Why I like Connery's Bond
sirso
Posts: 211MI6 Agent
Recently, I've been thinking about why I think Connery's Bond is the best. Some things quickly come to mind: his walk, his accent, his physique, his colouring, his manner, his flippancy, his arrogance, his individualism, his ability to look cool in a suit without looking like a male model. These are just a few things that come to mind as I write.
For me, these things have become so large a part of the cinematic conception of Bond, that it is very hard or me to get used to other Bond actors that don't have them... or rather not all of them. No doubt, this is a failing in me, due perhaps to my age (55) and having first seen Connery's Bond at the age of 8 in 1975, when Dr No was the very first Bond film to be shown on UK TV. From 1975 till 1979, during which time UK TV showed all the Connery Bond films (Live and Let Die was first shown on UK TV in January or February 1980, I think) the only model available to me for James Bond was Connery's conception of Bond. Even when reading a few of the Bond novels during this period, I always saw in my imagination Connery's Bond in the literary one (much later it changed to Dalton).
I enjoyed all of Moore's Bond films, and the first Dalton one. Though both actors portrayed Bond very differently from Connery, I could overlook this, as the films in themselves (music, script, cinematography etc) were more or less faithful to the style of the Connery era films.
By the time Brosnan came along, the films' style had changed to that of contemporary cinema of the time. The lighting was different, the cinematography was too, and John Barry had left the franchise. These things, and Brosnan's male model looks and dandyish dress sense, were a "turn-off" for me. The only Brosnan Bond film I paid to see was Goldeneye.
Then Craig came along, and I lost interest in the films entirely. I did pay to see Casino Royale, out of sheer curiosity, but I thought it overlong, and too Jason Bourne-like - which was probably Eon's intention, as Bourne had replaced Bond as an action figure at the time, and Eon needed to rebrand to compete.
I forgot to mention Lazenby. His Bond was the nearest to Connery's, but because Lazenby was not a trained actor, it was something of a pale imitation, yet watchable. He did bring a new take on Bond - the sensitive side, showing for the first time that Bond can cry and be frightened. To that extent, he was perfect for that particular film. Connery would have been less able to bring a similar pathos to the film's ending, without it seeming out of character for his Bond.
I was going to title this thread "Essential aspects of the cinematic Bond's persona" and ask for people to list the things they think the cinematic Bond should have and never lose. But that would have probably caused arguments.
Comments
I'm a bit older than you (I'm a bit older than most around here, bar CHB and BL) so was introduced to the cinematic James Bond in the 60s, ie Sean Connery. Everyone else to my mind is playing catch-up, no matter how good most of them are.
I'm incredibly young 😁 and agree 100% with @Barbel Connery is (to me at least) The origin of the species. The other
actors can only compete for second place.
He's clearly superb, but I think the amazing thing about Bond is that he somehow hasn't been the only definite one leaving everyone else in the shade: when I'm watching Roger or Daniel I'm not thinking that I miss Sean; they have total presence as Bond when you're watching them. Kind of amazing really.
I track this very closely. At 58, though, I started three years earlier, in 1972, with DAF. As well as seeing that and every subsequent Bond on general release in the cinema, I caught GF and TB in double bills with DN before watching all the 60s Bonds on TV. I wish I'd seen more of them in the cinema in double bills at that time.
I well remember that Sunday night in 1975 when DN was broadcast "for the first time on British television." Wasn't it on Christmas Night in 1979 that they got up to DAF?
I only really part ways with you in that I invest in Craig's Bond films too, but for me, like you, 'proper' James Bond is firmly rooted in my 70s viewings and Connery remains the paradigm, my favourite.
I think DAF premiered Christmas 78, but it's in the James Bond Legacy coffee table book.
