I feel that Brosnan combines Moore and Connery while Craig combines himself along with Dalton.
I tend to think that Brosnan came in as an amalgamation of modern intent matched to classic affectation (the aloof facade); the reality of it was meant to be Dalton's humanized Bond matched to Connery's iconography. When the humor works best for Brosnan, it tends toward Connery: as statement of control and detachment from the situation. As a reference point on coldness.
Which is why, plausibly, Dalton tended to have trouble with the character's one-lines. I don't think he found a way to mold them to the DNA of his performance or character bio.
Dalton's assumptions were, I think, striking and ahead of their time. This was a Bond that was very much about acting out, or upon, personal conflicts.
It was to become the fulcrum of all future Bond portrayals (or at least the yin to Connery's yang). It was and is the Modern Bond.
It's the idea of a Bond who is personally involved in the mission, instead of being more akin to the id-like (at least from the audience standpoint) brutality of Connery. The idea of emotional separation from the mission was a non-starter in Dalton's makeup.
This is either brought more fully to the fore or exacerbated -- depending on whether one likes or dislikes the assumption -- by Bond's sexual encounters becoming something closer to entanglements. In this case, Dalton seemed to create a sense of monogamy in Bond, whereas Connery's exploits with women are far more transitory and emotionally remote. Retroactively misogynist in regards to the latter? Arguably.
Which is how we arrive at Brosnan, possibly the true modern Bond by way of postmodern stylings. Well, at least at his or the franchise's best. Which, parallel, would be one out of four film entries.
The Brosnan assumption, when it works, is a rather brilliant narrative deconstruction and psychological conflation of Dalton with Connery. I like to call it
GoldenEye.
Basic idea? The man hidden in the icon.
You can see the basic line that, then, leads us to Craig. In a similar context, I very much see
Casino Royale as an analog or bookend to
GoldenEye as narrative attempts to explore Bond psychologically, finding out
why he is a cold, misogynist killer; the former as a constructive process, a hard reboot, the latter as a soft reboot and update, a deconstructive look at (into?) an iconic character.
If there was a flaw to Dalton's approach -- that is, from the side of public acceptance -- it was in trying to eschew these well-known elements, themselves almost
elemental in their importance because, yes, they had become iconic.
The Brosnan/Craig model is an attempt to split the difference. To build a better Bond, or deconstruct Bond as symbol.
Allowing him to retain his cold exterior while also allowing for more psychological examination.
The key is internalization and balance.
I don't know if that's better than what Dalton did. Not all. But I very much believe that it's an approach that tacitly is connected to the idea of Sean Connery's Bond as the standard going forward rather than a quaint notion (characterization) of a bygone era.
Edited by blueblood, 28 June 2011 - 02:07 PM.
