In my prior defense of Never Say Never Again I noted how disenchanted I was with the tenure of Roger Moore as James Bond. I came of age during his reign as Bond, and with the exception of For Your Eyes Only, had little use for him in the role. In the mid-80s, I started recording all the Bond films off network television, and quickly realized Sean Connery was my guy.
When Moore finally relinquished the role after A View to a Kill (a film the producers cajoled him into doing since they had yet to find a replacement), I was excited to see someone, anyone new in the role.
After an exhaustive search that included Liam Neeson and Sam Neill, the producers chose Timothy Dalton, an actor known primarily known for theatre work, who American audiences knew primarily as Prince Baron from the 1980 version of Flash Gordon. Dalton actually turned the Bond role down when he was approached to replace Sean Connery in 1968. Had he accepted the role he would’ve been the youngest actor ever cast as Bond.
I knew Dalton from my endless viewings of Flash Gordon, and while I knew little else about him I was encouraged.
The Living Daylights, released in 1987, introduced the world to a grimmer, grittier Bond who had little use for quips and badinage with villains. I was hooked. This was my guy. Here was someone who took the role seriously, who took a back-to-basics approach that paid attention to the little details, such as Bond smoking.
Daylights was a critical and financial success, but there was a vocal strata of fans who decried the film’s lack of humor and Dalton’s dark characterization. I didn’t find the performance completely humorless. Dalton’s Bond still had that flirty rapport with Moneypenny and still gently teased Q, but he was all business.
He was dark but he wasn’t inhuman, as evidenced by his sympathy for cellist Kara Milovy (Maryam D’Abo), an unwitting pawn of the scheming General Koskov. Bond is chided by a fellow agent for not killing her when he has the chance. “I only kill professionals,” he snaps.
I would go so far as to say Dalton’s Bond is haunted. He infuses Bond with a world weariness that you would expect from an agent of his pedigree, who has likely spent the better part of 20 years killing for Queen and country. Dalton was 41 when he accepted the role, and I believe he made the better decision by rejecting it as a young man.
Things really got dark in Dalton’s second outing License to Kill, one of my favorite Bond films (and the least successful financially). The plot of the film is purely driven by revenge. Bond’s friend and colleague Felix Leiter is tortured and maimed and his new bride murdered by Sanchez, a sadistic drug lord. When Bond is ordered not to pursue him and take on another mission he resigns and his license to kill is revoked.
Bond spends the rest of the film tearing down Sanchez’s organization from the inside, dispatching everyone who gets in his way without mercy. Many saw his relentless pursuit of this villain as a throwback to the character’s own disastrously short marriage from One Her Majesty’s Secret Service – a marriage referenced only once before LTK in the opening scene of For Your Eyes Only.
Dalton really brings the pain here and is so single minded in his purpose that nearly all the typical conventions of a Bond film are jettisoned (which was fine by me). There were still those who felt his performance was too stiff, too dour, but here was a guy that, for me, portrayed a spy as realistically as I could imagine – ruthless, determined and at times, heartless.
License to Kill performed well internationally but was crushed under the weight of blockbusters dotting the landscape of the summer of 1989 like Batman, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2 and Ghostbusters 2 (among others). Dalton was contracted for three films, and pre-production started for another Bond in 1990, but was abruptly canceled when a legal battle erupted between Eon Productions and MGM.
When the court case was resolved everyone expected Dalton to return, but he refused, leading to the casting of Pierce Brosnan for 1995’s Goldeneye. I didn’t hate Brosnan – in fact I enjoyed his performance. He seemed to tread the middle ground between Connery and Moore, infusing his Bond with style and humor (but not too much). For many, Dalton was a bitter pill. To me, he was ahead of his time. I would point to Daniel Craig’s Bond as proof of that. No one seemed to complain his Bond was such a bastard.
Sadly, Dalton’s career floundered after he abdicated the Bond role (not so much as poor George Lazenby though!) For me, his absolute low point was The Beautician and the Beast with Fran Drescher (ugh). He has produced quality work though, especially in the made-for-cable film, The Informant, and another underrated “Steve classic,” The Rocketeer, as well as a lot of high profile guest work on shows like Chuck and Doctor Who.
While Timothy Dalton enjoyed two solid outings as Bond I see his tenure as something of a missed opportunity. He rejuvenated my interest in the character and brought a much-needed serious tone to a role that thrives on that type of portrayal. Over the years, I’ve softened to Moore’s performance, but it’s guys like Connery, Craig and Dalton who define the character for me.
Steve, your assessment of T. Dalton as Bond is spot on!
Although I don't like "License to Kill" as much as you do, I thought "Living Daylights" was amazing. This is perhaps the most underrated of Bond films. The film is realistic in its tone, gadgets are used to a minimum, the villains are not crazed megalomaniacs and we finally see other MI-5 agents not as cannon fodder but as capable compatriots. Probably the most striking difference between this film and others, Bond only beds one woman. Scandalous!
I agree, Dalton's more no nonsense portrayal is definitely a precursor to Daniel Craig. I, for one, did appreciate it back in 1987. Also this spoke to Bond's more serious depiction in the books. Roger Moore's Bond was a bit too campy for me even back in the day and ultimately doesn't hold up over time in my opinion. I think Moore's first two films ("Live and Let Die" and "The Man With The Golden Gun") are good examples where the right mix of grit and humor are properly executed.
You are the first person I've read who defends "License.." though and that's fine. I think if I give it a re-watching I might think differently. This happened with "...Golden Gun". My problem is that I've been pre-conditioned to see Bond battle a world-threatening baddie so when seeing him take on and have trouble with a "simple" druglord I couldn't accept it. Oh well, what can you do?
Sean Connery is my guy through and through. He just handled the role perfectly. George Lazenby was a fine Bond. I liked him and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", another of the more underrated Bond films. That film is a good friend's favorite. You don't meet too many of them. Lazenby was the actor physically closest to Ian Fleming's description of Bond. Sadly, George took bad advice from manager and agent types who told him that the Bond films were on their last legs back in 1969 (!) Talk about "pitiful lack of vision".
One Bond film I like as time goes on; the last one, "Quantum of Solace". When I first saw it I was like, "They're fighting over water rights? Who cares". Now that movie is prophetic.
Great piece!
Posted by: Zeke Springer | 09/12/2011 at 02:22 PM
Thanks Zeke! I think you should give LTK a second look. As I said, it's precisely the fact that it throws all the conventions out the window with the bathwater that I enjoy it so much, especially the expanded role of Q!
I am also a fan of OHMSS. Lazenby had potential - it's obvious in the film. A few more outings and I think he would've owned the role, but I think TD owned it right from the start!
QoS really turned me off (and right after such a great entry in Casino). I should watch it again just to see Craig in the role again. I hope all this legal sniping doesn't derail his tenure the way it did Dalton's!
Posted by: Stvivona | 09/12/2011 at 03:23 PM