A Modest Defense of Tanya Roberts as Bond Girl Stacey Sutton in "A View to a Kill"

One of the most reviled Bond Girls is former "Charlie's Angels" actress Tanya Roberts as California geologist Stacey Sutton in "A View to a Kill" (1985).  Whenever lists of the best or worst Bond Girls are put out by know-nothing magazine writers, she usually ranks at the top of the list in terms of being among the worst examples of what a Bond Girl represents.  I've acknowledged at different times in my blog that Roberts' performance in "A View to a Kill" wasn't ideal and that I think Priscilla Barnes (a much better actress who played Della Churchill in 1989's "Licence to Kill) would have been a preferable choice in the role.  (Barnes would have brought some nuances to the role that would have given it more gravitas and depth.)  Nevertheless, I think that the level of vitriol directed at Roberts by some Bond fans through the years has become overstated and misplaced at times.  At the risk of jeopardizing my own credibility at discussing movies, I don't think Roberts' performance is as bad as people have alleged through the years.  It's a flawed character and performance, but Roberts has a couple of moments in the movie where her acting comes across okay and, even if she and Roger Moore don't exactly set the screen on fire with their scenes together, they at least seem at ease with one another and appear to enjoy each others company.  I find both Roberts's performance, and the Stacey Sutton character itself, endearingly clumsy in the movie. 

I've always felt that one reason why the Bond movies remain relevant all these decades later is because they are a cinematic Rorschach test in terms of tastes and perspectives.  Just a glance at Bond movie message boards on the internet confirms how none of the movies, or the elements in them, are seen the same way by two different people.  That's why it's fun to discuss and revisit the movies in order to debate and discuss one's favorite Bond actor or Bond movie.  Tanya Roberts as Stacey Sutton is consistently criticized by Bond fans on these message boards, but sometimes it feels like the people who are saying she is awful seem to enjoy saying they hate her just for the sake of it.  They act as if her performance was so bad that it somehow ruined their lives.  I recall someone on a message board saying how Priscilla Presley, who was also considered for the role of Stacey, would have been a preferable choice for the role.  I chuckled when I read that because whoever wrote it evidently never saw Presley's five-year stint as Jenna Wade on the hit prime time soap "Dallas" from 1984 thru 1989.  If you go over to "Dallas" message boards, you'll find that fans of that series hate Presley for what they perceive to be her whiny disposition and weak acting--which are the same criticisms that Bond fans lodge against Tanya Roberts' work in "A View to a Kill."  On that basis, Presley would not have been better than Roberts in the role.

Tanya Roberts is an easy whipping-boy for Bond fans, but I sometimes wonder if director John Glen isn't also to blame for the qualities in Stacey Sutton that people respond negatively to.  I recall Glen saying in his memoirs that he had doubts about Roberts' acting ability and that he consulted John Guillerman, who had just directed Roberts in "Sheena" (1984) as to whether he felt she could act.  I remember in college an acting professor telling us that, if an actor gives a bad performance in a movie, you shouldn't only blame the actor.  You should also blame the director because he or she made the final decision to hire that person and should have known based on their audition, or prior work, what they were capable of bringing to the role.  Since John Glen acknowledges he had doubts about Tanya Roberts' acting ability, he needs to take responsibility for hiring her to play Stacey.  I also recall on the DVD supplements for "A View to a Kill," Glen introduced some deleted scenes which included a scene between Stacey and her boss Mr. Howe (Daniel Benzali), where she tries to convince him of the dangers of arch villain Zorin's (Christopher Walken) plan to pump sea water into the Hayward Fault.  While introducing the deleted scene, Glen admits that "somehow this scene didn't work terribly well.  I think I started to shoot it and didn't bother to do any close shots in the end and I always thought I'd pick the scene up when Roger (Moore) enters the scene outside the elevators.  And that is, in fact, what happens."  When you watch the deleted scene, you don't get any sense that director Glen did more than one take of it, much less rehearsed it or gave the actors any direction on how to play it.  The fact that Glen didn't put much thought into the scene also suggests the extent to which he didn't try to work with Roberts to help develop her performance more effectively.

