Roger Moore takes a look back at twenty five years of James Bond films in Happy Anniversary 007, a compilation of Bond clips that aired in 1987 shortly before the release of The Living Daylights. At 59 years old, Moore looks a little better than he did two years earlier in A View to a Kill, probably due to the darker hair die. He appears throughout to talk about the situations Bond faced in his past fourteen films, but he’s playing himself as if he were Bond. Apart from the killing, there was little difference between Roger Moore and the Bond character he played. Moore’s personal wardrobe at the time included clothes he wore as Bond along with other clothes by the same makers. In Happy Anniversary 007, Roger Moore wears some clothes that he had previously worn as Bond, but most of the tailored clothes are likely from his own wardrobe. I can’t imagine the budget for this would have room for Douglas Hayward tailoring that is used so sparingly. Moore wears a total of eight different outfits in this film.
Roger Moore wears a very interesting trench coat made in light brown corduroy, but it has practically all of the traditional trench coat details. It’s a full-length coat that hits just below the knee, and it has the raglan sleeves found on an ordinary trench coat. Also like an ordinary trench coat this coat has ten buttons on the front, but the buttons are brown leather that go well with the corduroy. The coat has usual trench coat details like shoulder straps, a yoke across the upper back, a storm flap in front, and a self belt and wrist straps that close with a leather buckles. The pockets are angled with large welts. The coat has a gold satin lining over the shoulders and upper back with a plaid lining the rest of the way down.
Corduroy, especially in the wide wale that this is, was very popular in the 1980s. Narrower wales have been more popular in the past decade, though the wider wale corduroy wears warmer. This coat is neither designed for the rain nor for the extreme cold but for the cool days of autumn. Thus Moore’s beige leather gloves are probably unlined. Corduroy also makes this coat too informal for a suit, but Roger Moore wears a blazer underneath.
Roger Moore’s dark navy blazer is tailored by Douglas Hayward in the same fashion he made all of Moore’s clothes for his three James Bond films in the 1980s. It’s a button two, and unlike what was popular at the time this blazer has natural shoulders and a higher gorge (the seams where the collar and lapels meet). After Bond Roger Moore stopped following fashions and stuck with a classic style. The blazer has three buttons of the cuffs, and all the buttons are white metal. His trousers are dark grey flannel wool. Moore’s white shirt is not made by his usual—or perhaps former at this time—shirtmaker Frank Foster. It has a small, narrow button-down collar. Apart from it being a poor example of a button-down collar—see Cec Linder’s Felix Leiter in Goldfinger for a proper button-down collar—it’s not flattering to Moore either. The shirt has 1-button cuffs. And Moore ties his crimson satin tie in a four-in-hand knot. If Roger Moore was still Bond for one more film, is this how he would be dressed?
Some of the details of this outfit are quite interesting. I have not seen these images before.
Specifically concerning the shirt– Bond has never worn a button-down collar with a tie and I hope he never does. I have nothing against the style, but it’s Ivy League roots don’t seem to comport with the character.
In the future, I would like to see Bond return to a wider spread like the ones Brosnan wore in DAD.
I agree about the collar. Roger Moore wore button-down collars with a tie when out promoting A View to a Kill, but those were wider collars made by Frank Foster.
I like the coat and the general look (except for the button down collar, which I personally don’t like) but it isn’t very Bondian. I think Dalton’s wardrobe in The Living Daylights is, in concept if not always in execution, right on target and very Bondian.
Roger looks much older here than I remembered from watching the show and recording it (on VHS of course!) back in ’87. His darker hair and heavier weight makes him look a little more fit than in A View to a Kill, but it is best he did not continue in the role into 1986. I do not see how any script changes could have had Roger believably star in The Living Daylights. And before I hear about how Bond is not realistic, the series was always grounded in reality first which allows for the more fantastic elements to not become parody. And AVTK’s box office was off 35 % in the USA and 20% worldwide. Dalton, whatever his flaws, did star in the movie that pushed box office up about 30% worldwide while staying flat in the USA.
