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
I am biased towards TWINE, as it was the first Bond film that I saw. Same with reading Carte Blanche. But the best things to come out it are the N64 game and Raymond Benson’s novelization. So not all is lost. That being said, it was when the family soap opera-ness that would plague DC’s films started. Namely M’s past coming back to haunt them.
I too am a TWINE fan. I appreciate that it doesn’t work for a lot of viewers, but I view it as the test run for what they would do in the Craig era. Plus I have a lot of fun with it.
On the subject of consistency, I think that alongside Brosnan, both Dalton and Craig have always given quality performances in the role consistently. Much as I love early Connery, he really does start to get a bit bored towards the end of his tenure, and Moore’s performance in TMWTGG is pretty unlikable if I’m being honest.
Brosnan would have been incredibly lucky to have a movie as good as SF, and from interviews with him it sounds like he was very envious.
“I would have loved to have held her in my arms myself. I would have loved to have played that scene with her. But it was not meant to be for me. It was Daniel's moment and his time.”
I agree.
Me too.
Me three. A lot of problems with movies in general in the last 30 years has been the writing.
From the Hollywood Reporter Podcast interview with BB and MGW.
Absolutely. I think some write him off based on the substance of his Bond performance exclusively, not on anything else he's done. Their loss.
Me too.
I agree. With a better haircut too.
Brosnan had his high points as Bond, but I don't think TWINE was one of them. It's not a film that plays to his strengths. Even without the soap opera blocking/dialogue ("He knew about my shoulder, he knew where to hurt me") I'd argue Brosnan's Bond was more impactful emotionally when he was more understated. Moments like the hotel meeting between Paris and Bond in TND, or the beach scene in GE didn't require Brosnan to do all that much from an acting perspective, and yet both scenes work.
Craig knew when to do this too incidentally, and it's very much integral to his performance in SF. But he's a stronger actor and was given material which allowed him to more effectively show that range. I can't imagine Brosnan breaking down over M's body and it working in the same way it did with Craig in SF.
https://charitybuzz.com/catalog_items/auction-meet-daniel-craig-stephen-colbert-join-them-on-2516900?preview=1
I think Bond nearly weeping at video footage of Electra being held hostage near the beginning looks kind of ridiculous to be honest.
But, as a Bond, he was often quite generic. He had elements from all the previous takes on the character, but when the plots were formulaic, it would highlight that he was also relying on former, bigger glories, without adding a personal touch of his own. He had opinions, but wasn't able (or allowed) to translate them into his performance.
Interestingly, the shaving scene from Skyfall was originally written for Die Another Day, and it would have taken place much earlier in the runtime, when Bond stays in the hotel after his release (that was also the moment Maggie Cheung was offered a cameo). I suppose it was a late deletion from the script, given that they didn't have anything for Moneypenny when they finally meet, with her only scene of importance being put at the end, as if it were an afterthought or a last minute addition.
Now that Craig has left, or that Knives Out showed a side of him that wasn't that obvious until then, I find a lot of the small touches he brought to the part so interesting.
He didn't always have the best one-liners in his scripts or the most suited to his sensibility (Phoebe Waller-Bridge helped No Time to Die a lot in that regard), but his Bond was a man of wit in more ways than the previous actors. His Bond doesn't fight for the final word. He doesn't try to be the wittiest man in the room. He loves sparring with others verbally, and they gain his respect, even if they have conflicting views, when they match him or cause him to come up with a great retort. That's how he's first seduced by Vesper in the train. She's his equal in this cordial fight. That's how he decides he's okay with Felix, Moneypenny or Q. And he's extremely disappointed when Le Chiffre turns terse or when Mallory only offers clichéd answers about the whole Heracles project, like a blubbering mess.
Also, each time Craig has a scene opposite to Judi Dench, Giancarlo Giannini or Jeffrey Wright in Quantum of Solace, you can almost feel that he's filled with glee at the idea of performing with them, even if the dialog isn't always up to the opportunity. The only film where this spark, this joy of sparring with others, is mostly missing is Spectre, and given the amount of painkillers that Craig most likely had to take to make it through the whole production, I'm not so surprised.