I think it's too bad because Tanya Roberts could've been a good Bond Girl if only she had been cast in a part more appropriate for her that allowed her to demonstrate qualities that worked well for her in other roles.  When she was on "Charlie's Angels," Roberts had a scrappy, street-wise quality that struck an effective contrast with her more refined co-stars Jaclyn Smith and Cheryl Ladd.  Her husky/raspy speaking voice, tinged with the remnants of her Bronx accent, gave her gravitas in some of her more serious scenes on that series.  On "Charlie's Angels," Roberts had a confidence and assurance that was absent in "A View to a Kill," as well as a feisty, athletic quality in the action scenes that demonstrated she could have been an exciting heroine in the Bond series.  None of those qualities were utilized in "A View to a Kill" and I sometimes feel that Roberts was miscast as the demure damsel-in-distress Stacey Sutton.  John Glen cast her in a role that didn't play to her strengths, which is why I think her performance was considered grating by some Bond fans.  In fact, I sometimes feel Roberts should have been cast as former Army pilot-turned-DEA operative Pam Bouvier in "Licence to Kill."  Carey Lowell always seemed too light-weight to have the grit required for that role, and I think Roberts' scrappy Bronx edginess might have served that role better, especially if she went back to being a brunette instead of being bleached blonde like she was for "A View to a Kill."  (As information, check out at the 6:08 mark Roberts' entrance scene in her debut episode of "Charlie's Angels."  You can see it on YouTube here.  Ironically, she's acting in this scene opposite "Licence to Kill" featured player Don Stroud, who played Heller in that movie.  I believe you will get an idea of the quality that I feel would have made her a better Pam Bouvier than Carey Lowell.) 

Ironically, as written, the role of Stacey Sutton probably sounded pretty good to Roberts from the outset.  Unlike other actresses who have played Bond Girls, and who claim that their roles are different than the ones that came before (a tiresome cliche coming from every actress who ever appeared in a Bond movie), Stacey Sutton was indeed a different kind of leading lady for the series.  She wasn't a spy, or a mistress of some villain, or someone living or working in an exotic location doing something glamorous or dangerous.  She was basically an American and a civilian, a scientist studying rocks and minerals of the Earth, living and working in the San Francisco area on her family's empty estate.  In many ways, she was similar to Kate Warner in Season 2 of "24," another blonde American civilian from California whose life is turned upside down when a government agent with the initials "J.B." unexpectedly enters her life and asks for her assistance to avert the destruction of a major metropolitan area in the state.  The only extraordinary thing about Stacey is that she was the heiress to her family's oil company but got a job working as a California state geologist once Zorin stole it in a rigged proxy fight.  We learn that she got a degree in geology with the expectation she'd run the family business someday.  For once, we actually learn quite a bit about the leading lady in a Bond movie as Stacey is provided a family history and back story that is unusual for the series.  What isn't acknowledged enough about Stacey is that she was a person of decency and integrity.  She wasn't a character in a larger-than-life situation lounging around wearing sexually revealing outfits, or someone who easily gave into Bond's charms the first night he spent at her house.  In fact, he sleeps in the chair guarding the house while she goes to sleep.  It's only at the end of the film, after Bond and Stacey defeat Zorin, that they consummate their relationship by taking a shower back at her house. 

Perhaps people found Stacey uninteresting because she was probably one of the more "normal" leading ladies the Bond series ever had.  However, on the surface of it, there was potentially a lot of substance to the character had Roberts played it with a bit more gravitas and assurance.  I think one reason why Roberts is unconvincing at playing a geologist is that, with the exception of the scene where she discovers and explains Zorin's plans to destroy Silicon Valley as well as her early scenes at Zorin's estate in Chantilly, France where she appears haughty and aloof to Bond, she plays the rest of the movie with kind of a light, high pitched voice that contrasts with her normally husky/raspy delivery and considerably undermines her credibility at being a scientist.  However, Roberts is still better than Denise Richards as Nuclear physicist Christmas Jones in "The World is Not Enough" (1999).  Richards plays her role with an air of indifferent petulance that undermines her credibility, whereas Roberts gives a comparatively more sincere performance even if she sounds whiny at times.  Roberts seems glad to be in the movie and is at least trying to give a competent and sympathetic performance as Stacey, whereas Richards seems so disconnected and disinterested that she never seems to give a damn throughout her Bond movie of creating any sort of mood with her character.

Roberts' aforementioned voice also sounded terrible throughout the action scenes in the movie where Stacey is screaming "Oh James!" or "James, help me!" because her naturally husky voice wasn't suited to playing scenes that required her to be so helpless, which inadvertently caused her to sound screechy.  Especially in the scenes where Bond rescues Stacey from the fire at San Francisco's City Hall; where Bond and Stacey elude the SFPD through the streets of the city by stealing the Fire Engine; the sequence in the Main Strike mineshaft where May Day (Grace Jones) stalks Bond and Stacey and tries to pull them down as they try and climb out of the mine; the scene where Zorin sneaks up on Stacey from behind her in the blimp; and the fight on top of the Golden Gate Bridge where Stacey is dangling from atop one of the pylons, Roberts plays all of these action sequences from a hapless, helpless, at times hysterical perspective (even though Stacey's commitment to cooperating with Bond to defeat Zorin never waivers).  Her reactions to the situations going on around her would understandably be confusing to a civilian not used to espionage or action.  Nevertheless, Roberts should have played Stacey in the action scenes from the perspective of a normal person caught up in danger, who is uncertain of herself, but who stays calm and eventually rises to the occasion with grit and determination.  I think the audience would have accepted Stacey better if she had kept her cool throughout the action scenes.  Unfortunately, she didn't and, in so doing, opened herself up to the criticism she has received since then.  However, Roberts has stated in interviews that she had issues with the extent to which Stacey was portrayed so submissively in the movie, which lends credibility to my suggestion that John Glen's direction in the movie hindered her performance. 

