Roger Moore: a qualified opinion
Klaus Hergescheimer
Posts: 332MI6 Agent
As many who have read my posts on this forum probably realize, Roger Moore's interpretation of James Bond is definitely not my favorite. However, while this is the case, I think I may have been too visceral in my comments and have not appropriately qualified my take on him. So, to give Roger his due, I will now offer a qualified opinion.
I will start by saying that Roger Moore was VERY entertaining as James Bond 007, and his films are likewise (with the exception, IMO, of Moonraker, which I find to be excessively silly to the point where it can't be entertaining). You would pretty much have to be Ralph Nader on crack and with a 2x4 shoved up your arse to not strike a smile while watching his films. When I feel like I am in the need to just have a good time watching a film, I will put in a Moore Bond film. His popularity with the audience and the impact on the franchise itself is unmistakable: three of the top-6 selling films of all time in terms of volume (# tickets sold) were Moore films, and no film by successive actors has yet to reach the sales of these three Moore films. Furthermore, he played the role HIS way, to hell with what Connery or literary loyalists or any general critics thought. For all of these reasons, Moore deserves the utmost commendation and respect.
My problem with Moore is one that is due more to personal preferences for Bond himself rather than any greater theoretical argument. When I was in high school and started getting serious in my Bond fandom, I began reading the novels. This was a was a pretty rough time in my personal life: I was a shy, somewhat akward young man who, while an achiever in some regards (athletics and academics alike), I was not the most confident lad in the world. This was certainly true with regards to the opposite sex: I was completely incompetent with girls, and the ones I pursued ended usually quite unhappily and frustratingly for me. I was a pretty frustrated, depressed young man, and I turned to Bond, the guy who had everything going for him, as a source of consolation. But when I began reading the novels, my perception of the character changed: here was a man who, while many of the things that have been portrayed on film, also had some unmistakable demons that tormented him. He was a man who, while he had everything I wanted, was also feeling the same things I was feeling: world-weariness, frustration with his life and job, some deeply-rooted and below the surface depression. He also had some of the senses of morality, patriotism, and loyalty in a number of regards that I had. These feelings that I shared with the literary character made me very much attached to him, and my sense of the character himself was changed. When this happened, I began to loose my affinity with Moore's Bond, who I began to see as very different from the character I had become attached to. Moore's cheeky one-liners, raised eyebrow, and generally light-hearted and loose Bond didn't resonate with me anymore. It was at this point that I became more attached to Dalton, Brosnan, and Connery's Bonds, all of whom showed darker and, at times, more morose elements of the literary character in their films.
Did Moore have the ability to pull off a literary performance? Most certainly. Anyone who hasn't seen The Wild Geese should if they want to see how truly dark and ruthless Moore can be. I also think he had the ability to pull of depressive, solemn, reflective aspects of the character. At times in his films, I think he did it. But his overall light performance really eradicates the overall effect of the more humanized displays.
In summary, I Moore was very popular and entertaining, maybe even the most entertaining of all of the Bonds. For this, kings to him. If your interest in Bond and Bond films is to be entertained first and foremost, then Moore is your man. In my own personal circumstance, though, I have a different type of attachment to the character that is more visceral, emotional, and personal, and this is why I prefer the aforementioned Bonds to him.
So, Moore fans: I've extended the olive branch, and I don't want to fight with you anymore. Now, if the anti-Dalton crowd would be so mature and honorable as to do the same...
I will start by saying that Roger Moore was VERY entertaining as James Bond 007, and his films are likewise (with the exception, IMO, of Moonraker, which I find to be excessively silly to the point where it can't be entertaining). You would pretty much have to be Ralph Nader on crack and with a 2x4 shoved up your arse to not strike a smile while watching his films. When I feel like I am in the need to just have a good time watching a film, I will put in a Moore Bond film. His popularity with the audience and the impact on the franchise itself is unmistakable: three of the top-6 selling films of all time in terms of volume (# tickets sold) were Moore films, and no film by successive actors has yet to reach the sales of these three Moore films. Furthermore, he played the role HIS way, to hell with what Connery or literary loyalists or any general critics thought. For all of these reasons, Moore deserves the utmost commendation and respect.
My problem with Moore is one that is due more to personal preferences for Bond himself rather than any greater theoretical argument. When I was in high school and started getting serious in my Bond fandom, I began reading the novels. This was a was a pretty rough time in my personal life: I was a shy, somewhat akward young man who, while an achiever in some regards (athletics and academics alike), I was not the most confident lad in the world. This was certainly true with regards to the opposite sex: I was completely incompetent with girls, and the ones I pursued ended usually quite unhappily and frustratingly for me. I was a pretty frustrated, depressed young man, and I turned to Bond, the guy who had everything going for him, as a source of consolation. But when I began reading the novels, my perception of the character changed: here was a man who, while many of the things that have been portrayed on film, also had some unmistakable demons that tormented him. He was a man who, while he had everything I wanted, was also feeling the same things I was feeling: world-weariness, frustration with his life and job, some deeply-rooted and below the surface depression. He also had some of the senses of morality, patriotism, and loyalty in a number of regards that I had. These feelings that I shared with the literary character made me very much attached to him, and my sense of the character himself was changed. When this happened, I began to loose my affinity with Moore's Bond, who I began to see as very different from the character I had become attached to. Moore's cheeky one-liners, raised eyebrow, and generally light-hearted and loose Bond didn't resonate with me anymore. It was at this point that I became more attached to Dalton, Brosnan, and Connery's Bonds, all of whom showed darker and, at times, more morose elements of the literary character in their films.
