Countdown to Skyfall, Day 5...
Ranking the Bonds from best to worst feels rather disingenuous - some are clearly better than others, but each had their own relative strengths and weaknesses. So breaking from the earlier installments, we’ll take a close look at each of the actors to play Bond and leave the rankings behind for the time being.
SEAN CONNERY:
The standard for which all future Bonds would be held against. Ian Fleming was reportedly not thrilled when Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli decided to go after a relatively unknown Scottish actor for his most famous creation. But any and all doubt was silenced upon the release of Dr. No, and Sean Connery was made an instant movie star. There are certain performances throughout film history - maybe they’re not “Oscar-worthy” and maybe the movie surrounding them is nothing special. But there are certain times when the right performer is joined with the right material and they are instantly thrown in the spotlight. Steve McQueen in The Magnificent Seven, Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean, Clint Eastwood in the Dollars trilogy… All weren’t so much “acting” as they were embodying a larger than life presence. A magnetism that instantly drew attention to them and caused the audience to sit up in their seat whenever they were on screen. That’s exactly what Connery brings to Dr. No, a rather subdued (if lurid) film elevated entirely by Connery’s presence. Connery captured a mix of elements that each Bond thereafter might be successful at emulating (or even surpassing), but none could be all at once. As 007, Connery was witty, dangerous, charming and ruthless.
The only trouble with Connery’s portrayal is that we were never really invested in Bond on anything more than the surface-level. There was no deeper, emotional connection to the audience - the early films always kept us at arm’s length, much like Bond’s many sordid affairs. Connery’s tenure also came at a time of social upheaval, which caused some unlikely fits between the series and the changing world around it. The eternally-stiff Bond was probably entirely behind the sexual revolution (as long as those women don’t start getting any pesky ideas), but also stated that the Beatles were best listened to with earmuffs (actual quote from Goldfinger). Bombastic a presence as he was, Connery’s Bond was almost a relic as soon as he arrived - a reminder of attitudes from previous decades where women were seen as a fun distraction, but never really anything to be taken seriously. Misogyny is rampant across all the Bond films, but never more so than the Connery era. As Bond, Connery either forces himself on or hits nearly every woman he comes across, and the films treat this as perfectly acceptable forms of behavior.
Still, Connery left an indelible, almost irreplaceable mark on the franchise. God help the poor bastard who had to follow him…
GEORGE LAZENBY:
…like this guy - the Bond routinely thought of as the absolute worst. His one and only installment was until pretty recently also considered the worst of the series, but now hailed as a sort of overlooked classic. Perhaps it’s time to reconsider its leading man. Realizing that this was his first movie, and that role in said movie is possibly the biggest role on the planet at the time, Lazenby isn’t really that bad. It’s true - he had the good fortune to appear in one of the absolute best installments of the series in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, but Lazenby acquits himself to the role rather nicely. While he comes off a bit wooden at times (and maybe a bit too pretty), there are scenes that serve as a rather nice showcase for his abilities - consider the moment where he’s saved by Diana Rigg at the ice skating rink, or the heart-breaking ending. Both are rather nice bits of acting, overall. Unfortunately for Lazenby, his agent told him to drop Bond, feeling as though it was a fad soon to go out of style. I feel that if Lazenby had a few more outings as 007, he might not be held in such low esteem as he is today. But alas, he dropped out after his first adventure, and thus became the answer to a trivia question instead.
ROGER MOORE:
I’ll have to admit: I’m not the biggest fan of the Roger Moore Bond films. Which is nothing against the actor himself, who did what he did quite well. It’s just that during his tenure as the world’s coolest super-spy, Bond became decidedly uncool. During Roger Moore’s tenure, the films became increasingly sillier - with humorous asides and witty puns that just fell flat (honestly, during all the chase scenes, count how many cutaways there are to some random anthropomorphic animal reaction). What was dangerous and exciting in the sixties soon became old and worn-out by the time Moore hung up his tuxedo in the eighties… And that’s really the biggest problem: Moore far overstayed his welcome, his films basically becoming parodies of themselves without realizing it.
