Timothy Dalton makes the character his own

The argument

The case for Dalton rests on a balance the role makes difficult: bringing something distinctive to a character who has been played many times, without ceasing to be that character. The distinctiveness is a matter of register. Dalton's Bond has an unmistakeable personality and presence that only Dalton offers, and the clearest way to see it is by contrast. Moore's Bond bust out cheesy jokes at every opportunity, and the effect of that was to hold the danger at a distance, since nothing on screen could be taken quite seriously while the lead was treating it lightly. Dalton declines the joke. His Bond is more serious, and what that seriousness establishes is the image of Bond as a genuine professional: a man engaged in difficult work who intends to complete the assignment by any available means, rather than a performer with an audience in mind. The second half of the case is what he does not change. An actor can be distinctive by departing from the part, but that produces a different character wearing the name. Dalton gives Bond his own unique flair without departing from the core themes present in any Bond character, and the love for women and the penchant for alcoholic beverages remain in place. He is recognisably the same figure, interpreted rather than replaced. That combination is what the standard asks for. Playing Bond is not a matter of impersonating previous Bonds, which would add nothing, nor of substituting a new character, which would abandon the role. It is a matter of making the part one's own while leaving it the part. Because Timothy Dalton makes the character his own on these terms, he was the best James Bond.

Context

Unlike other Bonds, Dalton’s portrayal of the spy eschews the cliché portrayal of the protagonist and the actor brings his own distinct flair and personality to the role.

Premises

Counter-arguments

His two films were the most unmemorable in the series. They lacked iconography and failed to become cultural icons that many of the other films in the series did. Neither have a memorable villain. In The Living Daylights, the archetypal bad guy isn’t introduced until the film is half-way through and their plans for world domination are vague and ill-prepared, hardly giving Dalton’s Bond character a worthy nemesis. Similarly, the South American drug baron that constitutes the baddie in License to Kill is equally unmemorable. With such unmemorable films, and never having himself tested against a worthy opponent, it would be improper to crown Dalton as the best Bond of all.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P3] The best Bond must have memorable films. Dalton does not. He is not the best Bond.