In all honesty I never really thought of Connery as "complex". He rarely seemed troubled by what he was doing. However he does have that charasmatic, tough, sexually aggressive side of Fleming to him.
Yes but but what he does clearly effects him, gambling till three am for example and when Honey Rider was being taken away it sent him over the edge; He remembered she already was raped in the past. I could see him easily staring down a double burbon grimly reflecting on a terrible murder.
I'm not sure really, as I said before I always thought Fleming wanted someone who looked hansome and charming to play the character onscreen. Not someone who automatically had the "i'm going to kill you" look. Thats why he suggested David Niven to play the role initially and why he disliked Connery at first. I certainly think in terms of someone with an "Etonian" look, both Brosnan and Dalton come particularly close (as does Lazenby).
I really don't think Fleming suggested any of those men because he thought they beared any resemblance to Bond. He probably didn't intend that the character should reflect his books, more like the film stars of his era.
Thanks, Loef. Another example I'd like to add that I thought of while driving home: in the literary Live and Let Die, there's a passage in which Bond has newly arrived to New York to take on Mr. Big. He knows that Mr. Big has caught wind of his scent already and that the challenge is coming. Bond looks out at the city from his hotel window.
"Bond looked at the beautiful day and smiled. And no man, not even Mr. Big, would have liked the expression on his face.'
When I last re-read this, my mind went to the airport scene in Casino Royale (the film), when Bond is being handcuffed over the hood of the car by the airport police, and the henchmen on whom he planted the explosive detonates himself. Daniel Craig gives a great, evil-looking smirk, and I imagine it was something very close to what Fleming had in mind when he wrote that line.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Once again I am saying that it's not Lee's opinion that urks me it's his inflation of said opinion. Also not once did I criqtique Lee's acting abilities. Edward Fox did the same thing, but in an even more outrageous manner, when Daniel Craig was picked. Fox said that Dainel Craig was ugly and claimed to have known Fleming and what he intended to be an on-screen Bond. Also let's not forget one last factor, Fleming himself thought Connery looked like lorry driver and he would never fit the role. When Fleming saw Doctor No he was so bowled over by Connery's preformance he gave Bond a scottish ancestry. Maybe I was being to harsh on Lee looking back but it goes to show that the vision of James Bond is not entirely specific, not even from Fleming himself.
So, therefore, nothing that Lee has said has any merit? Unless I'm not correctly understanding the gist of your statement, it seems ironic how you see Lee lacking a balanced perspective on the matter, although your own conclusion is just as subjective.
On the Connery-Fleming dynamics, it's important to note the difference between Fleming's "changed" perspective on his creation and how he actually envisioned the character before the movies were made. On Connery, Fleming said that we was " ...not quite the idea I had of Bond, but he would be if I wrote the books over again." Based on that, Fleming himself doesn't consider the Bond character to have been automatically rewritten in Connery's image.
Regarding the current incarnation of Bond, many rave how Craig's intense performance captures the "true essence" of the novels, while I on the other hand I hold that he (and the overall production) has stripped away most of the series' formula elements, so that people mistakenly make the leap that it's now "literary Bond." During Fleming's time as an author, he did distinquish the Bond books apart from the "angry young man," "kitchen sink" literary trend in the UK, a flavor which would fit with Dalton's interpretation and especially much more with Craig's, IMO. Not necessarily an automatic reflection of Ian Fleming's opinion, it's interesting to note his widow, Anne's reaction to the commisioning of Kingsly Amis that would lead to a "red brick Bond," in reference to the working class hero, turned professor in the work that established Amis' reputation, "Lord Jim."
What I think is surprising though is how the factor of class may be more significant to Fleming than his envisioned phyiscal appearance for Bond. I also read somewhere that among the actors who were contemporaries of Fleming, he put forward Trevor Howard as an ideal choice and it struck me how much IMO he resembled Daniel Craig. In the end, what makes it the most interesting to me is guessing how Ian Fleming would today view the cinematic Bond in retrospect, weighing each actor against his own internal measures.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
So, therefore, nothing that Lee has said has any merit? Unless I'm not correctly understanding the gist of your statement, it seems ironic how you see Lee lacking a balanced perspective on the matter, although your own conclusion is just as subjective.
