Contra Connery

Le Samourai

Throughout my years of 007 fandom, I have never been a card-carrying member of the Cult of Connery.

Don’t get me wrong: Sean Connery’s Bond films (at least the first three and maybe TB) were all very good, largely because they were fairly faithful adaptions of Fleming’s novels. But as for Connery’s performance, I’ve never been a fan.

I discovered 007 through the novels, not the movies. From the books I had a sense of a complicated character with a dark streak. From his borderline substance abuse to his inability to maintain relationships with women to his self-destructive streak to his hints of fatalism, Bond was, underneath the bravado, a troubled man, not a superhero.

Were there ever any hints of this is Connery’s portrayal? Not that I ever noticed. His emotional range seemed limited to nonchalant, angry, or horny. I never felt that he cared for the women he bedded, nor felt loss when his friends died. Fleming’s Bond might break down in tears after surviving a dangerous encounter (see LALD). I can’t imagine Connery’s Bond doing the same.

Connery’s Bond just strikes me as too cocky, with too much swagger. I know many men are drawn to that sort of thing, but I’m not. It isn’t something I aspire to. I find it unappealing, both in movies and in real life.

(A relevant side note: A reviewer for Rotten Tomatoes had never seen a Bond film, so he decided to watch all of them in order and post reviews. He was a bit disturbed by Connery’s Bond, whom he thought came across like something of a sexual predator. I think the reviewer was on to something.)

I’ve read a few interviews in which Connery discussed his approach to Bond. I don’t get the impression he thought about it too much. His knowledge of the books seemed cursory at best, and he once said he portrayed Bond as “the ultimate sensualist” which isn’t much to hang one’s actorly hat on.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Connery performance that I felt was particularly deep or multilayered. In fairness, I haven’t seen some of the serious films he did with Sidney Lumet such as “The Hill” or “The Offense.” I am relying mostly on his better-known movies such as “The Untouchables.” And he was certainly entertaining in most of his films, just rather shallow.

Sean Connery is often described as having originated the role of James Bond. I don’t see it quite the same way. He was just one actor to play Bond, and he happened to be the first (not counting Barry Nelson). Other actors playing 007 should feel no obligation to try to be “Connery-like.” Timothy Dalton once said that he didn’t give much thought to previous portrayals of Bond. He said he treated the character just like he would a character from Shakespeare: A well-known character that happens to have been played by earlier actors. To me, Dalton had the right approach. It strikes me as silly to expect any post-Connery Bond actor to take his cues from Connery. I don’t expect every actor who plays Sherlock Holmes to try to be “Rathbone-like” or “Brett-like.”

Sean Connery remains, at best, my fourth favorite Bond actor, with Dalton and Craig vying for first place.

GordoLeiter

To add to the last paragraph, Lazenby was clearly just emualating Connery on OHMSS

chrisisall

Very eloquently stated bro, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Le Samourai wrote:

Sean Connery remains, at best, my fourth favorite Bond actor, with Dalton and Craig vying for first place.

Dalton has the edge for me but basically, yeah. Brosan rocked hard, though, and was capable of so much better given more to work with (see: Live Wire, Seraphrim Falls).

chrisisall

GordoLeiter wrote:

To add to the last paragraph, Lazenby was clearly just emualating Connery on OHMSS

I concur, and as others have said elsewhere, it was his inexperience as an actor that enabled him to at least come off nonchalant.

My problem with Connery & Moore is that they were never 'real' actors in the sense that they were portraying a real person, rather that they were playing one. And it was more than entertaining enough for the times they made their movies, but Dalton was the first to usher in a new era where the CHARACTER was more important that the grand pomp & circumstance of the major motion picture surrounding & supporting them.

