Connery's Bond still quintessential? Possible Spoilers

Halcon

Ok, now that we've distanced ourselves (albeit only slightly) from the madness that was Skyfall openning weekend...


...we can see Craig's Bond in Skyfall with a little more objectivity, no?
Skyfall's Bond was Craig's absolute best, no doubt. But, there were still some elements missing, sadly.
Craig still either can't or choses not to be a little more sophisticated in his manner. He had a few scenes in Skyfall (the cufflink for ex) that made this his best Bond performance yet. But was it these scenes that made it better? And if so, these scenes are applauded because why? Because they remind us of the way the 'original' Bond use to do it?

Mendes has been clear that he wanted to make a 'classic' Bond and he succeeded on many levels. Skyfall broke all kinds of records thus far, proving that it is a fantastically popular Bond movie.

Yet it is a 'classic' Bond movie. Classic as in Connery era classic? If so, then Connery's take must still be the quintessential interpretation and the one that is most popular amongst the masses. Which means that perhaps the producers and 'thinkers' of these Craig movies might of misjudged what the public really wants , which is a Connery Bond film.

Jimmy Bond

Craig's far more Fleming in his portrayal than Connery's. His characterization ampled the sophistication and the coolness that was not originally present in the character. Craig, like Brosnan and, especially, Dalton before him try and emphasize on the character's loneliness and humanity more. In fact, Connery's most Fleming-like performance could be argued to be in Thunderball, and maybe not even then.

That said, Connery is still the definitive cinematic Bond, because it continues to capture the imagination of many filmgoers around the world.

Luke

Tastes change. I think Connery's Bond is definitive in terms of the overall "universality" of the character (at least in cinema). However, Craig in Skyfall is certainly the quintessential Bond of our time. I suppose you could see it in terms of general versus specific.

Shplendid

Suave, charming, elegant, sophisticated, not to mention poise and style (Connery moved like a caged panther).......all of these are integral to the essential character of James Bond!!! :007)

Leave all of these out, as did D C's portrayal, then all we are left with is 'another' JB.........Jason Bourne.

osris

I agree. Connery also brought an elegant nonchalance to the role, tinged with an element of repressed violence, and had a sleekness of movement, and a no nonsense manner, that most British males in films of the early to mid-1960s didn't have. I don’t think Craig, or any of the other Bond actors, have managed to capture this.

Blackleiter

As much as I like Craig's portrayal, I absolutely agree that no other actor has captured all of the elements you identified the way Connery did. I think that's extremely difficult to do (although, to his credit, Connery made it look easy), and that's why I'm convinced that Sir Sean will always be the quintessential Bond.

osris wrote:

I agree. Connery also brought an elegant nonchalance to the role, tinged with an element of repressed violence, and had a sleekness of movement, and a no nonsense manner, that most British males in films of the early to mid-1960s didn't have. I don’t think Craig, or any of the other Bond actors, have managed to capture this.

osris

And that he was able to do this coming from an impoverished and working class background makes it even more of an achievement. People tend to underrate how much acting he did as Bond, but the way he brings all those elements together and makes it look easy proves he’s a great actor—at least regarding this role.

chrisisall

I hate to say this, but there's Connery, and there's Dalton. I like the rest immensely, there are only two at the top IMO.

osris

I think Connery’s Bond is the most perfect Bond for the films, but Dalton’s comes second. He’s certainly the closest of the Bond actors to Fleming’s Bond—certainly closer than Craig is. Craig is closer to the Steve McQueen character in “Bullit”, I think. It’s because of this that I haven’t got used Craig as Bond. It’s like I’m watching a more emotionally unresponsive Steve McQueen, if such a thing can be possible.

Halcon

chrisisall wrote:

I hate to say this, but there's Connery, and there's Dalton. I like the rest immensely, there are only two at the top IMO.

Just saw TLD,

wow! what a movie, and no doubt, Dalton did one heck of a job as Bond.

chrisisall

Halcon wrote:

Just saw TLD,
wow! what a movie, and no doubt, Dalton did one heck of a job as Bond.

My favourite Bond movie, btw. -{

DEFIANT 74205

osris wrote:

I agree. Connery also brought an elegant nonchalance to the role, tinged with an element of repressed violence, and had a sleekness of movement, and a no nonsense manner, that most British males in films of the early to mid-1960s didn't have. I don’t think Craig, or any of the other Bond actors, have managed to capture this.

