41 replies to this topic

[DavidJones]

http://www.thehindu....cle18326921.ece

[SecretAgentFan]

I love Brosnan.  But he deliberately forgets that the 90´s mainstream blockbusters all went for broke and over the top.  He clearly retcons himself because he knows that the Craig era redefined Bond to public and critical acclaim, and now he wants to make people believe that he wanted the "gritty and dirty", too, but did not get it.

 

Sir Roger never did that.  He embraced the style of his era, he did not care about the critics, and he never badmouthed EON.

[Simon]

I thought it was all fairly well documented that he wanted grittier films, harder edges and even nudity. He was also fairly outspoken about the amount of sponsorship and product placement in the films too.

 

I would never have a problem with an actor trying to inject or suggest.

[SecretAgentFan]

Was he so outspoken during his era?  I only remember an interview in which he complained that a love scene between him and Sophie Marceau in TWINE had to be reshot because a nipple was visible.

 

Everything else, as far as I remember, irked him only after his tenure was over.

 

To be fair: it´s possible that he wanted other stories and more personal involvement.  He just did not have the power to enforce it like Craig got.  Which in itself is interesting since Brosnan was just as important for securing the financial future of the series as Craig.  Maybe EON, at that time, was not ready to give in to an actor´s demands - and later on they were.

[Dustin]

Eon - as far as we can tell - was reluctant to grant their actors a greater role, money aside, since the days of Connery. A successful actor in the role could ask for a lot. But that lot always ended up in figures on his paycheque, not in actual influence on the style and tone. For the longest time this was what most actors were fine with, until Dalton wanted to depict Bond as he envisioned him from the books. When that misfired Eon was happy enough to have Brosnan.

It may well be that Brosnan wasn't d'accord with his scripts and the general direction of the productions, as others before and after him. But it's one thing to voice such musings - and quite another to be able to get his way. And since his films did what they were intended to do, earn everybody involved considerable sums, I doubt that his misgivings were really a central point at the time.

Whatever we may think about the Brosnan films, they were exactly what the market back in the day demanded from Bond, no more but also no less.

[Odd Jobbies]

They seem like fair comments to me. He doesn't say that he was out spoken at the time, just that he felt this way. And frankly he'd have had to be pretty deluded not to feel this way. It was all about the cash and they made wads of it until they jumped the invisible car-shark.

[SecretAgentFan]

Not so fast - I believe there is a lot of hindsight involved here.  If CR had tanked and another more typical Bond actor had continued with DAD-like films we would now probably yearn for the more serious tone of the Brosnan era´s first three films.  And Brosnan would probably be delighted to hear that.

 

And to be fair: it´s actually DAD´s second half, with Tamahori pushing the camouflage-idea of the script into "invisibility cloak" and the unfinished special effects of the "ice-sailing"-debacle which give that film its deserved bad name.  The beginning is quite gritty indeed and could have turned into a really great film.

[Dustin]

With general audiences DAD did well enough. I honestly think, as somebody who has been around at the time, that there was no general air of a need for change right after it premiered. Yes, the references were cheesy, but there have been cheesy moments in practically all of the films, no news insofar. I would argue a big deal of the fierce welcome Craig received was likely due to the shock of Brosnan being replaced more or less out of the blue. Particularly the tabloids didn't like seeing somebody shafted without them having called for his head first.

Only after Craig won most general audiences did they backtrack. But with a big number of casual critics DAD is still silly good fun. TV magazines regularly make it a recommendation whenever it's on free TV.

[Mr_Wint]

Not sure what "gritty and real" means anymore. Such loose concepts. Brosnan had a little bit of everything in his films, so he has nothing to complain about really...

 

In retrospect, I think it was a mistake to dvelve into Bond's character and make everything personal the way they did in his later films. That didn't suit Brosnan at all. He is much better as a strictly professional for-Queen-and-Country sort of agent. I guess you could say that about ALL Bond actors, but for Brosnan it is especially true.

[SecretAgentFan]

Agreed on both points: DAD was Brosnan´s most successful Bond film, and it indeed works better for Bond to not follow any personal reasons during his missions.  The mission in itself is personal because he takes pleasure in taking the bad guy go down on principal.

[DavidJones]

Was he so outspoken during his era?

 

I seem to remember Pierce bad-mouthed each Bond film when promoting the next one and did this continually. He kept talking about "peeling back the layers", which is something we joke about on here still.

