Bond's more sensative side

Comments

• Gassy Man USAPosts: 2,972MI6 Agent

  November 2006

  It's a bit more than we see in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" but certainly nothing unusual compared to the books. The literary Bond was always a more defined and fleshed out human being than the cinematic one, though in most of the Connery ones he's given more range than in later incarnations, where if he wasn't a superman, he was mostly angry or obsessed. With regard to Craig's portrayal, it was on target and exactly what the series needed to return Bond to "accessibility" -- that is, that we now relate to him as a human being as opposed to simply a type or icon.
• s96024 Posts: 1,519MI6 Agent

  November 2006

  I like the more belieavable bond, the one that can be hurt. I think he is more of a modern day bond as well to keep up with modern day men. Thats what makes James Bond better than other "superheroes" imo, like Superman, Batman, Spiderman e.t.c.
• lavabubble Posts: 229MI6 Agent

  November 2006

  I think that once all the gadgetry and OTT effects were stripped from the film Bond had to appear more human and a more dimensional character to hold the audiences' attention.
  
  His being more emotional, to the point of saying "I love you" has made him easier to relate to, this woman was different. He didn't just love her and leave her, he loved her and stayed with her.
  
  The writers etc took a chance on DC being able to carry these scenes off and I think he did so with great skill varying from humility and aplomb and back again. Some of the emotional scenes were very touching, some merited a wry smile but all were at least in context and not laboured on IMHO.
  
  In short, I just like this Bond!
• Gassy Man USAPosts: 2,972MI6 Agent

  November 2006

  Fish1941 wrote:

  The literary Bond was always a more defined and fleshed out human being than the cinematic one, though in most of the Connery ones he's given more range than in later incarnations, where if he wasn't a superman, he was mostly angry or obsessed.

  
  
  You really think so? I don't think I would agree. It seemed to me that of all the actors who have portrayed Bond, Connery was the only one who seemed the least likely to show Bond's vulnerable or sensitive side.

  I think he did, but he did it with more subtlety. Connery could knit his eyebrows, lower his voice, or use a gesture to convey feeling. He could seem both invincible and afraid in the same scene, and he could show genuine compassion to offset his ruthlessness. He never had to cry, certainly, as Lazenby and Craig did, but that's such an overtly dramatic expression I can see why some people might see that as more sensitive.