113 replies to this topic

[Lachesis]

Surely we are rating the attributes on their closeness to the impression that we feel when we read Fleming's work rather than just assiging X as whos's most debonair (when I think we would agree Bond you can be too Debonair in truth) or Y as most fit (yes you can be too fit - Arnold Swatzenegger isn't going to get 5 for Bond fitness because that isn't Bond.)

<David Schofield> pointed out that we are apt to re-evaluate Bond in the light of our view of Daniel Criag and it now seems to be the main thrust rather than an objective evaluation of each actors contribution? In which case maybe the question devolves to the old my Bond is better than yours.

[Dell Deaton]

Surely we are rating the attributes on their closeness to the impression that we feel when we read Fleming's work rather than just assiging X as whos's most debonair (when I think we would agree Bond you can be too Debonair in truth) or Y as most fit (yes you can be too fit - Arnold Swatzenegger isn't going to get 5 for Bond fitness because that isn't Bond.)

<David Schofield> pointed out that we are apt to re-evaluate Bond in the light of our view of Daniel Criag and it now seems to be the main thrust rather than an objective evaluation of each actors contribution? In which case maybe the question devolves to the old my Bond is better than yours.

Amen!

[Trident]

Surely we are rating the attributes on their closeness to the impression that we feel when we read Fleming's work rather than just assiging X as whos's most debonair (when I think we would agree Bond you can be too Debonair in truth) or Y as most fit (yes you can be too fit - Arnold Swatzenegger isn't going to get 5 for Bond fitness because that isn't Bond.)

<David Schofield> pointed out that we are apt to re-evaluate Bond in the light of our view of Daniel Criag and it now seems to be the main thrust rather than an objective evaluation of each actors contribution? In which case maybe the question devolves to the old my Bond is better than yours.

Amen!

Oh, but this is absolutely not what defines Craig's strong side as Bond. His physical fitness is what makes his action scenes convincing and lends to his overall presence, but it would do so in any role involving a degree of physical impressive performance.

What he shines in Bond is in his really, really most intensive moments, when his look betrays so much more than Bond could previously be, raw nerves, disgust, shivering hands and frantic, unrelenting will to push along to get his job done. A lot of this wasn't previously shown and so it would not all fit into the categories above, yet it can be found in the books.

So Craig's different performance is (in my opinion at least) also about the general direction of the films, because he can only show what the whole machinery, EON, director, script, so on let him show. There have been previous attempts to get this different side of Bond, Brosnan sitting with his gun and a bottle of vodka (or was that with his bottle of vodka and a gun?), or Brosnan sitting on the beach, both times gazing into the middle distance, suggesting introspectiveness (a criterium I find to be a vital part of Bond), but the effect wasn't that convincing in my opinion, perhaps because the effort wasn't pursued consequential enough.

Overall I find these attributes giving a pretty good summary of what Fleming's Bond (transported to film, always remember!) can be. And surely it is possible to rate the different categories according to one's personal preferences, or we couldn't all come up with quite different ratings. I don't see this as a competition to find the 'definitive' Fleming Bond, but as a means to analyse which different traits we find in Bond and how important they are to us.

[spynovelfan]

<David Schofield> pointed out that we are apt to re-evaluate Bond in the light of our view of Daniel Criag and it now seems to be the main thrust rather than an objective evaluation of each actors contribution? In which case maybe the question devolves to the old my Bond is better than yours.

The main thrust of what? Most of the comments in the thread have revolved around Dalton so far, and the survey is there for anyone to take, whatever the thrust of the conversation is. And there can obviously be no such thing as an objective evaluation of how close each actor has come to portraying Fleming's character - it's always going to be subjective.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. If you disagree with the attributes, you're welcome to create your own and do your own test. But then most people have already done that, long before this thread. My idea was to try to get a spread of attributes to stimulate some thought and discussion. It's a bit depressing that you feel it has to devolve to 'my Bond is better than yours'. That's hardly the intention, and need hardly be the case. But it's a bit up to you, really, how you treat the question.

[David Schofield]

Do the words "Sex, Sadism and SNOBBERY" made about Fleming mean anything to CBNners?

Or,

"Bond is aspirational pørnography" - John le Carre.


????????

[Trident]

Do the words "Sex, Sadism and SNOBBERY" made about Fleming mean anything to CBNners?

Or,

"Bond is aspirational pørnography" - John le Carre.


????????

I'll start with le Carré.