Ironically, it's in the non-action dialogue scenes in "A View to a Kill" that I believe Tanya Roberts does good work.  The dinner scene in the kitchen of her home where Bond cooks for her has a relaxed quality that is notably different than other scenes between Bond and the other leading ladies of his movies.  Some might say that there is no chemistry between Roger Moore or Tanya Roberts in the movie as a whole, but I kind of like the fact that, for once, Bond isn't initially interested in the leading lady on a romantic or sexual level, but is trying to get at the truth of what Zorin might be up to and hopes Stacey can provide that information.  Stacey feels at ease with Bond because she senses that he has no ulterior motives with her, and I sense that Tanya Roberts and Roger Moore sincerely enjoyed working with each other.  Except for the final scene in the movie, there is an overall platonic friendship between Bond and Stacey that I find endearing.  I also think Roberts is good in the scene the next morning, after the mild earth tremor, when Bond mentions to Stacey that Zorin is pumping seawater into Zorin's oil wells near the Hayward Fault.  Roberts registers the appropriate level of outrage and determination at learning of this information.

Probably Roberts' best moment in the movie is the scene inside the Main Strike Mine where Stacey and Bond stumble upon Zorin's plans to rig explosives to try and set off both the San Andreas and Hayward Faults in order to start a double earthquake that will destroy Silicon Valley.  ("He'll kill millions!  These green lights, they're Zorin's oil wells, the ones he's been using to pump sea water into the Hayward fault.   These (tunnels) lead straight into this section of the San Andreas fault.  You know, Zorin just has to blast through the bottom of these lakes to flood the fault...Except that right beneath us is the key geological lock that...that keeps the faults from moving at once.")  Roberts has a very controlled tone to her voice throughout this sequence as she explains the scientific and technical aspects of Zorin's scheme to Bond and demonstrates the right level of awe and concern upon realizing what Zorin is up to.  Unlike the rest of her performance, she demonstrates a level of confidence and assurance that would have considerably strengthened the character if she had used it throughout the movie.  The scene shows what the rest of Roberts' performance could have been like had both she and John Glen worked more effectively at developing the Stacey Sutton character.

Even though Tanya Roberts was not one of the best Bond Girls the series had to offer, I sincerely believe she had some moments that allowed her to rank higher than Jill St. John, Britt Ekland, or Denise Richards, who I feel were far worse as Bond Girls in the series.  I think Roberts tried to create a sympathetic, down-to-earth character, a person who the audience might easily identify with compared to other, larger-than-life Bond girls in the series.  However, I think she was hampered by being miscast in a role that didn't play to her strengths and I am convinced she didn't get much help from director John Glen to bring out the best in her performance.  Nevertheless, as written, the character does have substantial screen time (perhaps too much, in the eyes of her detractors!) and does play a significant role in helping Bond defeat arch-villain Zorin in "A View to a Kill."  That's more than could be said for the leading ladies of the acclaimed "Skyfall" (2012), who I've blogged about before were saddled with the most thankless and insignificant roles of any Bond Girls in the entire series.  If there's any virtue to Stacey Sutton, it's that, whether you like her or not, she did not play an expendable role in "A View to a Kill" the way Eve Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) or Severine (Berenice Marlohe) played in their Bond movie.  If you take Stacey out of "A View to a Kill," and I'm sure some fans would love to do that, you would be left with a considerably different movie, whereas if you took Moneypenny or Severine out of "Skyfall," the plot and structure of that story would likely have remained largely the same.  For better or worse, Stacey Sutton contributed a great deal to the overall plot and storyline of "A View to a Kill."  Tanya Roberts as Stacey Sutton in "A View to a Kill" may not have been the best Bond Girl the series had to offer, but there's something to be said for actually showing up and getting the job done, rather than just sitting on the sidelines like Eve and Severine did in "Skyfall."

