. But I think the more "creative" Bond films are the ones that take liberties with the source material (Moonraker), or have no source materials to begin with (The Spy Who Loved Me & Skyfall).
As much as I love Moonraker.....can you honestly see a Fleming novel which has a bondola shooting across St Marks Square...
No. Then again, I don't feel like Moonraker owes anything to Fleming; Cubby Broccoli, Christopher Wood, etc. were at liberty to do what they wanted with the story. The result -- albeit dated, frequently cheesy & overly humorous -- is one of the most ambitious Bond films ever made in terms of concept, scale & sheer spectacle.
Skyfall is very Flemingesque. Its treatment of Bond is exemplary.
Sure, but the treatment of Bond in Skyfall is also highly problematic. With the underlying themes of Bond as some kind of "old-world" traditionalist, the attempt here is to ultimately justify his destructive and reckless nature. Previous Bond films (like Goldfinger, GoldenEye, etc.) were far more self-aware in recognizing the inherent absurdity of James Bond without sacrificing the credibility of the character. Skyfall, while beautifully made, is a thematically dishonest film.
What is not creative is yet another set piece film with thousands of extras, multiple explosians. "Spy", as much as I love it is YOLT and consequently Dr No..
They are repeating stories
Spy might be a loose retread of You Only Live Twice and Dr. No, but to say that the film isn't "creative" because of this fact is completely undermining the level of effort and ingenuity that went into making the film. Everything from the set design, the location scouting, the action set pieces, etc. showcase Lewis Gilbert and Ken Adam at the top of their game. So they decided to re-work an old formula, make several alterations & deliver a quality product... why that isn't creative?
"The secret agent. The man who was only a silhouette..." -- Ian Fleming, Moonraker
1) The Spy Who Loved Me 2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service 3) GoldenEye 4) Casino Royale 5) Goldfinger
None of the Bond films after the Connery/Lazenby/Connery era were ever as good. Even Casino Royale, which I very much enjoy, isn't as good as any of those films.
So true!
I disagree with this so much... not least of all because Diamonds Are Forever is included in this category.
While I agree that DAF is the weak link, it's not enough diminish the glory of that era. I agree with Gassy Man that it has yet to be surpassed.
I disagree with this so much... not least of all because Diamonds Are Forever is included in this category.
While I agree that DAF is the weak link, it's not enough diminish the glory of that era. I agree with Gassy Man that it has yet to be surpassed.
Maybe it's a generational thing? I don't deny that the earlier films harken back to the "glory days" of Bond, but I'm not convinced that movies like Thunderball, You Only Live Twice or Diamonds Are Forever are somehow qualitatively superior to, say, GoldenEye and Casino Royale. This feels like a supremely broad generalization.
"The secret agent. The man who was only a silhouette..." -- Ian Fleming, Moonraker
1) The Spy Who Loved Me 2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service 3) GoldenEye 4) Casino Royale 5) Goldfinger
Maybe it's a generational thing? I don't deny that the earlier films harken back to the "glory days" of Bond, but I'm not convinced that movies like Thunderball, You Only Live Twice or Diamonds Are Forever are somehow qualitatively superior to, say, GoldenEye and Casino Royale. This feels like a supremely broad generalization.
Objectively I must agree, subjectively I think it's a Connery thing.
Here's an example: Is Man Of Steel a better movie than Superman III? The answer doesn't matter because Superman III has Christopher Reeve. :007)
Is that another old joke? ) Seriously, though, I genuinely believe that the older films were qualitatively superior in general. Not every one and not in every aspect, but speaking generally about the films made during that era, I believe they were on the whole better. For me they had an air of sophistication and class about them that in general has eluded the later films. There are exceptions of course, and I believe The Living Daylights and Casino Royale have some of that feeling about them. And I will freely admit that the presence of Sean Connery has a lot to do with my opinion about this, as well as the fact that there was a novelty about the older films that is impossible to sustain for most of the 50 year span of the series. "Supremely broad generalization"? Maybe, but it feels right to this old man. :007)
[ Spy might be a loose retread of You Only Live Twice and Dr. No, but to say that the film isn't "creative" because of this fact is completely undermining the level of effort and ingenuity that went into making the film. Everything from the set design, the location scouting, the action set pieces, etc. showcase Lewis Gilbert and Ken Adam at the top of their game. So they decided to re-work an old formula, make several alterations & deliver a quality product... why that isn't creative?
