121 replies to this topic

[jaguar007]

I must say I've never really read anything about Connery that suggests I'd want to spend time in his immediate vicinity, however much I may enjoy his work on screen. But I always wonder how much of that is a case of the press keeping Connery in the 007 Box they've always had him in. They seem to delight in stories that show him as a macho, misogynistic and pugilistic avatar of the 1960s male, regardless of the date. Somehow it's hard for me to believe he spends every day beating his wife, cursing out shopkeepers and taking people to court.

My parents have a friend who once was at a dinner with Sean Connery. She said he was the most gracious, polite gentelman she had ever met.

He did very well out of Bond financially (it's not like he was on minimum wage here, he was the highest paid actor in the world at one point) and he also did very well out of Bond career wise.

Yes, Connery did very well out of Bond, but he was not the highest paid actor in the world until DAF. During his Bond tenure I know he complained because Dean Martin was getting paid significantly more for the Matt Helm movies than Connery was for the Bond movies.

[David_M]

My parents have a friend who once was at a dinner with Sean Connery. She said he was the most gracious, polite gentelman she had ever met.

Thanks, then. Now I've read something nice about the guy.

No, the first reaction is "yeah, the guy who played Bond/Batman/Inspector Clouseau, whoever, was great."

By the way, these were my exact words as I left the theater after "Die Another Day."

[Santa]

He did very well out of Bond financially (it's not like he was on minimum wage here, he was the highest paid actor in the world at one point) and he also did very well out of Bond career wise.

Yes, Connery did very well out of Bond, but he was not the highest paid actor in the world until DAF.

That's why I said 'at one point' .

[plankattack]

No, the first reaction is "yeah, the guy who played Bond/Batman/Inspector Clouseau, whoever, was great."

By the way, these were my exact words as I left the theater after "Die Another Day."

Insert applause icon here!

[baerrtt]

To be fair to Sean I've always assumed he made up with EON years ago. Showing up on the set of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH to give his support to Pierce, numerous interviews on his Bond past (incl the recent one for the south bank show last year prior to QOS's release)where any well-documented past tensions have clearly been forgotten etc.

Connery may not come across as a likeable man(if you believe the stuff written about him) but I believe he's far more grateful to Bond than some believe him to be.

[doublenoughtspy]

When I said in my earlier post that I was shocked to learn Sean Connery didnt attend I was more shocked to have found out they had fallen out. It was news to me. Something I was not aware off until yesterday. I was also shocked to learn Roger Moore didnt get on like a house on fire with Harry. I guess I thought the Bond actors and producers was all one big happy family.

OK - I'll take a stab at this - why did you think it was one big happy family?

Every book I've ever read on the subject - outside of "official" Bond histories - makes it pretty clear that it wasn't all wine and roses.

[Mister Asterix]

Sean Connery wouldn't be a known name or a bankable commodity without Eon and the Bond films. And as he appears to be someone who prizes his money particularly highly, he should remember what a milk man in Edinburgh gets for a week's work as opposed to a world famous movie star.

I agree that he shouldn't be obliged to his bosses for ever more. But a little more decency, respect and loyalty would not go amiss in the movie world let alone everywhere else.

Who’s to say Connery wouldn’t have done as well or better without Cubby, Eon, and Bond. Connery had already turned down the role of Tarzan. Surely there’s a good chance other opportunities would arise for a man of Connery’s talent and presence.

[Turn]

Connery was not a commodity then (DARBY O'GILL AND THE LITTLE PEOPLE would not have seen him guest cameo on THE COLBYS let alone later secure an Oscar). But Cubby Broccoli, Dana Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, John Picker and Terence Young put their reputations on the line for Sean Connery when they spoke up for him instead of Cary Grant or James Mason.

No, Connery wasn't a commodity then. But he was considered enough of an up and coming actor to land a role in The Longest Day, one of the biggest films of the time and get his mug in with some of the biggest stars of the day on the advertising.

Did any of those people really have any type of reputation at the time that would have been damaged? Cubby and Saltzman had produced a few films, none of which were huge. Dana was merely Cubby's wife. Young was a journeyman director. Picker was a studio guy. I'm sure they had high aspirations, but none knew the series would become as big as it did.

And they didn't speak up for Connery instead of Grant or Mason. It's well known that although Grant was a personal friend of Cubby's, he wouldn't submit to a multi-picture contract long before Connery was ever considered. Mason probably didn't have any more of an interest than Grant did given his status.

