Many people look at Sean Connery as their favorite Bond, but I guess I just don't see why ?

16791112

Comments

  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited June 2022 Posts: 554
    I'm always skeptical about "X is my favorite but Y is the best" statements. There are obviously many reasons to declare one actor "the best Bond", whether it's your unvarnished opinion, nostalgia, or a possibly subconscious desire to signal that you have correct/novel opinions.

    You can make a list of Sean's strengths, declare them to be the key to a great Bond, and then tautologically declare Sean the best by virtue of his being the most Sean Connery-like, but the other actors all brought things to the table that Sean didn't do as well, or at all.

    Sean is probably the most unrelatable and least human of the bunch, for example. He doesn't seem to have great affection any of his women, or strong distaste for his villains. He's easily the most invincible of the bunch. Even in his imperial phase (FRWL, GF, TB), he kind of cruises through the movie until he is saved by his leading lady. Thunderball is the only film where Bond is never captured; in Goldfinger, he's comfortably captured most of the time with little to do but act cool.

    Now I wouldn't want to trade those cool, danger-free moments from these films, but having the more human touch of the other five Bonds is not a bad thing, and is generally probably what you want in a hero character--Fleming's Bond certainly had it.

    So Tim may be less of a ladies man, and Roger may not always seem quite as deadly, but from moment to moment, their Bond's seem a bit more engaged and concerned about the job at hand.
    I think he has a good bit of affection for Domino in TB.
  • Posts: 1,917
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Indeed. It's always been a bit bizarre to me that some fans are convinced that Craig 'hates James Bond' - whereas I honestly don't think that any of the other actors has cared as much or been as committed to the role.

    Never ever have I understood where the "Craig hates Bond" nonsense comes from! It makes no sense unless one is inclined to unfairly zoom in on his wrist-slitting comment, which was dropped after an exhausted Craig had crawled out of the trenches of a challenging production. The man clearly put his back into it; he gave it his all. He trained hard to stay in shape, sat down with the producers and screenwriters to see where they should take the character next, and did a lot of promotion work. It's one thing to not like where Craig helped take the character of Bond, but to call him a hater of Bond is downright absurd.

    Yes, ridiculous and overused by haters. And throw in their similar claims about the producers, which found a resurgence with their recent award announcement.
    I don’t know how you can watch Dr. No and not think “this is James Bond”. Connery was electric on screen from scene 1. His commitment to the role might have wavered later in his tenure, but he made the role. I think there are strong arguments in favor of every Bond actor, but it wasn’t until arguably Craig debuted in Casino Royale that a Bond actor quite lit up the screen and controlled the role, and public perception of the role, the way Connery did.

    Had the original plan to have a Cary Grant or David Niven play Bond for a one-off, Bond may have very well just been another part of those actors' illustrious careers. It's telling that Connery made the role his from the beginning.

    Also, this is not a Brosnan bash, but this is where he was at a disadvantage because he had the preconceived perception, born to be Bond, that we got what we expected from him and a Bond role of the time and where Craig was able to take it somewhere else.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 693
    He was the only flawless Bond. When he was on-screen there was no denying that he was the character.
  • R1s1ngs0nR1s1ngs0n France
    edited June 2022 Posts: 2,148
    For me Connery will always be the definitive Bond.
    It’s not just his looks, natural charisma and the way he carried himself that cemented him as such, but it was his consistently brilliant delivery of both serious and humorous dialogue, especially in his first four films, that proved to be his greatest strength.
    His exchanges with Dr. No, Grant and Goldfinger (and to a lesser extent, Largo) are shining examples of this and to this day have never been topped as far as I’m concerned.
    He did benefit greatly from having expertly written dialogue delivered by such wonderful actors like Wiseman, Shaw and Fröbe/Collins but boy, did he rise to the challenge.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    Said it before, but the series wouldn't have survived the GF onesie if it'd been worn by anyone other than Connery! ;)
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,280
    Venutius wrote: »
    Said it before, but the series wouldn't have survived the GF onesie if it'd been worn by anyone other than Connery! ;)