Its repeating old stories like YOLT and consequently Dr No. Its like your on a treadmill turning out the same product. Whats creative? "Spy"? or a film which goes charging off in a new direction? ie Skyfall?
Oh and I am "Spy's" biggest fan. I was thunderstruck when I saw it in 1977.
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Seriously, though, I genuinely believe that the older films were qualitatively superior in general. Not every one and not in every aspect, but speaking generally about the films made during that era, I believe they were on the whole better. For me they had an air of sophistication and class about them that in general has eluded the later films. There are exceptions of course, and I believe The Living Daylights and Casino Royale have some of that feeling about them. And I will freely admit that the presence of Sean Connery has a lot to do with my opinion about this, as well as the fact that there was a novelty about the older films that is impossible to sustain for most of the 50 year span of the series. "Supremely broad generalization"? Maybe, but it feels right to this old man. :007)
And this one too. +1. What he said. Couldn't agree more.
Seriously, though, I genuinely believe that the older films were qualitatively superior in general. Not every one and not in every aspect, but speaking generally about the films made during that era, I believe they were on the whole better. For me they had an air of sophistication and class about them that in general has eluded the later films. There are exceptions of course, and I believe The Living Daylights and Casino Royale have some of that feeling about them. And I will freely admit that the presence of Sean Connery has a lot to do with my opinion about this, as well as the fact that there was a novelty about the older films that is impossible to sustain for most of the 50 year span of the series. "Supremely broad generalization"? Maybe, but it feels right to this old man. :007)
And this one too. +1. What he said. Couldn't agree more.
Glad you see it my way, my friend. Wisdom comes with age. (As well as arthritis, memory loss, paunch and balding, but let's focus on the bright side! ) )
Why thank you sir!
So now that I've completed watching the awesome trio of DN/FRWL/GF on Blu Ray, here are my review results: they're just about all equal in greatness IMO. But... there's just something about FRWL that stands out; if I had to pick ONE Bond film as objectively perfect, that'd be it. After not seeing it for a while, it was just a joy to behold.
The older films were closer to Fleming. Until YOLT they were fairly faithful, and there are reasons why YOLT isn't*. OHMSS is faithful, then from that point they diverge... but there are reasons for that too**.
Now I am not saying that the Bond films have to slavishly follow the novels to be "better"- in fact, I would say that the film TSWLM is more enjoyable than a direct book-to-film translation would have been. What I am saying is that there must be a reason to make a film other than commercialism, there must be a love of the material and a genuine appreciation and respect for the source material, and in my humble opinion the film makers have gotten it right more often than they've gotten it wrong. A genuine love for Bond does surface now and then (TWINE, CR) and prevents the film series from lapsing into cookie-cutter land.
* It proved impossible to follow TB with OHMSS owing to weather conditions in Switzerland. Fleming had posited a castle on a cliff in Japan, which was not accurate, and a substitute had to be found- Broccoli & co found a volcano...
** after the climax of OHMSS, Blofeld had to be included in DAF.
Is that another old joke? ) Seriously, though, I genuinely believe that the older films were qualitatively superior in general. Not every one and not in every aspect, but speaking generally about the films made during that era, I believe they were on the whole better. For me they had an air of sophistication and class about them that in general has eluded the later films. There are exceptions of course, and I believe The Living Daylights and Casino Royale have some of that feeling about them. And I will freely admit that the presence of Sean Connery has a lot to do with my opinion about this, as well as the fact that there was a novelty about the older films that is impossible to sustain for most of the 50 year span of the series. "Supremely broad generalization"? Maybe, but it feels right to this old man. :007)
{[]
The older films were also aimed at an older audience. The action wasn't reserved only for the physical scenes but also for the emotional ones. The dialogue was fighting with words instead of guns or whatever. Characters had multi-layered motivations grounded in reality. That was part of their sophistication -- people seemed so adult. The later films strip a lot of this away -- oh, we understand there is motivation, but it often gets reduced to something relatively simple and straightforward: love, greed, revenge.