Yes, that's another strange moment.
To be fair to Brosnan the direction is at fault too. I suspect for whatever reason he was told to 'up' the emotional aspects of his performance, and he does go for it at many points during the film. I mean, the guy's literally shaking and clenching his teeth with rage when he holds Renard at gunpoint during the mine scene. His brows furrow with confusion and he gives a strange 'huh?' when Renard delivers the 'no point in living' line. It looks ridiculous. Very un-Bondian. Almost melodramatic. Soap opera-ish.
As much as fans here criticise the decision to bring in 'arthouse' directors during the Craig era (which isn't the case - a couple of critically well received directors known for drama perhaps, but not arthouse directors) it makes sense given what happened with TWINE. Apted wasn't a bad director by any means, but for whatever reason he wasn't capable of directing Brosnan in a way which would have brought out the best in him and the material.
I'm not going to argue that the TV thing isn't a terrible, terrible moment, but I would imagine what they wanted to do was illustrate the power of her feminine wiles or whatever so that we can later believe she turned Renard, and that the Stockholm Syndrome went the other way...?
Yeah, I think they were definitely leaning into the seductress aspect of Elektra, and with the implication that Bond had been taken in by her. So it's likely a conscious choice.
Bringing the focus back onto Craig, it shows just how good he was during the high points of his Bond tenure, and how well he was able to bring the material in the script to life in his first three films particularly. Take the SF scene when Silva is introduced. There's actually a lot going on that's not a million miles away from the mine scene in TWINE I mentioned. Not only is Bond coming face to face with the villain for the first time, but in SF Bond discovers that M lied about his test scores (so there's a revelation in both). Compare Brosnan's exaggerated 'huh' and brow furrows with what Craig does when Silva reads out his test scores. His Bond actually looks away from Silva as he's reading the scores, and we get a range of different expressions that are subtle, but communicate a lot - confusion, anger at M/himself, a sense of his pride taking a dent etc. It's effortless and very good screen acting. For me, playing Bond is all about those sorts of moments. Underplay the role too much and you get a wooden performance. Exaggerate too much and you get something as ridiculous as Brosnan in TWINE.
Yeah I don't disagree, a performance is usually the work of more than just one person. Still, it's hard not to imagine Craig being parachuted into that scene and remaining much more impassive, and feeling just more like Bond as a result. He could probably do with a blink what Brosnan does with a bitten lip, sensitive outstretched hand, wet eyes and pained expression here.
What's always impressive to me about Craig's Bond is he doesn't really do very much with his face, and yet that never makes him feel absent or that you don't know what he's thinking. But he's a doublehard spy, he doesn't pull faces.
Agreed, Craig is very effective as an actor at knowing when to give those little looks and change his expression etc. It shows that he's a performer able to 'feel' the material if that makes sense. It's that sense of effortlessness (no doubt the result of much preparation and rehearsal) that separates him from Brosnan.
To be completely fair to Brosnan, Craig did have a couple strange moments in his last two films that I do think are down to direction. You have the 'die Blofeld die' moment in NTTD, and the weird moment when Bond tries to tackle Blofeld when he shows Madeline the video of White's death in SP. That said, I don't find these moments strange necessarily because of a weakness in Craig's acting, but more due to how the dramatic the music is, the abruptness of the reaction etc. It's kinda just dumped on the audience. Nevertheless it does show how much direction has an impact.
I think the producers should have stuck to his strengths more.
Yes I've seen people criticise those but never quite got the issue I must admit.
Yeah you're right. At times it feels like they were hindered by having to stick to the formula
Because half the time they were. I mentioned that I’m a TWINE fan, but even I can’t deny that the film is torn between wanting to be a fun Bond film, and wanting to be something more dramatic. For example, I’ve always found the scene where Bond tries to comfort Elektra after the ski chase to be compelling, it’s just a shame that the Ski Chase itself was rather goofy.