Brosnan will certainly go down as a popular Bond . . . he's to the franchise what McDonalds is to restaurants in that he strikes the right chord with a lot of people, even if what he has to offer to others is rather limited, predictable, and disposable. Does that make him great? I don't think so, any more than it makes McDonalds a great restaurant. However, for people who love McDonalds, that's good enough, and if they're the ones expressing the opinion, then McDonalds makes the list.
In a kind of metrosexual, blown-dry way, Brosnan was probably what the 1990s needed for Bond, as the decade struggled to get out of the shadow of the plasticky 1980s. Did his performances ever rise to greatness? No.
In fact, I think Brosnan often miscalculated, trying to toughen his Bond up or give him a darker subtext that blunted his humor and natural charm, something that should have been played up even more. It gave him a forced quality that wasn't always believable, especially in the tough guy moments because it seemed to be coming from somewhere other than within. Put another way, if Connery was born to play James Bond, then Pierce Brosnan by contrast seemed manufactured to play James Bond. He was lucky that he fit a contemporary stereotype that people wanted.
I wouldn't have expected him to be a smirking Roger Moore clone, either, but watch his performance in "The Thomas Crown Affair" to see the kind of smoothness that was frequently missing from Brosnan's Bond. That the films -- any of them -- were entertaining to varying degrees but nothing remarkable didn't help, but Brosnan didn't always seem sure how to play Bond, light one moment, heavy the next, biting women while kissing them, and so forth. When an earlier poster said that Brosnan's attempts to make Bond tougher gave him a look of being constipated, he was right.
Interestingly, the scenes where he did play tough generally worked only because they were combined with "cool" humor -- such as his tossle with Xenia ending with the patriachal "No, no, no . . ." That cocky guy was Bond. Brosnan was always better at playing smart than tough, and with his catalog model features, he should have gone that route.
After all that, you'd think I don't like Brosnan. In fact, I do. Way back in the mid-80s when his name was announced (long after I'd been telling people that that guy on "Remington Steele" would make a good Bond), I was excited. Ten years later, when I saw "Goldeneye," I was disappointed that I found him and the film underwhelming. When the more spirited "Tomorrow Never Dies" came out, I thought that maybe they were getting closer to finding Brosnan's comfort level, but they never quite got it right.
Perhaps that's why Daniel Craig is enjoying such widespread popularity now. Unlike Brosnan, who was pretty much welcomed to the role with open arms by the general public, he had the additional enormous burden of having to convince people who believe Bond should look like a contemporary mannequin that he was handsome enough for the role. I think he's won many, if not, most of them over, but for the rest of us who were more interested in Bond's attitude and toughness, Craig hasn't had to prove anything. Like Connery (and Lazenby), when he appears onscreen, he carries himself with a natural machismo that feels right for the character. And the producers made sure that the script for "Casino Royale" capitalized on what Craig brought to the screen. If anyone in the last 20 years will go down in history as a great James Bond, it'll be Daniel Craig.
I hope that when all the Casino Royale hype and overrating dies down that people will come to terms that Craig was good (but not that good) just like the movie (which, IMO was a weak attempt).
Then the papers can stop slandering Brosnan and turning him into the Roger Moore of his time, which is a shame, as those two are my favorite and are the most slandered instead of the overrated Connery, the despicable Dalton and Craig (but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, as this is his first).
Ouch JFF, I'm on the verge of tears Your last post made me feel like we all needed to bust out in a chorus of "Why can't we be friends? Why can't we be friends?"
I have a dream, that one day, Connery and Moore fans, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig and even Lazenby fans will one day live in peace and harmony; each respecting and admiring all of the actors' strengths and weaknesses - and all, yes I mean all the actors wil go down as great Bonds.
Brosnan will certainly go down as a popular Bond . . . he's to the franchise what McDonalds is to restaurants in that he strikes the right chord with a lot of people, even if what he has to offer to others is rather limited, predictable, and disposable. Does that make him great? I don't think so, any more than it makes McDonalds a great restaurant. However, for people who love McDonalds, that's good enough, and if they're the ones expressing the opinion, then McDonalds makes the list.
Wow, McDonalds, what do you really think of him? ) I wouldn't call Brosnan a McDonalds. I would call him a Russian Tea Room in that, to me, Brosnan is the equivalent of fine dining. He is IMO a great Bond (a distinction that only himself, Connery and Moore achieved IMO) and like a fine champagne or caviar, Brosnan only gets finer as time goes by. (Before people interject and say something like, "But caviar goes off.." I was using it as an analogy to explain why I consider Brosnan to be anything but a McDonalds. )
When an earlier poster said that Brosnan's attempts to make Bond tougher gave him a look of being constipated, he was right.
I do agree that Connery, Lazenby and Craig are tougher, but that doesn't mean that Brosnan wasn't. I think he was very tough. One example; the party scene in TND.
Perhaps that's why Daniel Craig is enjoying such widespread popularity now. Unlike Brosnan, who was pretty much welcomed to the role with open arms by the general public, he had the additional enormous burden of having to convince people who believe Bond should look like a contemporary mannequin that he was handsome enough for the role. I think he's won many, if not, most of them over, but for the rest of us who were more interested in Bond's attitude and toughness, Craig hasn't had to prove anything. Like Connery (and Lazenby), when he appears onscreen, he carries himself with a natural machismo that feels right for the character. And the producers made sure that the script for "Casino Royale" capitalized on what Craig brought to the screen. If anyone in the last 20 years will go down in history as a great James Bond, it'll be Daniel Craig.
One quick comment; I think that Brosnan had the attitude and toughness as well. But more importantly, I think that Craig lacks the suaveness which IMO makes a great Bond. The reasons why I think that Connery, Moore and Brosnan are each great Bonds (apart from each delivering brilliant performances IMO) is that each possess a combination of suaveness and ruthlessness. Craig has the ruthlessness, but I don't think he has the suavness. That is but one reason why I doubt that Craig will ever be considered a great Bond (at least by me.)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
JFF, when are you going to write the post defending Moore and Brosnan?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I think Daniel Craig's performance was spot on in CR- I think he perhaps lacked the suaveness of others and was a bit rough around the edges because I think Bond would have been at that stage as it's his first assignment.
