Tomorrow Never Dies Interview with Pierce Brosnan

Interesting interview where Brosnan looks at the future of 007 circa 1997. He was cheated, wasn't he?

http://www.fhm.com/posts/james-bond-pierce-brosnan-tomorrow-never-dies-140890

Quote :

FHM: How Is This Different From The Bonds We’ve Seen Before?

Pierce Brosnan: "In style and integrity, there’s more of a reality base to it ... there is more of a gritty look to it and more of a reality to it, which I like. Because they got too comic book. GoldenEye had a great look to it, but I think this is snappier and grittier."

Bloody 'ell. If TND is deep n' gritty, wait til they get a load of Daddy Issues McGrumbleface.

Interesting interview. Pretty clear that Brozzer wanted to play a different kind of Bond to the one handed to him. In terms of historical milestones, the coincidental and concurrent Diana echoes in the story never occurred to me.

CJB wrote:

Quote :

FHM: How Is This Different From The Bonds We’ve Seen Before?

Pierce Brosnan: "In style and integrity, there’s more of a reality base to it ... there is more of a gritty look to it and more of a reality to it, which I like. Because they got too comic book. GoldenEye had a great look to it, but I think this is snappier and grittier."

Bloody 'ell. If TND is deep n' gritty, wait til they get a load of Daddy Issues McGrumbleface.

Interesting interview. Pretty clear that Brozzer wanted to play a different kind of Bond to the one handed to him. In terms of historical milestones, the coincidental and concurrent Diana echoes in the story never occurred to me.

He's probably just trying to sell it. I guess Tomorrow Never Dies is a little less bizarre than GE, but I wouldn't agree it's grittier. Perhaps more realistic, which is becoming all the more apparent now. 

Daddy Issues McGrumbleCregFace's films aren't gritty. Just self indulgent. I find DN and LTK to be grittier entries than anything that's come out in the last 20 years. It's hard to gauge an honest consensus on newer Bonds from those of yesteryear because I feel that the current one is always the 'best one since Sean'. Moore saying Craig is the best doesn't ring true to me at all, since all of the latter's films are more violent than the former's most violent in AVTAK. I'd love to hear Brosnan's true thoughts on the Craig era.

CJB wrote:

In terms of historical milestones, the coincidental and concurrent Diana echoes in the story never occurred to me.

It hadn't to me either. I wonder if contemporary audiences made the parallel and if it affected how it was consumed. Going by the interview, it sounds like it may have.

Cregg's films are indeed self-indulgent. I was using "gritty" in the all-things-to-all-people sort of way it was used in the halcyon days of Keeping the British Cock Up.

It is interesting that the last three Bonds have all come in promising a more realistic and grounded take on the character. Dalton was probably the only one that came close in that respect, but he never won over the critics or audiences.

On another note:



Photoshop has really come a long way. That Beemer looks like it's out of an Eiffel 65 video. So does Carver, for that matter.

CJB wrote:

Cregg's films are indeed self-indulgent. I was using "gritty" in the all-things-to-all-people sort of way it was used in the halcyon days of Keeping the British Cock Up.

It is interesting that the last three Bonds have all come in promising a more realistic and grounded take on the character. Dalton was probably the only one that came close in that respect, but he never won over the critics or audiences.

On another note:



Photoshop has really come a long way. That Beemer looks like it's out of an Eiffel 65 video. So does Carver, for that matter.

Perhaps on the whole, you're right. I remember reading Roger Ebert writing that Brosnan's Bond is more psychologically complete than his predecessors. I believe that was for his Goldeneye review, and I probably wouldn't disagree with him. Though it seems he does forget about Dalton in The Living Daylights - though I reckon the writing for both TLD and GE definitely do humanise Bond. LTK is a little two 2 dimension in that he seems too focused on revenge. Similarly, Craig in SF is probably the most humane characterisation in his run, though even then, surviving the fall in the PTS and a bullet wound is a stretch. And this characterisation is counteracted with Cregg in CR, which is arguably the most superhuman characterisation of the series.

Heh, when I watched TND just now, I thought of this poster when I saw this shot of the 750iL on the carpark rooftop:

https://youtu.be/qKAME9fAA-4?t=3m37s

What on earth does "psychologically complete" mean and how did Brosnan show it?

painface.jpg

OO7 wrote:

What on earth does "psychologically complete" mean and how did Brosnan show it?