Did Moore have the ability to pull off a literary performance? Most certainly. Anyone who hasn't seen The Wild Geese should if they want to see how truly dark and ruthless Moore can be. I also think he had the ability to pull of depressive, solemn, reflective aspects of the character. At times in his films, I think he did it. But his overall light performance really eradicates the overall effect of the more humanized displays.
In summary, I Moore was very popular and entertaining, maybe even the most entertaining of all of the Bonds. For this, kings to him. If your interest in Bond and Bond films is to be entertained first and foremost, then Moore is your man. In my own personal circumstance, though, I have a different type of attachment to the character that is more visceral, emotional, and personal, and this is why I prefer the aforementioned Bonds to him.
So, Moore fans: I've extended the olive branch, and I don't want to fight with you anymore. Now, if the anti-Dalton crowd would be so mature and honorable as to do the same...
Comments
Hmm... maybe.
As a matter of fact, in the months leading to the release of CR (December in Australia) I will be rewatching all of the Bond films. I won't make any promises but, who knows, maybe in the next couple of months I might make a similar statment regarding Dalton.
As I've often said, I'm a fan of Roger Moore. His portrayal of Sean in The Wild Geese is f*****g awesome, and I've always wished he'd played Bond that way. For whatever reason (or series of reasons), he took another tack.
But he simply didn't do it for me as Bond---though I enjoyed all of his films, at least to some degree. As a literary Bond Savant, I've always (and I mean always) kept a kernel of resentment near my heart where the films are concerned, because of the admittedly necessary distance between the two incarnations of the character. Even the best of Connery's films---and he will never be matched, IMHO, let alone surpassed!---fall short of the books, at least in terms of my personal enjoyment. So, naturally, it follows that an actor following Connery---and taking the character even further down that unwelcome comedic road---would not endear himself.
But Moore had his moments in the role, and nobody---least of all, one little disgruntled fan like me!---can take that away from him.
I'd branch off from the esteemed K. Hergescheimer, Esq., at the point of MR, however, as I rank it solidly above his final two efforts in the role (OP and AVTAK), where, to me (and perhaps me only!) it seemed as if everyone involved simply quit trying to do anything of substance. [sorry, JFF!
MR, at least, had the seasoned hand of Lewis Gilbert, Grand Master of Outlandish Big Ken Adam Sets and Over-The-Top Splashy Stuff, on the throttle. Double-taking pidgeon and all, MR had a sense of identity---and, IMHO, took a weird kind of bold pride in its endeavour. Moore's final two, IMHO, simply fell flat by comparison. John Glen did one solid Moore picture: FYEO.
Still, I'll point out that I do have Sideshow's Premium Format figure of Roger Moore on pre-order---only 400 of them, world-wide, and I'll have one.
Why? Because he was James Bond, for a specific era, and for a huge number of filmgoers. Not my James Bond, but his contribution is undeniable, for anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty---and, as my ultimate aim is to have all of the Bond actors in the Premium Format (and I'm a completist, that most accursed of all collector personalities! :v ), I can do nothing else.
Here's to you, Sir Roger {[] Good health, and a very long life.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Whether that equates to the best of Bond is a different issue, but any actor who managed to make a fairly strait laced character like Bond still relevant during the flower power era deserves credit.
Moore didn´t have (for me) that look or acctitude to be an field agent (not like Connery in GF), but yes, you just love his scenes with M, or in dinners, i mean - probably - Moore can be one of the most classy Bond (except for the oufits but we´re in the 70´s, even then, he looks classy)
Nobody can deny he is not Connery, Lazemby or Dalton, but yes, Brosnan had the guts to play "him" more than once.
(it´s really a shame he has made films like love boat - cuba golding jr.- or spice girls)
I do disagree with you on some aspects of your argument, however. Sean Connery has had an influence on every single Bond thus far, and every single Bond, no matter how influential, has cited him for an example of how to play the character. This is especially true in Moore's first two films where he tried to be uncharacteristically rough, ruthless, and unafraid to be "dominant" with the ladies. These moments of his era are usually glossed over in the final analysis, but they're important in showing that everyone, including Roger Moore, was affected by Connery's performance. This is not a bad thing, in fact, it's questionable an actor would be accepted as Bond if he didn't resemble in some aspects the Connery interpretation or characteristics.
Also too, the problem with Moore’s films is not just him, but how uninspiring they are. Live And Let Die really doesn’t seem like a Bond film to me, and The Man With the Golden Gun also lacks the Bond feel. When Moore finally got his stride, the preceding films were in many ways recycled versions of previous films, only making they distinctive from older plots by different characters and increased campy-ness.
Uninteresting films with an approach to the character I don't agree with makes it hard for me to get into Moore's era. I don't hate him, and I'm fully aware of how much he means to the series continuation, and to the era in which he defined Bond. However, that doesn’t mean I have to like him.
I really think Moore nailed this approach best in OP, as this is truly a breezy, funny movie. Of course, there were quite a few misfires and stuff that really shouldn't have been in the movies (the pigeon, goofy sound effects over amazing stunts, Bond in space, etc.) But I do give Sir Roger credit as his Bond allowed the franchise to carry on to this day.
I think every era gets a Bond suited for the times. And during the whole 'Me' decade thing in the 1970s, Roger Moore was that Bond. Sure, many of the movies have look dated, but there are some very entertaining moments.
His movies, though they might not be the "serious, spy thriller, Connery/Dalton" outings, in many ways outshine those because number one, not a single one of his movies are boring (unlike the Dalton ones and ALL of the Connery ones except GF and NSNA).
Every one of his movies had some outlandish stunt that he had to perform and it just made watching his movies more fun, and whenever he displayed his ruthless side, it would really show.
Hats of to you Sir Roger, you truly made Bond what it is today! (And I don't care what they say!)
Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is how to swallow your pride. Very good post, Klaus. -{
Now if only RJJB could do the same.