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
Bringing Sexy Back: Why Fleming was wrong, Dalton was worst, and Sean will always be the best.
Bear with me here because I have a lot to say and I think that many of you will find what I have to say compelling. I have always felt that the character Fleming created in the books left a lot to be desired. He came close to creating something excellent, but he fell just short of perfection. Personally, the character I fell in love with was not the one Fleming penned in Casino Royale, but the one which Sean Connery personified in Dr. No.
Now with that in mind I became puzzled by how many fans on this forum picked Dalton as their favorite, when to me he clearly comes in last. Sure he’s very Fleming and if you enjoy that then good for you. I’ll still take Sean and that impeccable 60’s style any day. It’s so hard to describe it in words but all of Sean’s films have that x-factor, that magic sparkle which makes them ‘extraordinary’, while Dalton’s films simply feel ‘extra’ ‘ordinary’ if you catch my meaning. I struggled for the longest time to come up with an explanation for why I felt so strongly that Sean was the best and Dalton was the worst, and after some lengthy critical thinking I believe I’ve stumbled upon the answer.
Starting off with what he is most often praised for, yes I’ll admit it’s fair to say that the spy Dalton plays is darker and more realistic, but to me James Bond has never been about realism so much as he has been about escapism. It’s important to keep in mind that James Bond isn’t a real spy. Real spies live tawdry lives full of not much excitement and lots of monotony. Real spies aren’t heroes but rather cold, cowardly, bastards who get turned into backstabbing traitors just to stay alive, and any quixotic ideas they had about patriotism and moral ideology goes out the window when they’re faced with the depressing reality of their miserable lives. If that’s what you want in a spy story then I suggest you pick up a book by Le Carre. I however prefer to see a story about a superspy who lives in a fantastical world full of excitement and adventure; of beautiful women, expensive cars, exotic locations, and dastardly villains trying to take over the world. I prefer a handsome, gentleman spy who is honorable and courageous in the face of danger; who is romantic and gregarious in his life and his work, and who does his job for queen and country. Sean Connery embodies these characteristics perfectly in all his films and I love them for it. Dalton on the other hand makes a hash of it. His movies have all the adventure, the women, the cars, the locations, the villains, everything that makes up a ‘Bond movie’ except for the most important thing of all: James Bond.
Just like Flemings books all the ingredients are there for a perfect story, but they get let down by a lackluster Bond. While reflecting on the creation of his character Fleming himself said, and I quote: “I wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened. I wanted him to be a blunt instrument.” Granted, Fleming created an awesome world of fictitious espionage which was grand and extravagant in every respect, but when it came to creating a character to navigate this exciting setting, he made a colossal cock of it by failing to match the hero to his environment. When reading the books I half expect Bond to be working for George Smiley rather than Sir Miles Messervy. You would think that separating Fleming from Le Carre would be a clear and easy distinction to make, but when it comes to the character of Bond himself, it become very difficult to see how he is any different from anyone in Le Carre’s world. This brings us to a point where we must critically analyze Flemings writing.
People say that Dalton is the greatest because he most closely resembles the Bond which Fleming imagined. While I agree that he does most closely resembles the Bond from the books, I don’t think that this correlation implies his greatness’ far from it in fact On the contrary, I feel that Dalton’s performance as Bond exemplifies the fundamental problem with Fleming’s original characterization of Bond. Like the books, Dalton’s movies have everything you need to make them ‘Bond films’, from the girls to the gadgets and whatnot, but in the end it all gets let down by a lead character who is plane and dull; a blunt instrument through and through. Ultimately, the fundamental quality which both Dalton and Fleming’s character lacked turns out to be the single most important attribute in the modern cultural perception of James Bond, and that trait turns out to be: swagger. It’s a sense of raw masculine sensuality, folded in with a gentlemanly air of suave and debonair to produce what may possibly go down as the sexiest male character ever imagined. That is what James Bond really is, and it’s all because of Sean. He injected that swagger into the role and turned a mediocre protagonist into one of the greatest heroes the world has ever seen, and for that his contribution to the Bond character is utterly priceless. Bond would not be what he is today without Sean, and without him setting up that complete template, subsequent Bond actors may have overlooked the importance of sensuality in the role and missed the mark completely.