A Grudging Reassessment of Jill St. John

One of my least favorite actresses of all time is Jill St. John.  I dislike her about as much as I dislike Morgan Fairchild.  There are a couple of reasons I don't like her.  I've heard enough stories from various 1960s starlets I've gotten to know personally that she sounds like someone I would not enjoy spending time with.  I also never really thought she was sexy and attractive and found her voice very harsh and severe, particularly when she tried to make it sound breathy and light for the comedy roles she was dreadfully unsuited for.  Her voice has the uncanny ability of being both grating and whiny at the same time.  As such, she was never really well-cast in the roles she played throughout her career because she was never funny nor sympathetic in the comedies she was often cast in.  She's also my least favorite Bond Girl, playing the tawdry Tiffany Case in "Diamond's are Forever" (1971).  Coming after the sublime Diana Rigg in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (1969), St. John was particularly crass and unappealing as she brought little warmth or depth to that role.  I don't really understand why St. John ends up on some people's lists of favorite Bond Girls.  She and Sean Connery lack any genuine chemistry with each other.  I guess some people really are fooled by her looks, which I always found kind of plastic and artificial.

I must admit that one reason I never liked St. John is because I feel she got the roles that Tina Louise, who I acknowledge is my favorite actress, should have gotten.  Tina Louise and Jill St. John are sometimes compared and confused with one another because they are both shapely, red-haired actresses whose hey-day was the 1960s and early 1970s.  I used to wish that Tina Louise had been Tiffany Case opposite Sean Connery, and had acted in major movies with the likes of Vivien Leigh (in 1961's "The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone"), Jason Robards (in 1962's "Tender is the Night"), Jerry Lewis (in 1963's "Who's Minding the Store?), and various members of The Rat Pack (in 1963's "Come Blow Your Horn" and "Who's Been Sleeping in My Bed?" and 1967's "Tony Rome") the way St. John did.  Even though St. John worked opposite such legends, her own work was not as impressive.  As DVD Savant reviewer Glenn Erickson said, in his review of "The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone" (1961), "Even though she's playing to type, Jill St. John is unconvincing even being an unconvincing starlet; when she's in the same frame with Vivien Leigh, it's like a fine engraving standing next to a crayon squiggle."  (Erickson went even further, in a recent review of 1966's "The Liquidator" on DVD when he opined, "Jill St. John's sex appeal has always eluded me.  Although I understand she's a very intelligent woman, I think her voice has always sounded hollow and unappealing, almost as if she doesn't know English and is speaking phonetically.")

I completely agree with the ever-perceptive Erickson, as his comments reflect St. John's utter lack of charm and acting ability.  But, as I've grown older, even though I still like Tina Louise better overall, I also acknowledge her faults and weaknesses as they help to illuminate Jill St. John's strengths, such as they are.  Even though I still believe she was an underrated actress, and much more talented than Jill St. John ever was, Tina Louise suffered from being overly self-conscious about proving herself as a serious actress.  As a result, she turned down roles in "Operation Petticoat" (1959), a blockbuster hit which would have gone a long way to helping her establish herself as a genuine leading lady in motion pictures, and the TV movie "Rescue from Gilligan's Island" (1978), which she should have done if for no other reason than for old time's sake and to also help foster good will with both her former co-stars and, more importantly, fans of the show, who resent her to this day for acting as if she was better than everyone involved by turning down that movie.  If she had done that movie, it would have given Bob Denver, Russell Johnson and, especially, Dawn Wells less ammunition to publicly attack her for her decision to try and disassociate herself from the series in order to forge a serious acting career.  (Louise foolishly plays into their pettiness by not taking proactive measures to generate good will with the public that would help to counteract their attacks on her.) 

This is not an easy thing to write because I am a big Tina Louise fan and have always enjoyed her work and sincerely believe she had the ability to evoke moments of depth, nuance, and subtlety that Jill St. John never could.  However, I feel Louise is often her own worst enemy by being too headstrong and making bad choices for herself.  Rather than foolishly going off to Italy in 1960, just as her film career was getting underway, to make movies that nobody cared about, she should have stayed in Hollywood and prevented people like Jill St. John and Stella Stevens from getting roles she would've done great things with.  Louise should also have not turned down acting roles when she returned to the United States just to spend a year studying with Lee Strasberg at the Actors Studio.  Even if it helped her hone her craft, it kept her out of sight and allowed her competitors an opportunity to establish themselves in the film community in her absence.  I can't imagine Jill St. John doing anything as counter-productive as that.  Tina Louise also needs to stop giving interviews where she refuses to discuss her acting career and only wants to talk about her volunteer work in New York City as a literacy volunteer.  While I respect the fact that she wants to live in the present and appears to be a conscientious person who is interested in current events (and does not want to be a Norma Desmond-like figure living in the past touting her decades-ago acting roles like Francine York) Tina Louise needs to also realize that the only reason why people are even interested in her is because she was once an actress.  I can understand if she doesn't want to only discuss "Gilligan's Island" all of the time, because she has done a lot of other films and TV shows worth noting, but if she doesn't even want to discuss "God's Little Acre" (1958) or "The Stepford Wives" (1975), what does she expect people to discuss with her?  Her philosophies on life?

