Animated vs Minimalist - Early Day vs Latter Day Craig

IGUANNA

As the Craig era draws to a close maybe.... I have a question.

Which of these do you prefer? The more animated first 2 Bond performances by Daniel Craig, whith a sparkle and the song of life, or the last 2 more minimalistic Sam Mendes be cold hold still and shut up performances

There is a clear and marked difference here which bothers to be explored and inquired.

For me personally, I feel in his first 2 he was more lively, more joi de vivre , and there is more tere to revisit and enjoy. But however in his last 2 he channels Connery, with the less is more, cool cucumber cat in the hat, put on theose sunglasses and don't care, the Bond who is cold and fully formed, but does it work? For me personnally, I feel it does not work as well than before, sometimes he is accused of being sleepy, Roger Bore, Yawn Connery, Pierce Brosnap, Timothy Dullton, etc. and it is hard for me to disagree at times. But please, what do you think?

And what would you want out of a 5th Bond perforamcne without Mendes by his side?

josiah

For me Craig's performances in SF and SP are worlds apart with Craig's performance in SF belonging to the first category you mentioned. Craig has that joie de vivre in SF in the scenes where he is flirting with Moneypenny or bantering with Q. I love it. In SP he seems a lot like Connery in YOLT to me--only really giving his energy and effort to action scenes or moments where he's called upon to show anger or displeasure (possibly because the emotion was right there the whole time and therefore easy to convey).

boldfinger

I agree to your description, @IGUANNA, "The more animated first 2 Bond performances by Daniel Craig, whith a sparkle and the song of life, or the last 2 more minimalistic Sam Mendes be cold hold still and shut up performances". I prefer the first category by far in the grand scheme of things. Bond following Tanner through the tunnels in SF is genius, but kept up throughout the whole film this kind of depiction sucks.
I think Craig´s performances are the main redeeming factor for SF and SP.
In SF he shows a similar drivenness to QoS, but without the joie de vivre, however I would fully attribute that to the script and direction. Mostly direction, because the script of QoS called for a somewhat similar frame of mind on Bond´s side.
In SP I found no lack of effort on Craig´s side. As for other factors, well, let´s just say I´m no fan of Mendes.

ThighsOfXenia

I like a mix of the two. His Skyfall performance is his best. I also thought he was fantastic as the "rough around the edges" Bond in CR.

Might not be popular, but I love him in SP as well, just a bit less.

IGUANNA

Thank you so much for your thoughts firends. :)

There is a difference of night and day between the way Bond flirts with Vepser (all animated and such and such) as opposef to how he does it with Severine (cool economy of movement with extreme subtlety). I think this is down and do in part to Craig's changing sensibilities as an actor, as we all recall he coached his co-star Olivia Wilde on the set of Cowboy and Aliens on how to do more with less, the power of stillness.

By the time we get to Spectre though he is trying to do more with so little less that it appears to be boredom sometimes. With his whistling nose, very still face, underspoken dialogue from a dour mouth, it's all too dimm and quiet for me and not enough of that 2006 sparkle.

Sp please Craig if you are reading this, come back for one more and punch it up a little for all us Bond fans. Have a sip of the happy juice before the shoot. Whatever it takes bro, but don't leave us hanging with quiet intimations and subtley so far gone it makes even geese scream.

boldfinger

The funny thing is, a lot of Craig´s performance both in CR and QoS made a lot of sense in connection with the story. Then audiences thought that´s how the new Bond is meant to be for the next era. Then the filmmakers picked up on that and actually made him like that.
In CR and QoS there was a certain character development visible. Then lots of people from the audience took Craig´s performance to be the new Bond way. I heard a lot of casual viewers exclaim, "oh, that´s not Bond anymore", completely ignoring that the development of the story made Craig´s performance a transient thing, and that he´s not supposed to be finished Bond yet, having just started out as a 00. And then very strangely the filmmakers picked up on that and actually made Bond into that master of dourness. Which I find a bit problematic, because I see a lot of sense in watching a British gentleman act like a rich business man on holiday while going about dangerous tasks, while it makes less sense to me to watch Bond constantly displaying a broken soul. Granted, he did so to a lesser degree in SP, and SF´s story offers a good reason for Bond being dour, but regardless of any reason, I´m not keen on a film series with such a gloomy protagonist, especially when the opposite used to be one main reason to enjoy the franchise.
Yet again, it´s not just due to Craig´s performance. The colour schemes of SF and SP represent the overall attitude of those films.

ThighsOfXenia

@boldfinger - You think SF and SF are more dour than QoS? Or am I misunderstanding something? I certainly hope so. QoS is the most dour Bond by a stretch in my estimation.

boldfinger

ThighsOfXenia wrote: »

@boldfinger - You think SF and SF are more dour than QoS? Or am I misunderstanding something? I certainly hope so. QoS is the most dour Bond by a stretch in my estimation.

Yes and no. In QoS there is perhaps more dourness, but it´s counterbalanced by bright colours and Bond showing a sense for the light side of life, for instance when he chooses a more exquisite hotel. The way he talks to people for sure is less dour in QoS. Yes, I realise Bond´s hotel suite in Macao in SF is marvellous, but nevertheless he doesn´t look as if he is enjoying anything, even when he meets Severine under the shower. And even if in places Bond seems less dour in SF, the fact that there is so much bleakness on all levels in SF denies the ending of QoS, which implied that Bond is over his problems, and instead implies that Bond is kind of a broken man.

boldfinger

delete.

IGUANNA

Any more thoughts friends? What is your Bond performance preference?

Gettler

I loved his performance in SF above the rest. The cynical, worn out Bond worked well in the story. I get hes not the Bond Begins anymore, which seemed resolved by the end of QOS, but there's more we are not seeing. He is more like how Bruce Wayne was in Rises, which is a big character leap.

DRush76

I don't really buy this simple categorization of Craig's performances in his movies. From what I have seen, he is either animated or minimalist, depending on the scene.

Mansfield

Craig nailed his role in CR and SF. I would characterize QOS as being one notch below those, mostly because he isn't working with the same quality of writing to bring to life. His character-driven scenes are tremendous, but they are far and few in between compared to the aforementioned films. His performance in SP was not poor by any stretch, but the natural or casual interpretation did drain some of the potential out of the character. It's missing that visceral sense throughout much of the performance in favor for a level of confidence in the way of highlighting experience, which could be achieved through craftier and more subtle mannerisms.

RareJamesBondFan

Mansfield wrote: »

His performance in SP was not poor by any stretch, but the natural or casual interpretation did drain some of the potential out of the character. It's missing that visceral sense throughout much of the performance in favor for a level of confidence in the way of highlighting experience, which could be achieved through craftier and more subtle mannerisms.

@Fieldsman is that you?

suavejmf

I like all of Craig's performances and I am a big fan. But CR captures the spirit of Fleming's novel and this performance will (for me) remain his finest. So in that regard I favor the beginning of his tenure.