22 replies to this topic

[SirMiles83]

For a while now I see Timothy Dalton being described as Fleming's Bond, but I don't see him that way. Now this isn't an arguement against Dalton and his portrayal of Bond, because I think that TLD, and LTK are great films. But I don't see Dalton as the one actor true to the novels. Being a huge fan of the literary Bond, and having read every Fleming except LALD, and FYEO, I don't think he is as close to Fleming's Bond as some seem to think. The books are more down-to-earth like Tim's films were, but that doesn't mean his portrayal of the Fleming Bond was the best. The character of Bond from the novels isn't some enormously hard character to portray that only Tim could do. Being Bond is having the commanding look, the charm, and the charisma with an underlying cruelness: Tim, while his films were great, and his portrayal great as well, didn't have the charm and the charisma. Sean, Roger, George and Pierce had a lot of charm and charisma, and while in some of their films they didn't always play as serious as the books, they could be easily called Fleming's Bond as much as Dalton is. Sean in DN, FRWL, GF, and TB played a great Bond, close to Fleming, Roger in TMWTGG, parts of TSWLM, FYEO, and OP did the same, and Pierce did as well in parts of his films. Now I think a Bond film somketimes are affected by trends in film or popular demand, so if a Bond film has a serious tone, then it is because the producers thought it was the best direction to go in. MR had to do with space because of the heightened popularity of Star Wars, TLD was made serious because of the need to change direction in the series, and DAD was made the way it was made because of many other actions films raising the bar in cinema. So IMO, Brosnan's, Moore's, Lazenby's and Connery's portrayal of Bond can't be slighted because of the tone of their film as a whole, which is out of their control. So if somebody can't give me an example of some intangible aspect of Tim's portrayal that makes him Fleming and that only he can have the right to that title, then call me skeptical about him being the only definitive Fleming Bond. Remember that after Fleming initially didn't like Connery (because of his looks), he then changed his mind after seeing Sean act as Bond. Now how about that, having the approval of the man himself?

[Mister Asterix]

I don’t think we have seen an actor completely do ‘Fleming’s Bond’, including Dalton. We have had five great actors play Bonds who have each had most of the elements of Fleming’s character. but we have never reached the pinnacle, and I doubt we ever will. Dalton did a great job, but Fleming’s Bond. No. Not quite.

[Coop]

All I can say is...Go and read Live And Let Die! It's fantastic!

As for your main point, I think Lazenby was the closest to Fleming's Bond, but Dalton wasn't far off.

[Dr Noah]

I always get the mental picture of Moore's Bond whenever I read Fleming.

However, the actor that Fleming most associated Bond with was David Niven (he even gets a mention in YOLT). Perhaps because Niven and Fleming had much the same background, ie both were Scottish etc

[Bondpurist]

Well, I hardly need to make my opinions known - if I've said it once I've said it a hundred times; Dalton was the closest to Fleming's edgy, dark, cold character. I point to 1) His monologue in the car to Saunders in TLD (Just watch the delivery of it) 2) The whole sniper part at the start of the aforementioned masterpiece 3) The M scene in LTK 4) 'Watch the birdie...' 5) His brutal treatment of Pam, et cetera, et cetera. Dalton did the upper class, bored, ruthless bit better than any other. Connery is admittedly brilliant, but he had the huge advantage of actually playing the part in the time the books were actually set. Dalton's updating and immaculate contextualisation of Fleming in the 80s was much more skillful and subtle than it might appear, and as for Moore... Fleming's Bond he wasn't (apart from about 10 seconds in FYEO. You know what I mean...)

[Bondpurist]

Tim, while his films were great, and his portrayal great as well, didn't have the charm and the charisma.

Subjective as it is, I disagree with you. Just a matter of opinion. Besides, charisma and charm are mainly cinematic conceptions of Bond. OK, so he had that in the novels in a fashion, but Fleming's Bond was much more a realistic, human sort of man; not an invincible, infallable, completely slick and stylised superhero. Dalton's vulnerability contrasted with his bitter, ruthless cruelty, and made him realistic, human, fallable, believable. Now, many prefer their Bond to be less like that, to be a manifestation of the common cinematic perception of Bond. Fair enough, but I think it's much more thrilling and exciting when the Bond is dangerous, minus that sense of invincibility that tends to shroud the other Bonds, great as they (mostly) are.

