4 replies to this topic

[shady ginzo]

I couldn't find an existing discussion on this subject, and I don't know how much milage is in it, but I have been wondering for the last few days what Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan actually did for the bond films / chracter

This started when I was thinking about Craig taking over from Brosnan, who was arguably the most widly supported actor to have played the role, next to Connery. even so far as rather extreme protest to his departure from the role.
I wondered what exactally he brought to the role which we were now expected to lose. I don't mean for one moment that Brosnan won't be missed, or to say that his portrayal was flawed or meaningless, but he did play it in my opinion "by the book" becoming an amalgamation of the previous interpretations. this approach ensured the franchise' survival into the new century and beyond, and provided some good entertainment. but Bond in my view has not developed since the begining of Goldeneye.
So am I supposed to think Brosnan was not as good as we give him credit? Cause the character has actually been static for several decades, to be honest the last major character build was at the end of OHMSS, 30+ years ago. and the most inspired protrayal can be awarded to Moore, who's tounge in cheek attatude balanced well with the rare sombre moments to create something which was perfect for it's era, but which I personally dislike.

The subject I raise is: Does the portrayal of Bond ultimatly matter or has bond become a cartoon like figure? Does he need to deliver his lines flawlessly and have the exact image we expect or do our expectations and experiences overtake such things and Blind us to the presence of, or lack of dramatic exposition. So long as an actor, for example, Daniel Craig, Plays to the common perception of Bond, so long as he asks for his Martini's Shaken not stirred and introduce himself with the imortal line... would anyone notice if he didn't bring anything fresh?

[Jericho_One]

I'm not sure if this hasn't been discussed before, but nevertheless, it may be the beginning of another interesting discussion.

So, in my opinion, the way Bond is portrayed does matter a lot, and I don't think he's a cartoon figure. However, James Bond is an icon with decades of tradition around it, so he just wouldn't be the same if he didn't introduce himself with the famous line or didn't order his martini's shaken not stirred (and with vodka instead of gin;) ).

But that's not to say the character is stagnated and complete.
People have expected a lot from Bond since the sixties. Absolute cool mind even in the most dangerous situations, absolute confidence with women, flawless style, and so on. Those are indeed high expectations.

So, in a sense, I don't really think that Bond can evolve beyond what the previous five actors have given the character, but he sure has a visible dramatic depth that still can be worked on. Mybe Craig manages to do just that. For instance, people shouldn't forget that Bond works in a highly dangerous job, he's a man with little or no social life at all, has a knack for getting killed the women he gets involved with (even the woman that managed to be his wife for a few hours - although I'm not sure what the producers intend to do about this now that they're rebooting the franchise), and besides, all the funny one-liners and dry humour can be interpreted as a way to relieve his mind from his constant brushes with death.

One one hand, is a bachelor with no personal responsabilities whatsoever, on the other hand, he's a public servant, but one with very special and unique duties.

Even his look is worthy of discussing. How does your ideal Bond look? Just elegant? Or elegant and expensively dressed (like Brosnan, for instance). Dandy? More or less snobbish? The actors also play an important part when it comes to Bond's physical looks. That's why Craig seemed such an improbable choice. Should Bond really be that handsome like Connery or Brosnan, or more Somber like Dalton or Craig? Is that handsomness already a clich

Edited by Jericho_One, 27 July 2006 - 03:26 PM.

[shady ginzo]

I like the way you've looked at this, Pointing out the vagurencies which still exist in the character after so long. The very fact it has survived so many transitions by way of actors and plots leaves the character himself massivly open to interpretation. Does the viewer accept each actor's portrayal soley on its own merit or see this chapter of bonds life as a diversion from the original, or from their favorite? I suppose these unanswerable questions stem from the desire to have the one thing a bond fan must live without; continuity.

