What are the differences between Fleming's and Connery's James Bond?

Silhouette Man

I think one of the main differences is the sardonic humour Sean Connery brought to the role - this was a feature only of the last few books by Ian Fleming. I think that Sean Connery also had a much more commanding nature as James Bond to the point of rudeness with the minor villains - this is especially true in the first two James Bond films Dr. No and From Russia, with Love.

Now, I'd love to hear your on the essential differences between the original Ian Fleming novels and the early filmic Sean Connery James Bond films (1962-1967).

KKwheelchair

Well I quite like the Witty Bond so am happy that they changed it

Peppermill

I believe it was Terrence Young who said that although the Fleming novels didn't contain much humor they were very fun to read and he wanted that 'fun' to be in the movies too instead of making real serious spy thrillers. So he used the larger than life sets and dry humor to do this.

Silhouette Man

Peppermill wrote:

I believe it was Terrence Young who said that although the Fleming novels didn't contain much humor they were very fun to read and he wanted that 'fun' to be in the movies too instead of making real serious spy thrillers. So he used the larger than life sets and dry humor to do this.

Very interesting indeed. I've not heard of that quote from Terence Young before. The things you learn of for the first time on AJB....

KKwheelchair

yeah your right there you learn a lot here

AlphaOmegaSin

In the Novels Bond has no sense of Humor. Is overly Serious and likes to talk about Spanking Females alot.

Silhouette Man

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

In the Novels Bond has no sense of Humor. Is overly Serious and likes to talk about Spanking Females alot.

I think that there was some humour from the 1960s onwards, but it was of a much more subtle and blackly comic nature than that seen in the James Bond films, of course. It is there, but you just have to look that bit harder for it in the James Bond novels. Ian Fleming apparently had a very great sense of humour and friends lamented that he did not in fact make more use of it in his James Bond novels and short stories. As O.F. Snelling or Amis said Fleming did not laugh at his work while writing it; all was seriousness, but he may have laughed at it while reading it. As his Jamaican mistress Blanche Blackwell once said, Ian Fleming was reading the typescript of one of his later novels when he said, "I do write such rubbish". That was Old Ian - modest to the last.

Napoleon Plural

It was Young I think who felt that if filmed as they seemed, the Bond novels were sort of B-movies, one for Rank. The injection of sly humour made it a bit highbrow, for the cocktail party crowd.

Connery's physical mannerisms, the adjusting the cufflinks, the panther-like walk and that sense, as he put it, of being on guard at all times, ready for a fight, was part of it. It is also a generational difference really. He borrows stuff too, in FRWL he seems to have a bit of the young Frank Sinatra about him in his look and acting style. In TB I detect the cherubic way of Michael Caine in his smile. By DAF, it's more Walter Matthau! But many actors absorb what they see and what they perceive to be successful, perhaps why Connery had a bit of Moore about his comeback movie NSNA; he's seen it had worked.

Blackleiter

I think you've nailed it - the wit and humor are the biggest differences I notice.

Silhouette Man wrote:

I think one of the main differences is the sardonic humour Sean Connery brought to the role - this was a feature only of the last few books by Ian Fleming. I think that Sean Connery also had a much more commanding nature as James Bond to the point of rudeness with the minor villains - this is especially tre in the first two James Bond films Dr. No and From Russia, with Love.

Now, I'd love to hear your on the essential differences between the original Ian Fleming novels and the early filmic Sean Connery James Bond films (1962-1967).

Peppermill

One other thing I noticed is the face that Fleming mentions Bond's scar down his cheek in almost every novel. When a villain gives a description of Bond the scar is always one of the first things mentioned. Of course in the movies this is omitted because Connery doesn’t have a scar and EON decided not to use make-up to give him one. Why was this important part on 007’s looks not used in the movies?