Hey, Dan, I was going to say the same thing Steed eloquently stated here. I fully expect Craig to be more suave in the next film. Expect his hair more groomed and his opportunities to get suited up much more frequent.
It's funny, but to me, Brosnan was a populist Bond, in that like McDonalds, he reached a very wide audience. Craig, despite his so-called working class look, ironically wasn't, at least initially, because he didn't fit the stereotypical image as easily as Brosnan did for mainstream viewers, especially in the U.S. Now, of course, Craig is defining, or perhaps, redefining that image, in many ways taking us back to the roots of what jumpstarted the franchise in the 1960s.
I really pulled for Brosnan early on, in much the same way I pulled for Dalton after his debut. Though I never expected him to rise to Connery's level of greatness in the role, I had expected better than he delivered. C'est la vie.
Hey, Dan, I was going to say the same thing Steed eloquently stated here. I fully expect Craig to be more suave in the next film. Expect his hair more groomed and his opportunities to get suited up much more frequent.
The problem is that he's 37. A 37 year-old man shouldn't learn to become sauve; he should be suave full stop. Connery whose Bond in DN was in his early 30's, was IMO extremely suave, but also a little rough around the edges. I know that some consider Craig's Bond to be suave (each to his own), however my feeling is that he wasn't suave at all and it (along with several other factors) greatly lessened his performance.
It's funny, but to me, Brosnan was a populist Bond, in that like McDonalds, he reached a very wide audience.
This site is beginning to feel like a restaurant guide.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
To be honest I'm not really sure what Craig's arc is in CR. I mean, he still makes mistakes at the end imo by rushing and shooting everyone so White gets the money and Vesper gets killed... It's as if anything you don't like about Craig, it's because he's not actually Bond yet... a get-out clause
Hey, Dan, I was going to say the same thing Steed eloquently stated here. I fully expect Craig to be more suave in the next film. Expect his hair more groomed and his opportunities to get suited up much more frequent.
The problem is that he's 37. A 37 year-old man shouldn't learn to become sauve; he should be suave full stop. Connery whose Bond in DN was in his early 30's, was IMO extremely suave, but also a little rough around the edges. I know that some consider Craig's Bond to be suave (each to his own), however my feeling is that he wasn't suave at all and it (along with several other factors) greatly lessened his performance.
It's funny, but to me, Brosnan was a populist Bond, in that like McDonalds, he reached a very wide audience.
This site is beginning to feel like a restaurant guide.
Yeah, but let's be fair, Dan. Connery, and all of the other Bonds, was stepping into the shoes of a character who was already supposed to be suave, as evidenced by the introduction scene at the casino.
Craig's version in "Casino Royale" is not that guy, yet -- he's only at the "event horizon" of becoming that guy. I know it's a revision of the character, and that Craig is older than Connery was when he debuted, but that's what this film is predicated upon. And Craig did provide genuine moments of "suaveness," including his repartee with M, his gambling sequence with Dimitrios and subsequent seduction of Solange, his scene on the train, and his final scene with Mr. White. He was roughest in the action sequences, where that sort of physicality definitely was called for. (I really don't want to see Bond as an unflappable clotheshorse when he's punching someone out or evading capture by the enemy; he's more interesting as a macho brute with moments of suaveness than the other way around, and I found Craig's performance in this regard pretty well rounded.)
To be honest I'm not really sure what Craig's arc is in CR. I mean, he still makes mistakes at the end imo by rushing and shooting everyone so White gets the money and Vesper gets killed... It's as if anything you don't like about Craig, it's because he's not actually Bond yet... a get-out clause
I don't think the arc was, or should be, intended to be resolved in one film. To me, Bond's evolution should occur in many installments, as is the case in the books.
Gassy Man, first let me say that I am happy that you loved Craig's performance. I might disagree with you (and I do ) but I am happy that other people really appreciated Craig's performance. I am not someone who needs company in my misery. My problem is three-fold:
1)I know you say that Craig is not that guy yet, however it seems false to me. If Henry Cavill, or some other 20 something, was cast as Bond, I could accept that. But Craig is in his late 30's (and he looks much older than that IMO) so it doesn't seem realistic that someone like him could learn to be suave. Additionally, he already knows what kind of drink he likes, as well as what type of women he prefers, so I am just unconvinced that Craig's Bond would have to learn to be suave.
2)I do agree that Craig did show one moment of suaveness. His final scene was IMO quite suave (although not as suave IMO as Connery, Moore and Brosnan). However to me, that was all there was. I don't agree that he showed suaveness in any of his other scenes. I may be a minority on this but IMO Craig's Bond features only a mimimum amount of suaveness.
3)Off the topic of suaveness, you mentioned his action scenes. Here's the thing. I consider each of the Bonds to be quite tough. Some of them are more tough than others, but all of them (including the unfairly maligned Moore) were IMO convincingly tough. Craig is obviously among the toughest of the six however I would like to emphasise that IMO all of the Bonds were convincingly tough. Nonetheless, he was extremely tough. My problem is exactly why you like him. You described him as a 'macho brute' in contrast to to an 'unflappable clotheshorse.' My feeling is that I do not want Bond to be a 'macho brute.' I don't think that any of the Bonds were 'unflappable clotheshorse;' rather IMO the best Bonds (Connery, Brosnan, Moore) were gentleman who could also be incredibly tough and ruthless. Craig IMO wasn't much of a gentleman. At the end of the day, Craig does not seem like Bond to me (the way that I imagine Bond to be.)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
At risk of driving Dan apes*** with another disagreement....
The definition of "suave," from American Heritage Dictionary:
suave (swäv) adj.- smoothly agreeable and courteous.
