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
Definitely no more baggage and hang ups about women or he can't psychologically seduce the villains wives'. Men are changing. And Bond can influence.
I think there will still be a "personal" element in Bond films for a while. It has been the case since LTK, this didn't start with the Craig era. And it is now pretty much the case of every action franchise. There's always personal stakes for the protagonist.
Sometimes, a character is much more interesting if we don’t know too much about him/her, if we don’t know what makes him/her tick. Look at Boba Fett for example. He was an incredibly cool character that we didn’t know much about, and it worked. Arguably, both George Lucas, and later Disney kind of diminished his character to an extent by exploring his background, and his psyche, but the point still stands.
To me, the Craig era stripped back so many layers of Bond that he no longer has that ambiguity, and I think that was a big mistake. I don’t need to relate to Bond, I don’t need to know about all his personal demons or tragedies in his life to find him a compelling character.
I think it says something when a film like FRWL, which has no emphasis on Bond’s emotional turmoil whatsoever, is 10x more compelling than most of the Bond films since LTK.
I write crime fiction and that's pretty much the question for every story I come up with: how is it personal for the character? How to make it personal?
I mean, the way these things were presented in Craig's films were generally in line with how the series had previously explored Bond's personal side I'd argue. Is Bond looking on at the Scottish landscape, not ever openly speaking about his parents death, all that different to, say, Moore's Bond in TSWLM having his reaction to Anya mentioning Tracy? Is Bond getting drunk on the plane in QOS all that different to Bond sitting alone drinking before Paris arrives in TND? Is Bond visiting Vesper's grave and giving that very brief 'I miss you' any different to Moore's Bond visiting Tracy's grave in FYEO? One can make the case that Craig is the most stoic iteration of Bond, and I'd argue is more so than even Fleming's Bond.
I understand not necessarily wanting to reveal too much about Bond's past, at least in a way that feels antithetical to the source material and doesn't gel with the story (it's one of the reasons why I have issues with the backstory between Bond and Blofeld in SP), but it really depends. There's going to be some sort of personal stake because that's a big part of what makes an interesting story. It just depends on how it's done.
I personally think there’s a huge difference between the examples you cited and what we got in the Craig era. Both the Tracy references in TSWLM and FYEO were nothing more than Easter eggs meant to establish a continuity between actors. Moore getting visibly uncomfortable at the mention of Tracy is a nice little character moment, but it’s not like we continue to see him wallow in that misery. In that sense, I’d argue that perhaps Moore’s Bond was much more stoic than Craig’s. Brosnan’s drinking scene in TND, and by extension the death of Paris are also nice moments as well, but Brosnan’s Bond wasn’t depressed for the rest of the film’s runtime. I think it’s possible to have more personal stakes without making your lead character depressed and sad all the time.
Nice @Ludovico — you’re layering stories when the protagonist has an inner struggle, and, of course, the external struggle (the plot). And these two struggles will often meet (to create a theme). I like your methodology.
Indeed.
And I would be honest here, but I'm not a fan of those Tracy references in the Moore Era (in FYEO and TSWLM), I felt that they're a bit forced and came out of nowhere, yes, they hold no meaning other than easter eggs.
Actually, I felt more for the Tracy reference in LTK, because it happened during the wedding day and Bond's memory was triggered.
And yes, I agree that Craig's Bond could still not move on after how many years, hence, it's one of my complaints in his last two Bond films, it washed away the effect of QoS of Bond being able to move on from Vesper (hence, the Algerian Love Knot was thrown into the snow), and Skyfall gave us that promise, but suddenly SP and NTTD retconned that again.
Actually, the ending of QoS showed us the light of the tunnel regarding Craig's Bond, that's how he should functioned.
It's not that he should be happy, I'd argue, it's one of my problems with TND either, it's such a nice moment for the character of Bond, but became inconsistent by all of a sudden change in his mood by being suddenly happy minutes after Paris' death.
He could still deal with a death of his loved ones, but not too much.
In Craig Era, he'd already dealt with it, that's enough, there's no need for him to wallow and be depressed all the time.
