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
I wrote a comment on one of these boards yonks ago that questioned the hypothesis that Fleming refashioned Bond to tailor the casting of Connery. It was my understanding that Fleming based the character’s Scottish hereditary on his own, not so much the actors. Correspondence dating back to 1960 shows that Fleming contacted a Scottish nobleman to help develop Bond's family history, in particular seeking a Scottish "Bond" family line. This was clearly 2 years before Connery had even been considered for the role. I’ve always felt it was a fortuitous happy coincidence that both the actor and the character’s hereditary were similar. As I pointed out in an earlier post, Fleming wrote the character as a romanticized extension of himself to escape the first trappings of a late marriage. It was a Charles Helfenstein interview whereby he divulged that he had access to all the early Fleming correspondence that finally put to bed this myth that Fleming had retailored Bond to encompass Connery.
Regardless, Connery’s success was cemented by US audiences by the time of GF in ‘64. Richard Maibaum believes that by casting a working-class Scot and not a privileged English toff in the role helped allow American audiences to identify with him more easily, seeing him as something of an Everyman. I don’t disagree with Maibaum’s own observation.
I suspect that Fleming's dissatisfaction with Connery was been exaggerated by some of the folks involved with the films. The Man With the Golden Typewriter reproduces a letter from Oct. 25, 1961 written by Fleming to Blanche Blackwell, where he says the following about Dr. No: "The producer, Terence Young, seems very nice and the man they have chosen for Bond, Sean Connery, is a real charmer – fairly unknown but a good actor with the right looks and physique."
Blanche was Fleming's mistress, so it's unlikely that he was engaging in PR with her; in all likelihood he was sincere in his praise. And if memory serves, one of the interviewees in the Fleming documentary included with The Living Daylights remarks that Fleming was initially unsure about Connery but quickly came around after a female friend vouched for the latter's sex appeal. Undoubtedly Connery was not the man Fleming initially pictured as Bond, but he had enough good sense to change his mind early on. I do recall that Fleming thought the film of Dr. No was disappointing compared to the book (to some extent I agree).
Even Connery himself admitted in an interview with Melvin Bragg which was shown on the South Bank Show in 2008: “I never got introduced to Fleming until I was well into the movie but I know he was not happy with me as the choice. What was it he called me, or told somebody? That I was an over-developed stunt man. He never said it to me. When I did eventually meet him he was very interesting, erudite and a snob – a real snob. But his company was very good for a limited time for me.”
Clearly Connery remembers it differently, but he does make a point of saying that Fleming wasn’t happy with his original casting. It is true that Fleming later said that while Connery was “not quite the idea” he had of Bond, but “he would be if [he] wrote the books over again” so there are moments when Fleming publicly stated that he’d had a change of heart. However, by that very same token Fleming admits he’d write the character differently if he could start over again, but in fact he did not.
Many here call Craig a 'thug' ,lacking any of James Bond's literary qualities. But of course by the same token Fleming himself in the early 60s saw Connery in much the same way.
Connery's remarks obviously have some truth, since it's confirmed that he wasn't Fleming's original choice, but what they reveal is also interesting. He's relaying a hearsay, second-hand remark that he never heard Fleming say and doesn't remember the provenance of--"What was it he called me, or told somebody?" I think that says more about Connery's ability to enlarge the chip on his shoulder than Fleming's attitude, which was probably amplified via a game of telephone by the film crew. I don't wish to pick on Connery, who I regard as a great film actor and the greatest Bond, but on several topics--like that of Broccoli and Saltzman--he's not an entirely reliable source.
It's also worth remembering that the filmmakers tended to tell stories that built themselves up at the expense of Fleming. Hence Young's remark about books having B-movie plots, Maibaum's about the books having no sense of humor (though they did after CR) or Fleming being obtuse about the film's humor (though he gave Bond film-style wisecracks in his Thunderball script). Fleming's supposed antagonism toward Connery also falls into this category--his original but soon discarded discomfort seems to have been exaggerated by the filmmakers and used to congratulate themselves.
Daniel Craig, go on, one more, do it for Babs.
Chris Hemsworth
Michael Fasbender
Wouldn't be upset if...
Henry Cavill
Tom Hiddleston
Alexander Scarsgard
Daniel Craig, go on, one more, do it for Babs - Agreed
Chris Hemsworth - No way, he's too famous and not a great actor. No more Australians ether.
Michael Fassbender - Good call.
Wouldn't be upset if...
Henry Cavill - Too famous now.
Tom Hiddleston - Good call.
Alexander Scarsgard - Automatic rejection for being from Swedish.
More or less the same was said around the time of Conneryvs departure.
It just depends on where they're going to take the franchise. I agree that Craig dis an incredible job making the role his own so much. On the other hand, he's not infallible. He proved that not all things Bond work for him. The films had to be drastically taken away from the classical template in order to work for Craig. Bond films, as any other films, are not only based on the main actor, but on the collaboration of a huge number of forces.
Not for me...he looks damn camp in that second photo.
A second grade hillbilly actually ;)
Hmm, he can't possibly be Bond because of the clothes he wore once in a film?
:)
Didn't say that, but in that image he looks the part to a T. The guy has a strange face quite frankly. Imo not Bond. My opinion :)
No, he can't possibly be Bond because he's a rubbish actor. The expression 'a plank of wood' springs to mind.
He might have physique, talent and charisma. I'm not bothered if he can master an English accent. He isn't British so he shouldn't be considered. There are plenty of better options who are actually British (Hiddleston, Turner etc).
What I care about is an actor who can do the role justice , is believable and fits the role. They could originate from Jupiter as far as I'm concerned. The British role for a British actor thing might have mattered once but not now. Even Cubby way back when was seriously considering Amaerican actors.
I believe Alexander Scarsgard could do a great job as Bond. He has the looks, physicality, good actor, can do a non Swedish sounding accent and is good in fights scenes. To dismiss potential candidates on nationality I think is silly. They are actors, they inhabit roles. (Even the British ones aren't really James Bond, there're just pretending)
Except Sean Connery.
The expression "talking out of your hat" springs to my mind, since Pattinson gave an extremely good performance in Good Time and even pulled off a flawless Brooklyn American accent.
Overrated imo, I never cared for his acting either.
Fine, but that's less of an objective judgment than a personal opinion. The film and Pattinson's performance were both well received. I realize that some folks here have only seen Twilight, but that was a decade ago and had roles not even Laurence Olivier could have salvaged.
We agree to disagree. Thankfully the earth is still spinning.
That’s a fair point and well put as always.
Forgive me, but I thought the whole point of this forum is to offer personal opinions (i.e. a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged). On this occasion with regards to potential Bond actors. So I will alter the statement to IMO Robert Pattinson is a 'wooden' actor and I avoid films he appears in (after enduring a few in the past).
Talking through one's hat is an insult inferring nonsense (especially on a subject that one professes to be knowledgeable about but in fact is ignorant of). But I have knowledge, as I've 'personally' watched his films. In conclusion from an objective point of view with regards to his acting, I don't find him 'convincing' on screen.
I am absolutely with you on the idea that nationality does not matter anymore. Didn't they screentest E.R.'s Goran Višnjić for the role of Bond for CR? Clearly Barbara and Michael are open-minded over the issue of nationality.
I am intrigued by your suggestion of Alexander Skarsgård. Still blond, but he would fit in the role.
(Thank you, Eva)