    Onesies in 1964? It's a mad, mad, mad world. :)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Said it before, but the series wouldn't have survived the GF onesie if it'd been worn by anyone other than Connery! ;)

    Onesies in 1964? It's a mad, mad, mad world. :)

    I thought Connery introduced the onesie in Zardoz.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,589
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Said it before, but the series wouldn't have survived the GF onesie if it'd been worn by anyone other than Connery! ;)

    Onesies in 1964? It's a mad, mad, mad world. :)

    I thought Connery introduced the onesie in Zardoz.

    Nah that was the knee high boots and a nut sling.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Said it before, but the series wouldn't have survived the GF onesie if it'd been worn by anyone other than Connery! ;)

    Onesies in 1964? It's a mad, mad, mad world. :)

    I thought Connery introduced the onesie in Zardoz.

    Nah that was the knee high boots and a nut sling.

    I stand corrected.
  • Posts: 1,493
    R1s1ngs0n wrote: »
    For me Connery will always be the definitive Bond.
    It’s not just his looks, natural charisma and the way he carried himself that cemented him as such, but it was his consistently brilliant delivery of both serious and humorous dialogue, especially in his first four films, that proved to be his greatest strength.
    His exchanges with Dr. No, Grant and Goldfinger (and to a lesser extent, Largo) are shining examples of this and to this day have never been topped as far as I’m concerned.
    He did benefit greatly from having expertly written dialogue delivered by such wonderful actors like Wiseman, Shaw and Fröbe/Collins but boy, did he rise to the challenge.

    100 % agree with you. And Connery just owns the cinema screen, not just as Bond, but look at him in The Hill, The Offence, The Man Who Would Be King, The Untouchables, The Hunt for the Red October, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade... all powerhouse performances. That's why he became a superstar. Roger, Brosnan, Craig have all been very popular Bonds, but for all of their successes (and Craig is, IMO, the best actor amongst them, along with Connery) none have reached that legendary superstar status.

  • Posts: 1,630
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Said it before, but the series wouldn't have survived the GF onesie if it'd been worn by anyone other than Connery! ;)

    Onesies in 1964? It's a mad, mad, mad world. :)

    I thought Connery introduced the onesie in Zardoz.

    Nah that was the knee high boots and a nut sling.

    I stand corrected.

    Not to mention that if you stand up too quickly, you will stand uncomfortably as well as corrected. You'll be ready for an adjustment, a "correction" of another sort.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Since62 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Said it before, but the series wouldn't have survived the GF onesie if it'd been worn by anyone other than Connery! ;)

    Onesies in 1964? It's a mad, mad, mad world. :)

    I thought Connery introduced the onesie in Zardoz.

    Nah that was the knee high boots and a nut sling.

    I stand corrected.

    Not to mention that if you stand up too quickly, you will stand uncomfortably as well as corrected. You'll be ready for an adjustment, a "correction" of another sort.

    I'm so fond of that weird little film. Imagine as a tag line for a Bond film "The gun is good, the penis is bad."
  • Posts: 2,918
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I'm so fond of that weird little film. Imagine as a tag line for a Bond film "The gun is good, the penis is bad."

    Zardoz is obviously batsh*t insane and, one one level, thoroughly laughable. But on another level it's beautifully filmed, full of evocative concepts and imagery, and has more ideas than a dozen conventional films put together. I don't have hesitation in calling Zardoz a cult classic. And Connery is one of the few people on earth who could appear in such a film and not turn it into camp or silliness. Even when dressed like something out of a fashion show for maniacs, he still has gravity and projects masculine self-assurance.
  • Posts: 1,630
    Revelator wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I'm so fond of that weird little film. Imagine as a tag line for a Bond film "The gun is good, the penis is bad."

