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
"don't always feel "off the cuff"? Not sure what you mean there. In 1987, Dalton was the best actor they had so far in the role. It is so obvious when you look at all his shadings he brings. I know some of the scenes Dalton was not happy with but Glen would say they are fine. Dalton would watch some of the dailies and tell Glen he wants a reshoot of the scene but was told no.
It got to the point where Glen stopped any of the crew seeing the dailies as Tim would ask others if they thought scenes needed improving.
Dalton is amazing in the scene in M's office. He is so commanding and steals the scene.
Unlike Connery and Moore who were both groomed for the part, Dalton was straight in after having finished a film on friday and starting Bond filming on a Monday. That is impressive. Only a highly talented actor could do that.
Craig himself said he needed preparation time before CR filming started. Dalton had none.
I remember Glen is his book getting into an argument with Dalton, when he wanted Bond to have his hands in his pocket in a scene. And sure enough, Craig on the SF poser has a hand in his pocket now.
Yes Lazenby was natural in the sense he was not acting in that final scene. But Hunt on purpose ignored him and isolated him to get that from him.
You could not have done that with Connery as in ignoring him. Connery would have approached that scene differently.
A young Dalton of 24 may have been pushing it. Dalton said many times he never wanted to be the man to follow Connery when he quit. He wanted to be a better actor first. But he could have pulled it off. He looks older in Wuthering Heights which is 1970.
Had Dalton taken the role in 1968, then Bond history would be different for sure. He had the perfect look for the era and was often cast in famous romantic roles. Women of the time would have been attracted to him immensely and I actually think he would have become a megastar. 100%!
And his Bond would have been more womanising in the early 70's.
But Cubby and Harry saw something in him. And so do I!
Dalton was on the shortlist for LALD according to some. He would have been great under Hamilton's direction. Moore was the number one choice as they needed a more famous face to take over from Connery after what happened with Lazenby.
He was approached in '68 just after Connery quit for the first time. He looked young but older than men of 24 do now. Had he said he was game, Cubby would have signed him.
But as an actor, he could have done more with OHMSS than Lazenby. Just as an actor.
I actually wish they signed Dalton in the early seventies. I know there are Moore fans here, and Moore was cool, but I am just curious as in what if?
But Lazenby owns that film now and forever. His image is right for it no doubt. And he was 30.
Dalton actually could been Bond in '81 when Cubby and Roger had differences. He was approached in '80 but said he was not interested. But had he shown huge enthusiasm to Cubby, he was in for sure.
I believe Rog was almost signed on in 1968 and also Dalton was in the running around this time too.
Cubby in his book said Dalton was not interested especially after the goofy Moonraker. So in the end Moore was persuaded to come back. At the time Cubby had no script to show Dalton and that is why Dalton refused to commit to the part.
But Cubby really liked Dalton and had he shown true interest and not "I'm not sure if I want to", then Cubby would have grabbed him. And Dalton starting as Bond in '81 would have meant a five film run until '89.
From a producers perspective you have an actor in his mid thirties and an actor in his early fifties. Dalton turned them down and that is why Moore continued on.
But knowing the history of the legal battle that left Bond off the big screen for six years, I would have preferred Moore stopped at 4 films which is still a lot of movies. That way he and Moore would have the same amount of films.
FYEO Moore is great. But it would have suited Dalton too.
Thank goodness Moore did not do it!:) They would have had to change the style to suit his personality and I cannot imagine it being anything like it is.
I enjoyed it though I still don't know how I rank OHMSS. My girlfriend said and I agree, that it feels so different.
I think it's a beautiful movie and I love the faithfullness to Fleming. The office scene is fantastic and the music of John Barry is amazing.
That said, I think it does not capture what I see in OHMSS when I read it. And I am surely in the minority here but, had Connery been a bit more motivated, I would have loved to see him in OHMSS.
Why? Because imo, OHMSS is about an older 007 who slowly realises (thanks to Tracy) that he wants to lave this life of danger and death behind him. Bond in the books imo has a certain journey in search for happiness and after the disappointment with Vesper and many following adventures and girls finally finds the right girl and wants to settle down.
I just can't see that in young Lazenby. I think OHMSS was the worst movie they could have chosen for a young "actor" and especially as his first movie.
They tried hard to make us believe the connection to the older movies and the continuity..but for me it does not really work. (Even though I love Bond going through the souvenirs in his desk)
Lazenby does alright for someone who has never acted. He actually surprises me in some scenes but overall he just lacks the acting skills that were needed for that movie or at least to convince me.
I also think him trying to copy Connery didn't work too well and he really gave me the feeling that I am watching a model. His movements and the way he runs, it just does not feel so natural, not as natural as Connery anyway.
Overall I get the feeling of a model posing as Bond, rather than watching someone living the role James Bond.
Blofeld is the best of the three but still not how I imagined Blofeld. And the continuity problems concern me more than they should.