[Loomis]

Dalton did a fantastic job as Bond, but I'm not sure that he was ever entirely "Fleming's Bond", since he lacked the appalling snobbery Fleming put into the character. Dalton's Bond never seemed to give two hoots about what he ate or drank, and was a much nicer guy than Fleming's 007, who by and large comes across as nothing less than a right bastard in most of the novels. Still, kudos to Dalton for getting about as close to Fleming's Bond as any actor would have been permitted by the filmmakers to get.

[Daltonitus]

I don't think Flemming's Bond was a real slob.

He hated 'living rich' in parts of Goldfinger for example.

He was a very 'sure of himself' person, and that's not quite snobbery.

[Dr.Carl Mortner]

I've been a Bond fan since the mid-'80s and swallowed a few too many press releases about Tim Dalton being "Fleming's Bond" back in the day. However, I really don't picture Dalton when I read a Fleming novel (mind you, I never picture Brosnan either) - it almost always alternates between Connery (DN through TB era) or the battle-hardened Moore Bond of FYEO. I certainly don't recall Fleming's Bond being the Bond-on-PMS that Dalton usually represented. He may have been a pretty humorless character in the early novels, but even Fleming liked the injection of dry wit that Connery brought to the role and promptly incorporated it into the later novels.

[00 deceased]

Perhaps you should read Live and Let Die because that is what Licence to Kill is based on, you may see Dalton in a more Fleming light

[ChandlerBing]

I read Live and Let Die, and I see Connery and/or Brosnan.

[00 deceased]

I see Claire Goose, but that's normally me not fully concentrating

[doublenoughtspy]

Loomis, you say "Dalton's Bond never seemed to give two hoots about what he ate or drank".

Did you see the Living Daylights?

He discusses Foie Gras, changes M's cheapo champagne order to Bollinger, says the Shaken Not Stirred line, etc.

As for snobbery and arrogance - Dalton had it in spades.

He tells off Saunders in TLD, disrespects M in LTK - and these people are his colleagues.

Richard Maibaum pointed out that Connery was more accessible to the working class American than Moore was - Moore was seen as too "English".

I would make the same argument for Brosnan and Dalton. Brosnan is extremely American - living in the USA for the past 20 years or so, and as others have pointed out - his accent is starting to sound more mid-atlantic than Irish. Of course he can turn it on and off and sometimes it changes mid sentence.

But anyway - on the flip side - Dalton is EXTREMELY British in manner, accent, etc.

Can you picture Brosnan saying Exquisite and Conservatoire in the same sentence like Dalton did in TLD?

My point is - Connery's and Brosnan's Britishness do not make an American audience uncomfortable the way Moore's & Dalton's do.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by doublenoughtspy
Loomis, you say "Dalton's Bond never seemed to give two hoots about what he ate or drank".

Did you see the Living Daylights?

He discusses Foie Gras, changes M's cheapo champagne order to Bollinger, says the Shaken Not Stirred line, etc.

As for snobbery and arrogance - Dalton had it in spades.

He tells off Saunders in TLD, disrespects M in LTK - and these people are his colleagues.

You're right. I take back what I wrote about Dalton not caring what he ate or drank.

Still, the greatest moments of food and drink snobbery in the series surely belong to Connery:

Dr. No: That's a Dom Perignon '55, it would be a pity to break it
James Bond: I prefer the '53 myself...

James Bond: Red wine with fish. Well that should have told me something.
Donald "Red" Grant: You may know the right wines, but you're the one on your knees. How does it feel old man?

"My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as drinking Dom Perignon '53 above the temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit. That's just as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs!"

James Bond: Pity about your liver, sir. Unusually fine Solera. '51, I believe.
M: There is no year for sherry, 007.
James Bond: I was referring to the original vintage on which the sherry is based, sir. 1851, unmistakable.
Sir Donald Munger: Precisely.

And then there's my favourite line from GOLDFINGER (regarding Colonel Smithers' "rather disappointing brandy"): "I'd say it's a 30-year-old fiend, indifferently blended, sir. With an overdose of bon boit*."

