The Best Bond?

One of the reasons I restarted these reviews was that I forwarded a link to my ancient, fawning, opinion on Timothy Dalton’s acting when a friend of mine started posting something on Facebook. He said it was good and I should try writing this sort of thing again.

Well among other things it got me thinking about James Bond in general and I want to take this opportunity to do a deconstruction of Bond. What I think works and what I think, in retrospect, didn’t.

So, lets start at the beginning with the creator; Ian Fleming. Here’s the thing a lot of people gloss over, Fleming was the original super spy agent. This is not a joke, it’s completely true. He was part of the founding team of MI6 and was behind one of the most infamous spy operations of the second world war, Operation Mincemeat. If you don’t know the story behind Mincemeat you owe it to yourself to look it up, it is a hollywood drama. It just actually happened!

Anyway after basically inventing the real modern spy industry Fleming created Bond as the ultimate gentleman spy. Cultured, refined, ruthless, charming and ultimately without morals. He was written as an anti-hero, the anti-hero. Not someone to look up to but still respect. The idea was that the bad guys aren’t going to play fair and rather than being the good guy that wins despite this Bond was going to fight dirty first.

This was new at the time. If you look at the classic setup the hero is the so called white hat and always a good guy no matter what and the villain twirls his moustache as he does evil things, evilly. As soon as Bond comes into popularity the Anti-hero is more recognised and that moral black and white we’re all so comfortable with in action get thrown out the window. So the impact of Bond in popular fiction is very, very important and we’re still coming to terms with it in some cases. 

Bond was massively popular when it started as pulp novels, one coming out every year like the latest blockbuster movie. People flocked to the shops to buy the latest adventure to read on holiday, so naturally with such a willing market films were going to follow.

The first Bond film was Dr No (1962) and looking back on it today it is horribly dated. With a lot of visual gags and references going completely over people’s heads. For example there’s one shot, shortly after Bond meets with Dr No, where he sees a painting resting against a banister. It means nothing today, but at the time that was supposed to be a reference to a famous painting that had been stolen a year earlier and was still missing at the time (its since been recovered).

There’s quite a lot of these little facts, enough to keep IMDB trivia hunters occupied for days and that’s something you have to take into account when looking back at Bond over the years. What worked then doesn’t work now. For example Connery’s Bond would often slap and abuse women he thought were hiding something from him, or if they were hysterical. This casual sexism was risqué at the time, done to show he wasn’t a good man, but today it is utterly unacceptable. Moore’s version casually bedding anything with a skirt at the time showed he was virile and charming. Today? Not so much. With our rose-tinted nostalgia glasses firmly in place I’m going to try and review all the actors to play Bond and try and understand the impact they had on each other and the Character as a whole…

At first Connery wasn’t well liked by Fleming, he felt the Scott wasn’t right for the role, but after seeing Dr No he apparently changed his mind. Connery’s Bond was a bit of a bastard, he would slap women around on occasion, fight dirty and more often than not be cruel for the sake of it. In Goldfinger (1964) he deliberately antagonises the villain just because he can. Alright the Auric Goldfinger (that is his name, really) was cheating at cards, but that wasn’t why Bond pranked him and then seduced the female assistant Jill Masterson (the one that gets smothered in gold paint). He did it just to get under Auric’s skin.

Connery is well loved as the quintessential Bond and he is one of the best. As well as the casual humiliation he delivered to his enemies  there are a dozen little touches here and there that made the character of Bond human. That all really added to the realism for his portrayal, making him far more three dimensional than he might otherwise have been. Still, looking back today his run is stilted and artificial, the effects are cheap and unconvincing for the most part and more than a little cliche. Despite the fact that at the time it was cutting edge special effects and they were writing the cliche’s in the first place. That said some of the greatest, most memorable moments in the franchise were done with Connery; the first reveal in Dr No, the Goldfinger laser sequence, the attack on the Volcano base in You Only Live Twice (1967), the Aston Martin (Goldfinger again). All iconic and the reason when it comes to pub discussions Connery is always the first and last name on the table.

But all good things must come to an end and eventually Connery became tired of the role, as a result he went off to try something new and we got George Lazenby. Now today a lot of people will agree that Lazenby was actually a very good Bond, but at the time the fan backlash was immense. People decided that On Her Majesties Secret service (1969) wasn’t really a James Bond film, not helped by the spoof/parody of Casino Royale (1967) done a couple of years earlier.

As a quick aside the Bond for that film, David Niven, is perhaps the best Bond that never was, that was. sort of. While based on the book the original Casio Royale was not an official production and was not well received. As such it is often overlooked and forgotten, but not by me. Specifically because of the great Niven. Again cruelly overlooked in most discussions about actors of the time Niven really deserves more respect and I, for one, am willing to derail a whole narrative to praise him. Now back to the point.

