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
What actually makes each Bond different?
George_Kaplan
Being chauffeured by Tibbett
The discussion on other threads about potential Bond actors and what they could conceivably bring to the role got me thinking about this. There are clearly a set of defining traits that are essential to the character, but within those parameters, there is room for variation.
I notice general discussions on this topic (outside of these forums) tend to be rather superficial; For example, Moore = charm, humour, and wit (as if the other Bonds totally lack these qualities), Craig = moodiness, and vulnerability, etc. My interest is in how these characteristics actually manifest to create a unique version of the Bond character.
I notice general discussions on this topic (outside of these forums) tend to be rather superficial; For example, Moore = charm, humour, and wit (as if the other Bonds totally lack these qualities), Craig = moodiness, and vulnerability, etc. My interest is in how these characteristics actually manifest to create a unique version of the Bond character.
^ 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
It's very hypothetical, and fundamentally they're all playing the same scene (or indeed more broadly the same character). But at the same time there's always clear differences when different actors interpret certain scenes.
How would, for instance, different actors handle the TSWLM scene where Bond reveals to Anya that he killed her boyfriend? Would Craig or Dalton have gone with something a bit colder than Moore? Perhaps with Craig there would have been more subtle little expressions/indications that he feels guilty but is putting up that front. Would Connery have played that scene more matter of fact/have forgone the little moment of silence/contemplation Moore goes with in that scene? How would each actor have reacted to Anya telling Bond that she would kill him at the end of the mission?
Bond as a character has developed in terms of how he's written in these films, and that has to be taken into account. But I think a lot of the time it's the differences in the little choices the actors make and what they bring to the role which makes the biggest differences. But at the end of the day this it's fundamentally the same character.
Vulnerability is what I think of when I consider Craig’s Bond - for me, that gave his Bond a depth of humanity that the others didn’t take to the screen (Dalton probably demonstrated similar qualities but not to the same extent as Craig, for me). That's not a sleight on the other actors, they just played different variants of the same dude.
If I was asked to sum up Craig’s Bond in one word, I would say ‘vulnerable’ but if I was asked to sum up Connery’s Bond in one word, I would say ‘Bond’ 😎.
As someone who lived through the 80's I can tell you that the reason for the change in tone of the sexual exploits was AIDS. It was deemed in poor taste to have a Bond jumping from woman to woman. Hence in Dalton's films the sex is downplayed. In fact it was big news that TLD only had one Bond girl.
This is an interesting idea for a thread and one that I look forward to putting my own thoughts into at some point.
Lazenby - Vulnerability
Moore - Sophistication
Dalton - Intensity
Brosnan - Charm
Craig - Physicality
Yes, I often do the same.
Yes, that's a scene that immediately comes to mind when I think of Moore's Bond. I think greater humanity is one of the main things that distinguished Moore from Connery's Bond. It's one of those moments where Moore's philosophy of playing Bond as a man who really doesn't like killing, comes through.
The closest comparison for Connery would probably be the scene on the beach with Domino in TB, but the circumstances are quite different. Bond isn't responsible for Derval's death and his mind is more on getting Domino to help him. We don't get that same sense of guilt and self-reflection.
But does this mean that the other Bonds have no charm, sophistication, or physicality?
For me, those qualities stood out about their Bonds.
For example, Moore have charm, but he's mostly known for his sophistication, Lazenby has the physicality as Craig's Bond, but he's best known for his vulnerability, the same for vice versa.
Well said! My own similar take on one quality that stands out about each one to me:
Connery - Coolness
Lazenby - Humanness
Moore - Humorous
Dalton - Passionate
Brosnan - Balance
Craig - Iciness
Into further detail:
Connery - Nobody could ever hope to be as cool as this guy was. He was just so impossibly smooth at everything he did, but somehow always made it believable, too. I still personally find him the most physically attractive of the six by a substantial margin myself as well.
Lazenby - The most relatable Bond to me. I’m sure it was in part a reflection of his lack of acting experience, but he just felt the most like a real person to me, but still convincing doing the things James Bond does.
Moore - Yes, he still has a dark side, but the humor really sticks out above all other things regarding Moore’s Bond. He was just naturally funny all the time - as witty and charming as they come.
Dalton - When I said passionate, I meant it - this guy clearly has a heart for girls like Kara and Pam, and also stops at nothing including sacrificing his job in the name of avenging his best friend Felix. He has a tenacity and dedication to his work as strong as anyone’s.