*Whatever that is. Does anyone know whether "bon boit" is indeed what Connery says?

[Bondpurist]

the greatest moments of food and drink snobbery in the series surely belong to Connery

Well, that may have something to do with the fact Dalton had 2 films, Connery six, seven if you count Never Say Again.
Besides, as doublenoughtspy said, Dalton was second only to Connery on the snobbery stakes. Brosnan is, unless I'm overlooking something, rather denied this facet of snobbishness so inherent in Bond's character.
As far as I'm concerned, Connery and Dalton are the only two Bonds to have really caught Fleming's Bond's blend of upper class snobbish arrogance and cruel, ruthless brutality. Mind you, a lot of these things are largely down to script.
However, Dalton's delivery of the '

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Bondpurist

Well, that may have something to do with the fact Dalton had 2 films, Connery six, seven if you count Never Say Again.  

I think it may have more to do with the fact that Connery's 1960s Bond films were made at a time when people really did make snobbish remarks about red wine with fish. No one would understand a line like that in a Bond film today. The attitudes of oneupmanship that were a staple of Fleming's work were current while Connery was making his first appearances as 007, but I guess they'd all but died out by the time Dalton signed to play Bond. It's simply a matter of changing times that Brosnan is "rather denied this facet of snobbishness so inherent in Bond's character. "

[Bondpurist]

You could still pull off the snobbery bit. Dalton did in '87, and you're not telling me that everybody's totally ignorant of fine wine and food today. It may have been more common in the 60s, but you can't ignore the whole gastronomic element of Bond whether it's 1965 or 2065. If Bond can't maintain a bit of his yester-year snobbery and epicureanism (if that's a word) then we may as well pack the whole thing in.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Bondpurist

It may have been more common in the 60s, but you can't ignore the whole gastronomic element of Bond whether it's 1965 or 2065. If Bond can't maintain a bit of his yester-year snobbery and epicureanism (if that's a word) then we may as well pack the whole thing in.  

Agreed. I really miss the connoisseurship and snobbery that used to be as much a part of the film series as the novels, but it seems that Brosnan's Bond is (unfortunately) overly geared towards today's so-called "classless society", as well as - dare one say it - the malls of Middle America.

I also miss the travelogue quality, the delight in exotic locations, of Bond films gone by, another element that the Brosnan era has shortchanged us on.

[Bondpurist]

Definately. The progression of time doesn't really do Bond any favours. Many of the things that made the literary Bond so great are either impractical,or impalatable to the MGM bigwigs. Maintaining the essence of Bond whilst keeping up with the times is very tough, and requires more that just the perfunctory dinner jacket (not tuxedo!) and some sort of nameless champagne.
We want to know the brand, the vintage, the quality, and the vineyard!

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Bondpurist

Many of the things that made the literary Bond so great are either impractical,or impalatable to the MGM bigwigs.  

Sadly, it seems that the same can be said with regard to the bigwigs at Glidrose, or Ian Fleming Publications, or whatever that outfit's calling itself these days. I like much of Raymond Benson's work, but I rue the day that it was decided that the literary Bond should incorporate many elements of the cinematic 007.

Originally posted by Bondpurist

Maintaining the essence of Bond whilst keeping up with the times is very tough, and requires more that just the perfunctory dinner jacket (not tuxedo!) and some sort of nameless  champagne.
We want to know the brand, the vintage, the quality, and the vineyard!

The 1960s films just seem more and more sophisticated as time passes. *Sigh*

[Dr Noah]

"I've reversed the polarity of the neutron flow!"

Perhaps Jon Pertwee is Flemings Bond? (He's better than Dalton, anyday)

[Donovan]

When I read the books my imagination conjurs something between Sean Connery and a generic saturnine athletic tall tough guy. Dalton is pretty close except for voice, and I think he seems most like the Bond of "Casino Royale" and perhaps "Live and Let Die" in parts.

[DanMan]

I think Dalton nailed Fleming in TLD, but I think he was too serious in LTK. If you read the Fleming novels, you'll see that Bond actually had a good sense of humor and he would often make put-downs and insult the main villian, just to get on his nerves, especially in Goldfinger.