AlphaOmegaSin

Peppermill wrote:

One other thing I noticed is the face that Fleming mentions Bond's scar down his cheek in almost every novel. When a villain gives a description of Bond the scar is always one of the first things mentioned. Of course in the movies this is omitted because Connery doesn’t have a scar and EON decided not to use make-up to give him one. Why was this important part on 007’s looks not used in the movies?

For consistency sake really.

Silhouette Man

Peppermill wrote:

One other thing I noticed is the face that Fleming mentions Bond's scar down his cheek in almost every novel. When a villain gives a description of Bond the scar is always one of the first things mentioned. Of course in the movies this is omitted because Connery doesn’t have a scar and EON decided not to use make-up to give him one. Why was this important part on 007’s looks not used in the movies?

No sure - perhaps it would have made James Bond look too Mike Hammer and Bulldog Drummond thuggish? But then there really is much that never translated from the novels onto the big screen, isn't there?

AlphaOmegaSin

Silhouette Man wrote:

Peppermill wrote:

One other thing I noticed is the face that Fleming mentions Bond's scar down his cheek in almost every novel. When a villain gives a description of Bond the scar is always one of the first things mentioned. Of course in the movies this is omitted because Connery doesn’t have a scar and EON decided not to use make-up to give him one. Why was this important part on 007’s looks not used in the movies?

No sure - perhaps it would have made James Bond look too Mike Hammer and Bulldog Drummond thuggish? But then there really is much that never translated from the novels onto the big screen, isn't there?

Like Bonds Love for Bacon and Eggs in the Morning.

superado

SM, it’s good you limited your question to Connery’s vs. all the Bond actors so we can have some focus though occasional comparisons with the other Bonds would be good here.

I like the references to Mike Hammer and Bulldog Drummond, which I think were influences for Fleming particularly the latter, though he wanted to give his character a veneer of his own class and style. Adding on to what’s been said about Terence Young’s “Bond Formula” in translating the character from book to screen, from the Her Majesty’s Secret Service site: http://www.hmss.com/films/young.html ...I didn’t really read closely if the article directly sourced the following from Terence Young as follows: “Young knew that if James Bond were going to differentiate himself from the standard, run of the mill hero, he needed three things that heretofore the character was lacking. Style, wit, and charm. ”

With that said, I think this is a good opportunity to draw out the literary Bond’s character in an orderly format. Here are my observations of the differences, in no order of importance:

Physicality-SC is taller, more muscular and physically imposing overall whereas JB is leaner and muscular yes, but not as much as SC, though as mentioned in another thread, JB's height of 6' in that era was meant to be imposingly taller than average people.

Above the neck-Both are dark and handsome, with dark hair (though JB’s is black). JB’s hair is not fastidiously groomed, though on occasion SC’s hair was tousled after fights, etc., Obviously, SC has no scar and it wouldn’t be realistic to expect this feature, though many have lauded PB’s upper-lip injury for being like the book Bond, lol. Where SC and JB would differ in regard to being handsome, is that SC makes an effort to turn on the charm and actively makes himself "cute," but it seems JB isn't as conceited and may not always be conscious about being handsome since he doesn't really preen himself for external effect but more for his personal tastes and satisfaction.

Walk and Bearing-SC is more relaxed, with accents of a sexy predatory gait, whereas I imagine JB’s walk at times to be economical and urgent when necessary (per my signature!) I think TD (at times) and PB did this “urgent” walk very well, without overdoing it. However, considering that the literary JB attended Eton and Fêtes College, he might have acquired mannerisms in his physical movement similar to what I’d imagine from an MP or an officer with a bowler hat and rolled umbrella, to some extent. On the other hand, I’ve mentioned many times how SC carries himself like Dean Martin doing a Vegas lounge act.

Speech-Of course, we know SC has hints of his Scottish Burr (even while playing an Irish policeman in Untouchables!) I’d imagine Bond having an accent more like Fleming’s, though maybe not as slow sounding based on how he spoke in film footage; I think JB would at times use fast and urgent dialogue, which I can’t imagine Fleming himself speaking like and I would encourage people to listen to a Fleming audiobook to hear Bond's dialogue "in action" so to speak; it's nothing like any of the actors IMO. However, as a note in that regard, I think Moore did a great job with Bond's speech in both leisurely and urgent times.

