52 replies to this topic

[zencat]

Interesting article in The Express:

PIERCE BROSNAN has admitted he “lost his way” during his stint as James Bond, saying the iconic role left him “tangled up in his ego”.

The Irish actor said it was not until he lost the part, later taken on and toughened up by Daniel Craig, that he felt he was able to act properly again.

And despite making no secret of the fact he’d like to play Bond again after 2002’s Die Another Day, Pierce says he felt restricted by the role that catapulted him to the top of Hollywood’s A-list.

“I felt very shackled by Bond and didn’t want to rock the boat,” he says.

“You get tangled up in your own ego of how you’re perceived. You can lose your way.”
Pierce, 57, says it took several years to find his feet again after Bond and credits the 2005 comedy drama The Matador with finally helping him to let go of his desire to play the leading man after he was replaced as 007.

“It was good to actually act,” he remembers.

“I have said to my agents, ‘I want to work. I want to play character roles.’

“You can be a leading man for so long and it’s wonderful but there comes a time when you have to deal with life and move over on the stage.

“The Matador was a great confidence booster. I really felt like I got a transformation there of some sort.”

Perhaps it is a good job Pierce is over his desire to portray dashing heroes – his recent outing in Roman Polanski-directed The Ghost saw him play Adam Lang, a British prime minister accused of war crimes, whose story features many uncanny parallels to the premiership of Tony Blair.

http://www.express.c...-my-way-as-007-

[SecretAgentFan]

I guess it´s difficult for every actor taking on the Bond role. Either they pursue aggressively different parts (Connery), lose their head (Lazenby), stay firmly in the comfort zone (Moore), struggle with their career (Dalton) or... stay firmly in the comfort zone again (Brosnan) and only move forward once they are not Bond anymore.

I like Brosnan, make no mistake. But he kind of hammers home the same point every time now. Yes, he is a character actor now. And he likes it. (translates as: I don´t get any leading roles anymore because I´m too old for the market place - I would have loved to earn a few millions more with Bond - I´m quite pissed that I´m too old - and I have to spin this again and again so people notice that I´m doing these other roles now because I want to.)

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Fair comments, although I guess what he is basically saying is how liberated he felt when free of playing Bond - which is understandable. Still I think being 007 did wonders for Brosnan as a movie actor and he was able to play a variety of diverse roles between his Bond films in movies like Evelyn, Thomas Crown, Grey Owl and Mars Attacks.

[Matt_13]

I get the feeling this was something he told to DC before he accepted the role. I think aside from Roger (whose sense of humor and absolute acceptance of the roles he has enjoyed throughout his life have ultimately saved him from a similar fate) all the Bonds have had a hard time finding fresh work after their time in the tux. Pierce has done well for himself, and it's nice to hear these reflections. Craig is doing an exceptional job scoring other, more varied roles. He has a very casual personality which is what I like most about him as an actor, and that's I think what will keep him from getting typecast (a fear he openly admitted when he accepted the role). After Bond he will not have any trouble finding more acting roles.

Pierce was a fine Bond.

[The Shark]

He hasn't he said multiple variations of the exact same thing in the last 6 months, or have I developed amnesia of all a sudden?

Come on Brozza. Give it a rest. We know you're a fine actor whose moving forward everyday in strides, yet utterly failed to convincingly and consistently play James Bond. No need to drag us to down into your dredges of self-pity.

[jaguar007]

I think Connery's "comeback' started in the late 80's with THE UNTOUCHABLES (and his subsequent Oscar win).

I think people tend to sell Connery's post Bond / pre Untouchables career a bit short. True, in the mid 70's and early 80s he was not the Box office giant he was in the past and about to become again, but he had a good career with various types of roles. Murder on the Orient Express, The Wind and the Lion, The Man Who Would Be King, Robin and Marion, A Bridge Too Far, The Great Train Robbery, and the cult classics Time Bandits and HIghlander. While these may not have been Jaws or Star Wars, they were far from bombs.

I accept Brosnan for who and what he was. What I do get kind of tired of is his revisionist history of his place in the series; like the series was some sort of artistic straight-jacket that was forced upon him. It's not like he was a starving artist doing off-Broadway for the love of his craft. He was churning out B-grade thrillers like Death Train on the USA Network when EON came and gave his career a second-chance. He should be proud of his contributions to the series ($1.5 billion over the course of 4 films).