Brosnan - I’ve said before I look at Brosnan as the “jack of all trades, master of none” Bond, and also currently regard him as my least favorite of the main six. He’s not bad at all, but I can’t stop thinking of him as just a classic greatest hits Bond that lacks uniqueness in comparison to the others.
Craig - No Bond has been as brutal and cold as Craig’s. Yes, he’s still given vulnerability and has his soft side deep within, but he consistently conveyed a Bond that felt truly more dangerous and scary than any other.
Lazenby was the first man to really make the character much more vulnerable than he had been portrayed up until that point. His youthful, almost joyful attitude comes across as refreshing to watch after how bored Connery comes across in YOLT; and he brings a kinetic energy to the fight scenes that make them still thrilling to watch to this day. In the end I’d argue that Laz is the most vulnerable of all the Bond actors.
While humor had always been present in the 007 films, Roger Moore had elevated that humor to new levels through his take on the character. His Bond is a lot less meaner than Connery, yet never as vulnerable as Lazenby. I’d also argue that the vast array of films he was in allows him to showcase a range of emotions, which he doesn’t get enough credit for. But most importantly, Moore proved that Bond didn’t have to die with Connery.
Timothy Dalton in many ways was ahead of his time. The yearning for a “darker” Bond wasn’t there in the late 80’s, but at least audiences are coming around now. What Dalton lacks in Humor/Swagger, he makes up for in other areas. It’s great seeing a much more physical Bond after the last few Moore films, and it’s great seeing Bond actually engaging in serious spy-craft; something that had been missing since early Connery.
Many things have been said about Pierce Brosnan. For an entire generation, he’s the defining image of James Bond 007. For those of us who grew up watching his films and playing the video games; it was a magical experience. It’s been said that Brosnan brings a balance to the character that other iterations have lacked. I personally believe this to be true, but beyond that Brosnan’s Bond is the “Modern” Bond. His worldviews are a lot more modern than his predecessors (and successor), and the array of technologies at his disposal seem like strange precursors to the technological leaps we see today. Still no invisible cars though.
Like Brosnan, much has been said about Daniel Craig’s time with the role. For some, he’s one of the best. Others are less kind. Craig’s Bond revived the grit and anger of Dalton’s interpretation, and combined it with the swagger and nonchalance of the early Connery performances. It was a bold move that paid off in his first 3 films as the character, but I must admit that I find his last two performances as Bond hit and miss; with many moments leaving me puzzled and questioning if this is something Bond would do; or how Bond would react.
All in all, each actor successfully hits the notes that a Bond actor should, and perhaps some are more successful than others; really it’s all about preference at the end of the day. Each Bond gives us something different and unique and have played their part in maintaining the legacy of this series. I’m sure the next fellow will also!
That's great, yeah. I always have trouble imagining Connery in particular in scenes like that because he's the one Bond who almost never really did any moments of emotion: his one main characteristic was being supercool and barely got angry or upset- the deaths of Kerim Bay and Aki are about the closest we get, and he gets over those pretty quickly. He's the one who sort of stands out to me as being the least human. You can kind of see why he tired of it.
Completely agree. I always think it's interesting that the general perception of Moore's Bond seems to be that he swanned unruffled through his films pressing buttons whereas Connery's was grittier and more realistic, but I actually think that's just a surface impression and the reverse is true. There's obviously quite a lot of swanning and unruffling going on(!) but Moore's is the one who has more moments of connection with other characters and even vulnerability at times, whereas Connery is really more the unruffled superman most of his run. Even with Moore's generally more lighthearted and tongue-in-cheek portrayal, they were still developing the character.
Yeah, very well-put. Brosnan has said he intentionally pitched it by combining Connery and Moore's versions, and I think Craig's version can definitely be summed up that way. Although I doubt his was as conscious a decision to take from past Bonds as Brosnan's was - it's just that when you're six actors in they're going to start overlapping slightly! I think the swagger is something they definitely made sure to remember to keep though: I don't think Bond is quite Bond on the screen without it. That they made it work with a more fallible Bond is quite impressive I think: previously he's always had the swagger because he always gets it right.
