Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Pure Fleming?
JakeDelToro
Universal Exports
Hello all. Apologies for the length of this post but I figured it was time I got involved on this forum (I signed up in May) and thought this blog post I wrote a while back might stir up some discussion. Here is is in it's entirety. It's the only post I've written thus far and although I intend to write more this isn't me trying to pimp out my writing, so I won't link to my blog unless I'm asked to.
Pure Fleming?
Over the last couple of months I have been re-reading, or more accurately, listening to Ian Fleming's James Bond novels. I have read them all before, a few years ago and decided the time was right to revisit them. I knew that the books were quite different in tone to the film series but what has struck me is just how different they are. A lot of story elements and themes are very similar, locations and plots are shared between page and screen but the central character, James Bond, is changed for the films. In fact, 'Film Bond' has been rather malleable and changes depending on which film he is in and which actor is playing him. The Bond of the novels however is quite different.
What interests me is whether or not we have actually ever seen an accurate representation of Fleming's 'Book Bond'. Several of the films have been faithful adaptations of their source material: From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Thunderball jump out as good examples but as hinted at earlier, the Bond we see in the film adaptations is quite different to the Bond from the novels. Superficially he may appear quite similar; good looking, calm and collected, intelligent and resourceful but look a bit deeper and there are certain things missing that are quite important to who Bond is in the novels.
As the book series goes on, Bond becomes more embittered towards his profession and the dark edge to his character grows even darker as the novels progress. This evolution of character is missing almost entirely from the films and although, as stated earlier, he does undergo change, it is not represented as dynamically or dramatically as it is in the books. I would argue that a lot of the time Film Bond is presented as an ideal rather than a real character; a portal for male wish fulfillment. There are moments that do show Bond as a real character; a human being rather than a super-spy. Connery and Brosnan had a few fleeting moments of this, Lazenby had an entire film in which character evolution was central and Daniel Craig's three films thus far have been heavily influenced by an examination of Bond as a man and how he is affected by his job but it is Timothy Dalton who I want to look at more closely.
Bond does express his bitterness towards his job on numerous occasions during Dalton's tenure but this seems at odds with the previous incarnation of Bond who was almost always lighthearted and seemed to play up to his 'super-spy' image. The change is sudden and there is no reason given as to why the change occurred. Dalton's Bond is more brooding, intense and seemingly dangerous, harking back to early Connery. Connery started out as a tough agent but in his last two official films descended into something else entirely, something that is closer to Roger Moore's Bond than the fearsome agent he started out as. Connery however was not the James Bond of the novels, he played up to the more humerous side of the character which is something that is not a major feature of Fleming's books. That's not to say he doesn't have a sense of humour, but it isn't focused on. He is more serious, intense and somber on page than on screen. Timothy Dalton plays it far more straight-laced than anyone previously, there are one or two one-liners but these are somewhat uncomfortably delivered.
In the novels, Bond is not portrayed as super-human as is often the case in the films. He is a man who is dedicated to and very good at his chosen career but he has many fears, vulnerabilities and is often shown making mistakes. These things are shown from time to time in the film series but in the books they remain a constant part of who 007 is, they are part of his make up and have played a big part in each of his missions. The films started out showing this to a certain degree, adding a little more lightheartedness and the previously mentioned one-liners as brief comic relief. These things have now become part of who James Bond is, or at least who is seen to be in the consciousness of the film-going public. Ask a random member of the public for a few descriptors about James Bond and I'm willing to bet 'quips' or 'humour' would be mentioned. Dalton clearly recognized this humour as invention for the film series and severely played down that part of the character, particularly in Licence To Kill. This is one of the reasons that for me, Licence To Kill is the one film from the series that feels most like a Fleming novel. The more serious, hard-hitting tone gives gravitas to the film which in turn adds plausibility to the more fantastical elements of the story. While watching the film I was surprised at how closely the film mirrors the tone of Fleming's writing. The most evident part of this is how graphic the film is, Fleming never shied away from vivid description and we are shown a shark attack and someone being pulverised in more graphic detail than ever shown in a Bond film.
The fact though remains that many see Licence To Kill as a failure. Indeed, adjusted for inflation, the film has the lowest box office takings in the franchise so clearly audiences were not receptive to the sudden change of tone. I would argue that because the perception of the character was completely different from what audiences saw in Licence To Kill and people had become so used to the joviality of the films that were a mainstay of Roger Moore's tenure that the sudden change was too much. Had the films not been portrayed as a continuation of the series and had, as originally planned, made The Living Daylights as a prequel, audiences may have been more receptive. There is perhaps evidence for this with Daniel Craig's films which are a lot darker and more serious than what came immediately before but positioned as a fresh start, audiences have indeed been more receptive to the change.
