Jeffrey on Bond

Tonight marks the posting of Notes of Interest's first interview and I don't think I could be any happier with the result. At the beginning of this week I asked Liverputty's Jeffrey if he wouldn't mind writing down his thoughts and opinions on the James Bond character and the books and movies he's starred in over the past fifty years. For the past few months Jeffrey's been posting his Bond observations and select passages from the Ian Fleming novels at Liverputty. I credit his posting of the gun barrel video for my rebirth of interest in the Bond franchise after a looong six month hiatus.

Upon agreeing to be interviewed and using the following six questions as his vehicle, our interviewee threw down a goodly amount of Bond fodder to enjoy. Thanks again to Jeffrey!

Notes of Interest: Why the interest in blogging about James Bond?

Jeffrey: The recent infatuation stems from Casino Royale and Ross’s Rued Morgue 007 in ‘007 posts. I periodically focus on a specific topic to blog about – often movie related stuff – and spend a month or so only on that. A couple of years ago I was posting about Peter Cushing, then later it was samurai films followed by yakuza movies, etc. etc. This time it was 007’s turn. I’d been reading the Fleming books and most of my posts have been simple excerpts from the novels. They make for quick posts and, I think, the excerpts are not entirely without interest.

How has your interest in the character developed over your lifetime?

When I was in grade school I was interested primarily in the action. My brother, my friends and I would recreate fight sequences for home movies and so forth. In high school it was the sex….and the action. I don’t ever remember being uninterested in the Bond girls, but I was particularly fond of them later on as a teenager. Plus, Sean Connery and Roger Moore were ultra cool and evidently good with the ladies. Years later I realized much of that was a joke and the movies became enjoyable for the absurdity inherent in them. Somewhere along the way I also grew interested in the filmmaking aspects. If anything, the Bond films are a wonder of collaboration of technical details. So from action to sex to comedy to filmmaking techniques, and, more recently, to the novels.

Is there ample material left from Ian Fleming's literature to make many more movies? What book would you most like to see made into a movie and why?

Yes. I’m really amazed at how well and how piecemeal Fleming’s material has been used throughout the series, but I’m also amazed at what has not been used. The novels Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me have remained virtually untouched. I can’t imagine the producers will ever try to put Moonraker on screen. No doubt they think that it would come across as small and generic, which I guess is why they didn’t try it in 1979. The novel wasn’t as quickly paced and action filled as Fleming’s other stories, but nevertheless it had a film quality to it – particularly a well-described car chase towards the end. I also doubt they’d attempt The Spy Who Loved Me, though they should. It’s different than other Bond novels in that it is from the point of view of the woman and Bond doesn’t appear until the last third of the book. And he’s not really on a case. It comes across like Fleming’s version of Petrified Forest or Key Largo. That would likely be my pick for a favorite Bond film. But even if those stories are left alone, there’s plenty of other stuff to cover. Bond has never had a finale on a runaway locomotive in the films – he’s had two in the books – one in Diamonds Are Forever, and the other in Man with the Golden Gun – both stories were drastically changed in the films – and which have lots of un-pilfered material. Plus, there’s good unused material in Fleming’s two books of short stories. The filmmakers, are, however, running out of Fleming titles.

Do you feel Daniel Craig has the ability and popular appeal to become as synonymous with the Bond character as Sean Connery?

I really like Daniel Craig and, if he can get two more decent scripts – a significant if – he can be synonymous with Bond – certainly identifiable as him. But not as synonymous as Connery? I think Connery has an insurmountable advantage of being the first to define Bond. Plus, he enjoyed the apex of Bond-mania. Craig will be well received and will no doubt be Bond to the younger crowd unfamiliar with Moore or Connery and his films may gross more than Connery’s, but I can’t imagine the franchise will ever enjoy the same phenomenon status as Bond in the 60s. The spy thriller was younger and smaller back then. Plus, the genre in the 50s & 60s made plenty of hay out of the Cold War. I don’t think the film industry has been as comfortable dealing with our current threats in the world today.

My favorite Bond is Roger Moore. From what I've read many Bond fans find Moore's characterization of the character as too easy-going. Others refer to him as being an acting lightweight in general. What is your opinion of Moore playing the role of Bond?

I readily identify Moore as Bond. The first Bond I saw in the theater was Moonraker, and I well remember watching Moore’s Bond during the ABC Sunday night movies, before I knew Connery. He’s best when he’s playing Bond light and humorous – but I don’t necessarily think he’s a lightweight. He’s an actor that knows his limitations – and there are, quite frankly, too few actors like that around. His main Achilles heels were his age and a few mediocre movies – none of which suffered because of him, except, perhaps, A View To a Kill, when both age and script conspired against him. However, to Moore’s credit, he never intended making the last couple of films but did so out of duty to the franchise. It is difficult to rank Connery over Moore, but ultimately it comes down to Connery being the first. Still, I think Moore picked up the role when Connery ran out of steam and carried it more gracefully than Connery did – on and off screen. I have a tremendous affection for Roger Moore and I’m delighted any time he’s on the screen, whether it’s as Bond or not. And he is definitely the funniest 007.

Which actor enjoyed the best Bond movie scripts to work with?

Connery had the first three scripts – each a masterpiece. At that time, it seemed like the producers could do no wrong in how they adapted the script. The first two, Dr. No and From Russian with Love, follow the Fleming stories fairly closely, but when there’s a difference, I can’t help but think the film changes work for the better. Particularly in From Russia with Love, where the antagonist spy organization, SMERSH, is exchanged for SPECTRE. The expedient reason was to not insult the Soviets, but the plot, as a result, got a clever working over where the two sides of the Cold War are played off each other. Goldfinger, too, got a clever twist in the film where Ft. Knox wasn’t going to be robbed, but instead destroyed with radiation, driving up the value of Goldfinger’s existing collection of gold. After Goldfinger, the scripts got a little too bloated and directionless. Thunderball and You Only Live Twice seemed to plod along and lose interest at times. And though Diamonds Are Forever was a little better, I tend to think Connery was just bored with the role by that point.

Moore had his share of good scripts, too – though they were different than the ones Connery had. It seems that the producers picked the locations and gadgets they wanted to have and then had the script written around it. Miraculously, this method worked well for Spy, Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only.

And the one picture of Lazenby’s is about as fine a Bond picture as you could hope to see. I tend to think Dalton and Brosnan got the short end of the stick on that score, though I’ve heard defenders of License to Kill and should probably revisit that movie.

(Jeffrey's most recent Bond post is a compendium of observations on Bond's character from the Fleming novels.)