It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
That's because you can't look into the future... ;-)
Craig is of a different cloth then either Connery or Moore. As with Lazenby, it was a different generation, with a different attitude to life. You can see that in their acting and in the case of Lazenby in the way he lived life. He didn't have to act that part at all.
I think the other incarnations did their best with what they had as a background, but lacking the same era-background it'll be increasingly difficult to get that part into a Bond incarnation.. Funnily enough, I guess the guy who looked the most like Bond was probably the worst actor.
I like them all in thir own way and think it's comparing apples and oranges considering the time gap between the actors, but Moore sure was a very good one indeed. Carrying the franchise for 7 (!) films, after all, isn't a small feat. The fact that the public still accepted him as Bond whilst he was way past Bond-age in AVTAK says it all.
Brosnan was the first to come to mind, with the exception of DAD, as the opposite of what Moore achieved in the role. Not that I dislike Brosnan. I love him, and I do think he gets too much hate, but there is an undeniable level of artifice to his performances; an ingrained pastiche. A knowingness. Difficult to articulate when I'm short on time.
Very interesting thought. Though you haven't yet fully detailed your argument, I suspect I'm in agreement with you. In some moments of Brosnan's films, such as when checking out the Cigar Girl in TWINE, I get this sense of self-awareness from him, as if he allowed us to see that not only Bond the character is amused by the thought of running into all these beautiful women, but Brosnan himself is amused by the thought of stepping into the shoes of this iconic role, with all the different aspects it entails, and which were the playground of people like Connery and Moore before him. I can see how that might not be some people's cup of tea (and I think sometimes he takes it a bit too far, which is why he isn't in first place for me), but I'm thinking when it works successfully (which is most of the time), that is one of the fun qualities of his take on the role (which I happen to love, by the way). It gets us on his side, somehow. And Brosnan is a skillful enough actor to make it work. Incidentally, I also very much enjoy his physical acting in some of the action scenes, where he finds a perfect balance between the physical elegance and gracefulness of Bond and a slightly clumsy demeanor (such as when escaping the newspaper factory or getting kicked on the ankle by Natalya).
Your words on Brosnan resonated with me since I recently read this online article about how Tom Cruise deserves an Oscar for his acting in Mission: Impossible - Fallout. That is something I don't necessarily feel inclined to agree with at all, but the article does interestingly touch upon the relationship between actor and character and how sometimes, in a particular scene or moment, the actor, and not the character, is most visible to the audience, while other times it is the character that is at the forefront, and sometimes actor and character are fused together.
Yes, @Strog, Brosnan's movement has a style that is entirely his own; there is a real "smoothness" to it that balances elegance, vitality, and roughness when appropriate. Also, from what I've seen of Remington Steele, which echo brought up, this was a quality that was already present to some degree in Brosnan's acting even then.
For me, another aspect of Brosnan's Bond that differentiates him from the other actors is a certain state of edginess and intensity that in my opinion, he could go into and out of quite easily. No other Bond actor did it quite like him. Dalton and Craig also brought that to the role but since their general approach to the part was different from Brosnan's, the overall effect was different. Brosnan moved much more nimbly between the different possible facets of the part --whether dark or lighthearted-- than they ever did.
And as described earlier, there is also this self-awareness he brought to the part, whether intentionally or not. Kind of a tip of the hat to the history and importance of the role of Bond. Pastiche, if you will, but I'd rather call it "knowingness" (if ThighsOfXenia doesn't mind my borrowing the term, and hopefully I'm not misusing it) as the word seems to have less of a negative connotation, which I think would be undeserved anyway. I don't think I'd go as far as to say this quality was omnipresent, but rather only visible in certain moments, often but not always lighthearted.
Currently, for me, Brosnan is tied for second place alongside Dalton, with Connery and Moore sharing the first place. I admit it's not much of a ranking with two ties but they are there for a reason! My hope is that Brosnan's take on the role will be positively reappraised among the Bond fans once Craig has left the building.
Completely agree with everything you said, and your rankings for that matter.
It is so difficult to separate Connery and Moore for me. Moore was 'my' Bond when I was a youngster, and the one I enjoy rewatching the most.
That being said, Connery is objectively the best. The template for all to follow. Which is why I tie them at number one.
I also agree with Broz and Dalton being tied at number two. Dalton is a better actor, and the world around him in his films is more interesting than Pierce's. Broz is more 'Bondian', though, and, able to change his tone to match the material.
I wished I liked Craig more. As I have stated on this thread previously, I don't know whether it's his look, voice or just the 'cut of his jib' but I just don't find him very engaging to watch. Even after four films I can't warm to him as I have the others, even Lazenby.
I can relate and agree. Again, I like your description. I think he made it work as best he could, but for me the era always seemed like a deliberate callback rather than something authentic and of the moment.
I agree that Brosnan brought a nice balance between elegance and clumsiness, but for me the best 'mover' on screen after the incomparable Connery was Lazenby. That guy had a certain physicality, natural style and swagger to him which belied his limited acting experience, and made me realize that a lot of being a good Bond is how one projects and moves.
I have Connery at one, Moore a close second & Dalton at third (he was last at one point so I've really taken a liking to him and his interpretation recently).
