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
That's a good one. I'd forgotten that. "Yeah your dad's dead. Deal with it boy!!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes that's very much like what his creator Ian Fleming said of him, too.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
I agree. A classic for sure.