I don't think either of us have a non-subjective conclusion of how Fleming envisioned Bond.
On the Connery-Fleming dynamics, it's important to note the difference between Fleming's "changed" perspective on his creation and how he actually envisioned the character before the movies were made. On Connery, Fleming said that we was " ...not quite the idea I had of Bond, but he would be if I wrote the books over again." Based on that, Fleming himself doesn't consider the Bond character to have been automatically rewritten in Connery's image.
I never said he was re-written in Connery's image because that would be way too altruistic on Fleming's part. Still, Fleming was quite impressed after initialing dismissing Connery.
In all honesty I never really thought of Connery as "complex". He rarely seemed troubled by what he was doing. However he does have that charasmatic, tough, sexually aggressive side of Fleming to him.
Yes but but what he does clearly effects him, gambling till three am for example and when Honey Rider was being taken away it sent him over the edge; He remembered she already was raped in the past. I could see him easily staring down a double burbon grimly reflecting on a terrible murder.
Possibly. However I never really saw him as vulnerable, more tough. I always think of the final OHMSS scene as an example. For some reason I have difficulty picturing Connery in that scene - I'm not saying he COULDN'T have carried it off - but actors like Dalton, Brosnan and even Craig are easier for me to imagine in such a sequence. There's just something a bit more tragic about their characters (Dalton being reminded of his Tracy in LTK, Brosnan looking out to sea in GE and DC comforting Versper in the shower in CR).
In all honesty I never really thought of Connery as "complex". He rarely seemed troubled by what he was doing. However he does have that charasmatic, tough, sexually aggressive side of Fleming to him.
Yes but but what he does clearly effects him, gambling till three am for example and when Honey Rider was being taken away it sent him over the edge; He remembered she already was raped in the past. I could see him easily staring down a double burbon grimly reflecting on a terrible murder.
Possibly. However I never really saw him as vulnerable, more tough. I always think of the final OHMSS scene as an example. For some reason I have difficulty picturing Connery in that scene - I'm not saying he COULDN'T have carried it off - but actors like Dalton, Brosnan and even Craig are easier for me to imagine in such a sequence. There's just something a bit more tragic about their characters (Dalton being reminded of his Tracy in LTK, Brosnan looking out to sea in GE and DC comforting Versper in the shower in CR).
I think it's more than possible. The emotion of Bond in Doctor No was alot more subtle but it was clear. Connery was never aloud to play up the vunerabilities of the character but he was more than capable of doing it but as wore on he got disinterested in the character.
Yes but but what he does clearly effects him, gambling till three am for example and when Honey Rider was being taken away it sent him over the edge; He remembered she already was raped in the past. I could see him easily staring down a double burbon grimly reflecting on a terrible murder.
Possibly. However I never really saw him as vulnerable, more tough. I always think of the final OHMSS scene as an example. For some reason I have difficulty picturing Connery in that scene - I'm not saying he COULDN'T have carried it off - but actors like Dalton, Brosnan and even Craig are easier for me to imagine in such a sequence. There's just something a bit more tragic about their characters (Dalton being reminded of his Tracy in LTK, Brosnan looking out to sea in GE and DC comforting Versper in the shower in CR).
I think it's more than possible. The emotion of Bond in Doctor No was alot more subtle but it was clear. Connery was never aloud to play up the vunerabilities of the character but he was more than capable of doing it but as wore on he got disinterested in the character.
Perhaps I just find it harder to envision because, as you said, he was never really allowed to play up the vulnerabilities of the character. OHMSS was the first time they really humanised Bond on film. I suppose there were some emotional Connery moments like the Jill Masterson scene in Goldfinger, but they were quite brief and arguably not as devastating for the character. OHMSS was the first time the screen Bond had effectively lost.
Possibly. However I never really saw him as vulnerable, more tough. I always think of the final OHMSS scene as an example. For some reason I have difficulty picturing Connery in that scene - I'm not saying he COULDN'T have carried it off - but actors like Dalton, Brosnan and even Craig are easier for me to imagine in such a sequence. There's just something a bit more tragic about their characters (Dalton being reminded of his Tracy in LTK, Brosnan looking out to sea in GE and DC comforting Versper in the shower in CR).