'The James Bond Legacy' quotes Saltzman as saying they wanted an unknown actor. Connery obviously had those ingredients they wanted for Bond. It wasn't like they taught him how to move like a cat as they thought in watching him leave their office and walk down the street. 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang' also says it was Connery's body language that won him the role and quotes Cubby as saying "I wanted a ballsy guy."

It was Connery's attributes and their collective instincts that helped things turn out as they did.

[DR76]

Considering that Timothy Dalton was the only Bond actor to attend Cubby's funeral, what's the big deal over Connery's lack of appearance?

[Colossus]

Yeah i mean these people aren't exactly family, they were work accomplices, successfully too. A phone call suffices.

[Mr_Wint]

Sean Connery wouldn't be a known name or a bankable commodity without Eon and the Bond films. And as he appears to be someone who prizes his money particularly highly, he should remember what a milk man in Edinburgh gets for a week's work as opposed to a world famous movie star.

I agree that he shouldn't be obliged to his bosses for ever more. But a little more decency, respect and loyalty would not go amiss in the movie world let alone everywhere else.

Who’s to say Connery wouldn’t have done as well or better without Cubby, Eon, and Bond. Connery had already turned down the role of Tarzan. Surely there’s a good chance other opportunities would arise for a man of Connery’s talent and presence.

But it was EON, and no one else, who made Connery an international star.

Reminds me of a quote from TND:
Wai Lin: I could've taken care of him.
Bond: Yes, but you didn't.

[Zorin Industries]

I'm sure everyone can relate to feeling underpaid. I think what irks some folks is the notion that Connery would hold onto a grudge even beyond the grave.

In fairness, though, we don't know for sure that he did. He says he made his peace with Cubby, Dana said he offered sympathies. The memorial service was a public affair and as such there would be one reason for attending; to make a public display of tribute and/or reconciliation with Cubby. As far as we know, Connery didn't consider that necessary; if he made up with Cubby, that was between the two men, and there was no need to show up at a public service to "prove" to the world that their relationship was all patched up.

It's different with Roger and Dalton, who were always on good terms with Cubby. They could attend the event and merely add star power. But if Connery showed up, every newspaper report would print (and probably lead with) some stupid line like "Connery forgives Broccoli in death" (or something even more insultingly stupid like "James Bond has made peace with his oldest foe"), just as by not showing up he guaranteed the press would say, "Ooooh, Sean is still so mad he wouldn't even show up." Basically he couldn't win. By calling Dana -- which he didn't have to do -- he showed compassion to the person who mattered most.

The memorial was hardly a public event. The press were in attendance, but it was a closed shop as to what tributes and memorials were made during the service.

And I wouldn't say that Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton were there to add star power. They were there to pay their respects to the man and his family. And since when did Sean Connery get so shy of the press? Oh I know - he wasn't getting paid to attend the memorial (I say with slight tongue in cruel cheek).

Connery may not come across as a likeable man(if you believe the stuff written about him) but I believe he's far more grateful to Bond than some believe him to be.

If you class being "gracious" as turning your back on the role THREE times only to have a cheque change your mind.

Sean Connery wouldn't be a known name or a bankable commodity without Eon and the Bond films. And as he appears to be someone who prizes his money particularly highly, he should remember what a milk man in Edinburgh gets for a week's work as opposed to a world famous movie star.

I agree that he shouldn't be obliged to his bosses for ever more. But a little more decency, respect and loyalty would not go amiss in the movie world let alone everywhere else.

Who’s to say Connery wouldn’t have done as well or better without Cubby, Eon, and Bond. Connery had already turned down the role of Tarzan. Surely there’s a good chance other opportunities would arise for a man of Connery’s talent and presence.

I'm not trying to deliberately pick holes in your stance here, but what TARZAN movie? Which landmark TARZAN film that the filmic history books always cite above all others was Sean Connery foolish to turn down?

Dana was merely Cubby's wife.

And that, my friend, is where - when it comes to James Bond 007 in the cinema - you couldn't be more wrong. "Merely" is not a phrase I would use to describe Dana Broccoli's involvement in the biggest film franchise in the world.