But as I always say, even by FRWL the writing of these films allowed Bond a bit more overt humanity (he's much less sure of himself in that second film than in DN). It's an organic process, and as I said it has a bit to do with the actor's own interpretation of the role/how the filmmakers channeled their strengths. I do think we've seen a lot more of an overt link to the literary character in Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig's films than in previous incarnations, and I suspect more elements from that original character will continue to come through (of course with a healthy dose of that irony/tongue in cheek quality - can't really have a cinematic Bond without those things).
I agree; I don’t think there is anything wrong with borrowing elements from the previous portrayals. People use that as a criticism, particularly of Brosnan, but if I was in his shoes, why wouldn’t I take influence from what came before? Craig did the same thing somewhat but both men also add their own charm and personalities to the role that make them unique in their own ways.
The early Bond movies had less action. Now they have a lot of stunts and the actor has to compete with the stunt man. I think that's the main reason there are more "Oscar scenes".
I don't think that's the reason to be completely honest with you....
I don't see the connection either 😅
Will you please elaborate what does it mean? @DEKE_RIVERS
Look at Dr No, it's pure Connery but Thunderball had 10-20 minutes of underwater stuff. And this has not stopped over the years.
At one point the actors wanted to act.
Connery - smooth; even keel through out
Lazenby - suave; more youthful, seemingly more physical.
Moore - sagacious ; humorous while always in control. Seemed like the veteran Bond who knew what to do in any situation. Nothing would hinder him while using all the sarcasm.
Dalton - sinister. He had a calculating anger that you can see in his face driving him through the last 3/4 of TLD and especially in LTK.
Brosnan - sentimental; seemed very reflective and was put in more personal situations than the previous ones in each of the movies. GE, best friend, TND: former lover, TWINE: injured, DAD: torture and betrayal. With the slower moments he seems self reflective and, dare I say, seemed emo-like, not dissimilar from what I see on Pattison's Bruce Wayne/Batman.
Craig - shrewd; not unlike Brosnan's Bond being put in vulnerable situations constantly but, like someone said earlier, he had an iciness to it. It's like he would bury it deep down and calculate a plan around it. Surely, all do that, but he would be more unconventional in his methods as a result garnering him less trust as we see throughout the films.
I'm reminded that back in 2012 GQ Magazine (UK) had six (6) separate covers done for their James Bond Special – one for each actor. They were labeled as follows:
I think their labels are a bit simplistic, but they do highlight the fact, that each actor brought a somewhat different dramatic to the role.
https://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/72553070.html
I remember thinking during a recent rewatch of Marnie, that Connery came off a little more like Fleming's Bond than his own version, specifically his falling for a damaged woman for somewhat mysterious reasons and then trying to 'fix' her, reminded me of Bond's relationships with Pussy and Tracy in the books. That said, he's not particularly affectionate or vulnerable so it's still not the best indication of how he'd have been in a film like OHMSS or CR.
His character's name in there is Mark Rutland.
But, I don't think so, he'd forced her to be with him (there's a scene in there that when Marnie refused to obey him, he had stripped her and took advantage of her being shocked because she's undressed by him), I can't imagine Bond in the books doing that.
Bond in the books never did that, he never pushed or forced himself to any women, for all I know, from reading the books, he seemed a bit naive with how those women seducing him (they're the ones seducing Bond), and Bond was prone to them.
Connery in Marnie for me, was like he had taken advantage of her trauma, just look at his dialogue in one scene while they're in the car:
"That's right - you are. And I've caught something really wild this time, haven't I? I've tracked you and caught you and by God I'm going to keep you."
I don't think that's something that Bond would've said.
That's still Connery being his usual alpha male macho self.
I don't know at what films have I seen the closest Connery could get to Fleming's Bond, really, maybe, the being a connoisseur thing? But so did Moore.
Yes, there is something quite sinister about his motivations, but I think by the end we are supposed to believe there’s some sincerity in his desire to heal Marnie of her trauma. It’s a little bit ambiguous.
Yes, Connery was bored as hell in YOLT. Dalton didn't want to make a movie like that either. Brosnan thought that TND had too much action (this movie has one or two Oscars scenes anyway but it's not... TWINE)
Craig wanted to read the script before signing. 20 movies weren't enough I guess.
Yeah. I think it's Hitchcock's style. It's similar to his film Suspicion, where he makes us think Cary Grant wants to murder Joan Fontaine.
If the last Bond film prior to mine was DAD I'd want to read the script too before signing on the dotted line. Good on him, I say.