-{

And THAT is why Connery is still the best Bond.

chrisisall wrote:

I hate to say this, but there's Connery, and there's Dalton. I like the rest immensely, there are only two at the top IMO.

-{

I agree with you.

L Jones

Classic as in Connery era classic? If so, then Connery's take must still be the quintessential interpretation and the one that is most popular amongst the masses.

One, I don't view all of Connery's movies as "classic". Two, I don't view him as the quintessential James Bond. While I was watching Connery on TV in the 70s, I was watching Roger Moore as Bond in the movie theaters. For me, there is no quintessential Bond. All six actors were great to me. I'm not being diplomatic. Most of my favorite Bond movies feature all six actors.

chrisisall

L Jones wrote:

Most of my favorite Bond movies feature all six actors.

Same here. My top ten have them all; only my top five have only three of them.

osris

L Jones wrote:

Most of my favorite Bond movies feature all six actors.

Mine too, as action films. But for me, Connery gave the definitive Bond performance.

minigeff

Sorry, chumps but you've all missed the point.

Connery was a fecking gorilla when cast as Bond, and there's only one guy you can lay praise at for turning this knuckle scraping piss artist into a sophistacated super spy - Terrence Young. Many people even said Terrence could have been Bond.

Connery was good because Young turned him into Bond, its as simple as that. Everyone says Connery is the best blah blah blah. No, Connery was the first, this doesn't automatically make him the best. Would the series have survived with someone else playing Bond? Who knows, we can't speculate on that as you'll never come to a conclusion as its a matter of opinion.

If you want an actor close to the Fleming Bond, I'd say Dalton. TLD is, imho one of the best Bond films.

chrisisall

minigeff wrote:

Connery was a fecking gorilla when cast as Bond,
knuckle scraping piss artist

Don't mince words MG, how do you REALLY feel? )

minigeff

chrisisall wrote:

minigeff wrote:

Connery was a fecking gorilla when cast as Bond,
knuckle scraping piss artist

Don't mince words MG, how do you REALLY feel? )

Connery is a dick. Yes he's good at Bond, and Henry Jones Snr. but apart from that, utter codshit.

I get sick and tired of people sniffing this guys backside just because a) everyone else says so and b) cos he was the first.

Jimmy Bond

minigeff wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

minigeff wrote:

Connery was a fecking gorilla when cast as Bond,
knuckle scraping piss artist

Don't mince words MG, how do you REALLY feel? )

Connery is a dick. Yes he's good at Bond, and Henry Jones Snr. but apart from that, utter codshit.

I get sick and tired of people sniffing this guys backside just because a) everyone else says so and b) cos he was the first.

Well, he IS a good actor. He's had the opportunity of having a distinguished career besides Bond. I don't see why that would bother anyone.

And also, Barry Nelson was the first James Bond, or Jimmy Bond, if you want, so..

chrisisall

He was good in The Hill....

osris

minigeff wrote:

Connery was good because Young turned him into Bond

Young did, indeed, suggest Bond’s likely clothing choices to Connery and other such stylistic matters, but it takes a good actor to pull it off, and make it seem so effortless. All the other actors since Connery have always seemed to me to be struggling at it—apart from Craig whose given up trying to be Bond, and is having some popular success with it at the moment.

Halcon

minigeff wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

minigeff wrote:

Connery was a fecking gorilla when cast as Bond,
knuckle scraping piss artist

Don't mince words MG, how do you REALLY feel? )

Connery is a dick. Yes he's good at Bond, and Henry Jones Snr. but apart from that, utter codshit.

I get sick and tired of people sniffing this guys backside just because a) everyone else says so and b) cos he was the first.

Fair point regarding Terence Young's influence, hard to deny this. But Terence Young himself could not have been Bond in the movies, he lacked (in my opinion) any kind of presence, and presence is what Connery's got in outrageous amounts. Hence, all the backside sniffing.

still, i tend to agree that Connery is not the best actor, as in , he basically plays the same character (rather plays himself) in all his movies. the one movie where he strayed somewhat from this was Untouchables and lo and behold he wins an academy for it. The fact is, Sean is the 'coolest' cat to play the part so far, even other heavy weight actors were in awe of him. His coolness factor had nothing to do with his acting abilities. two different things.

minigeff

Yeah but Young didn't wear a wig.