Using this definition (which is one that is repeated in a number of dictionaries, in some form), here are a number of examples of Craig portraying such a quality, and quite well:
* In the casino in Nassau, when he approaches the poker table and introduces his presence, with the saturnine smile and gentlemanly, "You mind if I join you?" And later on, at the end of the game, when he has Demitrious owned in the game and knows it and the dealer at first refuses to allow him to bet the Aston Martin, Craig's Bond jumps in with jolly and politeness and insists that the bet be made.
* In the train, as he wears the Brioni suit quite well, handles his drinks with flair and panache, and conducts himself with a smooth politeness (albeit sharpness) in his conversation with Vesper.
* His demeanor during the poker tournament at the table.
* The hospital scene with Vesper, which very much reminisces of Connery and Brosnan.
He may not put on a constant smarm, but Craig was suave when the situation called for it, and he wasn't when it didn't. That's how Bond as Fleming conceived him is, and that's the way he should be.
And just one more point: the cinematic incarnation of Bond has changed tremendously over time. You can't tell me that Bond was stylistically identical from Connery to Brosnan. Using the three most associated with the role before Craig (Connery, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan), the role began with Connery as the unflappable, old money English gentleman with quite a bit of political incorrectness with a style that agreed with late 50s/60s cinema and a substance that vastly subverted the conservative culture of the time (and played to fellow subversives). Moore was the "baby boomer in college" Bond who played up the sexual promiscuity and humor in a way that very much agreed with the tone of pop culture of the 70s and early 80s. Dalton was the more serious, morally conscious "Reagan-Thatcher" Bond who cared a great deal about his job and was more in line with a sociopolitical culture that reignited anti-communism in light of the 80s military buildup and that became more adversarial toward drugs (notice how the plots of both of his films involved drugs) and the emergence of AIDS. Brosnan was the more polished, businesslike Bond of the mid-late 90s in the mold of a world-traveling multinational corporate executive in light of a booming neoliberal economy.
The world changed a lot from Connery to Brosnan, and their Bonds changed appropriately. The world has changed more from Brosnan to Craig, though, than it has at any other point in the lineage of the cinematic Bond from one actor to another. This is no longer the mid-late 90s, with the booming economy and relative geopolitical stability. This is the post-9/11, War on Terror 21st century, with the knowledge that there are enemies out there throughout the world who want to destroy western civilization as it is and who opperate as non-national entities outside of the purview of international treaties and conventions. This is a world that requires a hero who is mobile and athletic, and tougher (mentally and physically) than before to remain relevant to today. Bourne is in this mold, but he is his own story and is not so much the guy who saves the world (or even operates against the enemy). Jack Bauer is a domestic security agent, and he's a tv guy, so he is a bit small. That leaves Bond, the hero of the world, with the responsibility to pick up the slack. And to do that, he has to change more than he has from one actor to another. I would argue that he would probably have to drop some of the suaveness we've seen before in order to fulfill what he needs to for this time, but still remain suave when he has to be. And Craig, Campbell the screenwriters, and the producers, IMO, got the adaptation of the character to these times spot on.
Gassy Man, first let me say that I am happy that you loved Craig's performance. I might disagree with you (and I do ) but I am happy that other people really appreciated Craig's performance. I am not someone who needs company in my misery. My problem is three-fold:
1)I know you say that Craig is not that guy yet, however it seems false to me. If Henry Cavill, or some other 20 something, was cast as Bond, I could accept that. But Craig is in his late 30's (and he looks much older than that IMO) so it doesn't seem realistic that someone like him could learn to be suave. Additionally, he already knows what kind of drink he likes, as well as what type of women he prefers, so I am just unconvinced that Craig's Bond would have to learn to be suave.
2)I do agree that Craig did show one moment of suaveness. His final scene was IMO quite suave (although not as suave IMO as Connery, Moore and Brosnan). However to me, that was all there was. I don't agree that he showed suaveness in any of his other scenes. I may be a minority on this but IMO Craig's Bond features only a mimimum amount of suaveness.
3)Off the topic of suaveness, you mentioned his action scenes. Here's the thing. I consider each of the Bonds to be quite tough. Some of them are more tough than others, but all of them (including the unfairly maligned Moore) were IMO convincingly tough. Craig is obviously among the toughest of the six however I would like to emphasise that IMO all of the Bonds were convincingly tough. Nonetheless, he was extremely tough. My problem is exactly why you like him. You described him as a 'macho brute' in contrast to to an 'unflappable clotheshorse.' My feeling is that I do not want Bond to be a 'macho brute.' I don't think that any of the Bonds were 'unflappable clotheshorse;' rather IMO the best Bonds (Connery, Brosnan, Moore) were gentleman who could also be incredibly tough and ruthless. Craig IMO wasn't much of a gentleman. At the end of the day, Craig does not seem like Bond to me (the way that I imagine Bond to be.)
I think Klaus gives a pretty good rundown of points I'd agree with, though I'd also say I agree with you that each of the Bonds is tough in his own way. Although we westerners now live in a "youth culture," where we somehow assume everything meaningful happens by the time we're 21 (actually, one study in the U.S. found that the average American now reaches adult maturity at 26, compared to 19 a quarter century ago), I don't think just because Bond is in his 30s he's fully developed his personality and habits. Traditionally, men have been viewed as not really becoming interesting until they're in their 30s or 40s, when they become a bit more settled and refined, one of the reasons that heroes in older films and classic literature tend to be older. As an orphan struggling for identity, the Bond in "Casino Royale" is believable to me as someone with the basic qualities of civility but enough room for development into the guy we know.