Lazenby’s biggest mistake was playing up the vulnerabilities of the role. Connery’s version had been becoming more of an invincible action hero as the years went on and Lazenby tried to change that far too fast and far too drastically. While I dare you not to feel something when Diana Rigg’s Tracy is shot in cold blood and Bond cries over his dead wife it doesn’t fit with the womanising rogue we knew. This is seen as even more of a misstep when Connery came back for the next film and, after getting revenge in the first few minutes, it appeared as if nothing had really happened or changed with Bond.

Speaking of Diamonds are Forever (1971) Connery asked for a then massive $1.25 million salary that ate into the budget. Also being nine years after Dr No Connery was stating to show his age. Something made all the more clear when he did the other “unofficial” movie Never Say Never Again in ’83. This made the producers take another chance, of sorts, and recast the character again. This time with Roger Moore, who held the role for seven movies in total. One more than Connery if you don’t count Never Say Never Again. Making him officially the actor to play the role most times on screen.

This is a disappointment to me because, personally, Moore is the worst of the Bonds. During his run the Writers and producers started chasing whatever was popular at the time to boost box office ratings. Live and Let Die (1973) for example was blatantly Bond does Blaxploitation and it went down hill from there. With Moonraker (1979) even going so far as to trying to cash in on Star Wars. When we got 1983’ Octopussy the whole franchise had become a parody of itself. To make things worse a number of unfunny running gags were introduced during this run. With reoccurring minor characters and henchmen such as Jaws brought back several times for shoehorned comic relief.

The films during this time became more about spectacle and stunts than good storytelling. The Bond franchise hit a rut and stuck there. Again, there are some iconic moments during his run but in the end Moore’s time as the secret agent had ran the character and the franchise into the ground. A fact that was not missed by those involved. Roger Moore, at first, wanted to leave at five films but the producers lured him back for two more while they arranged for his successor.

Now, originally, at this point the Producers wanted a new face, and they started making offers to the relatively unknown Pierce Brosnan, who starred in a detective show Remington Steele (1982-87) at the time. When Moore eventually left Steele had been cancelled and Brosnan was ready to take the part. But then fate stepped in and perhaps because of the reports he was going be Bond, as well as massive fan support, Steele got another couple of seasons. Leaving the producers with a problem, Moore didn’t want to come back and the golden boy they had waiting in the wings was contractually obligated to another production. The answer was to quickly cast a new Bond and get something out fast. Going through the list of previously considered actors Timothy Dalton rose quickly to the top of that list.

Dalton is my favourite Bond and as such it’s a shame he only got to do two films (for the longest time I thought it was three, but in trying to keep track of all this I got the plots jumbled up!) Dalton was not the king of cool Connery portrayed, nor the now tiresome half hearted quip firing Moore. Dalton was a more grounded Bond and while the gadgets remained outlandish and the wit was still there he was back to being the more human spy. This time around you could see he was more frustrated with obstacles and rather than find them a chance to show off his wit he was more often impatient and quick to anger.

While plots in Moore’s era focused on evil oil executives and mad corporate leaders they were still very black and white, good guys and bad guys with bond becoming more and more your typical “good guy”. Often the Cold War, was used as nothing more than a backdrop, often with spies from east and west teaming up against these maniacs. Dalton’s first Bond reminded everyone that there had been a Cold War and more importantly that deception, trickery and outright betrayal are common place in that world. His second film had him battling drug dealers against orders because they killed a good friend and one of the few he knew he could trust. Where Moore, and to an extent Connery, were un-phased by most of what happened Dalton’s Bond was a hell of a lot more passionate and because of that you routed for him more. 

Unfortunately, much like Lazenby, this wasn’t what the audience wanted. They had become used to gadgets and hijinks. Not serious drama, so after 1989’s down right dour and very violent Licence to Kill the studio decided to hold back and re think where they were going. It didn’t help that Licence to Kill received a 15 certificate that turned audiences away. Up until then, despite everything, Bond had been a solid PG rated franchise, now there was suddenly an age restriction? With other, more family friendly, films like the third Indiana Jones in theatres it lost out.

Licence to Kill was a marketing disaster and everyone knew it. It wouldn’t be until GoldenEye (1995) six years later that Bond was seen again on screen. This time finally played by Brosnan. GoldenEye did fantastic, mostly because of Brosnan. He returned a lot of charm to the role and more than a bit of chaos. Much more of an action hero this time around he still had the passion and humanity there to make a compelling character. In many ways Brosnan’s version was a culmination of everything that went before and should make it the best. So why do I put Dalton above him? Because, near the end of his run, Brosnan became more like Moore and it shows.

