Brosnan: "Moore" Bond

M 'n' M

I missed Remington Steele first time around so I thought I'd catch up with it and have been watching it for the last few weeks. Seeing it now I was amazed how comic Pierce Brosnan's performance was. The role was very heavy on his humour and quite light on his fighting abilities. Suddenly, I started to see a number of connections between Brosnan and Moore. Both had a strong media presence from playing likeable heroes on the small screen. As such, they were fairly safe, bankable stars to be brought in when earlier Bond re-boots had struggled (Moore a much safer bet than another Lazenby, Brosnan more of a name than Dalton). Both focused on humour and wits rather than strength. Both were suave charmers. And when Brosnan started the role I began to see shades of the Moore films return - both in the iconic images (the tank driving through the wall, straightening his tie during an underwater sequence) and the use of gadgets. Finally, that made me wonder if that was why the producers got rid of Brosnan after Die Another Die - fearing they'd recreated the same pattern that they did with the Moore films - ie of an ageing star featuring in increasingly preposterous situations and risking making Bond more of a comedy show than hard edged thriller. Shame, because I thought he was great.

Number24

I think they made the right call. They should have replaced Moore after Moonraker too!

M 'n' M

Yes - I'd agree. Four Bonds seems to be something of a limit. Even Connery seemed to lose interest after 4. Can Daniel Craig buck the trend?

Blackleiter

M n M wrote:

I missed Remington Steele first time around so I thought I'd catch up with it and have been watching it for the last few weeks. Seeing it now I was amazed how comic Pierce Brosnan's performance was. The role was very heavy on his humour and quite light on his fighting abilities. Suddenly, I started to see a number of connections between Brosnan and Moore. Both had a strong media presence from playing likeable heroes on the small screen. As such, they were fairly safe, bankable stars to be brought in when earlier Bond re-boots had struggled (Moore a much safer bet than another Lazenby, Brosnan more of a name than Dalton). Both focused on humour and wits rather than strength. Both were suave charmers. And when Brosnan started the role I began to see shades of the Moore films return - both in the iconic images (the tank driving through the wall, straightening his tie during an underwater sequence) and the use of gadgets. Finally, that made me wonder if that was why the producers got rid of Brosnan after Die Another Die - fearing they'd recreated the same pattern that they did with the Moore films - ie of an ageing star featuring in increasingly preposterous situations and risking making Bond more of a comedy show than hard edged thriller. Shame, because I thought he was great.

I think that's a very apt comparison, although Brosnan is better with the action scenes than Moore.

hehadlotsofguts

I've always felt that Pierce never made the role his own. To me he was a Connery/Moore hybrid.

chrisisall

hehadlotsofguts wrote:

To me he was a Connery/Moore hybrid.

You say that like it's a bad thing... 8-)

hehadlotsofguts

It's not. I'm just saying that there are some instances during his tenure where he acts like Connery(walking into a hotel like he owns the place) and other times where he's like Moore. (delivery of post mortem jokes)

chrisisall

Okay, I see your point & agree. -{

AlphaOmegaSin

Don't forget the un-Moore Scenes throughout a few of his Films.

CmdrAtticus

The only way an actor can really cement a character's identity for more than four performances is when they are doing a television series - like The Saint and R. Steele. Waiting several years in between films - even at my age - seems like waiting ten years now and not only does the actor change from aging but also by the time gap. If they're good they can slip back into the tux and play it out of the mental handbook they've cooked up, but no matter how good they are it's still a daunting task. If the script is mediocre or weak, it's even more daunting. Getting a different director doesn't help in the matter either. The can either stir up the leftover stew just so it smells like it did the day before; they can add another spice to change it enough to make it different but still familiar (the Craig reboot); they can reheat it too many times so the familiarity has turned on itself and the result is..well..not too good.

This is the elephant in the room regarding a film series like Bond - time. If they could churn them out once a year or even every sixteen months the actor could get better at it if they're good and they might even be able to use the same director and crew. This was possible in the old studio system because these people were under contract and whoever ran the studio told them what film they were going to do. Now that everyone is independent and beholden to no one except the box office, it's impossible to do outside television. Everyone is a freelance contractor now and they chase after whatever sparks their creative soul (and produces a decent paycheck). This plays hell with producers trying to staff a project that needs to be done within a certain time frame. It ends up causing them to sometimes settle for directors or actors who are not their first choice.

The Bond series has lasted this long because Fleming created a character and world that has become a cultural icon with the help of EON. The fifty years it has been around has also been a detriment.

chrisisall

Much food for thought there. :007)

Jarvio

I would say that Brosnan is the closest to a Moore bond out of every bond except obviously Moore himself.... But I do agree that he was kind of a hybrid

Thunderpussy

+1 , Brosnan was an Amalgamation, a good one.

chrisisall

Thunderpussy wrote:

+1 , Brosnan was an Amalgamation, a good one.

:x

Gassy Man

Remington Steele is where I first took notice of Brosnan, and as pre-teen told everyone that he should play Bond. I fully expected him, too, but more in the vein of Moore. When they tried to make him darker and more tortured, it just never really worked for me. His strengths have always been light humor and romantic comedy.

chrisisall

Which is why, perhaps, TND is one of my top Bond movies... -{

JayCobb1045

What Gassy Man says is the problem with the Brosnan films (except GE which I quite like) for me. They had an actor who could deliver a top notch performance as a certain type of Bond, but then they tried to squeeze him into a different type of film. I think they meant to have it both ways, but TND, TWINE, and DAD just end up feeling confused. For my money, TWINE is actually the best of those three, but I know I'm in the minority on that one.

I think the writing wasn't good enough at being light to maximize Brosnan's skills, and Brosnan wasn't good enough at being heavy to maximize the potential the writing may have had.

AlphaOmegaSin

The Saint (with moore) is Bond for the Small Screen.

BIG TAM

Seeing Pierce Brosnan in the odd episode of REMINGTON STEELE, I thought he looked too boyish for Bond. His light comedy leanings just didn't seem right & would have merely been a continuation of Moore's urbane charm - a mistake as far as I was concerned. A change to tougher things was needed. So I was happy to see Dalton take on the role.
A couple of months before the release of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS I saw the Michael Caine thriller, THE FOURTH PROTOCOL. In it Brosnan plays a Russian agent assigned the task of smuggling a nuclear bomb into Britain to be exploded near a US Air Base (sound familiar?) I was astonished by Brosnan's performance, playing the ruthless, but still charmingly sexual agent to perfection. It was at that point I thought we'd lost a potentially great Bond. But Dalton still delivered things nicely.
Wind forward to 1995 & Brosnan's performance showed flashes of that earlier cold-blooded killer. But perhaps audiences were ready for more Moore stylings, which is why I now see Brosnan as the bridge between Connery & Moore. Perhaps not a bad thing for the series at the time, but I still yearn for that cold-hearted Russian agent from 1987.

Blackleiter

JayCobb1045 wrote:

For my money, TWINE is actually the best of those three, but I know I'm in the minority on that one.

You and me both! -{

chrisisall

Blackleiter wrote:

JayCobb1045 wrote:

For my money, TWINE is actually the best of those three, but I know I'm in the minority on that one.

You and me both! -{

Party on you two, Brosnans' first three all rock equally IMO. -{