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
This is what's weird to me. I mean you sound like Candide, claiming we live in the optimal of all worlds. You really can't imagine a world where Dr No was one of the top ten films in the US in 1963? If a butterfly had flapped its wings in Brazil, or if it had a decent score, perhaps? ;) Of course it could have been more or less or equally successful if things had been different.
The inflation adjusted box office is all very interesting, but again, these movies were the first of their kind, and it would be surprising to me if an early film wasn't the biggest, inflation adjusted. That Star Wars outgrossed The Force Awakens by A LOT doesn't tell me that much about Mark Hamill vs Daisy Ridley.
Incidentally, Live and Let Die outgrossed YOLT and DAF. Is the idea that other guys could eventually outperform Sean commercially, but only if Sean was the guy who did Goldfinger? I mean, Bondmania lasted for two films, really. And it seems pretty damn tied up with Goldfinger. You don't think anyone else could have cruised through Guy Hamilton's film?
I think many people would say that Connery displayed more magnetism and charm than even Roger, who tended toward broader, goofier comedy and could be wooden and lightweight. And Moore wasn't fully settled into the role until three films in. Sidney Lumet was known and celebrated as an excellent director of actors, so I think his opinion has some weight. As a matter of fact, he directed Connery's best performance, in The Offence.
Dr. No was one of the top ten films in the US in 1963! It did better than anyone expected in the US. The only thing that might have raised the gross would be if a top star like Cary Grant had played Bond, but that would have been impossible because of the film's small budget and the need to keep the star on a multi-film contract.
And was Dr. No the biggest grossing film of the series? It took four movies for the Bond films to hit their box office peak. The success of the series was a snowball: more and more the public liked the package it was offered and Connery was the literal face of it.
And then Moore's next film sank at the box office lower than any of Connery's, aside from Dr. No.
It certainly wouldn't have been as big a success. Bondmania was a rolling wave that started rising with DN and crested with TB. Connery was an inextricable part of it--taking him out during GB would have likely resulted in lower box office, as with OHMSS, and complaints from critics and audiences. And are there many people beside yourself who think the film would have been as good with someone besides Connery?
Not in 2022, no! :)) It's common to look back at things and believe it all had to be that way, and the way we know it is the only way it could have been. Had John Barry contributed a full score to Dr No, that would have been one of the "necessary" components as well.
It's not like I think Sean is bad, or that I would want someone else doing it at all. I'm only saying that I have little doubt that there were hundreds of guys of comparable acting ability who could play a cool tough guy with no inner life or particular interest in his world, and have it be a Dr No-level success. (It was not a top ten film in the US--that list you provided surely includes later Bondmania-era relreleases and double billings. Wikipedia cites Variety as not having Dr No in the top ten of 1963)
As for Roger, the idea that he only "settled in" on the third film is just a retrospective view owing to the success of his late 1970s films. Without preconceptions of "what Roger Bond should be like", he's seen to give a very strong performance in his first two films, TMWTGG in particular. And he evolves the character quite well into the 1980s, resembling much more of a real human being for the most part when compared to where the series started.
The perceived lightness of his films is certainly not illusory, but the idea that it represented some break from the Connery years is. Moonraker is nuts, but it is not less nuts than YOLT. All three of Connery's first films were widely reviewed as light, comic, or possibly even satirical. Personally, I have zero problem imagining Roger doing Sean's films, or Sean doing Roger's. (Though I'm not sure rampant shirtlessness suited Roger quite as well :)) )
I'm not so sure that any other actor would have proved so popular and right in the eyes of the public and audiences. Connery had a bond with them that only Craig has really approached. The series had the good luck to cast someone with the makings of a star. And I don't think there were hundreds of guys around with "comparable acting ability" for the part. Playing a role as full of artifice and fantasy as Bond, and making it credible and wildly attractive to the audience, requires as much skill as Cary Grant in North by Northwest, or an actor in an Oscar Wilde comedy. Those sort of roles might not involve self-conscious drama, but they still require rarefied skill on the part of those who play them.
