26 replies to this topic

[Xenobia]

This question came to me the other night, as I was discussing Ian Fleming with someone. We know that Ian Fleming had no problems with Sean Connery being James Bond, but let us say that Fleming managed to live until 1995. Would Fleming have approved of George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan as well?

As is my usual style with such questions...I will let others answer first, and then I will post my thoughts.

I am curious to see what everyone has to say on this topic.

-- Xenobia

[Bryce (003)]

My dear Xen - It's strange but someone put the same question to me in the last week.

Quickly -

Lazenby - He might have come off to Fleming as not taking the role seriously enough - although he did deliver a decent performance (thank you Mr. Hunt, Ms. Rigg and Mr. Savalas) and one of the best of the novels.

Moore - Probably would have got on well with Rog given Fleming's own dry wit and it being the 70's - I wonder what dear Ian would have thought about that decade....

Tim - Fleming would have liked him. He brought the required cruelty to the role and I'll forever give Mr. Dalton that - He could shoot a glance at you (or the camera) and if he smiled, you felt safe. If he glared or narrowed his eyes, you felt nervous i.e. - What's this guy going to do *gulp*?

Pierce - I think he would have enjoyed the professionalism (as an actor and as the character) and the fact that he has tried and accomplished bringing an amount of depth to the role.

Damn....wish I had the chance to meet the man.

That's my take at least.

"Let the games begin!"

[Dr. Tynan]

At first Fleming didn't like Connery then he changed his mind, does anyone know why?

I'm just wondering.

[Xenobia]

For the same reason Anne Rice didn't like Tom Cruise as Lestat in "Interview With a Vampire" and then changed her mind: preconceived notions about the actor in quesiton that were obliterated when the author saw the actor bring his charcter to life.

-- Xenobia

[JimmyBond]

Cause he saw Connery in action as Bond. He was basing his early criticisms on Connery himself, and maybe a few movies he had seen him in before.

With Moore, Fleming did mention that Moore would make a good Bond, dont remember where I read that, but I did read it in one of those many James Bond reference books.

[Turn]

I'm sure he would have eventually come to the realization that the films demanded certain changes and that his character would have to be tailored to meet those.

What he would have thought of something like Moonraker as a film may be a different story, though. But as long as those big royalty checks kept coming in, I'm sure he would have been satisfied.

[1q2w3e4r]

This is going to sound really off base from whats been said before. But, Im kinda sad he didn't live to see the success of Goldfinger and Thunderball. But after that, i'm glad he hasn't seen any of the other films, he'd probably have hated an Aussie playing Bond and been horrified at Roger's efforts.

Im happy he didnt see them, nothing against the films which i enjoy but Ian wouldn't have been able to stomach them.

[Predator_007]

We've touched on Fleming's first preference of an actor to play Bond elsewhere in these forums. Indeed Fleming didn't want Connery at first, he wanted Moore. Moore had been playing ... Ivanhoes (I believe) at the time and I too have read that Fleming liked the dry wit Moore always brought to the parts he played. While I'm sure that Fleming would have been 'disappointed' with the scale of the 70s Bonds, I don't think he would have necessarily hated Moore's protrayal of Bond.

However, predicting what Bond Fleming would have liked best is like trying to predict which Bond each of us likes best ... I like all the Bonds with one exception, but for different reasons (as do most of us I'd wager). I think Fleming would have a certain amount of pride that his character was so popular, but this would no doubt be at some cost to his own personal 'pure' vision of the slightly cruel, suave and elegant secret agent of the books ...

[Mr Trump]

I was always led to belive fleming didn't want moore for DR NO because he thought he was to much of a pretty boy but Roger Mooore had other commitments anyway.
But I am probably wrong about this.

[1q2w3e4r]

I think he could have stomached Connery and maybe Dalton, though even his films were too different from the origionals to be able to make any real conclusions.

But considering Fleming hated Dr No, I'd say its quite safe to say he would have hated the camp and over the top 70s Moore Bond. No offence to anyone who has Rog as their fav.

[Xenobia]

Alright, it is my time to shock everyone...brace yourselves.

Here is how I think Fleming thought of his Five:

Connery: Fleming was not to sure about him at first, but seeing how this man while not exactly handsome did have that look of danger about him, won him over. And Connery was extremely good at keeping the tension there between cool efficency and smouldering rage.

Lazenby: Fleming would have hated him. Lazenby looked too young, had the completely wrong physique, and was too egotiscal to do Bond proper justice. And while Lazenby handled the fight scenes well, none of that underlying rage or romanticism was there. All show, no susbstance.