Now, I’m not saying that Dalton’s films didn’t include sensuality, but clearly his included the least, making his tenure as Bond by far the least successful. George honestly did more for the Bond character than I think Timmy could have done in 5. I would say that after Dalton, Craig is leading in a lack of sensuality. Contrary to Babz’s eye-banging idiocy, simply showing off his rippling muscles in a few shirtless scenes does not make Bond sexy. In his three films Craig has only bedded four women! George alone had at least four or five in his single film, and all the other actors could post much better numbers across any three of their movies. Now I understand that times have changed and that the image of the international womanizer has begun to fall out of favor in our modern post-feminist culture, but that doesn’t mean that Bond can’t still be out there flirting and having some fun. Things have gotten too serious and in Bond 24 they need to relax and let Bond be Bond, in every respect.
Now I know this is a lot to take in all at once but I have no doubt that many of you will have plenty to say about the myriad of issues that I’ve brought up here, so please feel free to take little stabs at it or try and tackle the whole thing, entirely up to you. I’m really just looking for any feedback I can get because I’m curious to see what other thing about all of these issues. So, discuss…
Now with that in mind I became puzzled by how many fans on this forum picked Dalton as their favorite, when to me he clearly comes in last. Sure he’s very Fleming and if you enjoy that then good for you. I’ll still take Sean and that impeccable 60’s style any day. It’s so hard to describe it in words but all of Sean’s films have that x-factor, that magic sparkle which makes them ‘extraordinary’, while Dalton’s films simply feel ‘extra’ ‘ordinary’ if you catch my meaning. I struggled for the longest time to come up with an explanation for why I felt so strongly that Sean was the best and Dalton was the worst, and after some lengthy critical thinking I believe I’ve stumbled upon the answer.
Starting off with what he is most often praised for, yes I’ll admit it’s fair to say that the spy Dalton plays is darker and more realistic, but to me James Bond has never been about realism so much as he has been about escapism. It’s important to keep in mind that James Bond isn’t a real spy. Real spies live tawdry lives full of not much excitement and lots of monotony. Real spies aren’t heroes but rather cold, cowardly, bastards who get turned into backstabbing traitors just to stay alive, and any quixotic ideas they had about patriotism and moral ideology goes out the window when they’re faced with the depressing reality of their miserable lives. If that’s what you want in a spy story then I suggest you pick up a book by Le Carre. I however prefer to see a story about a superspy who lives in a fantastical world full of excitement and adventure; of beautiful women, expensive cars, exotic locations, and dastardly villains trying to take over the world. I prefer a handsome, gentleman spy who is honorable and courageous in the face of danger; who is romantic and gregarious in his life and his work, and who does his job for queen and country. Sean Connery embodies these characteristics perfectly in all his films and I love them for it. Dalton on the other hand makes a hash of it. His movies have all the adventure, the women, the cars, the locations, the villains, everything that makes up a ‘Bond movie’ except for the most important thing of all: James Bond.
Just like Flemings books all the ingredients are there for a perfect story, but they get let down by a lackluster Bond. While reflecting on the creation of his character Fleming himself said, and I quote: “I wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened. I wanted him to be a blunt instrument.” Granted, Fleming created an awesome world of fictitious espionage which was grand and extravagant in every respect, but when it came to creating a character to navigate this exciting setting, he made a colossal cock of it by failing to match the hero to his environment. When reading the books I half expect Bond to be working for George Smiley rather than Sir Miles Messervy. You would think that separating Fleming from Le Carre would be a clear and easy distinction to make, but when it comes to the character of Bond himself, it become very difficult to see how he is any different from anyone in Le Carre’s world. This brings us to a point where we must critically analyze Flemings writing.
