[DISCLAIMER: This article has been written under the influence of whisky and emotional stress. Also "SKYFALL" was being shown on ITV2 for about the ten millionth time tonight ...]
Timothy Dalton is the best actor to have ever played James Bond.
There, I said it. I'm not ashamed. Although I suppose I'll have to back that statement up with a pretty compelling argument. So why do I think Timothy Dalton was the best Bond? Because when The Living Daylights came out in 1987, it was a revelation.
Compelling enough for you? Don't worry, it's not as weird as it sounds.
I was raised on James Bond, perhaps as much as Doctor Who, if not more. I can't remember which film I saw first, but it was probably an old Connery one on TV, perhaps Goldfinger or Dr. No. I wasn't allowed to watch R-rated movies at the time, so I had to get my fill of sex and violence from pre-PG13 PG films. And the Bond films were an excellent source.
Somehow, they were titillating yet family friendly at the same time. There was an excitement to them, but you didn't get that flush of embarrassment while watching them with your parents. (It helped that I really didn't grasp the subversiveness of calling a film Octopussy at the time.)
Even though my first Bond was a Connery, I remember my formative favourite incarnation of the spy being Roger Moore. And I have to say, when they retired his licence to kill, along with his wig, I was highly sceptical that anyone could fill his orthopaedic shoes.
Enter Timothy Dalton.
For me, The Living Daylights was a jolt of adrenaline; it made me appreciate film as a visceral thrill. This was a more adult Bond, and it made me feel like a grownup movie-watcher.
Daylights wasn't so much a re-imagining of the series as it was a re-writing. It had all the hallmarks of a classic Bond film: amazing stunts (Skydiving! Skiing!), a tricked out Aston Martin, cool gadgets, an over-the-top villain (but not TOO over-the-top), and a creepy henchman who doesn't say much. It also managed to incorporate an element of humour without crossing over into parody (although, in retrospect, the cello case sled scene is pretty silly).
But these elements felt fresh when combined with a more serious tone and an infusion of Dalton blood. After the geriatric antics of A View To A Kill, it brought some respect back to Bond.
People have made such a big deal about Daniel Craig's gritty, more realistic portrayal of the spy who loved me in Casino Royale, but those people also forget - Timothy Dalton did it first. Dalton's Bond, at the time, was considered the most similar to Ian Fleming's creation, and thankfully moved the series away from the high level camp of the Moore films. This was something that wasn't lost on 7 year-old me.
His Bond's reaction to the death of a fellow MI6 agent is spectacular. In the other films, a minor character being killed would result in Connery or Moore arching an eyebrow and then moving on. Here though, it’s enough to enrage the man (I pity that balloon), especially since he’s figured out the villains are playing him and MI6 for suckers and they basically wasted a good agent to try and sucker him some more.
In Licence to Kill, in the wake of Bond finding his best friend's new wife murdered, the film hinges entirely on Bond being affected enough to quit MI6 and go on a revenge spree. Again, the arched brow approach wouldn’t have worked here. Coupled with the knowledge that Bond is basically seeing his own wedding day replayed before his eyes with a different cast of characters (Good friends, no less) and you’ve really got an emotional powderkeg in Bond.
Nothing could satify him but revenge on the man who hurt his mates. With the exception of Craig, I cannot see Connery, Moore or Brosnan carrying out the role of a psychologically damaged rouge agent bent on killing for the sole purpose of killing.
To me, Licence to Kill is the film Diamonds are Forever should have been. Connery seems largely disinterested throughout, and there’s no tension at all and no reference to his wife's death in the previous film, the largely forgettable On Her Majesty's Secret Service. When he meets face-to-face with Charles Gray’s Blofeld, you'd have thought the writers would have put in a line like, "Hey, James, you do remember that this is the guy who machine-gunned your wife to death in the film before, right?"
Nope, but Dalton did. When Della throws her garter at Bond, teasing him, "the one who catches this is the next one to..." Bond looks visibly pained; when Della asks Felix about it, Felix makes a short, sad reference to Bond once having been married, "but that was a long time ago." Dalton just nails it. In a brief but compelling moment you see Bond's anguish pierce his happiness for his friend, and it sets up the rest of the film perfectly.
As Judi Dench's 'M' herself puts it in Quantum of Solace; "It'd be a pretty cold bastard who didn't want revenge for the death of someone he loved ..."
I for one, certainly would.
Dalton was, and still is, criminally underrated as Bond. It’s a bit annoying to me that when polls are done of the best Bond, Dalton is always ranked low, sometimes under Lazenby. Really? Lazenby wasn’t terrible, but there’s no universe where Dalton shouldn’t be at least in 4th place.
Hopefully Craig’s Dalton-like interpretation of Bond allows for re-evaluation of Dalton’s tenure, and those critical of him can take a step back and see that he had it right, but audiences at the time just weren’t ready.
Those who were used to Moore’s comic interpretation were horrified at the dark menace Dalton brought to Bond. It's not that other Bonds have not exhibited brutal acts before, (Sean Connery shooting a defenceless man in Dr. No or Roger Moore pushing a car over a cliff with a killer trapped inside in For Your Eyes Only, where Moore dumps a wheel chair “Blofeld” in a large hole but it was so comically done, that you feel no sense of violence, just hilarity).
But in Dalton, you see the darkness, the violence, and you are hit with the realisation that Dalton’s Bond is no different from the people he killed. They are all the same ruthless murderers who just found themselves on different sides of the coin.
Unfortunately, people weren't ready for it, as evidenced by the return to a lighter tone with successive films. Dalton was replaced by that Irish bloke from Remington Steele and we wouldn't see another hard-edged Bond until Daniel Craig in 2006.
Sure, there are better Bond movies, but Dalton is the best Bond. He wasn't as lecherous as Connery, as smug as Moore, or as lethargic as Lazenby. He made the character more human, elevating him above a persona, a fantasy aspired to by boys (and, to be honest, a lot of men as well). His charm was less of an affectation, less of a put-on. He was the most human. Even at 7 years-old, I could sense this.
And that's why nobody does it better.
For those of you who feel Dalton is just a slightly larger blip on the Bond radar than George Lazenby, have I convinced you to give him another shot? Or was I just exposed to these films at a critical time in my cinematic development, and therefore biased?
No, I can unequivocally say that they stand up for me, at least as well as any of the Bond films. If you look past the late 80's trappings, you're left with two very strong entries in the James Bond canon, as well as the most successful on-screen portrayal of the literary character ever.
I look forward with baited breath for SPECTRE, though …