73 replies to this topic

[Revelator]

This aside, there's more of Fleming's Bond in five minutes of Bond meeting Andrea Anders for the first time in The Man with the Golden Gun than there is in four hours or so of Timothy Dalton's Bond.

Only if one is under the disastrous and entirely misguided belief that the essence of Fleming's Bond consists of slapping women and acting like a jerk. Even commentators like Raymond Benson, perhaps out of relief to see Moore play-act at being brutal, have fallen for the canard that this scene is Fleming-like, even though the crux of Fleming's character is that despite his rants and tough-guy act he's ultimately a romantic when it comes to women, and NEVER slaps a woman out of anger or to discipline her. TMWTGG in that respect is a deeply crass and shallow version of "Fleming's Bond." (Actually, it's more like an attempt to emulate Connery slapping Tatiana in the film of FRWL, another deeply un-Flemingian moment, but at least one that rose out of a scene in the original and where Connery's rage is partially shared by the audience.)
Dalton's sin was erring toward the spirit of heaviness, but he still maintains the carpe diem intensity that keeps Bond running. Because Moore either lacked or refused that quality, when he acts "cold" or "ruthless" in TMWTGG he tends to look merely like a jerk, rather than a man on a mission that defines his life. Bond's "bon vivant" side is a reaction to the fact that his working life is filled with tension and violence and stamped by the prospect of almost certain death before the age of 45. Because of this he grabs at the rewards of his profession with unconcealed avidity. Dalton's delight did not always look strong enough, but his reasons for wanting those rewards were clear.

[Dekard77]

Interesting posts. If Dalton had a better director he would've been able to truly mature as a great Bond. Part of Daltons problem was that he is never given a chance to get comfortable with the role. Instead there is a elaborate action piece or credit being given to villains. Craig had the chance of showing of his Bond in the casino scenes. Brosnan similar with Xenia and M's scenes.

Different director and better character development might have given wider appeal for Dalton other than Bond fans. Also Bond films can't always reflect on Flemings Bond as they are made to suit the present audience.

Talking about 1st reaction, my bro and all his friends agreed they missed RM the moment they saw LDL as TD had no chemistry or didn't look like a ladies man. RM was strong on both counts. Regardless of what people may say about RM, he is Alpha Bond in the charm department.
LTK was simply bad timing in a summer filled with two of the biggest movies marketed at that time. Batman was gaining momentum as the biggest movie to see and how people might see something they haven't seen before and before that could be released Indiana Jones was making bigger waves.
Somehow using the same crew on all the 80's movies kind of made things look bland when you watch the movies again and again. At least with DC and PB you have a few nice additions.
Bond should be charming, dangerous and what you see in Bond films must stand out from the the rest in terms of design and culture.

[Dell Deaton]

Why not test out the theory with Quantum of Fleming?

Thanks for the link. Did the outcome of that thread ever get published spynovelfan? Interesting theory, applying data to come out with a solution. They call it 6 stigma in industry terms I believe.

Went to the link, participated some; nice to see things move beyond mere "test-taking" to critical thought.

In the end, I think the "Quantum of Fleming" approach succeeds or fails based on what one thinks going in, and what agreement, if any, can be found in that. The test itself determines its outcome, as opposed to "the" outcome.

This aside, there's more of Fleming's Bond in five minutes of Bond meeting Andrea Anders for the first time in The Man with the Golden Gun than there is in four hours or so of Timothy Dalton's Bond.

Only if one is under the disastrous and entirely misguided belief that the essence of Fleming's Bond consists of slapping women and acting like a jerk. Even commentators like Raymond Benson, perhaps out of relief to see Moore play-act at being brutal, have fallen for the canard that this scene is Fleming-like, even though the crux of Fleming's character is that despite his rants and tough-guy act he's ultimately a romantic when it comes to women, and NEVER slaps a woman out of anger or to discipline her. TMWTGG in that respect is a deeply crass and shallow version of "Fleming's Bond." (Actually, it's more like an attempt to emulate Connery slapping Tatiana in the film of FRWL, another deeply un-Flemingian moment, but at least one that rose out of a scene in the original and where Connery's rage is partially shared by the audience.)
Dalton's sin was erring toward the spirit of heaviness, but he still maintains the carpe diem intensity that keeps Bond running. Because Moore either lacked or refused that quality, when he acts "cold" or "ruthless" in TMWTGG he tends to look merely like a jerk, rather than a man on a mission that defines his life. Bond's "bon vivant" side is a reaction to the fact that his working life is filled with tension and violence and stamped by the prospect of almost certain death before the age of 45. Because of this he grabs at the rewards of his profession with unconcealed avidity. Dalton's delight did not always look strong enough, but his reasons for wanting those rewards were clear.

Hard to say what was intended with that early Moore / Man with the Golden Gun remark. Cliché? Indulgent cynicism? Maybe just "acting out," as the mental health professionals might observe.

Again, I'm beginning to wonder if many of the anti-Dalton attacks aren't truly based in a realization of just how fantastic a job he did as Bond. Not perfect (as if anyone was). Maybe not even 100% Fleming (although I'm further amazed at how far the "Bond has to be Fleming's" go, only to pull last-minute switches to question the relevance of Fleming's input today when the criteria collapses for "their guy").

In any case-- there's a lot with which I think we can agree here.

Good stuff!

[Jim]

Hard to say what was intended with that early Moore / Man with the Golden Gun remark. Cliché? Indulgent cynicism? Maybe just "acting out," as the mental health professionals might observe.

Genuinely held belief.

Evidently that doesn't count for very much.

[The Shark]

This aside, there's more of Fleming's Bond in five minutes of Bond meeting Andrea Anders for the first time in The Man with the Golden Gun than there is in four hours or so of Timothy Dalton's Bond.

Only if one is under the disastrous and entirely misguided belief that the essence of Fleming's Bond consists of slapping women and acting like a jerk.