These qualities are present in the older films, too, but the layers are more intricate. Take Fiona Volpe from Thunderball, for instance. She is not just an assassin. She enjoys killing men in particular. We see it not just in her actions, but also in the dialogue -- the one-upping ride in the Mustang, for instance, where she and Bond essentially go after each other and play it with a mixture of mystery, fear, annoyance, arrogance, and satisfaction. Bond, of course, wins, but this just makes her want to get him even more, and she must bide her time angrily. By the time she arrives in his tub, he knows he has the upper hand -- and chooses to needle her even more with the slippers. It's wonderful watching these two spar because it not only advances the plot, but you can also see two smart professionals trying to keep it from getting personal, which, of course, it does. The actors are in top form because they have something to work with. The beauty is we don't even need an explanation for her behavior -- it's enough that this is her nature. That's the kind of scene Connery wanted more of and why he grew tired of the Bond films as they turned more to action.
Another example is Goldfinger, when he reveals to the mobsters his plans. Gert Frobe is stunning playing this overgrown child with a King Midas complex and an ego to boot. He does a fantastic job making us believe one moment Goldfinger is calm and in control and the next gets all worked up about his own loony plan. He's like a little kid playing with big toys and trying to impress his parents because he has this insatiable need for attention. When he finishes and kills the mobsters, it makes perfect sense -- he's done with them, and like a spoiled, petulant child, he disposes of them. When he tells Bond he enjoyed his own lecture, he ain't lying. The set and dialogue add to this whole concept by showing the mobsters playing on the mechanical horse and talking about merry-go-rounds when the floor and such slide. This is Goldfinger's romper room and an extension of his personality.
Contrast this with a more modern interpretation. We would literally get expository dialogue explaining someone was betrayed by someone else, etc., and the actors would be relatively one-note in their expressions because the dialogue wouldn't really require anything more. Instead of a range of emotions, we'd basically get one emotion stretched out. That scene when we first meet Silva in Skyfall is a perfect example. As he walks from the elevator to Bond in what amounts to a long speech, what is the range of emotions and ideas as he tells the rat story? I can't tell because a) We don't really see his face until the end, and b) Bardem, as good an actor as he is, hardly changes his tone and inflection as he gives the speech. The dialogue amounts to an explanation, a set up so we understand in general who the character is, I guess, but where is the depth? It's not even a particularly interesting scene visually. He just walks up. Later, when he appears to be flirting with Bond, there is s suggestion -- in response to which Craig is almost entirely his usual stoic self . . . is he afraid? Amused? Intrigued? -- that as with the scene with Volpe, this theme will be picked up later. But it isn't.
People can disagree, of course, and modern audiences used to this simplicity may say it has more "intensity." By I just find it tedious and not really engaging in the way that actual conversations with adults can be.
"Everything was better in the old days!". ) there was no rain in the
Older Bond films. .......... ) some other films dumbed down
For inattentive modern audiences.
12 years a slave, Argo, The King's speech, The Hurt locker, Slum dog Millionaire
No country for old men, The Departed, Crash, a beautiful mind, million dollar baby.
The English patient ......... )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
In older, more civilised times, they used to sign a check and send the film makers on their merry to do the job.
It's morphed into focus groups, polls, script polishing, basically movies by commitee... but sometimes the artists get left alone... (QOS, anyone?).
"Everything was better in the old days!". ) there was no rain in the
Older Bond films. .......... ) some other films dumbed down
For inattentive modern audiences.
12 years a slave, Argo, The King's speech, The Hurt locker, Slum dog Millionaire
No country for old men, The Departed, Crash, a beautiful mind, million dollar baby.
The English patient ......... )
Though it's a straw man to bring in these other films as a comparison, I will say that none of them has moved me as significantly as those of the past. And it's not so much a question of dumbing down as it is of oversimplifying. The modern technique is to show less and imply more. That's both cheaper and easier. Instead of wide shots where we see several actors in a frame for the scene, for instance, we instead get a series of quick close ups that simply move back and forth between the actors. We don't really get to see much of their body language or the background in the modern context, but a quick establishing shot and one or two interspersed medium shots are supposed to give us enough information to understand what's going on.