I agree with the point you make about Bond not having much room to develope nowadays, he is an institution more than anything so to go too far off the track as far as the preconceptions of the character a concirned would defy the purpose of making a bond film, like Happy Days with a "geeky fonz" or Star Trek without space.

but saying that, it is my belief that (and I would happily acknowledge a differing opinion) that Bond does need character development, however impossible it is. people always want "more" from movies each year, and to rely on a tried and possibly tired formula character like the Brosnan films did will work for a time, but eventually people will start to pick fault and that is when you start loosing crediability. Brosnan himself said he was tired or putting on the tux and was heartbroken when the prison scenes of DAD's opening wrapped, this idea of Bond's character being a pre-defined prison to creativity is what I refer to.
this is why Casino Royale's approach, revisiting the story of bond early on to show origins we have not seen yet, makes me very excited. it gives us a whole new concept without ultimatly changing the character, they're simply showing him in an un-polished state

[dunmall]

Bond as a cartoon character is one thing I am not interested in and I am glad they are trying to change. There seems to be this opinion that Bond is never out of Tux, has a martini in one hand, almost every scene ends with a quip and that he is apparently impervious to injury.

What I like about the novels is that Bond has doubts, he gets hurt and he genuinly gets angry. (My favourite moment is when Drax kills an innocent motorist in Moonraker because he mistakes him for an ally of Bond's. As Bond passes the car wreck he vows revenge for this innocent person [and can i note i never see Jake Bauer do this no matter how many innocents die thanks to his actions])

Bond of the films frequently is too super human for his own good. His hair is never out of place and he sees off every obsticle with casual indifference. To a degree every Bond has entered this phase. For Roger Moore and Brosnan it was almost their entire run because of their personal styles. While for Connery it only came about when he was getting bored and the gadgets were taking over. Now George Lazenby also does not appear to get hurt, but he appears to become tired and fatigued and genuinely worried while being chased by Blofeld's men, I love the moment when Tracy finds him at the skating rink, Bond looks like he is on the verge of giving up and suddenly when Tracy arrives he has renewed hope and energy. (rather ironic that he was meant to do the same for her) While Dalton would frequently be bruised and battered.

Now what it did each actor bring to Bond?

Connery -- Is unbound sexuallity and manhood. No wonder people to this day are in love with the guy. The guy is like a bottle of testosterone in human form. But he also brings a working class style to the role, while not born into money Connery's Bond merely appriciates what he has, this is itself a throw back to the novels where Bond notes that as he has no one to leave money too, and knowing that he will probably die on the job, he spends it quickly. Connery is tough but classy and may it be pointed out for those who are crying over the supposed lack of a tux or suit that Bond wears jeans and a polo shirt while infiltrating Crab Key, short sleaved shirt and shorts in the Bahamas and an open collared shirt in Japan.

Lazenby -- Perhaps thanks to his inexperience as an actor he brings a vulnerability to the role, which works well in this film although I admit it might not have gone much further.

Moore -- Superbond, which was great for the films he was in, but saddly helped to reinforce the cartoon image of Bond. Although it should be noted that the older Roger got the more introspective he became. Note the the comment about having to dig two graves before setting out for revenge in FYEO.
Another aspect that Moore brings is an upper class charm, he seems to have been born into money, you can almost imagine him in well tailored babywear.
His lightness of touch that is part of his own personality is his greatest contribution, while Connery's line was in black humour, Moore is far more flipant and doesn't seem to take anything all that seriously.

Dalton -- Batbond if you want a bad pun! A brooding and mooody man with a cynical and sarcastic sense of humour and perhaps some doubt as to his job ("If he fires me, I'll thank him" "I only kill professionals"). He also brings a slightly more casual look to Bond, he frequently stands with his hands in his pockets (John Glenn in particular felt this was out of character for a RN Officer) as well as wearing open collared shirts, jumpers and leather jackets. He was a grittier Bond, not in the blue collar way that many believe is meant ala Die Hard or Dirty Harry, but in the way that he could be injured, he is very forcefull with his enemies giving no second chances and even a little rough with his women.

