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
Someone mentions 'Collateral' ; I think of the nightclub shootout ; I pop the Blu Ray, sit down and rewatch the film.
Thanks and you made great points as well.
I did like Craig very much in Spectre but noe i see why you prefer him much in his first films since it was much more his very own interpretation while in Spectre he fitted the mold of the classic Bond.
And i agree on what you said about How Glenn Close and Heath portrayed their roles in an un typical way.
Especially Glenn Close who explored more the way women were seing in those times and the two faced personality than focusing on the sex appeal.
Marquis Isabelle could have been portrayed as your typical Femme Fatale dressed in big costumes but Glenn msybe felt she needed a different interpretation to be belivable and that's exactly what Daniel did in Casino Royale and Quantum.
Ok now I perfectly see what you mean about Craig in Spectre.
Its like he changed his identity. Yes he proved he can be the Classic Bond in Spectre but its not his very own interpretation though i think he still got the essence of how he portrayed him in Casino Royale just fitting in with the traditional cinemmatic Bond.
I don't see why actors (who have a choice) don't do different kinds of stuff. I like to watch lots of very different kinds of movies, and the idea of an actor choosing to do a very limited type of stuff is just incomprehensible to me. Cruise could do smaller movies of different genres all the time if he wanted to. Eventually I also imagine he'll have to, anyway, but why not do it all the time. I just don't get it.
I don't really think anyone can play anything, but some can definitely play a far greater range of characters than others. Chastain and Blanchett are indeed wonderful. I assume by "Leo" you mean DiCaprio (people usually do, though why people use "Leo" I don't know, and I see no reason to to do it myself, and therefore simply refuse to do so), and not Melissa - who is also wonderful and quite a chameleon. (With DiCaprio your "even" is fitting, but yes, I've always liked him.)
---
edit:
Oh, @bondjames, I see you edited your post while I was typing. So definitely DiCaprio like I assumed anyway... ;) and yes about Bale and Hardy. But Damon? Umm... how is he chameleon-like? At all?
Fleming originally conceived Bond as a fusion of the British gentleman adventurer and the American hardboiled tough guy. The result was a hero who looked great in a tuxedo and had aesthetic tastes but could also beat the stuffing out of anyone who messed with him. Bond is a gentleman tough guy who combines refinement with masculine assurance. Women find that attractive, men find it appealing. It is vital to attract women, because without a large female audience Bond cannot succeed, and you need an actor who attracts women to the theater. The most popular Bond actors prove this.
Connery was cruelly handsome, tough, and had true movie star charisma. Women regarded him as a sex symbol even into his old age. He was a tough guy whose virility made him a sex symbol. Roger Moore lacked that toughness, but he was more refined and had charisma, along with great charm that made him a true ladies man, so was able to succeed with those qualities (roughly the same argument applies to Brosnan).
Craig is more tough guy than gentleman, but as Bond he radiates a charisma and masculinity that attract women (look at all the overheated comments generated by his beach scene in Casino Royale). When it comes to masculine self-assurance, he is in Connery's league. Like him, he more tough guy than gentleman, but his sex appeal and and charisma are ample compensation.
Lazenby and Dalton, the least commercially successful Bonds, had less charisma and sex appeal and suffered as a result. Both were conventionally handsome, but they did not create a Craig-worthy frisson with female audiences. Dalton had the classically romantic good looks of Bronte's Heathcliff (who he also played) and should have made a bigger stir, but he had the bad luck to become Bond in the late 1980s, when the public was growing increasingly less interested in OO7.
From Tom Ripley (brilliant performance in my view) to Jason Bourne to Mark Watney (The Martian) to Edward Wilson (The Good Shepherd) to Linus Caldwell (Ocean's) to Private Ryan (Saving Private Ryan) to his breakout role of Will Hunting (Good Will Hunting). All distinct roles and all done very well, again in my view.
I think he is the spiritual successor to big 80's - 10's stars like Tom Cruise and Tom Hanks in a way.
1. Brosnan (a no-brainer)
2. Connery (sex on legs)
3. Moore (that certain something)
4. Lazenby (impressive body, good looking in general)
5. Dalton (perfect husband material)
6. Craig (too common looking, nothing special, helped by charisma)
But good looks is not all it needs to be Bond.
Craig may look the least like Bond is supposed to look like but still he has a physical presence that elevates him to No 1 when it comes to hand to hand combat, running, sweating, getting covered in dirt and blood, looking grim.
Not even Connery was this good at those things.
What I wish for the next actor to be is more of a mixture of those things.
He doesn't have to be a dress-man, or pretty boy, but only muscles and the ability to run and fight will not do either.
Maybe Hiddleston is the perfect choice, he seems to be the closest to Fleming's vision I have seen so far. Furthermore he can be mean, charming, hard-hitting, suave etc.
That sounds like a pretty good general rule to me.
