Craig's distinguishing characteristic.
Klaus Hergescheimer
Posts: 332MI6 Agent
One of the things I think we can all say about all of the Bonds is that they have at least one major characteristic that distinguishes them from all of the others. I think in Connery's case, it's the unphased cool in the face of anything, be it a madman with two silenced pistols pointing his way in a train cabin when he's on his knees or a lasor that's about to split him in two starting with his TBs. For Lazenby, I think it's the sheer physical domination that he incurred throughout the movie; whereas Craig was physical, at least as scripted, Lazenby beat every freakin' body up. For Moore, it was no doubt the sense of humor at all times, sometimes graciously self-effacing and sometimes bordering on silly. (Which is fine) For Dalton, it was the oft choleric personality characteristic of the Literary 007, which had never been portrayed to such an extent. For Brosnan, it's a little bit tougher since, to some degree, he is a splice of all of the previous Bonds; I would say, though, he is perhaps the "smoothest" of the Bonds, a characteristic combining a form of the coolness of Connery with the "non-muss" factor of Moore.
I think for Craig, there is something that certainly differentiates his from the rest and sets his Bond apart: his sheer humanity at times, reminiscent of the Literary 007. There are many examples of this throughout the film. The one I keep coming back to is the shower scene when he comforts Vesper. There's just such a sheer romantic quality about this that we have never seen in Bond on film before. Other examples would be: the poisoning, the fanangled Liberian Embassy situation, the overconfidence leading to his initially blowing the poker game (I still think it was his fault and Mathis didn't give anything up to Le Chiffre; the little "I'll be really worried when I start weaping blood" line is a nice little tip off), and the final act with Vesper through the end (especially in her death).
I know not everyone wants to see Bond as human. But I must say, for me at least, this was a refreshing reminder and made me appreciate the character much more. I hope they continue along these lines for the remainder of Craig's tenure consistent with the Liteary character.
I think for Craig, there is something that certainly differentiates his from the rest and sets his Bond apart: his sheer humanity at times, reminiscent of the Literary 007. There are many examples of this throughout the film. The one I keep coming back to is the shower scene when he comforts Vesper. There's just such a sheer romantic quality about this that we have never seen in Bond on film before. Other examples would be: the poisoning, the fanangled Liberian Embassy situation, the overconfidence leading to his initially blowing the poker game (I still think it was his fault and Mathis didn't give anything up to Le Chiffre; the little "I'll be really worried when I start weaping blood" line is a nice little tip off), and the final act with Vesper through the end (especially in her death).
I know not everyone wants to see Bond as human. But I must say, for me at least, this was a refreshing reminder and made me appreciate the character much more. I hope they continue along these lines for the remainder of Craig's tenure consistent with the Liteary character.
Comments
True, but I think that Connery really defined the quality for Bond in that respect. So really, Moore and Brosnan weren't "distinguished" from all of the others in that regard. Rather, they have other characteristics that distinguish them.
Lazenby definitely had some human moments, but nothing on the level of what Craig pulled off. I think Lazenby's sheer physicality was what distinguishes his Bond from the rest. Craig has the most phyiscal build and has the most athleticism, but this is something that really doesn't distinguish his Bond because it had been done before. (Like Moore and Brosnan on the "coolness" attribute above)
While both Craig and Connery's performances share a certain ruggedness, Craig's 007 is definitely the toughest movie incarnation of our favorite spy.
Craig, in his portrayal, has crafted a James Bond who actually comes across as menacing. He also exudes an emotional depth, which has been lacking in previous Bond adventures.
Connery was also unphased cool and very unflappable but the key was he wasn't entirely unflappable. He was the second Bond I saw -I saw Moore first. Hopefully the board will help me here but there's a scene where Connery is stuffed in a casket which is is then loaded into an incinerator for creamation. As a youth I'm thinking "Wow how will Bond free himself from this?" and then started "Slapping the lid and screaming for help" -(Was that you only live twice? Little help appreciated board.) But as a kid I was shocked and disappointed to see Bond do that, now I find it very acceptable, it makes sense. I like a more vulnerable, not all together Bond.
Lastly Daniel Craig. Yes his role was a portrayal of an inexperienced Bond. But I liked the fact that he was capable of making bad decisions, sometimes quick to anger, unpolished, and not entirely in control. I liked that it looked like he was extremely shaken up after killing the thugs in the stairwell. I liked that he got beat up a lot. Moores Bond dancing through a enemy base with a hund gun while 300 baddies with submachine guns cant seem to nick him with a bullet as he stands still and plunks them off one by one is terrible cinema in my opinion. A hero with obvious flaws or Craigs Bond is far superior in my opinion. That IMHO is Craig's distinguishing characteristic.
If Craig's Bond becomes more experienced and starts doing the whole "unflappable agent thing" he will quickly drop down my in my rankings.
Mr Wint and Mr Kidd are the one's who "stuff" Connery's Bond in the casket and load it into the incinerator for cremation. The film is Diamonds Are Forever.
Craig has the quiet manace, underneath the slight inexperience this guy's gonna kill you and that's it. Connery has the quiet menace again but he had the advantage of playing Bond after the 'change'.
Oh,no. Here we go with the "continuity" issue again. 8-)