    Zardoz is obviously batsh*t insane and, one one level, thoroughly laughable. But on another level it's beautifully filmed, full of evocative concepts and imagery, and has more ideas than a dozen conventional films put together. I don't have hesitation in calling Zardoz a cult classic. And Connery is one of the few people on earth who could appear in such a film and not turn it into camp or silliness. Even when dressed like something out of a fashion show for maniacs, he still has gravity and projects masculine self-assurance.

    I dig the entire film, and the ending, in particular, is so fine...oh, did I mention CHARLOTTE RAMPLING !!!???!!!
  • Posts: 1,630
    As for part of what made Connery great, was his understanding and incorporation of playing a part physically, and not just with his face, voice, and line delivery. He was a student of the Laban techniques. After Broccoli and Saltzman met him - during which Connery made points forcefully and directly, slamming his hand on a table or desk, they watched him cross the street outside and noted that he moved like a cat. He was not all talk - recall the time he disarmed and decked Lana Turner's mobster boyfriend. Last - and superficial as surely it be - there are the vertical lines on his face. They are a uniquely handsome aspect of his appearance. With all due respect to Barry Nelson, Connery was first in the public's eye, and not only because he was first on the Big screen and in color. Being first made a big difference, sure, but it was what he DID with that opportunity. Had Connery been just OK, this website would not be up, giving us the opportunity to blow a lot of hot air.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Since62 wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I'm so fond of that weird little film. Imagine as a tag line for a Bond film "The gun is good, the penis is bad."

    Zardoz is obviously batsh*t insane and, one one level, thoroughly laughable. But on another level it's beautifully filmed, full of evocative concepts and imagery, and has more ideas than a dozen conventional films put together. I don't have hesitation in calling Zardoz a cult classic. And Connery is one of the few people on earth who could appear in such a film and not turn it into camp or silliness. Even when dressed like something out of a fashion show for maniacs, he still has gravity and projects masculine self-assurance.

    I dig the entire film, and the ending, in particular, is so fine...oh, did I mention CHARLOTTE RAMPLING !!!???!!!

    To be watched by me some day, another entry in an endless watchlist. Charlotte Rampling has been in some good movies. I've seen a few and I can think of several others I'd like to watch.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 541
    Craig is by far the best Bond, but I can see why Connery is popular.

    He's the most well-rounded and checks all the boxes. He has the looks and sex appeal. He has the humor and charm. And could almost pass as a killer.

    He also had more opportunities than the other actors, 6 films, most of which were based on Fleming novels.
  • Posts: 2,918
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    It's sad that NSNA is only Connery's 3rd worst performance. Craig, Dalton and Brosnan don't have any performances that bad.

    How is Connery's performance in NSNA bad? It's the best part of an otherwise patchy film. I'd take Connery in NSNA over any performance by Brosnan or by Craig in Spectre.
    The supposed badness of Connery's performances in YOLT, DAF, and NSNA is wildly overstated. Even when coasting through the role Connery still had his charisma, screen presence, timing, and wit. None of the other Bond actors could summon that much in their worst outings.
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 3,327
    Connery had the whole package, in real life which transferred over to the screen. Tall, masculine, tough, no nonsense, deep voice, sex appeal in spades (even when he was in his 60's). He got voted the worlds sexiest male of the century.

    Couple that with the now legendary stories of his rough upbringing, taking down 6 gangster thugs in a fight when he was a bouncer, etc. pro golfer, living in the Bahamas and Marbella, that he spent quality time with the man himself - Ian Fleming, he basically embodied everything that cinematic Bond needed on screen, without even trying to act it. He just was like that naturally.

    There are not many actors that carry all these traits in real life, which is why Connery was a rare specimen. Most actors would need to depend on their talent as an actor to bring these traits to the screen. Connery didn't need to act out any of those traits, he already embodied all that in real life.