No, but it's certainly a highly justified symptom of the cinematic expression of Fleming's Bond. Fleming's Bond often thought like a jerk, and thought like a misognist. But since the majority of the content within Fleming's novels derives from internal monologues and stray thoughts arising from Bond's head. Without turning that into a genuine voice-over from the actor playing Bond (which I wouldn't have a problem, in fact I'd welcome it) the best way to stay true to Fleming's character is to let Bond act on those thoughts.

One has to be selectively blind not see that Bond has chauvinist, and often unsettling, dark, Byronic tendencies. Musing about the "sweet tang of rape" when admiring Vesper anyone? Like all of us to varying degrees, Bond is a man of contradictions, and that's what makes him so interesting. At one end, Bond is a romantic at heart, a sensualist connoisseur, an old fashioned chivalric night, a modern day St. George. On the other hand, Bond also somewhat despises women, thinks about spending the night with a prostitute, visiting a seedy S&M club, head to John Bell & Croydon for some uppers and downers, chain smoke.

This stems a lot of Ian Fleming himself, who often engaged in sadomasochistic activities with his wife, and displayed something of love/hate relationship with women. Ann Fleming wrote: "I long for you to whip me because I love being hurt by you and kissed afterwards," Ann wrote to him. "It's very lonely not to be beaten and shouted at every five minutes."

"I should miss the infinite variety of wall-gazing, pointless bullying so harsh and then so gentle if I cry."

That's important aspect of Bond that shouldn't be forgotten about, and I think Roger Moore in TMWTGG managed to nail the cruelty of Fleming's Bond, more so than any other actor, along with the character's rakish insouciance, and rapier wit. He's a man born to perform his duty, yet fears the next day may be he last, and indulges in hedonistic excesses to quell that fear. Ultimately he's a split-man, in denial about the nature of his joke, but in his spare time cerebrates like a Sartrean existentialist, on the nature of his progression.

''To this moment,

and the moment yet to come.''

'ln our profession, l'm afraid, you never
can count on that moment to come.

Who knows where you and l will be
this time next year?'

Even commentators like Raymond Benson, perhaps out of relief to see Moore play-act at being brutal, have fallen for the canard that this scene is Fleming-like, even though the crux of Fleming's character is that despite his rants and tough-guy act he's ultimately a romantic when it comes to women, and NEVER slaps a woman out of anger or to discipline her.

Maybe. But still, as I said before it would neigh-impossible to project the complexities of Fleming's Bond (if one wasn't going to opt for narration), without expressing the character's thoughts through his behaviour.

I personally am not a fan of Moore's performance and take on the role in TMWTGG (along with with film as a whole) simply because he's playing it tough. It's through the central correhence of his character arc throughout the film, that I think nails a rather un-PC side of Bond, that has only rarely been explored in Bond films.

Even if Connery is my favourite Bond, I'd have to say that his take is far too brutish and every-man to be the closest to Fleming, and I think Dalton comes off as a bit too much of a Welsh farmer, who's toured with the Royal Shakespeare Company in his spare time. Lazenby, while just as Fleming-esque as Connery and Dalton, projects a far too boyish, athletic, and youthful image to be entirely congruent with Fleming's hero.

Like it or not, only Roger Moore in TMWTGG comes close enough to the sharp, ex-Etonian, highly complex, often belligerent, yet deep down terrified, and highly romantic nature of Fleming's 007.

TMWTGG in that respect is a deeply crass and shallow version of "Fleming's Bond."

If you isolate that scene alone, then perhaps. But I'd say Roger Moore's Bond in TMWTGG, while arrogant, and often jerk-like, is highly refined. One has to look at the film as a whole.

No more of a crass and shallow version of "Fleming's Bond", than Dalton behaving like a thug, defying M's orders, or holding a knife to Lupe's throat in LTK.

(Actually, it's more like an attempt to emulate Connery slapping Tatiana in the film of FRWL, another deeply un-Flemingian moment, but at least one that rose out of a scene in the original

It doesn't seem Connery-like at all to me. Moore here far more resembles Edward Fox's Jackal (a part Moore wanted to play, but was turned down for being too well-known for the Saint) and Ian Fleming himself.

and where Connery's rage is partially shared by the audience.)

I wouldn't say it is. The audience knows that while Tatiani is complicit in the whole thing, we know that she was completely innocent regarding Kerim's death, and is only a defenceless pawn being used by SPECTRE.

She's just as guilty as Andrea is for being Scaramanga in the first place. There's no way either of them can break their contract, or relationship themselves, without an outsider's help - in both cases, Bond.

Dalton's sin was erring toward the spirit of heaviness, but he still maintains the carpe diem intensity that keeps Bond running. Because Moore either lacked or refused that quality, when he acts "cold" or "ruthless" in TMWTGG he tends to look merely like a jerk, rather than a man on a mission that defines his life.

That's entirely subjective and dependant on our opinions on Dalton's and Moore's respective performances. For me, Moore maintains that Carpe Diem intensity you mentioned, and doesn't come off a merely a bad tempered jerk. He is a highly determined man on a mission, who'll do anything to get the leads and information he wants. Deep down he is fearful for his life, and this arrogance is a compensation for it.

Bond's "bon vivant" side is a reaction to the fact that his working life is filled with tension and violence and stamped by the prospect of almost certain death before the age of 45. Because of this he grabs at the rewards of his profession with unconcealed avidity.

I saw that considerably with Moore in TMWTGG. Doesn't he break out a glass during his interrogation of Andrea?

[The Shark]

Why not test out the theory with Quantum of Fleming?

Thanks for the link. Did the outcome of that thread ever get published spynovelfan? Interesting theory, applying data to come out with a solution. They call it 6 stigma in industry terms I believe.

Went to the link, participated some; nice to see things move beyond mere "test-taking" to critical thought.

In the end, I think the "Quantum of Fleming" approach succeeds or fails based on what one thinks going in, and what agreement, if any, can be found in that. The test itself determines its outcome, as opposed to "the" outcome.

This aside, there's more of Fleming's Bond in five minutes of Bond meeting Andrea Anders for the first time in The Man with the Golden Gun than there is in four hours or so of Timothy Dalton's Bond.