One point I want to clarify though is the "macho brute" comment -- I'm specifically referring there to the physical, essentially fight, scenes. To me, Connery, Lazenby, and Craig all bring that quality to bear, as well as to some degree Dalton. They shed the pretense of gentlemanly behavior in favor of a more raw demeanor, with Craig being most so in this regard. I'm not sure Moore or Brosnan ever really accomplished this, though there may be moments. I find the idea of Bond being the sort that for the most part keeps such behavior in check until sufficiently provoked interesting and appealing -- it gives him an edge that is both in the books and might even surprise me (as in "Casino Royale," when Bond comes crashing through the dry wall and takes the nail out of his shoulder). Bond being smooth and hardly working up a sweat in such scenes (or, say, adjusting his tie) bores me, and such behavior feels more like a parody of the character/genre than genuine Bond.
I think Klaus gives a pretty good rundown of points I'd agree with, though I'd also say I agree with you that each of the Bonds is tough in his own way. Although we westerners now live in a "youth culture," where we somehow assume everything meaningful happens by the time we're 21 (actually, one study in the U.S. found that the average American now reaches adult maturity at 26, compared to 19 a quarter century ago), I don't think just because Bond is in his 30s he's fully developed his personality and habits. Traditionally, men have been viewed as not really becoming interesting until they're in their 30s or 40s, when they become a bit more settled and refined, one of the reasons that heroes in older films and classic literature tend to be older. As an orphan struggling for identity, the Bond in "Casino Royale" is believable to me as someone with the basic qualities of civility but enough room for development into the guy we know.
That's perfectly reasonable. I guess it comes down to wether or not the reboot, and the way it was executed, was convincing. Obviously it was to you, however it wasn't to me. That's fine though, as while I didn't love CR (and I would have preferred that there not be a reboot), I did enjoy it. It is certainly in my top 13.
One point I want to clarify though is the "macho brute" comment -- I'm specifically referring there to the physical, essentially fight, scenes. To me, Connery, Lazenby, and Craig all bring that quality to bear, as well as to some degree Dalton. They shed the pretense of gentlemanly behavior in favor of a more raw demeanor, with Craig being most so in this regard. I'm not sure Moore or Brosnan ever really accomplished this, though there may be moments. I find the idea of Bond being the sort that for the most part keeps such behavior in check until sufficiently provoked interesting and appealing -- it gives him an edge that is both in the books and might even surprise me (as in "Casino Royale," when Bond comes crashing through the dry wall and takes the nail out of his shoulder). Bond being smooth and hardly working up a sweat in such scenes (or, say, adjusting his tie) bores me, and such behavior feels more like a parody of the character/genre than genuine Bond.
I also loved the fight scenes. I don't think they are unique among the Bond films, but I did like them alot. My problem, is that to me, Craig's Bond came across as a 'macho brute' even when he wasn't fighting. I was never convinced that Craig's Bond fitted in at Casino Royale, as IMO he appeared too much like a brute. I think he was more convincing crashing through a wall than he was sipping a martini at a poker table. With one exception; the final scene, in which he was actually quite good.
You mentioned adjusting Bond's tie; I think it comes down to the context. Sometimes it may appear like a parody, but if the context is appropiate and the scene is well-written I think it can be great.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
The definition of "suave," from American Heritage Dictionary:
suave (swäv) adj.- smoothly agreeable and courteous.
Using this definition (which is one that is repeated in a number of dictionaries, in some form), here are a number of examples of Craig portraying such a quality, and quite well:
* In the casino in Nassau, when he approaches the poker table and introduces his presence, with the saturnine smile and gentlemanly, "You mind if I join you?" And later on, at the end of the game, when he has Demitrious owned in the game and knows it and the dealer at first refuses to allow him to bet the Aston Martin, Craig's Bond jumps in with jolly and politeness and insists that the bet be made.
* In the train, as he wears the Brioni suit quite well, handles his drinks with flair and panache, and conducts himself with a smooth politeness (albeit sharpness) in his conversation with Vesper.
* His demeanor during the poker tournament at the table.
* The hospital scene with Vesper, which very much reminisces of Connery and Brosnan.
He may not put on a constant smarm, but Craig was suave when the situation called for it, and he wasn't when it didn't. That's how Bond as Fleming conceived him is, and that's the way he should be.
I'll ignore your last comment. I will just say that you hit it on the head; "and quite well." I don't think he did portray suaveness very well. With the exception of the final scene and possibly the train scene, I was not at all convinced by his so-called 'suaveness.' You don't agre, fine, but that's what I think.
And just one more point: the cinematic incarnation of Bond has changed tremendously over time. You can't tell me that Bond was stylistically identical from Connery to Brosnan.
No, of course not. But I have never said that I want all Bonds to be identical. There are however certain characteristics which all of the Bonds have seemingly possessed; among these are gentlemanly suaveness and deadly ruthlessness. Craig had the latter but IMO he lacked the former. This could be deliberate on his part or it could simply my subjective interpretation of his performance. If, as other have suggested, it is deliberate as he will 'learn' to be suave, then I find it to be false and unconvincing. If it is my subjective interpetation, then that's because I don't believe that all of the actors who played Bonds did an amazing job, and IMO Craig did not do a great job.
The world changed a lot from Connery to Brosnan, and their Bonds changed appropriately. The world has changed more from Brosnan to Craig, though, than it has at any other point in the lineage of the cinematic Bond from one actor to another. This is no longer the mid-late 90s, with the booming economy and relative geopolitical stability. This is the post-9/11, War on Terror 21st century, with the knowledge that there are enemies out there throughout the world who want to destroy western civilization as it is and who opperate as non-national entities outside of the purview of international treaties and conventions. This is a world that requires a hero who is mobile and athletic, and tougher (mentally and physically) than before to remain relevant to today. Bourne is in this mold, but he is his own story and is not so much the guy who saves the world (or even operates against the enemy). Jack Bauer is a domestic security agent, and he's a tv guy, so he is a bit small. That leaves Bond, the hero of the world, with the responsibility to pick up the slack. And to do that, he has to change more than he has from one actor to another. I would argue that he would probably have to drop some of the suaveness we've seen before in order to fulfill what he needs to for this time, but still remain suave when he has to be. And Craig, Campbell the screenwriters, and the producers, IMO, got the adaptation of the character to these times spot on.
