperbacks like Live And Let Die and Moonraker with his bak to the rocket going up, or FRWL where he's holding Tanya and looking just like Connery - are how I see Bond and not the long-faced Moore, Dalton, Brosnan look.
Roger Moore 1927-2017