Let’s face it, as an actor Roger definitely had a “lane.” If he strayed from it, things could get iffy, but while he was in it, he was the master. Fortunately for him, he landed at least two roles ideal to his strengths; Simon Templar and James Bond. Or maybe more accurately, two roles that were thinly defined enough and malleable enough to be shaped into his image with great success. Superficially, they appear very similar (because, as Roger said, “I do tend to look like me”) but if you spend any time with them, there are many things he does to distinguish them. Not broad or ostentatious things, because that’s not his style, but little things.
While he was Bond, the character evolved from a ruthless, fairly mean-spirited cad into more of a Galahad type. When we first meet him, he’s conning Solitaire out of her virginity, but by FYEO he’s telling Bibi to put her clothes on to get an ice cream (if Solitaire is any older than Bibi, it can’t be by much, and she’s twice as naive). TMWTGG’s Bond slaps around Andrea just to show he can, but AVTAK Bond risks his life to save a hopeless case like Stacey by dangling below an airship. Would late-model Bond have cheated by kicking Tula in the face? Maybe, but it’s harder to picture. Would LALD Bond have taken Melina under his wing like a kind uncle, helped her fulfill her quest and postponed seduction until the end of the mission? Highly doubtful.
Yes, I know it’s not like Roger’s performance changes all that much, at least on the surface; he’s always suave, witty, polished, etc. But over time he gives us glimpses of the man behind the facade: sensitive to mentions of Tracy, honest with Anya when – as Dustin points out – he doesn’t have to be, and maybe shouldn’t be, grimly resolute as opposed to flippant when he tells Melina “We’re not dead yet,” genuinely remorseful at the fates of Lisl, Ferrara or Vijay. We come to know him through these little moments in ways more effective than if we’d seen him break down in tears or drone on repeatedly about what a hard life he has, or how many loves and allies he’s lost. You know; the Oscar bait stuff so dear to “real” actors. Roger does mo(o)re with less, which is why he excels in these “hero” roles that are so thinly written that any morsel – and anything the actor adds – is “fleshing out,” as opposed to scripts that are written with tons of opportunities for broad, emotional histrionics, which are frankly Roger’s kryptonite. His “emoting” is like his movement: more is less. Ask him to walk and you’ll say “There goes the coolest guy in town.” Ask him to run and you’ll see all the grace of a flustered emu.
My point being, I guess, that while Moore’s Bond does change a lot, it’s not so much a case of Thespian Roger driving his directors to “push the boundaries” and “take the character in new directions,” as it is a case of the films gradually honing in on Roger’s strengths and retooling the character to fit them.
And I don’t just mean the humor. Consider: the “Roger Moore” type is that of the classical hero; stalwart, courageous, honorable and with a palpable disdain for evil and a desire to balance the scales to good. This was what worked for him as The Saint, and it’s what he brings it to Bond. Which is to say, and let me be clear, it was not there before in movie Bond. Connery’s Bond was never a do-gooder at heart nor a knight errant. He was not motivated by a desire to expunge evil. He did what he was assigned and he did it with extreme prejudice and unparalleled skill, but if he had a personal motivation at all beyond patriotism, it was the alpha male’s desire to out-think, out-maneuver, out-fight and out-seduce every other man in the room. To climb up and face the King of the Mountain and toss that loser back down to the bottom of the heap. To win. Watch him in his scenes with the big bads and it’s always about out-macho’ing them, belittling their supposed genius, scoffing at their schemes and threats. With Roger, you got the feeling he was genuinely repulsed in the presence of evil and viewed the villains like human cockroaches in need of being stamped on. Roger said he liked to imagine they had body odor so he’d convey a sense of distaste and revulsion.
In its way this is consistent with Fleming’s Bond, who found his job as an assassin easier if he could latch on to some morally repugnant personal trait in his targets, nevermind how many good reasons were listed in their dossiers to do them in. But of course in other ways, turning Bond into a “good guy” in the Galahad/Templar sense obviously turned the movie 007 on his head and made him into something one could justifiably say he was never meant to be, or at least that the audience didn’t seem to have been clamoring for. My point, I guess, is that it only happened because Roger was in the role, and so we’re left with a tenure that starts with him as a caddish bounder and ends with him a straight up “good guy.” LALD Bond is largely Connery in Roger’s skin (now with hair!) but by 1985 movie Bond has been fully transformed into something else entirely. And thanks in part to being the oldest Bond, it’s a 007 who sometimes conveys a sense of world-weariness, a degree of disillusionment and maybe a desire to save others from going down the path he chose, almost none of which really comes up again after he leaves the scene.
Connery Bond remains the same throughout, if a little more relaxed and goofy in DAF as you might well expect from a guy who’s come to recognize his own invincibility. Dalton starts mad and just gets madder. Brosnan, IMO, never really does come into focus. Craig remains the “hard luck” Bond throughout, though there is that dramatic 11th-hour shift to “devoted family man” in NTTD. But even then, little Matilde would’ve gotten a better breakfast if Roger had been there to whip up a quiche.
Sorry for the length of this. I just realized I could have just pointed out that we started Moore’s era with “Well, I wouldn’t have killed you before” and ended with “Good morning, I made you a quiche” and just left it at that.