With that same student (who also hated 12 Years a Slave, a movie that also didn't impress me like I wanted it to), I showed the Dr. Kaufman scene from Tomorrow Never Dies and asked him to compare it to the Professor Dent scene in Dr. No. He said there was no comparison. The former scene played campily, with too much comedy mixed in and a lot of cutting back and forth that interrupted the flow of what the actors were doing. On the other hand, he found the Professor Dent scene to be much more powerful, both in the way the scene created its intimacy between the two characters and the way it relied mostly on the acting. He liked that there wasn't any campiness and that the tension in the scene came from both suspense and the animosity between characters.
Gassy Man, this was PhD level work here- most fascinating! Thank you sir! -{
I've said my piece in this particular dialogue -- and still not sure I entirely agree with all of the sentiments expressed -- but yeah. Wow. That was good.
+1
"The secret agent. The man who was only a silhouette..." -- Ian Fleming, Moonraker
1) The Spy Who Loved Me 2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service 3) GoldenEye 4) Casino Royale 5) Goldfinger
I love Gassy Man's posts as he's so educated and erudite -{
Then when I get into a discussion, I can use some of his points
and people think, I'm erudite too ! )
Seriously though, they're always good reading. {[]
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I love Gassy Man's posts as he's so educated and erudite -{
Then when I get into a discussion, I can use some of his points
and people think, I'm erudite too ! )
Seriously though, they're always good reading. {[]
I showed the Dr. Kaufman scene from Tomorrow Never Dies and asked him to compare it to the Professor Dent scene in Dr. No. He said there was no comparison. The former scene played campily, with too much comedy mixed in and a lot of cutting back and forth that interrupted the flow of what the actors were doing. On the other hand, he found the Professor Dent scene to be much more powerful, both in the way the scene created its intimacy between the two characters and the way it relied mostly on the acting. He liked that there wasn't any campiness and that the tension in the scene came from both suspense and the animosity between characters.
With all due respect, I'm going to argue with you here. The Dr Kaufman scene in TND is one of the best scenes in latter-day Bond. Brosnan doesn't beat Connery (obviously, since it's an impossible task) but his performance is nuanced and delicate, and he covers a wider range of emotions than Connery had to in the corresponding scene. Dr Kaufman gets this one scene, while Prof Dent has several, yet leaves a lasting impression which makes him stand out a lot more than Dent. Anthony Dawson's performance is all on one level; Vincent Schiavelli does much with his short screen time.
Therefore acting-wise I'd say the two scenes were on a par. Terence Young bests Roger Spottiswoode in his direction, as you say, though I do not find the latter scene particularly campy or overly comedic.
As a side note, the 2m (6'6") Schiavelli spends most of the scene sitting down- perhaps this restricted Spottiswoode, since standing he'd have towered over Brosnan (or anyone else short of Richard Kiel).
Comments
No. Then again, I don't feel like Moonraker owes anything to Fleming; Cubby Broccoli, Christopher Wood, etc. were at liberty to do what they wanted with the story. The result -- albeit dated, frequently cheesy & overly humorous -- is one of the most ambitious Bond films ever made in terms of concept, scale & sheer spectacle.
Sure, but the treatment of Bond in Skyfall is also highly problematic. With the underlying themes of Bond as some kind of "old-world" traditionalist, the attempt here is to ultimately justify his destructive and reckless nature. Previous Bond films (like Goldfinger, GoldenEye, etc.) were far more self-aware in recognizing the inherent absurdity of James Bond without sacrificing the credibility of the character. Skyfall, while beautifully made, is a thematically dishonest film.
Spy might be a loose retread of You Only Live Twice and Dr. No, but to say that the film isn't "creative" because of this fact is completely undermining the level of effort and ingenuity that went into making the film. Everything from the set design, the location scouting, the action set pieces, etc. showcase Lewis Gilbert and Ken Adam at the top of their game. So they decided to re-work an old formula, make several alterations & deliver a quality product... why that isn't creative?