On the other hand, even though I don't like Jill St. John and don't think she was as versatile an actress as Tina Louise (St. John never had the ability to change her voice to fit the role she was playing the way Louise did), I have grown to grudgingly respect her streetwise shrewdness in handling her career.  With a rail-thin acting range, St. John managed to forge a film career in the 1960s appearing in some major productions opposite some of the biggest stars of the period.  She was much wiser in promoting herself as an actress than Tina Louise ever was, which is why St. John ended up making major movies during that time, playing mostly lead roles, and Tina Louise ended up on "Gilligan's Island" and appearing in minor films where she played supporting parts with limited screentime.  Clearly, St. John made friends with the right people in Hollywood.  One reason why I have started to see St. John in a slightly (only slightly) different light is because I've seen her in a few things she made later in her career where I thought she was more effective than I expected.  Cast in unsympathetic, villainous roles in the 1980s, I realized that St. John was miscast earlier in her career playing sympathetic leads and comedic bombshell roles.  She was too hard, cold and brittle to be truly effective in those kinds of parts.  However, when cast in roles allowing her to play treacherous, evil, malevolent, and cruel women, St. John truly thrived.  It's not that she necessarily demonstrated here-to-fore untapped acting talent in these roles.  It's that these roles appeared to tap into unsympathetic mannerisms and aspects of her screen personality that made her ideal to play them. 

St. John gave a good performance as evil Warden Fletcher in the women's prison drama "The Concrete Jungle" (1982).  A less exploitative, more credible example of the genre than "Chained Heat" (1983), "The Concrete Jungle" stars future soap actress Tracy Bregman as a young girl tricked by her boyfriend into unknowingly smuggling drugs through an airport.  Bregman is sentenced to serve time at a corrupt women's prison run by treacherous Warden Fletcher (St. John), who conspires with in-house prison drug dealer Cat (Barbara Luna) to supply narcotics to other prisoners.  St. John is the queen bee of the prison, allowing her guards and prisoners such as Cat to commit murder, abuse, and other forms of mayhem under her watch.  Her harsh, grating speaking voice, which was always at odds with the lighter roles she played, finally becomes appropriate while playing this role.  St. John gets a couple of juicy, campy speeches that are the highlight of this movie.  When Bregman's character meets St. John for the first time, after getting into a fight with her fellow prisoners, the cruel Warden reminds her that "There's one thing you better learn fast.  You've got nothing anymore!  No clothes, no rights.  You're here for discipline.  That's my job.  You're no longer a citizen of the United States!  They didn't want you.  They gave you to me.  Doesn't matter to me whether you're innocent or guilty.  You're in prison.  That makes you guilty.  If you weren't guilty when you came in, you're guilty now.  You understand what I mean, don't you Deming?...Now, to your little infraction of the rules, since this is your first night we can afford to be lenient.  'I' can afford to be lenient.  No commissary privileges, no mail, no phone calls, no visitors, for one month....What's the matter, seems too harsh to you?"

St. John sneers with pleasure as she says these lines, almost cackling with glee at the prospect of playing a role where she can cut loose and cause pain and misery.  You start to realize that she had been misused all the years she played comedy and sympathetic roles and that her true calling was to play malevolent villains and monsters.  There's no subtlety to her acting in "The Concrete Jungle," but St. John has a cold, controlled, cruel quality that allows her work here to stand out from the less impressive performances she gave earlier in her career.  She should have played many more of these types of villains throughout her career.  St. John has a good, adversarial chemistry with both Barbara Luna and Tracy Bregman that allows the acting of this film to rise above what's expected in this disreputable movie genre.  At the end of the film, when St. John's character is finally arrested by a conscientious prison administrator (played by Nita Talbot), rather than turning vulnerable and contrite, St. John remains defiantly proud of her dubious accomplishments, "Get rid of me and someone will take my place.  It's the system!...This is a prison, not a finishing school!  The only thing these women understand is power!  It's the only way to break them!...You think you're better than I am?  Spend some time in here with me and the animals.  We'd love to have you.  And then tell me if you're any better."  It's probably St. John's finest moment as an actress.

