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
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I've never found Brosnan cheesy at all and I found him quite convincing as a killer (perhaps the most ruthless I'd say in some circumstances), and I think he's much better than Craig, who never really nailed the character down fully down for various reasons.
I definitely think Brosnan does the darker and even harder edged stuff best in GE. He was never as brooding as Dalton of course, and I think the appeal of his Bond was that you could easily imagine him jetting off to some exotic location, driving a fancy car and walking into a casino - that sort of adventurer/man of mystery vibe, which for a cinematic Bond is completely fine. There’s definitely a reason audiences took to him over Dalton beyond the time they were in, agreed.
I’d say they’re different actors for what it’s worth. Craig’s a much harder edged Bond but that’s completely fine (I’d personally say he’s a much better screen actor and this was a major reason he was was more comfortable moulding himself to different films/phases of his Bond’s life. For me Brosnan didn’t seem quite as comfortable in his last two films, but that’s just me and he certainly has his moments).
I mean, I don’t think it’s a case where either actor will be looked on with overbearing critique as time passes after their tenure. I don’t think that’s quite the case with any Bond. With Brosnan he had short term criticism (especially after DAD) but I think his films have had a bit of a revaluation among fans and he’s rightfully looked on more fondly. I think the same will happen with Craig (again, shorter term criticism which is there now for some, followed by that nostalgia). It’s what happened with Dalton, and both Craig and Brosnan were far longer running and arguably popular Bonds.
The emotional content of the Craig films tries to stretch beyond this based mostly on the success of Skyfall. Bond becomes Byronic essentially.
Dalton is a bit closer because he plays it less like Byron and more jaded on occasions.
I’m not sure if I quite see the deep seated emotional content in SP to be completely honest. I actually think it’s quite thin for Bond in that film. There’s more going on with NTTD and Bond believing Madeline betrays him, but I definitely think the film as a whole has that link with Fleming, particularly his later novels, and I think it adapts the tragedy of fate/his duty never allowing him a normal life. SF has it too with Bond being jaded and going through mid career burn out. Ultimately though it’s about creating the most compelling film possible even with that source material in mind, and it’s of debatable importance analysing how close it is rather than considering what the film itself is doing.
Not to take away from NTTD.
I’m not sure if it’s about him confronting his childhood though. While his parents dying understandably comes under childhood trauma it’s something he seems to want to leave behind him. He seems pissed off when it’s mention during the association test, but other than that Bond’s issues in the film don’t come from him suddenly remembering his childhood. He’s less overly reflective about his past than Fleming’s Bond could be, and he’s almost completely unsentimental about the house throughout the third act to the point he blows it up. Him luring Silva to Skyfall is more a story idea I think - that idea of going off grid, fighting Silva on his own turf etc. It’s not directly a reconciliation for Bond.
I would say that when you take into consideration both actors work outside of the series - then yes Craig is the stronger actor of the two. One need only look at the string of films he’s chosen throughout his career to reach that conclusion. But I don’t think that translated to him being a better Bond than Brosnan was. For one thing, Craig wasn’t nearly as sophisticated, charming, nor humorous as Brosnan was - which are the crucial elements that make Bond stand out when compared to other action heroes - and because Craig was never comfortable playing a more traditional interpretation of Bond - I found that the more creative decisions that were made to play to his strengths - the further and further away his portrayal had gotten away from what I find enjoyable about the character.
I don’t think I’m right/wrong and anyone else right/wrong either. If they love Craig’s Bond then more power to them, but I just happen to think that Brosnan was genetically bred in a lab to be the best James Bond and science always triumphs ;).
I definitely get a sense of sophistication, charm, and humour from Craig for what it’s worth, and I’d personally say by SP he plays quite a traditional cinematic Bond (I wouldn’t say his portrayal prior to that was completely left field for Bond either - distinct but ultimately recognisably James Bond). It’s also just a case where I’m personally more drawn to Craig’s Bond in more of his films (I find him a more natural actor with the same swagger and charisma as the other Bonds. Brosnan’s a slightly different actor - there’s something a bit more theatrical about him, which isn’t bad and arguably Moore and even Dalton were similar as actors, albeit in different ways if that makes sense). It’s all subjective though and I like both (I always say I think Brosnan’s GE performance is one of the best Bond performances).
Well, I’m not sure if that’s a particularly endearing description for an actor or fair to Brosnan (I get what you mean incidentally and I know it’s meant to be a positive! But I think he’s got a lot of personality as an actor and as Bond. He’s quite an offbeat and idiosyncratic actor - there’s not anyone quite like him. Again, I’d say the same about Moore).
If I had to nitpick, I will say that I do wish we got to see Brosnan play Bond as a bit more of a bastard. He does it quite well in Goldeneye in certain scenes but I just felt the filmmakers lightened up his portrayal as his films went on. Compare those later portrayals to what Brosnan was doing in Tailor of Panama, Thomas Crown Affair, and The Matador and I can see how lightweight things got with Brosnan following Goldeneye. Still never his fault and a damn great Bond regardless.
Yeah I can see that. I do think GE gets a good balance with that (he's a b*stard at points but we also get him being quite stoic about the idea of killing Alec during the scene on the beach with Natalya. For me that's perfect and very Bond).