It is said among certain sections of Bond fans that Dalton offers the closest representation of Fleming's character. I have to say, I agree. I have heard different anecdotes, usually on DVD extras or television documentaries, that Dalton was obsessed with the books on set and was forever poring over the novels in order to better his portrayal of Bond. At the time the more serious take on the character didn't seem to go down to well with audiences, but Dalton's take on the character was a brave choice and with hindsight offers the closest representation we have of Fleming's hero to date.
Pure Fleming?
Over the last couple of months I have been re-reading, or more accurately, listening to Ian Fleming's James Bond novels. I have read them all before, a few years ago and decided the time was right to revisit them. I knew that the books were quite different in tone to the film series but what has struck me is just how different they are. A lot of story elements and themes are very similar, locations and plots are shared between page and screen but the central character, James Bond, is changed for the films. In fact, 'Film Bond' has been rather malleable and changes depending on which film he is in and which actor is playing him. The Bond of the novels however is quite different.
What interests me is whether or not we have actually ever seen an accurate representation of Fleming's 'Book Bond'. Several of the films have been faithful adaptations of their source material: From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Thunderball jump out as good examples but as hinted at earlier, the Bond we see in the film adaptations is quite different to the Bond from the novels. Superficially he may appear quite similar; good looking, calm and collected, intelligent and resourceful but look a bit deeper and there are certain things missing that are quite important to who Bond is in the novels.
As the book series goes on, Bond becomes more embittered towards his profession and the dark edge to his character grows even darker as the novels progress. This evolution of character is missing almost entirely from the films and although, as stated earlier, he does undergo change, it is not represented as dynamically or dramatically as it is in the books. I would argue that a lot of the time Film Bond is presented as an ideal rather than a real character; a portal for male wish fulfillment. There are moments that do show Bond as a real character; a human being rather than a super-spy. Connery and Brosnan had a few fleeting moments of this, Lazenby had an entire film in which character evolution was central and Daniel Craig's three films thus far have been heavily influenced by an examination of Bond as a man and how he is affected by his job but it is Timothy Dalton who I want to look at more closely.
Bond does express his bitterness towards his job on numerous occasions during Dalton's tenure but this seems at odds with the previous incarnation of Bond who was almost always lighthearted and seemed to play up to his 'super-spy' image. The change is sudden and there is no reason given as to why the change occurred. Dalton's Bond is more brooding, intense and seemingly dangerous, harking back to early Connery. Connery started out as a tough agent but in his last two official films descended into something else entirely, something that is closer to Roger Moore's Bond than the fearsome agent he started out as. Connery however was not the James Bond of the novels, he played up to the more humerous side of the character which is something that is not a major feature of Fleming's books. That's not to say he doesn't have a sense of humour, but it isn't focused on. He is more serious, intense and somber on page than on screen. Timothy Dalton plays it far more straight-laced than anyone previously, there are one or two one-liners but these are somewhat uncomfortably delivered.
In the novels, Bond is not portrayed as super-human as is often the case in the films. He is a man who is dedicated to and very good at his chosen career but he has many fears, vulnerabilities and is often shown making mistakes. These things are shown from time to time in the film series but in the books they remain a constant part of who 007 is, they are part of his make up and have played a big part in each of his missions. The films started out showing this to a certain degree, adding a little more lightheartedness and the previously mentioned one-liners as brief comic relief. These things have now become part of who James Bond is, or at least who is seen to be in the consciousness of the film-going public. Ask a random member of the public for a few descriptors about James Bond and I'm willing to bet 'quips' or 'humour' would be mentioned. Dalton clearly recognized this humour as invention for the film series and severely played down that part of the character, particularly in Licence To Kill. This is one of the reasons that for me, Licence To Kill is the one film from the series that feels most like a Fleming novel. The more serious, hard-hitting tone gives gravitas to the film which in turn adds plausibility to the more fantastical elements of the story. While watching the film I was surprised at how closely the film mirrors the tone of Fleming's writing. The most evident part of this is how graphic the film is, Fleming never shied away from vivid description and we are shown a shark attack and someone being pulverised in more graphic detail than ever shown in a Bond film.
The fact though remains that many see Licence To Kill as a failure. Indeed, adjusted for inflation, the film has the lowest box office takings in the franchise so clearly audiences were not receptive to the sudden change of tone. I would argue that because the perception of the character was completely different from what audiences saw in Licence To Kill and people had become so used to the joviality of the films that were a mainstay of Roger Moore's tenure that the sudden change was too much. Had the films not been portrayed as a continuation of the series and had, as originally planned, made The Living Daylights as a prequel, audiences may have been more receptive. There is perhaps evidence for this with Daniel Craig's films which are a lot darker and more serious than what came immediately before but positioned as a fresh start, audiences have indeed been more receptive to the change.
