Connery-Bond Random fits of Anger

2»

Comments

  • Posts: 6,396
    HASEROT wrote:
    I'm surprised no one has brought up the moment in FRWL, when Bond informs Kerim's son that his dad is dead... not only does he say it in a very cold manner, but he gets an attitude with the boy - when he's still trying to process the fact that his dad is dead.

    That's a good one. I'd forgotten that. "Yeah your dad's dead. Deal with it boy!!"
  • Posts: 15,124
    HASEROT wrote:
    I'm surprised no one has brought up the moment in FRWL, when Bond informs Kerim's son that his dad is dead... not only does he say it in a very cold manner, but he gets an attitude with the boy - when he's still trying to process the fact that his dad is dead.

    True professional.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote:
    HASEROT wrote:
    I'm surprised no one has brought up the moment in FRWL, when Bond informs Kerim's son that his dad is dead... not only does he say it in a very cold manner, but he gets an attitude with the boy - when he's still trying to process the fact that his dad is dead.

    True professional.

    These are the days of stiff upper lips all round. Kerim died for Britain so should they all sit round crying or make sure his death was not in vain? Bond has to be curt to make sure the boy takes in his orders and when he gives him the cigarette holder Connery shows an expression of regret - but the job must come first.

    What is a bit odd is Bond asking him to tell M to send help. He never does this again and lets be fair did Nash look the sort of bloke who could handle himself if things kicked off. Bond always works best alone. Why would he go whining to M to send him some non entity (another 00 I could perhaps understand) to hold his hand? It doesnt ring quite true to the character - a tiny flaw in FRWL's script that I've never noticed before.
  • Posts: 15,124
    I can understand perfectly why Bond would ask for help, he needs someone with knowledge of the area, especially since Darko Kerim is dead. Let's not forget that he's bringing with him a potentially hostile transfuge. Not that Romanova is much of a threat, but she could complicate things seriously.

    To be back to the OP, I don't think Bond's anger is random or unprofessional. On the contrary. It is in character and justifiable.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited December 2013 Posts: 7,314
    I think that it shows that Bond is human. Kerim's dead. He's in a really bad spot now and he's starting to panic. He'll stay calm and collected on the outside of course but on the inside his mind is racing. The screws are tightening and perhaps the pressure is starting to get to him.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399

    These are the days of stiff upper lips all round. Kerim died for Britain so should they all sit round crying or make sure his death was not in vain? Bond has to be curt to make sure the boy takes in his orders and when he gives him the cigarette holder Connery shows an expression of regret - but the job must come first.

    oh i know.... i'm not saying him being curt wasn't without reason or being justified - but i figured i would post it, seeing that i think it fits the context of the thread lol.

    most of the time Connery's random acts of anger, or outbursts are justifiable - but they stand out.

    i think part of the reason why that part in FRWL stands out to me so much, is the way he goes "I don't know how to tell you this-You father is dead." - the way he turns and says it, and it looks like he says it with half a smirk on his face.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 1,778
    This is one aspect I always loved about Connery's Bond and one I'm happy they've in a smaller way brought back with Craig. Connery's Bond was a bastard. Plain and simple. I'd even go as far as to say that Connery and Craig's Bonds are full on sociopaths. Lack of empathy, guilt, or remorse for others, magnetic charisma, promiscuous sexual behavior, and (specifically for Connnery) an authoritative nature are all sociopathic indicators.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited January 2014 Posts: 18,281
    That scene (I really need to watch FRWL again as I'd forgotten about it!) reminds me rather of our last minister at the funeral of my brother-in-law's father. The minister was talking to my brother in the kitchen of the house where the coffin was leaving to start the funeral procession up the lane. So, in this setting the minister asks my brother (just out of earshot of my brother-in-law who was not in the kitchen) if he could get such-and-such for his computer. My brother said afterwards how he was a little bit taken-aback by the ministers' chit-chat during a funeral, considering the body of the deceased had yet to leave the house. My brother summed up the minister's approach as "Ah, yes, this person's dead, but anyway, how could I save some money getting whatever for my computer?" I kid you not. You couldn't write it, you really couldn't.
  • Dragonpol wrote:
    That scene (I really need to watch FRWL again as I'd forgotten about it!) reminds me rather of our last minister at the funeral of my brother-in-law's father. The minister was talking to my brother in the kitchen of the house where the coffin was leaving to start the funeral procession up the lane. So, in this setting the minister asks my brother (just out of earshot of my brother-in-law who was not in the kitchen) if he could get such-and-such for his computer. My brother said afterwards how he was a little bit taken-aback by the ministers' chit-chat during a funeral, considering the body of the deceased had yet to leave the house. My brother summed up the minister's approach as "Ah, yes, this person's dead, but anyway, how could I save some money getting whatever for my computer." I kid you not. You couldn't write it, you really couldn't.