"Bond is aspirational pørnography"

Sorry, but I don't think le Carré ever really wrote in the same genre as Fleming. They both use similar themes, but in my view actually never worked on the same kind of story (apart perhaps the very good TLD story, showing Fleming trying his hand on some different kind of emphasis). Fleming wrote adventure novels, thinly veiled by the Cold War setting. Spies, assassins, plots and villains here are the personnel of the adventure story; they could basically work in any setting, geographically, timewise. Politics is never really an issue, aside from the most basic concepts, and even they are never explained in any detail. Espionage, the Cold War, its setting and circumstances are only a plot/setting device getting the show going.

Le Carré on the other hand wrote/writes espionage thrillers which for the most part don't employ an adventure element. Setting, politics, themes and characters are all intrinsical to the respective books and cannot be exchanged without altering the entire novel. His aims are entirely different, as are his means. And frankly, how le Carré can believe such drivel as "Bond is aspirational pørnography" is truly beyond me, and in my opinion indicates he hasn't read any Fleming. Or any pørnography, but I suspect the first option is more likely.


"Sex, Sadism and SNOBBERY"

Now, of course they mean something, although one would have to question the 'sadism' monicker as I feel the sadism to be found in Fleming is mainly a trait of the villains and readers aren't exactly invited to indulge themselves. Likewise, Bond isn't a sadistic character, lest I have completely misinterpreted him. He knows moods of glee from time to time, but I wouldn't necessarily call this a sadistic streak, at least not one that is more prominent in Bond than in any single one of us here.

But I don't exactly get the pont of this. Are you suggesting aspiring pørnography, sex, sadism and snobbery should be included in the categories? I think sex and snobbery can be found aplenty, yet I suspect they would have to be considered as qualities of the novels, not just of their main protagonist.

[David Schofield]

But I don't exactly get the pont of this. Are you suggesting aspiring pørnography, sex, sadism and snobbery should be included in the categories? I think sex and snobbery can be found aplenty, yet I suspect they would have to be considered as qualities of the novels, not just of their main protagonist.

No, the point I was trying to make is that if in the late 50s and early 60s - times contemporay to the novels - the likes of John Le Carre and Paul Johnson were viewing the novels as essentially depicting an exclusive, aspirational way of life by the way Bond lived, then it seems perpelexing that many have interpreted Bond to be down-market everyman in modern times. (And I take asparational in this way rather than readers wanting to go around killing people ) . Le Carre's very suggestion of pørnography is his suggestion that Fleming is deliberately making James Bond (and his way of life) something to aspire to, and that in itself is vulgar, pørnographic.

I simply raised these two quotes to suggest that Bond was never really intended to be the "everyman" he has more recently been badged. (I venture as a consequence of Craig, though that is unimportant).

[BoogieBond]

Surely we are rating the attributes on their closeness to the impression that we feel when we read Fleming's work rather than just assiging X as whos's most debonair (when I think we would agree Bond you can be too Debonair in truth) or Y as most fit (yes you can be too fit - Arnold Swatzenegger isn't going to get 5 for Bond fitness because that isn't Bond.)

<David Schofield> pointed out that we are apt to re-evaluate Bond in the light of our view of Daniel Criag and it now seems to be the main thrust rather than an objective evaluation of each actors contribution? In which case maybe the question devolves to the old my Bond is better than yours.

When scoring the attributes I always started with the Book character of Bond and looked at who was the closest, not who was the most debonair/fit. I was frankly surprised Craig came out closest for me. But thats subjective as you say and based on a good sampling of attributes, rather than one or two. There are some attributes I would have added and other posters may have added other attributes also.

Re-evaluating in light of any actor to prove that he was the best would be pointless. For Example on the "Handsome" attribute I marked Craig down. Again that was my opinion, Connery and Dalton come closer to me to the Book character in that area.

[Trident]

But I don't exactly get the pont of this. Are you suggesting aspiring pørnography, sex, sadism and snobbery should be included in the categories? I think sex and snobbery can be found aplenty, yet I suspect they would have to be considered as qualities of the novels, not just of their main protagonist.

No, the point I was trying to make is that if in the late 50s and early 60s - times contemporay to the novels - the likes of John Le Carre and Paul Johnson were viewing the novels as essentially depicting an exclusive, aspirational way of life by the way Bond lived, then it seems perpelexing that many have interpreted Bond to be down-market everyman in modern times. (And I take asparational in this way rather than readers wanting to go around killing people ) . Le Carre's very suggestion of pørnography is his suggestion that Fleming is deliberately making James Bond (and his way of life) something to aspire to, and that in itself is vulgar, pørnographic.