I think it's more than possible. The emotion of Bond in Doctor No was alot more subtle but it was clear. Connery was never aloud to play up the vunerabilities of the character but he was more than capable of doing it but as wore on he got disinterested in the character.
Perhaps I just find it harder to envision because, as you said, he was never really allowed to play up the vulnerabilities of the character. OHMSS was the first time they really humanised Bond on film. I suppose there were some emotional Connery moments like the Jill Masterson scene in Goldfinger, but they were quite brief and arguably not as devastating for the character. OHMSS was the first time the screen Bond had effectively lost.
I found that Thunderball had a fairly emotional moment. Bond was clearly ashamed of what he just did to Domino, shagging her and now he must ask her for her help. I loved that touch of Bond putting on his sun glasses as if he didn't even have the nerve to look into Domino's eyes.
Bond was only ashamed because the shag went so badly - my wife and I did it in the Maldives in scuba gear. Possibly the most difficult thing to do... Ever.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Bond was only ashamed because the shag went so badly - my wife and I did it in the Maldives in scuba gear. Possibly the most difficult thing to do... Ever.
j.bladesCurrently? You must be joking?Posts: 530MI6 Agent
I think there is some credibility to what Lee has stated, looks alone, hair style, build, and that swagger, Pierce is probably the closest to Ians creation, you can't really base anything off his performance, he could only work with what script he's given. And i think in GE Brosnan gave the almost, iconic Bond experience. The way he played him when he wasn't fighting was very similar to that of look, style, and sound to the Bond from the novels we all charish. You have to get by the fact that Pierce didnt write the script or have any influence on it, you have to get by the fact of his superhuman like qualities and just focus on the actor.
And if you no the books and have read all 14 you would see similarites greater then any other Bond who have ever doned the walther. Sean is extremely close but, if you remember was a little rough around the edges, Roger was to sophisticated and lacked roughness, Pierce was a hybrid and in GE I think he gave us the perfect Bond outting.
"I take a ridiculous pleasure in what I eat and drink."
"And i think in GE Brosnan gave the almost, iconic Bond experience".
I completely agree with you there. To use an old cliche, there was something you envied about his character in a way that had not really been seen since Connery. Ths was a Bond who knew how to indulge, yet someone who also took his proceedings seriously.
I also thought looks-wise he was perfect for the role. OK some have said he wasn't "tough" enough, but I never had a problem watching him in fights.
I think the script point you make is spot on though. No matter how good the actor may be as Bond they need good material to back them up. The same is true with Craig now.
Icon is right. That very image of the film James Bond. Trouble is, he wasn't a character. In Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan was simply an action hero with good clothes. They attempt some sort of exenstential moment with Bond staring into the sunset on the beach but it was far too little, too late.
I can't blame Pierce entirely. Very few of these films actually had been about James Bond and more about the spectacle.
I'd argue that Bond was far more of a character in GE than in QoS. The idea of his superiors dismissing him, the idea of him being betrayed by someone he had trusted. It also took time to explore those issues and did not always revert back to action.
Yes, Bond has always been an icon to a certain degree. The opening shot of SC in Dr No could be considered as iconic.
I'd argue that Bond was far more of a character in GE than in QoS. The idea of his superiors dismissing him, the idea of him being betrayed by someone he had trusted. It also took time to explore those issues and did not always revert back to action.
Yes, Bond has always been an icon to a certain degree. The opening shot of SC in Dr No could be considered as iconic.
Yes he was more of a character in GE but he wasn't much of one. I wish they expanded on the Monte Carlo scenes. Particularly why M would have Bond be examined by a psycho analyst. The film had some good opprotunities to truly delve into Bond's character.
Also speaking of the 006 betrayal, I would have dumped all that Lienz Cossack nonsense. Trevelyan simply should have seen that his duty was playing "red indians" just like Bond in Fleming's Casino Royale except this 00-agent takes a dark turn.
I'd argue that Bond was far more of a character in GE than in QoS. The idea of his superiors dismissing him, the idea of him being betrayed by someone he had trusted. It also took time to explore those issues and did not always revert back to action.
Yes, Bond has always been an icon to a certain degree. The opening shot of SC in Dr No could be considered as iconic.