Brosnan -- While I don't want to come across as Brosnan basher he was my first actuall theater Bond (GE) but not my first Bond, that was Moore. And I did enjoy his films (but then again I also enjoy JB Jr!) But to be honest Brosnan was more of the "idea" of what Bond is rather than actually playing Bond. In my mind he is little different to when cliched versions of the character appear in parodies and spin offs. I did appreciate that he tried to bring some emmotion and deapth to the character, but unfortunately I feel he wwas let down not only by weak scripts, but perhaps he also over estimated his own acting range.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Bond as a cartoon character is one thing I am not interested in and I am glad they are trying to change. There seems to be this opinion that Bond is never out of Tux, has a martini in one hand, almost every scene ends with a quip and that he is apparently impervious to injury.

What I like about the novels is that Bond has doubts, he gets hurt and he genuinly gets angry. (My favourite moment is when Drax kills an innocent motorist in Moonraker because he mistakes him for an ally of Bond's. As Bond passes the car wreck he vows revenge for this innocent person [and can i note i never see Jake Bauer do this no matter how many innocents die thanks to his actions])

Bond of the films frequently is too super human for his own good. His hair is never out of place and he sees off every obsticle with casual indifference. To a degree every Bond has entered this phase. For Roger Moore and Brosnan it was almost their entire run because of their personal styles. While for Connery it only came about when he was getting bored and the gadgets were taking over. Now George Lazenby also does not appear to get hurt, but he appears to become tired and fatigued and genuinely worried while being chased by Blofeld's men, I love the moment when Tracy finds him at the skating rink, Bond looks like he is on the verge of giving up and suddenly when Tracy arrives he has renewed hope and energy. (rather ironic that he was meant to do the same for her) While Dalton would frequently be bruised and battered.

Now what it did each actor bring to Bond?

Connery -- Is unbound sexuallity and manhood. No wonder people to this day are in love with the guy. The guy is like a bottle of testosterone in human form. But he also brings a working class style to the role, while not born into money Connery's Bond merely appriciates what he has, this is itself a throw back to the novels where Bond notes that as he has no one to leave money too, and knowing that he will probably die on the job, he spends it quickly. Connery is tough but classy and may it be pointed out for those who are crying over the supposed lack of a tux or suit that Bond wears jeans and a polo shirt while infiltrating Crab Key, short sleaved shirt and shorts in the Bahamas and an open collared shirt in Japan.

Lazenby -- Perhaps thanks to his inexperience as an actor he brings a vulnerability to the role, which works well in this film although I admit it might not have gone much further.

Moore -- Superbond, which was great for the films he was in, but saddly helped to reinforce the cartoon image of Bond. Although it should be noted that the older Roger got the more introspective he became. Note the the comment about having to dig two graves before setting out for revenge in FYEO.
Another aspect that Moore brings is an upper class charm, he seems to have been born into money, you can almost imagine him in well tailored babywear.
His lightness of touch that is part of his own personality is his greatest contribution, while Connery's line was in black humour, Moore is far more flipant and doesn't seem to take anything all that seriously.

Dalton -- Batbond if you want a bad pun! A brooding and mooody man with a cynical and sarcastic sense of humour and perhaps some doubt as to his job ("If he fires me, I'll thank him" "I only kill professionals"). He also brings a slightly more casual look to Bond, he frequently stands with his hands in his pockets (John Glenn in particular felt this was out of character for a RN Officer) as well as wearing open collared shirts, jumpers and leather jackets. He was a grittier Bond, not in the blue collar way that many believe is meant ala Die Hard or Dirty Harry, but in the way that he could be injured, he is very forcefull with his enemies giving no second chances and even a little rough with his women.

Brosnan -- While I don't want to come across as Brosnan basher he was my first actuall theater Bond (GE) but not my first Bond, that was Moore. And I did enjoy his films (but then again I also enjoy JB Jr!) But to be honest Brosnan was more of the "idea" of what Bond is rather than actually playing Bond. In my mind he is little different to when cliched versions of the character appear in parodies and spin offs. I did appreciate that he tried to bring some emmotion and deapth to the character, but unfortunately I feel he wwas let down not only by weak scripts, but perhaps he also over estimated his own acting range.

Very nice post! Welcome to the Bond Deathstar!