A certain bearing...

Bill Tanner

An interesting off-topic exchange has emerged in the ‘Our Favourites Lists’ thread, but rather than contributing to it there and hi-jacking the original subject still further, I thought it might be better to start a new topic that was more specific.

It’s on the subject of bearing, or as the dictionary would rather snootily have it: “The way one holds, carries or conducts oneself, in attitude and manner.”

I’ll kick-off by quoting the exchanges we’ve had so far:

superado wrote:

...everything's relative, and that head smash on table scene (Dalton, LTK) instantly made me think Fleming (such as Bond kicking Mr. Big's henchman in the 'nads with a steel-toe shoe)...I find the sudden increase in Bond's brutality quotient very similar to Craig's take, in that the same dynamics are in play, though at different levels of quality.

Loeffelholz wrote:

I'm with you there...but I've a feeling we differ as to which entry is more 'quality.' But no matter! I think brutality, with regard to 007, is undervalued. I'm hoping he takes a tactical baton to some kneecaps next time round :007)

superado wrote:

Well, if I can gauge your feelings correctly, I think we actually agree. I love Dalton but fault him generally on two counts, his unease with Bond's privileged lifestyle (per the books, Etonian, an officer, etc.), and his action sequences that really look influenced by his theater background. Craig is very good with the action sequences and I'd say ranks among the best if not the best, but I still don't buy him fitting in with the "lifestyle," even at the more modest, literary level.

Loeffelholz wrote:

Wow. I guess we do agree after all B-)

Excellent points. I enjoy Dalton as well---his action stuff seemed positively kinetic when compared to that which had come before---but the physical performances have continued to improve since then: Brosnan was surprisingly good, given his relative slightness early on, and Craig's action 'presence' is dominating.

As far as the 'lifestyle' issue (by which I assume you mean suaveness, sophistication, comfort with elegance, etc.)...I'd have to agree that's Craig's primary challenge going forward. The filmmakers would be smart to address this very early on next time round.

Based on CR's final shot, I'm feeling optimistic :007)

blueman wrote:

I loved Craig in the "lifestyle": in Nassau, at the casino especially...he just seemed like a spy moving through different worlds very well, yet remaining himself. Never thought Fleming's Bond was all that comfortable with the high end stuff--oh he liked to be pampered, but he liked even more to dust his knuckles on somebody's face, or figure out a particular spy-type problem. Craig captured that very well IMO, he looked very comfy playing cards yet threw himself unhesitantly into the action as it came up. Early Bond, with Connery spending just a few minutes in a casino or a posh hotel, then running around in a jungle or bashing hell out of an enemy agent on a train, is my Bond. If there's one thing I fault Lazenby for, it's the whole Prince Charles attitude he brought to the role (copout of an inexperienced actor, IMO). EON created the super-suave movie Bond, really cementing it with Moore in the 70s, I was damn glad to see them tear that down a wee bit with CR, and not make Craig into yet another too-posh Bond. Had just the right amount for me. :007) Hope with Craig established as "the Bond we know and love" at the end of CR, they don't revert back to super-suave Bond...a bit more would be okay, but I'd be sad if we never see the Bond who gate-crashed into M's house again.

superado wrote:

"Posh Bond" ) I can take the different degrees of the Bond lifestyle, but what I meant was just the general comfort of Bond in his life's station for a lack of a better term and not necessarily the dapper beau brummel excesses that movie Bond went to from time to time. I wouldn't mind even if he doesn't go around dropping connoisseur terminology to impress others, like what Connery did.

I think it's a mistake to give in to doing that w/Craig, just to appease it seems, those particular expectations on movie Bond. I think the clincher is having that certain bearing, which IMO literary Bond had and which shown through the veneer regardless of what he was doing, whether working, lounging at home or having some unguarded R&R while on holiday.

blueman

Nice thread and capture of those posts, Bill. {[]

To add to my humble offering above, I don't think Bond really has a realm he feels comfortable in, beyond his lone wolf (with breakfast by May ) existence. He "plays" at being both smooth and rough and fits into both worlds very well, as a good spy should. What I really enjoyed about CR was how they took Bond on an arc, from the jungle to the casino with mid-range stops in between, and a closing that dropped him into his own little casual world with Vesper, only to yank him back fully-formed as it were at the end as BOND. And Craig nailed every environment he was placed in perfectly IMO. Only Connery has ever shown such an overall comfort and effectiveness at every level and station of society he's been placed in, and then only over the course of many films. That Craig did it all in one film is not only a credit to him but to the brain trust that came up with CR. Doubt they'll manage to do it again (although a reverse journey in Bond 22 could be very nice, posh to savage in his quest for revenge :v ) but golly it was sure swell! :007)