Yes he was more of a character in GE but he wasn't much of one. I wish they expanded on the Monte Carlo scenes. Particularly why M would have Bond be examined by a psycho analyst. The film had some good opprotunities to truly delve into Bond's character.
Also speaking of the 006 betrayal, I would have dumped all that Lienz Cossack nonsense. Trevelyan simply should have seen that his duty was playing "red indians" just like Bond in Fleming's Casino Royale except this 00-agent takes a dark turn.
I think that was the point. Trevelyan was meant to represent the darker side to Bond. Whilst Bond recognised the ugliness of his duty but remained "the loyal terrier", Trevelyan was bitter and vengeful. The main weakness in the plot was that Trevelyan was simply too young to have been around during the events he described. I still think thats quite minor though.
The main weakness in the plot was that Trevelyan was simply too young to have been around during the events he described. I still think thats quite minor though.
True enough, though it's not the only time such a thing has happened in the Bond world (and it's a general film trope, anyhow).
Perhaps the worst offender in the Bond series regarding actors being the wrong age for their characters is FYEO - Julian Glover and Topol are at least ten years too young for their character histories, Lynn-Holly Johnson too old, and there are even some who claim Roger Moore was too old for the part with still two films to go...
I'd argue that Bond was far more of a character in GE than in QoS. The idea of his superiors dismissing him, the idea of him being betrayed by someone he had trusted. It also took time to explore those issues and did not always revert back to action.
Yes, Bond has always been an icon to a certain degree. The opening shot of SC in Dr No could be considered as iconic.
Yes he was more of a character in GE but he wasn't much of one. I wish they expanded on the Monte Carlo scenes. Particularly why M would have Bond be examined by a psycho analyst. The film had some good opprotunities to truly delve into Bond's character.
Also speaking of the 006 betrayal, I would have dumped all that Lienz Cossack nonsense. Trevelyan simply should have seen that his duty was playing "red indians" just like Bond in Fleming's Casino Royale except this 00-agent takes a dark turn.
I think that was the point. Trevelyan was meant to represent the darker side to Bond. Whilst Bond recognised the ugliness of his duty but remained "the loyal terrier", Trevelyan was bitter and vengeful. The main weakness in the plot was that Trevelyan was simply too young to have been around during the events he described. I still think thats quite minor though.
I thought it was a terribly bad writing. They didn't even make an effort for Trevelyan to look older.
The main weakness in the plot was that Trevelyan was simply too young to have been around during the events he described. I still think thats quite minor though.
True enough, though it's not the only time such a thing has happened in the Bond world (and it's a general film trope, anyhow).
Perhaps the worst offender in the Bond series regarding actors being the wrong age for their characters is FYEO - Julian Glover and Topol are at least ten years too young for their character histories, Lynn-Holly Johnson too old, and there are even some who claim Roger Moore was too old for the part with still two films to go...
Why were Glover and Topol too young ? I heard no mention of World War II from the original source material. According to the film, the Greece Resistance was against the communists.
j.bladesCurrently? You must be joking?Posts: 530MI6 Agent
I think GE really had delved into Bond as a charachter some of the lines are really at the forefront of my mind like
" I might as well ask you if all those vodka martinis ever silence the screams of all the men you've killed... or if you find forgiveness in the arms of all those willing women for all the dead ones you failed to protect." That line when I hear it today is still extremely heavy. I think Alec was the perfect villain.
"I take a ridiculous pleasure in what I eat and drink."
I think GE really had delved into Bond as a charachter some of the lines are really at the forefront of my mind like
" I might as well ask you if all those vodka martinis ever silence the screams of all the men you've killed... or if you find forgiveness in the arms of all those willing women for all the dead ones you failed to protect." That line when I hear it today is still extremely heavy. I think Alec was the perfect villain.
Too bad Alec was fooled by Bond at basically every turn. He did every Bond villian cliche. Right down to letting Bond inside the control room. I always thought Bean could have been a fine James Bond but he was a lousy villian.
They'd have been perhaps 11 even at the time of the Greek Civil War.
But Glover clearly did not look as old as he was in reality. Topol certaintly did but it wasn't like Alec Trevelyan who clearly was James Bond's age when he was suppose to be motivated by vengance that would make him easily 60.
They'd have been perhaps 11 even at the time of the Greek Civil War.
