CONNERY & MOORE - SHARING A BOND...

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.

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.

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!"

      

GREAT WOMEN Of OUR TIME - (PART THREE)...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

The above pin-up first appeared in THE FANTASTIC FOUR #10 in 1962, although I first saw it in FANTASTIC #17 five years later.  As a boy I had quite a crush on SUSAN STORM, which is more a testament to JACK KIRBY's ability to draw attractive women than it is to what a strange kid I was.  (At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.)  Alas, it was not to be, and Susie married some geeky scientist who wasn't good enough for her.  Women, huh?  Who can understand them?  I'd have treated her like a princess.  (Gotta go - it's time for my reality pill.)