People say that Dalton is the greatest because he most closely resembles the Bond which Fleming imagined. While I agree that he does most closely resembles the Bond from the books, I don’t think that this correlation implies his greatness’ far from it in fact On the contrary, I feel that Dalton’s performance as Bond exemplifies the fundamental problem with Fleming’s original characterization of Bond. Like the books, Dalton’s movies have everything you need to make them ‘Bond films’, from the girls to the gadgets and whatnot, but in the end it all gets let down by a lead character who is plane and dull; a blunt instrument through and through. Ultimately, the fundamental quality which both Dalton and Fleming’s character lacked turns out to be the single most important attribute in the modern cultural perception of James Bond, and that trait turns out to be: swagger. It’s a sense of raw masculine sensuality, folded in with a gentlemanly air of suave and debonair to produce what may possibly go down as the sexiest male character ever imagined. That is what James Bond really is, and it’s all because of Sean. He injected that swagger into the role and turned a mediocre protagonist into one of the greatest heroes the world has ever seen, and for that his contribution to the Bond character is utterly priceless. Bond would not be what he is today without Sean, and without him setting up that complete template, subsequent Bond actors may have overlooked the importance of sensuality in the role and missed the mark completely.
Now, I’m not saying that Dalton’s films didn’t include sensuality, but clearly his included the least, making his tenure as Bond by far the least successful. George honestly did more for the Bond character than I think Timmy could have done in 5. I would say that after Dalton, Craig is leading in a lack of sensuality. Contrary to Babz’s eye-banging idiocy, simply showing off his rippling muscles in a few shirtless scenes does not make Bond sexy. In his three films Craig has only bedded four women! George alone had at least four or five in his single film, and all the other actors could post much better numbers across any three of their movies. Now I understand that times have changed and that the image of the international womanizer has begun to fall out of favor in our modern post-feminist culture, but that doesn’t mean that Bond can’t still be out there flirting and having some fun. Things have gotten too serious and in Bond 24 they need to relax and let Bond be Bond, in every respect.
Now I know this is a lot to take in all at once but I have no doubt that many of you will have plenty to say about the myriad of issues that I’ve brought up here, so please feel free to take little stabs at it or try and tackle the whole thing, entirely up to you. I’m really just looking for any feedback I can get because I’m curious to see what other thing about all of these issues. So, discuss…
^ 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
Dalton had charm, he could do humour and he was the best, most badass Bond. People say he couldn't do cinematic Bond but I don't get that at all.
In his first 10 minutes he skydived into Gilbatar, jumped onto a speeding truck to fight an assassin, sent the the truck veering of a cliff, pulled his parachute cord as the (now on fire) truck crashed towards the sea and landed on a boat where he says a funny line (better make that two), and he has sex with a fit girl in a bikini. Sounds like cinematic Bond to me.
Maybe it's because he was the first one I saw but Dalton IS Bond for me. Always has been, always will be.
And Nice touch...
One thing I wanted to say though is, Bond does not need to bed 6 women per movie to have this sensuality or x-factor or what you want to call it.
I think Craig works fine in that department though nowhere near Sean of course.
But see the point is, I don't want the same movie all over and over again. I love most Connery movies, I love many Moore movies, I love the Dalton ones and I really really love Craig's movies and I also enjoy Brosnan....and they are for most parts completely different...and I like that!
I love the books, so for me, Craig or Dalton are a very welcome alternative. Do I want the next 10 Bond movies to be Skyfall 2,3, 4 ...you get my drift... no!
I love the difference between them and in all honestly, I probably have given up ranking the movies. It's gotten way to difficult at this point.