Moore: Fleming's dream come true, part one. A true Englishman (whereas Connery is Scottish and proud of it, and Lazenby is Austrailian), Moore was able to blend the serious smouldering nature of Bond (see the car kicking scene in FYEO) with the lighter moments of Bond that were evidenced in the novels in his scenes with May, and in the fact that Fleming was indeed lightening Bond in the novels (I believe there is a teleplay that never got made that is evidence of this) knowing the movies needed a lighter character than what the literary Bond presented. Moore had the style and sauve that fellow raconteur Flemign would have loved.

Dalton: Fleming's dream come true, part II. Here was a man willing to play the dark side of Bond while still allowing Bond a one-liner here or there, and playing up how tender Bond could be with a woman, when he wanted to be. I think Fleming would have been disappointed that the action and plot of LTK was not up to par with what Dalton was trying to do, and may have even tried to write something to make it all work, but in the end he would have appreciated Dalton's efforts.

Brosnan: This is where everyone needs to take a deep breath: Fleming would have hated Pierce Brosnan playing James Bond. And it is not because Brosnan is so handsome, or because of the way Brosnan played "Remington Steele." I believe Fleming would have had a major problem with Britain's greatest spy being played by the enemy...a native born, country raised, Irishman. Fleming could not have handled that at all, imho.

-- Xenobia

[Sir James]

you are probably right Xen, but I do think once he saw the enourmous amounts of moeny coming in, and his approach to Bond, it could have started a healing process. Besides, Brosnan is rather quiet about his Irishness IMO.

[OHMSS]

My thoughts:

Connery: Fleming was won over by the charm of Sean Connery the man. I have read that Sean was very concerned with having Fleming's approval and so he read the books several times to get the manerisms of the character down. It was Connery's attention to detail and the shear grace of the early scripts (i.e more story, less reliance on gadgets) that eased him into the role. Fleming gives Sean a *** out of 4.

Lazenby: I admit to being biased because I love OHMSS. But I disagree with Xenobia that Fleming would have hated Lazenby. Certainly there are weak moments in Lazenby's performance no doubt due to the fact that he had never acted before. But the reason I think that Fleming would have taken to Lazenby's performance is that Lazenby did not play Bond. Lazenby thought he was Bond. Lazenby may not have been able to convey a man who had lived the Bond lifestyle for countless years, but you can imagine that a less world weary Bond might have some of the naivete that Lazenby displayed. I also think that he was perfect for the roll physically. Fleming gives George *** out of 4.

Moore: Fleming may have liked Moore's dry wit. Indeed Moore nailed the one liner's (at least the good one) better than any other Bond. But physically Moore always left something to be desired. He lacked the physicality of Connery and Lazenby. Connery and Lazenby would walk into a bar, get into a fight and walk out ruffled but confident. Moore seemed to get beat up a lot more. Fleming gives Roger **1/2 out of 4.

Dalton: Dalton was saddled by ultra serious scripts that may have been tailored to his dramatic style, but nonetheless forgot how to have fun. His wit was actually quite good and he looked and acted the part well. But the scripts were not strong. Fleming gives Timothy *** out of 4.

Brosnan: Brosnan gets the best marks because he balances all aspects of Bond extremely well. Action, wit, humor, the whole package, especially after getting a couple of films under his belt. I also think that Brosnan's vocal push to explore the darker side of Bond would have intrigued Fleming. Fleming gives Pierce ***1/2 out of 4.

[Xenobia]

Two points:

Sir James....you are right, when it suits him, Brosnan is quiet about his Irishness...and at other times talks about it a lot. It depends on him, and the agenda of the interviewer.

OHMSS: You are right to say that Fleming would have liked Lazenby *if* Lazenby thought he was Bond. Lazenby was Bondesque in that he thought he was a star...and that is a bit of the ego that Fleming would not have liked.

I also think Moore would surprise us all and more than hold his own in a barfight. Just remember, it's the quiet ones that make all the trouble.

;-)

-- Xenobia

[Hardyboy]

Let's remember that at one time Fleming wanted Cary Grant to play Bond. Lazenby does bear a certain resemblance to Grant, so Fleming might have approved of his looks. Also, Fleming always favored making the plot more important than the characters (which is why he picked the name "James Bond"--he found it the dullest name he could find), so perhaps he would have liked the idea of an unknown playing Bond.

[Kara Milovy]

Originally posted by 1q2w3e4r
But considering Fleming hated Dr No,.

I never heard that. Where do you get that from?