  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited June 2022 Posts: 1,711
    Revelator wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    It's sad that NSNA is only Connery's 3rd worst performance. Craig, Dalton and Brosnan don't have any performances that bad.

    How is Connery's performance in NSNA bad? It's the best part of an otherwise patchy film. I'd take Connery in NSNA over any performance by Brosnan or by Craig in Spectre.
    The supposed badness of Connery's performances in YOLT, DAF, and NSNA is wildly overstated. .

    I think NSNA is one of his better performances, actually. But you're really doing the same thing as the person you're quoting: It's not uncommon to hear that nearly every aspect of an unloved movie is bad. If you're talking about acting performances, nothing about Brosnan's work generally, or certainly Craig's in Spectre, is lacking in terms of acting prowess when compared to any of Connery's performances.

    There are plenty of questionable moments in Sean's time as Bond, probably more than in any of the other eras, save perhaps Lazenby. When he tells Domino about her brother, it's pretty janky, and is not generally recognized as a great moment. His driving acting in Dr No is laughable. His expression when he confronts Tatiana in FRWL is probably not quite what he was going for. Even his first "Bond, James Bond", while fantastic in isolation, is completely untethered from the rest of his performance over the following 5-6 films. He never has those tones or mannerisms again. The same could be said for his false ingratiating tone with Professor Dent, or his occasional random barking. (For some reason, Sean's Bond is at his most angry in Dr No when calling Pussfeller to his table) And in fact, most of his questionable stuff occurs when he's actually acting, as opposed to doing the heightened-version-of-yourself movie star thing.

    There’s a general tendency to look back at things that were successful and consider it to be some kind of miracle that it happened at all. (Creationists do it with the whole universe!) “Sean Connery was so brilliantly panther-like! It’s a wonder the producers didn’t mistake him for an actual panther and cast someone else! The series would have gone nowhere!” Well, no, Bond could have done just fine with someone else, just like The Matrix and Lord of the Rings did fine with other people. And just like The Hunt for Red October and The Last Crusade would have done fine with other people. Hell, in another universe, people could be saying “Thank God they got Tom Selleck out of his CBS contract, because nobody could have possibly embodied Indiana Jones the way he did!”

    We got a great Bond in Sean because the producers knew what to look for and because Terence Young helped make him great. It could have happened with another fella. If you put a suave guy in a nice suit and surround him with an inventive film like Goldfinger, it’s gonna work out. And if it didn't, we'd be talking about whatever phenomenon would have happened in its place.

    I love Sean—Outland and Diamonds Are Forever are among my favorite films—but the most overstated stuff here is the wildly hyperbolic appraisal of his acting in the Bond series.

  • edited June 2022 Posts: 2,918
    If you're talking about acting performances, nothing about Brosnan's work generally, or certainly Craig's in Spectre, is lacking in terms of acting prowess when compared to any of Connery's performances.

    Really? Craig's performance in Spectre is stolid, and would be even if the film were more exciting. And Brosnan's acting is frequently stiff and mannered, adjectives I would never use about Connery.

    Your "questionable moments" add up to some debatable nitpicks. (I am at a loss to see what was so "janky" about Connery telling Domino about her brother, and if I had ESP maybe I'd understand what expression Connery thought he was going for in FRWL.)
    We got a great Bond in Sean because the producers knew what to look for and because Terence Young helped make him great.

    We got a great Bond in Sean because Connery was a movie star in the making and the series had the good fortune to cast him. Young helped him get suited to the upper-class accoutrements of the role, but the qualities that made Connery great were already present. Directors can refine actors and help them become stars but they can't create them out of whole cloth. So you should probably give Sean some credit for why we got a great Bond in him.
    It could have happened with another fella.

    And I doubt it would have been as much of a success, just as I doubt that Terence Young's first choice for the role, Richard Johnson, would have set audiences on fire. An inescapable part of the immense success of the first Bond films was not just the audiences discovering Bond but also their discovering Connery and making him a movie star. American (and global) audiences liked him because of the rough-hewn qualities that Young sandpapered.
    If you put a suave guy in a nice suit and surround him with an inventive film like Goldfinger, it’s gonna work out.

