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
Perhaps this is the difference between the Bond aficionados and the general public - when you watch DAF, you see Connery's performance as part of his entire legacy, one of a string of performances that defined the role. Whereas perhaps the average punter sees it and says, "who's that tired old chap wandering around Vegas?"
Although not quite as fit as he was in the earlier films, I don't think that holds him back and he has more energy than in YOLT.
As for Guy Hamilton, he kept to his formula in all four films he did. Similar narrative structure. Same with Gilbert. I'd say the three Gilbert Bonds are very similar in tone and style. I'm personally glad neither of them tried to copy or emulate Terence Young, because it gave variety in the series, and still maintaining the classic traditions.
You raise an interesting point about Connery in DAF. He does seem more 'interested', and given film is a moving, audio visual medium I 'feel' that enthusiasm, despite his more aged and pudgy look.
As for Hamilton, Gilbert and Young, I really enjoy most of their films, and again agree that they have their distinct styles, which helped to shape 'classic' Bond and our expectations of what to expect from this series. When I think of a Bond film, I instinctively visualize elements from the best of the Young, Hamilton, Gilbert and Hunt films.
Less so Mendes, Campbell or Glen, even though I like some of their films a lot too.
But after recent rewatch it grew up on me a lot.
I believe Connery had some say in the script for DAF, according to Mankiwicz on the Inside DAF documentary. Sean was really into the dialogue regarding other characters. He also seemed to really like the script's structure as far as a beginning middle and end. So that part of the process must have contributed to his enthusiasm.
I loved Hamilton's tradition of ending his films with a mini fight scene, and Gilbert's larger than life Ken Adam sets for the villain's lair.
Glen also had specific obligatory elements in his films. I suppose if I were to pick one favorite director it would still be Young.
I'd say Young is easily my favourite too. He brought the best out of Connery imho - he just seems so much more deadly and lethal in Young's films, and infinitely cool and suave as well. He moves the best in those films too.
Also, on the point of Connery's last two (official) performances, I have trouble understanding when people say they think he's better in YOLT than in DAF because to me he seems so obviously more engaged in the latter, and since that film functions best when viewed as a black comedy, his performance works in favor of that. He looks like he's having a blast. I think the only advantage is that he is more fit in YOLT, but that doesn't play all that much in overall performance, although it certainly should be considered.
Agreed and yet...
I'd make a case for Peter Hunt being the best director on degree of difficulty alone: Lazenby, the melting snow, and the downer ending.
I'd say from experience people from the general public are far more indulgent towards DAF because Connery is in it. One of the reasons why I think another Lazenby would have killed the franchise regardless of the tone they'd have gone for.
Has that been mentioned somewhere?
IMDB trivia said he had affairs with both of them...at the same time. He's a legend
--
Regarding my earlier remarks about Young, Hamilton, Gilbert and Hunt having set the standard for cinematic Bond, I'd like to add that I think the directors who have been most successful afterwards are the ones who have captured the attitude of those early films in their efforts. It's not so much about the tropes that were introduced and made iconic in the past, but more the spirit or essence.
Yes, and I think there's a fair deal of documentation about how miserable he was on the YOLT shoot.
I have to agree there. The general public as well as casual Bond fans embraced Connery regardless of his age, physique or even quality of the Bond film. It's Connery as Bond and that was enough for many. Sean could have been playing Bond in FROM JUSTIN TO KELLY, and the public would flock to it.
That said, I love Lazenby as much as anyone on here. He's my hero. However, he was not an experienced actor. He had a director who already knew the Bond films inside and out from experience, an excellent script to back him up, and an amazing supporting cast behind him. That plays a huge part in him coming off as well as he did in the film. I do feel there are still some dialogue scenes in which he isn't quite comfortable; Draco meeting, and the first Blofeld meeting for instance. However he's excellent in the M scene as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not so sure another director would have been able to pull the performance out of him the way Hunt did. Maybe Terence could have? Either way the general public simply didn't embrace him as Bond the way hard core fans do today.
Yeah i heard he was underpaid and the press was all over him.
Reporters followed him into the bathroom and asked him idiotic questions while he was sitting on the can. That annoyed him greatly.
He certainly seemed to enjoy himself in behind the scenes photos. Wouldn't be surprising if he made the most out of his Vegas stay in any way possible.
It's hard to imagine CR getting as much attention as DN in '62, a pre-civil rights '63 LALD aging well at all, etc. And I'm not even sure Eon had the rights to MR in '64 so that would have been a problem.
Interesting point. I used to be frustrated that they'd filmed it out of sequence, chopped up the plots and titles, and so on. But now that you frame it this way I'm inclined to agree with you.
Wait...why wouldn't EON have the rights to MR in 64? I thought they had the rights to all Fleming Bond novels past and future in '62 (minus CR of course, the issues surrounding TB and Fleming's request of not using anything from the content of TSWLM - except the title.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonraker_(novel)
Wow! Learn something new every day - that seems fairly risky from EON not to get the MR rights til then (especially considering CR 67, all the knock offs and McClory floating around at that precise time.) Then again as soon as Neil Armstrong put a foot on the moon, Cubby and Harry said - 'get me Moonraker!'