(and before someone is pointing it out, no I am not a fan of Lazenby and I think Dalton did more for the role than Laz ;-)
And to conclude, I've never read the books. It seems that using Fleming for the source material has often meant we've got a better story, but having said that TSWLM is one of my favourites... And despite not reading the books I still accepted Dalton straight away in 1987 - just because I thought that he was so good. He is in No.3 place after Sean and Rog for me, with DC in 4th, then Laz and PB.
I simply disagree, as do many others on here. I honestly think Brosnan wilts on the screen as Bond. As you know, it's not that I dislike him personally, I just could never take him seriously in this role. From the moment he first appears in GE I always felt he look so out of place and like he was trying desperately hard to be 'Bond'. It is all subjective and personal but he frankly makes me cringe as he slimes his way through a hotel or a casino. In my eyes, apart from perhaps his looks (too pretty though IMO) he doesn't have any of the credentials for Bond.
For me personally Dalts was utterly convincing and charismatic, but he does give off a bloody mindedness, like he's not trying to impress anyone. That's very Connery IMO. And I think DC has that as well. I will concede however that the Daltonites seem to be in a minority. That said, there do seeem to have been a lot of articles recently saying he is the great underappreciated Bond and bigging up TLD as a forgotten classic. It's always been in my top five ever since 87.
According to the Oracle of Wikipedia:
the term charisma (pronounced /kəˈrɪzmə/; pl. charismata, adj. charismatic) has two senses: 1) compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others, 2) a divinely conferred power or talent.
For me Brosnan has neither of these. I don't find him compellingly attractive or charming. I find him sleazy and untrustworthy. That is actually his talent (I think we can dismiss the divinely conferred powers bit) - the ability to convey morally dubious characters. It's why he is very good in TTOP and The Ghost, but (IMO obviously), attrociously miscast as Bond. Unless of course, as some will doubtless argue, Bond is supposed to be played a morally dubious sleaze.
You could argue that this where DC is taking the character (conflicted loyalties, shagging women who were child prostitutes and not blinking an eye lid when they're muredered infront of him etc). But with DC it is deliberate. Had Brosnan deliberately given us a more conflicted and complex Bond I think that might actually have worked. But EON at that point was not ready to do that and frankly I'm not really sure Brosnan has the range or subtelty to pull it off.
I do have a few issues with Brosnans Bond but if there is one thing I think he has, than it's charisma. In the sense of compelling attractiveness that is.
I do think had Dalton been cast earlier like in 1972, he would have been accepted into the part. He was seen as a romantic lead having done films like Wuthering Heights.
The problem with the Bond franchise is that fans complain when everything is same old, same old. And as soon as the producers accomodate some change, the fans that wanted change complain they want the old style back.
When Dalton came on board, and in fact towards the last years of Roger's tenure,there was media criticism that Bond had become silly and unbelievable. I even remember people saying so.
As for Lazenby doing more with the character? You must be joking!
For starters, Lazenby is not an actor. It was Peter Hunt's direction that made OHMSS a classic. But Lazenby had so many lines overdubbed by another actor that it contradicts your assertion that he did more than Dalton could have done in 5 films.
Effectively you are saying that Dalton as an actor who could hold his own with Anthony Hopkins in The Lion In Winter could not do more with the character than Lazenby? I think you need to go back and think through what you wrote.
If you watch Dalton's films, he captures many shading of 007 in just 2 films. He went to the books and Cubby in his autobiography asserts that Dalton worked his ass off to give an authentic portrayal of Fleming. He even studied Fleming's own life to get as much detail.
You wanted Dalton to take the the easy route and look what happened to the Brosnan era. Keep it formula and what people expect and the franchise goes off the cliff losing it's integrity. Only simpletons think Bond is formula.But reading John Glen's book, it is anything but. That is why the films grew and grew in popularity.
Peter Hunt made no secret that Harry Saltzman wanted Lazenby. And he made no secret that Lazenby was moulded to be another Sean Connery.
This Dalton assertion that he has no charisma is a similar assertion that some fans say about Craig. And it is untrue in both cases. Dalton knows how to work the camera and even the director of the Johnny Depp film The Tourist says so in the commentary of the film.