But isn't that a retrospective view also based on the success of his late 1970s films? If Roger hadn't made those, TMWTGG would be even more harshly judged. Moore's stint would have been viewed as ending in failure.
I think Roger is at his worst in TMWTGG. He's at his most stiff and charmless, and the scene where he strongarms Anders (an obvious attempt to emulate Connery) is an embarrassment, especially since Moore looks as uncomfortable as his co-star. Roger's later films wisely avoided those sort of scenes, because they didn't work with him. His Bond in TMWTGG came off as less of a justifiably ruthless bastard than a cold prick.
That's less a credit to Moore than the fact that the series had to change course after MR and return to more down-to-earth stories, including Fleming material. That would have happened whether or not Moore continued. FYEO arguably would have been a more serious film if Moore hadn't returned to the role.
Yes and no. DAF is pretty much the first Roger Moore film and illustrates the broader and increasingly self-parodic direction the series was taking.
I'm quite glad Roger didn't do Sean's, since he didn't have Connery's physicality, subtlety with humor, level of charisma, or more passionate and darker side. I think those first four films would have been less effective with Roger in them. And since Connery already did one Roger Moore film (or two, if you count YOLT) that's enough for me. He got out at the right time.
But Roger didn't only introduce nuance or emotion in the Glen films. He suggests a hint of regret, for example, about the way he tricked Solitare in LALD. It's a very minor thing, he's not Brando or anything, but it's more of a hint at a human under the superman than anything in Sean's films. In Golden Gun he clearly registers disgust at Scaramanga's claims to be Bond's moral equal. In TSWLM, he of course has his little bit about Tracy and his bit about killing Anya's lover. Again, nothing Oscar-worthy, but there's actual character there. Even in Moonraker, his most unflappable, Sean-like performance, his reeling from the centrifuge is beyond any suffering experienced in the 1960s films.
This was my point in my original comment: "Sean is probably the most unrelatable and least human of the bunch, for example. He doesn't seem to have great affection for 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."
I agree. He was sophisticated enough, yet also rough enough. A gentleman and a brawler. Go figure.
Yeah, it's just subjective. But I never feel all that much urgency or concern from Sean about Largo's nukes, or Goldfinger robbing Fort Knox, or Blofeld starting WWIII. He just kind of cruises along, and things sort themselves out. Pussy Galore solves all the problems in Goldfinger offscreen, and Largo is defeated completely effortlessly, with Bond not even ending up in the custody of the villain. He's rumbled as soon as Bond lands in Nassau. And it's all cool, but I find it less involving. By comparison, Moore really doesn't want that nuke to blow up in Germany and he's pretty pissed off about it, even in a goddamn clown suit. He dispatches even a dull villain like Stromberg with real menace.
Or when Aki, Paula, and a couple Mastersons all die, it doesn't seem to faze Sean much. Roger is clearly adamant about saving Anya, not only in the script, but in the performance. His avenging Lisl in FYEO is magnificent. Sean seems to be somewhat indifferent to his villains too, if he doesn't downright like them. Moore is clearly revolted by Scaramanga, Orlov, and Zorin, again, not only in the scripts, but in the acting choices.
Tim and Daniel obviously brought this to a different level, but Roger gave us a more well-rounded James Bond who's also a character, which I originally brought up in response to the idea that Sean had every quality one would want in a Bond. I just don't think he does. Maybe none of them do! There just seems to be that little bit more going on with Roger (and all five others, really) to make his Bond an actual character, and not just a (very) cool avatar to advance the story to the next scene.
When people discuss Sean's popularity, his success in the role is given a lot of perceived excuses. "Well, he was the first, so of course people always remember him more." "He got to be in a lot of films directly adapting Fleming's books, he had an advantage." "He had some of the best filmmakers behind him, how could he fail?" It becomes important to give the man the credit he's due, because no amount of script magic, or filmmaking prowess or being first on the stage are going to save you from disaster or career failure if you're not up to snuff. Yes, Maibaum was firing on all cylinders and the stories were gripping, yes Terence Young was an undeniable titan in making Bond a household name, and yes the very best in music, set design and costuming were on board to bring 007 to the big screen, but without a competent and captivating man at the lead of the charge, no amount of good luck or talent around them would make up for it if their star didn't shine brightest. If Sean was a weak performer, it would explode through all the movie glitz and glamor and he'd have been toast. So the fact that we're not talking about how bad Dr. No was and how it was a failed experiment at more cinematic spy fiction with a leading man that couldn't cut it says a lot about the man himself.