    First of all I'm sorry to hear of your experience. That was unacceptable on the minister's end.

    Yeah that scene from FRWL always stood out to me as a very cold moment. Connery's Bond doesn't even try to feign sympathy. Even when the man who died was his old friend. I find it pretty ironic that even though Connery's Bond is far and away the most popular portrayal of the character that his Bond would probably be the least pleasant to be around. Unless you enjoy being ordered around or talked down to.

  • Posts: 15,124
    I guess this is why men want to be Bond. He embodies the alpha male fantasy, but nobody would love to deal with him on a daily basis. That said, his anger and coldness is professionalism.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited January 2014 Posts: 18,281
    Ludovico wrote:
    I guess this is why men want to be Bond. He embodies the alpha male fantasy, but nobody would love to deal with him on a daily basis. That said, his anger and coldness is professionalism.

    Yes that's very much like what his creator Ian Fleming said of him, too.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    This is one aspect I always loved about Connery's Bond and one I'm happy they've in a smaller way brought back with Craig. Connery's Bond was a bastard. Plain and simple. I'd even go as far as to say that Connery and Craig's Bonds are full on sociopaths. Lack of empathy, guilt, or remorse for others, magnetic charisma, promiscuous sexual behavior, and (specifically for Connnery) an authoritative nature are all sociopathic indicators.
    A cold bastard? Sure. A sociopath? I think that's going too far. He doesn't have a total lack of empathy or remorse for all people. Connery's Bond always struck me as extremely narcissistic.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    pachazo wrote:
    This is one aspect I always loved about Connery's Bond and one I'm happy they've in a smaller way brought back with Craig. Connery's Bond was a bastard. Plain and simple. I'd even go as far as to say that Connery and Craig's Bonds are full on sociopaths. Lack of empathy, guilt, or remorse for others, magnetic charisma, promiscuous sexual behavior, and (specifically for Connnery) an authoritative nature are all sociopathic indicators.
    A cold bastard? Sure. A sociopath? I think that's going too far. He doesn't have a total lack of empathy or remorse for all people. Connery's Bond always struck me as extremely narcissistic.

    Well, if you go back to the source of all things Bond, Ian Fleming, he said in his 1958 radio conversation with Raymond Chandler that he never intended his hero to be particularly likeable, and he did not even like him very much himself as a character. Having said that, I think that Roger Moore's portrayal of James Bond probably presented James Bond at his most likeable as Roger Moore was of course a very likeable character in real life as well as on film and is a real ambassador for James Bond to this day.
  • Posts: 2,918
    Also keep in mind that the real life Connery is a man who doesn't suffer fools gladly--undoubtedly that helps account for the brusque, proud, sometimes angry nature of his Bond.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    Revelator wrote:
    Also keep in mind that the real life Connery is a man who doesn't suffer fools gladly--undoubtedly that helps account for the brusque, proud, sometimes angry nature of his Bond.