I simply raised these two quotes to suggest that Bond was never really intended to be the "everyman" he has more recently been badged. (I venture as a consequence of Craig, though that is unimportant).

Ah, now I get it, good point.

No, "everyman" in itself would take things too far, most definitely. But Bond's actual position on any kind of sociological map would be somewhat harder to localise. In the second novel there is this:

"There are moments of great luxury in the life of a secret agent. There are assignments on which he is required to act the part of a very rich man; occassions when he takes refuge in good living to efface the memory of danger and the shadow of death;..."

Fleming had not "everyman" in mind as Bond, but he made sure "everyman" was able to identify with him, expecting Bond a little farther up the ladder, but not so far as feeling he's entirely beyond us mortals. Bond 'acts' the part of a very rich man, he isn't so himself. Of course, the contradictions, Bentley, Chelsea flat (itself a king's ransom surely even back when Bond starts out), private income (is it mentioned ever again after MR?), how do they come into play?

Fleming wanted to have it both ways, fulfill his own aspirations with Bond (while not exactly poor, he never felt he had enough, never really thought he had arrived in that part of society he saw as 'fitting'), and still make him anonymous and flexible enough as not to make identification with him impossible or, worse, undesirable. We enjoy his whole arsenal of luxurious paraphernalia, of exclusive bits and bobs, with him because he doesn't take them for granted. Our empathy towards this whole display of debauchery would be significantly less if it was Viscount Sir James Bond having his Jack Daniels, scrambled eggs and champagne on the backseat of his Bentley, all bought with the family fortunes dating back to the 1400's.

Another example from OHMSS:
"Bond suddenly thought, Hell! I'll never find another girl like this one. She' got everything I've looked for in a woman. She's beautiful, in bed and out. She's adventurous, brave, resourceful. She's exciting always. She seems to love me. She'd let me go on with my life. She's a lone girl, not cluttered up with friends, relations, belongings. Above all, she needs me. It'll be someone for me to look after. I'm fed up with all these untidy, casual affairs that leave me with a bad conscience. i wouldn't mind having children. I've got no social background into which she would or wouldn't fit. We're two of a pair, really. Why not make it for always?"

So, no old family money, no relations and ties. Bond, while well off, is in effect as blank as the next sheet of paper. He's not "everyman", but there isn't anything to suggest he couldn't well be. Even his lifestyle is not really preventing us from identification and his views upon the very rich people he meets could well be our own, had we but the chance to meet these people in the situations Bond does.

[David Schofield]

But I don't exactly get the pont of this. Are you suggesting aspiring pørnography, sex, sadism and snobbery should be included in the categories? I think sex and snobbery can be found aplenty, yet I suspect they would have to be considered as qualities of the novels, not just of their main protagonist.

No, the point I was trying to make is that if in the late 50s and early 60s - times contemporay to the novels - the likes of John Le Carre and Paul Johnson were viewing the novels as essentially depicting an exclusive, aspirational way of life by the way Bond lived, then it seems perpelexing that many have interpreted Bond to be down-market everyman in modern times. (And I take asparational in this way rather than readers wanting to go around killing people ) . Le Carre's very suggestion of pørnography is his suggestion that Fleming is deliberately making James Bond (and his way of life) something to aspire to, and that in itself is vulgar, pørnographic.

I simply raised these two quotes to suggest that Bond was never really intended to be the "everyman" he has more recently been badged. (I venture as a consequence of Craig, though that is unimportant).

Ah, now I get it, good point.

No, "everyman" in itself would take things too far, most definitely. But Bond's actual position on any kind of sociological map would be somewhat harder to localise. In the second novel there is this:

"There are moments of great luxury in the life of a secret agent. There are assignments on which he is required to act the part of a very rich man; occassions when he takes refuge in good living to efface the memory of danger and the shadow of death;..."

Fleming had not "everyman" in mind as Bond, but he made sure "everyman" was able to identify with him, expecting Bond a little farther up the ladder, but not so far as feeling he's entirely beyond us mortals. Bond 'acts' the part of a very rich man, he isn't so himself. Of course, the contradictions, Bentley, Chelsea flat (itself a king's ransom surely even back when Bond starts out), private income (is it mentioned ever again after MR?), how do they come into play?