So true, if it were not for Bond, Brosnan would right now be as forgotten as Dirk Benedict from The A-Team. THe only thing he would be remembered for is his stint as Remington Steele. As Gravity mentioned, he was starring in made for cable and direct to video movies. His only big theatrical film was playing 6th fiddle in the Robin Williams film Mrs Doubtfire.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

What I do get kind of tired of is his revisionist history of his place in the series; like the series was some sort of artistic straight-jacket that was forced upon him. It's not like he was a starving artist doing off-Broadway for the love of his craft. He was churning out B-grade thrillers like Death Train on the USA Network when EON came and gave his career a second-chance. He should be proud of his contributions to the series ($1.5 billion over the course of 4 films).

Yes he should be proud, he was hailed Billion Dollar Bond and the whole world thought the producers were mad to replace him when they did.
But I agree any claims of artistic straight jacket make little sense after all the emphasis of 'pushing the envelope' and 'peeling back the layers' etc. I do believe that Brosnan's influence on how he wanted the character to go can be seen on his films as he made them, so I don't think he was that confined in the tuxedo.

[DamnCoffee]

he was able to play a variety of diverse roles between his Bond films.

And in his Bond films. Have you ever noticed that his Bond character is completely different in each movie? Can you imagine The World Is Not Enough Bond in GoldenEye? Or the Die Another Day Bond in The World Is Not Enough?

He's totally different in each one. If you look at Connery, you see his Bond character evolve throughout his tenure. Take a look at Pierce's Bond, his character doesn't naturally progress, it's more schizophrenic than anything else.

I'm not bashing old Brozza at all though, I thought he was a damn good Bond. I've always said that it was the writing that let him down.

[David_M]

Based on the subject line, I was kind of hoping Brosnan was admitting his Bond tenure went astray, which would have been refreshing as I feel it's true. Instead it seems he's saying his success in the role gave him a swelled head, which is interesting I guess but beside the point for me. I wouldn't care if he was a total prima donna if the output was entertaining.

Like others, I feel this is revisionist history from Pierce in many ways. For one, he wasn't really hot snot as a "leading man" even during his Bond tenure; for every "Thomas Crown" and "Tailor of Panama" there was another "Dante's Peak" or "Grey Owl" and his total non-Bond output during those years was fairly sparse. For my money, his best in this period was a "supporting role," anyway, in "Mars Attacks" (though the film itself was a train wreck).

Pierce may see himself as having grown spiritually (or something), but for me this sounds like his usual M.O.: each Bond movie was the greatest ever until he started the next one, at which point the previous one was a disappointing mess. Now the Bond role itself was the greatest gig in the world until it was gone, at which point it became a straightjacket keeping him from realizing his amazing range as an actor. Whatever.

[Syndicate]

In general, sometime it is hard for an actor get to other roles, after playing a very well known character. William Shatner got lucky after doing Capt. Kirk, Dean Caine it ok after playing Superman, not so lucky for Gerard Christopher who played Superboy on the late 80s syndicated series. It ok for the rest of the original Star Trek cast, not that great for the cast of DS9, the rest of TNG cast, and the cast that played the Brady kids. What will happen to Tom Welling when he is done with Samallville. Will still he get good projects or it B-movies.

For Dalton he did Rocketeer well for his third Bond movie that never happened. Since the mid 90s up to now he has not really done anything. For Brosnan, his lucky he still getting projects that are still consider big like Ghost Writer. Hopfully he will still get those plying all kinds of characters, not just close to the real world type spies and Super spies. Roger Moore didn't really do anything after Bond along big stars his age like Michael Caine would.

[jaguar007]

I think people tend to sell Connery's post Bond / pre Untouchables career a bit short. True, in the mid 70's and early 80s he was not the Box office giant he was in the past and about to become again, but he had a good career with various types of roles. Murder on the Orient Express, The Wind and the Lion, The Man Who Would Be King, Robin and Marion, A Bridge Too Far, The Great Train Robbery, and the cult classics Time Bandits and HIghlander. While these may not have been Jaws or Star Wars, they were far from bombs.

I noticed you didn't mention ZARDOZ, but I guess after running around in a red diaper holding a space gun there was nowhere else to go but up.

I'm not saying Connery didn't do any turkeys after Bond (he did), what I'm saying is that sometimes people forget the amount of quality films he did do between Bond and his big box office comeback in the late 80s. I think he did quite well in the 70s. It was mostly the early 80s where many of his films were flops.

[Mark_Hazard]

I noticed you didn't mention ZARDOZ, but I guess after running around in a red diaper holding a space gun there was nowhere else to go but up.

Space gun?? And here was I thinking that it was a vintage Webley.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

he was able to play a variety of diverse roles between his Bond films.

And in his Bond films. Have you ever noticed that his Bond character is completely different in each movie? Can you imagine The World Is Not Enough Bond in GoldenEye? Or the Die Another Day Bond in The World Is Not Enough?