Blackleiter

While I appreciate your thoughtful analysis, I couldn't disagree more. I have always felt that the literary Bond and the cinematic Bond were different by design, and I am a huge fan of Connery's portrayal of Bond on film. His Bond is ruthless, but possessing a certain charm that he displayed and used to his advantage when necessary. He also displayed a clever resourcefulness (shown at it's best in Goldfinger) that demonstrated his ability to be more than a government-sanctioned killer. Sure, he appeared nonchalant about danger and somewhat cold with respect to personal relationships, but I disagree with the notion that he came across as completely uncaring. While Connery's Bond wasn't one to bawl and wring his hands over the death of an ally or companion, I believe he showed a genuine, although restrained sense of loss from time to time (e.g. when Quarrel met his demise or when Bond found the lifeless, gold-covered body of Jill Masterson). And finally, Connery possessed a wit and physicality that made his 007 such fun to watch, and that's why he set the standard for every other actor who followed. In my opinion, none of them have matched him, although at times Craig has come close.

Le Samourai wrote:

Throughout my years of 007 fandom, I have never been a card-carrying member of the Cult of Connery.

Don’t get me wrong: Sean Connery’s Bond films (at least the first three and maybe TB) were all very good, largely because they were fairly faithful adaptions of Fleming’s novels. But as for Connery’s performance, I’ve never been a fan.

I discovered 007 through the novels, not the movies. From the books I had a sense of a complicated character with a dark streak. From his borderline substance abuse to his inability to maintain relationships with women to his self-destructive streak to his hints of fatalism, Bond was, underneath the bravado, a troubled man, not a superhero.

Were there ever any hints of this is Connery’s portrayal? Not that I ever noticed. His emotional range seemed limited to nonchalant, angry, or horny. I never felt that he cared for the women he bedded, nor felt loss when his friends died. Fleming’s Bond might break down in tears after surviving a dangerous encounter (see LALD). I can’t imagine Connery’s Bond doing the same.

Connery’s Bond just strikes me as too cocky, with too much swagger. I know many men are drawn to that sort of thing, but I’m not. It isn’t something I aspire to. I find it unappealing, both in movies and in real life.

(A relevant side note: A reviewer for Rotten Tomatoes had never seen a Bond film, so he decided to watch all of them in order and post reviews. He was a bit disturbed by Connery’s Bond, whom he thought came across like something of a sexual predator. I think the reviewer was on to something.)

I’ve read a few interviews in which Connery discussed his approach to Bond. I don’t get the impression he thought about it too much. His knowledge of the books seemed cursory at best, and he once said he portrayed Bond as “the ultimate sensualist” which isn’t much to hang one’s actorly hat on.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Connery performance that I felt was particularly deep or multilayered. In fairness, I haven’t seen some of the serious films he did with Sidney Lumet such as “The Hill” or “The Offense.” I am relying mostly on his better-known movies such as “The Untouchables.” And he was certainly entertaining in most of his films, just rather shallow.

Sean Connery is often described as having originated the role of James Bond. I don’t see it quite the same way. He was just one actor to play Bond, and he happened to be the first (not counting Barry Nelson). Other actors playing 007 should feel no obligation to try to be “Connery-like.” Timothy Dalton once said that he didn’t give much thought to previous portrayals of Bond. He said he treated the character just like he would a character from Shakespeare: A well-known character that happens to have been played by earlier actors. To me, Dalton had the right approach. It strikes me as silly to expect any post-Connery Bond actor to take his cues from Connery. I don’t expect every actor who plays Sherlock Holmes to try to be “Rathbone-like” or “Brett-like.”

Sean Connery remains, at best, my fourth favorite Bond actor, with Dalton and Craig vying for first place.

0073

Le Samourai wrote:

.....

For what it’s worth, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Connery performance that I felt was particularly deep or multilayered. In fairness, I haven’t seen some of the serious films he did with Sidney Lumet such as “The Hill” or “The Offense.” I am relying mostly on his better-known movies such as “The Untouchables.” And he was certainly entertaining in most of his films, just rather shallow

...

You should really check out "The Name of The Rose" by Jean-Jacques Annaud for a deeper, multilayered Connery.

Sir Hillary Bray

Well-articulated point of view, Le Samourai, but I think your argument applies not to Connery's Bond, but rather to EON's. Personally, I have always taken the notion that certain films are "Fleming-esque" with more than a grain of salt. As Blackleiter says, from the beginning there was a deliberate move by the filmmakers away from Bond's darker, more introspective side.