Fleming wanted to have it both ways, fulfill his own aspirations with Bond (while not exactly poor, he never felt he had enough, never really thought he had arrived in that part of society he saw as 'fitting'), and still make him anonymous and flexible enough as not to make identification with him impossible or, worse, undesirable. We enjoy his whole arsenal of luxurious paraphernalia, of exclusive bits and bobs, with him because he doesn't take them for granted. Our empathy towards this whole display of debauchery would be significantly less if it was Viscount Sir James Bond having his Jack Daniels, scrambled eggs and champagne on the backseat of his Bently, all bought with the family fortunes dating back to the 1400's.

Another example from OHMSS:
"Bond suddenly thought, Hell! I'll never find another girl like this one. She' got everything I've looked for in a woman. She's beautiful, in bed and out. She's adventurous, brave, resourceful. She's exciting always. She seems to love me. She'd let me go on with my life. She's a lone girl, not cluttered up with friends, relations, belongings. Above all, she needs me. It'll be someone for me to look after. I'm fed up with all these untidy, casual affairs that leave me with a bad conscience. i wouldn't mind having children. I've got no social background into which she would or wouldn't fit. We're two of a pair, really. Why not make it for always?"

So, no old family money, no relations and ties. Bond, while well off, is in effect as blank as the next sheet of paper. He's not "everyman", but there isn't anything to suggest he couldn't well be. Even his lifestyle is not really preventing us from identification and his views upon the very rich people he meets could well be our own, had we but the chance to meet these people in the situations Bond does.

I think you're effectively right, Fleming used Bond's wealthy and luxurious lifestyle as a tool to sell the books. And as we know, he ground this in a form of believable - achievable? - reality for his readers with his regular use of brand names.

However, it was this encouragement for the reader to aspire to be Bond, to move onto Bond's (social?) level, which offended the socıalıst politics of le Carre and Johnson. To them, Bond is part of a class elite, identifiably so, which is superior to the average, "everyman" Briton (of the time).

My fear is that if one assumes Bond is like the rest of us (Craig-Bond again?) we lose the fantastic, the concept of Bond as the man we all want to be (but can't) and the man all women want to be with (but can't have). I think that paraphrases a 50s quote, not a 60s Connery-Bond quote, though I could be wrong.

[Jack Rapace]

For a few years now, it has been established fan orthodoxy that Timothy Dalton came the closest to Ian Fleming's James Bond (with Connery the best Bond and Lazenby in the closest Fleming adaptation). Is it true, though - or is it omething we want to be true? I don't think being close to Fleming is about smoking - that's an attribute of his individualistic bon-viveur lifestyle. So let's try to break it down to see what we *really* feel. Here are some elements of Fleming's Bond I have identified from the novels. If you agree that they would - roughly - make up someone closely resembling Fleming's character, try to honestly rate each actor out of 5 for each attribute. Add up the total and see who has the largest Quantum of Fleming. Enjoy. And no cheating!

There's something I never understand...IF Dalton is the closest to IF...he's obviously the best, no ?

[Lachesis]

<David Schofield> pointed out that we are apt to re-evaluate Bond in the light of our view of Daniel Criag and it now seems to be the main thrust rather than an objective evaluation of each actors contribution? In which case maybe the question devolves to the old my Bond is better than yours.

The main thrust of what? Most of the comments in the thread have revolved around Dalton so far, and the survey is there for anyone to take, whatever the thrust of the conversation is. And there can obviously be no such thing as an objective evaluation of how close each actor has come to portraying Fleming's character - it's always going to be subjective.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. If you disagree with the attributes, you're welcome to create your own and do your own test. But then most people have already done that, long before this thread. My idea was to try to get a spread of attributes to stimulate some thought and discussion. It's a bit depressing that you feel it has to devolve to 'my Bond is better than yours'. That's hardly the intention, and need hardly be the case. But it's a bit up to you, really, how you treat the question.

Breaking down the categories and looking at each actor and their appropriate 'Flemingosity' is a good way to analyse why people prefer the one actor in the role to another, that side is objective in that you see how an actor is speaking to a particular viewer. Its an intresting analysis both of the poster and the Bond character, and I have no objection to the attributes save perhaps the ability for some to overlap and effectively score twice or else contradict one another. imo the more attributes the merrier and the closer we get to an objective study.

However toward the latter part of the thread what we are assessing seems to change. If you include a health attribute you have stated it is odd to mark someone down as too healthy, Trident has stated the role demands it because its what an action film needs of its star.....but we aren't assessing the the most suitable action star here are we? And Bond isn't JUST an action film what I understood we are assessing is who is closest to Flemings Bond, in which case you CAN be too fit and the current demand for a Physical monster a la D. Craig can be actively non-Fleming. The novels are adventures with action, the bias today is Action with action and that denies the unique diversity of appeal the Bond phenomena has traditionally delivered.

