Flemings Views on Craig

AlphaOmegaSin

What do you think Fleming would of thought of Craigs Performance as Bond?

Number24

I think his appearance, (as in looks, clothes, manners, dialect) he would have found not enough public school. Craig's secret agent as a "blunt instrument" he would have liked.

Gassy Man

I think he would have thought Craig's Bond's characterization too dark and one note, while at the same time, he would have been very happy with what Craig did within those limitations. In other words, he would have recognized that the scripts reduce Bond to being less dimensional than he is in the books, but the actor playing Bond captured those dimensions brilliantly.

I'm not sure he would have appreciated Craig's blond hair or the boxer's nose, though. Fleming was very much a snob and particular about the phrenology of his characters. I've always thought that in terms of Bond's literary description, George Lazenby came closest, though he, like nearly all the Bonds, is much too tall to match the literary Bond. But outside of Connery, I suspect the actor he would have been most pleased with in terms of appearances was Brosnan.

To me, the closest anyone has ever gotten on film to Bond in the book is Cary Grant in Notorious. He is more handsome, of course, than Bond is described, but his personality and range of emotions is much closer to what Fleming describes in the books, to the degree that I wonder how much Fleming was influenced.

Thunderpussy

Tough question ) maybe like Connery he wouldn't be a huge fan at the beginning, but I'm sure
He'd come round ( as others have ) ) . As many have pointed out, sure he looks nothing like
the Bond of the novels, but I do think ( as with Dalton ) he does capture the Core of Bond. -{

Number24

Gassy Man wrote:

I think he would have thought Craig's Bond's characterization too dark and one note, while at the same time, he would have been very happy with what Craig did within those limitations. In other words, he would have recognized that the scripts reduce Bond to being less dimensional than he is in the books, but the actor playing Bond captured those dimensions brilliantly.

I'm not sure he would have appreciated Craig's blond hair or the boxer's nose, though. Fleming was very much a snob and particular about the phrenology of his characters. I've always thought that in terms of Bond's literary description, George Lazenby came closest, though he, like nearly all the Bonds, is much too tall to match the literary Bond. But outside of Connery, I suspect the actor he would have been most pleased with in terms of appearances was Brosnan.

To me, the closest anyone has ever gotten on film to Bond in the book is Cary Grant in Notorious. He is more handsome, of course, than Bond is described, but his personality and range of emotions is much closer to what Fleming describes in the books, to the degree that I wonder how much Fleming was influenced.

I will always wonder how it would have turned out if Hitchcock had made CR in the 50's in the style and mood of Notorious and starring Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman ....

Thunderpussy

Hitchcock did make a Bond film :007) North by Northwest. )

Barbel

Thunderpussy wrote:

Hitchcock did make a Bond film :007) North by Northwest. )

And Fleming was very impressed with it.

Charmed & Dangerous

North by Northwest is often cited as being the blue- print for The Man from UNCLE. Take a innocent and thrust them into the word of espionage - that was the show's basic premise. Take Leo G Carroll as boss of the secret agency too and throw in Some witty and exiting action sequences and you have UNCLE.

And of course Fleming was consulted on the creation of The Man from UNCLE, and even named the Mafia character Solo from Goldfinger after Napoleon Solo.

Back on topic (ahem) I think Fleming would have liked Craig's straightforward portrayal and also that Craig can portray emotion without losing sight of the tough Bond character.

always shaken

as my wife just said ""how can any one not like Daniel?"

Barbel

Charmed & Dangerous wrote:

And of course Fleming was consulted on the creation of The Man from UNCLE, and even named the Mafia character Solo from Goldfinger after Napoleon Solo.

Eon objected to the TV series intended title "Solo" and the name was changed to "The Man From UNCLE".

Number24

Thunderpussy wrote:

Hitchcock did make a Bond film :007) North by Northwest. )

Perhaps, but North by Nortwest has more the tone of Goldfinger. Notorious feels a lot like CR should.

AlphaOmegaSin

39 Steps is very Bond-ish too

Gassy Man

Number24 wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

I think he would have thought Craig's Bond's characterization too dark and one note, while at the same time, he would have been very happy with what Craig did within those limitations. In other words, he would have recognized that the scripts reduce Bond to being less dimensional than he is in the books, but the actor playing Bond captured those dimensions brilliantly.