Only if one is under the disastrous and entirely misguided belief that the essence of Fleming's Bond consists of slapping women and acting like a jerk. Even commentators like Raymond Benson, perhaps out of relief to see Moore play-act at being brutal, have fallen for the canard that this scene is Fleming-like, even though the crux of Fleming's character is that despite his rants and tough-guy act he's ultimately a romantic when it comes to women, and NEVER slaps a woman out of anger or to discipline her. TMWTGG in that respect is a deeply crass and shallow version of "Fleming's Bond." (Actually, it's more like an attempt to emulate Connery slapping Tatiana in the film of FRWL, another deeply un-Flemingian moment, but at least one that rose out of a scene in the original and where Connery's rage is partially shared by the audience.)
Dalton's sin was erring toward the spirit of heaviness, but he still maintains the carpe diem intensity that keeps Bond running. Because Moore either lacked or refused that quality, when he acts "cold" or "ruthless" in TMWTGG he tends to look merely like a jerk, rather than a man on a mission that defines his life. Bond's "bon vivant" side is a reaction to the fact that his working life is filled with tension and violence and stamped by the prospect of almost certain death before the age of 45. Because of this he grabs at the rewards of his profession with unconcealed avidity. Dalton's delight did not always look strong enough, but his reasons for wanting those rewards were clear.

Hard to say what was intended with that early Moore / Man with the Golden Gun remark. Cliché? Indulgent cynicism? Maybe just "acting out," as the mental health professionals might observe.

It's hardly a cliché, considering viewing TMWTGG as one of the most Fleming-esque Bond films and Bond performances to date, is quite an unorthodox view. Yes, it's been growing some steam around here, but the default, unattested opinion around here is that Dalton is the pinnacle of the cinematic realisation of Fleming's Bond.

It's almost become dogma. That's why people are fighting against, challenging it, and providing alternative arguments. Eventually these will form their own new axioms and dogmas when they become mainstream thought, but now, it's early days.

The TMWTGG appreciation has still got a long way to go, and some will probably never like it.

[Revelator]

No, but it's certainly a highly justified symptom of the cinematic expression of Fleming's Bond. Fleming's Bond often thought like a jerk, and thought like a misognist. But since the majority of the content within Fleming's novels derives from internal monologues and stray thoughts arising from Bond's head. Without turning that into a genuine voice-over from the actor playing Bond (which I wouldn't have a problem, in fact I'd welcome it) the best way to stay true to Fleming's character is to let Bond act on those thoughts.

Except that such a thing is NOT staying true to Fleming's character--it's flattening it out and denying the complexities of the character for the sake of convenience. That one should want to praise such half-baked characterization is even more ridiculous (Bond fans might be the only civilized people who'd applaud a scene because it features a women getting slapped). The deeply offensive comments Bond lets off in his head are profoundly outbalanced by his actual conduct with the series of women he encounters. A man who acts the way Bond actually does cannot be entirely misogynist--but if he did act on his worst thoughts he'd be a lot closer to that, and that's what TMWTGG edges toward.

Nor does one need voiceover to show that Bond occasionally has dark thoughts--a stray male-pig comment uttered by Bond to his male friends, or a solitary aside (like his saying b**** to himself after meeting Domino in TB) does the trick quite nicely of indicating that Bond's head is not a nice place. But going any further upsets the complex balance Fleming has in place, especially in a film where Bond acts like a cad and the main female character is portrayed as an incompetent bimbo. Having Bond be physically cruel to women is simply contra Fleming (who let us remember, enjoyed consensual sado-masochistic sex).

Like all of us to varying degrees, Bond is a man of contradictions, and that's what makes him so interesting.

Which is why TMWTGG isn't an interesting movie.

I think Roger Moore in TMWTGG managed to nail the cruelty of Fleming's Bond

How can you nail a form of cruelty that is never actually acted on?

I think nails a rather un-PC side of Bond, that has only rarely been explored in Bond films.

I think it denies the complications of the character and tends to reinforce the worst things that have been said about Bond by his detractors.

Like it or not, only Roger Moore in TMWTGG comes close enough to the sharp, ex-Etonian, highly complex, often belligerent, yet deep down terrified, and highly romantic nature of Fleming's 007.

To quote your own words back at you, "That's entirely subjective." Unless being a smooth jerk counts as complexity, Moore's portrayal in TMWTGG--quite possibly his worst performance--is probably the farthest he ever was from Fleming's Bond. And what romance is there in a film that features Bond locking Goodnight in a closet so he can make love to another woman? I didn't know being a cad was that romantic, let alone close to Fleming.

If you isolate that scene alone, then perhaps. But I'd say Roger Moore's Bond in TMWTGG, while arrogant, and often jerk-like, is highly refined.

Which would make him a foppish jerk. We all know or have heard of people who are well-off and cultured and act like they own the planet.

No more of a crass and shallow version of "Fleming's Bond", than Dalton behaving like a thug, defying M's orders, or holding a knife to Lupe's throat in LTK.

Except that the film was making M act like the jerk (neither of the Dalton films feature M at his best), and that Bond was not being gratuitously cruel to Lupe, but simply making sure that she didn't get him killed by giving him away. And yes, that would have been equally acceptable coming from Moore.

It doesn't seem Connery-like at all to me. Moore here far more resembles Edward Fox's Jackal (a part Moore wanted to play, but was turned down for being too well-known for the Saint) and Ian Fleming himself.

What is relevant? That Moore was emulating the Jackal, or that he was emulating an action performed by both of the actors who preceded him in playing the exact same character? (And what exactly would a "Connery-like" slap consist of? Some subtly Scottish bend of the wrist? The action is associated with Connery because it makes his Bond look like a "tough guy", which is why Lazenby was also called on to do it, and why Moore was made to do it.) But I will say this: Moore's slapping scene is a wee bit closer in tone and situation to Connery slapping Tiffany in DAF--not surprising, since both interrogation scenes were likely written by the same guy.

I wouldn't say it is. The audience knows that while Tatiani is complicit in the whole thing, we know that she was completely innocent regarding Kerim's death, and is only a defenceless pawn being used by SPECTRE.