The Bond producers cannot keep complacent in a fast changing world. If you don't try, you don't get as the saying goes.
Connery is always going to be Connery. Some fans want the next actor to copy his style and that is fine. But when you are an actor, what the F is the point of being someone else?
But in truth, Connery is a one off and the only way you will get another Connery is if you genetically clone him. Plain and simple. Each actor is different and brings something to the role. And change always means fan debate which means publicity.
Some fans say Roger Moore was wrong for the part. But it is not as simple an assertion. Roger Moore made the part his own and discarded Sean's image for the role. Had he cloned Connery, it would not have been as successful for him.
I will finish off by saying had Dalton said upon taking the role that he was going to emulate Connery then you would be absolutely right. But Dalton having huge respect for Connery saw no point in copying him and wanted to go back to the books which the early films were based on more accurately. If you wanted Dalton to be Connery, then my question is why bother hiring him?
No actor will be able to duplicate Connery unless they look like him, sound exactly like him and have his exact personality. In a nutshell, impossible! No two fingerprints are alike and no two actors are alike.
Me too. This has probably been posted elsewhere...
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2012-11/08/timothy-dalton-the-best-james-bond-007?utm_source=Outbrain&utm_medium=CPC&utm_campaign=Outbrain%GQ
GQ no less. Brilliant article and exactly what I think. Even in the age of the internet, some fans knowledge of any Bond eras history is poor. There is no excuse for that. Back in 1987, I had to spend a fortune on buying bond books to get the history of who the character is both literary and cinematic.
I felt I should know as much as possible as Bond holds a fascination for me.
Have you read a Fleming novel? Seriously @Bain123 despite me explaining to you countless times that Dalton was emulating the man from the books, you still keep hammering that Brosnan had more charisma.
Have you seen Dalton in Brenda Starr? He oozes it but in that film he is playing cliche.
The bond of the books is an understated character. Would you want an actor to play Hannibal Lecter as a vegetarian even though he is a cannibal in the books just to make it easier to like the character by an audience?
Dalton was fully aware of the cinematic Bond, but he played the charisma aspect subtly only in scenes that were called for. Not all the time.
Dalton suited more to television? That's why Peter O'Toole who did Lawrence Of Arabia winning Oscars gave him his first break in cinema. And Catherine Hepburn also wanted Dalton.
Colin Farrell on the set of American Outlaws said Dalton was a pro and you can learn from him. But you think otherwise? Are you an actor?
The problem is that many fans think they know what playing Bond takes, but let's remember one thing. None of us have a real clue of what it is like for an actor taking on the part. It is so easy sitting on our asses and dishing out "he should have done this or done that!".
John Lennon even said people who have no clue, always seem to think they have all the answers.
@Bain123, I would love to see you try out for Bond and see your charisma. Before you criticise someone for not having it, let's see what you got?
I am not having a go at you @Bain123 but highlighting that you have to judge a Bond actor in context to what his aims for the role were. If he says he is doing Fleming, then there is no point of comparing him to an actor who is doing cinematic with a hint of Fleming.
I'm not saying he isn't a professional. He seems to be very much a professional in terms of how he conducts himself and that's obviously got to be praised, but facts speak for themselves. Despite playing one of the most famous roles in cinema and despite his prestigious background he hasn't really had the kind of film roles one would have expected him to have. He said himself he "likes a challenge" but I don't really call roles in Bugs Bunny films particularly "challenging" - not for an actor of his stature.
I get what he was trying to do in Bond (a more serious, less likeable spy) but I still stand by what I say.
Try watching his performance in The Lion In Winter.
But that's my point. That is another example of the type of role he's best at theatrical roles.
I've compared him in the past to actors like Charles Dance. Fine actor no doubt but ultimately stage-orientated. Dance, like Dalton, is great when it comes to scene-stealing side roles in films but he might not be suited for star roles in films.