[Odd Jobbies]

The personal angle is a lack of imagination on the writer's part. What Bond movies should always do is find/make opportunities to get under the character's skin and touch upon what makes him tick.

 

However, lines of dialogue inserted into scenes to accomplish this will almost always play as cheesy ("I take pleasure in great beauty"), or melodrama (just about all of the Mills & Boon exchanges between Bond and Paris Carver).

 

Show, don't tell  is the mantra and for good reason. Hence the writers continuously dig up Bond's back story, or make it personal as ways to show, instead of telling. But ffs, enough already!

 

They need to work a damn sight harder at creating insightful scenes, or even just moments, without relying on the these 2 over used and lazy methods.

[SecretAgentFan]

The personal angle is a lack of imagination on the writer's part. 

 

Of course, I can´t let that pass.  

 

I know tons of actors who actually demand that everything that happens to their characters must be something personal.  Meaning: they want scenes in which they deal with a trauma concerning their childhood, their parents or their spouses and kids.  Even if the story does not warrant nor need it.

 

Actors just love this shortcut to show off and overact, instead of bringing to life what a story merely needs.  For example: A police officer can´t just be affected by the crime he is confronted with - no, it constantly has to remind him of a similar tragedy he/she has experienced in the past.

 

I am quite grateful that Brosnan never got material to overact (more).  And I would be also grateful if Craig did not get those scenes in BOND 25 either.

 

But I´m sure he´ll demand it.

[Odd Jobbies]

Thanks for putting me straight. I'll amend that to:

 

The personal angle is a either a lack of imagination on the writer's part, or big baby tantrums on the actor's part, and either way a lack of good Producing on the Producer's part. Whatever the reason it ends up being a real pain in the Director's part, as he tries to make the tosh work (unless he endorsed it, in which case serves him right)  

[SecretAgentFan]

Quite so.

 

One must be fair, however, and admit that the personal angle was absolutely en vogue during the last decade - and it´s no surprise that EON okayed it.  Also, after 20 Bond films it was probably the only way to add something new to the character and the films, something that could entice a character actor to take on Bond.  Now, however, it has yielded diminishing returns very quickly.  So, time to lose that angle, please.

[sharpshooter]

I always feel like Brosnan is being too hard on himself in light of Craig's portrayal. Even if he genuinely feels this way, I still think he did the character proud. Brosnan's biggest asset was his charisma. Like Roger Moore, I like it when Bond is a well spoken gentleman who just so happens to kill people. Brosnan managed to capture that contrast in my opinion. 

 

I think GE and TND are good Bond movies. TWINE is a low point. I'm in the minority when I say DAD is entertaining, but I don't care about that. We're probably never going to see anything like the second half extravaganza of DAD again on film, which makes it a guilty pleasure of mine. The Icarus bodysuit and the invisible car are often ridiculed concepts, but they do present the five minutes into the future sci-fi element of Bond that has been missing lately. 

 

From my point of view as a kid growing up, Brosnan was Bond, video games were coming out on a regular basis and life was good. I couldn't really complain. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree - Brosnan does not need to bang the "I wanted to be gritty, too!"-drum, just to grasp at the acclaim that Craig has been showered with.

 

And I would even go so far and say that Brosnan has a certain on-screen charisma that Craig cannot match.  I would also claim that Craig´s acting abilities are highly overrated.  So far, in every film (even his non-Bond films) he is basically doing the same thing: intensity and menace.  He does those very well, absolutely, and those are important for Bond.  But in the end, Craig has a limited acting range as well.  

 

Of all the Bond actors, I believe, Sean Connery was the most versatile because he could do everything: drama and comedy, always exuding rare charisma, with the camera just loving him.

[MISALA1994]

From my point of view as a kid growing up, Brosnan was Bond, video games were coming out on a regular basis and life was good. I couldn't really complain.

Memories...what happened to the Bond video games?

[sharpshooter]

 

From my point of view as a kid growing up, Brosnan was Bond, video games were coming out on a regular basis and life was good. I couldn't really complain.

Memories...what happened to the Bond video games?

 

 EA Games had a good run. Activision dropped the ball. 

[DavidJones]

I think Brosnan always tries to portray himself as a serious actor in an effort to get out of the suave and suited Steele/Bond/Crown triptych of roles he is known for. At his age, that road is permanently off-limits to him.

 

I believed it too, until he gave an interview in which he said his first concerns upon considering a role is whether there are good restaurants, galleries and museums around the filming location. It's not, it seems, about anything to do with the film itself.