    Well, that's a good point. As an actor one often brings one's persona to a role, too. And Connery famously stormed out of his first meeting with Broccoli and Saltzman, too. It was that fact (amongst others) that made them sign him as Bond, in fact so it did go in his favour you could say!
  • Posts: 15,124
    I don't think an actor necessarily brings his own persona to the role, after all it wouldn't be called acting otherwise. In fact one can have a radically different personality on screen. But you do find some emotions and attitude easier to channel than others. Sometimes playing is not so hard.
  • Ludovico wrote:
    I don't think an actor necessarily brings his own persona to the role, after all it wouldn't be called acting otherwise. In fact one can have a radically different personality on screen. But you do find some emotions and attitude easier to channel than others. Sometimes playing is not so hard.

    In most cases they absolutely bring their own persona to the role. Most honest actors will tell you most of their performances are themselves with the volume turned up. Case in point. Connery is known for being a bit of a temperamental and testy jerk. Much like his James Bond. Roger Moore is known for being an extremely well natured and agreeable friendly man. Kinda like his James Bond. See what I mean?
  • pachazo wrote:
    This is one aspect I always loved about Connery's Bond and one I'm happy they've in a smaller way brought back with Craig. Connery's Bond was a bastard. Plain and simple. I'd even go as far as to say that Connery and Craig's Bonds are full on sociopaths. Lack of empathy, guilt, or remorse for others, magnetic charisma, promiscuous sexual behavior, and (specifically for Connnery) an authoritative nature are all sociopathic indicators.
    A cold bastard? Sure. A sociopath? I think that's going too far. He doesn't have a total lack of empathy or remorse for all people. Connery's Bond always struck me as extremely narcissistic.

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_know_if_someone_is_a_sociopath

    Kinda sounds like Connery's Bond to me.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    pachazo wrote:
    This is one aspect I always loved about Connery's Bond and one I'm happy they've in a smaller way brought back with Craig. Connery's Bond was a bastard. Plain and simple. I'd even go as far as to say that Connery and Craig's Bonds are full on sociopaths. Lack of empathy, guilt, or remorse for others, magnetic charisma, promiscuous sexual behavior, and (specifically for Connnery) an authoritative nature are all sociopathic indicators.
    A cold bastard? Sure. A sociopath? I think that's going too far. He doesn't have a total lack of empathy or remorse for all people. Connery's Bond always struck me as extremely narcissistic.

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_know_if_someone_is_a_sociopath

    Kinda sounds like Connery's Bond to me.

    Yes, and even more like any Bond villain. The most sickening thing about a sociopath is that he will often acquire a whole bunch of loyal and obedient followers, wether he is a politician, a corporate leader or a prophet of God. Dumbfounding, to say the least.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited January 2014 Posts: 18,281
    Ludovico wrote:
    I don't think an actor necessarily brings his own persona to the role, after all it wouldn't be called acting otherwise. In fact one can have a radically different personality on screen. But you do find some emotions and attitude easier to channel than others. Sometimes playing is not so hard.

    Yes, that's kind of what I meant to convey - I said that "sometimes" this was the case, but I agree that sometimes the playing is not too hard - one thinks of the light comedian English gentleman persona of Roger Moore as James Bond, for instance.
  • Posts: 15,124
    Ludovico wrote:
    I don't think an actor necessarily brings his own persona to the role, after all it wouldn't be called acting otherwise. In fact one can have a radically different personality on screen. But you do find some emotions and attitude easier to channel than others. Sometimes playing is not so hard.

    In most cases they absolutely bring their own persona to the role. Most honest actors will tell you most of their performances are themselves with the volume turned up. Case in point. Connery is known for being a bit of a temperamental and testy jerk. Much like his James Bond. Roger Moore is known for being an extremely well natured and agreeable friendly man. Kinda like his James Bond. See what I mean?