Diana Rigg is fantastic imo, even though I think the love between Bond and Tracy feels rushed in the movie. It works fairly well til Piz Gloria. Tracy vanishes and we see Bond, who is supposedly in love, bedding one woman after the other. When Tracy finally (and suddenly) reappears, I had a moment of "Oh yeah right, she is there too". The proposal is thus rushed too imo, though I know there is only so much time you can use in a movie.
There are some dated scenes in all the older Bond movies but I really can't stand the editing in the otherwise great fighting scenes.
And before somebody is saying something, no I am not 12 and I am not looking for CGI action in a Bond movie...but somewhere down the road OHMSS drags a bit imo.
The attack on Piz Gloria and the ending are fantastic and it's a crying shame that DAF is what it is....but overall OHMSS still won't rank as high as it should.
And maybe it really comes down to Lazenby...
I agree that Lazenby should not have been given OHMSS as his first movie. That film is too good for the actor he isn't. Non-negotiable. Ironically the worst actor of the 6 Bonds gets the film that requires the full use of acting skill. And arguably one of the most visually beautiful films.
George Baker should be credited as Bond too, as he did the comedy moments in his wonderful English accent.
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/2764/on-her-majestys-secret-service-very-overrated
I mean that you can see Dalton go into full on acting mode. It's like he thinks he's onstage. He's rehersed every expression, every movent in his head before he actually performs them.
I can't quite put my finger on it but it is something that has troubled me for a while.
Again as I stated before, in my opinion, Lazenby is pretty close to amazing for someone who had never acted before, and should be cut a little slack, coz I think he played, brilliantly, a character that's in keeping with the tone of the movie
To be fair, given the bad comments on Lazenby I'd been hearing all my life, I expected to hate him when I saw the movie and was rather suprised at how "not hateful" he was. He wasn't great... I still stand by what I just said, but he certainly wasn't as bad as I thought he was going to be based on the general Lazenby criticism. He was even endearing in parts.
You are making no sense whatsoever. I have seen Dalton in the theatre and he does not act like that even on stage. He doesn't think he is on stage in Bond, but because he brings more intensity to the role, it can seem unusual. But he is not. Connery did not have the same acting range and so played to his strengths as an actor.
Connery became great years later as an actor, but in the Bond films, he was not stretched and at the time the part was so formulaic that it was left at that. Connery actually complained that the scripts were not challenging and why he quit. I mean of course Dalton will look like he is trying when Connery or Moore are sleep walking the part in places.
All actors rehearse their parts @Bain123 When you are doing a film, you have to know your lines and the scene as well. Film stock is very expensive as well as paying a crew. If he did not rehearse then the film would go over budget and the sh*t would hit the fan. He captured the different personality traits of Fleming's Bond who sometimes is a nervous wreck as well as shaky or bitter. It's all there in Dalton's performance and why his two films hold up. Crap acting goes out of fashion like nothing else. I mean watching some 1950's films and they are so dated because of the acting.
With all due respect, but if anything, people have said Dalton is too good an actor to be playing a part like James Bond. That was the criticism. They felt the role was not demanding but he showed in his two films how high the bar can be set. And don't think for a second that when Barbara Broccoli cast Craig, she did not remember her days on set with Dalton.
It's very strange your assessment because I had a friend who studied film history and he said Dalton superbly underplayed Bond. I mean with all due respect but you called Lazenby a natural. Keanu Reeves is a natural too in that sense when he started out.
One thing you cannot criticise Dalton for is his acting. You may not appreciate his approach but any one with a true knowledge of cinema would never say that about Dalton. He is a highly respected actor in his profession.
Dalton's acting is beyond the movie star approach. Theatre acting is the hardest because you cannot afford a mistake or everything falls down and you mess up others lines. So a film for him is easier. The best actors always do theatre. Oldman, Craig, Dalton, Hopkins. Look how unique they all are. Can you confuse one with the other??????????
The director of the Johnny Depp film The Tourist said Dalton knows exactly what he is doing and knows his marks. He is a professional who will do exactly what the script dictates and not what suits him.
Unfortunately we live in a day and age when what passes for acting is really bluffing it.
But I do wonder whether he's more suited to that kind of medium. I'm no expert on acting BUT I do know Dalton has somewhat gone "off the grid", which is a shame given his training in acting and drama. Ultimately you would think he would be more recoginised like Oldman, Hopkins etc if he was suited to film.
Maybe Dalton IS too good an actor to play Bond but, in that case, he's also too good to be in light TV shows/movies (which, looking at his IMDB, page seem to take up a fair bit of what he has been in post Bond).
Agreed Connery perhaps wasn't the greatest of actors bck then but he still had a couple of meaty, "acting" roles outside of Bond. Namely The Hill - a very well regarded film - and Marnie where he plays an even darker character to his 007. Even in Bond he got some great "acting" scenes (the showdown with Grant on the train is superbly done by both men and is IMO the best scene in the series). There's also the sequence when he finds Jill dead in GF and also his confrontation with Fiona Volpe in TB. Yes his films got more cartooney but nonetheless Connery did sometimes demonstrate he had the acting chops too.