[Terry]

The relationship between Sean Connery and the Bond producers has always fascinated me.
It got so bad that during the filming of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE", Connery threatened to walk off the set if Harry Saltzman made an appearance. But even then, while filming was underway in Japan, Barbara Broccoli (five years old at the time) became quite ill with fever. Cubby Broccoli relates in his book that Sean Connery kindly gave her his bed and bedding to sleep in. At the end of filming, Connery groused that the producers were greedy and would play Bond themselves if they could to save the money. He said they should have made him an equal partner and he would have stayed with the series (something that Terence Young also suggested to them).
While filming DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER in Las Vegas, Connery told an interviewer, "Saltzman is a very clever man in his own way. He is powerful because he is wealthy. He is in a strong position but he makes a big mistake. He presumes people will jump the way he would jump. That's the trap of all time. Harry will never understand me, not as long as he has a hole in his hat. But I understand him a lot." Tom Mankiewicz recalled Connery kissing Saltzman on the forehead, resulting with Saltzman turning red in the face and flying out of Vegas the next day.
Christopher Wood tells of how he, Cubby Broccoli and Co. ran into Sean Connery at MGM commissary in Los Angeles. This is right after a lawsuit had been dealt with from Kevin McClory, who was trying to stop Broccoli from using certain plot elements (SPECTRE for one) in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. Wood said it a very affable meeting and not what one would have expected. Things are differant in the movie world.
Connery's 1984 lawsuit against Broccoli (for $225 million) claiming he hadn't been paid $1,275 million for the first five movies and seeking that plus the interest. I believe some of the claim was related to the marketing of tie-in products, toys and etc using Connery's likeness. Broccoli released this statement, "The only thing I have done to Mr. Connery was to place him in the role of 007, which became the most successful film series in the world and made him an extremely wealthy and important film personality." The lawsuit was eventually thrown out of court by judge David Kenyon.
Around the time when Pierce Brosnan was filming GOLDENEYE, Cubby Broccoli's health was in steep decline. Hearing this, Sean Connery phoned him with concern over his situation. Their differances became water under the bridge and Cubby appreciated Connery's concern.
When Cubby died in 1996, Connery phoned from Europe to say how sorry he was to hear of Cubby's death.
My reading of the situation is that there was dispute over the years, but that things were settled between Cubby and Sean and Connery saw no value in making any of this public. It in no way diminishes what went on between the two. I have never read if Connery settled matters with Harry Saltzman as well.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Thanks Terry, That was a very informative post. Good to hear they both came together in the end.

[jaguar007]

But it was EON, and no one else, who made Connery an international star.

Yes, but it could also be argued that is was Connery who made the Bond films (and EON) so successful.

[Zorin Industries]

But it was EON, and no one else, who made Connery an international star.

Yes, but it could also be argued that is was Connery who made the Bond films (and EON) so successful.

I like to think it was the creative team assembled by Eon that created the series - Young, Adam, Hunt, Simmons, Barry, Maibaum.... Connery had nothing to do with their involvement. Yes, he was the figure head for a while, but he wasn't that vital to Bond as Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig have proved. The series was not hinged on one actor as everyone first thought.

[David Schofield]

But it was EON, and no one else, who made Connery an international star.

Yes, but it could also be argued that is was Connery who made the Bond films (and EON) so successful.

I like to think it was the creative team assembled by Eon that created the series - Young, Adam, Hunt, Simmons, Barry, Maibaum.... Connery had nothing to do with their involvement. Yes, he was the figure head for a while, but he wasn't that vital to Bond as Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig have proved. The series was not hinged on one actor as everyone first thought.

Yes, I think that the history of ther series has shown that surely only the most blinkered Connery Bond fan would believe that Bond would not have succeeded had another actor - and not Connery - been cast in 1962.

[HildebrandRarity]

But it was EON, and no one else, who made Connery an international star.

Yes, but it could also be argued that is was Connery who made the Bond films (and EON) so successful.

I like to think it was the creative team assembled by Eon that created the series - Young, Adam, Hunt, Simmons, Barry, Maibaum.... Connery had nothing to do with their involvement. Yes, he was the figure head for a while...

Yes, he may have been the public face but you really have to put it down to Cubby/Saltzman, Connery, Young, John Barry, Maurice Binder, Ken Adam, etc in that order. Connery was the face but Barry was the sound, which was also very important...and none of them would have been anything without Broccoli and Saltzman and Fleming.

[Safari Suit]

But it was EON, and no one else, who made Connery an international star.