It is said among certain sections of Bond fans that Dalton offers the closest representation of Fleming's character. I have to say, I agree. I have heard different anecdotes, usually on DVD extras or television documentaries, that Dalton was obsessed with the books on set and was forever poring over the novels in order to better his portrayal of Bond. At the time the more serious take on the character didn't seem to go down to well with audiences, but Dalton's take on the character was a brave choice and with hindsight offers the closest representation we have of Fleming's hero to date.
^ 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 applaud the author in taking the time to present all the above information, incidentally
1. Despite being disgruntle at times, Bond always did his duty. I doubt the Fleming-Bond would have refused to go to Istanbul.
2. After disobeying his orders and ruining HM anti-narcotics operation, I find it difficult to believe that Her Majesty's Government would ever "let him back in".
3. Dalton-Bond in LTK appears to be out of control to the point of manic behavior. This has no context in the Fleming-Bond
4. To me LTK was more a "Martin Riggs" movie than a James Bond movie. The story really doesn't portend any relevance to the British Government. In otherwords, why is this a "Bond" novel.
5. Its ultra-violence was contrived and without any literary merits, to point of silliness.
Can someone tell me what this obsession with Bond's "Dark Side" comes from?
It went up against Lethal Weapon 2. Batman had been out about three weeks before LTK.
LTK was a train wreck. For the record, IJ and the LC was released at the end of May.
@Perdogg - I completely understand your point of view on this but I didn't say that the Bond in LTK was 100% Fleming's Bond, I said that he was the closest representation. I do agree that there are things that are out of character in terms of literary Bond but I can't agree that the film is a train wreck.
I highly doubt we will ever see Fleming's Bond on screen. The only way I see it happening is if a period set mini-series were to be created.
@Chrisisall - If you're starting a club, consider me a member :)
Splendid post! Intelligent and insightful. This is why I get urked when some forget that Fleming is the creator and not Connery. Dalton to me is a Bond that I always enjoy revisiting, because I know how close he adhered to the source. That is an actor's job! Copying another actor is not what acting is about!
And Dalton got wrongly punished for doing his homework. He really understood what was going on in Bond's mind. He provided so much detail of the Fleming Bond in his portrayal. Dalton's Bond knew the consequences of where being stupid and careless lead to. Fleming's books show that one mistake can lead to a humiliating death.
But cliche Bond is an easier sell for cinema audiences. But the older you get, the more you understand just how interesting Fleming's Bond in the novels is. Bond is more than a surface character.
Like I said in another thread, LTK to me is a 80s action movie with Bond in it. The elements they use to make the story is pure 80s action commonplaces: a hero motivated by personal revenge, to the point that he quits his job to pursue his personal vendetta, a drug lord as a villain, impotent security and police forces, etc. People say LTK was unsuccessful or one of the least successful Bond movies because it was too dark. I think the fact that it was so similar to a generic action movie did not help.
Whether the public has (or had in 1989) any appetite for Fleming Bond has nothing to do with the most Flemingesque portrayal of Bond.
For the record here's my contenders:
Connery - In DN and most of FRWL pretty much on the money all the way through apart from quips like 'sergeant make sure he doesn't get away' and 'she should have kept her mouth shut' which Flemings Bond would never say.
Laz - In the casino and from when he is locked in the wheelhouse onward, again the odd quip aside pretty much nails it. His scenes with M are among the best too. Shame we are denied the Ag & Fish scene really.
Rog - apart from kicking Locque off and some dialogue with Scaramanga pretty thin pickings.
Dalton - Again residual quips from the Rog era apart in TLD he nails it. The opening in Bratislava being the best.
Now LTK - I know everyone cites it as being the ultimate portrayal but I'm not sure. I never really get the cold blooded killer vibe that Dalton gives off here in Flemings work. Ok in YOLT he keeps quiet about recognising Blofeld so his own revenge isn't taken away so I suppose you could argue the point but YOLT is very much a one off Bond novel and I agree with Perdogg that Dalton seems to be heralded as the most Fleming-esque only because he tried to portray Bonds dark side yet for me the only novel that really explores this is YOLT (after the first few chapters of TMWTGG he is back to normal) the rest of the time Bond is just a guy with fears, vices and faults who does a dangerous job but its a job that gives him purpose and satisfaction. I also don't really see this growing bitterness towards his profession the op refers to.