I'm not saying Dalton was a BAD actor at all (he is indeed superb in the Pushkin scene, the opening with Saunders and the scene with Lupe on the boat in LTK) but I do have a suspicion more adaptable to theatre and TV. His filmography suggests that.
Back to Lazenby, I'm not the biggest fan of him (at times he WAS very stiff - particularly in the early scenes) but I do admire the way it didn't LOOK like he was acting in that final scene. Its one of the few times in the series I actually got a bit of a lump in my throat. Some of his other scenes with Diana Rigg were great (arguably Rigg did all the work but even so) and, for an actor with no previous experience, he did manage to pull off probably THE hardest emotional scene of all (and Rigg was playing a corpse on his lap). True he got some help from Hunt but ultimately it was his own emotion that made the scene effective. Maybe it was the fact that Laz was inexperienced which gave him a vulnerablity.
I think some people just mistake the fact that he is a bit more expressive than the other Bonds as "overacting". Who knows. All I know is after watching Dalton in some heart-wrenching scenes in Sins, I am sure he would have brought incredible dramatic gravitas to OHMSS. A lot of Lazenby's acting didn't seem all that natural to me.. it just seemed a bit green, someone trying to act. An amateur.
As for Dalton, he was usually cast as the dashing, romantic lead a LOT, which is obviously more suitable for a younger actor. He played that part the most he could until age caught up with him. He got typecasted as that... royalty... dark romantic leads, etc. I think he once said that nobody gives him these roles anymore because they'll always cast someone younger. Also the Bond thing I assume hovers over anyone who has played Bond for quite a bit. It's huge, huge thing to shake off and it can be a double-edged sword. Remember Dalton got a lot of hate for a long time so some Hollywood bigwigs would have considered that a turn off.
There's a lot to the circumstances surrounding each actor. Don't just say.. oh because he wasn't in many huge ass movies, then he is not movie caliber. That is too big and unfair a generalization. Yes, Dalton may have done plenty of TV but look at the roles he got... Julius Caesar, Rhett Buttler, Edward Rochester. It takes a hell of an actor, from both the physical and skills standpoint to take on these roles. You've got to look at the big picture.
Dalton started his career in film opposite Anthony Hopkins in The Lion In Winter. Unfortunately the acting business is not about acting in itself but how many tickets you sell. That is why actors like Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise get a lot of work.
Bear in mind that once you play Bond you are type cast. Craig is in a different era where casting directors will cast you in films despite your association with the role of Bond. But when Dalton left Bond, it became difficult through the association.
Brosnan has done 4 Bonds and despite his fame is not getting huge roles. No where near the size of fame Bond gave him.
Connery's career post Bond was not great as an actor. I said before, he was the biggest star in the world as Bond and look how long it took him. His films underperformed and it took him many years until he got roles to match him. The Name Of The Rose as well as The Untouchables. But De Niro also was a reason why the film did so well. He was a huge star in terms of draw.
Dalton being an actor that spent most of his career playing romantic leads when he was younger was typecast as that made roles harder to come by. You are not going to get cast as a romantic lead at 50. Not in Hollywood.
You should see him in Scarlett the follow up to Gone With The Wind. He is anything but theatrical and you would think he is American as he is playing Rhett Butler. That was in 1994. He was great as Rhett Butler.
Actors like Hopkins or Oldman played mostly villains and that is what American casting directors look for when casting a British actor mostly. especially an older one. Guys like Henry Cavill are still very young and so their roles are matched to that.
British actors who are older have to compete for supporting roles rather than leading ones. Hopkins is the biggest success there.
But it would be unwise of you to judge an actor on exposure or fame. Samuel L Jackson as well as Morgan Freeman struggled for years and got their breaks in films that were not expected to perform amazingly at the box office but did.
Had Samuel l Jackson not done Pulp Fiction, then his career would be smaller. But the huge hit Pulp Fiction was made his pay check as well as choice of roles soar.
Until John Travolta was cast in Pulp Fiction he was seen as past it and unemployable. But Tarantino being a fan of the actors he sees as being neglected but with huge potential, takes risks and casts them.
Anthony Hopkins said he saw many great actors destroyed by the press. You have to understand @Bain123 that Hollywood is a business and always has been.
In Dalton's case, the Bond role was a blessing and a curse. It gives you fame but then it also prevents roles because of the image overhang. Hopkins did not have that baggage to contend with.
Also Dalton turned down many roles as he thought they were boring. He would sooner do a smaller budget film than be in a big blockbuster with a shit role.
Someone like Dalton is not in it for the money. He is rich as it is. He must have been paid well for his third Bond film as contractually if it is not made, he still has to be payed.
And he got $5 million for Scarlett back in '94.
Hollywood is so full of politics. Mel Gibson went off the grid too despite being a no 1 box office draw. Shia La Boeuf is hardly a great actor but he gets little girls into the cinema and the joe averages can relate to him and do not see him as a sexual threat.
Bloody hell @Regan I just read what you wrote after I posted my own response. Wow, but all I can say is that great minds think alike! :)
gee, I know!!... are you reading my mind? one post after the other within seconds!