He's totally different in each one. If you look at Connery, you see his Bond character evolve throughout his tenure. Take a look at Pierce's Bond, his character doesn't naturally progress, it's more schizophrenic than anything else.

I had not really thought about this. I wouldn't say it's totally different but I think there are noticeable shifts in tone as they tried to do different things with the character. But then I can see similarities with TWINE and GE where Brosnan gives his awful hesitant expression before bringing Trevelyn and Elektra to their demises.

Yes he should be proud, he was hailed Billion Dollar Bond and the whole world thought the producers were mad to replace him when they did. But I agree any claims of artistic straight jacket make little sense after all the emphasis of 'pushing the envelope' and 'peeling back the layers' etc. I do believe that Brosnan's influence on how he wanted the character to go can be seen on his films as he made them, so I don't think he was that confined in the tuxedo.

The goal posts seem to shift with Brosnan, depending upon who he's telling the story to, and when he's telling the story. He doesn't seem to understand that his films did 'push the envelope' and 'peeled back the layers' up to the point that audiences were willing to accept him doing that. What makes him think that audiences would have wanted him to play it the way Craig has? His films were what they were for the time that they were produced and released.

Yes, and they were right for the times and worked very well. I often look back now and wonder exactly how they worked, but they did.

[Colossus]

I think it would be fabulous to actually have him play Bond again now with his differed train of thought now as a more aged Bond as others here have said.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Given what we know about the time when Brosnan's contract negotiations broke down for his 5th film, I think it will be interesting to see the extent of his participation in the 50th anniversary celebrations of the series.

[THX-007]

I think people tend to sell Connery's post Bond / pre Untouchables career a bit short. True, in the mid 70's and early 80s he was not the Box office giant he was in the past and about to become again, but he had a good career with various types of roles. Murder on the Orient Express, The Wind and the Lion, The Man Who Would Be King, Robin and Marion, A Bridge Too Far, The Great Train Robbery, and the cult classics Time Bandits and HIghlander. While these may not have been Jaws or Star Wars, they were far from bombs.

Don't forget The Offence (1973), Connery shows off his dramatic acting skills.

For Dalton he did Rocketeer well for his third Bond movie that never happened. Since the mid 90s up to now he has not really done anything.

Hot Fuzz, Doctor Who, and theater work.

Edited by THX-007, 10 August 2010 - 01:23 AM.

[Syndicate]

Given what we know about the time when Brosnan's contract negotiations broke down for his 5th film, I think it will be interesting to see the extent of his participation in the 50th anniversary celebrations of the series.

I hope Brosnan not in any way still pisse off, or his keeping that to himself and just say no but thanks. It be better that he got over it and join in on the 50th anniversary and say what he has to about the series, the character and the way he played that different from the other stars.

[Colossus]

I think it would be fabulous to actually have him play Bond again now with his differed train of thought now as a more aged Bond as others here have said.

I completely disagree. I don't want an older Bond, and I certainly don't want to pamper this man's ginormous ego.

(I used to really like Brosnan, but he lost me as a fan with his bitter comments towards EON after they chose not to bring him back, and the fact that he starred in a Roman Polanski film didn't help much either).

Let's not start on his bitterness, everyone's darling EON wasn't exactly saintly with their phonecall firing (something which Cubby/Harry NEVER would have done) and it's kind of extreme to be judgmental of Brosnan to be in a Polanski movie... i mean did he do waht Polanski did? Here we go again...

[captnash2]

i think the brosnan era was ultimately hampered by so little fleming material being used in his films, save for the use of the drax element from the novel of MR for graves' character in DAD.

Edited by captnash2, 10 August 2010 - 09:29 AM.

[Lachesis]

he was able to play a variety of diverse roles between his Bond films.

And in his Bond films. Have you ever noticed that his Bond character is completely different in each movie? Can you imagine The World Is Not Enough Bond in GoldenEye? Or the Die Another Day Bond in The World Is Not Enough?

He's totally different in each one. If you look at Connery, you see his Bond character evolve throughout his tenure. Take a look at Pierce's Bond, his character doesn't naturally progress, it's more schizophrenic than anything else.

I'm not bashing old Brozza at all though, I thought he was a damn good Bond. I've always said that it was the writing that let him down.

I think there is quite a lot in this, not entirely of his doing and this is the real straightjacket I think he had to wear - the producers simply couldn't seem to make up their mind how to best present him so the films flip flop erratically in tone and content and he wasn't able to relax and 'own' the role in tha manner Connery and Moore did (in fairness you need more than a couple of flims to do this imo so I don't reference the others here). He was good but his real potential was never fully mined.

Overall however I think he still talks Bond too much and needs to put it behind him fully....telling us hes put it behind him and moved on doesn't quite ring true one of those 'actions speak louder than words things'.