Interesting to compare with Clint's Dirty Harry. A cool, iconic hero with a gun, based on an actor's star presence, ditto Ford's Indiana Jones. But unlike those two, Connery's Bond had a number of trappings that can be picked up by other actors - the vodka martini, the 'Bond, James Bond' catchphrase, the James Bond theme, the gadgets, the tux, the senior personel. Harry's stuck in Frisco and aside from the Magnum, I can't think of any traits he has. Indy has his hat, his whip and his own theme too, but he's confined to archeology and best when paired with Nazis, otherwise he gets a bit lost. There's not much scope for others inhabiting the role. Also, Bond's got a World, something indefinable but there, a sort of heightened reality if you know what I mean. The sense that things are going on in it of interest, crafty and interesting villains with big schemes and that without Bond nobody would be there to know about them.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Yup, it was Christmas 78... thanks
'Dirty Harry' kind of had a world too, based firmly in the original movie and Lalo Schifrin's theme.
I think it'd be very easy to say the same of Bond in 1967: there's no scope for anyone else to fill those shoes once Connery has gone. But it turned out not to be true- I think it'd be just the same to replace Ford as Indy if they had the taste for it, I don't really see how there's any less scope for others playing the same thing. Bond is confined to spying just as much as Indy is confined to archaeology.
I think Connery is clearly amazing, but his portrayal remains somehow distant when onscreen. He's a bit unknowable and I actually find him to be a bit more of an unrelatable superman than Moore's version, even though he became known as the button-pressing one. Which is obviously fine, it's different rather than better/worse; I find myself purely enjoying watching Roger a bit more and I think he may well be my favourite. Craig is brilliant too- they kind of all share or at least vie for the top spot in my mind.
I probably see it different to many on here but this is my take
There were 3 Classic Bonds but my personal favorite was Brosnan, It started with Connery then Moore and finished with Brosnan, they are varients of THE SAME Classic Bond, sure Moore went over the top at times with comedy and Brosnan could be completely ruthless and has killed more henchmen than anyone else but they have the same CORE ELEMENTS needed to be Bond where it really mattered...... A Deadly Charming Charismatic Suave Sophisticated Womanizing Playboy and that's why every guy wanted to be him
If you want the more serious and realistic Bond of the novels then watch Dalton and Craig movies which are good action movies but NOT Bond movies, a generic action movie wouldn't have gotten past Dr No
Bond was by far the coolest guy on the planet for decades (despite LTK being as serious as a heart attack) through Connery Moore then Brosnan
You can't be the coolest guy on the planet if you resign twice because you've fallen in love TWICE
Bond died the day Brosnan handed in his Walther PPK & LTK IMO
Welcome to AJB007, 1PR007. Hope you post some more! 🙂
Thanks Barbel, I was born in the mid 60s so I can just about remember Moore taking over from Connery, I love them both but Brosnan edges it for me, those 3 are the only cinematic Bonds IMO but everyone has their views
I should add that though I think Connery's Bond is the ideal "template" for the film version of Bond, that doesn't mean other "versions" of Bond are invalid cinematically. I enjoyed all the Moore Bonds and the first Dalton one.
The Brosnan ones would have appealed to me had their cinematic style remained faithful to the look of the previous ones. For me, it is the whole cinematic visual style of the early Bonds that I miss so much. The languid pans, the defined shots, the true colour film stock, the lighting, Barry's music, the editing of the fight scenes etc.
Even Connery's Bond was diminished by the lack of these elements in Never Say Never. Mind you, in that film, Connery was not playing Bond as he played him in the 1960s. He was closer to Moore's Bond.
This is very true.
Roger is my 'favourite' Bond. Always will be. He's the Bond I grew up with and idolised, but I don't think he is necessarily the 'best' Bond.
I really like all the actors and they all bring something different to the role and each of them are of their time. I can happily watch any of the actors and for those two hours each of them ARE James Bond 007. I'm just watching James Bond in an adventure. To paraphrase Bond in YOLT. Neither tastes better. Just different.
Roger is my 'favourite' Bond. Always will be. He's the Bond I grew up with and idolised, but I don't think he is necessarily the 'best' Bond.
Yup, I've said literally the exact same thing myself before.