Equally a new discussion seems to be that Bond is an everyman is more than vaguely questionable its not a traditional grumble raised against any previous actor to my knowledge (certainly not vociferously as other aspects perhaps have) this seems to become an issue soley because it fits not Fleming but the new incumbent actor, which again turns the analysis upside down, fitting the Fleming to the actor rather than vica versa.

@Trident no disagreement on Craig's acting ability (I think you might be being unfair to Brosnan and others however, the actors discretion is determined by the director there is a significant difference in Cambell + Craig to Foster + Craig imo). What I do dispute is that these physical or this 'everyman' aspects are a positive in any assement of 'closeness to Fleming'. imo its the exact opposite and that even film wise this trend works to deny solid plotting and imagination in favour of brute force and ignorance. It is an Americanisation of the heroic figure to present so dominant a physicality. Equally while Craig shines in what he can do, the sad fact is as a direct result of this trend toward a physical pure action Bond he isn't given much oppertunity to display it due to the need for the next adenalin infusion.

There's something I never understand...IF Dalton is the closest to IF...he's obviously the best, no ?

imho (regarding the question rather than Dalton) maybe or maybe not! The requirements for the cinematic medium are not AUTMATICALLY the same as for the literary one, equally while the Bond books are focussed on Bond, they are more diverse and varied in their appeal - its not just about Bond the man.

Edited by Lachesis, 18 February 2010 - 12:50 PM.

[spynovelfan]

Breaking down the categories and looking at each actor and their appropriate 'Flemingosity' is a good way to analyse why people prefer the one actor in the role to another, that side is objective in that you see how an actor is speaking to a particular viewer. Its an intresting analysis both of the poster and the Bond character, and I have no objection to the attributes save perhaps the ability for some to overlap and effectively score twice or else contradict one another. imo the more attributes the merrier and the closer we get to an objective study.

Well, I would say that the more attributes the more chance of a deeper understanding of what it takes to be 'the closest to Fleming's Bond'. The idea that we could have an objective or scientific conclusion is obviously impossible, and I'm not sure why you raise it.

However toward the latter part of the thread what we are assessing seems to change. If you include a health attribute you have stated it is odd to mark someone down as too healthy, Trident has stated the role demands it because its what an action film needs of its star.....but we aren't assessing the the most suitable action star here are we?

Indeed not, but having a discussion about one thing doesn't anul another. I didn't argue against including 'unhealthy' on the grounds of what is required by Hollywood, but that that is not a character trait. Did you give Connery very high marks in Never Say Never Again because he's extra flabby there? Or was the fact that he was poisoned in From Russia With Love more impressive? Ones state of health is not a character trait. Bond's attitude to it is, but as I've already said I think this is already included in 'bon viveur', for which I meant the whole hedonistic let's live life to the full and eat and drink what I want attitude he has. By all means add 'unhealthy' to the list if you wish, but I thought you wanted to avoid overlapping?

The truth is that this is not science. No list of 13 or even 1300 attributes of the character would ever be agreed on by more than one Fleming fan. The criteria are by necessity rough. But perhaps give a more rounded picture than the usual two or three criteria used.

Equally a new discussion seems to be that Bond is an everyman is more than vaguely questionable its not a traditional grumble raised against any previous actor to my knowledge (certainly not vociferously as other aspects perhaps have) this seems to become an issue soley because it fits not Fleming but the new incumbent actor, which again turns the analysis upside down, fitting the Fleming to the actor rather than vica versa.

But just because David said that some people might be seeing it that way doesn't mean they are! Or invalidate the test. If there are another five pages of the thread in which people come in and say their results are that Moore was the closest, so be it. The test doesn't suddenly lose worth because of other people's comments or results.

The Quantum of Fleming is eternal, sir.

[Lachesis]

The objective part is seeing what aspects appeal as opposed to a wolly and ill defined XXX is da best and I do like the approach becasue I think all the Bond actors have their good points and their not so good points...so much of the time opinion is expressed in extremes and life isnt like that.

The question of health is queried by yourself in a general 'can you mark someone down for being too healthy' which you can if you dont see the Fleming Bond as overly healthy etc (and this has nothing to do with Connery, Craig or anyone) and that this factor is is directly related to the requirement of an action film with todays audience is a justification used by at least one poster...clear proof that the directive to assess Flemingness is indeed, as David Suggests, prone to be tainted by things not Fleming at all. I was merely looking to keep the frame of reference conistent by highlighting the dangers of bringing in other consideration late in the day.