St. John had another shot at playing an evil character in the British police drama "Dempsey and Makepeace."  In the two-part episode titled "The Burning" from 1986, St. John played Mara Giordino, a wealthy and glamorous American businesswoman who happens to be a vicious drug dealer.  Her character is in London helping to engineer a gold heist to help finance her cartel.  Like Warden Fletcher, Mara Giordino is a character that allows St. John to pull out all the stops and allow her unsympathetic qualities to come out.  At one point, beautiful British police detective Makepeace (Glynis Barber) meets Mara Giordino and sizes up her character, "Call it what you like, you're a pusher...I'm just telling you the way I see it...I see a glamorous, sophisticated woman.  Well traveled.  With all the luxury that money can be.  And I'll tell you what else I can see.  The thousands of ruined lives and the dead children that have made all this possible.  Hurts, doesn't it?  The truth."  St. John's character is so outraged at having a mirror held up to her corrupt, immoral life that she slaps the female police detective across the face at being spoken to that way.  Unlike Warden Fletcher, Mara Giordino is a character who has fooled herself into forgetting she is part of the cesspool of society, and St. John effectively conveys that delusional narcissism.  At the end of the episode, when her character is arrested, St. John is as defiant as she was in "The Concrete Jungle," telling the hero of the show, "Just remember, I come from a large family and we've got a lot of friends...and they can visit you anytime.  Goodbye Johnny, you're gonna need a lot of luck."  It wouldn't be hard to imagine Mara Giordino ending up holding court in the same kind of vicious women's prison that Warden Fletcher ran in "The Concrete Jungle."  What I liked about St. John's villainous performances in both "Concrete Jungle" and "Dempsey and Makepeace" is that there's no self-pity from her when she is finally defeated by the forces of good.  For an actress with the sort of glamorous looks that St. John has, it's notable that she's comfortable with "owning" her villainy and makes no attempts to soften or humanize these characters in an effort to retain audience sympathy.  It suggests that St. John is the rare actress who isn't as self-conscious about her image compared to some of her peers.

St. John had probably the meatiest role of her entire career when she was cast as resident schemer Deanna Kincaid in the short-lived prime time soap "Emerald Point N.A.S" (1983-84).  Created by Richard and Esther Shapiro, creators of "Dynasty" and focusing on the denizens of the eponymous Naval Air Station, St. John played Deanna Kincaid, the show's Alexis Carrington/Abby Cunningham archetype.  In the series, Deanna Kincaid is the unhappy wife of Naval Officer Bill Kincaid, and is also the sister-in-law of Rear Admiral Thomas Mallory (Dennis Weaver), the Commanding Officer of the Emerald Point Naval Air Station, who was married to Deanna's late sister Jenny.  Deanna doesn't get along with her brother-in-law, who she felt let her late sister down by being too focused on his Naval career.  In her debut episode, Deanna stands up to her boorish, judgmental brother-in-law Rear Admiral Mallory when she tells him, "What am I supposed to, apologize to you because my marriage failed?...He's the one who wants to end it.  He asked for a transfer to sea duty just so that he could be away from me.  Now what am I supposed to do?  Sit down and knit him a warm sweater?  Like Jenny did for you?...You're damned right I'm not (like my sister) because I won't let the Navy do to me what it did to my sister...I'm not a member of your little Boy Scout troop, I don't just disappear whenever you turn your back on me!  It's not my fault that Bill was a second-rater.  Don't make the same mistake about me.  I'm not like Bill.  Or Jenny.  And I won't be ignored by anyone!  Including you!"

A bored, restless trouble-maker, Deanna meddles in Mallory's relationship with his grown daughters--her nieces--and embarks on an affair with treacherous industrialist Harlan Adams (Patrick O'Neal and, later, Robert Vaughn both played this role).  Deanna ends up becoming entangled with a Russian military officer (Robert Loggia) who manipulates her into helping him spy for the KGB.  She later tries to exonerate herself by turning double-agent and helping her brother-in-law Mallory by spying on the Russians for the Americans.  One of the stupidest and most unrealistic shows ever made set in the military, "Emerald Point" attempted to sell the fallacy that military officers live a glamorous, upscale life comparable to the Carringtons on "Dynasty" when, at best, they probably live an upper-middle class lifestyle like the early seasons of "Knots Landing."  (Even "The Phil Silvers Show" and "Gomer Pyle, USMC" had more credibility.)  The show is particularly insulting in its portrayal of the wives of military officers, showing them mostly as unhappy, unstable, scheming women who can't handle the pressures of being married and find destructive ways to pass the time.  Clearly, the show struggles between a post-Vietnam attitude of being suspicious of the military, due to its inability to try and understand or sympathize with the characters living and working in this milieu, while at the same time focusing far too much on the purportedly glamorous side of the United States Navy, which never feels credible for one moment on the show.  The Shapiros clearly demonstrate their utter empty-headed shallowness with this show. 

