The Brosnan directors
Napoleon Plural
LondonPosts: 10,467MI6 Agent
Any thoughts on the recent directors? They've had a different one so far for each Pierce Brosnan film. Should they try to get more consistency going? My favourite so far is Michael Apted for TWINE but I wasn't keen on Campbell and Spottiswoode for the first two.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Comments
IMO the inconsistency of the directors is comparable to say, a new James Bond being presented film after film. Whilst the film in itself maybe good, there is no opportunity for development and someone else has to start from scratch again for the next film.
Whilst it could be argued that the repeated change of director over the Brosnan series of Bonds has allowed an influx of new ideas, each director is effectively being asked to re-invent the wheel. Directing a Bond film is not like directing a one-off film, and I'm glad to see all three directors so far have not treated it as such, and therefore each director should be allowed to mature in the role in order to use their talents to best effect.
Of the three directors, Campbell has been my favourite, naturally he had, by far, the most difficult task as of the three directors - he was in fact responsible for (at least, partially) for re-inventing the wheel and updating Bond to something a mid-90s audience would enjoy. This I think he pulled this off exceptionally well. Certainly, of the three films - GE has the most consistent look and feel to it throughout the length of the film, regarding set design and direction.
I have rather mixed views of TND, most of the time I don't enjoy the film - occassionally I do. I think Spottiswoode allowed Jonathon Pryce to over-act a little too much which took credibility away from the Carver character. Whilst I do like what he did with the scene in Bond's hotel room when Paris first arrives (although please can someone explain to me why, when Bond is expecting Carver to send someone after him - eg. an army full of heavies, he's sitting there getting drunk on half a bottle of vodka - is this supposed to improve his aim?) the film is generally too action geared, with not enough dialogue to allow character development (particularly in Carver, most of his dialogue is rather cartoonish and one-dimensional).
Going out on a limb here once again, I don't actually like TWINE all that much. I like what they tried to do with it, but it just doesn't sit right. I can't put my finger on it, I'll have to watch it a few more times (I've already had two aborted attempts at doing that already). That said though, Apted's direction is certainly very good - he handles the exploration of Bond's weaknesses and Elektra's manipulation particularly well. Also, of all of the Bond DVD commentaries, Michael Apted's is by far the most insightful given by any director and I would recommend anyone to listen to it if they haven't already.
My word! I do believe he's got it.
I think you could well be right. I've made up my mind to watch it this evening in any case, but that certainly fits in with my memory of the film.
In all honesty, I think the smoothness of the films rather depends upon the attitude that you bring with you to the viewing. I found TND to be the one most effected by long action scenes which more got in the way of the plot than anything. Then earlier this week, I had a sudden hankering to watch TND. It was an urge that surprised me, but nonetheless I had to succumb to it and to my surprise, really enjoyed the film and didn't notice the effect of the action sequences at all - thoroughly enjoying them.
However, note how Judi Dench's M seems different in each Brosnan film. A ballbreaker in GoldenEye, an ally in TND, a bit of a wimp in TWINE. Same with Cleese as Q - a fool in TWINE, but more sarcy in the new one, evidently. The Brosan films resemble the stretch of Bond's from You Only Live Twice to DAF, where Bond occupies a very different world in each one. Contrast Bond from Dr No to Goldfinger/Thunderball, where each film develops but you feel it's the same thread.
Anyhow, I've gone off TWINE, watching it on the small screen. Why? Many reasons. It looks dull and ordinary - in common with other Brosnan's, it's not colourful to look at. No quirky scenes or way-out set pieces to look forward to. The narrative is very what-happens-next. It's good melodrama, but once you KNOW what happens, it doesn't improve on repeat viewing, when you just wanna soak up the wit, set-pieces and scenery. In contrast, GoldenEye has lots of little different things to anticipate: sauna fight, Lenin Park, helicopter escape, interrogation, tank chase then big climax, even if doesn't always make much sense and the dialogue is a bit lame. What do you have after TWINE's credits? Er, a snow chase and something with helicopters and buzz saws.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
To this point, I think Martin Campbell has done the best job as a "Brosnan director." He delivered a slick, stylish action film that manages to transcend a fairly conventional storyline. I was aghast when I heard that Roger Spottiswoode had been hired for TWINE, considering he'd directed some godawful comedies in the past; but, to his credit, he did a fine job with the action scenes but he often seemed at sea with the straight drama sequences. Apted, in my opinion, was the mirror image of Spottiswoode: he's a good dramatic director, especially of women, and so the dramatic aspects of the film were intriguing and well-done. The action, though, was over-the-top and delivered very little I hadn't seen before.
I have high hopes for Tamahori. Once Were Warriors is a brilliant film--dynamically acted, intense, and hard-hitting. I've seen all of his American films, and while they are all well made and work well on the level of pure action, they've been let down by mediocre scripts. If DAD has a great storyline, chances are the series will hit the jackpot with Tamahori.
Reasons why we don't call Hardyboy 'Cassandra'!
Mind you, he does say 'if DAD has a great storyline...'!
Roger Moore 1927-2017