Anyways I offer my apologies for any derailment and humbly withdraw.

[jaguar007]

Why are people defining Craig as "the everyman Bond"? Dalton's Bond is far closer to "the everyman" than Craig is.

[David Schofield]

Why are people defining Craig as "the everyman Bond"? Dalton's Bond is far closer to "the everyman" than Craig is.

Probably because Craig is very ordinary in appearance and character (IMO, his grief for Vesper is too ordinary: I like my Bond off his head in a Rose Garden, not barging through walls) . Features, height, build (without the qym - which is not beyond the wit of all of us). He is Mr Average. (And a case of brilliant marketing by EON). I admit the Vesper crap about chips on shoulder, school by someon else's charity, dressing to immitate others, buying the tux, didn't help in that regard. Fleming's Bond does not need to be "made" by anyone.

Dalton-Bond has always carried that tragic romantic hero vibe (referenced by Kinsley Amis). Brooding and unattainable (as James Bond should be).

[Trident]

My fear is that if one assumes Bond is like the rest of us (Craig-Bond again?) we lose the fantastic, the concept of Bond as the man we all want to be (but can't) and the man all women want to be with (but can't have). I think that paraphrases a 50s quote, not a 60s Connery-Bond quote, though I could be wrong.

Actually, the notion that Fleming's Bond invites us all to identify with him is a rather old one, absolutely not invented by me. Kingsley Amis analysed the matter far deeper and in more detail in his very entertaining 'The James Bond dossier'. Many interesting obeservations to be found there. Recommended!

@Trident no disagreement on Craig's acting ability (I think you might be being unfair to Brosnan and others however, the actors discretion is determined by the director there is a significant difference in Cambell + Craig to Foster + Craig imo). What I do dispute is that these physical or this 'everyman' aspects are a positive in any assement of 'closeness to Fleming'. imo its the exact opposite and that even film wise this trend works to deny solid plotting and imagination in favour of brute force and ignorance. It is an Americanisation of the heroic figure to present so dominant a physicality. Equally while Craig shines in what he can do, the sad fact is as a direct result of this trend toward a physical pure action Bond he isn't given much oppertunity to display it due to the need for the next adenalin infusion.

It's come up several times now that we assume Craig was more of an 'everyman' person and that there may be a tendency to mark him higher for just this very quality, rather than for any intrinsic trait that would be Bond-like-ish, or some such.

In fact, personally I find Craig's physique the very farthest from our (or most of our) reality. Yes of course, if we invest the necessary time and the necessary endurance, if we submit ourselves to the discipline just long enough, then there is a fair possibility we can look a bit like him, maybe even quite close to the real thing or more pronounced. Secretly, nobody doubts this.

But there is the sad fact that Craig is an actor who has had to do nothing else but get his equipment into shape for months. He could invest 8 hours every day, perhaps even more. None of us can do this in a similar manner. I'd like to argue that it's much easier for most anyone amongst us to look roughly like Roger Moore here
http://de.wikipedia...._Sea_Wolves.jpg

than to come close to what Craig looks like (members of elite police or military forces excluded). Craig's far more beyond our reach and into Greek god realm and anyone setting out to look similar will take a veritable number of years if he doesn't devote all of his time to it. Believe me, I used to be an athlete myself and despite being able to run marathon I couldn't mark highly on the Craig scale.

What does this obvious fitness bring to Bond now? It's perhaps not as much as one might suspect at the first glance and it of course has also to do with how the films have developed. Bond himself has to give a convincing performance where his physical abilities are called for. This is a criterium that in itself holds true for every Bond film, from '62 to the present. Yet the level of physical ability demanded has changed drastically over the years.


My opinion is nonetheless that this isn't the EON series' fault, at the very least not only theirs. Neither do I think it's exactly a question of Americanisation here. There have been a tremendous number of daring stunts in the Bond films, even as early back as the Connery years. For decades it was acceptable for audiences to see this and be entertained by the circus acts. But as with other film techniques (and let's please remember, Bond film history is always film history too) the viewers have come to demand a higher level of 'convincing' to accept a story. The simplest blue-screen used in DN (and accepted by audiences) would be out of question today. That doesn't necessarily discount the technique entirely, it just needs to be done much more exacting, much more convincing.

And this is exactly what has happened to the Bond physique (I try to come away from Craig here, as I think every new model will have to encounter this hurdle with a certain degree of aspiration) too. It's just no longer acceptable to audiences if the actors depict a role too obviously beyond their capabilities, not in this particular part of the genre (Spiderman would be another question). Emphasis is on appearing 'realistic', which of course doesn't mean it has to be realistic. We, the audience, just want to be tricked a little bit better than previous generations.