St. John was probably the most interesting character in this hackneyed, cliched series.  A desperately unhappy woman whose dissatisfaction fuels a malevolent, irresponsible side, Deanna is a child-like bad-girl typical of prime time soaps of the 1980s.  Bored of being married to a stable, dependable man, she starts dabbling in all the wrong things, and inadvertently commits treason by becoming a spy for the enemy.  If she has any redeemable side, she seems genuinely concerned about her nieces, risks her life to help double-cross the Russians who have entrapped her in their scheme, and shows some genuine humility in light of her brother-in-law's disdain of her after learning of her treachery.  St. John's hard, cynical quality is used to good advantage on the show, illuminating a selfish, shallow woman only out for herself, and willing to do anything to get her way.  When she realizes she's gone too far, she becomes contrite and tries to get back in the good graces of her brother-in-law.  At one point, after her treason has been exposed, Deanna admits to her lover Harlan Adams, "I've just been thinking of how I squandered my life away.  I flopped at marriage.  Betrayed my country.  It's not much of a record, is it?...If I was to die tomorrow, who'd care?...No, the truth is I'm a loser...I wish I could live my life over again.  Erase all my sins.  What I've done to my family and my country...I want to start fresh and I want to be part of the Mallory family again."  Even though I still don't like her overall, I think "Emerald Point, N.A.S." represents St. John's best work as an actress in terms of successfully creating a character with different shades of nuance and emotion.  She evokes some sympathy and pathos demonstrating the more vulnerable aspects of this character.  Taking her cue from other prime time soap villains, St. John appeared to understand that an antagonist on these sorts of shows is only effective if there are traits of humanity interspersed throughout their treachery and malevolence.  If the show deserved a second season, which it never got, it's on the basis of St. John's performance alone.

It may sound like I've changed my tune about Jill St. John, but I haven't.  I am merely acknowledging that she's had some moments as an actress that demonstrated what she was capable of if given the right role.  I still think her acting range is limited and that she wasn't very good or particularly versatile overall.  Nevertheless, I give her kudos for managing to maximize her potential by making the most out of her limited thespian resources.  She seemed to know how to market "Jill St. John" as a viable brand name to producers during the 1960s and 1970s and had a far better career than she had any right to.  As mentioned before, I do have grudging respect for St. John's longevity and keen show business acumen.  In an interview she gave during the time she was on "Emerald Point, N.A.S.," St. John stressed the importance of networking at Hollywood parties when she commented that, "Parties in themselves don't mean anything to me.  But it's the only chance you get to see certain people.  For example, at a recent party, I sat next to Cary Grant all evening.  This is not torture.  Last year, I went to a party in honor of Aaron Spelling and I was wearing this incredible red sequined dress.  And I saw Esther Shapiro (creator of 'Emerald Point, N.A.S.')"  St. John then explains to the interviewer that, a week later, she received a call to meet with Richard and Esther Shapiro and was cast on "Emerald Point."  When she started working on the series and was picking out her wardrobe, "the wardrobe girl said to me, 'You know, Mrs. Shapiro told me about this great red sequined dress you have.'  As it turned out, I didn't wear the dress on the show, but I have a feeling it might have gotten me the part."  The anecdote demonstrates St. John's shrewd awareness that talent and ability alone are not enough to ensure success in a competitive career field.  Maintaining a healthy level of visibility also goes a long way to helping one establish good contacts to help propel one's career forward.  It's just too bad that, just as St. John started playing more interesting roles that played to her strengths of being a calculating and malicious personality, she gave it up to focus more on her marriage to Robert Wagner and to writing best-selling celebrity cookbooks.  It's clear that Jill St. John's a very shrewd businesswoman who has thrived by making smart decisions.  If only she was a good actress.  Imagine what Jill St. John could've accomplished in her career if she actually had some talent?

How about Kathryn Bigelow to direct "Bond 24"?

 
I just read that director Sam Mendes has officially declared that he's not returning to do "Bond 24," the next entry in the James Bond series.  This is a disappointment to fans of the series, who felt that he brought something unique to "Skyfall" (2012) that helped distinguish it as a superior James Bond film.  Christopher Nolan is a name often suggested by fans to helm the next Bond movie.  While I completely agree that he would make a great Bond movie, I think he would make a film that might be too similar to "Skyfall," if the tone of his "Dark Knight" trilogy of films is any indication.  While that is not a bad idea at all to have another film similar to "Skyfall," I think the next Bond movie should continue to forge new paths for the series and not just imitate what came immediately before.  I have a suggestion for someone who I think would also do a fantastic job and also bring a different perspective on the series.  Kathryn Bigelow.