Of course in YOLT he doesnt give a toss about his work but that is due to Tracy dying and he doesnt care about anything at all.
There is the letter of resignation over operation Bedlam but that represents frustration at just doing a fruitless investigation and not being given the chance to do his job properly and his rant at Captain Sender seems more the result of an unpleasant assassination job rather than overall disgruntlement at his work, which after all is pretty much all he lives for.
Brozza - Not a lot. The scene with Alec in the statue park and on the beach with Natalia. But you can't really level all the criticism at him as he wasn't given much to work with in terms of scripts.
Craig - Lots of little moments (CR PTS, the scene when he wonders what hes doing with his life after the stairwell fight, crunching the pills down in front of the mirror in SF, the scene with the psychiatrist) all add up to him being possibly the best. He seems to tread the line between what he sees as his duty and feeling disdain for his job and where it is leading him. I really hope we get an approximation of the OHMSS- YOLT - TMWTGG character arc in Craig's final films as it would be great to see him broken down to such an extent. Trouble is its difficult to do this without introducing the whole Tracy/Blofeld thing again. Shame they pissed away the guy responsible for Vesper so casually in a 2 minute scene at he end of QOS.
I would conclude that Dalton does the best job of portraying the more introspective conflicted Bond of the later books (lets say from GF onward with the musing in the airport on the nature of life and death) as Flemings health deteriorated but Craig does a better job of portraying the business as usual Bond who just gets on with his grimy job and uses drink and drugs to take the edge off the accidie it causes - the man in the raincoat at the end of MR who is just a silhouette.
Great post as always, Ice!
Would it surprise you to learn that I used to be called SILHOUETTE MAN on the James Bond forums before I chose Dragonpol as the perfect moniker late last year?
So you were a Fleming fan before turning to the dark side with NSF?
I'm still a Fleming fan first and foremost - see the many articles that attest to my passion for Fleming's original conception of James Bond on my The Bondologist Blog if you don't believe me, Ice!
The truth is that EON allowed the character to be adjusted to suite the actor playing him, within certain commercial parameters, dictated in no small part by the evolution of the action movie genre.
Consequently Connery and Lazenby had more than a few trace elements, Moore had nothing at all to do with book Bond save the name (great Saint by the way).
Dalton, who had been twice before approached to take the role, didn't like the direction the films had taken and made a more serious approach a precondition.
In the 'Lethal Weapon' era he won the debate and EON bought it but unfortunately all the great Fleming source material had been used and, as we all know, LTK was less than successful in the US. Perhaps if EON had used Gardner's initially very successful '80s literary reboot as a platform for Dalton,things could have been different. Instead, the third Dalton movie wasn't made and consequently we didn't get to see the great actor in a great Bond film.
A legal hiatus created a time delay and Brosnan was launched as a hybrid Moore/Dalton interpretation of the character who gave brave performances in stories that became progressively laugh out loud silly.
Now we have Craig who is doing a great version but remains exactly that, a version.
Personally I think we will only get Fleming's Bond if Eon would allow the BBC to make every novel from Casino Royale thru' as period pieces with a real quality actor like Dominic West in the role. A dream perhaps but one I'll continue to nurture.
It's a dream I share. I would love to see someone attempt the original novels as a period TV series.
Eon's rights pertaining to the screen Bond seem to be all encompassing and given the vigour with which they have defended their franchise in the past (e.g. Thunderball) I doubt that they would ever allow an alternative BUT I don't know if their rights would prohibit small or large screen versions of the 'Young Bond' novels or the 'Moneypenny Diaries' both of which would be imminently film able. This could be the way forward for the BBC.
But Dominic 'Fred' West as Bond?
Someone wake me up from that dream please.
Be prepared to be labeled a troll. ;)
The character on the page of these novels is not neccesarily a huge well of depth that can be drawn from, it's just bits and pieces that are mentioned in Bond's internal monologues that give any clue to the character.
But let's not forget that some of the situations in the books are ludicrous and the villans are larger than life, so I think a balance is always need to be struck.
Well, I personally see little wrong with what @bbartlettbooks says there. Perhaps we are too quick sometimes top label things as Flemingesque when it may be debatable to do so. And I'm saying that as a fully-fledged Fleming, Dalton and Craig fan.
Very apposite. I think a lotof people forget this, primarily because it doesn't always fit in with their desired definition of 'Flemingesque'.
Quite. As written the whole final act of DN would be very virtually impossible to pull off on screen without coming across as preposterous. But its still Flemingesque.
Fleming knew his adventures were just escapist froth. I think theres a bit of an eagerness round here sometimes to equate 'Flemingesque' only with 'serious' and 'gritty'.