Yes, and we know that Bond doesn't know that. It's still an ugly scene, but Bond's rage--occasioned by the death of a friend, and not the desire to bully a woman--seems far more understandable and passionate than Moore's cold jerkery.

For me, Moore maintains that Carpe Diem intensity you mentioned, and doesn't come off a merely a bad tempered jerk.

"Intensity" is the one word I think people use less with Roger Moore than with any other Bond actor. Moore is a cool, sometimes chilly actor--I've rarely sensed a fire behind his eyes. The few times he actually does act intense--as in the climax of OP--it's rather a shock.

He is a highly determined man on a mission, who'll do anything to get the leads and information he wants. Deep down he is fearful for his life, and this arrogance is a compensation for it.

Or a product of the fact that most of his time is spent living like a king and enjoying fewer moments of genuine tension than his predecessors--Moore's Bond led a far lighter life. Fear isn't something Moore often projects, except in rare instances, as in moments of TSWLM and FYEO. He's better at being insouciant and louche, and he played to his strengths. I like Roger Moore quite a lot. I think he's a charming and I could watch him for days on end. But I also think he's essentially one-dimensional as an actor and capable of sometimes being wooden. The latter may actually help with fans desperate to project qualities on to him that he rarely, if ever, displayed.

Edited by Revelator, 01 March 2010 - 05:03 AM.

[The Shark]

No, but it's certainly a highly justified symptom of the cinematic expression of Fleming's Bond. Fleming's Bond often thought like a jerk, and thought like a misognist. But since the majority of the content within Fleming's novels derives from internal monologues and stray thoughts arising from Bond's head. Without turning that into a genuine voice-over from the actor playing Bond (which I wouldn't have a problem, in fact I'd welcome it) the best way to stay true to Fleming's character is to let Bond act on those thoughts.

Except that such a thing is NOT staying true to Fleming's character--it's flattening it out and denying the complexities of the character for the sake of convenience.

Nonsense. It's simply taking what exists within Bond's head in the novels, and projecting it onto Bond's actions in the film. How else would we know, in the film?

Bond is still a romantic in TMWTGG, and seems to be more than jerk. There are other layers to his character.

That one should want to praise such half-baked characterization is even more ridiculous

As I said, it isn't half-baked.

The deeply offensive comments Bond lets off in his head are profoundly outbalanced by his actual conduct with the series of women he encounters.

Just as deeply offensive way Bond handles Andrea in TWMGG, is outbalanced by his more sensetive handling with Goodnight and Andrea, later in the film (minus Bond hiding her in the closet).

A man who acts the way Bond actually does cannot be entirely misogynist--but if he did act on his worst thoughts he'd be a lot closer to that, and that's what TMWTGG edges toward.

It's a necessary move, to display the un-displayable internal thoughts on the silver screen.

Nor does one need voiceover to show that Bond occasionally has dark thoughts--a stray male-pig comment uttered by Bond to his male friends, or a solitary aside (like his saying b**** to himself after meeting Domino in TB) does the trick quite nicely of indicating that Bond's head is not a nice place.

TMWTGG takes a different, but equally valid approach.

But going any further upsets the complex balance Fleming has in place, especially in a film where Bond acts like a cad and the main female character is portrayed as an incompetent bimbo. Having Bond be physically cruel to women is simply contra Fleming (who let us remember, enjoyed consensual sado-masochistic sex).

One needs to got that step further, to effectively portray the dark recesses of Bond psyche on screen, whether or not its through words or actions.

Like all of us to varying degrees, Bond is a man of contradictions, and that's what makes him so interesting.

Which is why TMWTGG isn't an interesting movie.

There's still some contradictions to Bond's cad-like nature in TMWTGG. Bond is deep down terrified of the obvious truth than Scaramanga and him are highly similar, the difference is Bond works for the government, and Scaramange for the deepest wallet.

I think Roger Moore in TMWTGG managed to nail the cruelty of Fleming's Bond

How can you nail a form of cruelty that is never actually acted on?

He thought cruel thoughts, and he looked cruel. It's a natural progression from the his personality formed in the novels.

I think nails a rather un-PC side of Bond, that has only rarely been explored in Bond films.

I think it denies the complications of the character and tends to reinforce the worst things that have been said about Bond by his detractors.

There are certainly complications of Moore's character in the film. Though they are certainly more visible within the script than the final film.

Unless being a smooth jerk counts as complexity

He's more than a smooth jerk. He shows genuine shock and remorse at Andrea's death, the moral conflict between him and Scaramanga at the dinner table, and of him dispensing puns to deal with cool his nerves.

[The Shark]

Moore's portrayal in TMWTGG--quite possibly his worst performance--is probably the farthest he ever was from Fleming's Bond. And what romance is there in a film that features Bond locking Goodnight in a closet so he can make love to another woman? I didn't know being a cad was that romantic, let alone close to Fleming.e

Moore's Bond in TMWTGG simply isn't a cad. There's a romance that blossoms between him and Anders, and at the very end of the film, Goodnight.

If you isolate that scene alone, then perhaps. But I'd say Roger Moore's Bond in TMWTGG, while arrogant, and often jerk-like, is highly refined.

Which would make him a foppish jerk. We all know or have heard of people who are well-off and cultured and act like they own the planet.

Reminds me somewhat of Fleming's Bond, and indeed Fleming himself. That said, there's more to Fleming's Bond, and Moore's performance, than merely acting like an elitist jerk. Then again, "it's entirely subjective".

I wouldn't say it is. The audience knows that while Tatiani is complicit in the whole thing, we know that she was completely innocent regarding Kerim's death, and is only a defenceless pawn being used by SPECTRE.

Yes, and we know that Bond doesn't know that. It's still an ugly scene, but Bond's rage--occasioned by the death of a friend, and not the desire to bully a woman--seems far more understandable and passionate than Moore's cold jerkery.

Bond is still trying to get information, and he knows his life is at risk, so there's little time. He's not driven out of passion or sadistic pleasure, but fear. He also doesn't know how much Andrea is cooperating with her lover, so choosing to play the "bad cop".