But Glover clearly did not look as old as he was in reality. Topol certaintly did
Both actors were in their mid-forties when shooting FYEO, making them too young to have fought in either WW2 or the Greek Civil War as their characters were supposed to. I disagree that Mr "Glover clearly did not look as old as he was in reality" - he certainly did.
They'd have been perhaps 11 even at the time of the Greek Civil War.
But Glover clearly did not look as old as he was in reality. Topol certaintly did
Both actors were in their mid-forties when shooting FYEO, making them too young to have fought in either WW2 or the Greek Civil War as their characters were supposed to. I disagree that Mr "Glover clearly did not look as old as he was in reality" - he certainly did.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't find Glover's age that distracting. I am more distracted by the fact that he was terribly dull.
Comments
Yes but but what he does clearly effects him, gambling till three am for example and when Honey Rider was being taken away it sent him over the edge; He remembered she already was raped in the past. I could see him easily staring down a double burbon grimly reflecting on a terrible murder.
I really don't think Fleming suggested any of those men because he thought they beared any resemblance to Bond. He probably didn't intend that the character should reflect his books, more like the film stars of his era.
Thanks, Loef. Another example I'd like to add that I thought of while driving home: in the literary Live and Let Die, there's a passage in which Bond has newly arrived to New York to take on Mr. Big. He knows that Mr. Big has caught wind of his scent already and that the challenge is coming. Bond looks out at the city from his hotel window.
"Bond looked at the beautiful day and smiled. And no man, not even Mr. Big, would have liked the expression on his face.'
When I last re-read this, my mind went to the airport scene in Casino Royale (the film), when Bond is being handcuffed over the hood of the car by the airport police, and the henchmen on whom he planted the explosive detonates himself. Daniel Craig gives a great, evil-looking smirk, and I imagine it was something very close to what Fleming had in mind when he wrote that line.
So, therefore, nothing that Lee has said has any merit? Unless I'm not correctly understanding the gist of your statement, it seems ironic how you see Lee lacking a balanced perspective on the matter, although your own conclusion is just as subjective.
On the Connery-Fleming dynamics, it's important to note the difference between Fleming's "changed" perspective on his creation and how he actually envisioned the character before the movies were made. On Connery, Fleming said that we was " ...not quite the idea I had of Bond, but he would be if I wrote the books over again." Based on that, Fleming himself doesn't consider the Bond character to have been automatically rewritten in Connery's image.
Regarding the current incarnation of Bond, many rave how Craig's intense performance captures the "true essence" of the novels, while I on the other hand I hold that he (and the overall production) has stripped away most of the series' formula elements, so that people mistakenly make the leap that it's now "literary Bond." During Fleming's time as an author, he did distinquish the Bond books apart from the "angry young man," "kitchen sink" literary trend in the UK, a flavor which would fit with Dalton's interpretation and especially much more with Craig's, IMO. Not necessarily an automatic reflection of Ian Fleming's opinion, it's interesting to note his widow, Anne's reaction to the commisioning of Kingsly Amis that would lead to a "red brick Bond," in reference to the working class hero, turned professor in the work that established Amis' reputation, "Lord Jim."
What I think is surprising though is how the factor of class may be more significant to Fleming than his envisioned phyiscal appearance for Bond. I also read somewhere that among the actors who were contemporaries of Fleming, he put forward Trevor Howard as an ideal choice and it struck me how much IMO he resembled Daniel Craig. In the end, what makes it the most interesting to me is guessing how Ian Fleming would today view the cinematic Bond in retrospect, weighing each actor against his own internal measures.
I don't think either of us have a non-subjective conclusion of how Fleming envisioned Bond.
I never said he was re-written in Connery's image because that would be way too altruistic on Fleming's part. Still, Fleming was quite impressed after initialing dismissing Connery.
Possibly. However I never really saw him as vulnerable, more tough. I always think of the final OHMSS scene as an example. For some reason I have difficulty picturing Connery in that scene - I'm not saying he COULDN'T have carried it off - but actors like Dalton, Brosnan and even Craig are easier for me to imagine in such a sequence. There's just something a bit more tragic about their characters (Dalton being reminded of his Tracy in LTK, Brosnan looking out to sea in GE and DC comforting Versper in the shower in CR).
