In overview, the Bond franchise has a couple of periods which have been reappraised. Most recently, the Dalton era has been critically reappraised. And the Brosnan movies are currently undergoing their own revival.
Part of this is generational, as a new cohort of Bond fans become more vocal. And part of it has to do with whoever is currently the incumbent.
Roger Moore is one of the most defined and iconic of Bonds. Irony has been part of Bond’s makeup since Dr No, but Moore made it the character’s foundation. Double entendres are everywhere, and Moore is the first to point them out.
Whereas Connery is contained and Lazenby was (due to lack of technique) exposed, Moore is unflappable. Moore carries a sense of confidence that almost seems bigger than the movie around him.
The qualities which made him unique have been used as praise and damnation - he is either in on the joke or a joke. His movies are either too light or show an awareness of Bond as a fantasy.
As Dalton’s critical esteem has shifted, it has affected the treatment of Moore.
Moore’s run as Bond is more unique and varied than he is given credit for, and his latter run through the early eighties, shows that the franchise’s pivot toward darkness and a more grounded sensibility was underway before his successor was cast.
The biggest shift in this final part of Moore’s tenure is the conception of Bond himself.
In his Seventies movies, Moore is - mostly - able to get out of trouble due to gadgets.
From For Your Eyes Only to A View To A Kill, Moore’s Bond is basically MacGyver - he still has hardware but it has limits, and he often has to figure out new uses for The gadgets during the mission.
For Your Eyes Only is the easy example since the whole movie feels like a palate cleanser for the super spy fantasy of the late seventies. His next two films are seen as a swing back toward fantasy, but I am not so sure the distinction is that clear.
Being a natural improviser is a familiar element in Bond - see Connery electrocuting Oddjob in Goldfinger or Craig trying to keep up with the free-running Mollaka in Casino Royale.
It might fit Moore - the Bond known for wit rather than physicality - the best.
It also works for Moore’s age. It makes sense that he would be more thinking his way out of problems rather than fighting.
While it is a subject of criticism, Moore’s age gives this element of Bond’s character a greater sense of stakes. The movies seem to be conscious of their leading man, and rather than ignoring it, they make his age a key part of the character’s behaviour.
Octopussy feels like a balancing act, between the more grounded, contemporary tone and style of its predecessor, and the more heightened, fantastical approach of Moore’s earlier films.
This duality is epitomised by its dual villains:
General Orlov’s nuclear plot could be stripped down to a simple Cold War thriller, while his partner Kamal Khan feels like a homage to the OTT Bond villains of the (recent) past, with his massive lair, henchman (Gobinda) and one liners.
What makes the movie work is how Moore’s Bond feels at home in both arenas.
While it tends to be overlooked, in Octopussy Moore’s Bond is on the back-foot frequently and the film plays to his age in interesting ways.
It took a couple of viewings for me to realise Bond never fights Gobinda - his clashes are basically about Bond evading a direct confrontation.
And he beats him by whipping an antenna at his head.
His gadgets are limited in scope (the Mike in the Farbage egg, the jet is just fast, with no weapons).
While it has the reputation of being OTT, there is a sense of proportion to the gadgets that keeps Bond and his ingenuity the focus rather than the hardware.
Bond’s race to defuse the nuke is based on familiar obstacles (he tries to hitch a ride, and is rebuffed by some cheeky teens).
He has to steal a car and is chased by the police.
Nothing is easy and everything he does comes with its own complications.
A View To A Kill gets a lot of flack, but even a cursory look shows that the late Moore/John Glen Bond remains a man of improvisation rather than a gadget-sprouting superman.
The pre-credit sequence gets a lot of flack for the needle drop, but if you ignore the Beach Boys cover, the sequence (designed and shot by Willy Bogner) is a terrific example of this characterisation.
Bond is constantly peril, from losing his skies to the sled being blown up.
Throughout the sequence, he is constantly having to get himself out of trouble - and has to improvise new solutions when he finds himself in new danger (like inventing snowboarding).
Aside from the iceberg ship, there are no gadgets to get Bond out of trouble - it is all based on Bond improvising using whatever props he has around him (another great example of this approach is when Bond has to use air from a car tyre to breathe).
While he is overshadowed by his successors, Moore’s final run as Bond should not be seen as a series low point, but a forerunner for the style of Bond we would get with his successors.
If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour.
You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.