For me, Moore maintains that Carpe Diem intensity you mentioned, and doesn't come off a merely a bad tempered jerk.

"Intensity" is the one word I think people use less with Roger Moore than with any other Bond actor.

TMWTGG is a something an exception, for me at least.

Or a product of the fact that most of his time is spent living like a king and enjoying fewer moments of genuine tension than his predecessors--Moore's Bond led a far lighter life. Fear isn't something Moore often projects,

Again, you're referring to Moore's entire tenure as Bond, whereas I'm simply referring to TMWTGG. Here I think Moore projects a sense of fear, urgency (however rare that may be for Moore) and cruel charm, playing to his strengths as an actor.

Unlike you, I find him far less convincing when he's playing the laissez-faire eyebrow-raising clown - playing it safe in other words. Even if he was far more comfortable in this role.

I also think there are far more dimensions and layers (often hidden, but they're still there0 to him as an actor than you give him credit for, particularly in TMWTGG.

Either way, I doubt we'll see eye to eye on this issue.

[Dell Deaton]

The following is limited to what I'm seeing as flowing from my response to the brief remark about Bond, slapping, and The Man with the Golden Gun.

I strongly disagree that the preferable, let alone only, way to convey internal thought on screen is via action. In fact, I think this is both inconsistent with the nuance, and compromises so much more that you can learn about a person by otherwise knowing what he thinks and does not act upon - such as the capacity for restraint.

Otherwise, I futher find the original snipe about The Man with the Golden Gun here unfortunate in that it seems to have encouraged a "my guy can beat up your guy" direction here. Notwithstanding Fleming's inferred directives, I think Roger Moore played the scene well and appropriately.

And, ya know, it doesn't keep me in the least from thinking as highly as I do about Timothy Dalton's portrayal of James Bond.

Go figure--.

[Revelator]

Nonsense. It's simply taking what exists within Bond's head in the novels, and projecting it onto Bond's actions in the film.

Taking thoughts whose greatest thematic value is that they're contradicted by actions and then making them into actions destroys the contradiction that gave the character richness in the first place. It's an unbelievably crass way of adapting a character that violates the principles of the character.

Just as deeply offensive way Bond handles Andrea in TWMGG, is outbalanced by his more sensetive handling with Goodnight and Andrea, later in the film (minus Bond hiding her in the closet).

Of course it's "more sensitive"--had Bond treated them any more insensitively then he did at the beginning the movie would have been unspeakably ugly.

It's a necessary move, to display the un-displayable internal thoughts on the silver screen.

As noted earlier, this can be quite easily hinted at dialogue, and is more valid as an approach, because it does not involve the character doing things he would never do.

One needs to got that step further, to effectively portray the dark recesses of Bond psyche on screen, whether or not its through words or actions.

Only if one is totally insensitive to the difference between thoughts and actions, and how the gulf between them reveals a person's character. What is more, having Bond act on thoughts he never actually on acts on falsifies his character, by making him darker and more brutish than he truly is, and through one of the cheapest devices possible--violence against women.

There's still some contradictions to Bond's cad-like nature in TMWTGG. Bond is deep down terrified of the obvious truth than Scaramanga and him are highly similar, the difference is Bond works for the government, and Scaramange for the deepest wallet.

This seems like pure projection to me. I don't see any terror when Bond confronts Scaramanga, just a glimmer of cold anger overshadowed by righteousness.

He thought cruel thoughts, and he looked cruel. It's a natural progression from his personality formed in the novels.

No, it's an unnatural deviation based on cloddish logic: "He thought cruel, he looked cruel, so he must be cruel." You're applauding something that is the opposite of complexity.

[The Shark]

For ****'s sake.

I'm finding your responses to be unbelievably confrontational, inconsiderate and downright rude. Care to provide at least a modicum of courtesy and friendliness? That might go a long way. Other than you're beginning to share an uncanny resemblance to the jerk-like performance of Moore's that you keep railing on about, coupled with zealous frenzy.

Perhaps my paper thin arguments, and "cloddish" logic, is because I genuinely appreciate Roger Moore's take on Bond in TMWTGG, Fleming-esque or not. Not out of some despicable, repressed, misogynist, almost voyeuristic urge to watch a man beat a woman, or act like a chauvinist pig. Despite that, I think his performance, while unlike-able, is highly compelling, and offers a completely different (a notably controversial) take on the Bond character. Maybe I'm simply connecting the dots because of that?

Who's to say if Fleming lived longer, that he wouldn't add certain behaviours of Connery's Bond, particularly slapping Tatiania, and Lazenby twisting Tracy's arm, from the cinematic Bond, into his future novels? After all, he did inject Connery's Scottish heritage into his works after 62. It doesn't sound highly implausible.

Either way, that's my last, ablate pathetic excuse of a rebuttal.

Shoot it down with all you've got. You'll never change my unorthodox and highly incorrect opinion.

[Jim]

This thread has become awfully clever at the same time as becoming a bit thick. A curious combination but an achievement nonetheless.

Play nicely, chums.

[The Shark]

This thread has become awfully clever at the same time as becoming a bit thick. A curious combination but an achievement nonetheless.

Me of course. Along with any other demagogic fan of the despicable anathema to Fleming that is TMWTGG.

[Dell Deaton]

Maybe this is a good place to transition back to the original (and named) subject of the Thread: Timothy Dalton, in terms of his own claims of commitment to bringing a most authentic interpretation of Ian Fleming's James Bond vision to the big screen.

How did he do -- irrespective of how much we might like other 007 actors and their relative success or failure in similar efforts?

[David Schofield]

Maybe this is a good place to transition back to the original (and named) subject of the Thread: Timothy Dalton, in terms of his own claims of commitment to bringing a most authentic interpretation of Ian Fleming's James Bond vision to the big screen.

How did he do -- irrespective of how much we might like other 007 actors and their relative success or failure in similar efforts?

He probably got as close as a non-period, non-Fleming excessive (boozing, smoking) cinematic performance can allow.

