dknow3

Kate Nelligan created the role of Susan Traherne in the original London production and recreated it in New York on Broadway, where I saw her do it. She was a powerhouse in the role and she very much made it her own. It's a great pity that playwright David Hare could not have been loyal to her when it came to making the film.

Meryl Streep can be wonderful when she is well cast, such as in SOPHIE'S CHOICE & OUT OF AFRICA. However, contrary to what some people believe, there is no single actor who can play everything. In spite of Meryl Streep's gifts and impressive range, this is one of her failures. Early in her career she had the unfortunate habit of turning some characters into victims. Her misreading of the titular character in THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN is a case in point. Sarah is not a victim, but a wild spirit acting out against the confines of the Victorian world. Kate Nelligan would have been ideal for Sarah. Unfortunately, that would not be the case.

In PLENTY, Susan Traherne is as much a victim of her own willfulness as she is a victim of circumstances. That was something that Kate Nelligan realized superbly, yet she still retained sympathy. Meryl Streep doesn't quite manage to bring it off. At best, Streep is a pale shadow of Kate Nelligan in the role.

In the 1980's Kate Nelligan was Meryl Streep's only serious competition. It's a great shame there were not ample opportunities for both of them to star in quality material.

General Ranald Slidell Mackenzie was indeed a real historical figure. His tragic end, in which he descended into madness, has obscured his outstanding record of achievement. While I remember this show from when I was a boy, it did not do justice to the real man. Mackenzie brought peace to the southern plains, accomplishing in a few short years what Texans had tried to achieve for three generations. While commanders like Custer, George Crook, and Nelson Miles are better remembered today, Mackenzie and his crack regiment, the 4th Cavalry, deserve to be remembered and at least equally well known. Not only did Mackenzie stop the predatory raiding of the Comanches, he dealt with them equitably in peacetime. He was most proud of having stopped wars without spilling blood. He deserves better than to remain obscure.

Christopher Lee, Ian Fleming's cousin and frequent golfing partner, was Fleming's original choice to play DR. NO. Although the role would finally go to Joseph Wiseman, Lee would go on to play Scaramanga in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. Lee was in a position to know about James Bond and his opinion of Bond actors is well worth noting. He was quoted as saying, "In my opinion - and I think I know as much if not more about Bond than anyone, particularly about the characters on whom {Ian Fleming} told me Bond was based - Pierce Brosnan was by far the best and closest to the character."

Personally, I always felt that Brosnan's voice, physique, and temperament were much too lightweight for Bond to suit my taste. Although, his interpretation of the Bond character is essentially accurate, he seems miscast. In THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, Brosnan works very hard and he is better than in his first two outings as Bond. However, my problem is that I can still see the work at every turn. Laurence Olivier advised actors that, "The audience should never see your limits." Brosnan reaches his limits frequently as Bond, and lacks a real sense of ease. In the last result, his acting seems manufactured.

Admittedly, seeing Sean Connery in the early Bond films, beginning with DR. NO in its original release, was a huge influence. Obviously, Christopher Lee is in an almost unique position to have a very well informed opinion. With respect to Christopher Lee, from a an objective point of view I must demure on this point. Based on reading all of Fleming's work several times, as well as biographical material on the author, I feel strongly that Timothy Dalton was far and away the closest interpretation of Ian Fleming's James Bond.

Feel free to disagree.