Home › Bond Movies › Actors
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
The Joseph Wiseman appreciation thread
The idea for this thread came to me when I saw that the "Jew Bond" thread was closed. It struck me that:
1)Joseph Wiseman was Jewish
2)He was a fellow Montrealer
3)He set the benchmark to Bond's villains with Dr. No.
We owe Joseph Wiseman a lot. Because a movie is only as good as his villains, and a Bond movie even moreso. So let's talk about Joseph Wiseman and what he brought to the series.
1)Joseph Wiseman was Jewish
2)He was a fellow Montrealer
3)He set the benchmark to Bond's villains with Dr. No.
We owe Joseph Wiseman a lot. Because a movie is only as good as his villains, and a Bond movie even moreso. So let's talk about Joseph Wiseman and what he brought to the series.
^ 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
However, Wiseman brought us the first Bond Nehru jacket (& not Spectre #1), the first Bond villain deformity (used again in countless movies), the first dinner with our captive hero (done again so many times), and of course, he has a movie named after his character (only Goldfinger & Octopussy also have that privilege).
He also was the first to commit the cardinal error (sadly repeated by many of Bond's foes) of trying to devise an interesting death for our hero rather than just shooting him in the head when he first caught him.
Seriously though, he was great as Dr. No. Chilling. Although he did not seem Chinese to me (voice was too deep). Maybe they should have dubbed him.
Wiseman was cast in a similar role 12 years later in a TV movie called Men Of The Dragon, an Enter The Dragon clone where he pretty much phoned it in, I'm afraid. Couldn't blame him though...
2) I understand it's a nice place
3) and so he did, he's still one of my favorite villains. I think he deserves more appraisal then he normally gets. He might've been the first to fail to kill Bond, but he does so in a believeable fashion. He's continually in control, even though Bond oes try to provoke him. And it's because of him I still want a Neru jacket.
Who cares if he is Jewish? What does that matter?
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/8966/the-great-bond-villain-elimination-game-completed-review/p88
And rightly so. He was the first and as many others in this thread have said, set the benchmark of how Bond villains would follow.
Despite not being seen for much of the movie, he left a huge impact on not only the film, but the series.
Less is sometimes more. Joseph Wiseman played the role superbly. The voice. The look, the mannerisms. He's brilliant. I don't think he's underrated. But his service to the series is immense.
Joseph Wiseman / Dr. No I thank you for your services to the Bond films that are so appreciated by so many.
Don't get on your high horse. I said this because I don't think it was mentioned on the Jew Bond thread which is now closed. And he contributed in an important way to the franchise.
I couldn't care less if he was Jewish or not. Just that he was a good actor.
But, does pointing out that Wiseman was Jewish change perceptions? Now that I know, do I view him any differently? On some level might I attribute motivations or ideas to him that I might not have previously? If Villain B is identified as a Christian, Muslim, or Atheist, do those labels automatically saddle him with the baggage of my opinions about those groups?
How about these labels: Villain C is gay. Villain D is diabetic, Villain E is short, Villain F is transgendered, Villain G doesn't look black, but he is.
As one who personally relates to Villain E, I never cease to be amazed by the number of people I have met who point out the obvious--you're short. As if somehow I might be the last to know. Is there some inference that I don't measure up? Thus if we say, "Of the Bond actors, XX is the shortest," are we doing more than stating fact? No, question, height is a fact--case closed--but, can that fact be stated whereby no judgment is implied?
If I say, "I had my car repaired last week. The shop did a nice. The mechanic was black."
We can easily argue that's fact, not judgment. Or we might ask, "Was it important to know the race of the mechanic?" If no, then why mention it? If it was necessary to mention it, why?
Why a human? A Romulan could have done it.
Racism persists... [-(
That is true enough. The link can be made one way (that his being Jewish was a positive factor in his contribution) or the other way as well (that it was not).
It's also true that the link is made subconsciously if his religion is stated alongside appraising him. The two are not linked as far as I'm concerned (obviously) but it is possible to feel a sense of pride in his achievements if one is Jewish.
@CrabKey as you rightly pointed out above, it all about how we relate and define ourselves (which is very tribal and goes back to how we were raised) - from my perspective, being short should not disadvantage you in any way (even in basketball - the great Isiah Thomas was only 5 ft 9 - and look at Tom Cruise, Sly Stallone or Daniel Craig for that matter).