But I guess if you're a fan of the "other" actors (whether you've read much Fleming or not), it's easy to try to pull Dalton apart.

Fo example, I recall the classic Dalton never looked "comfortable" in the role, suggesting he lacked the "look" and "sophistication of the role. Yet, Dalton walks across the lobby of the Palais Schwarzenberg in just a leather jacket and jumper like he owns it. Yet Craig arrives at the Ocean Club - despite his Brioni pants and shirt - like a plumber asking for directions to his job. And Craig is, apparently, the most "authentically" Fleming...

Bear in mind, for many Bond fans, the Bond de jour can do no wrong.

[The Shark]

http://screenmusings...ges/CR_0330.htm

Really?

I'd say he Looks pretty cocky, arrogant, and charismatic there.

[David Schofield]

http://screenmusings...ges/CR_0330.htm

Really?

I'd say he Looks pretty cocky, arrogant, and charismatic there.

Yeh, like a plumber. You wouldn't preclude some of them having those characteristics.

But Dell's thread is about the proximity to Fleming's Bond. And in that shot, those scenes, Craig is more like a plumber than Fleming's Bond, IMO.

[The Shark]

http://screenmusings...ges/CR_0330.htm

Really?

I'd say he Looks pretty cocky, arrogant, and charismatic there.

Yeh, like a plumber. You wouldn't preclude some of them having those characteristics.

But Dell's thread is about the proximity to Fleming's Bond. And in that shot, those scenes, Craig is more like a plumber than Fleming's Bond, IMO.

Quite, just as I thoguht Dalton looked more like a bewildered Welsh farmer in his leather jacket arrival into Vienna, who's accidentally wondered several hundred miles from his field, after his tractor's broken down.

[Trident]

Once more, this, the Ocean Club arrival, would be a rather subjective question with everybody's opinion as good as the next one's. It's fine for me, but can be pedestrian for others.

Dalton's claim to become Fleming's Bond is fairly substantiated in the situation he took over in. After a period of some tremendous digressions, awful one-liners and unconvincing blue-screen work, every effort skipping those must have seemed 'more Fleming'. And, as always when the series fights for a more 'serious' tone, the comparisons to Connery's (early) films was close.

However, not everybody was buying it then, or is buying it now. I remember a talk with a colleague of mine in '92 (or '93). He was absolutely convinced that Dalton was a huge failure, solely responsible (wrongly) for the gap since LTK. His firm belief was to bring back Roger Moore, spend some money on a brace to cover up his weight and shoot away a jolly good circus show with extensive blue screen where necessary.

Dalton's major merit IMO was to (re-)introduce danger and rage into the series, and personally I feel there are several good scenes where he is spot on; for me that is. The moment where he's chasing after Saunders's murderer is terrific and for me the most intensive scene in several years. Too short, and resolved with an (unnecessary) funny end to it. In other scenes I would like to have him a bit more detached , less involved and strained (confronting Pushkin comes to mind here). But then again, this was the new Bond model, and whatever we've seen in two films was to a large extent also trial-and-error, the producers and lead actor finding the path into the thing. We can only assume what a third entry would have made of Dalton and his particular strengths.

[David Schofield]

http://screenmusings...ges/CR_0330.htm

Really?

I'd say he Looks pretty cocky, arrogant, and charismatic there.

Yeh, like a plumber. You wouldn't preclude some of them having those characteristics.

But Dell's thread is about the proximity to Fleming's Bond. And in that shot, those scenes, Craig is more like a plumber than Fleming's Bond, IMO.

Quite, just as I thoguht Dalton looked more like a bewildered Welsh farmer in his leather jacket arrival into Vienna, who's accidentally wondered several hundred miles from his field, after his tractor's broken down.

Mm.

But whereas I think Craig pretty much looks the part in most of his scenes (accepting for his 'ordinariness') - I think losing the jacket he had on at the airport immeadiatley prior was a mistake - you seem genuinely bitter that someone might find another actor to be more Fleming's Bond than your boy.

Which really confirms the observation Dell has made, doesn't it.

[spynovelfan]

Dell suggested we go back to trying to gauge how close Dalton came to depicting Fleming's character. Perhaps we should confine ourselves to that for the moment, rather than critiquing how well or poorly the others did.

I think that Dalton clearly made the effort to go back to Fleming. Making the effort alone (or reading the books) doesn't mean he came close, but there was certainly a concerted attempt on his part to bring back elements of Fleming's character that had been missing in the films directly before him. Most notably, he brought back the sense that this was a determined, professional and serious secret agent, rather than the rather jokey fantasy figure he had become and which much of the public and media still see him as. Fleming rooted the character in his own experiences in wartime espionage, as he noted in his interview with Playboy when asked if he had modelled the character on himself:

'No, Bond is a highly romanticised version of anybody, but certainly not I, and I certainly couldn't keep up with him; I couldn't have even at his age, which is, and has always been, in the middle thirties. He's a sort of amalgam of romantic tough guys, dressed up in 20th Century clothes, using 20th Century language. I think he's slightly more true to the type of modern hero, to the commandos of the last War, and so on, and to some of the secret-service men I've met, than to any of the rather cardboardy heroes of the ancient thrillers.'

This can be seen in incidental details throughout the novels. For example, in Chapter Four of The Man With The Golden Gun, Bond is vouched for by local sugar executive Tony Hugill, who we learn was in Naval Intelligence during the war: 'sort of Commando job'. The real Tony Hugill was a member of Fleming's 'Red Indians', the special forces group 30 Assault Unit. A lieutenant-commander in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (RNVR), Hugill was awarded the Croix de Guerre for his part in D-Day and won the Distinguished Service Cross for taking the surrender of 280 troops under a Luftwaffe officer at a radio station near Brest. In the short story Octopussy, Bond travels to Jamaica on a private war crimes investigation. His target is Dexter Smythe, a former member of the Miscellaneous Objectives Bureau, a fictional wartime commando outfit formed by the Secret Service and Combined Operations. Bond himself uses a Commando dagger (chapter 18 of Live and Let Die), and is a martial arts aficionado – we know from M's obituary in You Only Live Twice that he founded the first judo class in a British public school, while in Chapter 8 of Moonraker he is happy to have his Unarmed Combat class with 'that dam' Commando chap' cancelled. He is clearly a good student, though, because in the first chapter of Goldfinger we find him nursing the hand that has killed a Mexican with a 'Parry Defence against Underhand Thrust out of the book' and a hand-edge blow to the Adam's Apple that had been 'the standby of the Commandos'. In Chapter 5 of the same novel, we learn that Bond is writing Stay Alive!, a 'handbook of all methods of unarmed combat'.