But there’s no denying that once Moore found his groove, he wound up carving his own distinctive place amongst the Bond pantheon. Under Moore’s tenure, the films became a bit more family friendly - there was still all the sex and violence required, but it was all rather bloodless and chaste. He kissed the girls and fought the bad guys and zipped around in all the coolest cars - but there was never any hint of danger to him. For better or worse, Moore became your dad’s Bond.
TIMOTHY DALTON:
The little Bond that could. Timothy Dalton edges out George Lazenby by at least getting two outings, but unfortunately never got that one perfect movie. Connery had Goldfinger, Moore had The Spy Who Loved Me, Lazenby hit the jackpot with his one and only installment… but although there’s nothing terribly wrong with both of Dalton’s films, in the grand scheme of things they failed to leave much of an impression. Which is a shame, as Dalton brought back the ruthlessness and danger missing since the Connery days - hewing closer to Fleming’s original vision and getting the films (however slightly) back to their roots.
The only trouble being Dalton was too intense - the charm and the dry, ironic humor was missing, leaving us with a Bond who didn’t seem all that interested in his choice of drink or his lady friends. One thing students of Bond will learn is that careful balance of tone - the tricky feat of being both a hired killer in the service of Queen and Country while also being a debonair gentleman of leisure. Moore took it too far in one direction, and so then Dalton took it too far in the other.
PIERCE BROSNAN:
The behind the scenes casting of Bond shenanigans is really nothing more than a game of musical chairs. When Sean Connery stepped away from the series in the late 60’s, the producers first selected Timothy Dalton as his replacement. Feeling he was far too young for the part, Dalton opted out… Only to return nearly twenty years later, after which an up-and-coming TV actor by the name of Pierce Brosnan had to drop out of the role due to his television commitments to Remington Steele. So of course, when Dalton decided not to return after lengthy legal issues kept Bond in a kind of stasis, the producers went back to Brosnan, who then became the fifth actor to carry on the Bond legacy.
Brosnan’s tenure as 007 is a series of increasingly diminished quality - starting out pretty great with 1995’s Goldeneye but completely devolved into nonsense seven years later with Die Another Day. But through it all was the stalwart Brosnan - an actor who indeed seemed genetically engineered to be James Bond. He was handsome, charming, a man of action and could deliver puns with the best of them. It’s a shame his tenure was marred by increasingly contrived scripts and wasted opportunity - the actor could have easily pulled off a Bond closer to Fleming’s original, based on his fine work in films like The Tailor of Panama and The Matador. Had the producers decided to do the “soft reboot” years earlier, Brosnan would have been a fine fit (indeed, it’s saying something that Quentin Tarantino wanted Brosnan back when he was talking up doing Casino Royale).
DANIEL CRAIG:
The Bond who bleeds. The character didn’t start out as a superhero, but by the time Thunderball rolled around there was never much doubt that 007 would make it out of any encounter he found himself in alive. That was pretty much par for the course until Craig took the role forty years later - all of a sudden it wasn’t such a sure guarantee that Bond was going to make it out alive by the time the credits rolled, and he sure as hell wasn’t going to be ending the movies in bed with a beautiful lass each time. Under Craig’s tenure, Bond took a beating - emotionally and physically. The opening scene of Casino Royale sets the tone for Craig’s tenure in the role, showing how 007 got his double 0 rank with his first two kills. It’s a brutal scene, one that doesn’t end with Bond making a snappy one liner, but rather drowning the life of a man by shoving his head in a bathroom sink. All of the scenes of violence end in such a way - with Bond visibly shaken over the encounter. But the beauty of Craig’s performance is that it’s not at all joyless: there’s still that slight upturn at the corner of his lips, still the devilish charm that hid underneath the surface of all his encounters.
His blond hair caused a veritable uproar when it was announced he'd be playing the next 007, but all criticisms were instantly silenced when Casino Royale hit the screens in 2006 and Craig gave a performance that thus far has been the closest to Fleming's original creation. There was a slight stumble with Quantum of Solace after the sublime excellence of Casino Royale, but all signs point to Skyfall being a return to greatness. Connery got his definitive portrayal with his third outing in the role - will it be the same for Daniel Craig?
No comments:
Post a Comment