Well, I'd say the supported cast is top notch, and handle all of the provocations with the appropriate conviction, wit and sense of irony.
The supporting cast was interesting and fun to watch, with some good actors among them...
We can agree there, at least.
It's not. Otherwise Bond and everyone else (including the viewer) would be on an entirely different plane, and simply wouldn't gel with the rest of the film. Those comments need to resound with Bond, otherwise they'd might as well be talking to a brick wall.
...or to someone who legitimately doubts the bull the world is feeding him. Again, where is it written that your protagonist has to be brooding or introspective?
He can disagree fervently with what those around him are saying, and his motivation can stem from a desire to prove everyone wrong.
Is 12 Angry Men less of a great work because Juror #8 is the lone dissenting voice, who never strays from his conviction, ultimately converting the rest of the jury?
It's part of the film's basic design. Bond must be frozen in his role as Cold War warrior while the world moves on, in order for the Bond's character arc to work. Bond only thaws from that ice age in Cuba, where film moves past Bond's cold exterior to his inner humanity. Same for Serra's score, which suitably metallic and brutal for the scenes in Soviet and Federal Russia, but finally gains a consistent warmth once Bond arrives in the Caribbean.
Dalton's more open personality would have meant entirely different GOLDENEYE. The script would have to be drastically rewritten, and the film's internal conflicts would have to originate from somewhere else, as opposed to Bond's own ignorance of the changing world, with concluding epiphany.
If Bond disagrees "fervently with what those around him are saying" doing his best to prove everyone wrong, then the internal conflict is lost. The problem shifts from being a genuine one (Bond) to a false one (everyone else's perception).
As for 12 ANGRY MEN, that's because the Henry Fonda character is not representing a character from a now dead era, with 33 years of cultural legacy. In that film the issue is not with Juror No. 8, but he the remaining 11. Therefore the example's a moot point. The only similarly is a superficial one - that it's one man outnumbered by a opposing ideas. The key difference in GOLDENEYE is that the provokers are
right, and Bond
will have to change. Otherwise he'll remain a 'relic of the Cold War.'
Self-reflection is also a key trope of Fleming's Bond. Often he doubted his own usefulness to the service, and whether or not the double-o section might be obsolete - as does M.
Not really sure why you're bringing Fleming's Bond into a movie like Goldeneye (aside from personal preference). While not straying the most from the source material, it's also very clearly a rejection of many of the things that defined Fleming's Bond. Remember that this movie's angle is "it's the 90s now, EVERYTHING is different - except Bond".
Corrected.
Well, I'd say CASINO ROYALE's a considerably less coherent and profound film in its construction of Bond. But it's also an entirely different approach, since it chronicles Bond ascent from man to icon. Golem to to man to ubermensch. GOLDENEYE isn't an origin's story, it's purpose to is de-construct 33 years of Bond's legacy, along with his cultural impact, and help redefine him for the 21st Century. And IMO, succeeds incredibly well at that.
How did it actually redefine him? Even forgetting everything that went wrong in the following movies, Bond was fundamentally the exact same man at the end of Goldeneye as he was at the beginning.
No. Bond, through the catharsis of killing Trevelyan (Janus - the two faces, one looking to the past and the other to the future. East/West. Born/Reborn) has been transformed from an icon of the Cold War, into a relevant hero for our globalised age. An age where borders are becomingly increasingly obsolete, and the world becomes that much smaller, interconnected, more personal. For better or worse.
The line -
"No, for me" seals the deal.
And there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, if the movie is, as I suggested it should have been, about Bond validating his conviction that politics could change but he was still, and always would be, needed.
Bond is still very much relevant at the end of GOLDENEYE. But he's had to remove himself from the past in the process, altering his identity. Bond has to adapt.
The alternative (with Dalton) you're calling for negates that necessity, but also that the world has changed since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
I'd argue that it keeps the celebrations and 'greatest hits syndrome' to a bare minimum, compared to the Baby Boomer reverie/'Cool Britannia'/Hong Kong Action Movie-fest orgy that is TOMORROW NEVER DIES.
Obviously it doesn't go over-the-top to the extent TND does, but to me it was clear that the powers that be (understandably, given the circumstances of Bond's return) wanted Goldeneye to be everything to everyone. Or as much as possible to as many as possible. That included numerous nods to Bond cliches, which are more celebratory (or if you really hate the approach, generic checklist) than "greatest hits".
The use of clichés is more deconstructive than celebratory in this context. It's part of this film's post-modern design. It's a amalgam of the past and present, taking the clichés and using them to as a subversive commentary on Bond, and his place in the modern world.
In other words, the DBS isn't just there because it's a familiar image associated with Bond, but that it symbolises Bond frozen in the past at the present-day opening of the film. Stuck in time, soon to be confronted with Janus - Past and future as one. Which is the thematic guideline of the film, and the key to its narrative.
Just as the title sequence and archives/tank chase embody the 'tearing down the icons of the past' theme running through the film, the Bond staples represent Bond's inertia.
Mine are more to do with popularity with the public and critical reception than simply box office results, which rarely tell anything - other than how well a film was marketed.
...
But the public (for the most part) didn't want Dalton's "License Renewed". They wanted a replacement
Again, box office, popularity, whatever... not my point. I'm arguing from a critical standpoint. Dalton, through of a combination of his personal style and what would have been two movies plus eight years in the role, would have given Bond a greater weight. Brosnan was new to the part, with a background in TV (and a secondary character in Mrs. Doubtfire), and he had the pressure of trying to resurrect Bond. I give him credit, but all those factors still come through in his performance. They were not present in the rest of his movies, though.
One can't argue personal opinion of acting ability in this case, but can we at least agree that Dalton and Brosnan had a different take on Bond? The former brought to the role an immediacy, pro-activeness and self-awareness compared to Brosnan's cool calculation, self-doubt, and aloofness.
I don't deny that Dalton is a stronger actor, but I think bringing him into GOLDENEYE would have been counter-intuitive, particularly considering that that film is as much a commentary on the failings of LICENSE TO KILL, as it is on Cold War Bond in general.
But that's what the film requires. It needs levity, and someone with more of a cool detachment than what Dalton honed. A blank, fresh slate (free of associations with the 80s Bond films) for those 30 years to be cast onto it.
I'm not saying that approach is wrong or inferior, just that the way Brosnan actually performed under the circumstances makes me think Dalton would have been better, even though it would have to be slightly different.
It would have to be different, big time.
However to be devil's advocate, it could just about work with the same script if Dalton had played in a similar approach to Brosnan. But otherwise, no.
I think the fresh slate was more important for characters like M (now a female, and a number-cruncher rather than Cold Warrior) and Moneypenny ("girl power" instead of the harmless, girly Caroline Bliss) than for Bond.
But the funny thing is, Brosnan isn't an entirely fresh slate here. He's an admix of every Bond - Connery to Dalton, in many respects. He's put across as a Bond template, a progression of the Connery model. That 'little bit of everything' portrayal is necessary to present him as an icon, before being deconstructed. Both old and new.
![[censored]](https://debrief.commanderbond.net/topic/59300-goldeneye/style_emoticons/default/censored.gif)