While there is somewhat of a difference in the sense that the examples from the Moore era were in-series callbacks (I wouldn't use the term 'Easter eggs'), and the Craig films leant into this aspect in terms of the stories, I don't think the way Bond conveyed this emotion was all that different really. He's a man who's had tragedy in his life, but ultimately he gets on with the mission at hand. Craig's Bond didn't 'wallow in his misery' constantly. Even in SF he doesn't come across as miserable, but is a man who's had a set back. Both through a need for excitement and a sense of duty he wants to do his job, however conflicted he is about it and however much he seems reluctant to talk about his rather sad childhood. There are times when his Bond seemed almost excited to be doing what he was doing (I mean, during the SP car chase he looks almost as if he's having fun). In his last three films I got the sense he came across as much more humorous too (you get it quite a bit with his interactions with Q in SP and NTTD - him and Moneypenny bursting into his flat, quipping about Q's cats and giving him a cheeky smile when asking him to make him disappear etc).
I mean, it's not all that different to Fleming's Bond really. The literary character experienced bouts of depression when not on assignment, he had several knocks to his ego/confidence, outright questioned the purpose of his job, and even had PTSD which he slowly recovered from throughout one novel. At the same time he's a character who likes to enjoy life, and similarly has that same sense of duty towards his job, even if conflicted about it.
Its the sort of dynamic with the character that's there with all the Bonds to some extent.
Maybe it's just me, but I didn't really see the callbacks to Vesper in SP and NTTD as a case of going back on anything Bond had experienced in QOS. The main takeaways from QOS are that he ultimately found the man who deceived Vesper, and that he was willing to back to the Service. It's not a film about revenge, or getting peace of mind through this. The truth is much like Bond's brief look at the mention of Tracy in TSWLM, or him visiting her grave in FYEO (it's also worth mentioning Bond visits Vesper's grave annually in the novels as well) that tragedy is always going to be with him. SP isn't about him 'confronting' something about his relationship with Vesper in this sense, and NTTD is about him wanting to start a new life with Madeline.
I think that's very debatable on both counts really. Even FRWL is a pretty personal tale: you have a woman who is targeting Bond personally, and he has gone in knowing it's a trap but does so anyway, plus there's this murderer who is out for him specifically too. There are emotions bubbling under the surface there: Tatiana is being used; Bond is feeling slight revulsion that she's using him too but he's going along with it for the prize. Then when his friend Kerim is killed it's probably the last time that Connery's Bond reacts like a real person with a strong emotional response in the series. After that he stays the wise-crackin' unruffled superspy.
Thanks. I cannot take much credit from it, it's been something fellow writers and a friend who is a professional actor explained to me: to identify with the MC you need to connect at a personal/emotional level. It does not have to be much. But it has to be there. We can't have crime fiction protagonists like Sherlock Holmes or Poirot anymore, completely external to the drama.
To be fair, you can have moments of fun while still being largely depressed as an individual. I agree that there are moments in Craig’s Bond where is does look like he’s having fun, and I’d argue that SP contains most of those moments. But largely, I still think Craig is the most depressed of all the Bonds. Hell the entirety of QOS is an example of that. Whenever Craig’s Bond experiences any sort of setback, like the ending of CR, the pre title sequence of SF or NTTD, his automatic reaction is to shut himself down emotionally and rely on alcohol to help him process what’s happened. That’s not the natural reaction that any sort of mentally healthy person has. Yeah, it may be more accurate to Fleming’s character, but if we’re 100% honest, Fleming’s Bond is a blank template; a spring board for Fleming to express his views and opinions. Admittedly I’ve only read a few of Fleming’s works, but I also know well enough that most of the character traits we associate with the cinematic Bond didn’t originate from Fleming, but from Sean Connery and Terence Young. I’d actually argue that the cinematic Bond is much more captivating than Fleming’s Bond for that reason.
I think Craig's Bond is more than just a morose character, and I think they manage to avoid most of the pitfalls of a hard-bitten, tortured-but-handsome lead character (see Blackbird to see how bad that can be); but I do think that it's perfectly reasonable to say that the cinematic Bond is not automatically inferior to the literary one.
It's even more successful, and for a very good reason. At times I even veer close to thinking they should change the opening titles to
IAN FLEMING and
ALBERT R BROCCOLI & HARRY SALTZMAN'S
JAMES BOND 007'
He's as much their character as Fleming's now, really.