Well, I don't agree. I never said that Craig's Bond was too tough (even though he does look like a bodybuilder.) However what I do think, is that one characteristic (among others)which differentiates Bond from those other agents is that he's a gentleman. Unlike Bourne and Bauer, Bond to me is a gentleman, who's sophisticated and suave but who's also capable of great ruthlessness; Moore killed Sandor in cold blood and Brosnan was about to torture Zao. I'm not asking Bond to be a wimpy fun-loving playboy, as I don't think any of the Bonds were, but I am asking Bond to be more than a 'macho brute.' Additionally, you mention how the world has changed and all that, but CR isn't a hyper-realistic post-9/11 thriller. In fact, I would argue that it is very much a fantasy. It has a hero who in order to become a '00' has to kill 2 people, accomplishes rather extraordinary physical feats (such as his staying under water for all of eternity) and who battles a villain (who cries blood) in a poker game. It's not exactly the work of someone like Le Carre. That's not a criticism as none of the Bonds were all that realistic. However, I don't want Bond to become too 'realistic' and lose one of the essential characteristics which IMO makes him Bond. I'm not saying that when I think of Bond I only think of suaveness. But suaveness, which IMO Craig lacked, is IMO an essential Bondian quality; and so considering that I wasn't watching some real-life thriller, I don't think it's too much to ask of the filmmakers that they not strip some of the (IMO) most important qualities from Bond. Plus, you mentioned 24 and Bourne; to me, Bauer is a self-righteous thug, while Bourne is a teenage Bond. I watch Bond for a reason, and that reason wasn't entirely provided by CR.
My point is that within the context of CR, I think that Bond could have been more of a gentleman. Part of it is the script, however a major part of it is Craig, who never convinced me that he is someone who drinks a martini or would be at a fancy casino. That Bond wasn't more of a gentleman is a major reason why I don't love CR. If it is deliberate, as he is meant to evolve, then the reboot and its execution strikes me as entirely false. Either way, I would have loved for someone like Owen to be Bond.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
To be honest I'm not really sure what Craig's arc is in CR. I mean, he still makes mistakes at the end imo by rushing and shooting everyone so White gets the money and Vesper gets killed... It's as if anything you don't like about Craig, it's because he's not actually Bond yet... a get-out clause
I don't think the arc was, or should be, intended to be resolved in one film. To me, Bond's evolution should occur in many installments, as is the case in the books.
For me, this was one of the beg letdowns in CR...it was set up to be a 'character-driven' story with Bond as the main character. It seemed like everyone was raving about the character arc when none really existed. Bond starts out the movie as a hardened, flawed killer, and at the end of a movie is a hardened, flawed killer with a nicer suit - oh, and his gun changed, too. CR simply doesn't contain a story arc...if it continues over the next few films, that would be great. But to use an analogy, a good pass in American Football is only a good pass if it's caught at the other end. I can't say CR is a good story until I'm given the whole story.
To be honest I'm not really sure what Craig's arc is in CR. I mean, he still makes mistakes at the end imo by rushing and shooting everyone so White gets the money and Vesper gets killed... It's as if anything you don't like about Craig, it's because he's not actually Bond yet... a get-out clause
I don't think the arc was, or should be, intended to be resolved in one film. To me, Bond's evolution should occur in many installments, as is the case in the books.
For me, this was one of the beg letdowns in CR...it was set up to be a 'character-driven' story with Bond as the main character. It seemed like everyone was raving about the character arc when none really existed. Bond starts out the movie as a hardened, flawed killer, and at the end of a movie is a hardened, flawed killer with a nicer suit - oh, and his gun changed, too. CR simply doesn't contain a story arc...if it continues over the next few films, that would be great. But to use an analogy, a good pass in American Football is only a good pass if it's caught at the other end. I can't say CR is a good story until I'm given the whole story.
But that's the tragedy of the character, Darenhat. In "Casino Royale," he gets a chance to get out of the business, to be a "normal" person, but it backfires, and the lesson he learns is to not let his emotions affect his judgment. The book isn't quite as harsh -- Bond's "The bitch is dead" line is more of a swallowing of his grief and anger at that moment than it is in the film, where it is delivered quite coldly and, strangely enough, almost casually -- but it does signify that Bond kicks himself for thinking that he might be entitled to something he is not: happiness. I think Fleming always intended Bond to be a tragic figure. His lifestyle and actions take both a physical and psychological toll on Bond, and his relationships with women are arguably destructive, both to himself and ultimately to them. That he would get a chance to redeem himself with Tracy, and that she would die because of her association with him, puts the last nail in the coffin to me for Bond's potential for happiness.
Of course, the films generally made the character lighter and more "fun" than the books do, but "Casino Royale" was trying to capture the spirit of Fleming's vision, albeit with a retro sensibility about the Connery films.
But that's the tragedy of the character, Darenhat. In "Casino Royale," he gets a chance to get out of the business, to be a "normal" person, but it backfires, and the lesson he learns is to not let his emotions affect his judgment. The book isn't quite as harsh -- Bond's "The bitch is dead" line is more of a swallowing of his grief and anger at that moment than it is in the film, where it is delivered quite coldly and, strangely enough, almost casually -- but it does signify that Bond kicks himself for thinking that he might be entitled to something he is not: happiness.
I agree that this is the character arc in the book...Bond spends a great deal of time (in the book) reflecting on his career in the Service and chooses to spend a life with Vesper, but ultimately loses that - but that's not the way the movie is. Again, in the book, Bond is not so much a rookie agent. In the film, we see Bond get his 00 and this is basically his first mission, so as audience members, we really have little history as to what Bond is retiring from...in fact, what we see of Bond in the movie is someone who (even in a mischievous way) actually finds happiness in his job, so the lure of quitting his short tenure as a 00 is dimmed.