That would be "Lucky Jim", supes- Conrad's "Lord Jim" is quite different!
I think it's more than possible. The emotion of Bond in Doctor No was alot more subtle but it was clear. Connery was never aloud to play up the vunerabilities of the character but he was more than capable of doing it but as wore on he got disinterested in the character.
Perhaps I just find it harder to envision because, as you said, he was never really allowed to play up the vulnerabilities of the character. OHMSS was the first time they really humanised Bond on film. I suppose there were some emotional Connery moments like the Jill Masterson scene in Goldfinger, but they were quite brief and arguably not as devastating for the character. OHMSS was the first time the screen Bond had effectively lost.
I found that Thunderball had a fairly emotional moment. Bond was clearly ashamed of what he just did to Domino, shagging her and now he must ask her for her help. I loved that touch of Bond putting on his sun glasses as if he didn't even have the nerve to look into Domino's eyes.
http://apbateman.com
Was that you?
http://apbateman.com
And if you no the books and have read all 14 you would see similarites greater then any other Bond who have ever doned the walther. Sean is extremely close but, if you remember was a little rough around the edges, Roger was to sophisticated and lacked roughness, Pierce was a hybrid and in GE I think he gave us the perfect Bond outting.
~ Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
I completely agree with you there. To use an old cliche, there was something you envied about his character in a way that had not really been seen since Connery. Ths was a Bond who knew how to indulge, yet someone who also took his proceedings seriously.
I also thought looks-wise he was perfect for the role. OK some have said he wasn't "tough" enough, but I never had a problem watching him in fights.
I think the script point you make is spot on though. No matter how good the actor may be as Bond they need good material to back them up. The same is true with Craig now.
I can't blame Pierce entirely. Very few of these films actually had been about James Bond and more about the spectacle.
Yes, Bond has always been an icon to a certain degree. The opening shot of SC in Dr No could be considered as iconic.
Yes he was more of a character in GE but he wasn't much of one. I wish they expanded on the Monte Carlo scenes. Particularly why M would have Bond be examined by a psycho analyst. The film had some good opprotunities to truly delve into Bond's character.
Also speaking of the 006 betrayal, I would have dumped all that Lienz Cossack nonsense. Trevelyan simply should have seen that his duty was playing "red indians" just like Bond in Fleming's Casino Royale except this 00-agent takes a dark turn.
I think that was the point. Trevelyan was meant to represent the darker side to Bond. Whilst Bond recognised the ugliness of his duty but remained "the loyal terrier", Trevelyan was bitter and vengeful. The main weakness in the plot was that Trevelyan was simply too young to have been around during the events he described. I still think thats quite minor though.
True enough, though it's not the only time such a thing has happened in the Bond world (and it's a general film trope, anyhow).
Perhaps the worst offender in the Bond series regarding actors being the wrong age for their characters is FYEO - Julian Glover and Topol are at least ten years too young for their character histories, Lynn-Holly Johnson too old, and there are even some who claim Roger Moore was too old
I thought it was a terribly bad writing. They didn't even make an effort for Trevelyan to look older.
Why were Glover and Topol too young ? I heard no mention of World War II from the original source material. According to the film, the Greece Resistance was against the communists.
" I might as well ask you if all those vodka martinis ever silence the screams of all the men you've killed... or if you find forgiveness in the arms of all those willing women for all the dead ones you failed to protect." That line when I hear it today is still extremely heavy. I think Alec was the perfect villain.
~ Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
They'd have been perhaps 11 even at the time of the Greek Civil War.
Too bad Alec was fooled by Bond at basically every turn. He did every Bond villian cliche. Right down to letting Bond inside the control room. I always thought Bean could have been a fine James Bond but he was a lousy villian.
But Glover clearly did not look as old as he was in reality. Topol certaintly did but it wasn't like Alec Trevelyan who clearly was James Bond's age when he was suppose to be motivated by vengance that would make him easily 60.
Both actors were in their mid-forties when shooting FYEO, making them too young to have fought in either WW2 or the Greek Civil War as their characters were supposed to. I disagree that Mr "Glover clearly did not look as old as he was in reality" - he certainly did.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't find Glover's age that distracting. I am more distracted by the fact that he was terribly dull.