.jpg)
Much has been made of the 'differences' between SEAN CONNERY's and ROGER MOORE's portrayals of BOND... JAMES BOND over the years. In my view, the way they look and talk aside, there really wasn't much difference at all. Depending on what you read first, some reports said that the producers 'toughened up' Roger's Bond because he didn't look quite so ruthless as Sean's, hence him slapping women and generally being mean to them. (MAUD ADAMS in The MAN With The GOLDEN GUN for example.)
Other reports claim the writers geared the movies towards Roger's strengths as a 'light comedian' and that there was more humour in them. Absolute tosh in my opinion. Bond slapped women on occasion regardless of who was playing him and there have always been fairly large dollops of humour in 007 movies. These so-called differences tend to be retroactive rationalizations applied after the fact in answer to reporters' enquiries. If you ask someone what the difference is in something, the mere suggestion that there is one will probably produce an answer that meets the requirements of the question rather than the facts of the case.
.jpg)
The truth is, the role of Bond is merely a suit of 'clothes' which the actor slips into and holds up in the shape of himself (more or less) - but the 'suit' (i.e. - the part) is the character rather than any actor playing him. Had Sean continued as Bond in the movies Roger appeared in, there would've been very little difference in the finished product. Any evolution in the style or content of the films is more down to the requirements of being bigger and better than the one before than it is in the actor playing the part.
The tone of Roger's first Bond movie in 1973 had been set by its predecessor, DIAMONDS Are FOREVER, which was largely shaped by the participation of the late TOM MANKIEWICZ, who was also involved in LIVE & LET DIE and The MAN With The GOLDEN GUN. To my mind, Roger's Bond never did anything that I couldn't imagine Sean's Bond also doing, so the only difference between the two actors' portrayals was not in the character of 007, but in the way they looked and sounded.
.jpg)
By the time Connery played Bond in Diamonds Are Forever, he was tired of the role - but the role was also tired of him. He was 41, but looked at least ten years older. Sean was definitely the right man for the part in the early to mid-'60s, but it's the lean, mean, hungry-looking Sean we must remember - not the rather puffy, bloated, weary-looking Sean of the later movies. Moore is actually older than Connery by at least a couple of years, but back in 1973 he looked a lot younger than 45, the age he was when he took over the licence to kill. Moore was the right Bond for the '70s, just as Sean had been for the decade before.
So, regardless of the actor playing him, Bond is the same man; suave, charming, debonair - and a ruthless killer when required. So, in this, his 50th cinematic year - here's to Bond... James Bond. I say again - "Nobody does it better!"
8 comments:
One area in which Bond movies excelled back then, regardless of who played the main role, was the movie poster. Just check out those fantastic examples you've posted - how good are they when the weakest one is by BOB PEAK, f'heaven's sake?!
It's been a sore point with me for years that movie poster artwork has deteriorated so much over the years, thanks to PhotoShop and nervous marketing "experts" who figure large floating heads are what's needed to make a film look enticing.
Best I stop now while I still have teeth left to grind.
B Smith
As you say, Bond movie posters used to be fantastic. I can't think of any poster from any movie (not just Bond) in recent years that has had the same kind of impact as the early Connery/Moore Bond ones.
That slapping-around thing has always bothered me. I suppose if you put it in perspective, though, it made a weird kind of sense (loathe as I am to put it that way). As a secret agent, Bond wouldn't hesitate to give a bad guy a punch in the gut in order to get information or cooperation. I think Bond audiences would have fainted if he'd punched Maud Adams in the gut--hence, the slaps to his female villains. (Though I'm sure some arm-twisting or other painful means would have accomplished the same goal.)
I remember how much I winced when watching Fail-Safe, when Walter Matthau's character indulged in it. The movie seemed to be making the point that it was perfectly allowable behavior--which probably didn't bother audiences in those times, but would be looked at today as outrageous.
Although he can be charming, at the end of the day Bond is a ruthless government assassin when required, so I suppose a slap on the kisser is rather a minor breach of social etiquette. Although it was a different time, even then I think most people were aware that Bond's behaviour wasn't being recommended as a model for society to follow. Also, back then, women often administered slaps to men in movies and TV shows, and nobody ever seemed to question whether it was acceptable or not. Thanks for your interesting comments.
Having Guy Hamilton as the director on both films probably helped make the change from Connery to Moore a wee bit smoother than the Connery/Lazenby changeover. I remember reading that both Hamilton and Connery approached Diamonds a lot differently than they had their previous Bond collaboration.
The first three Bond films I saw at the pictures were OHMSS, Diamonds and Live And Let Die - each of which had a different Bond, of course. Being a youngster at the time when I saw them, I probably didn't fully appreciate the differences of each portrayal; I just remember liking them all. The main difference with Moore was that I already knew him from the telly (The Saint, The Persuaders), whereas I only knew Connery and Lazenby as Bond.
I know some people don't like Diamonds, but I thought it was great when I saw it at the Odeon in Glasgow back in 1971, and it's still one that I enjoy watching, despite it's shortcomings that are pretty obvious to me nowadays.
I must confess that, despite its faults, I enjoyed 'Diamonds Are Forever' - it was a good romp.
I met Roger Moore and Michael Winner on the set of 'Bullseye'. Crummy film, granted, but what a pair of gents. They didn't have to be nice to a snotty 16 year old but they were, above and beyond.
I'm lucky enough to have autographed copies of Big Rog's autobiography - hardback and paperback. Altogether now - "We want Woger!"
Post a Comment