It's nice having read the book in the sense that I know what the character arc is. But I feel the film lacked a lot of the important elements that made the story truly what it is.
True, the movie does skim over a lot of what the book develops -- I'm looking forward to the DVD in hopes that deleted scenes are included. I would have preferred a longer version of the film, with an intermission the way older movies were sometimes released, even if, horrors, it meant paying a little more for the ticket. Because there is so much emphasis on action sequences in modern movies, the more important stuff that builds character and story often gets sacrificed, and because a lot of stuff in movies today is ponderous, some scenes that look interesting but don't really advance the story get in the way of those that might. I think "Casino Royale" could have benefitted from another 20 minutes or so of footage to flesh out the romance and to give Bond even more development as a character. Even things like voiceovers, which I usually don't like, might have helped in some moments to develop the scenes more.
Although I haven't seen very many of Brosnon's flims...he seems to have some charm similar to that of Connery's. I actually can't stand Pierce as an actor...but he shows what hes made of in the Bond films. BUT DONT GET ME WRONG!! Im am glad Craig is in there now to show Pierce who its done!!
I like the allusion to Brosnan's 'MacDonalds' Bond. It was a 'Bond for the masses'. Don't get me wrong, I like MacDonalds...it's just not healthy to eat there all the time.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
To carry on with the restaurant analogy, In and Out Burgers comes to mind; many rave how In and Out is much better than MacDonald's, but based on my own experience...eh.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
To carry on with the restaurant analogy, In and Out Burgers comes to mind; many rave how In and Out is much better than MacDonald's, but based on my own experience...eh.
Are you perhaps likening someone to In and Out, supes? Care to share?
Look, I think that Pierce Brosnan was THE Bond. Excluding Roger Moore. He has it ALL. The right sarcasam and humor, great looks, and attitude for the part. He was IT!
I think that Pierce Brosnan will be, and SHOULD be, remembered as a fantastic Bond! He helped immensley to bring the franchise back! Noew the baton is passed to Daniel Craig, who in my mind is also an excellent 007!
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
To carry on with the restaurant analogy, In and Out Burgers comes to mind; many rave how In and Out is much better than MacDonald's, but based on my own experience...eh.
Are you perhaps likening someone to In and Out, supes? Care to share?
:v
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I obviously really liked Brosnan. I think he had style and potential. He acted very well, some of his performances like GE or TWINE were incredible. Of course I know that DAD was a bad film but hey!
Comments
In a kind of metrosexual, blown-dry way, Brosnan was probably what the 1990s needed for Bond, as the decade struggled to get out of the shadow of the plasticky 1980s. Did his performances ever rise to greatness? No.
In fact, I think Brosnan often miscalculated, trying to toughen his Bond up or give him a darker subtext that blunted his humor and natural charm, something that should have been played up even more. It gave him a forced quality that wasn't always believable, especially in the tough guy moments because it seemed to be coming from somewhere other than within. Put another way, if Connery was born to play James Bond, then Pierce Brosnan by contrast seemed manufactured to play James Bond. He was lucky that he fit a contemporary stereotype that people wanted.
I wouldn't have expected him to be a smirking Roger Moore clone, either, but watch his performance in "The Thomas Crown Affair" to see the kind of smoothness that was frequently missing from Brosnan's Bond. That the films -- any of them -- were entertaining to varying degrees but nothing remarkable didn't help, but Brosnan didn't always seem sure how to play Bond, light one moment, heavy the next, biting women while kissing them, and so forth. When an earlier poster said that Brosnan's attempts to make Bond tougher gave him a look of being constipated, he was right.
Interestingly, the scenes where he did play tough generally worked only because they were combined with "cool" humor -- such as his tossle with Xenia ending with the patriachal "No, no, no . . ." That cocky guy was Bond. Brosnan was always better at playing smart than tough, and with his catalog model features, he should have gone that route.
After all that, you'd think I don't like Brosnan. In fact, I do. Way back in the mid-80s when his name was announced (long after I'd been telling people that that guy on "Remington Steele" would make a good Bond), I was excited. Ten years later, when I saw "Goldeneye," I was disappointed that I found him and the film underwhelming. When the more spirited "Tomorrow Never Dies" came out, I thought that maybe they were getting closer to finding Brosnan's comfort level, but they never quite got it right.
Perhaps that's why Daniel Craig is enjoying such widespread popularity now. Unlike Brosnan, who was pretty much welcomed to the role with open arms by the general public, he had the additional enormous burden of having to convince people who believe Bond should look like a contemporary mannequin that he was handsome enough for the role. I think he's won many, if not, most of them over, but for the rest of us who were more interested in Bond's attitude and toughness, Craig hasn't had to prove anything. Like Connery (and Lazenby), when he appears onscreen, he carries himself with a natural machismo that feels right for the character. And the producers made sure that the script for "Casino Royale" capitalized on what Craig brought to the screen. If anyone in the last 20 years will go down in history as a great James Bond, it'll be Daniel Craig.
Then the papers can stop slandering Brosnan and turning him into the Roger Moore of his time, which is a shame, as those two are my favorite and are the most slandered instead of the overrated Connery, the despicable Dalton and Craig (but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, as this is his first).
Also, Lazenby isn't too bad either.
I have a dream, that one day, Connery and Moore fans, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig and even Lazenby fans will one day live in peace and harmony; each respecting and admiring all of the actors' strengths and weaknesses - and all, yes I mean all the actors wil go down as great Bonds.
I do agree that Connery, Lazenby and Craig are tougher, but that doesn't mean that Brosnan wasn't. I think he was very tough. One example; the party scene in TND.
One quick comment; I think that Brosnan had the attitude and toughness as well. But more importantly, I think that Craig lacks the suaveness which IMO makes a great Bond. The reasons why I think that Connery, Moore and Brosnan are each great Bonds (apart from each delivering brilliant performances IMO) is that each possess a combination of suaveness and ruthlessness. Craig has the ruthlessness, but I don't think he has the suavness. That is but one reason why I doubt that Craig will ever be considered a great Bond (at least by me.)