Actor McActorson will never be James Bond. He's too basic.
@007HallY .. or in SF, rushing into the courthouse, pointing his gun at Mallory, winking, re-aiming and shooting the fire extinguisher. One of my favourite all time Bondian clips.
Well, I suppose by that logic one can act stoic while still experiencing tragedy or depression. It shows Bond is a two dimensional character as I said. He can have baggage while still showing that lust for life and humour. But even then it's not a case where the character constantly wallows in his misery. He has those other sides to him, and we as audiences are not fully subjected to the character being miserable for the entirety of Craig's films.
I don't think that's a particularly good way of describing how the cinematic Bond has evolved from Fleming's character. Connery's Bond in DN isn't a purely original creation of Young's, but is more of a heightened version of the literary one. Bond's quips come from the gallows humour of Fleming's creation, women swooning over him has its roots in the character's womanising in the novels etc. Again, while heightened and even depicted in rather tongue in cheek ways, it has its origins in the books. There are differences of course, but I'd also argue that as the series progressed more of the DNA of Fleming's Bond has made its way into the films. Even going from DN to FRWL Connery's Bond seemed to change. One of the reasons for this is because I think audiences fundamentally want to relate to their protagonists in some way, and if they come across as more human then this makes it easier. Fleming's character was fundamentally a very human character despite the sorts of adventures he went on. In this sense, I wouldn't say that the film Bond and the one from the novels are fundamentally different.
I like that moment too. You see it as well when Bond is tied up just before Silva introduces himself. Despite being in danger that smile and little look around the room that Craig gives says a lot. His Bond is a man who loves the danger and excitement of his job.
That's an interesting way of putting it. Like I said it's not a case where the cinematic Bond and literary one are completely different. There's always that interplay between Fleming's character, the traits that have slowly evolved over the course of the 60 year film series, and what the actor brings to the role.
I think like everything in life it’s all down to balance. Personally I didn’t see enough balance in Craig’s Bond between those more somber moments, and the moments where he does appear to be having fun. I will say that as a result, whenever I do see Craig’s Bond enjoying himself, I root for him more than I’ve found myself rooting for other Bonds. Maybe that’s because I like seeing him happy? I don’t know, but that’s just my observation. I agree about Cubby and Harry having an equal ownership in Bond with Fleming though. The cinematic Bond really was something that was almost created from the ground up, and I think if Connery just played it straight like Fleming’s character, the series wouldn’t have lasted to this day. As much as I love Dalton, he is ultimately proof of that.
But then again one can also say that had some of the more human elements of Bond's character not started to crop up, then perhaps the series also wouldn't be in as strong a place today. I mean, even going from TMWTGG to TSWLM there's definitely a sense that Moore's Bond became much more human in the latter (I'd also argue that things like Bond shoving Goodnight into a closet before he has sex with Anders, and indeed his general behaviour in the last half of that film, is such a heightened version of the already tongue in cheek stuff that the movies pushed at that time, and references to Tracy's death and Bond having to confront the fact that he's killed Anya's lover are much more in line with Fleming). Personally, I think had the Craig era not leaned into these sides of Bond then at the very least CR and SF wouldn't have been as successful.
Yeah I still think the changes they made to Bond for FRWL were pretty essential as, although Dr No was a hit, Bond is uptight and rude for most of the film- I'm certainly glad they made a course correction there. It would have been tough going watching someone for 60 years who is as much of a dick as he is in that film! :D
And I don't know if he's playing the character as it is in the books there; he's more sour and acerbic than I read Bond as being in the novels.
He really is a tit in Dr. No isn’t he? I remember the scene where he tells Quarrel to “fetch his shoes” and thinking “wow what a jerk.”
He reminds me of Ralph Meeker’s version of Mike Hammer from “Kiss Me Deadly”; a total sleezebag with little to no respect for anyone at all. Though admittedly I do think Connery’s portrayal in Dr. No is still iconic at times.
Sure, (with the possible exception of Moore) the rest of them got some little aspects picked up here and there, little details, but none played it as in associating it with the literary/Fleming, none.