Fleming often portrayed James Bond as a tough, professional secret agent. The novels and short stories are littered with references to and reworkings of real espionage operations, and there is a strong sense that Bond, while being 'highly romanticized', nevertheless fits into that background. This was not so by the time the Bond films had reached the end of Roger Moore's tenure, and it is so with Dalton's performances. I would argue that Dalton took it a little too far, and that his performance was perhaps not quite romanticized enough, but I think it's clear he brought the character closer in this respect.

While not overly romanticized, Dalton also brought back the element of the romantic that had been missing from the films directly preceding his. It's a bit of a struggle to imagine Roger Moore's James Bond feeling very much for the women whose arms he fell into, but with Dalton one did feel that he was a romantic at heart, as Fleming's character often was, Casino Royale, Moonraker and On Her Majesty's Secret Service perhaps being the best examples of it.

But this will always be a subjective question, naturally. If you grew up loving Roger Moore's interpretation, you may be disinclined to see Dalton as being closer to Fleming, and so on. In truth, Fleming's character isn't all that three-dimensional, by his own admission ('my cardboard booby'). Kingsley Amis called him a 'blank invoice slip, a silhouette', and argued that part of his appeal was precisely that we could all read into him what we liked. Certainly he's a brave, daring, dashing secret agent, but so are many fictional spies. What makes his character different from, say, WE Johns' Gimlet, or Dennis Wheatley's Gregory Sallust, or Desmond Cory's Johnny Fedora? It is not, surely, his taste in cigarettes, or even the number of them he smokes. Neither is it his physical appearance, the women he loves, the enemies he kills, the world he lives in. None of this is character. Hercule Poirot is fastidious, a trifle snobbish, and pedantic. Sherlock Holmes can seem somewhat cold, eccentric and arrogant, but of course has great skills of deduction. Quiller is highly-strung, a loner, and doesn't suffer fools gladly. And so on. But how would you describe the personality of Robin Hood, or Superman, or James Bond? To a large degree, they are simply heroes, doing heroic things. Over time, Fleming gave his character more noticeable traits, but they were rather malleable.

One could make arguments for all the actors who have played Bond nailing certain aspects from the books, if one chose. In the main, though, people tend not to. Look at how few direct and specific references there are to Fleming's books in this thread, and the other one. People tend to favour certain aspects of the novels, and favour those actors who most represent those aspects. Dalton and Brosnan, as well as the producers, both said on numerous occasions that they planned to 'return' to the books, speaking of them as though they were notably darker, grittier, and more realistic. And they are, on the whole, compared to, say, the film of Moonraker. But it's very easy to cherry-pick. For every comment that 'in Fleming's books, James Bond was a cold-blooded assassin', it's perhaps wise to re-read The Living Daylights, in which he fails to complete an assassination assignment because of the 'sharp pang of longing' he feels for his female target, or From Russia With Love, in which Fleming baldly states:

'Bond had never killed in cold blood.'

[dogmanstar]

I would say that Timothy Dalton is very close to Fleming's Bond but his surrounings in the films are somewhat weak--the lack of Fleming characters, for example in LTK and the overly-long ending of TLD. It's a shame that he never got to make his GF or CR.

[Shadowman]

Going to throw my few shillings in to say I agree that Dalton was as close to Fleming's Bond as we'll probably ever see in looks and persona. After seeing him in
TLD it was so easy for me to picture him in any of the Fleming novels as opposed to the other actors. I can even see him in CR in all the scenes and he could have carried it off (if they had made it after LTK). To me the crunch comes when I visualize him in the novels in the more intimate scenes when he is alone. I can picture him in his flat and at his office and playing golf. When I picture the other actors they don't seemed to work as well, though Craig does. Though his fair hair can distract - I can seem him in the novels. I've never got Connery - no matter how much they tailored him he always came across a little to working class to me. I could never imagine him going to Eton. Brosnan I could - and I enjoyed him in the films, but he never seemed to be able to carry off that cold, lethal part of the character - it always seemed outside his nature, as if he had to really reach for it to convey it. Lazenby was also good, thought he tried to portray the character as a happy go lucky playboy like Moore (though he was fine in the fight scenes). That could always be blamed on the scripting, I suppose. I'm sorry I was never a fan of Moore. I liked him as the Saint, but he tried to play Bond as the Saint and they obviously bent the films towards his comedy portrayal as such - which was so far away from Fleming's Bond as one could get. I could never picture him in the novels. Thank heavens they tried to get him back to Fleming in Octopussy and FEYO. I agree the novels and the films are apples and oranges. The biggest problems with the series is that they never got consistent directing from one film to the next. Unlike Indiana Jones, where you have one director and one vision and continuity is maintained, the Bond films are like the Sherlock Holmes series...you're going to get mediocre interpretations as well as good ones when they run for decades. I'm glad the producers went back to Fleming and away from the old slapstick, and I hope they keep it that way.

[BoogieBond]

Just talking about Dalton and elements where he definitely excelled are the intensity(site LTK killifer scene, thats one scary Bond) and introspection and a little sullen. Definitely when Bond is moodily staring back at the mirror at the beginning of the thunderball novel, pre-shrublands, thats Dalton's Bond for me, and where Dalton really nailed that side of the character. I agree the romantic streak is there, moreso in TLD, and the weary professional(also in the sniper scene with Saunders in TLD)

However, there are quite a few elements where he does not nail Fleming's Bond for me, but thats subjective. Some areas I think are left wanting are: Living the luxury lifestyle; the womaniser; the tough guy.