The other three alternate for me. Right now Craig is fourth, but I have to admit that I'm enjoying Brosnan more and more these days. I recognize that I have been too harsh on him in the past. Lazenby was absolutely fantastic in OHMSS, but I wish he had a few more under his belt so I could formulate a more informed opinion about him.
I saw Casino Royal in Concert at the Sony Performing Arts Centre here in Toronto this past Friday evening-- and yes I enjoyed a Vesper before the show, and a few afterwards.
Firstly, the music (since that's what this evening was about):
Anyone doubting how complex the David Arnold compositions are should really get to one of these shows. The orchestra, the players, the tiny little sounds that may be dull to our ears after years of watching/listening through speakers and ear-phones... were alive and vibrant and part of the film's fabric and themes.
To live this film, the score, with all of it's collective sounds, was a huge part of what made this story a success. David Arnold's music kept the film vibrant through a very challenging story with some very unique and interesting pacing (the first time pace was apparent to me)...
To hear YKMN live (with Cornell's voice) was outstanding and the orchestra received a HUGEEEEE OVATION.... It got the audience going... I was very moved myself to hear it live.
But I was ever more moved to hear the Bond theme at the end-- I was in heaven.
To welcome DA back into the fold for B25 would be a gift. He loves Bond and he gets Bond.
Onto the performances. Here is what I told a couple of friends of mine on this site:
"I made sure that, as soon as I found out this was coming to town, I did not watch the film, nor listen to the soundtrack beforehand (which was hard since, when in a pinch, and I need a boost, both are a couple of my go-to standards).
"I said it the first time I saw CR, and I will say it again: Daniel Craig should have been (Academy Award) nominated. It's the first film since, perhaps, OHMSS, where Bond goes through an identifiable arc-- and while he goes on this hero's journey, he really does go to Hell and back.
"The torture sequence was stronger than ever-- the audience was really into this film, and they got the very dark humour which unfolded during this scene.
"And finally Bond ends up with two resurrections: the first being false (where he quits the service to "sail around the world until one of us has to find an honest job"), the second, him coming out of tragedy to embrace who he really is (with the high collar): half monk/half hitman."
and...
"As far as the sinking house goes: I've always, ALWAYS, loved this scene. In fact, I love the entire "fourth Act" of it all. Love everything about it. It was unique to show Bond and Vesper's blossoming love. Shows that Bond was ready to quit the service and be with this woman. On the beach when he tells her he loves her-- soooo Fleming in flavour. And then the betrayal and how he goes after her at the end to save her, and find out WTF is going on. I love it so much. I honestly say people have the right to like or not like a piece of art. In this case, I will arrogantly say these guys who don't like this "fourth Act" are not sophisticated/mature enough to see how great this last bit is-- and in my opinion, the best of Martin Campbell and the the writers, and the two actors, is seen in this climax."
Comedy: I've been hearing how some on this site find the Craig era very dour... The audience I was with during CR was laughing throughout. Bucketsful including the torture sequence and "that's because you know what I can do with my little finger"...
During the pre-show and intermission I was happy to see that all demographics showed up: there were the late teens and early 20s, mid-age and old.
Of both sexes.
It was a full house to watch a film that is now, I'd safely call, after 12 years, a classic.
I prefer Zimmer easily over Arnold for the next 007 movie simply because in two movies were Arnold was no Barry-light he could not create a soundtrack with any cohesion or soundbites that were really worth remembering. While he can mimic a decent John Barry I found his own skills lacking and the soundtracks were not filled with any tunes you'd remember easily.
The same applies to Newman, whose second outing was even worst than the first. I would rather have a new composer who is willing to put some work in and create a new sound and recognition for the 007 movie fans in years to follow.
Currently it seems like EON is coasting a bit instead of putting some effort in the soundtracks something that did deliver in the past but seems past glory.
I remember from the IMDB Bond boards, you where never one to mince your words @j_w_pepper Hard to disagree, though. Zimmer has become utterly generic. Slightly off topic question, do you miss The Bap?
Until people see his undiluted,pure passion for Bond at one of these incredible events,then they wont understand DA.
That afternoon was a 'never to forget' experience,and,as you say once again,shows why CR is a modern classic Bond film.
Absolute @barryt007 , and very accurate description of this being undiluted. The passion can be heard in every note and it was indeed, unforgettable!
Excellent reply.
Thank you.
Brosnan's and Craig's era's essentially follow the same pattern.
First film: Excellent debut's, perfect 'modern' Bond films
Second film: Fairly straightforward action films.
Third film: Attempt (and both fail imo) to be more cerebral. Both heavily feature someone with a grudge against M.
Fourth film: Both an expensive and overblown mess, with forgettable action scenes. Both have a duplicitous villain who turn out to be figures from Bond's past. Both believed to be dead.
Good post !
So this means Craig's fifth should be a mix of FYEO and YOLT.
Or he gets fired and they start with a new 007.
True...either way is fine with me tbh.
Thanks.
I suspect it will mean Purvis and Wade digging out the script they wrote for Brosnan's potential 5th film, if they did one!
Irrespective of what us aficionados may think, that is most likely the prevailing opinion out there.
So overall I agree with the initial post about similarities in the trajectory (although there are obvious differences as well). I believe there was a thread created on this a while back too.