Bill Tanner

There’s a Fleming quote, I think from Casino Royale, where Bond or the narrative voice explains that he had little time for noticing other people’s social indiscretions and didn’t care one way or another (wish I could find the exact line). This is completely contradicted time after time in subsequent novels, with Bond looking down his nose at those who tie Windsor knots, don’t polish their shoes, use the wrong tailor, clean the edge of their knife on the side of their fork... the list is endless. Bond (or Fleming) simply can’t help himself – they both had a privileged background and couldn’t help noticing other people’s perceived faults and looking down on them with an air of scorn. But is this what ‘bearing’ inevitably comes down to – snobbery and superiority? Or the ultimate in superiority (and one of my old hobby horses), inverted snobbery. Possibly, but surely bearing has to encompass other, more admirable qualities such as pride and nobility - two more ambiguous terms to add to the list.

If the term itself is difficult to clarify, it might be easier to identify: if we allow that Lit-Bond had it, which of the film actors was able to convey the quality? And is it a quality one has to have instinctively, or is it achievable? I’ve always thought that Connery in Dr No lacked bearing; he lacks confidence in the expensive suits, constantly fiddles with his jacket buttons and cuffs and looks completely out of his depth at the Jamaican Club with Strangway’s friends. However, by the time of FRWL we see a completely changed man: there’s a newfound confidence, almost arrogance and superiority in the way he now carries himself... and to all intents and purposes, he appears to have discovered bearing.

By contrast, Lazenby had confidence and arrogance oozing from every pore, but bearing? I don’t think so. Despite being a policeman’s son from a modest background, Roger Moore appears to have bearing in spades – some would argue that he had too much for the role (the ‘posh Bond’ criticism seems apt). Brosnan’s background was similarly modest, yet his bearing was very Moore-like. Dalton’s a tricky one; for some reason he never looked comfortable in Bond’s skin, despite all the comparisons with ‘Fleming’s Bond’. He could wear the suits, drive the cars, eat the food, but he lacked a certain something.

So, does Craig have it? There’s a certain amount of sparkle there, certainly. In the scenes such as the train meeting with Vesper there’s that Connery-confidence peeking through, but without lapsing into Moore-smugness. I think it needs work (he has a loutish tendency that creeps through in some scenes), but I think the seeds are certainly there.

Napoleon Plural

I think Bond is a bit like Flashman, an expelled Etonian who is nonetheless a bit of a brute and womaniser and falls on his feet. Of course, Bond would look down on Flash if he met him, he'd be a Count Lippe type. Who's the Flashman expert here?

Someone in a book said that Dalton only really looked comfortable in the Afghan garb...

blueman

I always took the snob thing in the books as Bond looking down at pretenders. I think he was at his most relaxed in the opening chapter of YOLT, oddly enough: formal, but a savage formality. Partly that was Fleming's racism, sure, but it was also pure Bond in his natural element--exotic and dangerous but with a veneer of polite good manners. :v

superado

blueman wrote:

I always took the snob thing in the books as Bond looking down at pretenders...

A film example that immediately comes to mind is Dalton's visible scorn when meeting Killifer for the first time, sizing him up as a poseur, but that I suppose was more at the level of being national security professionals.

As for bearing, I can't help but admire Charles Dance as Fleming in the TV production, Goldeneye. I can accept (from a UK outsider's perspective) his public school boy qualities, or what I'd imagine as being "Etonian." He is also at ease as a royal military officer and the privileged lifestyle that entails.

To me, Dance also had just the right combination of Bondian traits of refinement, confidence, breeding (same as "bearing?"), ruthlessness, just the right amount of snobbery, a muted charm, with even some cool thrown in to make him more appealing, since arguably, "cool" wasn't really a stand out quality of the (Bond) character. This again, of course assuming that much, if not all of Bond was really Fleming.

blueman

Totally agree about Dance, would have loved to see his Bond.

superado

blueman wrote:

Totally agree about Dance, would have loved to see his Bond.

But he's blonde! Just kidding )

Barbel

Bill Tanner wrote:

There’s a Fleming quote, I think from Casino Royale, where Bond or the narrative voice explains that he had little time for noticing other people’s social indiscretions and didn’t care one way or another (wish I could find the exact line).

Is this the one you mean, Bill? It's from GF, Chapter 8, when Bond notices what Goldfinger is wearing to play golf...

"Social errors made no impression on Bond, and for the matter of that he rarely noticed them."

Bill Tanner

That's the one (unless there was one like it in a previous book) - thanks Barbel.

Funny, I thought it was earlier in the series.