Reading some of the lines and dialogues spoken by the book Bond, it's hard to see any of the Bond actors, and which none of them possibly did, even the actions, it's hard.
I think the closest to it would be a mix of Sterling Archer and maybe Don Draper, that's how the literary Bond acts (for me).
The Bond in the novels is multi-faceted, he had many sides and angles, it's hard to apply that on screen, of course, and the only thing that they could do is to pick some of his aspects.
I'd say, back then, it's pretty successful to have a Bond who's different from the books, even Connery stated at some point that he had read the books and didn't liked the Bond in there, so he created his own version (added to that was Terrence Young also inserting his own version of the character).
And because of that, the Franchise became iconic and successful, at some point, if Connery did the literary/Book Bond straight in Dr. No, I doubt it would've been successful, the character needed to be sparkled up on screen, more relatable and likeable and iconic.
I do find that Bond in FRWL comes off as less sure of himself than in DN, which makes him much more human. It's actually kind of interesting that this course correction, while relatively minor, isn't often spoken about by fans. Similar to how the writers adapted Bond to Moore's strengths by TSWLM, I get the sense this was the case with Connery in FRWL too. He was obviously a gifted dramatic actor but in DN he's generally made to play the role in that wry sort of way. Even during Quarrel's death he never really gets the chance to play that scene in a way that showcases his talent.
Compare that to FRWL where he reacts to Kerim's death and even has that scene afterwards where he confronts Tanya about it. There's also much more of a sense that Bond falls for Tanya too in a way he didn't with Honey, and Connery's acting shows this. Heck, it's quite interesting that after this film Connery's Bond got at least one similar dramatic moment in each of his films where he often reacted to a character's death or something.
I think you're right that the literary Bond is quite multifaceted. Arguably he even changes as a character throughout the novels (in CR he comes off as a rather arrogant, sexist, but ultimately a quite competent professional, whereas in OHMSS it's clear he's slightly older and more self-reflective, certainly more prone to cynicism and depression). I like the Don Draper comparison and I can see what you mean.
Again, it's never a case of an actor doing a straightforward take on Fleming's Bond. Even Dalton, for all his love of the source material, still brought his own unique qualities to the character. But there's still that influence from the original character, that interplay that I wrote about earlier, and I think we'll see more of this in future films.
Yes it's true: folks always talk about how he sleepwalks through YOLT etc. but never that he changes tack very heavily after Dr No. There's much less distance between his Bond in FRWL to GF than there is from the first film, although he is becoming more of a superhero by then of course.
I think he's written or possibly directed poorly too: he's very responsible for Quarrel's death as we're shown it, and yet there's no hint of regret. I'm not sure I've ever quite grasped why he murders that guy when they're hiding under the water either.
Yes, FRWL is a far more dramatic and, yes, personal film for Bond, as he becomes emotionally involved. Much more so than in Dr No. They do include the friend's death scene in his films after this, it's a good observation; but to diminishing returns every time, and his Bond is less moved each time too. For me, FRWL is probably the only time he's a human character.
I think it's in large part due to what the initial concept was for the cinematic Bond. I think the producers leaned into the 'anti-hero' thing which was a big seller in the 60s. It's there when Bond shoots Dent in cold blood and doesn't seem to blink an eye (I suspect a more Fleming-esque interpretation would have involved him showing some sort of reaction immediately after that suggested he didn't like having to do what he just did). Or indeed when he kills that other guy when they're hiding in Crab Key (again, if adapted with Fleming's original character in mind it wouldn't have been handled in such a cold, devil may care way)
The scene where Quarrel dies is actually badly executed I'd argue. One of the weaker sequences in the film. The 'dragon' looks like it's a painted mouth/set of eyes onto a relatively large vehicle (which it is - in the novel it's described as being much more elaborate and intricate) and the lighting is actually a bit too dark at points. Bond seems to randomly walk away while being held at gun point (in the novel he openly says to the henchmen that he wants to see Quarrel's body and is even allowed to do so. He even says he's sorry to Quarrel, which is something I'm sure Connery could have played very well and would have improved this moment).
To me that's cooked into every actor in the Bond role. Past and forever. The audience is aware or not.