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
I'm a big fan of TLD, but this is a little OTT. Dalton delivers what I'd call an interesting take.
Regardless, his impact on the emotional depth of Bond, and the darker side of his character is undeniable. It’s being felt even more so now, in the grittier direction Craig has taken him this past decade. For him to have left such an indelible mark on such an iconic character with just two films, is a major achievement.
Dalton's core appeal would be that he was a genuinely fresh choice: by the end of his tenure Moore was old, weird hair lacquer and dated power suits. Dalton was more Fleming, brooding and dangerous and he Bond feel more like a spy and less like a playboy crimefighter.
Sadly, I see no evidence of a reappraisal of his films among the general public. In fact, he seems to be the forgotten Bond, more so than Laz.
Additionally, even among the die-hards, I see many who like one of his films and dislike the other.
Utterly agree!
TLD harks back to the early days of Bond.
His core appeal most certainly was that he was a fresh choice. And we were desperate for a younger, harder Bond. No denying it, I remember it well.
The reaction to Dalton though was quite mute. It was Bond so it was fine, because Bond makes money, but the reaction he got wasn't as positive as Brosnan or Craig when they came around.
We can argue about lack of promotion all we like, but Dalton didn't light the screen up. Like many I was carried along by the idea of a new Bond, so he got the benefit of the doubt. By LTK it wasn't looking good for him.
The funniest thing I read is that Dalton 'was ahead of his time'. How's that?
Serious, gritty Bond? What the hell was Sean Connery then?
He wasn't ahead of his time, he was exactly what we all wanted believe you me. We just wanted someone with a bit more big screen charisma.
Totall agree Nackers...he just didn't light the screen up at any time.He belongs on TV where he fits well (Penny Dreadful proves his talent) rather than the big screen,and Bond was too big a role.
I'd love to see Dalton in another Bond
Brosnan was more popular, as a pretty boy who had a successful US tv series and some 'B' movies here and there pre-Bond, and there's no question that he utilized the Bond role to catapult himself to 'A' list status, even if momentarily.
Dalton didn't even do that sadly. His claim to fame is serving as an early template for Craig.
Watch Dalton. Chill out about the box office returns and go on a visceral thrill ride of genuine human emotion. If you still don't get it, you probably need to take a break.
No thanks...although I do like LTK though.
Looking at the opening of TLD in Czechoslovakia, where Bond is confronted with a target he doesn't want to kill and expresses his disregard for how people want him to do his job is engrossing. When he goes chasing after Saunders' killer, jumps a fence and pulls a gun on a mother and child walking with balloons (!!!), my heart stalls as you see his own freeze up, completely shaken at what he could've done if he'd got a shot off. His hotel interrogation of Pushkin is fierce and chilling, a hard man in a hard situation. LTK has similar moments, best represented by his performance when he finds Felix and Della. You can feel the rage and melancholia actually mixing in his face right in that moment. There's also the endless moments where Bond has to talk to Sanchez, acting like a partner to him without punching him in the face for what he's done.
There's never a moment in any of Brosnan's films or Moore's where I'm a third as compelled as I am for Dalton. Yes, he wasn't as marketable as those two, but his short tenure represents to me a valuable refresher between two eras that are disgraceful to the Bond legacy in major ways. Maybe the public wanted it, maybe the public are fools.
All I know is I'm glad Dalton had his shot after being destined to the role for decades previous, and actually tried to make films that weren't the same, tired old hogwash. For a sweet moment, he'd make you think the vintage days and vintage ways were coming back, but then it was all over.
But I'm not grudging.
Although to be fair I can see Dalton's genuine human emotion - every time he grits his teeth, swivels his eyes, snorts and lets out his rather scary laugh.
@-)
Brady, we weren't fools in the 70s and 80s, and I don't appreciate the suggestion.
I simply think that no one realised what the future would hold. No one anticipated home entertainment where we would watch the Bonds over and over. Cubby probably thought they were entertainment for one evening and then people would forget about them.
We who were there were Bond fans then so we loved the films that were made then. If we didn't i'm afraid you guys wouldn't be around now to tell us how wrong we were.
Mad old world isn't it?
Glen doesn't seem very interested in giving Dalton much presence - compare how he is shown in the TLD PTS with how Brosnan is shown in the GE PTS. Sure, the first shot of Dalton turning around looks kinda cool, but that's about all we get. And then throughout the film, there is barely any effort made to give him any glamorous or cool shots or many close-ups. Again, compare with GE, where the camera is always enamored with Brosnan. It changes the way the actor comes off.
And then in LTK, Glen seems almost entirely disinterested in Bond visually. Dalton has to share his first shot with two other actors:
This is only Dalton's second film, and this is how he's being presented? Like Bond is a nobody? (And this is just the tip of the iceberg for how disinterested the camera is in Dalton in LTK. Which is not his fault, of course.)
I would argue that shooting Dalton in a dull way hurt his Bond's appeal considerably. He is the only Bond who worked exclusively with Glen, who I think we can all agree has a flat, TV-movie style. It is easy to project that failing of style onto Dalton and claim he lacked presence. Would we say the same of Moore if all Moore did was FYEO, OP and AVTAK? Perhaps.
Dalton never had the chance to appear in a visually stylish film - he never did a TSWLM, GE, CR. Campbell worked hard to make Brosnan and Craig look great in their debuts (CR PTS, talk about style!), but Dalton never had that sort of care put into his films. Again, I would say this impacts how his Bond comes off in a way that most people don't take into consideration.
I think maybe the argument is that Dalton was ahead of his time by being a vulnerable Bond with some psychological depth, which we only saw again with 100% commitment by EON in CR.
