ROGER MOORE:
October 14th 1927 - May 23rd 2017
******
Sad news today of ROGER MOORE's passing, so here's
an amended repost from a while back in tribute to Big Rog's
portrayal of BOND... JAMES BOND (007).
Much has been made of the 'differences' between SEAN CON-
NERY'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 suggest-
ion 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 be-
tween the two actors' portrayals was not in the character of
007, but in the way they looked and sounded.
By the time Connery appeared 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 Bond 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 two years, but back in '73 he looked a lot younger than 45,
his age when receiving the licence to kill. Roger 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. In my view, Roger was every bit as good in the role
as Sean. So - here's to Bond... James Bond. I say again -
"Nobody does it better!"
.jpg)