Sean Connery was just in that rare class of man, who made so much look so easy, you'd think he wasn't even trying. He stands with the likes of Humphrey Bogart, Robert Mitchum, Steve McQueen, Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson, Paul Newman...guys who were such gigantic presences, and who made every little thing they did seem like the coolest thing anyone had ever done. And because they were so natural, it felt like they were doing nothing at all. Until you try to replicate just an ounce of how they moved or talked, making you realize how far removed you were from their league. It's these kinds of true stars that are so rare, not just these days, but at any time. Men who lit up the screen and could make you believe anything, make you want to be just like them. Dress like them, walk like them, talk like them. Men that cool become inspirations on how to live and breathe.
Sean was a hit as Bond because he had everything that made a star a star, and that made Bond a cinematic icon. He was a perfect blend of the book Bond and a Bond for the big screen, a marriage that has created an everlasting legacy. He was able to flirt and seduce, manipulating the women around him and feasting on them like a panther would in a jungle. He wore suits like he was born in them, making pieces of clothing so restrictive in their formality feel casual on his form, like he was wearing threaded air. He had that animalistic, primal side, which made you believe the violence he sometimes had to unleash as Bond, his confidence and strong, bold movements selling the idea that this man could kill. But he also had that air of sophistication about him, which made him feel like he belonged at the gambling tables or in the finest hotels around the world, an exciting yet mysterious man of mystery. All of these things, some contradictions, made him the legend he stands as today. He was the lover and the fighter, the killer and the man of sentiment, the gentlemen and the barbarian. All the rough and smooth aspects that make up James Bond, his flaws and his merits, his rampant contradictions and idiosyncrasies, were all evoked in some way or another during Sean's tenure.
All one has to watch is his introduction in Dr. No and his game of cat and mouse in Jamaica against his enemies, his battle of wits and fists with Red Grant in From Russia, his unchained libido and sexual thirst in Goldfinger or his devil may care brazenness in Thunderball and all the best of Sean will be witnessed. Dan is the only actor since him that makes me believe in every single aspect of his portrayal, every little thread that made up the tapestry of his James Bond, because he sold each fragment of who his Bond was so well. Yes he was a man of action, a serial philanderer and dressed to kill, but his Bond was also raw and human, and Sean shined brightest when that vulnerable part of his Bond came out and you saw him fighting to survive. It's in those moments where the persona fades and the bravado is dropped, leaving behind a man who can't talk or seduce his way out of a bad situation. All he can do is survive, and survive he did.
We remember Sean Connery today because he took an untested screen character and brought him to life in a way that made his presence everlasting. While I'm sure many men of that day could've done very well as James Bond, Sean had that magnetism, that special something, that made the material that much more alluring, that much more unforgettable. He took Bond and didn't just make him a household name, he made him a phenomenon, with much consequence to himself and his own privacy. He exists now in our memory, as a titan of a medium he was so responsible for spurring on throughout his career. We must tip our hats to him not just for what he gave us, but for what he faced. The level of fame he experienced when he was at the height of Bond is unlike anything 99.99999% of the human population will ever experience, and one has to respect him from not crumbling under the weight of the publicity, the gossip rags, the robbery of his liberty in so many respects. I could not imagine that level of exposure, pressure, surveillance. Truly a one in a million kind of man.
Connery had his vulnerable moments too, where his acting portrayed this - facing Grant on his knees, tied up on the laser table in GF (his acting there is superb), TB rack stretch at Shrublands, the coffin scene in DAF, etc.
I don't think you are giving Connery the credit he deserves.
Applause! Post of the day. Handsdown.
Brady is the Sean Connery of this forum, sir.