Overall here, Roger looks like a dapper, elder statesmen, perfect for the retrospective and for introducing what was billed as “the most dangerous Bond. Ever.”
I hadn’t heard of this video before, thanks for linking.
I’m not sure if he does so explicitly (I fast-forwarded through the copy of the video that’s on YouTube,) but the subtext of the “Happy Anniversary 007” is Roger Moore giving his blessings to his Timothy Dalton, his successor.
This is one of the very times I can think of where the previous Bond “signed off” on his successor. Most Bond actors depart rather acrimoniously; are there any other examples of one Bond publicly handing over the keys to the Aston Martin to the next?
Roger Moore seems truly grateful for what the Bond series did for him. He still takes advantage of being Bond, and I can’t imagine any other former Bond writing a book on Bond. I don’t think any of the other four Bonds’ tenures ended like this.
Ah, dark red tie, navy blazer, and grey pants…memories of the 80s…
I remember watching this when it first aired, and thinking that Moore looked better here than I had seem him in a while. But I notice in the pictures now how distracting it is that they dyed his scalp. I don’t know if this became popular in the 80s (Bruce Willis did this too) or I just became more aware of it then. Reducing the hair/scalp contrast makes the hair look thicker from a distance, but it looks strange in close-up.
I’ve never been a fan of button-down collars, even for casual style. I can’t remember if anything (or anyone!) in particular turned me off of it. Not that I think that it looks bad on other people, it’s just something that I’d never wear myself.
I don’t see anything objectionable about the color palette of Moore’s outfit here. Likewise, I don’t find it to be dated at all. It’s quite classic.
I believe Connery’s scalp is painted as well in at least some scenes in Dr. No (the dinner with No and the confrontation with Dent in particular) and in From Russia With Love. It is an old Hollywood trick. Roger’s crown appears painted in Octopussy as well. And look carefully at his crown and hairline in the closing moments on the submarine of the pre-credits sequence in AVTK. After Spy, Roger seemed to become very inconsistent as to whether his hair was supplemented with a small hairpiece, combed elaborately over, thickened, or just left as it really was with the scalp painted.
I also don’t see anything particularly 80s about thr color scheme. More like a lot of D.C. Politicians perhaps….
This documentary can be found on the “Extra Features” DVD which accompanies the “Ultimate Edition” version of “The Living Daylights”. I just discovered this in my box set the other night and re viewed it.
“Apart from the killing, there was little difference between Roger Moore and the Bond character he played.” Very true in every sense.
“At 59 years old, Moore looks a little better than he did two years earlier in “A View to a Kill”, probably due to the darker hair die.” Also true but it’s more than just his hair. His face looks fuller and healthier here and I’m glad you produced this post as it illustrates what I have stated here before; that Moore looked far better here, 2 years after his final Bond movie that he did in it. To be honest, his appearance here in this film is little different to how he looked, 4 years previously, in “Octopussy” and in my opinion, with the correct script, more mature leading lady and adopting again the veteran spy role he had adopted in both “Octopussy” and “For Your Eyes Only”, he could have pulled it off one last time in 1987. I recall John Glen in a discussion about the batch of movies he directed and Moore’s bowing out in 1985 that he felt this was Moore’s decision and it was reasonable but that “he would have probably been good for another one” and if the guy who’s been directing you doesn’t know a thing or two about this then I don’t know who does. To address Christian’s point re: box office, yes, “A View to a Kill” did do badly but it was a crap movie (2nd worst Bond of that decade and by far Moore’s worst, though not sartorially) and while a new incumbent may have boosted the coffers a little in MGM’s favour, that’s to be expected with a new actor and this reflects as much on the effective promotion of this, the “new movie and new Bond” phenomenon, plus the 25th anniversary etc. as it did, with respect, on Dalton and let’s not forget that he reversed this trend in his second movie the least successful Bond movie ever in the US, when accounting for inflation according to Wikipedia.
