280 replies to this topic

[Stephen Spotswood]

The funny thing, is one of the guys I saw as Bond had a small part in the beginning of Dr. No. He was a radio operator trying to contact Dr. Strangways, and then calls his supervisor over to let him know there was a problem.

Although I'm a big fan of Dalton, I think he was the best Bond, there was an actor in the beginning of TLD whose rope is severed in Gibraltor, and all he does is scream no. He looked like my idea of Bond too.

Personally, I always thought James Bond would be best played by a less chiseled looking, English type, unknown actor, and surround him with big names.

Most of the actors playing supporting roles and even villains I don't recognize. They may be stars in Europe, but a lot of Americans don't know who they are.

They did seem to make a slight movement in this direction with the casting of Judy Dench, Christopher Walken, Tanya Roberts and Teri Hatcher, but it seemed half-hearted. Dench and Roberts particularly annoy me.

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 24 March 2008 - 07:31 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Personally, I always thought James Bond would be best played by a less chiseled looking, English type, unknown actor, and surround him with big names.

That's exactly what they did in OHMSS!

[BoogieBond]

Ian Fleming NEVER liked Sean Connery as James Bond and just thought of him as a 'lorry driver'. The few positive statements about Connery that he made were from a bit of pressure and, even then, he said if he started 'all over again', he would make Connery his Bond. Hardly a glowing endorsement, but very similar to the new films in which they are tossing out the original Bond and replacing it with another 'lorry driver'.

Those two scenes that you refer to could have never happened in the Fleming books. Aside from a vague verbal re-counting he did, James Bond never killed in cold blood in the books and was hardly 'gritty'. Craig almost seems to get off on killing people and thinks of doing that first (per his chat with M), before any other action. Hardly Ian Fleming's James Bond.

I guess if I am not in the Craig/Dalton camp I am to 'go away', but, alas, I cannot.

Will have to agree to disagree
Re-read CR and LALD recently and the tone comes accross to me as gritty, like when he is captured in CR and his thoughts of Le Chiffre's henchman.
"A man to make you afraid, an evil man. Bond hoped he might get a chance of killing him."

I agree on the point that Bond did not like to kill in cold blood. But aside from killing The Robber in a cold rage, he also dispatches Tee Hee pretty efficiently(with a broken finger as well, pretty tough, reading these sort of areas reminded me of Craig's and Daltons portrayal of Bond, but just IMO )

Edited by BoogieBond, 25 March 2008 - 08:48 AM.

[MajorB]

Craig confirms the opinion I've always held of Dalton: that he was almost great as Bond. I liked Dalton a lot, especially in TLD. And I really respect his commitment to make Bond more real. But I was always conscious that he was acting--the technique tended to show. I felt that he was acting toughness and intensity, rather than just "having" those qualities as the character. (In fact, I've never found Dalton to be a completely comfortable presence onscreen, mostly for that reason. I've always been conscious of the effort. I'm a big fan of "seamless" or "invisible" acting, where you forget that this is a performer and you feel like you're just watching a person. Possibly this is because Dalton was classically stage trained, and it may be he couldn't translate that as well to film as some other stage actors have.)

Certainly there are many moments when he's very effective as Bond, and times when he seems very natural in scenes. But there are other times, mostly in LTK, when I thought he was trying too hard, and it actually worked against him. The scene in the bar with Pam and the thugs is the best example--Dalton is trying to be tough and intense as he stares the bad guys down, but he comes off as the most nervous person at the table. (Contrast that with Benicio del Toro especially, who acts as if he hasn't a care in the world but simultaneously manages to be scary intense.)

And while this overt tension/intensity might work for some other action-hero roles, it never quite worked for Bond, IMO. Fleming wrote in Goldfinger that tension and danger relaxed Bond. That was one of the things Connery did so beautifully, and one of the key elements in Bond's success in the 60s, when cool was king--his Bond projected cool, even when he was tense. And Craig does the same thing. And he inhabits the character pretty darned seamlessly.

Other folks will disagree--for one thing, not everyone will share my taste in acting styles. As I said, I think Dalton was good, and God bless him for helping turn the franchise away from the "silly" era and steer Bond in the direction of a more fully fleshed-out character. But to me, Craig is what Dalton was trying to be--a persuasively tough, human Bond. And to me, Craig aces it, whereas Dalton never fully got there.

[Scaramanga'74]

The credit undeniably goes to Dalton for having set the foundation upon which Craig so admirably built his character of 007. Dalton

[Stephen Spotswood]

Personally, I always thought James Bond would be best played by a less chiseled looking, English type, unknown actor, and surround him with big names.

That's exactly what they did in OHMSS!

Lazenby was rather chiseled too, as muscular as a Lord Greystoke, and even seem to have some of Cary Grant's vocal inflections.

I always pictured Bond more as a swift killing snake, lean and dangerous, and less of a lumbering gorilla.

[J.C.D'Arc]

...I liked Dalton a lot, especially in TLD, and I really respect his commitment to make Bond more real, but I was always conscious that he was acting ...I felt that he was acting toughness and intensity, rather than just "having" those qualities as the character. (In fact, I've never found Dalton to be a completely comfortable presence onscreen, mostly for that reason. I've always been conscious of the effort. I'm a big fan of "seamless" or "invisible" acting, where you forget that this is a performer and you feel like you're just watching a person. Possibly this is because Dalton was classically stage trained, and it may be he couldn't translate that as well to film as some other stage actors have.)