You need only compare the middle-of-the-night casino settings in the first book and the first film. Fleming's very first line in Casino Royale talks up the stench and whatnot at Royale-les-Eaux -- you almost feel sweaty just reading it. By contrast, the scene at Les Ambassadeurs is characterized by light banter and perfectly coiffed gamblers whose tuxedos and evening gowns look fresh and clean. Bond's cinematic introduction -- smoke, theme music, iconic line -- is "cool" in a way that the literary Bond never was.

This was driven first and foremost by Broccoli and Saltzman, who felt they needed to lighten up the character to make him more entertaining and appealing. Then they gave Terence Young the reins to make it happen. Whether or not you like those decisions, I would argue that it wasn't Connery making them. He was simply a good vehicle for them.

By the way, you should watch The Hill. It is Connery playing the anti-Bond, and he is fabulous.

chrisisall

Sir Hillary Bray wrote:

By the way, you should watch The Hill. It is Connery playing the anti-Bond, and he is fabulous.

Oh yeah. Great movie too.

Le Samourai

Sir Hillary Bray wrote:

Well-articulated point of view, Le Samourai, but I think your argument applies not to Connery's Bond, but rather to EON's. Personally, I have always taken the notion that certain films are "Fleming-esque" with more than a grain of salt. As Blackleiter says, from the beginning there was a deliberate move by the filmmakers away from Bond's darker, more introspective side.

You need only compare the middle-of-the-night casino settings in the first book and the first film. Fleming's very first line in Casino Royale talks up the stench and whatnot at Royale-les-Eaux -- you almost feel sweaty just reading it. By contrast, the scene at Les Ambassadeurs is characterized by light banter and perfectly coiffed gamblers whose tuxedos and evening gowns look fresh and clean. Bond's cinematic introduction -- smoke, theme music, iconic line -- is "cool" in a way that the literary Bond never was.

This was driven first and foremost by Broccoli and Saltzman, who felt they needed to lighten up the character to make him more entertaining and appealing. Then they gave Terence Young the reins to make it happen. Whether or not you like those decisions, I would argue that it wasn't Connery making them. He was simply a good vehicle for them.

By the way, you should watch The Hill. It is Connery playing the anti-Bond, and he is fabulous.

I think your and Blackleiter's points about EON are quite reasonable. When I wrote my original post, I gave some thought to whether or not I should go into that aspect of Connery's portrayal. I decided not to, as I wanted to concentrate more on what I saw on the screen as opposed to the behind-the-scenes stuff, excepting the references to Connery's thoughts on Bond.

I do acknowledge that there is a Fleming Bond and an EON Bond. I much prefer the Fleming Bond, and I'm glad that he's been popping up more on screen since the end of the Moore Era.

chrisisall

Le Samourai wrote:

I much prefer the Fleming Bond

When I was a kid, I preferred Connery's comic book Bond (YOLT was my favourite), but now that I'm older, I'm much more interested in what makes Bond tick, and when I get a bit of THAT in a movie, I'm thrilled.

superado

As said, James Bond was slightly altered when he was transplanted to the screen and rightly so, or we likely wouldn't have this sizable body of films to enjoy, and also mentioned, Terrence Young was largely responsible for this successful interpretation. Connery was more or less the blank slate he used, though letting just enough of his own mannerism show through to exploit the sex appeal and gravitas needed for the character. The period was ripe for it, with the rise of machismo and the sexual revolution and a prig, public school bad-boy, Bond wouldn't have been too appealing visually. I believe there are parallels with Craig's success today, since current tastes are for audiences that prefer the edgier things of life, with much of the in-your-face attitude and a deconstructionist view on "the establishment," e.g., Bond ala Daniel Craig. That's What Connery's Bond did to the waning lettermen boys of the 50's, though good looks (albeit rough in Connery's case) were still a premium unlike today.

chrisisall

I would venture to say that DN had the same "Whoah- this guy's ROUGH!" effect on audiences that CR had recently.