    Hardly that simple. Did dropping the nicely suited Lazenby into an inventive film like OHMSS make everyone forget about Connery and sing Lazenby's praises?
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited June 2022 Posts: 1,711
    Obviously all of this is subjective, including whether Craig was stolid in Spectre. I think people remember it a certain way because they hate the movie for other reasons, and because it's Craig's only movie where he's not facing some emotional apocalypse. He seems quite vibrant to me in his interactions with M and Q, and quite good in his scenes with Madeleine on the train.

    I think Sean is janky in the sunglasses scene (among others) because he's wooden and emotionless, and not in some intentional "I'm a cold-blooded killer way", but more in a stiff, "George Lazenby" way. George actually did human and emotional stuff significantly better than Connery did (in Bond, anyway), and had more failings in the mundane expositional dialogue, where Connery offered a hell of a lot more charm. Incidentally, taking over from the guy who starred in a cultural phenomenon is not the same thing at all as being cast in something that becomes a cultural phenomenon, so I don't think your comparison at the end is a fair one. I do suspect Goldfinger would have been Goldfinger with a George.

    But if you think Sean is oozing charisma in YOLT, or his driving acting only stands out as comical as a nitpick, that's absolutely fine. Or if his serious scene with Domino was somehow good acting, or at the very least balanced out by the apparently brilliant delivery of "I think he got the point", that's okay too. But I suspect that contemporary reviews focused more on Sean's sexiness, and less on his talent (which developed as he went on), and most of this gushing is retrospective second-hand nostalgia.

    Unfortunately I don't know who Richard Johnson is, just as I wouldn't know who Sean Connery is had he not been cast as James Bond. Maybe we'd be in the "second-guessing Richard Johnson" thread, imagining if the Darby O'Gill guy had become Bond. Who knows.
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 2,918
    I think Sean is janky in the sunglasses scene (among others) because he's wooden and emotionless, and not in some intentional "I'm a cold-blooded killer way", but more in a stiff, "George Lazenby" way. George actually did human and emotional stuff significantly better than Connery did (in Bond, anyway), and had more failings in the mundane expositional dialogue, where Connery offered a hell of a lot more charm.

    I don't think Connery is stiff in that scene. He starts by breaking the news in a matter of fact, straightforward manner, and even puts on his sunglasses to try playing it cool. But what I've always remembered about that scene is the quiet passion--and hint of desperation--in his voice when he tells her "thousands, hundreds of thousands of people will die." There are shadings you've overlooked.

    Lazenby was given "human and emotional stuff" in OHMSS beyond anything Connery had to work with in his own films. To say he played it better than Connery would make sense only if we had an alternate universe version of OHMSS starring Sean.
    Incidentally, taking over from the guy who starred in a cultural phenomenon is not the same thing at all as being cast in something that becomes a cultural phenomenon, so I don't think your comparison at the end is a fair one. I do suspect Goldfinger would have been Goldfinger with a George.

    But if what counts is the film rather than the actor, then audiences and critics should have had no problem with Lazenby following Connery. Unfortunately for that thesis, Connery was not merely a guy "who starred in a cultural phenomenon." He helped make that phenomenon. That's why his return in DAF was such a big deal and was so rapturously received. Audiences bonded with the actor even when his films weren't what they used to be.
    But if you think Sean is oozing charisma in YOLT, or his driving acting only stands out as comical as a nitpick, that's absolutely fine.

    Yes, it's a nitpick. You're faulting Connery for turning the wheel too far in a winding chase scene where the background is rear-projected, which means he couldn't see the road he was frantically "driving" on and adjust his reactions. What actor would do well in such conditions? There's a reason why later Bond films avoided staging car chase scenes that way, by cutting down on "rear projection" and using different set-ups. After all, it's not as if Connery's career is full of bad "driving acting".
    But I suspect that contemporary reviews focused more on Sean's sexiness, and less on his talent (which developed as he went on), and most of this gushing is 20/20 hindsight.

