Broz and Fleming

Lots of folks slag Broz for his tie-straightening tick/trademark. I've always kind of liked it myself, and it turns out that there's sound justification for Broz engaging in this little maneuver.

From Fleming's Goldfinger, right after Bond kills the Mexican capungo with his bare hands:

"Bond picked up the body and laid against a wall in deeper shadow. He brushed his hands down his clothes, felt to see if his tie was straight and went to his hotel."

So it seems Broz's much maligned trademark has a Fleming pedigree and roots that go all the way back to 1959.

I think you'll find Brozza fans are altering every single copy of Goldfinger to lay a false trail. The lengths some people will go to.

I blame capitalism.

The tie straightening is the least of my problems with Brozza.

He felt to see if it was straight. He didn't straightened it. Plus it was done by Moore already.

And it's still a stupid gag in TWINE too.

groucho070 wrote:

He felt to see if it was straight. He didn't straightened it.

Pfffft. A distinction without a difference.

At any rate, it is cool--even in TWINE--and is a little touch of the Benign Bizarre.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

At any rate, it is cool--even in TWINE--and is a little touch of the Benign Bizarre.

The execution of that bit ruins it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqerSdtxUz4&t=40s
Looks so low-budget with those dissolves to and from the underwater cutaway.

Anyway, Brosnan apparently kept a copy of Goldfinger with him on set while filming GE, "just for the significance of it." (I think he said this on the DAD commentary.) So it wouldn't surprise me if he nicked a few ideas from it. Although his comment about keeping the novel with him simply for significance's sake might suggest that he didn't bother reading it.

It works really well for me in GE ... that, and the slightest jerk of his head as the bullets hit the column Bond is taking cover behind in Alec's lair as if they were merely annoying insects are 2 of Brozza's finest Bond moments.

No doubt somebody will quibble with the very notion of him having 'finest Bond moments', but whatever.

Somebody will quibble with anything Broz does. Not that he's my fav, mark you, but neither is he the buffoon many make him out to be.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Somebody will quibble with anything Broz does. Not that he's my fav, mark you, but neither is he the buffoon many make him out to be.

I think Brosnan was consciously trying to make his character a 'Bond' recognisable from classic films and the novels but for the majority of his tenure the scripting and the production were (and still are) cluelessly making generic action films. He seems to get an awful lot of personalised schtick for issues that were imo conscious choices of the team behind him.

Agreed. And I would aver that Broz, despite his fashionable, indeed virtually mandatory Left politics, had a healtheir regard for Fleming and his creation than do Craig and most of the Eon power-brokers.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Anyway, Brosnan apparently kept a copy of Goldfinger with him on set while filming GE, "just for the significance of it." (I think he said this on the DAD commentary.) So it wouldn't surprise me if he nicked a few ideas from it. Although his comment about keeping the novel with him simply for significance's sake might suggest that he didn't bother reading it.

My question is has Brosnan ever said he read Fleming? I know Dalton did and had a great fondness for them which carried over into his Bond performances. Part of the reason I prefer his Bond to Brosnan's.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

It works really well for me in GE ... that, and the slightest jerk of his head as the bullets hit the column Bond is taking cover behind in Alec's lair as if they were merely annoying insects are 2 of Brozza's finest Bond moments.

I think Martin Campbell called that moment in Trevelyan's lair perfect Bond, great combo of action & humour.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

And I would aver that Broz, despite his fashionable, indeed virtually mandatory Left politics, had a healtheir regard for Fleming and his creation than do Craig and most of the Eon power-brokers.

Defend or GTFO :face:

It should be noted that the infamous Brozza tie straightening first appeared in GE, just after he jumps off the Manticore, right before he switches on the motor of the launch. I think it worked much better there. More spur-of-the-moment, less shoe-horned in.

Ya know TBH, I really like his performance in GE. Despite being too skinny for the part and trying too hard in some scenes, it works. There are some truly badass moments there (throwing the thug down the stairs in the yacht, the "safe sex" quip, rabbit punching Xenia, the head tilt in Trevelyan's Jurassic Park Visitor's Lodge/BT Customer Service Center, evading Trevelyan's bullet by kicking down the antenna ladder). Serra's score also helps give the performance an edge.

There are parts of his performance that work. There are also parts that are absolutely. terrible. I really do want to like Bond in that film, and I often do. Brosnan brings a good energy and enthusiasm to the table. He's a very boyish Bond in GE, right next to Lazenby, I find. Sometimes he goes overboard, though. I will never abide by Bond being a ponce. And for all his virtues doing the fun side of Bond, I find the dramatic stuff lacking. After cutting its losses, the performance evens out to a so-so level for me.