[Matt Bond]

I never liked very much this idea that was constantly imposed on me that Dalton was the most "Fleming-esque" of the Bonds. I think that there are just 2 movies that are "by the book", the first two. And there is just one man who played the Bond from the books: Sean Connery. And there are also more elements of it on his other films than in the rest of the series.

Being more serious, or having a more "darker tone" (something more and more in vogue these days...), does not necessarily mean a Bond closer to the literary one.

Dalton´s Bond is too serious, too crude, too angry. The guy speaks grinding his teeth for most of the time. That is so NOT Fleming´s Bond that I am amazed when someone thinks it is.

The literary Bond, ok, is a killer, is a professional, but it is also a debonair, a "bon vivant". And Fleming squeezes in this impression as often as he can. Bond describes the good life, the food in all details, the drinks, is worried about always having the best, the "creme de la creme", even during missions. And is a womanizer, for crying out loud.

Dalton´s Bond certainly is not this description.

But it comes to this: I always thought that after the first couple of movies, the cinematic Bond is a complete different character from the books. Some elements are there in all incarnations. Some incarnations took more of the lighter elements, and some took the more serious ones. But besides that, the literary Bond is never there after the first Connery movies.

Just to avoid being called a close-minded-Connery fan, my favorite cinematic Bond is probably Roger Moore. If you have to have a different character, go for the funniest. After the perfect literary Bond (Connery) in the first two movies, why bother? When Fleming died, the Bond movies begun to deviate from his vision. Come on, the third entry, Goldfinger, is the prototype for the rest of the franchise. And is just not the same thing anymore.

My conclusion: what I think is that the fans who didn't accept Moore´s approach were so happy to see a more serious Bond, that they started to force, impose, this view of Dalton being the closest to Fleming´s creation. I don´t buy it. Dalton is a good actor, did some nice pieces, did a good job as a more serious Bond, but was never the closest to the literary character. Even if he walked around the sets with the books in his hands.

[Dekard77]

TD tried hard to be a more serious Bond without having a capable director to back him up. The set up to LDL was incredible but falls flat the moment he appears in Afghanistan. I was wondering if there had been a chance to have a director like Roger Donaldson or Tony Scott to direct TD.
Moore had Gilbert and Connery with Young. Dalton did look a very young and able Bond but there were times,his portrayal was rather uneven.
I also feel the producers wanted a more Mel Gibson type actor from the Lethal Weapon films. Gibson was funny and dangerous at the same time winning the hearts of the audience as the hero. Dalton possessing good looks and the right age certainly looked a bit uncomfortable in certain parts of the movies especially in LTK. His lack of charisma on screen thanks to a poor director was the main fault. I have seen him in movies like Hot Fuzz, Made Men and Tales from the Crypt and thought he was having a lot of fun playing the part as oppose to Bond where he always looked overly tense.

DC had the luck of working with Campbell and having the Bond surrounding of locations and a believable love story. Even watching TB all I can think of is how close can Bond get to Domino using his charms. That makes the actor more believable in the part. Brosnan displayed an extremely cold side of Bond when killing off Dr Kauffman. He really showed he can be that cold. Moore had an extremely efficient look about how he played Bond. He actually he seemed world weary and can be the alpha male Bond.
Also I think Craig looked the part in CR when walking into country club in Bahamas. His dress sense was appropriate and looked cool. Dalton looks the opposite in LTK. Even if he is stressed he still should like Bond.

[ChristopherZ22]

Over the last couple of months, I've spent a lot of time in and around Timothy Dalton's two outings as James Bond. And let me say from the outset that I think he's one of the best 007's of the lot, and the closest to Ian Fleming's literary creation.
This was reportedly his goal.

I am sure he desired to be Fleming's Bond. When it comes down to it, however, he ended up conforming to Hollywood's action film blockbuster. In other words, he was just an action film hero like any other. Nothing to do with Fleming's Bond.

For instance, Fleming's Bond clearly preferred sex over violence. Film audiences preferred violence over sex by the late 80s, and Dalton's films tried to give audiences what they wanted which was violence and action. Dalton in Licence To Kill seemed like he had no desire for sex. Pam and Lupe are more sexually aggressive, and they have to force Bond to sleep with them. Fleming's Bond would have pushed the mission aside for some quality time with women.

[Major Tallon]

For instance, Fleming's Bond clearly preferred sex over violence. *** Fleming's Bond would have pushed the mission aside for some quality time with women.

Would you care to cite some examples? What do you make of Bond's ruminations in Chapter Four of Casino Royale about the dangers of having women on an assignment? "On a job, they got in the way and fogged things up with sex and hurt feelings and all the emotional baggage they carried around. One had to look out for them and take care of them." I'd argue that Bond viewed the successful completion of the mission as taking priority over romance while the mission was pending. Bond makes this plain (albeit with a misplaced clause) in Chapter Five: "As a woman, he wanted to sleep with her, but only when the job had been done." In Chapter Thirteen of Doctor No, he wants to respond to Honeychile's flirtations, but tells himself, "You must stay cold as ice to have any chance of getting out of this mess. . . . Don't be weak."

I'm not arguing that Fleming's Bond behaves like a monk when on a mission. I cannot, however, think of an instance when Bond deliberately jeopardized the success of his mission in order to sleep with a woman. Have you got an example in mind?

[Dell Deaton]

For instance, Fleming's Bond clearly preferred sex over violence. *** Fleming's Bond would have pushed the mission aside for some quality time with women.

Would you care to cite some examples? What do you make of Bond's ruminations in Chapter Four of Casino Royale about the dangers of having women on an assignment? ... I'm not arguing that Fleming's Bond behaves like a monk when on a mission. I cannot, however, think of an instance when Bond deliberately jeopardized the success of his mission in order to sleep with a woman. Have you got an example in mind?

Could be argued both ways, depending on the mission / time period, I think.

In On Her Majesty's Secret Service (the novel), I think he clearly acts to the contrary of what you've cited from Casino Royale; eg, with Ruby.