Yes, but it could also be argued that is was Connery who made the Bond films (and EON) so successful.

I like to think it was the creative team assembled by Eon that created the series - Young, Adam, Hunt, Simmons, Barry, Maibaum.... Connery had nothing to do with their involvement. Yes, he was the figure head for a while, but he wasn't that vital to Bond as Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig have proved. The series was not hinged on one actor as everyone first thought.

Yes, I think that the history of ther series has shown that surely only the most blinkered Connery Bond fan would believe that Bond would not have succeeded had another actor - and not Connery - been cast in 1962.

I don't know about this. Sure, commercially, it cannot be disputed that Moore, Brosnan and Craig, and to a slightly lesser extent Dalton and Lazenby, filled Connery's shoes quite nicely. But they didn't start Bond off cinematically; Connery did. It's one thing to carry on a series with a notable lineage, it's another thing entirely to get it going.

[jaguar007]

OF course there is no way for us to know. I did not state that Connery was mainly responsible for the success of the Bond films, just that it could be argued that he was key to the success.

I still do feel that he was one of the major aspects to the series success in the 60s. He was a different type of an actor during those years of the sexual revolution. I do feel had Roger Moore been cast as Bond in DR. No that the series would not have reached the heights it did in the 1960s and probably would have fizzled out after 2 or 3 films. Moore was moore of the old school actor, the gentleman leading man popular in the 30,40 and 50s. Connery came on the scene reaking of sexuality that was previously understated in film. Connery's animal magnetism was key for the changing times of the 1960s.

[dogmanstar]

I guess I have a problem with actors complaining about being typecast or about how little they are paid when they are as big as SC is. On the grand scheme of things, with all the poverty, hunger, wars, etc. in the world, always being known as Bond (and being able to take that prestige to the bank in order to make other films) seems like a rather minor thing to whine about.

Or as Tracy Ullmann says, "Oh, grow up!"

[DR76]

And I wouldn't say that Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton were there to add star power. They were there to pay their respects to the man and his family.

Roger Moore did not attend the funeral. He wasn't able to, due to some other obligation.

I guess I have a problem with actors complaining about being typecast or about how little they are paid when they are as big as SC is. On the grand scheme of things, with all the poverty, hunger, wars, etc. in the world, always being known as Bond (and being able to take that prestige to the bank in order to make other films) seems like a rather minor thing to whine about.

Or as Tracy Ullmann says, "Oh, grow up!"

I have no problem with complaints about being typecast. Gratitude over a certain kind of success can only last so long. What actor or actress - especially one as talented and ambitious as Connery - who want to be stuck doing one kind of role for the rest of his or her career? I find that idea stifling. I can admire an actor or actress who are willing to try something different, but not the ones who are too scared to escape from a certain type of role out of fear for lack of success.

Edited by DR76, 12 February 2009 - 08:27 PM.

[jaguar007]

I suppose if I had people telling me that I did not look very Bondish when I was not filming and wearing my toupee or had photographers following me into the bathroom - I would get a little annoyed with playing Bond as well.

[Santa]

Memorial service and funeral. They weren't the same event.

[Mr_Wint]

But it was EON, and no one else, who made Connery an international star.

Yes, but it could also be argued that is was Connery who made the Bond films (and EON) so successful.

Of course, Connery's contribution is part of the success. But they gave him the opportunity and created the best possible conditions for a success; Fleming's books, Terence Young, Ken Adam, John Barry etc.

To simply cast Connery as Bond doesn't make a good Bondfilm. Look at NSNA.

[Turn]

To simply cast Connery as Bond doesn't make a good Bondfilm. Look at NSNA.

There are some forum members who would argue that claim.

The thing about NSNA was that Connery was still the man people still wanted to see as Bond and there was a LOT of publicity about it at the time. It was a big media event and one of the most anticipated films of the time.

[dogmanstar]

And I wouldn't say that Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton were there to add star power. They were there to pay their respects to the man and his family.

Roger Moore did not attend the funeral. He wasn't able to, due to some other obligation.

I guess I have a problem with actors complaining about being typecast or about how little they are paid when they are as big as SC is. On the grand scheme of things, with all the poverty, hunger, wars, etc. in the world, always being known as Bond (and being able to take that prestige to the bank in order to make other films) seems like a rather minor thing to whine about.

Or as Tracy Ullmann says, "Oh, grow up!"

