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
Brilliantly put. So so true.
Connery personifies the idea that action is actually character in the best possible way. He conveys so much about the character just by the way he moves. Brilliant.
Hence he was not intimidated by the legacy the series would go on to have and it could be a reason why he seemed so casual in the films.
And so did Roger Moore of course but it never stopped him trying! :D
Don't we all (mostly)!
And? Is this thread for real?
When Connery straightened his tie, we were only the 2nd Bond film in, with no tie-straightening gone before it, so it wasn't meant to be a nod to anything.
Plus, the scene wasn't forced. Bond just got into a deadly scrap, killed Grant, and then straightened himself up afterwards. It wasn't forced, or cheesy, and didn't happen in the middle of a tank scene, or underwater, and wasn't accompanied by any comedy music cues. It was all played out in a very serious manner.
Pierce's instantiations weren't a nod to anything; they were intended as a Broznian trademark. And all instances throughout the series--including DC's cuff straightening--were intended to highlight the importance Bond places on personal aesthetics, and that looking good, even in the most bizarre, dangerous and chaotic of circumstances, was the essence of cool. You may not like Broz's delivery or its contexts, but all of these things are of a piece.
I tend to agree with you. The FRWL scene was natural and not a nod or a silly trademark. It fit the scene perfectly. So did one of the best tie straightening scenes in the series, which ironically, was done by a villain. Namely, Georgi Koskov, when hearing that Kara had found him (I think it happened shortly after the scene below bu I could be wrong - we did not know who is on the line, but his discomfort was evident in the tie straightening and look on his face):
Brosnan's tie straightening was stupid imho because it was done underwater & therefore seemed (at least to me) to be something which appeared unnatural and forced. Craig's cuff straightening is almost as bad because he had just been shot while in the crane and once again, the act seemed unnatural and 'played for the cameras' compared to Connery's actions in FRWL or Georgi's in TLD.
What @bondjames and others are highlighting is the poor conceptualisation of the character that we've been seeing for a long time - poor attention to detail. Correct me if I'm wrong but they used to discuss Bond's behaviour and actions with military types to get an idea of how someone with a Navy background would act. It probably helped that in the early days a lot of the crew had military experience. Straightening ties and popping cuffs doesn't cut it - it makes Bond look like a City trader about to strike a big deal. It looks vain and a bit silly.
I do think Connery conveyed a believable military bearing. Craig does as well, albeit more squaddie than RN Commander. I'd prefer it if they left out things like the cuff popping though - really hope it doesn't appear in SP.
These lines are invented to amuse the audience.
Roger Moore also had military training for the record.
National Service?
Yes, and he was stationed in West Germany after the war.
Vanity is a wildly underrated trait. Indeed, certain cretins would term it a flaw. At any rate, I suspect many Bond fans do not appreciate the importance of aesthetics to the films. Indeed, I would go so far as to say Bondian aesthetics, and Bond's aesthetic sensibilities, are the most important aspects of the films' unicity, and their success.
Indeed. If realism is your bag, I cannot understand why you'd be a Bond fan. Bond is about escapism, spectacle and outrageousness, not gritty, workaday realism. Even DC's Bond hardly qualifies as realistic.
The production design and look of the films is one of the things I've always particularly loved, so you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.
Any way, what I'm talking about is Bond's character not the look of the films. I accept that Bond may perhaps actually be vain. He certainly cares a lot about his appearance, clothes etc. But not appearing vain is something I think Bond would take great steps to ensure.
Good examples and your points about flamboyance and masculinity are well taken.
Having said that, from my humble perspective, adjusting one's tie underwater when chasing a shooter or adjusting one's cuffs after having been shot with a high powered machine gun just seem like lazy filmakers taking the whole thing one step too far and closer to Austin Powers or Iron Man than James Bond.
Keeping relatively calm and collected while sitting naked & tied to a bottomless chair as some guy tries to remove elements of your manhood with nothing but a simple rope - now that is a good example of James Bond bravado while under pressure.
Agreed the TWINE one is silly.
I think Craigs running is athletic! It looks good!