Barbel

minigeff wrote:

Yeah but Young didn't wear a wig.

Except when doubling for Pedro Armendariz in FRWL! )

osris

Halcon wrote:

i tend to agree that Connery is not the best actor, as in , he basically plays the same character

I don’t agree with this entirely. He is limited in range, yes, but I don’t think he always plays the same character. He was very different to Bond in “The Hill” and “The Offence”, and even in DAF he played a different type of Bond than he did in FRWL. The DAF Bond was more light-hearted (almost a precursor to Moore’s portrayal of Bond), as was his Bond in “Never Say Never”.

Jimmy Bond

osris wrote:

even in DAF he played a different type of Bond than he did in FRWL. The DAF Bond was more light-hearted (almost a precursor to Moore’s portrayal of Bond), as was his Bond in “Never Say Never”.

I agree about DAF, but I disagree about NSNA - his portrayal there was a mixture of his GF flamboyance, and his FRWL sophistication. In short, a more naturally evolutioned version of his Bond from the first four films.

osris

On second thoughts, I agree. I was momentarily distracted by his performance in the tango dance scene in NSNA.

Blackleiter

I agree. He was also pretty good (and different) in The Anderson Tapes. Although Connery isn't on the same level of say Daniel Day-Lewis as an actor, he is certainly better than some here are giving him credit for (yes, I'm looking at YOU minigeff! )). And the whole notion that those of us who believe Connery was the best feel that way merely because he was first is hogwash. I believe Craig and Dalton have given outstanding performances as Bond, and even Brosnan was better than his scripts, but Connery pulled it all together a way no actor has since. So EON hit a homerun with their first choice - where's the crime in that?????

osris wrote:

Halcon wrote:

i tend to agree that Connery is not the best actor, as in , he basically plays the same character

I don’t agree with this entirely. He is limited in range, yes, but I don’t think he always plays the same character. He was very different to Bond in “The Hill” and “The Offence”, and even in DAF he played a different type of Bond than he did in FRWL. The DAF Bond was more light-hearted (almost a precursor to Moore’s portrayal of Bond), as was his Bond in “Never Say Never”.

CmdrAtticus

Quintessential means the most perfect embodiment of something.
Now in regards to the original cinematic version of Bond (not Fleming's Bond but Terrence Young's/EON's version), Connery is obviously "quintesssential" since he was the original and did the 60's Bond's. People who are unfamiliar with Fleming's Bond (like my wife and my friends) and are around my age always point to Connery for that very reason. It is why Weissmuller will always be THE Tarzan and Rathbone THE Sherlock Holmes. That's why all the other actors will pale to them to a certain extent. Connery's light touch combined with his ironic/wry manner and dead seriousness when the scenes called for it was how Bond was defined to audiences and any other approach is considered not authentic.
It's why my wife and my friends say Connery was the best, then maybe Moore or Brosnan - not because the latter were as good but because they could also be witty and more important, they were "good looking - and Bond has to be good looking".
As a fan of Fleming's Bond, this grates me a little, but I've accepted it with the passage of time because at least I've had the pleasure of seeing other actor's do a better stab at being the literary Bond - Dalton and now Craig, just as I got to see Jeremy Brett's Holmes.
So, I will always enjoy Connerys films and have conceded to the idea that most people will aways believe Connery was the authentic Bond, but in my heart I at least have Dalton and Craig and yes, even Lazenby.

chrisisall

^^^^See the above. -{

osris

CmdrAtticus wrote:

Now in regards to the original cinematic version of Bond (not Fleming's Bond but Terrence Young's/EON's version), Connery is obviously "quintesssential" since he was the original and did the 60's Bond's. People who are unfamiliar with Fleming's Bond (like my wife and my friends) and are around my age always point to Connery for that very reason. It is why Weissmuller will always be THE Tarzan and Rathbone THE Sherlock Holmes. That's why all the other actors will pale to them to a certain extent. Connery's light touch combined with his ironic/wry manner and dead seriousness when the scenes called for it was how Bond was defined to audiences and any other approach is considered not authentic.

Yes, I see what you mean. In a way, there are two Bonds: the literary one and the cinematic one. I suppose most of the disagreements people get into over the portrayal of Bond by various actors is that they either want them to be like the literary Bond or the cinematic Bond.