I have no problem with complaints about being typecast. Gratitude over a certain kind of success can only last so long. What actor or actress - especially one as talented and ambitious as Connery - who want to be stuck doing one kind of role for the rest of his or her career? I find that idea stifling. I can admire an actor or actress who are willing to try something different, but not the ones who are too scared to escape from a certain type of role out of fear for lack of success.

Yes, but Sean and others can take that kind of 'typecasting' right to the bank and complain through their publicists and caviar.

I remember seeing an interview a couple of years back with Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore about "Hannibal." The reviewer was terrible and wanted to back Hopkins into a corner about being typecast as a cannibal. He asked Hopkins something like, "Isn't it hard to get inside the mind of such an insane, horrible person?" To which Hopkins replied something to the order of: "It's a job. I don't get ready for my scene by eating people. When the director yells 'action,' I act creepy and when he yells 'cut,' I stop."

[Colossus]

OF course there is no way for us to know. I did not state that Connery was mainly responsible for the success of the Bond films, just that it could be argued that he was key to the success.

I still do feel that he was one of the major aspects to the series success in the 60s. He was a different type of an actor during those years of the sexual revolution. I do feel had Roger Moore been cast as Bond in DR. No that the series would not have reached the heights it did in the 1960s and probably would have fizzled out after 2 or 3 films. Moore was moore of the old school actor, the gentleman leading man popular in the 30,40 and 50s. Connery came on the scene reaking of sexuality that was previously understated in film. Connery's animal magnetism was key for the changing times of the 1960s.

Interesting that you brought this up, i remember a post on here that made a very astute observation. It said that one of the many reasons for the 60s boom of the series globally was the fact that Connery himself was a sort of international all-man in his looks, obviously he's Scottish, but he had this dark appearance which doesn't relegate him to a specific land, unlike a more abruptly English actor would have done for the role, so many more people related to him. This in turn helped the huge spy-copycat boom over the world with many similar movies being done, namely from Italy and Spain, which were also busy with those wonderful Spaghetti westerns at the time.

[double o ego]

Wow! I don't understand the stick that Connery gets around here. People seem to forget that Connery is human, a proud man who was doubted, ridiculed and rose above it all, to teach himself shakesperian acting and then of course to spit in the faces of his detractors by putting on performances that established him as the most famouse character in the world. Sure, EON helped Connery BUT Connery also helped EON. Why should Connery feel he himself has to be forever owing to EON for the rest of his life? He doesn't. Believe me, Connery is greatful for what Bond has done for him but he doesn't want Bond to be his life. Connery wanted to and has established a legacy outside of Bond. Look at Roger Moore, his autobiography is titled, my word is my Bond. With a title like that, of course the book will sell. Moore hasn't done anything of notable value in terms of acting since his days as Bond and is thus, clinging on to a bygone era of notable status. Even the picture on the book is of him in his younger years on the set of a Bond film. Now, Compare that to Connery's book who mentioned very little about Bond and has a pic of him on the front cover as he is now.
Like all humans, Connery is fickle and has often proved on many occasions he contradicts himself but if we all know his relationship with Cubby hit the rocks and din't show up to his memorial or whatever, at least he had the decency to stand by what ever convictions he had and wasn't bing fake. Besides, Connery's a smart man, it would have just become a media circus. It's a well known fact that he expressed his condolences to Dana, that's all he needed to do and he did it. He didn't have to do anything else.
As for Saltzman, many people hated the guy, even Barry couldn't stand him. Just because you work with people for years on end, it doesn't mean a personal relationship has to develop. Just like any other business, making Bond movies was a business, many things were kept on a proffessional level and it's quite clear that Connery over the years has been a bit more lax with Bond but as he states around the time of GF, when his private life/space becomes violated, one starts to llok at things from vaying perspectives.
Give the guy a break.

[Zorin Industries]

...as he states around the time of GF, when his private life/space becomes violated, one starts to llok at things from varying perspectives.

And from varying dollar bills.

To step down and want no more to do with a role because it has violated your life is understandable. To then take on the role THREE MORE TIMES in order to take the money and run is disingenuous to say the least.

And Sean Connery's book may have his mug on the cover, but it is not about him, but his outdated and frankly meddling views on a country he is quite happy to dictate to from his Marbella villa balcony.

And regarding Roger Moore, I don't count travelling the globe tirelessly in order to help the world's children as not doing anything of note.