It's funny, but to me, Brosnan was a populist Bond, in that like McDonalds, he reached a very wide audience. Craig, despite his so-called working class look, ironically wasn't, at least initially, because he didn't fit the stereotypical image as easily as Brosnan did for mainstream viewers, especially in the U.S. Now, of course, Craig is defining, or perhaps, redefining that image, in many ways taking us back to the roots of what jumpstarted the franchise in the 1960s.
I really pulled for Brosnan early on, in much the same way I pulled for Dalton after his debut. Though I never expected him to rise to Connery's level of greatness in the role, I had expected better than he delivered. C'est la vie.
This site is beginning to feel like a restaurant guide.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Craig's version in "Casino Royale" is not that guy, yet -- he's only at the "event horizon" of becoming that guy. I know it's a revision of the character, and that Craig is older than Connery was when he debuted, but that's what this film is predicated upon. And Craig did provide genuine moments of "suaveness," including his repartee with M, his gambling sequence with Dimitrios and subsequent seduction of Solange, his scene on the train, and his final scene with Mr. White. He was roughest in the action sequences, where that sort of physicality definitely was called for. (I really don't want to see Bond as an unflappable clotheshorse when he's punching someone out or evading capture by the enemy; he's more interesting as a macho brute with moments of suaveness than the other way around, and I found Craig's performance in this regard pretty well rounded.)
1)I know you say that Craig is not that guy yet, however it seems false to me. If Henry Cavill, or some other 20 something, was cast as Bond, I could accept that. But Craig is in his late 30's (and he looks much older than that IMO) so it doesn't seem realistic that someone like him could learn to be suave. Additionally, he already knows what kind of drink he likes, as well as what type of women he prefers, so I am just unconvinced that Craig's Bond would have to learn to be suave.
2)I do agree that Craig did show one moment of suaveness. His final scene was IMO quite suave (although not as suave IMO as Connery, Moore and Brosnan). However to me, that was all there was. I don't agree that he showed suaveness in any of his other scenes. I may be a minority on this but IMO Craig's Bond features only a mimimum amount of suaveness.
3)Off the topic of suaveness, you mentioned his action scenes. Here's the thing. I consider each of the Bonds to be quite tough. Some of them are more tough than others, but all of them (including the unfairly maligned Moore) were IMO convincingly tough. Craig is obviously among the toughest of the six however I would like to emphasise that IMO all of the Bonds were convincingly tough. Nonetheless, he was extremely tough. My problem is exactly why you like him. You described him as a 'macho brute' in contrast to to an 'unflappable clotheshorse.' My feeling is that I do not want Bond to be a 'macho brute.' I don't think that any of the Bonds were 'unflappable clotheshorse;' rather IMO the best Bonds (Connery, Brosnan, Moore) were gentleman who could also be incredibly tough and ruthless. Craig IMO wasn't much of a gentleman. At the end of the day, Craig does not seem like Bond to me (the way that I imagine Bond to be.)
The definition of "suave," from American Heritage Dictionary:
suave (swäv) adj.- smoothly agreeable and courteous.
Using this definition (which is one that is repeated in a number of dictionaries, in some form), here are a number of examples of Craig portraying such a quality, and quite well:
* In the casino in Nassau, when he approaches the poker table and introduces his presence, with the saturnine smile and gentlemanly, "You mind if I join you?" And later on, at the end of the game, when he has Demitrious owned in the game and knows it and the dealer at first refuses to allow him to bet the Aston Martin, Craig's Bond jumps in with jolly and politeness and insists that the bet be made.
* In the train, as he wears the Brioni suit quite well, handles his drinks with flair and panache, and conducts himself with a smooth politeness (albeit sharpness) in his conversation with Vesper.
* His demeanor during the poker tournament at the table.
* The hospital scene with Vesper, which very much reminisces of Connery and Brosnan.
He may not put on a constant smarm, but Craig was suave when the situation called for it, and he wasn't when it didn't. That's how Bond as Fleming conceived him is, and that's the way he should be.
And just one more point: the cinematic incarnation of Bond has changed tremendously over time. You can't tell me that Bond was stylistically identical from Connery to Brosnan. Using the three most associated with the role before Craig (Connery, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan), the role began with Connery as the unflappable, old money English gentleman with quite a bit of political incorrectness with a style that agreed with late 50s/60s cinema and a substance that vastly subverted the conservative culture of the time (and played to fellow subversives). Moore was the "baby boomer in college" Bond who played up the sexual promiscuity and humor in a way that very much agreed with the tone of pop culture of the 70s and early 80s. Dalton was the more serious, morally conscious "Reagan-Thatcher" Bond who cared a great deal about his job and was more in line with a sociopolitical culture that reignited anti-communism in light of the 80s military buildup and that became more adversarial toward drugs (notice how the plots of both of his films involved drugs) and the emergence of AIDS. Brosnan was the more polished, businesslike Bond of the mid-late 90s in the mold of a world-traveling multinational corporate executive in light of a booming neoliberal economy.
The world changed a lot from Connery to Brosnan, and their Bonds changed appropriately. The world has changed more from Brosnan to Craig, though, than it has at any other point in the lineage of the cinematic Bond from one actor to another. This is no longer the mid-late 90s, with the booming economy and relative geopolitical stability. This is the post-9/11, War on Terror 21st century, with the knowledge that there are enemies out there throughout the world who want to destroy western civilization as it is and who opperate as non-national entities outside of the purview of international treaties and conventions. This is a world that requires a hero who is mobile and athletic, and tougher (mentally and physically) than before to remain relevant to today. Bourne is in this mold, but he is his own story and is not so much the guy who saves the world (or even operates against the enemy). Jack Bauer is a domestic security agent, and he's a tv guy, so he is a bit small. That leaves Bond, the hero of the world, with the responsibility to pick up the slack. And to do that, he has to change more than he has from one actor to another. I would argue that he would probably have to drop some of the suaveness we've seen before in order to fulfill what he needs to for this time, but still remain suave when he has to be. And Craig, Campbell the screenwriters, and the producers, IMO, got the adaptation of the character to these times spot on.