The jokes began to fall flat, the gadgets more impossible (invisible car anyone?), the set ups even more unbelievable. Eventually, with Die Another Day (2002), the bubble burst. Looking back at that one today it’s just painful. Rather than being a celebration of 40 years of Bond films it became a cliche filled mess. The plot was all over the place and the special effects distracting bad. Brosnan deserved a better send off but sadly everything went wrong. Leaving a sour taste at the end of what should have been a solid run and long term fans just disappointed. Wondering if the character had seen it’s end.

With this in mind it was decided to, after a break, basically reboot the franchise. Hit the metaphorical reset button and go back to the beginning. Reintroducing Bond with an official adaptation of the first novel, Casino Royale (2006). The Bond then, and still now as of writing, Daniel Craig. Craig is damn close to Dalton in my opinion. His version is a lot darker than many of those that came before. Almost too dark.

The truth is Bond does not exist in a vacuum. Not only does the franchise have to combat with the latest Star Wars or Marvel movie but there are other Spy heroes including Bourne and the Kingsman series. Now Bond should be comfortable in the middle between. Not too violent, not too comedic but a mix. Moore’s run, as I’ve said, lent too far into the comedy. Craig is too Bourne, there’s wit and humour but not enough to balance things out. Now there is some good laughs in Casino Royale, but after that it becomes all together too serious. It’s a serious subject to be sure, but Bond taking it lightheartedly is the charm. Just not too lightheartedly. It's a fine edge to walk and it’s not surprising more often than not it doesn’t work.

Not to say Craig is a bad Bond. Far from it, he’s a fantastic actor and pulls off the dangerous menacing side wonderfully. He also, yet again, shows himself to be human. He cares for Vespa and his friends. There a moments when you see him broken and when that happens you know he’s the most dangerous Bond your ever going to see. If I have one major complaint it’s best summed up with that classic Bond score. We just don’t hear it enough. For example there’s a sequence in Quantum of Solace (2008) where Bond evades a mess of spies almost effortlessly. The music builds up to it bit never delivers the iconic guitar sting, despite the perfect setup. Craig’s Bond has everything you could ever need in a Bond but just trips at the last hurdle, stumbles that moment before the finishing line. With a deft hand to patch up these glaring omissions Craig’s version would be almost perfect.

For the last several years Craig has been talking about leaving the role, which he might actually do after this next one, known only as “Bond 25” (2019 scheduled release). After he leaves where are we going from here? I have no idea. Most of the actors I’d cast, Colin Salmon for example, are getting a bit long in the tooth to play the dashing spy and if anything I’d want to see a relative unknown take over. A better question is do we need another Bond, or should the character bow out gracefully?

Again I don’t know but I do think it might actually be best for the character to take another long break. Give the creative staff a chance to recharge their batteries, or bring a whole new team in and come at the character, at the universe, from a whole new direction. In today’s over saturated comic book movie landscape Bond is a classic action hero that, like always, blurs the line between good and evil.

So, before I leave you I think it’s best to sum up where I think the Bonds come in relation to each other. Dalton is still the top, Followed quickly by Craig, then Connery, Brosnan and Lazenby. Then, finally, Moore.

But what about Bond as a character? Like I said, there are other spy films out there. Lots of them in fact, almost too many. Is there a place for Bond in the future? The truth is Bond was the first, arguably still the best and is still going strong after more than fifty years. The character has dominated the 60’s weathered the 70’s and the 80’s, survived the 90’s and has become a British institution Pinewood studios, the biggest film production site in the UK has it’s largest and most coveted studios named after the characters code name 007 and too many blockbuster films have been shot there to comfortably count. Every single one of those other spy films have looked up to Bond as their goal. Anti-heroes and rogue “bad boys” in genre’s from historical dramas to science fiction owe the character something too. Bond is a corner stone of British pop culture, it taught us it’s alright to be the bad guy as long as you do the right thing. That sometimes the right thing is more difficult than you think, but you do it anyway.

Worst Bond Film :- Octopussy (1983)

The name says it all really. Crap, camp, devoid of humour or talent. Only notable because Desmond Llewelyn’s Q got to do something, namely fly a hot air ballon. Oh and Moore had to dress in a monkey costume. 

Best Bond Film:- Happy and Glorious (London 2012 Olympics ceremony)

A short shot for the opening of the 2012 Olympics, in which Crag’s Bond is effortlessly overshadowed by the actual Queen Elizabeth II (and a stunt man dressed as her jumping out of a helicopter)