With this respect Craig's physique goes a long way of winning credibility where previously it wasn't necessary to this extent.

[spynovelfan]

Why are people defining Craig as "the everyman Bond"?

But nobody is, that I can see. David seems to feel that's the case, but I'm not quite sure where he's got the idea from in this thread.

David, why don't you put Craig to the test against the others? I know I haven't got Facial Scar, Comma of Hair or 6 Feet Tall as character traits (because they aren't those), but other than that are there any particular attributes of Fleming's character that are missing, do you think? Even if there are (because I'm sure there are), why not just give it a go anyway. For fun.

[Lachesis]

The label of 'Everyman' isn't a function of Craig's physical appearence or skills...but rather every other facet of his performance. In CR I took this to be a result of his being a raw and incomplete Bond, but QoS didn't develop anything so in some ways I have to wonder if what's missing has consciously been dispensed with or something due to develop in future movies. This is not a guy comfortable with the high life, or at ease in a tux...at least not yet.

[Trident]

The label of 'Everyman' isn't a function of Craig's physical appearence or skills...but rather every other facet of his performance. In CR I took this to be a result of his being a raw and incomplete Bond, but QoS didn't develop anything so in some ways I have to wonder if what's missing has consciously been dispensed with or something due to develop in future movies. This is not a guy comfortable with the high life, or at ease in a tux...at least not yet.

Not sure if QOS is really much of an indication in this respect. Craig seemed comfortably enough in his suits, the Aston and 'upgraded' hotel. I didn't get the vibe he had to force himself into the high life, but I may look out for such signs next time I watch QOS.

[spynovelfan]

This is not a guy comfortable with the high life, or at ease in a tux...at least not yet.

I think he is meant to be, in CR. That he's raw at the start, but has some elements of it. He's a gambler, he has an expensive watch, etc. But he's dismissive of that sort of thing, because of his background (if we're to believe Vesper), which is a different play on the fact that Fleming's Bond was an orphan who was expelled from Eton, ie that he wasn't like the other boys, has been an outsider since, etc. Then she gives him the dinner jacket. In the next scene, where he strides through the casino wearing it, I think we are meant to feel that he is finally at ease in that outfit, and that world. I felt it. You may have found it unconvincing, and mark him down for it.

[jaguar007]

I think Craig is much more comfortable (and snobbish) with nice clothes, high style, certain drinks etc than Dalton ever was. I am not saying that to bash Dalton as I am a huge fan of Dalton as Bond and think he is the closest to Fleming's later books).

Craig may not have dark hair or be 6'2, but that is not to say he is "everyman". Craig has had a much stronger female following than Dalton ever did. Example, my wife was never particularly fond of Dalton as Bond. When Craig was first being rumored as Bond I rented Layer Cake. My wife commented that she found him to be very sexy, and that was before his beefed up physique.

Craig carries himself very well and has that attitude that has been missing in every Bond actor since Connery.

I think part of the "everyman" idea may come from the fact that Craig's Bond is a little bit more 3 dimensional than the previous screen incarnations, less cartoon like. That makes him a little bit more believable and perhaps in some people eye, a bit more "everyman"

[Louis Armstrong]

This was an interesting thread to read through.

I think one reason Dalton is often labelled the most 'Flemingesque' Bond is because he introduced elements which fans of cinematic Bond didn't expect from the films, but were absolutely core to what made the novels so much more interesting for some. People go to movies in general to see drama, emotion...but it wasn't so with Bond. The series had focused on glamour and sexuality. (In the 70s, even danger and tension were forgotten.) This focus was smart, as Bond's surface elements alone are highly appealing and it might have alienated audiences to go in for something heavier.
Dalton brought a lot of humanity (loneliness, anger, romanticism) as well as a genuine sense of 'will Bond make it out alive?' to the table. Although he may not have covered all the Fleming bases, he checked one big box: making Bond more believable as a person, just like the novel Bond was and always will be.

E Cocky - Was lit Bond really cocky? Perhaps in the face of villainy, but generally, no.

I've already dealt with this, but yes, he's often very cocky. That mere woman London send him - what are they thinking, women are useless on jobs like this! The one he falls in love with, nearly proposes to and then discovers was the traitor. Those silly American gangsters - easy to round them up. Blofeld and Bunt - well, they're sorted now, aren't they? Time to drive off into the suns... Oh.

