Did the producers simplify the actors?

Kirk James Kirk

While watching an episode of The Persuaders (pure fun) I noticed that Roger Moore pre-Bond was much more animated than his Double O interpretation. His voice had more inflection and his movements and facial expressions were more emotive, especially so in The Saint- even more so the first two seasons. This same question pertains to most Bond women: Goodhead, Tanya, Anya and Christmas Jones, to name a few. Timothy Dalton, too seems to be underacting; surely this Shakespearian actor would be more capable of emotion than he let off. Poor George Lazenby is criticized often for his wooden performance. In Laz's case, we know for sure that he was directed to tone down his emotion during the final scene of OHMSS. Even the master himself, Sir Sean Connery seems a bit stifled in his Bond limitations.

So, is there any credibility to this argument?

mhousty007

An interesting argument, though I personally wouldnt say the Bond actors were simplifying or underacting. I think they are merely showing Bond's cool, calm, collected manner. IMO Lazer was excellent in OHMSS, but if he had burst into tears at the end screaming "why God, why..." it would have been distinctly unBondlike!! As for the women, I dont think anyone could accuse Britt Ekland or Tanya Roberts of underacting! (James, dont leave me!!!!!!)

Napoleon Plural

Decades ago Bond was called upon less to emote, it was more about the circus around him (locations, special effects, villains) rather than the man himself, who was more a steady fixed point throughout.

This changed with Dalton onwards, as the series became less touristy and more about the man himself and his conflicting emotions.

highhopes

Kirk James Kirk wrote:

While watching an episode of The Persuaders (pure fun) I noticed that Roger Moore pre-Bond was much more animated than his Double O interpretation. His voice had more inflection and his movements and facial expressions were more emotive, especially so in The Saint- even more so the first two seasons. This same question pertains to most Bond women: Goodhead, Tanya, Anya and Christmas Jones, to name a few. Timothy Dalton, too seems to be underacting; surely this Shakespearian actor would be more capable of emotion than he let off. Poor George Lazenby is criticized often for his wooden performance. In Laz's case, we know for sure that he was directed to tone down his emotion during the final scene of OHMSS. Even the master himself, Sir Sean Connery seems a bit stifled in his Bond limitations.

So, is there any credibility to this argument?

I think you may have something there, although it might be the actor himself doing the restraining. One of the problems with playing an icon is that it's really hard to break out of the box without leaving the audience scratching its head. Connery's often casual manner toward women and the villain in his films -- a trait not necessarily found in the character's literary counterpart -- made such an impression that the actors who followed seemed to think that coolness was the character. Dalton I think tried to break that tendency with a more emoting, but the scripts seemed to call from something else. Brosnan returned to "cool," but it was "serious cool" rather than "bemused cool" ala Moore (an actor I love, by the way. Didn't care for his Bond but he is Simon Templar as far as I'm concerned)
One of the things I appreciate about Craig's performance was that he seemed to understand that Bond, like most people, could have several aspects to his personality. He could be cool, but he was also capable of being a little flustered -- by a woman, as in the "I have a dinner jacket" scene.

Kirk James Kirk

Good point, Highhopes. Moore did have to step into an already established role made famous by Connery's interpretation. Maybe this is why Lazenby got such a raw deal. Not until Moore was already accepted did he morph the character to display a more comical delivery.