@bondjames, I just don't think of Damon as "chameleon-like" at all. I always keep seeing Matt Damon, you know, whatever the role... I wish I found him more interesting as an actor and I wish I liked him more as an actor, but while he has done some interesting work (such as Behind The Candelabra), well... I feel I sort of know what I'll get with him. The same goes for Hanks, since you mentioned him. I don't dislike them at all (and they seem so damned likable anyway), I'm just not intrigued, I don't find them exciting as actors. That would be mostly true with Cruise as well, but at least he has surprised me a few times (not recently).
When speaking of someone being a chameleon I think of actors that could make me go "amazing, that's actually the same actor?" or something... and I don't mean just looks, but the whole way of being (body language, posture, way of moving, way of talking, etc.). If you see Damon like that, okay, but I don't.
It's interesting to me that so many people think of attractiveness and good looks as being more or less the same thing, or at least use the terms more or less interchangeably. That can make discussion tricky since people might be talking about different things while using the same terms, or talking about the same things when using different terms... :)
That is different from someone like Hanks, Damon, Cruise and even Ford before them. They are more movie stars, but 'everyman' movie stars, enabling them to inhabit other characters well. Good actors too, but not quite the same thing.
I don't know if you noticed but i changed good looks for overall attractiveness in my title post because the looks thing alone caused a lot of confusion and its not the same thing though for some woman seing some actor having great looks instantly makes it attractive to him because those woman are attracted alone to obvious good looks.
So its not the same thing but good looks is a part of the general appeal.
I hope I explained myself well, if not please tell me and id try it again.
Anyway i agree with you about Craig sure he is nit your typical good looking man but his prescence and charisma does make him very attractive.
So this is how i rank the 6 Bond actors in overall attractiveness (the whole package of what i find attractive in an actor : voice, personality, screen prescence, classic/ obvious good looks and sense of humor)
1 Pierce Brosnan
2 Sean Connery
3 Daniel Craig
4 Timothy Dalton
5 George Lazenby
6 Roger Moore.
Now if i had to go just on good looks my ranking is
1 Pierce Brosnan
2 Sean Connery
3 Timothy Dalton
4 George Lazenby
5 Roger Moore
6 Daniel Craig
1. Sean Connery
2. Roger Moore
3. Daniel Craig
4. George Lazenby
5. Timothy Dalton
6. Pierce Brosnan
One may wonder why I rank Brosnan at the bottom, given he is and was a more successful actor than Lazenby ever will be. It's because, as I've mentioned on another thread, in GE I found he was overshadowed by nearly the entire supporting cast (especially Bean, Janssen & Scorupco). This is not about his looks (formidable at that time) but more about his ability to own the screen. That improved in the succeeding films as he gained confidence in the role, but then his cast was also weaker compared to GE (again imho). Lazenby, despite no experience, was able to stand toe to toe with Diana Rigg who is very charismatic & especially so in her prime, and that's a testament to something.
I'd prefer not to directly comment on looks as that's really not all that important to me. Height is though, and that's where I find Craig to be lacking.
Hmm, I'll need to see more of Gyllenhaal, I suppose... I like him (I'm assuming you meant Jake), but still feel like I must be missing something. I've been more impressed with people like Cillian Murphy and Ryan Gosling than him if we're looking at other current actors in that age range. Bale and Hardy are indeed amazing, McConaughey has redeemed himself quite a bit, and Leto is wonderful at his best and could probably be even better if he acted more, though maybe it's better for him that he doesn't.
Aren't those pretty much the same thing in the end? If "attractiveness" isn't important to you as a male, @bondjames, what do you think "attractiveness" is? To me what @Szonana lists are very similar to stuff I presume you include in "screen charisma" and I also agree with her that those kinds of things are what can make an actor attractive. It's generally impossible to exactly pinpoint and analyse why someone is attractive, because it's a complex matter, but @Szonana did a good job of breaking it down a bit (yes, I think you explained it well, sure made sense to me!).
Looks are indeed only a minor part of attractiveness (to me anyway) - it's not that I find anyone attractive because of how they look, but I find them to be pleasant and interesting to look at if they are attractive as people, if you know what I mean. Men should feel free to comment on male actors' looks if they can comment on female actors' looks. ;) However - as a woman - I also happen to think that a Bond actor's looks (or other actors' looks - be they male or female - aren't all that important in the end.
edited to add: @bondjames, I haven't seen Southpaw, yet, and I'll need to re-watch Zodiac anyway. Agreed about Nightcrawler & Prisoners. I'm just not entirely convinced yet, that's all I meant... :)
Im with you on how its nice to have both types of actors the more chameleon types and the movie star type.
Both are needed in the movie industry and for different roles.
James Bond requires more the movie star type and someone who has enough screen presence and charisma to carry the movie without doing something which is oscar worthy.