Re: the dramatic stuff - Serra (aside from the second half of Whispering Statues - you know what I mean), John, Beam and Scorupico make it work. Even Brosnan shines in a few moments - I love how he handles the "He's a Lienz Cossack..." bit on the train. Even Dalton probably couldn't have done better. In fact he'd probably make it worse by laying it on too thick.

I've been warming to Brosnan. While I still think his performance as Bond in TWINE is the worst of the worst, he does well enough in GOLDENEYE and DIE ANOTHER DAY to get a pass from me.

Indeed. He's also pretty good in TOMORROW NEVER DIES. As for THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, no one comes out of that flick with much credit, so I'll even cut Brosnan some slack for that one. Anyway, I too have been warming to him considerably. Part of it, I admit, is less to do with his actual Bond work than with his subsequent performances in THE MATADOR and THE GHOST, which make me feel that had the scripts and direction of his Bond flicks been much better, so would his turns as 007.

Now, the very best of Brosnan doesn't approach the very best of Connery, Craig or Dalton (or even the very best of Moore, truth be told - he arguably takes Lazenby down, though), but you know what? Brosnan still had his moments, and looking back he was the right man for the era (although I do wonder what Clive Owen might have been like as Bond from 1995 to 2002).

Only tolerable Brosnan Bond is GE. I don't mind revisiting. Nix to the others. More to Brosnan, it's the whole package that annoys me. And just when I warm up to the films, the thought that Dalton should have been there saddens me and the DVD gets ejected.

Sharky wrote:

Even Brosnan shines in a few moments - I love how he handles the "He's a Lienz Cossack..." bit on the train.

I love when he bellows "HE'LL BETRAY YOU!" I say that all the time in real life.

Loomis wrote:

He's also pretty good in TOMORROW NEVER DIES.

That's my favourite Brosnan performance, mostly because he's lost his GE flamboyance and not yet strapped on the amateur drama goggles.

Loomis wrote:

Brosnan still had his moments, and looking back he was the right man for the era (although I do wonder what Clive Owen might have been like as Bond from 1995 to 2002).

Disagree. T-Dalt all the way. His was a legit, singular take on the character that hadn't yet been stretched to its maximum entertainment value. Given time (also funding & good filmmakers), I think his portrayal would've stood alongside Connery's or Moore's as a Valid Version of Bond. And he totally could've been the Bond for the 90s - a bitter romantic up against all the shiny new-age bs.

groucho070 wrote:

And just when I warm up to the films, the thought that Dalton should have been there saddens me and the DVD gets ejected.

Tell me about it. I do wish he had done GE. He had a straight-faced, devilish charm that would've suited the film. Every time I imagine him doing the casino scene with Xenia, I roar. Like a lion.

Re what Sharky said about the evading of Trevelyan's shot with the dropping of the antenna ladder ... I also really like the fight preceding it, there's a genuine 'venom' in it. And I'd like to add the coldness of the 'No ... for me' in response to Alec's 'For England, James?' to the 'badass' moments.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Even Brosnan shines in a few moments - I love how he handles the "He's a Lienz Cossack..." bit on the train.

I love when he bellows "HE'LL BETRAY YOU!" I say that all the time in real life.

As do I with this:

The proof of the past 16 years is telling imo and has little real blame to lay at Brosnan's feet.

Basically in that time you have Bond under the guidance Martin Campbell, a director who clearly understands Bond and is able to bring character even amid the most action intensive scenes, and then you have every other director to be thrust into the hot seat.

For Campbell in GE Brosnan seemingly adds a few of his own flourishes to try and make his take distinct (some work some are over embellishments), while for CR Craig seemingly just does what hes told and retires to his trialer.

Away from Campbell the other crowd is a succesion of directors all of whom are lumbered by an inadequet script (either by virtue of being rushed, being structured aorund a set of ludicrous action sequences or by having the one note Purvis and Wade influence), none of these directors have really steered a production of this scale or sometimes even an action movie before, even if they know 'Bond' well there's precious little time for them to shoehorn any individuality into the central role as they are on a rapid learning curve that inevitably indulges the generic hollywood approach to action and we end up with Bond in a film that reads like every other Hollywood actioner or old style Bond imitator.

At least here we see evidence Brosnan, in those instances, is doing his bit to hark back to his earlier perfomance and indeed the books and doing what he can to make his character as unique as Bond should be...The producers failed to give him any real consistency and for better or for worse he wasn't just a 'yes' man (or perhaps more appropriately a 'yes mame'). He has a character, which may or may not suit your perception of Bond but as he was employed to take the role its not unreasonable for him to inject that character into his performance...probably the learning curve for the producers is they want to define the charcter rather than let the performer do so.

The biggest change in the films Dalton-Brosnan-Craig are the production choices over which the actor has little real say.