Does anyone know if Martin Kemp was ever considered for Bond when he was younger?
He was suited to it physically I thought. Whether he could have acted the part is another thing. But he was good in The Krays. And performed the fight scenes well.
As the YOLT poster stated - Sean Connery IS James Bond. No one can match his style. George Lazenby is my favourite Bond though, as OHMSS is the best of the franchise. Roger Moore used his charisma for his stint and it worked perfectly well but it wasn’t really James Bond, more of a Templar/Sinclair hybrid. Timothy Dalton was excellent - the closest portrayal of the Bond of the novels. Pierce Brosnan was not very good at all, he didn’t look or act like Bond. Daniel Craig was very good in CR, as a stand-alone Bond film it ranks close to the top, unfortunately what followed tarnished his run of films, constant angst is not needed in a Bond film that should be full of fun, fights, glamour, outrageous villains and henchmen, and seducing pretty girls.
Sshh, CHB, we're not supposed to say that. We're supposed to have spent the last 16 years admiring the emperor's lovely new outfit.
Or we can actually have just genuinely enjoyed it, as a few million of us did. If you look at this forum it's mostly full of people moaning about the last few films so you're not exactly being silenced 😉
Hell, I know that, emtiem. Just having my fun.
Edit- @emtiem Silenced, no, of course not. Outnumbered, yes!
To me Connery is the best James Bond. He may also be the least good Bond. Connery in his 60's Bond movies is absolutely great. But his performances in DAF and NSNA has never appealed to me and I'd rather watch any of the other Bond actors.
I agree with most of this. OHMSS also has the best musical score of the series, with the LALD score a close second.
Well said.
The Craig era has almost become sacrosanct in many quarters.
I agree. I would add YOLT to the list of Connery mediocre Bond performances. By then, he was getting sick of the role and it showed.
Yes, YOLT is where he starts slipping.
We have very different views of what Bond is about, yours is Bond of the books, mine is the cinematic fun loving playboy charismatic suave sophisticated 1 liner charming character that started with Connery through Moore then Brosnan, it's the guy everyone wanted to be, I personally can't look at Dalton or Craig movies as anything else but generic action movies that came and went, the reason Bond lasted over 40 years was because of the cinematic Bond, LTK showed that a Dalton or Craig Bond movie wouldn't have gone past a movie or 2 in the 60s, that's my view anyway
It's good to hear opposing views on an important figure like Bond though, would be boring if we all agreed
Agreed. The least fun of the Bond movie watchalongs were OHMSS and CR because we agreed they were masterpieces.
Ah, the watchalongs. Great times.
Yes, the film Bond is a distinct entity from the book Bond. And confusing the two is perhaps why many fans prefer Craig or Dalton. They are nearer to the book Bond in "seriousness" - Dalton is "the book Bond" to me.
Connery, is the definitive film Bond, if only because he was the first and, therefore, set the "template" for film Bonds. Lazenby, Moore and Brosnan, more or less followed this template with varying degrees of success. This is why I can watch them and not be too critical of them within the context of "the film Bond template".
I agree.
The film Bond and the book Bond are separate characters, and should remain so, in my view.
The film Bonds are Connery, Lazenby and Moore. And the book Bonds are Dalton and Craig... to varying degrees.
So comparing a film Bond actor with a book Bond actor is not helpful… though I have been guilty of this myself.
In terms of the Bond you like best, well you pay your money and you take your choice. But I think Sean is certainly the most important Bond historically for certain empirical reasons. Let me ramble:
To be fair, Lazenby inherited a couple of the above advantages when he started in the role. But by all accounts, including his own, he couldn't hack it. By the time Roger turned up, all the regular team were ten years older and you can feel this drop in energy across many elements of his stint. Still love Rog though. All the Bonds deserve respect, but Sean was definitely the right man at the right time.
What happened with Sean Connery's speech as he got older, i.e. in Never Say Never Again?? He seems to lisp or something in the later part of his life compared to his EON films.