Certainly there are many moments when he's very effective as Bond, and times when he seems very natural in scenes. But there are other times, mostly in LTK, when I thought he was trying too hard, and it actually worked against him. The scene in the bar with Pam and the thugs is the best example--Dalton is trying to be tough and intense as he stares the bad guys down, but he comes off as the most nervous person at the table. (Contrast that with Benicio del Toro, especially, who acts as if he hasn't a care in the world but simultaneously manages to be scary intense.)

And while this overt tension/intensity might work for some other action-hero roles, it never quite worked for Bond, IMO. Fleming wrote in Goldfinger that tension and danger relaxed Bond. That was one of the things Connery did so beautifully, and one of the key elements in Bond's success in the 60s, when cool was king--his Bond projected cool, even when he was tense. And Craig does the same thing. And he inhabits the character pretty darned seamlessly.

Other folks will disagree--for one thing, not everyone will share my taste in acting styles. As I said, I think Dalton was good, and God bless him for helping turn the franchise away from the "silly" era and steer Bond in the direction of a more fully fleshed-out character. But to me, Craig is what Dalton was trying to be--a persuasively tough, human Bond. And to me, Craig aces it, whereas Dalton never fully got there.

I agree about the thankfulness for trying to steer away from the silly, self-parodying Bond of some of the Moore (and earlier) films. I disagree about Dalton's acting style being too "stage-y." I think the problem was that Dalton was playing in Bond movies that were neither fish nor fowl. They still wanted to rely on the old formulas that had worked (for a while) in the Moore era, but they wanted to get across some "grittiness," too. That's not impossible, but the writers and producers of Dalton's Bond films didn't manage to accomplish it. In other words, if EON or whoever they were at the time had displayed possession of enough cojones to make a Bond film that didn't try at all to be a comedy, or an "action flick," or "fun for the whole family," I think Dalton would have been close as makes no never mind to perfect as James Bond.

I also disagree about your assessment of Connery's cool playing of Bond. To my mind, Connery played Bond as a character who knows that the writer is on his side. Dalton didn't. Ever notice how in Connery films the world is at stake? That's so you'll give a damn. The only Connery film in which I identify with Bond is Dr. No. That's because Connery hadn't yet started to play the invincible superman yet. Dalton was right: You can't identify with a superman. I can't, anyway.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I would agree and disagree in part about Dalton's seeming too actorly. His voice was obviously stage trained, and even as Bond seemed to have something of a Shakespearean cadence. But then his Bond talked so softly you had to pay attention sometimes to hear everything he said. That minimized the staginess, but forced you to pay attention to the dialogue and not just be wowed by the visuals.

Additionally, Dalton acted so much with his eyes, which would be ineffective from a stage, and is hard to find even in movie actors. The only two I can think of right off hand is Bela Lugosi and Barbara Steele. Again that forces you to pay attention to the character, not really the actor, instead of waiting for the next stunt or quip.

However, he was failed by pedestrian scripts and directors and misplaced humor on the part of the villains in the first movie, Q and Wayne Newton in the second.

Craig feels more like an action adventure, muscle-flexing movie of the 80's.

[Mr.B]

No, why should he? I think Craig and Dalton portraied Bond pretty different.

[BoogieBond]

I would agree and disagree in part about Dalton's seeming too actorly. His voice was obviously stage trained, and even as Bond seemed to have something of a Shakespearean cadence. But then his Bond talked so softly you had to pay attention sometimes to hear everything he said. That minimized the staginess, but forced you to pay attention to the dialogue and not just be wowed by the visuals.

Additionally, Dalton acted so much with his eyes, which would be ineffective from a stage, and is hard to find even in movie actors. The only two I can think of right off hand is Bela Lugosi and Barbara Steele. Again that forces you to pay attention to the character, not really the actor, instead of waiting for the next stunt or quip.

However, he was failed by pedestrian scripts and directors and misplaced humor on the part of the villains in the first movie, Q and Wayne Newton in the second.

Craig feels more like an action adventure, muscle-flexing movie of the 80's.

I agree with you. Craig is a "Man of action". He also is a little taciturn in his portrayal. Dalton is more "Showy" and theatrical I feel. Both actors are effective. I still don't see many similarities in the actors(Craig is son of Connery to me), just the similarities in the tone of the movies, and both share the same sort of intensity in their portrayal.

Edited by BoogieBond, 02 April 2008 - 02:11 AM.

[Dekard77]

Craig feels more like an action adventure, muscle-flexing movie of the 80's.[/quote]
I agree with you. Craig is a "Man of action". He also is a little taciturn in his portrayal. Dalton is more "Showy" and theatrical I feel. I still don't see many similarities in the actors(Craig is son of Connery to me), just the similarities in the tone of the movies.
[/quote]

How true! I also thought Craig had the looks of Connery esp Dr.No and FRWL. There is a very very uncanny resemblance to them. Connery is stealth and appeals to the characters' dark side in a way the audience can accept him.
I think the main missing ingredient in Dalton Bonds was a little info on the characters habits or lifestyle which Martin Campbell used on PB and DC. You need to see Bond doing little things like Long stares, walking to a building and some close ups when he is in comfort zones the casino gambling.In LTK the casino scenes are very rushed and hardly anyone peering over Bond's success. I am not talking about the action scenes just the normal stuff. It was reported in several Bond collectors books that Dalton and John Glen were not getting along. I honestly feel that's true because Glen gives a lot of development to other characters even minor ones and whenever Dalton appears his scenes are cut short. It's like you have to imagine Bond is like this and that.