1) The Spy Who Loved Me 2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service 3) GoldenEye 4) Casino Royale 5) Goldfinger
While I agree that DAF is the weak link, it's not enough diminish the glory of that era. I agree with Gassy Man that it has yet to be surpassed.
Maybe it's a generational thing? I don't deny that the earlier films harken back to the "glory days" of Bond, but I'm not convinced that movies like Thunderball, You Only Live Twice or Diamonds Are Forever are somehow qualitatively superior to, say, GoldenEye and Casino Royale. This feels like a supremely broad generalization.
1) The Spy Who Loved Me 2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service 3) GoldenEye 4) Casino Royale 5) Goldfinger
Here's an example: Is Man Of Steel a better movie than Superman III? The answer doesn't matter because Superman III has Christopher Reeve. :007)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Is that another old joke?
Have been fantastic. -{
( and Chris Reeve, is Superman !) {[]
Its repeating old stories like YOLT and consequently Dr No. Its like your on a treadmill turning out the same product. Whats creative? "Spy"? or a film which goes charging off in a new direction? ie Skyfall?
Oh and I am "Spy's" biggest fan. I was thunderstruck when I saw it in 1977.
And this one too. +1. What he said. Couldn't agree more.
Glad you see it my way, my friend. Wisdom comes with age. (As well as arthritis, memory loss, paunch and balding, but let's focus on the bright side!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
That's kinda what I was trying to say. You said it better. -{
So now that I've completed watching the awesome trio of DN/FRWL/GF on Blu Ray, here are my review results: they're just about all equal in greatness IMO. But... there's just something about FRWL that stands out; if I had to pick ONE Bond film as objectively perfect, that'd be it. After not seeing it for a while, it was just a joy to behold.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Now I am not saying that the Bond films have to slavishly follow the novels to be "better"- in fact, I would say that the film TSWLM is more enjoyable than a direct book-to-film translation would have been. What I am saying is that there must be a reason to make a film other than commercialism, there must be a love of the material and a genuine appreciation and respect for the source material, and in my humble opinion the film makers have gotten it right more often than they've gotten it wrong. A genuine love for Bond does surface now and then (TWINE, CR) and prevents the film series from lapsing into cookie-cutter land.
* It proved impossible to follow TB with OHMSS owing to weather conditions in Switzerland. Fleming had posited a castle on a cliff in Japan, which was not accurate, and a substitute had to be found- Broccoli & co found a volcano...
** after the climax of OHMSS, Blofeld had to be included in DAF.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
My wish is Property Of A Lady with Tim Dalton... -{
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj1kfvCbdRk&feature=youtu.be
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
The older films were also aimed at an older audience. The action wasn't reserved only for the physical scenes but also for the emotional ones. The dialogue was fighting with words instead of guns or whatever. Characters had multi-layered motivations grounded in reality. That was part of their sophistication -- people seemed so adult. The later films strip a lot of this away -- oh, we understand there is motivation, but it often gets reduced to something relatively simple and straightforward: love, greed, revenge.
These qualities are present in the older films, too, but the layers are more intricate. Take Fiona Volpe from Thunderball, for instance. She is not just an assassin. She enjoys killing men in particular. We see it not just in her actions, but also in the dialogue -- the one-upping ride in the Mustang, for instance, where she and Bond essentially go after each other and play it with a mixture of mystery, fear, annoyance, arrogance, and satisfaction. Bond, of course, wins, but this just makes her want to get him even more, and she must bide her time angrily. By the time she arrives in his tub, he knows he has the upper hand -- and chooses to needle her even more with the slippers. It's wonderful watching these two spar because it not only advances the plot, but you can also see two smart professionals trying to keep it from getting personal, which, of course, it does. The actors are in top form because they have something to work with. The beauty is we don't even need an explanation for her behavior -- it's enough that this is her nature. That's the kind of scene Connery wanted more of and why he grew tired of the Bond films as they turned more to action.