It was the phrases, 'utterly compelling' and 'oozing screen presence' that I was picking up on. If you'd said I find Dalton 'quite compelling', I might able to see where you're coming from; he has some very good moments, most notably his first 30-45 mins in TLD. Beyond that I find his movies and his portrayal solid, but to be worthy of the above he'd have to go some, especially next to Sean.
With Brosnan I find he has more of a leading man aura. No, he isn't a multifaceted actor and he's been known to deliver more layered performances outside of Bond, but when it comes to pure presence Brosnan was a level up from Dalton. He has an old school, movie star charm to him which I think resonated with audiences. He's a comforting, assured presence.
I appreciate what Dalton attempted to do, but I'm not convinced he actually had the chops to execute his vision fully.
No, we wouldn't. Roger was never the world's greatest actor, but he had pure star quality and charisma to spare.
Glen has to take some responsibility. Bond is a cinematic icon, and we see him first off in LTK squashed up in the back of a car on his way to a wedding.
The two best moments for Dalton in my opinion were his intro in TLD, and the tanker chase in LTK. Basically the book end moments of his tenure. In between he goes through the motions, but there is no spark;. Cubby had his cosy 'family', a loyal audience, and an eye drifting off the ball.
I do like TLD (not LTK) but Dalton needed to be styled better and as you say given some of that missing presence.
A fascinating perspective, @Milovy.
I would say that Dan's films are the only time where EON actually allowed an actor to work with the material fully and with consistency. Dalton was let down by his scripts at moments, and it was clear that his attempts to represent Fleming weren't fully welcomed or supported like it needed to be.
Someone like Mike Hodges, who had worked with Dalton before (Flash Gordon) and had a real masterpiece (Get Carter) under his belt - or a proven talented director like Michael Winner (Death Wish, The Mechanic) who needed a career boost and money to play with - would have serviced the Dalton era much better.
I agree that Glen let Dalton down to some extent & did him no favours. He didn't give him enough of the 'moments' to facilitate his 'presence' with the audience.
Having said that, my problems with Dalton don't have to do with that. Rather, it has to do with his somewhat contrived emotional moments, which feel cheesy more due to his acting than anything Glen did.
Furthermore, Dalton may have had an edginess in comparison to Moore and he certainly was more credible as a killer, but he also lacked a certain screen finesse in my view, particularly in comparison to his two longer serving predecessors. I can appreciate Fleming purists writing highly about his more 'booklike' portrayal, but the 'cinematic' Bond must also naturally project some class & style & hold the camera. I think he was the first Bond actor to really fall behind on this front. Brosnan was an improvement (he had style), but still not up to the level of his predecessors in terms of screen presence. Craig finally brought that aspect back in full force in CR.
Pretty much sums up how I feel.
Not sure if other fans do this, but, sometimes, I imagine other actors in familier scenes? I can see Dalton sitting next to Q in the gallery "Not exactly christmas" - he would have nailed that scene IMHO but never had wrting of directing of such quality to work with.
Can't see it myself, especially next to Craig's brilliantly nonchalant delivery. I can't help but feel that would be another case of Tim overacting - delivering that glance and smirk that he tends to call on when quipping.
He,and everyone else at EON should have realised that the world had just lost Sir Roger after 12 years as Bond,so to throw this interpretation at an audience just wouldn't work.
He should have been eased in with some 'Moore' moments and gradually take them away as each film progressed.
Also LTK was a mistake being Dalton's second film,he had a second bite at the cherry,and another chance to convince,so to make his 2nd film a 15 certificate (which cuts out all the younger Bond fans straight away),AND to make it a revenge film ,rather than a thriller (because imo TLD is an exhausting watch,its very heavy) finally hammered the nail into his 007 coffin.
The lesson was learned by the time GE arrived,you can see the 'easing in' to the role for Brosnan,and the light hearted moments combined with action and tension when needed.
One being his lack of proper physicality (moments of him running in the TLD pre-titles chase are embarrassing). Dalton's Bond doesn't feel as physical a threat at many moments, and his movements can sometimes be very unnatural and very stagey. He never had the brutish refusal to lay down and die that Sean had, his gun never felt like an extension of himself as you sensed with Roger's version, and he certainly didn't have the crazy swiftness and power of Lazenby.
The other "missing element" being a lack of style in comparison to the previous actors (and those after, actually). He had some goods suits, no doubt, but the fits seemed off the rack and not really tailored (pun intended) to him. I've argued in the past that his Bond just put on what he had around him without fussing, which is a nice character detail, but that style choice doesn't exactly make his take on the character a vibrant on screen persona. Part of why Sean is so engrossing to watch is because he was dressed in the best suits of that time, while Dalton physically had nothing to really attract the eye.
That lack of coordination and style are the things that I think stopped him from being better than he was, which I still think was pretty great. I have to be impartial though, and those are the issues I find with his performances at this stage.
Yes, yes, yes. Agreed. Re: getting a new DOP - I don't even think Alec Mills (TLD, LTK) was a step up from Alan Hume (FYEO, OP, AVTAK). So that was a shame, as well.
@bondjames Fair enough, I can understand these concerns with Dalton's portrayal. His acting is sometimes too big to be effective on camera, and I would hesitate to call his portrayal "cool" (if that's an important part of the Bond cocktail for you - and I realize it is a massively important part for most people - then you might have a problem with Dalton's Bond). I do agree that Craig perfectly marries edginess and vulnerability with Connery-esque cool in CR. He gets it right.
Craig brought that combo back nicely and I hope the next guy EON selects has it as well. I believe it's essential to the cinematic portrayal being a critical and commercial success.