I'm not sure he would have appreciated Craig's blond hair or the boxer's nose, though. Fleming was very much a snob and particular about the phrenology of his characters. I've always thought that in terms of Bond's literary description, George Lazenby came closest, though he, like nearly all the Bonds, is much too tall to match the literary Bond. But outside of Connery, I suspect the actor he would have been most pleased with in terms of appearances was Brosnan.

To me, the closest anyone has ever gotten on film to Bond in the book is Cary Grant in Notorious. He is more handsome, of course, than Bond is described, but his personality and range of emotions is much closer to what Fleming describes in the books, to the degree that I wonder how much Fleming was influenced.

I will always wonder how it would have turned out if Hitchcock had made CR in the 50's in the style and mood of Notorious and starring Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman ....

It would have been a very interesting film, I think. Notorious has a lot of the same themes, and even the Claude Rains character is something of a LeChiffre in that he is playing a deadly game with both the good guys and the bad guys, who by the way, are wonderful in that they're a bunch of creeps who nonetheless are trying to fit into polite society so long as they get to mold it in their image. At the end of Notorious, the fate of the Rains character is more or less the same as that of LeChiffre, and there is even a poisoning in the story.

Gassy Man

Number24 wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

Hitchcock did make a Bond film :007) North by Northwest. )

Perhaps, but North by Nortwest has more the tone of Goldfinger. Notorious feels a lot like CR should.

Great point!

Number24

Thank you. I saw Notorious a few weeks ago and I thought that the film had the look, feel, tone and even some characters of the novel Casino Royale.

Firemass

I found myself rooting for Claud Raines, whereas Cary Grant seemed like a jerk.

superado

Interesting question, though one that comes up occasionally. I believe at this point in time of Bondmania (if we can call it that), with so much that’s gone in the way of movie Bond’s journey, it’s important to keep distinct and separate whatever original vision that Fleming might have had, in contrast to what’s going on today with the movie franchise. Whenever a movie came close to Fleming’s Bond, like with the early ones, OHMSS and the Dalton entries, it was a novelty, but now, there’s such a varied history along with its baggage to look back on, not to mention the reboot. I for one can appreciate DC and the reboot as a breath of fresh air because of twists and turns that had taken place since 1962…but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that it’s gone “back to Fleming.”

Regarding acting ability, which distinguishes DC from his predecessors, I haven't come across any indicators of Fleming having a refined taste for the dramatic arts. In some ways, IMO, he wouldn't be unlike Quentin Tarantino in having a pulp, non-establishment appreciation of story-telling and the EON movies up to the time of his death, were precisely that, pop/pulp action/adventure alternatives to the serious and heavy, critically acclaimed movies of the time. When exploring options in getting his first book printed, IF said "What I want is not a publisher, but a "factory" which will shift this opus of mine like "Gone with the Naked and the Dead."" ...so similarly, IMO, he did not put too much stock in acting excellence because in some ways, he was a mercenary.

It's important to note however that above everything else, Fleming valued and maintained his "vision" and ideal of the Bond character and the world he moved in, evidenced by his candidate Bond actors and the suggestions about “Bond’s world” that he corresponded about with EON. As earlier mentioned in this thread, I think IF the snob envisioned a Bond as a well-monied Etonian-type like himself, who was also handsome and of above-average height. On perceived class differences, we know what IF first thought about Connery. Similarly, Ann Fleming, after Ian's death, made derogatory class-related comments about Kingsley Amis, though to be fair that's not a view necessarily shared by Fleming, but I mention these things because I think in art the physical (including socio/economical trappings) often belies conceptual ideals, that visual cues speak volumes and hypothetically, the visual package presented by DC to Fleming’s mind would totally contradict his “vision” of Bond not just in physical terms but also conceptually. Just examine his writings and how in them, beauty correlates with virtue, and the grotesque is consistently linked with evil…and with that, I don’t think IF would have approved of DC, but it would be unfair and uncalled for to measure DC by that standard; rather, let’s appreciate him for his fantastic, fresh, original and energetic interpretation to an otherwise tired screen character.