Another example is Goldfinger, when he reveals to the mobsters his plans. Gert Frobe is stunning playing this overgrown child with a King Midas complex and an ego to boot. He does a fantastic job making us believe one moment Goldfinger is calm and in control and the next gets all worked up about his own loony plan. He's like a little kid playing with big toys and trying to impress his parents because he has this insatiable need for attention. When he finishes and kills the mobsters, it makes perfect sense -- he's done with them, and like a spoiled, petulant child, he disposes of them. When he tells Bond he enjoyed his own lecture, he ain't lying. The set and dialogue add to this whole concept by showing the mobsters playing on the mechanical horse and talking about merry-go-rounds when the floor and such slide. This is Goldfinger's romper room and an extension of his personality.
Contrast this with a more modern interpretation. We would literally get expository dialogue explaining someone was betrayed by someone else, etc., and the actors would be relatively one-note in their expressions because the dialogue wouldn't really require anything more. Instead of a range of emotions, we'd basically get one emotion stretched out. That scene when we first meet Silva in Skyfall is a perfect example. As he walks from the elevator to Bond in what amounts to a long speech, what is the range of emotions and ideas as he tells the rat story? I can't tell because a) We don't really see his face until the end, and b) Bardem, as good an actor as he is, hardly changes his tone and inflection as he gives the speech. The dialogue amounts to an explanation, a set up so we understand in general who the character is, I guess, but where is the depth? It's not even a particularly interesting scene visually. He just walks up. Later, when he appears to be flirting with Bond, there is s suggestion -- in response to which Craig is almost entirely his usual stoic self . . . is he afraid? Amused? Intrigued? -- that as with the scene with Volpe, this theme will be picked up later. But it isn't.
People can disagree, of course, and modern audiences used to this simplicity may say it has more "intensity." By I just find it tedious and not really engaging in the way that actual conversations with adults can be.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Older Bond films.
For inattentive modern audiences.
12 years a slave, Argo, The King's speech, The Hurt locker, Slum dog Millionaire
No country for old men, The Departed, Crash, a beautiful mind, million dollar baby.
The English patient .........
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Not only that but Argo only runs for 130 minutes, and I know for
A fact it actually took months.
It's morphed into focus groups, polls, script polishing, basically movies by commitee... but sometimes the artists get left alone... (QOS, anyone?).
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
With that same student (who also hated 12 Years a Slave, a movie that also didn't impress me like I wanted it to), I showed the Dr. Kaufman scene from Tomorrow Never Dies and asked him to compare it to the Professor Dent scene in Dr. No. He said there was no comparison. The former scene played campily, with too much comedy mixed in and a lot of cutting back and forth that interrupted the flow of what the actors were doing. On the other hand, he found the Professor Dent scene to be much more powerful, both in the way the scene created its intimacy between the two characters and the way it relied mostly on the acting. He liked that there wasn't any campiness and that the tension in the scene came from both suspense and the animosity between characters.
I just like to poke the bear, now and then.
( that's not a euphemism, by the way
I've said my piece in this particular dialogue -- and still not sure I entirely agree with all of the sentiments expressed -- but yeah. Wow. That was good.
+1
1) The Spy Who Loved Me 2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service 3) GoldenEye 4) Casino Royale 5) Goldfinger
Then when I get into a discussion, I can use some of his points
and people think, I'm erudite too !
Seriously though, they're always good reading. {[]
++1
With all due respect, I'm going to argue with you here. The Dr Kaufman scene in TND is one of the best scenes in latter-day Bond. Brosnan doesn't beat Connery (obviously, since it's an impossible task) but his performance is nuanced and delicate, and he covers a wider range of emotions than Connery had to in the corresponding scene. Dr Kaufman gets this one scene, while Prof Dent has several, yet leaves a lasting impression which makes him stand out a lot more than Dent. Anthony Dawson's performance is all on one level; Vincent Schiavelli does much with his short screen time.
Therefore acting-wise I'd say the two scenes were on a par. Terence Young bests Roger Spottiswoode in his direction, as you say, though I do not find the latter scene particularly campy or overly comedic.
As a side note, the 2m (6'6") Schiavelli spends most of the scene sitting down- perhaps this restricted Spottiswoode, since standing he'd have towered over Brosnan (or anyone else short of Richard Kiel).