Franz Sanchez: You could have had everything.James Bond: Don't you want to know why?
Timothy Dalton's run as James Bond was very short-lived. In this article, I am going to explore why. Dalton starred in two films as Bond, The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill, and subsequently stepped down from the role of 007. The fans never seemed to recognize Dalton as Moore's successor, and to this day, most can't seem to appreciate what he did for the series. Why? The answer is quite simple. Dalton's Bond was relatable, human, and susceptible. James Bond was always an idea, a comic concept, and a fantasy. Dalton's Bond was a human being, all the while he still retained all of the charisma and likability that had carried the character up to that point. But giving Bond a human feel would be Dalton's undoing.
Dalton's Bond was ruled by his emotions, this point is made abundantly clear in Licence To Kill where Bond's emotions lead him to ruin time and time again. The problem most fans have with Licence To Kill are in part some of the reasons why I like it so much. The film was criticized for not feeling like a true Bond picture, but more like a renegade cop movie that would have been quite commonplace in the late eighties. But that brings up a very interesting concept. A renegade by definition is a deserter, someone who rejects lawful or conventional behavior. Before Licence To Kill, Bond had been well-established as a symbol of efficient and heroic militarism, a cog in the machine of a government that was always morally and ethically absolute. Essentially, James Bond was the poster boy for covert militarism at work. In Licence To Kill, Dalton's Bond does the unthinkable when he disobeys a direct order from MI6 and disregards the fact that his licence to kill has been revoked by the very agency that issued it. Dalton's Bond feels that an injustice has been done, an injustice not recognized by MI6, and promotes himself from secret agent to judge, juror, and executioner. He deserts his government in pursuit of a greater institution. James Bond pursues revenge and receives bloody satisfaction. You see, its one thing to say that Licence To Kill feels more like a renegade cop movie than a Bond picture, but its another to blatantly overlook the implications that becoming a renegade had on a character like James Bond. This is Bond without his gadgets, without back-up, without a lifeline to MI6, and this is Bond without a country. Bond is not fighting for national pride here nor is he risking his life to save the world from nuclear catastrophe. He is out to seek revenge for one lost life. He is emotional, overwrought, and cracks in his facade are clearly visible throughout the film. This time its personal. People don't like it when James Bond gets personal, or at least they weren't too keen to it in 1989.
Bond had always been able to separate himself from his work, something Dalton's Bond could never do. Even in The Living Daylights, everything was personal for Bond. Dalton's Bond was not afraid to allow himself to be emotionally affected, or as most fans and critics saw it, Dalton's Bond was incapable of completing a mission the way a 00 ought to. In fact, Dalton's replacement was one Pierce Brosnan, and Brosnan to me was nothing more than a bland continuation of Roger Moore's interpretation of the character. And in Brosnan's first bond movie, GoldenEye, he explains that his cold resolve is what keeps his alive. What Brosnan's Bond is basically saying here is that a real man has to learn to conceal his emotions rather than express them to anyone in any capacity. He's saying that a true man is not ruled by his emotions, but controls them from ever affecting his work, and he's saying that if a man does not do these things he will die, be rendered obsolete; replaced. I consider that a direct attack on Dalton's previous run. But that's what fans wanted, if Bond were to be noticeably emotional or damaged then the fans would have to feel things. They wanted their Bond to have less depth than a comic book superhero. They wanted Bond to get the girl, kill the villain, save the world, and to never under any circumstances question his government or his methods. In Licence To Kill, Dalton's Bond systematically defeats the villain, Franz Sanchez, in a way that could only be described as both obsessive and compulsive. He actually considers Franz Sanchez equally dangerous, and although he gets his little one-liners, he endures far more moments of doubt than most Bond fans are comfortable sharing with him. Dalton's Bond was not a superhero, but Dalton's Bond was revolutionary nonetheless. People like to call him the darker of the Bonds, and that is almost entirely untrue. He was the most human and passionate of them all, and there is absolutely nothing dark about being human and passionate. Bond fans seem to view emotion as heavy or adult. Well, I just think most Bond fans are delusional.
Daniel Craig's Bond seems to be getting far too much credit at the moment, especially in the character development department. If Dalton had been given the opportunity to make another Bond film, I feel as if the character would have developed much faster than he has. Dalton seemed to be pushing the character in an exciting and visceral direction, and Brosnan took the character a step backward. Now it is 2013 and James Bond has officially cried on film. Take a look back at Dalton's Bond, and try to tell me that sort of breakthrough wasn't long overdue.
In closing, I would just like to say how important Dalton's run was to the series. His films remain classics, cult or otherwise, and he is slowly getting recognition for the revolutionary way he handled the character. One of the biggest upsets in the entire Bond universe was the fact that Dalton was axed after only two films. Maybe Licence To Kill illustrated the emotional complexities that the character was capable of twenty years too soon on an audience that were simply not ready for a Bond they could actually touch. Thanks For Reading!
-Zach Frances
I have always liked Dalton's bond the best. Outside of the the first Bond film, I felt the majority of follow-ups made Bond a caricature of himself, so it was difficult to take the films seriously.