These type of actors are also needed on any other movie franchises.
and chameleons are more required for Biopics its their biggest strenghts or any truly complicated part.
We have had movie stars in Biopics and don't work as good as the chameleons.
Yes Liam was enaging and oscar nominated for Schindler's list but i guess the role would have been slightly better in the hand of someone like Christan Bale though he was too young at the time but you get my point.
I think real life characters are too big for guys like George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Tom Hanks even my dearest Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery.
Though McCounaghey was supposed to be one of them and highly surprised me with Dallas Buyers club.
I saw him there and thought woow this guy is truly an actor and without a biopic Tom Cruise also surprised me recently with Vanilla sky( yes, i know im too late to that party) but he really was fantastic when his character looses his looks and starts to go really nuts.
But in general is better when movie stars saty asay from biopics unless they are willing to do what Mathew did in Dallas Buyers club, if they are going to do what Liam did in Schindler's list and Rob Roy please stay away from biopics.
Not bad performances but again you can't cast a movie star fir those parts.
I watched the inside the actors studio of Liam and Ralph and their preparations for Schindler's list and it's slightly insulting what liam said.
Ralph said he did a great research, made the effort of the accent trtied his best to truly embody Amon Goeth Liam he just read the script and said didn't do much research because spielberg told him it wasn't necessary since Schindler at the beginning wasn't really aware of what was happening.
I love Liam in Taken and his action films even in his small part in Chloe but you don't do biopic by just reading the script.
I don't count humour, personality, or good looks in that. As an example, I honestly don't think Craig is much of a looker, and yet I rank his screen charisma far higher than Brosnan, who is much more conventionally handsome.
EDIT: It is also possible that acting skills can influence screen charisma. For example, a lot of what makes Craig such a force in CR is his acting, which resonates and results in him commanding the screen, which is especially impressive when you're sharing it with serial scene chewer Eva Green.
I can't comment on Schindler's List and the performances in it since I haven't seen it since the original release. (It's on my need-to-re-watch list, and since I'm in the middle of a Spielberg movie watching project - along with several other projects - I'll get there hopefully in the not too distant future.) Therefore - and especially not knowing anything more about it - I won't comment on the actors' preparation for it, either, but what you said sounded interesting. An actor should take director's wishes and advice into account, so if a director feels it's better the actor doesn't read stuff or whatever then surely the actor cannot be blamed for following that advice? The character not knowing what's happening and the actor not knowing what's happening either doesn't sound like a bad idea. Different situations, but your example reminded me of Werner Herzog specifically advising Christian Bale not to try to do an imitation of Dieter Dengler (who had been a close friend of Herzog) in Rescue Dawn. And Terrence Malick telling Bale (who didn't even have the luxury of a script for Knight Of Cups) not to try to read pages given to some other actors, exactly because Malick didn't want the actor to have a clue what was happening, the character (not a real one, but kinda based on Malick himself a bit) being one badly lost in his life (so there was a reason for it). Actors are supposed to kinda do what directors ask them to, you know, ;) so I don't see why Neeson following Spielberg's advice was even slightly offensive.
When movies are based on real events or actual people are portrayed in them, there are different approaches to it - those very faithful to real events and people (there's still always need for dramatic license), and those that use the real events and people as a starting point to tell a story where a lot more can be changed. I see no reason why "movie stars" couldn't play real people successfully, but it would obviously depend on who the star and the real person are then, and to an extent what the general approach is as well.
Isn't personality part of screen presence? Which personality (or humor) are we even talking about? This is getting confusing... :D And surely looks are part of a person's presence - screen or otherwise. Not necessarily good looks, mind, but looks... I agree on what you're saying about Craig's looks and charisma vs Brosnan's.
I definitely think acting skills influence screen charisma, and I agree on Craig in CR as well.
However, I don't think looks are a factor. As an example, Jack Nicholson is an actor who always owns the screen in every film he's in, and I don't think he's good looking. The same goes for Ledger as the Joker (the character that is, who is repulsive physically).
@Tuulia.
Ok now you made me feel very guilty for being so harsh on Liam hehe.
No really, you have some great points as well and never thought on how it was a good idea of not researching when it comes to playing a real life character but your story about Malick and Bale made me think maybe it wasn't so bad he didn't make the research.
I love Liam and watching and listening often on interviews make him look very laid back and fun but gives me the impression that he is quite lazy sometimes and i first thought he accepted Spielberg's advice for his own convinience but those stories with Herzog and Malick made me see that i was too much close minded.
On the other hand Day lewis for Lincoln suggested Spielberg to call all the actors by the characters names and it worked. Ot got everyone in the period of Abraham Lincoln if im not mistaken they all avoided cellphones.
So maybe Liam could have propossed him to do the research in a more method acting style and get better in the character.
i was too drastic on saying Movie star actors shouldn't do biopics when mybe it could work.
