It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Oh, I agree, but there's also a level of presence that an actor brings irrespective of what's on the page. I don't think Charlie Hunnam has that. Ironically, Elba does, but given he's going to be too old I'd rather they shifted back towards a classic looking Bond in a not so classic feeling film.
I agree. Hunnam does not strike me as Bond material. Elba does.
There's a je ne sais quoi element to it. Effortless confidence & charisma is a prerequisite I think, even more so than looks. One has to be essentially comfortable in one's skin. For me, Connery, Moore & Craig have it in spades, as did Lazenby as well to some extent. They command the room and it's much more than their looks, which weren't shabby either..
The others, not so much, regardless of their other positive aspects. They look like they have to try, to me...
Absolutely.
This could be one of the great tragic career moves. Which is why I said earlier that he should sack his agent. Short term gain, potential long term pain.
You are right on Craig imho. He is not in the same league as Connery/Moore when it comes to effortless confidence as a person. When I see him in interviews, he is nowhere like the Bond he projects on screen, and his first introduction on that boat was terrible.
It goes to show how much of Craig's Bond persona is down to his acting skills, which are absolutely formidable. With Connery and Moore, I feel it was more to who they essentially are as men - very comfortable in their skin and very confident, which translated onto their screen persona. With DC, it's more his impressive acting which is doing it.
Exactly so. I was going to note that but you beat me to it.
But that was exactly my point @SirHilaryBray. Moore pulled it off convincingly (imho) more on the strength of his charisma and persona, which are formidable (even today, in his 80's). Craig is doing it more on his phenomenal abilities as an actor.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
I can't answer. I don't know what's the best between 'naturally being' James Bond (Connery/Moore) and 'becoming' James Bond on the screen (Craig).
I agree with @DaltonCraig007 on this. To Connery/Moore, their Bond characterizations were second nature. Almost an extension of themselves in a way.
If I had to choose, I personally prefer this approach, because they appear more relaxed in the interview setting etc. and you feel more connected with them.
With Craig, when I see him in an interview (or when he talked to the audience when I saw him on Broadway) he comes across like such a different person to the character he plays so brilliantly on film - precisely because he is so different to the character.
For Connery and Moore, not only does Bond seem like a second nature, as @bondjames said, but everything they do is like a 2nd nature. Sean and Roger in interviews are like they own everything, you can see everything their Bond is just by having them sit down on a chair and answer some random questions. Even in their non-Bond movies, their roles are extensions of themselves. Moore in 'Wild Geese' or Connery in 'The Rock', you can actually believe it's their Bond on a off duty assignment.
Craig is a methodic actor, IMO a better actor than Connery and Moore, but the latter 2 are the much bigger stars. Connery played russians, irishmen, etc, didn't even bother to change his accent and won the Oscar for it. They are of a bygone time. I am doubtful we will get actors of the star power and effortless charisma/coolness/suaveness/class of Connery and Moore ever again. And I don't mean as Bond, but in Hollywood as a whole.
Very well said. I'm 100% in agreement. Definitely from a bygone era, these two, and we're unlikely to see their star quality again for some time.
I know saying this will get me in hot water, but Bond was a relatively flat character until CR. OHMSS and LTK were the only two films in which we got a sense of Bond's personal side. Connery and Moore didn't get to show much range, because they didn't need to. They played the character pretty straight. It was all the films called for.
The Bond that Craig played in CR broke the mold, imho.
Certainly they didn't bare their souls or peel back their layers, but I think both Moore and Connery, maybe because of their long and consistent runs, gave us enough insight into their respective Bond's character. I felt I could anticipate how they would react or act in a certain situation. We didn't see them 'emote' but for me that was their strength. I still felt they were 'real' despite the lack of emotion, and that's what I liked about them. Connery in GF post-Jill's death, or Moore in FYEO advising Melina about the perils of revenge etc. Little things.
Hell no.
It is interesting to note that both Connery and Moore peaked, box office wise, with their fourth film, and saw diminishing returns after that (in terms of quality too, many would say). Is that the official point where audiences tire and want something new? Maybe EON were savvy in cutting Brosnan off after four. But then again if SPECTRE makes a billion then obviously that's the audience voting with their dollars that they're happy with what's going on.
Apparently was a legitimate contender in 2005, but he's 46 now so that's over.
Craig has proven himself in every installment and tbh QoS was the movie that really cemented Craig as never going to be an adverse issue to the series as he was practically flawless in a heavily flawed movie. What needs to be checked and modified is the script writing process and SP proves this. If for arguments sake SP is complete trash Craig won't be the problem and the leaks have exposed this. I suppose that's an upside of the leaks because if SP did suck, it would be easy and convenient to blame the leading man but it's been exposed that Logan and the script was the primary, biggest and perhaps sole issue. This entire preproduction process for SP should be a huge wake up call in how to move forward. The writing/script needs to be on point. Dont get rid of the excellent leading man; upgrade and monitor the scribes!
Why sack the agent, though? Shouldn't actors themselves make their choices and therefore also be responsible for them?
I agree.
A very good question. Hmm...
Personally I don't think any roles in any movies should be extensions of actors themselves. Good actors can play roles that are not at all like themselves, and I would always prefer good actors to not so good ones, in anything. Obviously including Bond.
Actors can be relaxed (or not) in interviews regardless of how good (or not) they are as Bond. I love good interviews with actors and directors (I've just spent a couple hours listening to some directors, Scorsese was especially hilarious), and they can only be really good when the people being interviewed are relaxed - which has a lot to do with the interviewer and/or situation as well. However... Ok, I didn't quite understand what you meant, though. Interviews don't matter when watching movies, do they? I understand being more connected to people whose interviews one might enjoy etc. - but... or did you mean feel more connected to the characters if the actors seem similar to their characters when they are interviewed? If so, why does it matter? If not, what did you mean? I mean that I didn't understand why you prefer the extension-of-actor-himself model to the simply acting-the-role model since you think Craig does a good job in the role. I also mean that I don't understand what the benefit of that former model of doing a role actually is - to the audience, I mean. Obviously it's easier for the actor - in that role or other similar roles, only, of course.
Sorry for being dim. :P
You're right. Definitely Dornan should have considered the consequences of such a role and the impact it could have (including among folks like myself, who previously were proponents of his). However, a good agent should have helped him to see the risks (I don't know if he/she did and Dornan still decided to do the role - my point is only if he/she did not properly advise him of such possible consequences).
Technically I agree with you of course. It's always better to have a 'better' actor. Certainly an actor can be relaxed in interviews regardless of how good they are as Bond.
My point relates to two things:
1. the marketing aspects of it: If an actor feels more at home with the Bond persona, and is similar to it to a degree (or at least his personification of it on screen) then he should be more able/willing to promote the film/character throughout the world and will be relaxed in talking about it etc.
2, my personal preference: This more relates to the shyness of the actor. Moore/Connery are not shy, and they don't seem shy in interviews. They are very confident/extroverted men and it shows. Similarly, Bond (at least the Bond we know) is far from shy. Craig seems to shun the spotlight and even when he does interviews, I detect some discomfort (subliminally) with him. Sure, he can be funny and makes jokes, but it doesn't seem like 2nd nature to him because he comes across as naturally shy.....to me, similar to Dalton. Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting he is like Dalton, or that he is not doing his part to market the films.....just that I sense an uneasiness in him within an interview setting (very un-Bond like). I never sensed that with the other two. They always seemed like they were having a genuine blast, while I sometimes think Craig is waiting for the clock to wind down so he can get out of there.