    I've read a fair amount of contemporary reviews, and the critics, who were mostly male, didn't primarily focus about how sexy Sean was, though they praised his way with ladies. They mostly praised him for being suave and tough and well suited to the role. The fact that critics thought so is itself a testament to Connery's talent.
    Unfortunately I don't know who Richard Johnson is, just as I wouldn't know who Sean Connery is had he not been cast as James Bond. Maybe we'd be in the "second-guessing Richard Johnson" thread, imagining if the Darby O'Gill guy had become Bond. Who knows.

    Well, Richard Johnson can be seen in plenty of shows and films, including the Bond knock-off Deadlier Than the Male and an excellent 1974 TV version of Antony and Cleopatra. He was a good actor but I don't think he would have clicked in the role of Bond the way Connery did. I will also venture that Connery could have become a star even without Bond, in the way that Michael Caine or Albert Finney became successes during the 60s.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited June 2022 Posts: 1,711
    Well, I'm not only faulting Sean for turning the wheel too far. Tim overdoes rear projected driving stuff as late as TLD. I'm also considering the ludicrous expression on his face. It's all too much (Tim was nothing like that). And there's a fair amount of this in Dr No: shouting "PUSSFELLER!" or raising his voice weirdly to say "and IT'LL STAY DEAD". Or, more controversially, his "Bond, James Bond", which seems like a different character to what follows.

    One place we absolutely agree is that Sean was never given really any interesting character material at all. Not sure if that gap adds to the quality of everything, but yeah, there's not much going on with Sean's Bond, which was the point of my first long comment here a few days ago. But when the opportunity is there (e.g. the clip you linked to, or Kissy's death), I don't see anything George wouldn't have done at least as well. But to be clear, the vast majority of TB's dialogue is better coming from Sean than it would have been coming from George.
    Revelator wrote: »
    Unfortunately for that thesis, Connery was not merely a guy "who starred in a cultural phenomenon." He helped make that phenomenon. That's why his return in DAF was such a big deal and was so rapturously received. Audiences bonded with the actor even when his films weren't what they used to be.

    No, you're kind of making that up. We don't have some sample of James Bond franchises that started with or without Sean Connery. It's impossible to state to what degree Sean "made the phenomenon". His non-Bond stuff didn't set the world alight as far as I know. Like the Tom Selleck example, Indiana Jones is a great idea with or without Harrison Ford, and there's no actual reason whatsoever to assume that it couldn't have been done with another guy. A ground-breaking adaptation of Ian Fleming's wonderful series in the most innovative era of pop culture up to that time does not depend on one panther-like dude. And we have no idea what apparently capable actor Richard Johnson would have been like in Terence Young's Dr No.

    Sean's return in DAF was a big deal because the original guy was back. People are excited to see Hayden Christensen back as Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, but I don't know how much it speaks to Hayden's performance in Attack of the Clones. People were disgruntled about Matt Damon being replaced with Jeremy Renner in the Bourne movies, and happy to have Matt back. Not sure how much we can discern who the better performer is there. I think it's Jeremy--but of course I would! (Though again, Sean is obviously a better performer than George was)

  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited June 2022 Posts: 554
    Revelator wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    It's sad that NSNA is only Connery's 3rd worst performance. Craig, Dalton and Brosnan don't have any performances that bad.
    The supposed badness of Connery's performances in YOLT, DAF, and NSNA is wildly overstated. Even when coasting through the role Connery still had his charisma, screen presence, timing, and wit. None of the other Bond actors could summon that much in their worst outings.
    In the middle of a Bondathon right now (done with MR) and I have to agree. Even at his weakest in YOLT, there's an easy watchability to him.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    Revelator wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    It's sad that NSNA is only Connery's 3rd worst performance. Craig, Dalton and Brosnan don't have any performances that bad.