Edited by Lachesis, 10 August 2010 - 01:10 PM.

[plankattack]

Oh Brozza, you're a luvvie aren't you!

I woke up in a foul mood today so there's a part of me looking to put the boot in. But Brozza, bless him, he is, like the classic acting stereotype, a bit of a dearie who takes himself all a bit too seriously. As Gravity and others have said, Brozza's career outside of Bond is mixed at best, especially before Bond. And since? Well, a couple of fine acting stints (Matador) in films that did passable trade, and some films that nobody saw (that western, and the one about the kid).

Listen to Brozza in any "serious" interview and he always rambling on like some great thespian, but let's face it, Olivier he ain't. Now it's not a crime to lack much self-awareness, especially when it comes to one's career - I, for one, don't sit around bringing myself down and asking where it all went wrong, but unlike Brozza (and those in the acting trade) most of us are bit more realistic about what we've done with our lives.

I do think Brozza did a decent job as Bond - he was the best thing about his films. And yes, it would be nice to hear him admit that he'd still be wandering the backwater of basic cable and TV mini-series if it weren't for 007, but save that, I'd rather he said nothing at all. It is after all Bond, not Hamlet.....(cue SC quote about the role!)

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Let's not start on his bitterness, everyone's darling EON wasn't exactly saintly with their phonecall firing (something which Cubby/Harry NEVER would have done) and it's kind of extreme to be judgmental of Brosnan to be in a Polanski movie... i mean did he do waht Polanski did? Here we go again...

You may be right. I'm not claiming insider knowledge here but I doubt it was as simple as a phonecall firing. I think there was more too it and I certainly have my theories.

I do think Brozza did a decent job as Bond - he was the best thing about his films. And yes, it would be nice to hear him admit that he'd still be wandering the backwater of basic cable and TV mini-series if it weren't for 007, but save that, I'd rather he said nothing at all. It is after all Bond, not Hamlet.....(cue SC quote about the role!)

I agree saying nothing is often the best thing, however when it comes to publicity and self promotion I would guess there is nothing better than a nice bit of Bondian reflection

[The Shark]

This article seems to be more about Pierce Brosnan 'losing his way' while playing James Bond, than 'as playing James Bond.' Which would be more interesting.

[jaguar007]

Let's not start on his bitterness, everyone's darling EON wasn't exactly saintly with their phonecall firing (something which Cubby/Harry NEVER would have done) and it's kind of extreme to be judgmental of Brosnan to be in a Polanski movie... i mean did he do waht Polanski did? Here we go again...

Actually we don't know how Cubby or Harry would have handled the firing of a Bond. Remember Cubby was screen testing replacements for Roger Moore (like James Brolin for Octopussy) without Moore's knowledge.

[jaguar007]

According to Maxwell she received a personal phone call from Cubby telling her they couldn't bring her back for THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, so there is precedent. I think Maibaum and John Glen were officially fired from active film production sometime in 1990, but I don't know how.

On the flip side I think I read that Cubby still paid Maxwell her salary she would have received for TLD.

Where Brosnan or Broccoli/Wilson were at the time is something to consider. Wasn't Brosnan filming After the Sunset when he was informed? He might have been on location in the Bahamas (or wherever they filmed) and Broccoli/Wilson in LA or London. They may have both been in LA at the time but not necessarily.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I know i've seen an interview with Brosnan where he stated he got the call from his agent informing him negotiations had stopped for his 5th movie. According to that interview he didn't hear it direct from Eon HQ.

[jaguar007]

I think I recall reading that Brosnan was asking for somewhere around $20million for his 5th Bond movie.

[quantumofsolace]

Worst actor to ever play the character. He can moan all he likes but the day he was strongly rumoured to not be Bond anymore I remember as being a very happy day. Preening . Metrosexual. Bizzare accent. Massive ego. And of most importance, he is not a very good actor.

[Messervy]

I think we're all missing the obvious fact here: '“It was good to actually act”, he remembers'

Who said he couldn't act while being Bond? Who said Bond wasn't about acting, about trying to perform? Who said he just had to wear the tux and be done with it?
I guess he misled himself, he lost his way on his own. Noone else to blame but himself.

Granted, the poor scripts didn't help (when will EON finally get rid of this Purvis-Wade plague?), but then again a good actor is judged on his ability to turn mediocre lines into enjoyable moments.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Brosnan as such. It's just that he's always blaming everyone else for how miserable they made him feel etc., while he could arguably be the one to blame.

[Safari Suit]

I guess when interviewers ask you about the same thing over and over again it's hard to keep your answers interesting and enthusiastic. Still, the constant self-pitying is wearying.