Now i do understand that not always movies about real life people are exactly biopics and its not an obligation to saty to true to the facts and even of they decide to be accurate. We still need a few things changed to create some drama and make the story flow.
For example in the Tudors which is a tv series about henry and his wifes. They got rid off one of his Henry's sisters and mixed both in one and still works.
Shakespeare in love is all fiction except for the characters Of shakespeare and Queen Elizabeth I i could even bet Elizabeth was nothing like Judi Dench portrayed her.
Sure she had her mood swings and was very busy but i don't think she was as sarcastic as judi's portrayal.
But I said: "And surely looks are part of a person's presence - screen or otherwise. Not necessarily good looks, mind..." What I mean is: looks are part of presence (how could they not be?), but obviously they don't need to be good. I agree with you about Nicholson (in general) and Ledger (in that role) there, too - not pretty, but lots of presence...
@Szonana - :)
Btw, dramatic license is sorta necessary for the simple fact that if you try, for instance tell a story of maybe years (or a person's whole life) in a two or three hours, well... easier said than done. And anyway, anybody's everyday life tends to be mostly boring for most of the time. If one only chose the exciting or unusual bits and cut out the rest then a couple of hours of anybody's life might be entertaining if well done, but even then some characters might need to combined into composites (like in your Tudors example), and the interesting bits of the person's life would need to be glued together in some way that made sense and made the whole coherent or at least gave it some angle or theme or purpose, instead of a succession of random weird bits. So yes, like you said, something is needed to make the story flow.
Indeed, some dramatization often needs to be used just to make a story comprehensible as a movie without sacrificing and watering down the story itself. I can't explain that well as an abstract concept, but an example: I thought The Big Short was that kind of a movie. Reading the book I could certainly imagine the quirky (real life) people in a movie, but I couldn't imagine how the financial instruments (which could be explained at length, or in footnotes in a book) could be presented in a movie in a way that people not familiar with them had any hope of understanding them. Yet, they were absolutely essential to what happened in the 2007-8 world wide financial disaster and so they had to be both included in the movie and explained in it, or there was no point even making the movie. I'm still surprised they managed to pull it off. In that movie the dramatization was necessary to even make the stuff make sense while still telling the actual story.
In other cases the actual story is just the inspiration and framework and telling the real life story isn't even the purpose of the movie (American Hustle). Tons of movies and tv-series are based on real life stories and people, and their purpose is not documentary-like accuracy, anyway, so all sorts of changes get made based on different considerations and goals.
You mentioned Dallas Buyers Club before, that's a good example, too. I think it's wonderful, and it works very well as a story. McConaughey's character was based on a real person, but Leto's character Rayon was fictional, so all the drama and sympathy from that relationship in the movie is an invention to tell a better story that made for a better movie and a more interesting arc for the lead, and added humanity and meaning. The movie still told an important and real story (on a more general human level), so I had no problem with the changes made.
i agree sometimes you have to look for the most standout moments in someone's life to make a good biopic or just focusing in one period like Linclon where it was all about passing the 13th amendment instead of telling us his story since he was a kid.
And many other biopics have used this strategy, its the best way to make the story flow unless you are working on a tv series that way it's easier to explore more stuff.
Even fiction books have prefered tv over film like Game of thrones and vampire diaries since film would rush everything and it would be impossible to tell the story propertly unless they make 10 films or more.
But going back to biopics i agree on how important is make us care for the character and its when creativity has to do its magic.
Like you said people need to feel invested in the story and documentary style is not always successful.
I loved The big short but leaving the theater at the end i heard a couple saying whata boring film, I can't believe thos got a nod and insisde of me i was are for real?
Sure its a little confusing so many of the economic language but its still easy to follow and root for the guys and their stories.
and another documentary style of a real life story which i read many complaints from was spotlight. Actually two people close to me said its an intersting topic but i wanted something more emotional than so many data and numbers.
So i guess its better to go for the drama than facts and being accurate.
People want a story not history and that was the problem with Spotlight for so many.
Wow I didn't know Leto's character was invented for the film, it really worked to make mathewy's character much more interesting and help the arc of the story.
Interestingly, I find the opposite in some of the Hollywood 'pretty boys' that we get thrust with from time to time. Ryan Reynolds comes to mind. Nothing distinctive about him to me. Terribly run of the mill. The fact that he lacks charisma doesn't help (but based on our discussion, 'looks' are a part of that charisma, even if subconsciously). Taylor Lautner is another one.
We are a visual species and what we see has a major impact on how we perceive.
I think that like you say, something distinctive looks-wise may indeed help, but ultimately (for me anyway) it's the rest of the person that helps the looks, rather than the other way around, if that makes sense... I mean that people look better if their personalities are attractive/intriguing, but boring is not helped even by "good" looks. I think this is what you were saying as well, just in another way.