    How is Connery's performance in NSNA bad? It's the best part of an otherwise patchy film. I'd take Connery in NSNA over any performance by Brosnan or by Craig in Spectre.
    The supposed badness of Connery's performances in YOLT, DAF, and NSNA is wildly overstated. Even when coasting through the role Connery still had his charisma, screen presence, timing, and wit. None of the other Bond actors could summon that much in their worst outings.
    In the middle of a Bondathon right now (done with MR) and I have to agree. Even at his weakest in YOLT, there's an easy watchability to him.

    A panther-like easy watchability. ;)

    But of course, I agree totally. I do though find Roger to be the king of easy watchability.
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 2,918
    No, you're kind of making that up. We don't have some sample of James Bond franchises that started with or without Sean Connery. It's impossible to state to what degree Sean "made the phenomenon". His non-Bond stuff didn't set the world alight as far as I know.

    The fact that Bond made Connery a movie star who enjoyed a career better than anyone else who's had the role is evidence in itself. Again, part of the success of the series was the public discovering Connery and making him a star. If a few of his non-Bond films weren't successes it's for the usual reason that the public was less prepared to see him play characters beside Bond, but he overcame this.
    Like the Tom Selleck example, Indiana Jones is a great idea with or without Harrison Ford, and there's no actual reason whatsoever to assume that it couldn't have been done with another guy.

    There's no reason to assume it would have been as successful either, unless you believe actors with strong personalities are interchangeable. Tom Selleck's Indiana Jones would have been significantly different from Harrison Ford's. Would the public have taken to the character as much? I doubt it--Ford was someone who make it big in movies, Selleck never really broke out of TV. Something similar for Richard Johnson as Bond. Good actor, but didn't have Connery's charisma or killer instinct. It's like arguing that Casablanca would have been just fine if someone else played Rick instead of Bogart.

    Connery was part of the key group of people--John Barry, Ken Adam, Ian Fleming, Terence Young, Broccoli and Saltzman--that established the Bond films. Remove any of them from the equation and the success of the series becomes less sure. And Connery was the public face of the series. I don't think it would have been possible for the films to have become a phenomenon unless the actor in them was someone the public genuinely embraced. The public made Connery a star.
    Sean's return in DAF was a big deal because the original guy was back. People are excited to see Hayden Christensen back as Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, but I don't know how much it speaks to Hayden's performance in Attack of the Clones.

    Sean's return in DAF was also a significantly bigger deal and the primary selling point of DAF. Critics and audiences were far more enthusiastic about it because they had taken to him. It's wasn't just "the original guy is back." It was "the original guy everyone loved" is back, which could hardly be said about Christensen.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    Tom Selleck never really became a big movie guy, no. And neither did Sean Connery, until James Bond. Sean wasn't a huge movie star after Bond either, not until a bit after he returned as Bond in NSNA. Pierce Brosnan, not much of a movie star pre-Bond. Daniel Craig, same. So I don't see the point there, really.

    But obviously Sean Connery was tremendously popular as James Bond. Nobody's saying otherwise. But "remove [Connery, Barry, etc] from the equation and the success of the series becomes less sure"...it's just conjecture. It could have been more or less or equally successful. The course of history has not forged its way to create the perfect versions of everything: just the versions we've come to know. Obviously. Sorry to be so philosophical!

    Five other dudes played Bond, to varying degrees of commercial and critical success, and the two most popular movies among hardcore fans seem to be Casino Royale and OHMSS, two non-Sean vehicles. And most of the Bond movies, really, had they been released in 1962, would have been very entertaining movies completely unlike anything anyone had seen before, and at a vital time in pop culture. There are a million ways this all could have unfolded.