Well, technically it is not his belief but his cultural background. Given the contribution of Jews towards the arts, great or small, and entertainment, it is a valid observation. I would have mentioned it in the locked thread, since it was not possible I mentioned it here. Being from Montreal myself, I also mentioned he was born there. because I do think his background matters. It's not the only thing that matters of course. But it does have its relevance when one wants to praise someone.
So you feel a sense of pride that he was Jewish and that he was from Montreal. You can identify with that.
I am not Jewish and I am not from Montreal so I cannot feel that sense of pride or connection.
I think his performance was excellent regardless.
Whether his being Jewish (culturally) contributed to that performance remains to be discussed.
For the record I'm not Jewish. I do think someone with acting talent and ambition growing up in an orthodox Jewish community would have influenced his approach to some characters. Apparently he truly grew up in New York, but being from Montreal, an island filled with both cultural diversity and tensions, may have also influenced him to a degree in the way he approached his roles. It's speculative of course, ;but actors channel things in their performances. Boris Karloff bullied because of his foreign face at school, for instance.
I agree with you. No doubt, growing up in New York and also with a Montreal background would have had very positive attributes on his acting capabilities (both are very rich cultural communities and New York is particularly rich in the arts). His appearance would have also contributed to this (and obviously would have had an impact on what roles he got). I'm not sure if the Jewish background would have necessarily been as much a contributor as the other factors mentioned, but of course one's background and experiences impacts one's outlook and mannerisms, as well as what one brings to the acting table.
Thanks for the comment. But I couldn't help but smile with the "look at Cruise,
Stallone, and Craig" observation. They're short, but that didn't stop them.
Which is undeniably true. And yet shortness seems to be something that has to be overcome or compensated for, or mentioned as a defining attribute, such as being gay, fat, or of color.
Here's another way to think about this. "X, Y, and Z are great actors alright, but all three are tall and white." The reason we don't hear that comment, is because those
attributes are considered the norm. Unlike Melissa McCarthy, that fat actress or that actor with the crazy eyes, Marty Feldman. How often are those two discussed without mentioning their physical attributes? If I want to describe Jason Bateman, I'll approach it by describing his character on Arrested Development, not what he looks like.
Again, using myself as an example--and at this point in my life, I'm no longer hung up about it, I don't wish to be spoken of as Crabkey, that short guy.
I realize we're in agreement, so I hope you don't read this as combative. It's just conversation and discussion with the hope of eliciting the thoughts of others.
At the end of the day, humans are not perfect. We all naturally gravitate towards an ideal or towards the centre whether we choose to deny it or not, apart from some eccentrics that stay on the fringes (and I'm all for that too).
Since there is a human tendency to go towards a visual societal norm, anything that is outside that is looked upon a little differently perhaps and there is a need (whether imagined or real) to compensate.
At the end of the day, we'd be foolish to think that Pierce Brosnan, Sean Connery or Roger Moore's looks or height did not get them at least some part of the way towards their goals. Daniel Craig inevitably has a harder time of it (because while he is a perfectly handsome average looking chap, he is not necessarily as conventionally handsome or as tall as the previous 3), but arguably he is a much better actor than all the other 3.
I'm sure Barack Obama had to overcome a lot too for being black, but then he is tall and pretty good looking. He is still facing obstacles because some people think he was not born in the US or is not a 'true' American.
Everyone has some good and some bad - that's what makes it interesting.
Human nature I'm afraid.
This is a shame, as I think Joseph Wiseman as Doctor No is one of the greats. He is certainly the coolest, least emotional of the Bond villains and it's a shame he has hardly any screen time - although perversely I am sure that would have lessened my appreciation of the scenes he is in. I love how he is teased before his reveal, too.
Wiseman nails the performance; managing to portray a calculating mind through minimal movement. If the Dr No movie came later I would expect the character would be held in a much higher regard than he is now, perhaps even rivaling Blofeld!
For the screen time he had his performance was fantastic, and the tease earlier set us up for a revelation that did not disappoint (like it sometimes can).
I agree. In fact the only thing I regret about Joseph Wiseman playing No is that he never had the occasion to play Blofeld. He would have been perfect.
And while he does not fit physically the novel's villain (then again, is there any actor who could have had?) he does display the spirit of the novel's character. The eternal foreigner, the one despised and distrusted by his Chinese compatriots and the West.