Bond Actors & Their Thoughts

BIG TAM

I received the book JAMES BOND UNMASKED as a birthday present last week. A fairly slim volume with too much emphasis on relating each film scene by scene without any real critical analysis, but it does include good interviews with each of the Bond actors.

Conducted at the time of LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN, Connery goes over old ground stating his enjoyment of the first three films & bemoaning the emphasis on gadgets, etc from THUNDERBALL onwards. No really new insights but he at least comes across as amenable on the subject.

Lazenby too offers nothing new, but again comes across as always happy to chat about his one-time experience.

Given his gentleman status, Moore surprisingly comes across as the cagiest, appearing relatively uninterested in the psychological make-up of Bond. He's a raconteur & much prefers all the off-set anecdotes.

Of far more interest are Dalton, Brosnan & Craig. They all sing from the same hymn sheet of wanting to portray a believeable character. Dalton prefers THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS & would have liked wittier scripts. Brosnan would like to have brought in more depth but had to explore such issues in films like THE TAILOR OF PANAMA instead. Both felt it hard to work with a character that was essentially set in stone. Acting-wise, Craig has the easiest job, being allowed to tinker with 007's traits.

It's well worth a look, if only for the interviews.

chrisisall

BIG TAM wrote:

Of far more interest are Dalton, Brosnan & Craig. They all sing from the same hymn sheet of wanting to portray a believeable character.

Hmmm, coincidence that I enjoy their work so immensely? 8-)

Le Samourai

This pretty much fits with everything I've read in the past.

Neither Connery nor Moore seemed to give much thought to creating a character with depth. They pretty much eschewed doing much research, and if I remember correctly, only had a passing knowledge of Ian Fleming's novels. This explains why I find both of their portrayals—yes, even Sir Sean's—rather shallow and one-dimensional.

I remember when Dalton was chosen as Bond and he was doing the interview circuit. He was very clear and articulate about his approach to the character. He was also clearly a Fleming fan, citing CR as his favorite of the series.

Brosnan and Craig both seem to mirror Dalton in their thoughtful approach to playing Bond.

Lexi

I don't tend to go for the 'on set' books, BUT this one sounds really interesting.

Having studied first year psychology - it's always been a subject of interest - this sounds like a book for me.

I've always thought that DAD suffered from lack of depth, especially from the point of view of never seeing Bond being tortured before, (and by this, I mean for a long period of time, rather than Connery in a sticky situation ) ) and the ramifications this would have.... I always felt it was just swept under the carpet.

I guess this is another reason why for me, Craig's Bond is so much more interesting... he doesn't shy away from exploring the ramifications of his actions.... and the results they produce.

Thanks for the heads up BIG TAM, I'm going to put that book on my wish list. -{

BIG TAM

And interestingly, both Brosnan & Craig specifically namecheck Dalton as being a terrific 007 in their respective interviews.

Dalton reckons OHMSS to be better than its lead actor. The interviewer counters this with a viewpoint I share; that Lazenby's relative inexperience actually makes his Bond seem more human.

Craig's much kinder to Lazenby, thinking his being surrounded by top thesps like Rigg & Savalas helped bolster his performance.

Brosnan actually wants to remake OHMSS! Perhaps he got the bug after THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR.

chrisisall

BIG TAM wrote:

And interestingly, both Brosnan & Craig specifically namecheck Dalton as being a terrific 007 in their respective interviews.

What taste, style!