I realize Bigelow might be a controversial suggestion given the acrimony from political reactionaries surrounding her latest film "Zero Dark Thirty" (2012) and its depiction of torture.  Perhaps Bigelow might be considered too risky to be associated with the Bond series.  After all, it is a series that has always appealed to the widest demographic of moviegoers.  But, in the last few years, producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson have made conscientious choices that demonstrate the extent that they are willing to take risks with the series.  I hope the political controversy surrounding "Zero Dark Thirty" does not dissuade them from putting her on their short list of "Bond 24" directorial candidates.  In fact, I suspect, given the way "Skyfall" was overlooked at Oscar-time, that they would welcome working with a filmmaker who evokes a strong reaction from a certain segment of the public in order to continue sending a clear message to Hollywood that they intend to keep pushing the envelope with Bond.  Hiring Kathryn Bigelow would be another significant step by Broccoli and Wilson in their continuing, largely successful, efforts to bring legitimacy to Bond.

There are a variety of reasons why I think Bigelow would do a great job directing "Bond 24."  She's an Oscar-winning filmmaker with an acumen for films with action and suspense.  She's a visually-oriented storyteller who will ensure that "Bond 24" will continue the trend set by "Skyfall" of creating a film that will be absolutely stunning to look at.  As reflected in the Oscar-nominations for actors Jessica Chastain (in "Zero Dark Thirty") and Jeremy Renner (for "The Hurt Locker"), she has sensitivity when it comes to directing actors and is the rare action filmmaker who knows how to emphasize story and character in her films.  Her work on "Zero Dark Thirty" proves that she has immense confidence in knowing how to direct a large-scale, epic movie involving international locations and multiple elements, which is one of the trademark characteristics of a Bond movie.  There's no doubt that she would be an effective ringleader in a three-ring Bond circus.

 
Even though "Zero Dark Thirty" became subject to wide debate about its factual accuracy, no one can doubt the earthy manner in which Bigelow portrayed the intelligence community in her film.  She brought a unique perspective to a milieu and subject matter we've seen portrayed in countless other films and TV shows.  And her interview with the New York Times, where she continually gave credit to key members of her crew for the artistic excellence of "Zero Dark Thirty," instead of focusing only on herself like other directors would, suggests that she is a very generous and effective leader on a film set.  This is an important quality for anyone directing a Bond movie to have as they must skillfully guide the path of a major film involving hundreds of cast and crew members through a lengthy shooting and post-production schedule lasting up to a year.  This also suggests that Bigelow would be able to build a strong, diplomatic relationship with Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson where she would be able to work with them to bring her own unique vision to "Bond 24," while at the same time acknowledge the iconic elements that define a Bond movie. 

Bigelow also appears to have a strong relationship with Sony Pictures' co-chair Amy Pascal, who came to her defense when "Zero Dark Thirty" (which was distributed by Sony) was criticized by some reactionaries as purportedly advocating torture.  This is important, as Sony Pictures is co-financing and distributing "Bond 24," and it's helpful that whoever is directing this film is someone that Amy Pascal has great faith in.  Also, even though Bigelow has directed many films whose central characters are strong-willed men like Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson in "K-19: The Widowmaker" (2002), and is by no means a filmmaker who shows preferential treatment to women, she demonstrated in films like "Strange Days" (1995) and "Zero Dark Thirty" that she knows how to create good parts for women in her films.  After the disappointingly small roles that Eve Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and Severine (Berenice Marlohe) played in "Skyfall," it would be nice to know that there's a filmmaker at the helm of "Bond 24" who won't pay short shrift to the Bond Girls the way Sam Mendes did in "Skyfall."  (Also, Ralph Fiennes--the new "M" in the Bond series, worked with Bigelow on "Strange Days," and that may help establish a strong working rapport between the two to ensure that the new "M" remains a vital element in the new film.)

I hope I am not being patronizing or condescending by calling attention to her gender, but I think having Kathryn Bigelow at the helm of "Bond 24" would also go a long way to help silence any of Bond's naysayers who continually characterize the series as sexist and misogynist.  Anyone who has watched the series as a whole realizes that there are a variety of different portrayals of women on-screen in the Bond series, and so it doesn't deserve that unfair label that persists to this day.  (Especially because there is already a strong female presence behind-the-scenes on the Bond series with producer Barbara Broccoli carrying on the family tradition set by her father Albert R. "Cubby" Broccoli.)  Since there was some criticism that "Skyfall" killed off Judi Dench's "M" and replaced her with a younger male (Ralph Fiennes' Mallory) who is now in-charge of MI-6, which was perceived as a patriarchal reassertion of authority in the series, I think Bigelow's participation would help to quiet any critics who feel the Bond series lost a strong female presence with the death of Dench's character in the last film.  With Kathryn Bigelow on board, Bond would still be taking direction from a woman.  But instead of it being a fictional female character on-screen playing Bond's boss, we would have a talented and authoritative woman in real-life directing the actions and activities of Daniel Craig's James Bond, and all the other characters, in "Bond 24."