More fleshed out, three dimensional, a combination of charm, humour, danger, brutality. Reflective. Think the poignancy of Bond's confrontation with Alec with the fallen statues, Bond's moment on the beach, when Bond releases Alec... It's in the eyes. We see it throughout his entire run and its never overplayed.

No, he saved the overplaying for the likes of the TWINE torture-chair scenes.

EXTREME PAINFACE!

I did toy with the idea of including a 'Painface excluded' statement. Always go with your gut instinct, Fields.

During the 'One ... last ... screw?' line, extraordinary things are happening with his lower jaw.

I think I get the picture.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

During the 'One ... last ... screw?' line, extraordinary things are happening with his lower jaw.  

Quite jaw dropping.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

During the 'One ... last ... screw?' line, extraordinary things are happening with his lower jaw.  

He always was a cunning linguist.

It's like he's attempting to dislocate his lower jaw in order to swallow Electra whole, like certain snakes do with their prey.

FieldsMan wrote:

Daddy Issues McGrumbleCregFace's films aren't gritty. Just self indulgent. I find DN and LTK to be grittier entries than anything that's come out in the last 20 years. It's hard to gauge an honest consensus on newer Bonds from those of yesteryear because I feel that the current one is always the 'best one since Sean'. Moore saying Craig is the best doesn't ring true to me at all, since all of the latter's films are more violent than the former's most violent in AVTAK. I'd love to hear Brosnan's true thoughts on the Craig era.

Maybe people just like CR? Maybe it's not really a conspiracy? You don't have to like the flick, but to then question whether anyone is being honest about if they genuinely like it... is just silly. I didn't care for the 2009 Star Trek film, but I never doubted anyone actually liked it because I can actually see why, even if it doesn't work for me.

Regarding Moore's comments, I think he's only uncomfortable with the violence in his films because his take on the character doesn't quite gel with the kind of wanton violence AVTAK indulged in, at least in his opinion. It doesn't mean he objects to that kind of violence in any film. Like how he's uncomfortable with himself hitting a woman, but doesn't wag his finger when the other Bond actors play a rougher Bond.

You're a better man than I am, MP.

I know that.

It isn't necessarily that Brozzer was more complex psychologically in the role, but that the films made it a definite part of their aim to include an analysis of Bond as a character as part of the "what do we do since the Cold War is over" backbone of GE.

But what he does do is inject so much feeling into this aspect that it it became an integral part of his tenure. I don't think GE is topped in this regard for sheer weight to be honest. In that film it gives him an edge of regret that then morphs into a mixture of regret and vengeance when Alec reveals his deception.

Lines like: "Governments change, the lies stay the same", "Never" in response to don't take it personal, "It's what keeps me alive" and course "For me" show such a deep resonant self awareness in Bond that I think was really doubled down on throughout GE by the writers, Brozzer and Martin Campbell.

hegottheboot wrote:

It isn't necessarily that Brozzer was more complex psychologically in the role, but that the films made it a definite part of their aim to include an analysis of Bond as a character as part of the "what do we do since the Cold War is over" backbone of GE.

But what he does do is inject so much feeling into this aspect that it it became an integral part of his tenure. I don't think GE is topped in this regard for sheer weight to be honest. In that film it gives him an edge of regret that then morphs into a mixture of regret and vengeance when Alec reveals his deception.

Lines like: "Governments change, the lies stay the same", "Never" in response to don't take it personal, "It's what keeps me alive" and course "For me" show such a deep resonant self awareness in Bond that I think was really doubled down on throughout GE by the writers, Brozzer and Martin Campbell.

You might be onto something there in that any Bond, given the opportunity, would be more "psychologically complete" since the writing demands it. However, Brosnan's portrayal is what brings the writing to life without sacrificing charisma and the sense of danger in its place. It's a masterful balance.

Perhaps another actor couldn't have done that. Well, we know that, now.

It's like comparing OHMSS the novel to say one of the earlier more straight line ones like LALD. Both have Fleming's pure Bond mental monologue, but only the later novels starting in flashes with DN and going full force in GF does Bond's character become deeply psychologically complex overall.

I will say that I am still glad he didn't take over in 1986. I don't think we would have the same level of acting depth that he was able to do not only with age/experience but most likely a bit of "let's show them this time round" behind it.