Dalton had a successful theatre and television career. If you know about him, he actually turned down many film roles in the 70's, saying he wanted to work on his theatre acting.
Dalton came from an era where as a real actor, you gained the highest accolade for theatre. Anthony Hopkins did not become a movie star until 1991. And at the time, no one thought he was a star.
The problem with playing Bond back in Dalton's day is that you would be excluded from roles because of playing the good guy character. Also, because the media crucified him as Bond after he left, it dried up opportunities.
Before he quit Bond, he got cast in a major adaptation of Scarlett where he was brilliant.
It took Connery 16 years after he quit Bond to finally get recognised as the actor he was. His Bond typecasting meant he had many roles which were beneath him.
In Connery's case, it was The Name Of The Rose and The Untouchables that made him finally get the work he deserves. And we are talking about the man who was the biggest movie star in the world as Bond.
Today's Bond actors, are allowed to do other roles outside of Bond and audiences accept diversity easier. But when Dalton left, casting directors thought he was too associated and felt the Bond baggage would hinder them in their roles.
So is Dalton Shakespearean in Hot Fuzz??????????????? Because if he is, then Daniel Craig is my twin brother.
Looks theatrical to me. He even picked up Gary Oldman's advice about "enunciating" ;)
Dalton isn't Shakespeare in Hot Fuzz but he is theatrical. Again it's the sort of role he'd be really good at (and is). Its over the top. Almost like a pantomime villain.
Acting is theatricality @Bain123 Cinema is a medium totally based on the theatre. In some ways, that is why we see less differences between actors who are movie stars. They look different but are similar in terms of style.
Gary Oldman rarely got leading roles. Most of his film are supporting roles or as the villain. When he did roles as the lead, the box office was poor. So by that assertion, Tom Cruise is a better actor?
You have to realise that Hollywood is political and your acting ability is not the first thing they judge you on. It's how many asses can you get on a seat at the cinema.
Money first, talent second.
By the way, I don't know as his performances in roles like Hot Fuzz and The Rocketeer could be described as theatrical as you seem to be using the term.
@acoppola. But unlike Dalton, Oldman still is seen more on the screen and he still often gets quite an integral part. Oldman can adapt more to different styles and different characters. I don't know if Dalton quite can.
Perhaps the best example I have to better define what I mean by that sort of distinction was the difference between Jack Nicholson's and Heath Ledger's take on the Joker. When I watched Jack's take, I never saw past Jack Nicholson; when I watched The Dark Knight, I forgot it was Ledger just playing a part. To me, the second is the mark of a great "actor".
I'd say the same is true for Gary Oldman (also in the Batman films). He's a very good actor. He can adapt to different parts and make the two feel completely different. Who would have thought the baddie in Air Force One and Commissioner Gordon were the same man. They aren't alike at all. Dalton is too dramatic in style and I suppose thats why he often seems to get "over-the-top" roles.
Most of Oldman's roles are villains which allow more flexibility. But Oldman, like Dalton puts their own stamp on anything they do. You cannot confuse the two and that is what it is about.
Dalton said he gets a lot of offers, but finds the parts done to death so turns them down. Have you seen him in Framed? He is anything but overly dramatic. It depends on how they see you playing the character and what they want.
Oldman and Dalton are never cast in the same parts. Well they are different actors but very skilled. I mean a casting director will cast you on qualities they see you can bring. Just like you are not going to cast Oldman in a part for Johnny Depp. Actors are there to add different flavours to a part.
All the actors I mentioned are different and it all depends on the movies being made.
But you seem to judge actors by their financial success and sadly we live in a world where talent does not win the day.
Shia LaBouef gets bigger parts than Dalton, and he is hardly an actor I would call fascinating. He's a movie star and that speaks volumes.
But if you cast Dalton in a Roman Polanski film then that director would use Dalton in a way that would surprise you. Dalton can do wide ranges but is asked to do less than he is capable of.