ReplyDelete"A View To Kill" was the first Bond film I ever saw, and I remember feeling like there was something there to work with, something not fully realized. There was an interesting world, and the right kind of setting, but it was missing a soul.
Dalton's Bond gave it that soul, that intensity and comparative realism.
One thing I disagree with you on, is about the promotion of feelings above professionalism; I think you are overstating the role of emotions in L2K. The emotions are simply a manifestation of ethical conflict. Bond invokes his moral agency. He is showing us that there is a person judging the orders, always, underneath. He is a thinking Bond first --- and because he is a thinking Bond is why he is an emotional Bond too.
A case can be made that it is not entirely renegade, it's also a belief in Bond that he is the best man for the job, and that he does not think others are capable of doing it, or even that they will do anything.
He says in the movie, "Sir, they're not going to do anything." and he is probably right.
My two cents. Thanks for writing this entry and thanks for defending Dalton.
One correction I'll make is that Dalton wasn't fired from being Bond. He signed a 7-year contract in 1986 with the intention that he would do 4 films. His contract expired in 1993 but EON still had every intention of working with him on 'Bond 17'. 17 was originally supposed to film in 1990 and be released in 1991, with pre-production beginning while they still hammered out a script. Of course, the lawsuits came and held production out for a few years, causing them to scrap the story they were working on.
ReplyDeleteThey hired Michael France in 1993 to write the story that would become 'GoldenEye' with Dalton still in mind. The intention was to start production in 1993 with a release set for the fall of 1994. France turned in his draft in January or February 1994, while EON was negotiating a new contract with Dalton. By that point, he'd grown tired of the whole deal and decided to walk away. In April 1994, he released a statement wherein he stepped down from the part, even though he was actually no longer on contract.
So, EON turned to Pierce Brosnan and he jumped at finally being able to play the part after everything that had happened in 1986. They announced him as the new Bond in June 1994. Release of 'GoldenEye' was pushed to fall 1995 and they set about doing rewrites on the script to tailor it more to Brosnan. Though, if you notice, Brosnan's Bond in 'GoldenEye' is distinctly different than his Bond in the three subsequent films he did. This is mostly due to the fact that there is still quite a bit of the Dalton Bond DNA in the 'GoldenEye' script.
I'd also argue that Dalton's Bond is a "darker" one from the standpoint that by being more human, as you pointed out, his character was also more haunted by his work. It did affect him and he really didn't have any relish in what it was he was doing. There were things he enjoyed about the lifestyle but it was clear that he had many ghosts hung around his neck. That did make it a darker take on the film version of Bond, especially when coming after the parody that the Moore era had become. That's not a bad thing at all, as Fleming's Bond was a dark, haunted character in a world of excess as well as intrigue.
That, for me, is why Dalton stands head and shoulders above as the best interpretation on-screen. Craig's Bond owes a debt to both Dalton's and Connery's and I hope that more people come to recognize that. Nice commentary.
Thank you so much for reading my article. I appreciate your opinions on the subject immensely. I must say, I do not feel I overstated Bond's emotions at all, especially in direct contrast to his predecessor and successor.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Dalton's Bond displayed any emotion at all was a huge leap forward for the character, and something that wouldn't be explored again until nearly two decades later.
Dalton gave the series a soul. Couldn't have said it better myself.
And Tucker, that fact has been brought to my attention. Pardon my mistake.
Just as a side-note for comments I've been receiving elsewhere:
ReplyDeleteThere is no arguing how revolutionary Craig's films have been to the series. What I was saying was more along the lines of how the series is playing catch-up. Dalton's Bond was on the verge of exploring the underlying concepts of CR, QOS, and Skyfall nearly two decades before Craig stepped in. Brosnan, to me, felt like a continuation of Moore's era and a huge step backward in terms of character development. Craig's Bond feels like the true successor to Dalton. Dalton and Craig's Bonds explore very similar themes and take the character to hell and back on an emotional level. Craig has been afforded the opportunity to seemingly do more with Bond than Dalton was able to do, but its a different time. The fact that Dalton's Bond was who he was in the late eighties is telling of a far more revolutionary and innovative Bond than Craig's. Daniel Craig's Bond has been forced to be revolutionary, if he wasn't darker or more adult then the character would not have survived another film. Dalton's was innovative out of choice. Craig's dark Bond, as he is now, is simply of bandwagon appeal, everything from superheroes to cartoons are darker now, and Craig's Bond simply followed the status quo.
When Dalton was doing this, this wasn't the case at all. Fans must also have been blindsided by his earnest approach after years of Moore's campy routine. I do believe Craig has Dalton to thank if for no other reason than by trial and error. With Dalton, the series saw how far they could take Bond and how fast fans permitted them to do it. Craig's Bond seems to have learned from Dalton's 'mistakes'. I feel as though Craig's Bond is indebted to Dalton for far more than that, but I also know that's its no use trying to explain it to someone who doesn't want to hear it.
I may have an unorthodox way of viewing the Bond actors, but I feel that Connery, Lazenby, Dalton, and Craig have been most essential in pushing the evolution of the character forward, whereas Moore and Brosnan, as fun as they were, admittedly did very little with the soul of the material.