Re: the shirt, I agree with the comments. It is the only part of the outfit I don’t like and you’re right, Matt, it doesn’t suit Moore at all. It even looks like some cheap chain store shirt! Although Foster was producing button down collar shirts for Moore at this time (which can be seen in “A View to a Kill” and “The Naked Face”) Foster’s looked, obviously, far more polished than this one. In fact, from their style, I don’t believe any of the shirts used in the short film were Foster produced which is a little inexplicable as Roger Moore would surely have had plenty from his own stock to choose from.
“If Roger Moore was still Bond for one more film, is this how he would be dressed?” Well, were the situations similar, I could see this outfit (with a Foster shirt) working fine for Moore as Bond.
Good points, David. But I do disagree that Roger could have been effective as Bond in 1986-7. On paper, Dalton should have worked just fine (and I think for the first two thirds of The Living Daylights, he and the script do work quite well). His tenure was certainly a commercial failure and, in my opinion, a good-but-not-great artistic for many reasons (creative exhaustion, MGM’s financial problems, 1988 writer’s strike, a competitive action movie environment in which Bond failed to compete) that go beyond Dalton’s fitness for the role. I recall John Glenn talking up his new star in a 1987 GQ. No one knew in 1986 that the Dalton era would be near-fatal for the franchise while it would be reasonable to look at AVTK and Roger’s age and think a change had to be made.
I can’t find any fault with your argument either Christian. It’s just that – as I’ve said so many times before here – Dalton’s style of portrayal jarred with me because it was so different to Moore’s. I guess I just feel that, had Roger come back, for one more time, in a film of the type I’m envisaging, then Pierce could have taken over directly in 1989 and no Dalton, no “Licence to Kill” and a more seamless transition. For me, no matter how good an actor I can appreciate he is, Dalton’s Bond lacked on a lot of fronts but I can equally appreciate that purists and Connery aficionados would say precisely the same thing about Roger Moore.
Or indeed most of the 007 actors! Don’t get me started!
Fleming buffs and silly people may moan about Daniel Craig’s hair colour compared to Fleming’s Bond but at least he has blue eyes. Sean Connery had brown eyes which suggests Connery was miscast as James Bond!
Lazenby, too in spite of his looks, youth and enthusiasm. People need to open their minds a bit with the casting of this role. But an Internet connection is like an arsehole, everyone has one ;)
In retrospect, your projected scenario probably would have worked out better for the series in the short-term. I think a lot of audience members had your reaction to Dalton as well; his was certainly not the confident, reassuring Bond of 1977-1985. Perhaps if Moore could have held the line for one more film, then Brosnan’s assumption of the role in 1989 may have helped the series (ignoring the creative exhaustion evident by 1985, the studio finances and later legal issues that arose in 1990, and whether there was still an audience for a For Your Eyes Only/Octopussy-style film in 1987).
I like Dalton in many respects but he isn’t for everyone or even most, and his acting is not good at times. But other times, I find him spot on and if Moore had played Bond in 1987, I would regret not having what I think are near perfect sequences of the The Living Daylights (a good but not very good Bond film IMO): the precredit sequence, the defection, and the confrontation with Pushkin.
By the way, look at http://www.mi6-hq.com for its detailed history of Bond 17 – Dalton’s third script that was halted in 1990 when Eon sued MGM-Pathe. It is much more in line with an Octopussy-View to a Kill style (tone, not addressing the disparate quality between those two) and I find it an open question whether Dalton could have pulled that script treatment off.
Excellent points Christian (and thanks for the link. Interesting articles), but you and I are both old enough to remember that Dalton was hailed as the best thing since sliced bread when he was announced as EON’s backup choice (when Brosnan was sadly forced to bow out at the last minute) and this hullballoo has surrounded the announcement of every new actor since Connery. A lot of cinema goers liked Dalton too.