[SecretAgentFan]

Brosnan obviously wanted to sound ironic - but those concerns actually are on most actors´ minds when choosing a project.

 

You wouldn´t believe how many actors turn down roles because they don´t like the locations or the lack of entertainment during their downtime.  And quite frankly, who can blame them?  Shooting a movie can be a long, tedious enterprise - and if you´re stuck miles away from home, having no chance to go back for the time you´re not needed, it can become a very miserable experience.

 

Sure, there´s this myth according to which the real ACTOR will do ANYTHING for a role, and some method actors might actually have done what their PR helpers like to spread around.

 

But in the end, it´s like Sir Laurence Oliver told Dustin Hoffman: "Why don´t you just act?"

[DavidJones]

The November Man 2 doesn't seem to be happening. I was super-excited for the first one, but was ultimately disappointed, despite it being the Bond film he wanted to make, more or less.

[David_M]

 

 

I seem to remember Pierce bad-mouthed each Bond film when promoting the next one and did this continually. He kept talking about "peeling back the layers", which is something we joke about on here still.

 

 

This.

 

I don't remember him complaining about a film during its promotion (hello, Craig!), but he did diss each previous one as he promoted the next, and complaining after the fact was ultimately just as destructive to what he and Eon were trying to achieve. I finally decided he was just the most disingenuous salesman in history: "Here, buy this, it's the greatest," then later: "Haha!  Yeah, that was crap, wasn't it?  I knew it all the time.  But trust me, this one is the greatest!"  

 

I actually DO think Brosnan had an influence on the scripts with all his pretentious "onion peeling," as his entries all ended up as schizophrenic mish-mashes, tonally.  On the one hand, we had outlandish plot devices and stunts based on cartoon laws of physics (if any) and on the other, a lot of (pseudo) emotional hand-wringing and pouting over betrayals and lost loves and what not.  I can almost hear Brosnan in a conference saying, "Yeah, invisible car, Koreans turning into Caucasians, fine, but give me a scene where I can pout and brood.  I'm a true thespian, you know."  

[Mr_Wint]

Did he ever say anything bad about TWINE? I can't recall it.

[plankattack]

 

 

I actually DO think Brosnan had an influence on the scripts with all his pretentious "onion peeling," as his entries all ended up as schizophrenic mish-mashes, tonally.  On the one hand, we had outlandish plot devices and stunts based on cartoon laws of physics (if any) and on the other, a lot of (pseudo) emotional hand-wringing and pouting over betrayals and lost loves and what not.  I can almost hear Brosnan in a conference saying, "Yeah, invisible car, Koreans turning into Caucasians, fine, but give me a scene where I can pout and brood.  I'm a true thespian, you know."  

 

 

Agreed. The Paris Carver backstory (which adds nothing to the standard "Bond shags villain's wife" plot device) came about as result of the need to peel onions; TWINE exists to peel onions (how many times did we hear about Apted's 7-Up during the press tour rather than Class Action or Extreme Measures!?). TWINE, which I will once more confess to being fond of, is the ultimate end-result of what the actor (amongst others) wanted to do. 

 

And DAD is what happens when you decide that doing that, didn't work......

[David_M]

That's the thing about peeling onions.

 

It can only end in tears.

[Dustin]

In Brosnan's defence, I always thought the beginning of this was the exchange with Natalya about Bond staying alone. I believe that was a first in the series, the suggestion Bond wasn't actually happy shagging around; I can't remember an earlier scene like this. And here I would argue it was mainly inserted to reflect the changing times, much like the altered Moneypenny-Bond dynamic.

[Tiin007]

I think Dustin is absolutely correct on that one. And frankly, that scene kind of came out of nowhere. I get why Bond was brooding on the beach-- his close friend (an ex-00) was now the baddie.

 

But no need to go further than that.

[SecretAgentFan]

Many exchanges in GOLDENEYE´s dialogues are very on-the-nose, but since the film had to work overtime to get mass audiences back to Bond when times had changed, more subtlety probably would have led to criticism why this or that topic wasn´t addressed more.

 

Also, let´s not forget - what we consider obvious (because we know Bond´s problems) mass audiences will find surprising and fresh.  Ask any guy on the street to explain why Bond is drinking or sleeping around, what he thinks about violence, whether there was a true love in his life...  

 

Sometimes on-the-nose dialogue is the only way to reach the mainstream audience, even if the connaisseurs cringe.

[MISALA1994]

Bottom line is that Pierce was a right man at the right time.