Mindset-Both could be described as “sardonic,” though they demonstrate these differently; SC is an extrovert while JB is an introvert. There’s some interesting online discussion about the literary Bond’s personality based on the Myers-Briggs personality test that’s based on Carl Jung's teachings. For those familiar, JB’s four letter combination is “ISTP” (see profile here, http://www.personalitypage.com/ISTP.html) and in short is someone who has understanding of mechanics and an interest in troubleshooting, are independent and adaptable, and typically interact with the world around them in a self-directed, spontaneous manner. What I find irritating in these discussions is that DC is also an ISTP and ergo, the literary Bond …big friggin’ leap! Then again, Woody Allen is also and ISTP and also played Bond, makes sense, right? With all that said, though, I think personality make-up is the clincher for portraying a character and therefore the final litmus test, of course after physical vital statistics and more obvious character traits.

There's a big difference being an introvert or extrovert. For example with the act of being cruel and how that plays out differently between these two extremes; one of SC's hallmark Bond behaviors was to act nonchalantly cruel at times, whereas JB, apart from his “cruel looks” hints more about cruelty internally in how Fleming described him being “saturnine,” or at least that’s how I understood the characterization. With humor, SC is more demonstrative but in contrast, JB’s humor is internalized and is more ironic in nature, sometimes in cynical appraisal of things observed by him in a funny way, or even in the form of disdain about certain people since JB doesn’t like to suffer for fools. However, what they may share is indifference to most things and easily getting bored. Lastly about SC’s cruelty, he shows irreverence and disrespect more easily, particularly towards authority figures and females, while JB in contrast internalizes this, if any, but for the most part is generally respectful of other people.

I’m sure there’s more but I think that covers the basics.

chrisisall

Excellent, Superado!!

superado

chrisisall wrote:

Excellent, Superado!!

Thanks, Chrisisall, glad you liked it!

chrisisall

superado wrote:

With humor, SC is more demonstrative but in contrast, JB’s humor is internalized and is more ironic in nature, sometimes in cynical appraisal of things observed by him in a funny way, or even in the form of disdain about certain people since JB doesn’t like to suffer for fools. However, what they may share is indifference to most things and easily getting bored.

I'd think that in 60's era film-making terms SC's Bond was a fairly close approximation to the literary Bond in that the internalization you cite was not easy to depict in the film language developed thus far; by Dalton's time it was not as difficult IMO.

perdogg

Silhouette Man wrote:

I think one of the main differences is the sardonic humour Sean Connery brought to the role - this was a feature only of the last few books by Ian Fleming. I think that Sean Connery also had a much more commanding nature as James Bond to the point of rudeness with the minor villains - this is especially tre in the first two James Bond films Dr. No and From Russia, with Love.

Now, I'd love to hear your on the essential differences between the original Ian Fleming novels and the early filmic Sean Connery James Bond films (1962-1967).

I do not understand why Bond was angry at everyone in Thunderball especially Leiter. I thought the Connery Bond was too physical not intelligent or Dynamic like the novel Bond. I cannot see the Connery Bond having a conversation with Honey about the evils of prostitution.

superado

chrisisall wrote:

superado wrote:

With humor, SC is more demonstrative but in contrast, JB’s humor is internalized and is more ironic in nature, sometimes in cynical appraisal of things observed by him in a funny way, or even in the form of disdain about certain people since JB doesn’t like to suffer for fools. However, what they may share is indifference to most things and easily getting bored.

I'd think that in 60's era film-making terms SC's Bond was a fairly close approximation to the literary Bond in that the internalization you cite was not easy to depict in the film language developed thus far; by Dalton's time it was not as difficult IMO.