    Yes, but two examples do not make a case. If it was the case, actors playing villains would be villainous in real life. Jason Isaacs often play assertive characters yet by his own admission in real life he is a wuss. Connery played a monk and very convincingly. Does that mean he's a devout, sexually inactive man?
  • Connery played a very interesting Bond indeed. His rein as Bond I find often goes unscrutinized, with a lot of attention usually payed to supporting or deriding Moore's more tongue-in-cheek era or Dalton's short term at the mantle. So it's rather refreshing to see some healthy criticism of Connery's portrayal.

    Connery was interesting in the part mainly because he played Bond with an interesting duality. He could be a great lover and romantic figure but he also had a flinty quicksilver nature to change and at times become rather frightening. Look at the scenes on the train in FRWL. He is initially playful with Tanya; presenting her with the nightie and romancing her in their cabin. However, when Kerim dies he lets the facade drop and we can see the angry brooding man beneath.

    When he tells Kerim's son of his father's death he is very matter-of-factly because his disciple as a spy has taught him to be that way. However, we as the audience know Bond hasn't taken the death well by the way he reacts when he sees the body and later takes his anger out on Tanya. I think the fact that Bond gives Kerim's son some of his father's belongings is a sentimental touch that shows that Bond has a heart.

    Connery's Bond was a brutal man and the most outwardly misogynistic of all the 007s. But I think it's an important character trait that James Bond has. Bond isn't a boy scout, he's a human being and a very flawed one. He drinks too much, gambles and has a low opinion of women. That's the man he is and it makes him a far more compelling character as a result. I think the Craig films present a perfect evolution as the films have strong female characters but Bond remains the misogynistic old-fashioned man from the books opposed to some of the '60's films which may be described in some aspects as outwardly sexist.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    Connery played a very interesting Bond indeed. His rein as Bond I find often goes unscrutinized, with a lot of attention usually payed to supporting or deriding Moore's more tongue-in-cheek era or Dalton's short term at the mantle. So it's rather refreshing to see some healthy criticism of Connery's portrayal.

    Connery was interesting in the part mainly because he played Bond with an interesting duality. He could be a great lover and romantic figure but he also had a flinty quicksilver nature to change and at times become rather frightening. Look at the scenes on the train in FRWL. He is initially playful with Tanya; presenting her with the nightie and romancing her in their cabin. However, when Kerim dies he lets the facade drop and we can see the angry brooding man beneath.

    When he tells Kerim's son of his father's death he is very matter-of-factly because his disciple as a spy has taught him to be that way. However, we as the audience know Bond hasn't taken the death well by the way he reacts when he sees the body and later takes his anger out on Tanya. I think the fact that Bond gives Kerim's son some of his father's belongings is a sentimental touch that shows that Bond has a heart.

    Connery's Bond was a brutal man and the most outwardly misogynistic of all the 007s. But I think it's an important character trait that James Bond has. Bond isn't a boy scout, he's a human being and a very flawed one. He drinks too much, gambles and has a low opinion of women. That's the man he is and it makes him a far more compelling character as a result. I think the Craig films present a perfect evolution as the films have strong female characters but Bond remains the misogynistic old-fashioned man from the books opposed to some of the '60's films which may be described in some aspects as outwardly sexist.

    Now that's well put. I concur with all that you say here, @Pierce2Daniel.
  • Posts: 15,124
    Really good analysis. And that's why FRWL is such a brilliant movie and so multi layered. The Bond in it is a very complex character.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,425
    Connery was simply the best - never to be bettered for his overall performance IMHO. But all the other actors with the of exception Pierce have brought something distinct to the role and we continue to enjoy new interpretations of the character. Connery remains a tough act to follow though, as he so perfectly nailed Bond right from the start. It is amazing watching Dr. No to see how much of what remains definitively Bond today is on the screen in that movie. Genius casting.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    Ludovico wrote:
    Really good analysis. And that's why FRWL is such a brilliant movie and so multi layered. The Bond in it is a very complex character.

    I agree. A classic for sure.
Sign In or Register to comment.