On a quick note: The way Connery blended his "working class persona" with this sophisticated "Gentleman Agent" is what he's in common with Daniel Craig ... just "adjusted" for the respective times of production. Which - again in my view - is what made Connery relatable in the 60s as well as Craig in the 2000s.
Let's not forget in DN, when he wakes up with the tarantula crawling on him, or after he gets beaten up and ends up in a cell.
On a side note, as much as I loathe DAF overall, there's no doubt in my mind that only Sean Connery could sell the movie.
This is clearly evidenced in his brilliant exchanges with Dr. No, Grant and Goldfinger - not only does he convey his dislike for them (taunts each one of them to varying degrees of success) but he also reluctantly acknowledges their criminal intellect.
In DN and FRWL especially, Connery’s quiet rage is very palpable and you can sense he’s someone who’s intent on dishing out retribution at the earliest opportunity.
Well said. When Connery died I thought "There goes the last of the larger-than-life movies stars." Not entirely accurate, since Eastwood is still around, but otherwise true.
Connery in my mind was also a sort of cross between Clark Gable and Cary Grant. He had the earthy, aggressive sexuality of the former and the sleek charm of the latter. And like Grant, he was someone from a lower-class background who managed to slip into upper-class clothing without becoming posh or effete. Audiences of all classes loved that.
Pauline Kael once said “Connery looks absolutely confident in himself as a man. Women want to meet him, and men want to be him. I don’t know any man since Cary Grant that men have wanted to be so much.” Now, I have a pet theory that what we call "charisma" is really a form of self-confidence so strong that it seems to radiate outward from someone. Connery had that in spades, though it was tempered by his sense of humor (his timing and delivery of one-liners is still the best of any Bond actor's). That sort of charisma/confidence is the stuff movie stars are made of.
I have to wonder about that claim. Hasn't it just surfaced in recent years and why not before? After all, nobody expected that line to be iconic in 1962 and Connery himself said neither he nor anyone else involved in Dr. No expected it to take off as it did, so why be nervous about that opposed to, say, the execution of Dent? It was just another film, so an actor who it seemed rarely had reason to be nervous likely wouldn't have been rattled to just do the character's name when James Bond was hardly a household name at that time.
It does feel like a made-up story.
I do think it's right with Dr No. He doesn't like Dr No. Sean's Bond is usually not a fan of people who are planning to immediately kill him, like Dent or the guy in the Osato couch fight (both fantastic scenes). Grant, I feel Bond doesn't like from the get-go, whether he's an ally or not, and that's a good dynamic. I only really disagree on Goldfinger, as I think this is where the rot sets in. To me there's a feeling of playful competition coming from Bond, but that's about it. Largo too, even more so.
Yeah, he does look worried in those scenes, but in three of the four he gets out of the situation through no action whatsoever on his part. This is kind of part of the coasting thing I'm talking about.
I give Connery credit: he's great. He's probably the coolest Bond. There's just things I don't think he really does all that much or well, and some of it is just the way it was written. My apparent nitpicking is honestly a result of me just wondering why I never connected as much to Sean as many fans have (he was the third or fourth Bond I saw).
That's true, especially from 1958 or so onwards after the comic strip adaptations of Fleming's Bond novels began in the Daily Express newspaper.
The Bond novels had a readership, Fleming was skeptical about Connery's casting, it was his very first major role, at least as the main character, he was a former milkman of working class origins, and a Scot, playing a sophisticated British agent, that's the scene when he's introduced to the audience... there was plenty of reasons to be nervous. Eunice Gayson might have been mistaken and her memory imperfect, but I don't doubt her sincerity.
And I've done plays at uni when all the cast was nervous. Even though they were only plays produced by amateurs. We had no reason to be nervous but the desire to do well.
Craig and Dalton had moments in their films where their acting ability was allowed to really shine - M's death in SF, the death of Saunders in TLD and a few scenes in LTK. That's all well and good, but I've said elsewhere that much of playing Bond isn't about showing heightened emotions. An actor has to give the audience a sense of what Bond is thinking - when he's in danger, when he's angry, annoyed etc - often during moments where Bond is trying to hide these emotions from others. That's what Connery in his first three films and Moore could do so well.