[quote name='Dalton's Wendy' date='20 October 2005 - 00:55']
[/quote]
Interesting question you have posed, Tony. I never thought of a segment of the female audience in the terms you describe ("less capable"), but, you know something? I think you may well have hit on a very valid point.
I think Sir Roger's more relaxed, if you will, interpretation of Bond might have been one more accessible to the average female Bond-goer than was Timothy's. The latter was more dour, more intense -- traits which I certainly find highly attractive, but which may be a bit more obscure in their appeal. Bear in mind, as well, that Sir Roger was already a familiar face to American audiences, because of his portrayal of
The Saint, whereas Timothy, by virtue of having spent the bulk of his career to that point upon the London stage, came to the role of Bond as a virtual stranger to the average American moviegoer. As well, Sir Roger was known for the humour he injected into his Bond outings, which Timothy hardly did in
TLD, and not at all in
LTK.
When it comes to your mother's adoration of Sir Sean . . . ah, well, that was not at all a question of
marketing -- that was strictly the venerable
HIMSELF in action.
In discussing Sean Connery, one must recall the period in which he made his debut to American movie-goers. Think of the early 1960s. Movies had begun to change approximately a decade earlier, with the advent of the Method Theatre, and
film noir. The Best Picture Oscars for 1954 and 1955, respectively, went to
On the Waterfront and
Marty; fine pictures, certainly -- if a bit grim and dreary. Hardly what one would term escapist fare, which, after all, is the reason many people attend movies in the first place.
As well, in the late nineteen-fifties, the great generation of movie stars had begun to make its passage from the world's stage. Clark Gable had gone, Gary Cooper, Humphrey Bogart . . . one by one, these idols were fading from life. The generation that replaced them were still going strong, actors such as Gregory Peck, Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis, but these men had all been around for at least a dozen years; they were almost old friends. Then there were the Method Actors themselves, Marlon Brando and Montgomery Clift, but they were a breed apart.
Enter Sean Connery. The one-time third-place winner of the Mr. Universe contest, with the looks, personality, and intriguing accent to match. AND -- he played this tremendously macho (a word I don't believe I have yet seen on this forum) exotic, romantic, womanizing, English, secret agent. Is it any wonder American women were dazzled -- were bowled over? Is it any wonder, then, that by the time of the third Bond instalment, American women were so bewitched by Connery that they actually
wanted to see this "man's movie", and, as a result,
Goldfinger pulled in the highest gross of any single film that year? (As co-producer Harry Saltzman explained the secret of his success: "We've gone back to the bedrock of Hollywood -- bosoms, blood, and sand!"
About two weeks ago, I happened to see Connery's other big film of that time period, Alfred Hitchcock's
Marnie. I hadn't seen it in years. I have to say that I was entirely mesmerized by Connery. His combination of spectacular looks, physical presence, and sheer animal magnetism were devastating.
IT personified.
[/quote]
So "timing" is a factor, too. Makes sense.
Except for his overly groomed eyebrows, Connery was the best thing in Marnie.
Dalton's Wendy, check out a post I made last night (8:56 PM, Eastern Seaboard Time - post #127), regarding Pierce Brosnan's comments in the October 2005 British GQ. I'm curious how you --- and everyone else here --- feels about my premise that sometimes "it" can be developed and acquired over time ("fake it until you make it")...
Edited by tonymascia1, 20 October 2005 - 02:46 PM.
This topic is locked
