ScreenAnarchy in Bondage: Why Timothy Dalton Was The Best Bond

Timothy Dalton was the best 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 for 10 year-old me - a revelation bordering on sexual awakening.

Compelling enough for you? Don't worry, it's not as weird as it sounds.

I was raised on Bond. 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 for a 10 year-old, 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 favorite incarnation of the spy being Roger Moore. His films felt more realistic to me than the classic Bonds, despite their tendency towards broad humor and cartoonishness. (Hey, what did I know? I was just a stupid kid.) And I have to say, when they retired his elderly ass, I was highly skeptical that anyone could fill his orthopedic shoes.

Enter Timothy Dalton. Dalton had originally screen-tested for the role back in 1968, when he was being considered as a replacement for Sean Connery. But the 22 year-old actor felt he was too young to play Bond, and turned it down. He was approached again in 1980, to star in For Your Eyes Only, but there wasn't a script and he didn't want to appear in another 'silly' Bond flick, like Moonraker. Third time's the charm: 5 years later, Dalton turned down the role yet again, because of prior commitments (AKA: the abysmal Brenda Starr). But the Broccolis weren't having it. They rearranged the shooting schedule to accommodate Dalton, and the rest is (a very short) history.

People 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 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 camp of the Moore films. This was something that wasn't lost on 10 year-old me. To give you a frame of reference, this was post Temple of Doom, which I was too frightened to see when it was released, and pre-Terminator 2, which was one of the first R-rated films I saw outside of the safety of network TV. 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. It was also the beginning of a life-long fascination with Russian Cellists.

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 humor 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.

Then the series upped the ante. If The Living Daylights was my sexual awakening, License To Kill put hair on my balls. It was the first PG13 Bond, thanks to some grizzly shark attacks, a Scanners-esque head explosion, and an amoral Bond out for revenge. It gave me a taste for blood. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but were those actual nipples in Maurice Binder's titillating credit sequence? Not just the shadowy suggestion of nipples? Maybe I only noticed it during my recent rewatch because of the glorious Blu-ray transfer. Still, I remember an extra sexual charge in the air when watching it as a child. This was accentuated by my father's wry grin...and my mother's consternation. License To Kill was Binder's final Bond film, and it was his crowning achievement. He went out Onatopp.    

And to those who decry Dalton's second outing as a bad Bond film - you're wrong. It's one of the best. It's the adequate John Glen's most assured directorial effort in the series (he directed a total of 5, including some of the campier Moore stuff), and is probably still the darkest Bond to date. It may have had a more straightforward plot than it's predecessors, but it featured a more emotionally complex version of the character. It was ahead of its time. Unfortunately, people weren't ready for it, as evidenced by the return to a lighter tone with successive films. Dalton was replaced by that Remington Steele guy, 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 relatable as a person, 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 10 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? Having watched both films for the first time in years, I can unequivocally say that they stand up for me, at least as well as any of the pre-blond Bond films. If you look past the late 80s trappings, you're left with two very strong entries in the Bond canon, as well as the most successful onscreen portrayal of the character ever. 

Who's with me?

Header inspiration: The Incredible Suit 

Joshua Chaplinsky is the Managing Editor for LitReactor.com. He also writes for ChuckPalahniuk.net. He was a guitarist in the band SpeedSpeedSpeed, and is the poison pen behind thejamminjabber, although he's not so sure he should admit it.