    But to me this is all interesting because when people gush about Sean's acting in Bond films, I really have no idea what they're talking about...! He was a cool, sexy, tough dude, and I love him, but when the character has no emotional interest to anything or anyone, and the films don't even explore that lack of emotional connections, I don't even know how much meaningful acting could be coming into play....
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 2,918
    Tom Selleck never really became a big movie guy, no. And neither did Sean Connery, until James Bond. Sean wasn't a huge movie star after Bond either, not until a bit after he returned as Bond in NSNA.

    But we're talking about entire careers. Selleck was a big TV star that, for all his efforts, wasn't accepted as a film star. Connery was, and though his biggest successes came in the 80s, he was still a star in the late 60s and 70s, when he made some of his best films. As a movie star he enjoyed a richer career than any of the other Bonds because the public made him a star with Bond, a bigger star than anyone else who played the character.
    But "remove [Connery, Barry, etc] from the equation and the success of the series becomes less sure"...it's just conjecture. It could have been more or less or equally successful.

    I'm not sure what would have made the series "more" successful, whereas it's clear that removing any of the major players could have resulted in less effective and less popular films.
    Five other dudes played Bond, to varying degrees of commercial and critical success, and the two most popular movies among hardcore fans seem to be Casino Royale and OHMSS, two non-Sean vehicles.

    Adjusting for inflation, Connery's films enjoyed greater commercial (and almost certainly greater critical) success than any Bond until Craig. Hardcore fans like OHMSS and CR because they're the "special" entries in the series. But what about the general public? And most hardcore fans, if pressed to name their favorite Bond, are still most likely to name Connery.
    And most of the Bond movies, really, had they been released in 1962, would have been very entertaining movies completely unlike anything anyone had seen before

    Not really, when one considers films like North By Northwest. Even Fritz Lang's Spione (1928) has recognizably Bondian elements.
    But to me this is all interesting because when people gush about Sean's acting in Bond films, I really have no idea what they're talking about...! He was a cool, sexy, tough dude, and I love him, but when the character has no emotional interest to anything or anyone, and the films don't even explore that lack of emotional connections, I don't even know how much meaningful acting could be coming into play....

    That's a really impoverished conception of "meaningful acting." Are you under the impression that Connery was just being himself when playing Bond? As Sidney Lumet said about Connery, "the thing that was apparent to me--and to most directors--was how much talent and ability it takes to play that kind of character, [who's] based on charm and magnetism. It's the movie equivalent of high comedy, and he did it brilliantly.''

    To so skillfully project a fantasy character like Bond on screen is very much meaningful acting, since Connery was obviously not Bond in real life. The lack of emotional connection was part of what audiences liked in the first cycle of Bond films, and to appear "cool, sexy, [and] tough" (and let's not forget witty) on screen required acting.
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 1,078
    But to me this is all interesting because when people gush about Sean's acting in Bond films, I really have no idea what they're talking about...! He was a cool, sexy, tough dude, and I love him, but when the character has no emotional interest to anything or anyone, and the films don't even explore that lack of emotional connections, I don't even know how much meaningful acting could be coming into play....

    One of my favourite scenes of the Connery era is in FRWL, and he's standing by the train telling one of Kerim Bay's sons that his father is dead. If I remember right, he flicks his cigarette down after he's told him, and sternly lays out his demands for the continuation of the mission. That coldness comes across in the Fleming books a lot, yet we don't see it too much on screen.
    I think I like that kind of stuff in Bond films, considerably more than having a Bond with a sentimental emotional interest in things. I don't think our current movie Bond with his resolved pre-death smile and cuddly toy is a sissy, but I don't think he's the Bond Fleming imagined.
    Connery's first four movies are the best representations of Fleming's world, and in those days it didn't really matter that screen Bond's heart was an emotional wasteland, people weren't looking for obvious played-out emotion back then.
    These days, everything is all about displays of emotion. I think Connery's Bond has simply gone out of fashion.
Sign In or Register to comment.