[1q2w3e4r]

His research assistant who worked with him at Glidrose and researched with him on several of his last novels wrote an essay on his time working with ian. The mention of Dr No was that Ian walked out of the theatre and into a bar had a drink and claimed it "was dreadful"

[Sir James]

now wait in defense of Dr. No Fleming said "For those who read the book they will be gravely disapointed, but for those who will just see the film, they will like it."

Fleming was always never a fan of the films, he said to Terence Young when he first met him "So you the man who is going to F up my work."

[Jim]

Originally posted by Xenobia
Alright, it is my time to shock everyone...brace yourselves.

Brosnan:  This is where everyone needs to take a deep breath:  Fleming would have hated Pierce Brosnan playing James Bond.  And it is not because Brosnan is so handsome, or because of the way Brosnan played "Remington Steele."  I believe Fleming would have had a major problem with Britain's greatest spy being played by the enemy...a native born, country raised, Irishman.  Fleming could not have handled that at all, imho.

-- Xenobia

Frankly, I'm not sure what the thoughts of a dead man would be. Even were he alive today, he'd be about 94 and in a retirement home and most likely would be a formaldehyded old pillock who probably thinks he's a badger. So his thoughts become genuinely immaterial.

However, whilst I'm tempted to agree that, convincing himself he's a hibernating woodland creature aside, he wouldn't have cared for Mr Brosnan's interpretation/abuse of the character, it might not have been because of Mr Brosnan's roots (grey...) but because Mr Fleming's James Bond put up a struggle when someone tried to remove his balls, whereas Mr Brosnan's James Bond has been willingly emasculated.

Eunuch going to believe it, but 'tis true.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Jim

.......................he wouldn't have cared for Mr Brosnan's interpretation/abuse of the character, it might not have been because of Mr Brosnan's roots (grey...) but because Mr Fleming's James Bond put up a struggle when someone tried to remove his balls, whereas Mr Brosnan's James Bond has been willingly emasculated.

There's a point there, but is that more down to the passage of time and the need for everything to be so damn politically correct and unsexist? Everyone seems to believe that a Connery'd version of Bond in these times would go down like a lead brick, ergo the need for everything to be a little more fluffy round the edges.

Not sure we can lay this one at the Brosnan door of blame.

[Jim]

I shall not molest his blame door.

You're probably right; I should have written BrosnanBond rather than ascribing Mr Brosnan with any of the blame. He is, after all, a dispensible employee.

[Xenobia]

Being sexist and mysogynistic has never been, nor ever will be, the sign of a man being masculine or not. A man's masculinity is in his gender, not his character.

That being said, Connery's Bond was sexist, but not a mysogynist, and there is no need to water down what he did in his films, for his Bond is, when it comes to women he likes, harmless, but one would have to be watching the movies with more than one eye open to see that.

Fleming, at 94, might be an badger, but as long as he had control over his affairs, he would be a badger with power to stop getting the movies made, if he felt strongly enough about the actor playing the role.

-- Xenobia

PS: Nice to see you finally joined a club Jim. So much for the Groucho Marx theory. ;-)

[1q2w3e4r]

Originally posted by Sir James
now wait in defense of Dr. No Fleming said "For those who read the book they will be gravely disapointed, but for those who will just see the film, they will like it."

Fleming was always never a fan of the films, he said to Terence Young when he first met him "So you the man who is going to F up my work."

Yes he did And Terrance always with a quip replied something along the lines of it wasn't all that great to begin with

[Jim]

Originally posted by Xenobia
Being sexist and mysogynistic has never been, nor ever will be, the sign of a man being masculine or not.  A man's masculinity is in his gender, not his character.

Is that fact or opinion?

[Xenobia]

Hmmm...yours is a tough question.

It is my opinion that someone who is a mysogynist doesn't have the emotional maturity to be called a "man."

Now as to whether a man's masculinity rests on his gender....that is fact. A gay man is masculine the same as a straight man is.

That's the best answer I can give you, and something tells me you are going to have more questions.

-- Xenobia (walking, with eyes open, into a jimtrap)

[Simon]

Originally posted by Xenobia

Now as to whether a man's masculinity rests on his gender....that is fact.  A gay man is masculine the same as a straight man is.  

No he's not (says he clearly laying out the form)

A man is a man is a man. All gender. The only time one can debate that is when one sticks the words "true" or "real" in front of the word "man". To wit, "Is he a real man because he drinks pints?" Nothing to do with gender but perspectives - and perspectives are entirely subjective.

A gay man could be masculine but could just as easily be femnine or effeminate.

[Xenobia]

Simon:

A straight man can be effeminate too, you know, but yes, I do see your point...and you phrased what I was trying to say, much better than I did.

-- Xenobia