I personally believe there was still an audience for a “For Your Eyes Only/Octopussy” type Bond film” in 1987 and in fact, overall from its general style and plotline, despite for me it being only mediocre and a little forgettable entry in the canon (as you say, good but not very good), “The Living Daylights” fitted in to that oeuvre. It was certainly still a better film overall than “A View to a Kill” (after a run of decent flicks, Moore bowing out on such a bum note was also a disappointment.) In any event, “The Living Daylights” would surely have been tailored (no pun intended) differently for Moore had he taken the role last time so, of course, some of the aspects you enjoyed may well have been different (Roger would have struggled a little for credibility in the pre-credits sequence as filmed).
A fellow poster here on the blog mentioned previously the rumor within the industry of a female villainess for Moore’s next movie prior to him announcing his retirement and I recall this particular idea again floated in media articles in relation to Dalton’s projected 3rd movie around 1990 although it’s not mentioned in the online articles you referred me to. I guess with movie makers, ideas like this bounce about for a period of time until a script is found to incorporate them in or it isn’t. Perhaps this idea was jettisoned and partially resurrected for Brosnan’s third outing.
I suppose, as Moore himself said regarding his decision to bow out, “they were having difficulties finding villains’ that looked like they could be knocked down by me”!
I think Roger looks great in A View to a Kill, he just looks very different than how he’s looked. He’s more trim than in Octopussy, his hair is blonde or has blonde highlights, he’s had an obvious facelift, especially noticeable around the eyes.
I believe the decision to have no part in his hair from FYEO onward was to better hide a small hairpiece at the part line to hide that his hair is receding. I think it’s concealed very well in FYEO and Octopussy, but is more obvious straight away in AVTAK. High Def and larger screens have not been kind to any aging actors.
It’s interesting how the hairstyle starting in FYEO is the same as what he had in the 50s and 60s. They make it look pretty good in AVTAK.
Nice style, I think it’s as good as some of his best outfits. The shirt collar is a bit short indeed and the shirt could have been light blue, but otherwise it looks pretty good today. And his trench coat works well with his complexion, contrary to Kristatos’.
Wow, Roger Moore looks just great here, easily as good as in Octopussy. I think this speaks to just how bad he looked in A View to A Kill. He was way too skinny in that one, frail looking even. He was obviously self-conscious of his aging face, hair problems and too-fresh face lift at the time, and I feel that he tried to over-compensate by tightening his face and eyes in most of the close-ups. As a result, he really came across as pompous throughout that film in a way that he had not before. What a treat to see a return to form for such a great guy a full two years later in 1987.
Making a program which would benefit another actor – that speaks to the class of Roger Moore. And, of course, he turned down lucrative roles to do great things for UNICEF. As for the age factor, a director (possibly Hitchcock) said it best:- by the time an actor fully masters his craft, he is no longer “sexy” to producers, unless he only does King Lear. Shirt aside, this ensemble would work for Bond, IMHO. Elegant but not flashy. Though Bond would more likely favour a more traditional trench coat.
Agree 100% with the last two comments. Agree with Mark that a traditional trench coat would have worked better for Moore/Bond and it’s really a shame one of these never appeared in any of his Bond movies (bar the one he has slung over his shoulder as he enters the office in “For Your Eyes Only”) as he wore them quite a lot over the years in his other TV and movie work so, like his safari shirts, he obviously liked the look.
I do appreciate that others can see the point I’ve made umpteen times here; that, objectively, Moore looked still ok for the role in “Octopussy”, definitely looked rather strained and aged in “A View to a Kill” but, for whatever reason, his appearance bounced back and would have looked ok for one last shot in 1986/87. Actually there is an interesting thread on this topic on http://wwwmi6-hq.com and opinion seems to be divided about 50/50 on the topic.
Well count me as part of the 50% who believe that Roger definitely could have returned for one more outing as 007 in 1987. I really would have enjoyed seeing him coming across as cool and relaxed in his final Bond film as he was in this documentary. Having said that, the physical demands of The Living Daylights were far more suited to the younger Dalton, and Moore would not have been able to pull off that film in the way that it was ultimately shot. And I consider The Living Daylights to be an absolute highlight of the series, so for me it would not be worth the trade. Indeed there is much passion and opinion to be offered on this topic!