It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Here's a photo of Grant and Connery that shows what might be considered subtle but meaningful differences that casting people, in particular, would be looking for, even if the men are relatively similar physical types.
Both are tall, dark-haired, handsome, and Caucasian, with no obvious physical flaws, but you can see that Connery has a pointier, slightly less refined nose and profile, bushier features, bigger ears, wider set eyes, and a larger mouth. Ironically, though he was a body builder, his jaw actually seems a little less developed in the photo than Grant's, though perhaps age has something to do with it. There's a smarmy look to Connery's eyes (which he used to great effect not just in Bond but in most roles he had during the era) that give him a cockier, more predatory quality than Grant, even when Grant played the villain and projected darkness.
Actors say a lot with their eyes, and the ability to project those inner qualities becomes the hallmark of their performances, but casting directors in the studio system, where it was expected actors would fit into certain "types." looked for both inner and outer characteristics natural to the actors. Think about how, say, Jack Nicholson, for instance, always has a kind of manic quality in his eyes that have defined him, or Robert DeNiro always looks suspicious.
Today, the popular thinking is that the actor is merely a blank canvas who then becomes a character, but one of the reasons I don't buy a lot of performances by contemporary actors is a lot of them don't escape whatever natural qualities they have to try to become what they think the character is. That's why, for instance, I'd never cast Pierce Brosnan as, say, Atticus Finch, even though Brosnan is also tall, dark-haired, etc. Gregory Peck has everything the character represents, not just in his physical features but in what he seems to project naturally -- intelligence, sensitivity, nobility, fatherhood. Brosnan doesn't. I'd say the same for Tom Cruise, who's made an entire career out of playing the same hyper, arrogant guy in every movie he's made. But at least he accepts his limitations.
Before anyone says that's a fluke because Peck was born to play that role, I'd say he was equally effective as Keith Mallory in The Guns of Navarone and as Joe Bradley in Roman Holiday. There's a kind of calm decency that resides in Peck that comes out in his performances, even if the characters are edgier. It helps that he's an almost impossibly handsome man, like a statue, but it also explains why he falters when trying to play characters with truly dark qualities and is rarely successful, the successes only happening when he's very young (Duel in the Sun) and very old (The Boys from Brazil), where the entire production is weighted toward propping up the performances. He still had to work hard against type. When he tries to play characters that are much muddier internally, especially later in his career, it just doesn't work (I Walk the Line is a good example).
These may all seem trivial, almost inconceivable distinctions, but like I said, they're what keep the wannabes from being the real thing. It's why there will only ever be one Sean Connery, Audrey Hepburn, Cary Grant, or John Wayne but plenty of imitators that fall far short. At the same time, I could exchange Matt Damon for practically any white actor of average proportions and get pretty much the same effect.
Cary Grant had a goofy face if you think about It (with that forehead and that chin) but he was pure Hollywood.
Sure, Roger Moore had a Cómic Book face like ... Rock Hudson, but, man, Connery had a leading man face too.
John Mclusky's James Bond looked like Cooper in the early comic strips.
Exactly! I had that in mind too. McLusky's James Bond indeed looks like Cooper, yet one can still see Connery in it as well.
And, to be fair, Daniel Craig too to my eye.
I think it's quite interesting to compare Connery to Cary Grant, as even though Connery is great, I don't think that, in his first Bond films especially, he was quite on the same level of charisma and presence as Grant in the 50s. He certainly got there, arguably by his mid Bonds, but especially by the 80s and 90s.
Yeah, you're right @mtm There's Craig's Bond in McLusky's comic strips too. Also, the squint of McLusky's Bond has a Brosnan look to him. You could say all the Bonds fit into McLusky's work. Just that some are more prominent than others. All six Bonds also fit into Yaroslav Horak's James Bond comics. But Horak's James Bond is where you see more of Lazenby, Moore & Dalton.
McLusky goes quite wide/oval faced (his Bond actually reminds me most of a young Charles Bronson - like he is in Great Escape) whereas Horak goes more long-faced, perhaps even a bit more like Fleming himself.
Very true. I'm also seeing the Charles Bronson thing now too. Bronson with his antihero face and handsome in an unconventional way.
I think Elordi would make a very credible Bond, he has the looks and charisma (ironically, to me he looks a bit like fellow Australian George Lazenby.)
My only concern is maybe he's a little bit too famous? Or is that really a problem in this day and age?
That said I think Elordi’s all wrong for the part and I doubt he’d do it. Dickinson I think could potentially be a really interesting Bond (slightly different to Craig anyway) and I’ve been impressed with a lot of his work.
I agree 100% about Elordi; I don’t see it at all.
As far as Harris, I would have to see more.
I almost want Paul Mescal to be up for the role so my partner will have a reason to see the next era of Bond films in theaters with me. She's not caught one of them in full before (despite my best efforts) but that'd certainly do it.
Mescal will be too busy being Paul McCartney for the next two years.
Indeed, but that presumes they're nearly ready to begin the next era of Bond, which I don't believe is true or even close still. I'd like to be wrong though.