I don't see how these are examples of cockiness - I'd say Bond more comes off naive in these times. Out of his depth, too prejudiced in his views. There are other times naivete shows up in his character, such as when he doesn't report the peculiarities he notices about Drax's operation because he feels his superiors would find them trivial. 'Cocky' suggests a swagger, something the films played up far more than the books did. I do think there is something resembling cockiness in Bond's character. But I'd call that cheekiness, a bold sense of humour. So that's what I'm interpreting cocky to mean.

In trying out this rating system, I don't feel it would be right to automatically give top marks to, say, Craig for anti-authoritarianism or Brosnan for suavity. I feel these two step over the line - more of a balance is preferred. (That's not to say they won't score in the upper range, though; they have to do fairly well, simply through the significant presence of these traits in their characters.) I'm also not sure which performances to go by. It's easy enough to do a generic rating for Moore and Craig, I feel, but Brosnan and Connery were wildly inconsistent. Do I just rate their 'vibe' (...which is also different between films)? Does acting not count for something? I believe that Dalton has a definite preference for a shaken martini when he requests one in TLD, whereas Brosnan saying the famous line just sounds like somebody relishing in a catchphrase. One small moment on Dalton's part is worth far more in convincing me that his Bond enjoys luxury than does all of EON's dressing of Brosnan in pretty clothing. (Okay, I'm rambling. On with the ratings.)


CONNERY
A Handsome (in a somewhat cruel way) - 5
B Debonair - 5
C Cold-blooded - 5
D Bon-viveur - 5
E Cocky - 4
F Laconic - 5
G Driven - 3
H Menacing - 4
I Individualistic - 5
J Romantic - 3
K Womanising - 5
L Haunted - 2
M Anti-authoritarian - 3
TOTAL = 54

LAZENBY
A Handsome (in a somewhat cruel way) - 3
B Debonair - 5
C Cold-blooded - 2
D Bon-viveur - 5
E Cocky - 5
F Laconic - 2
G Driven - 4
H Menacing - 3
I Individualistic - 4
J Romantic - 2
K Womanising - 2
L Haunted - 3
M Anti-authoritarian - 5
TOTAL = 45

MOORE
A Handsome (in a somewhat cruel way) - 2
B Debonair - 3
C Cold-blooded - 3
D Bon-viveur - 3
E Cocky - 2
F Laconic - 4
G Driven - 3
H Menacing - 2
I Individualistic - 2
J Romantic - 4
K Womanising - 3
L Haunted - 3
M Anti-authoritarian - 1
TOTAL = 35

DALTON
A Handsome (in a somewhat cruel way) - 3
B Debonair - 3
C Cold-blooded - 5
D Bon-viveur - 4
E Cocky - 2
F Laconic - 5
G Driven - 4
H Menacing - 3
I Individualistic - 3
J Romantic - 5
K Womanising - 2
L Haunted - 5
M Anti-authoritarian - 4
TOTAL = 48

BROSNAN
A Handsome (in a somewhat cruel way) - 1
B Debonair - 3
C Cold-blooded - 1
D Bon-viveur - 3
E Cocky - 4
F Laconic - 2
G Driven - 3
H Menacing - 1
I Individualistic - 1
J Romantic - 1
K Womanising - 4
L Haunted - 3
M Anti-authoritarian - 3
TOTAL = 30

CRAIG
A Handsome (in a somewhat cruel way) - 4
B Debonair - 4
C Cold-blooded - 4
D Bon-viveur - 4
E Cocky - 5
F Laconic - 4
G Driven - 5
H Menacing - 5
I Individualistic - 3
J Romantic - 3
K Womanising - 3
L Haunted - 4
M Anti-authoritarian - 3
TOTAL = 51

Final rankings:
1. Connery (54)
2. Craig (51)
3. Dalton (48)
4. Lazenby (45)
5. Moore (35)
6. Brosnan (30)

[Germanlady]

For me its mostly due to what you expect Bond to be and that again is probably down to which one you grow up with. I grew up with Connery and Moore and liked them both very much, despite their different take on the part. Never really warmed to any of the other Bonds and when DC came into the game, I had to adjust to his sort of Bond - I came up loving it mostly because I fell for DC but not necesarely for this more cruel and dark Bond. In the next I would like to have and am almost sure will get - the more traditional Bond. Don´t get me wrong - it was high time for a change of mood in the films, but now its time to get a lighter version and from the funny, smirky parts we got from CR and QOS we know, DC can do that very well and with perfect timing.