One point I want to clarify though is the "macho brute" comment -- I'm specifically referring there to the physical, essentially fight, scenes. To me, Connery, Lazenby, and Craig all bring that quality to bear, as well as to some degree Dalton. They shed the pretense of gentlemanly behavior in favor of a more raw demeanor, with Craig being most so in this regard. I'm not sure Moore or Brosnan ever really accomplished this, though there may be moments. I find the idea of Bond being the sort that for the most part keeps such behavior in check until sufficiently provoked interesting and appealing -- it gives him an edge that is both in the books and might even surprise me (as in "Casino Royale," when Bond comes crashing through the dry wall and takes the nail out of his shoulder). Bond being smooth and hardly working up a sweat in such scenes (or, say, adjusting his tie) bores me, and such behavior feels more like a parody of the character/genre than genuine Bond.
I also loved the fight scenes. I don't think they are unique among the Bond films, but I did like them alot. My problem, is that to me, Craig's Bond came across as a 'macho brute' even when he wasn't fighting. I was never convinced that Craig's Bond fitted in at Casino Royale, as IMO he appeared too much like a brute. I think he was more convincing crashing through a wall than he was sipping a martini at a poker table. With one exception; the final scene, in which he was actually quite good.
You mentioned adjusting Bond's tie; I think it comes down to the context. Sometimes it may appear like a parody, but if the context is appropiate and the scene is well-written I think it can be great.
I'll ignore your last comment.
No, of course not. But I have never said that I want all Bonds to be identical. There are however certain characteristics which all of the Bonds have seemingly possessed; among these are gentlemanly suaveness and deadly ruthlessness. Craig had the latter but IMO he lacked the former. This could be deliberate on his part or it could simply my subjective interpretation of his performance. If, as other have suggested, it is deliberate as he will 'learn' to be suave, then I find it to be false and unconvincing. If it is my subjective interpetation, then that's because I don't believe that all of the actors who played Bonds did an amazing job, and IMO Craig did not do a great job.
Well, I don't agree. I never said that Craig's Bond was too tough (even though he does look like a bodybuilder.) However what I do think, is that one characteristic (among others)which differentiates Bond from those other agents is that he's a gentleman. Unlike Bourne and Bauer, Bond to me is a gentleman, who's sophisticated and suave but who's also capable of great ruthlessness; Moore killed Sandor in cold blood and Brosnan was about to torture Zao. I'm not asking Bond to be a wimpy fun-loving playboy, as I don't think any of the Bonds were, but I am asking Bond to be more than a 'macho brute.' Additionally, you mention how the world has changed and all that, but CR isn't a hyper-realistic post-9/11 thriller. In fact, I would argue that it is very much a fantasy. It has a hero who in order to become a '00' has to kill 2 people, accomplishes rather extraordinary physical feats (such as his staying under water for all of eternity) and who battles a villain (who cries blood) in a poker game. It's not exactly the work of someone like Le Carre. That's not a criticism as none of the Bonds were all that realistic. However, I don't want Bond to become too 'realistic' and lose one of the essential characteristics which IMO makes him Bond. I'm not saying that when I think of Bond I only think of suaveness. But suaveness, which IMO Craig lacked, is IMO an essential Bondian quality; and so considering that I wasn't watching some real-life thriller, I don't think it's too much to ask of the filmmakers that they not strip some of the (IMO) most important qualities from Bond. Plus, you mentioned 24 and Bourne; to me, Bauer is a self-righteous thug, while Bourne is a teenage Bond.
My point is that within the context of CR, I think that Bond could have been more of a gentleman. Part of it is the script, however a major part of it is Craig, who never convinced me that he is someone who drinks a martini or would be at a fancy casino. That Bond wasn't more of a gentleman is a major reason why I don't love CR. If it is deliberate, as he is meant to evolve, then the reboot and its execution strikes me as entirely false. Either way, I would have loved for someone like Owen to be Bond.
For me, this was one of the beg letdowns in CR...it was set up to be a 'character-driven' story with Bond as the main character. It seemed like everyone was raving about the character arc when none really existed. Bond starts out the movie as a hardened, flawed killer, and at the end of a movie is a hardened, flawed killer with a nicer suit - oh, and his gun changed, too. CR simply doesn't contain a story arc...if it continues over the next few films, that would be great. But to use an analogy, a good pass in American Football is only a good pass if it's caught at the other end. I can't say CR is a good story until I'm given the whole story.
Of course, the films generally made the character lighter and more "fun" than the books do, but "Casino Royale" was trying to capture the spirit of Fleming's vision, albeit with a retro sensibility about the Connery films.
I agree that this is the character arc in the book...Bond spends a great deal of time (in the book) reflecting on his career in the Service and chooses to spend a life with Vesper, but ultimately loses that - but that's not the way the movie is. Again, in the book, Bond is not so much a rookie agent. In the film, we see Bond get his 00 and this is basically his first mission, so as audience members, we really have little history as to what Bond is retiring from...in fact, what we see of Bond in the movie is someone who (even in a mischievous way) actually finds happiness in his job, so the lure of quitting his short tenure as a 00 is dimmed.
It's nice having read the book in the sense that I know what the character arc is. But I feel the film lacked a lot of the important elements that made the story truly what it is.
However, he was let down by alot of the material he had to work with (some of the double entendres they stuffed into his mouth were appalling!).
I'm sure he would have loved to have a crack at a CR style Bond, and I'm sure he would have been good at it (when he was younger!)
His movies seem to drop further down my list every time I see them (through no fault of his).
Are you perhaps likening someone to In and Out, supes? Care to share?
:v