I agree. I'm not one to bash Connery for being different from the literary Bond and as the HMSS article said about Terence Young's contribution to the formula, I believe that if they didn't do what they did and instead delivered a faithfully interpreted literary Bond, we would not have seen the series survive beyone 2 or 3 installments. They needed to infuse that humor and charm or else they would not have appealed to the larger movie-going audience. With Dalton on the other hand, I think even during that time and up to our own, the series wouldn't "get away" with a serious, "faithful" rendition of Bond and as much as I love Dalton's interpretation, had he gone on past LTK, I think there would have been diminishing movie attendance as the box office demonstrated with the dip with his 2 movies.

chrisisall

superado wrote:

as much as I love Dalton's interpretation, had he gone on past LTK, I think there would have been diminishing movie attendance as the box office demonstrated with the dip with his 2 movies.

I think it's possible that a third, somewhat lighter film would have cemented his acceptance as THE Bond of the early Nineties just as Brosnan did in the mid-Nineties.
He was not the 'fun' Bond, but he was the best IMO. Placed in the movie Goldeneye he, and the box office, would have rocked. -{

Silhouette Man

Any more people want to weigh in on this debate? -{

AlphaOmegaSin

I just re-read my first Post in this Thread, and I'm and baffled as to why I said there's no Humor in the Novels

CmdrAtticus

There is humor in the novels, it's just a dark sense of humor - "gallows humor". Fleming wrote Bond based on his own life and his knowledge of men like Bond during the war. I've known WWII vets (some were family members) and worked with them and this is the type of humor they developed during that period. It helped them deal with the horrors they had to often encounter. It's a sardonic way of looking at life and Fleming used it when he felt it was needed ("He disagreed with something that ate him") and EON used it to a degree in the early films (DN -"I think they were on they're way to a funeral"). Silly puns and slapstick were not and would never be in Fleming's work because though he was offering an exaggerated view of spying, he still based a lot of it on real life espionage.

Connery's Bond, though based on Fleming's spy, was adapated and molded for the modern cinema, at the time when westerns and romantic comedies dominated theaters. EON kept Fleming's material (and his version of Bond) in their early screenplays as much as possible, but emphasized the sex and the action and the quips and it was a winning box office formula.
Had they not done this - had they basically just adapted the stories with very little changes, they would have been perceived more as strictly as standard movie thrillers (like some of the Hitchcock films).

Gala Brand

1. Fleming's Bond had definite qualms about his job. You could even say he disliked it. Connery's Bond never seemed to have any problems killing people, in fact he often made a joke of it.

2. Fleming's Bond was frequently hurt emotionally and physically. Several of the novels end up with him dying or in the hospital. Connery's Bond was emotionally and physically impervious.

AlphaOmegaSin

Flemings Bond hates killing, but takes pride in doing it well when it does have to happen.

Matt S

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Flemings Bond hates killing, but takes pride in doing it well when it does have to happen.

So Roger Moore's Bond had something in common with Fleming's Bond.

broadshoulder

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Flemings Bond hates killing, but takes pride in doing it well when it does have to happen.

Good one -{ -{ -{

AlphaOmegaSin

An Example is in the TMWTGG, where Bond is in Scaramanga's Car and he has the Opportunity to kill him there and then. But he can't bring himself to do it -{

Absolutely_Cart

Connery basically took Fleming's Bond and made him a perfect person. Because if you want to sell, you need to have a likeable character and a happy ending.

Matt S

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Because if you want to sell, you need to have a likeable character and a happy ending.

That was true in the 1960s but certainly not now. That's why there's some sort of tragedy at the end of all of Daniel Craig's Bond films, and he's not nearly as likeable as most of the other Bonds.

chrisisall

Matt S wrote:

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Because if you want to sell, you need to have a likeable character and a happy ending.

That was true in the 1960s but certainly not now. That's why there's some sort of tragedy at the end of all of Daniel Craig's Bond films, and he's not nearly as likeable as most of the other Bonds.

Another thing Craig's Bond gets very right.