During Bond’s six year hiatus, the Bond fan base was split. Some fans appreciated the darker edge provided by Dalton and wanted the Bond brand to continue to move in a more action-oriented direction; other fans felt that the identity of the Bond brand had been lost and a return to the lighter, wryer affair of Moore was needed; and still others hoped for an actual reinvention of the character that would take all of Bond’s most archaic qualities and update them for a modern audience (Chapman).

Brosnan provided fans with all of these interpretations and none of them, as, over the course of Goldeneye; Tomorrow Never Dies; The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day, Brosnan’s Bond struggles to find his identity.

Failure to Move Forward

One of the primary issues plaguing Brosnan through his tenure as 007 is the regressive approach his films took to the Bond formula. The opening scene of Goldeneye demonstrates Brosnan’s inability to grow from the foundations of his predecessors. The opening, unlike any other pre-title sequence, recounts a plot-oriented flashback rather than some form of nonsensical action sequence. The importance is not in the flashback, but the year it is set, 1986.

The final Moore film was released in 1985. The act of setting the flashback in 1986 works to, “suggest that Brosnan should have been Bond all along, that Dalton had been an aberration (Chapman).” The neglect of Dalton continues throughout the era as the darker, more introspective elements introduced by him are replaced by gadgets and humor.

This neglect for the darker elements of the past parallels Brosnan’s role as Imperialist Champion. A troubled past can be ignored if one tries hard enough. This lack of acknowledgment is only further emphasized by the representation of women throughout the Imperialism era.

The woman of this era were touted as modern updates to a tired caricature. The marketing team pushed a feminist narrative by espousing, “What is different about this film is that gone are the bimbos! (‘Goldeneye‘)”; however, this statement only addresses one of several problems with the representation of women throughout the franchise. The other issues of the series; the lack of female motivation, constant connection between women and sex, an obsession with the female anatomy; still plague the women of the Brosnan films.

Wai Lin of Tomorrow Never Dies embodies this thin veneer of feminism hiding the imperialistic, misogynistic tendencies of the franchise. Positioned as a strong female foil to Brosnan, Wai Lin is a secret Hong Kong agent that is unable to be seduced by Bond. This would seem to be a major step in the correct direction for both Bond and Britain. Bond is forced to see Wai Lin as an equal rather than a subordinate sexual partner, and Britain must recognize Hong Kong as a state of China rather than under British rule.

Both opportunities are squandered, however, as the conclusion of the film results in Bond saving all of China and finally conquering Wai Lin. The film positions Bond as both the white saviour of China and the sexual superior to Wai Lin. This pattern can be seen multiple times over the course of the Imperialism Era films.

These attempts to paint over the structural issues of the franchise color a jingoistic, bigoted, misogynistic Bond wishing for the days of old. The past for both Bond and Britain were successful enterprises of bold new ideas. The decay of both brand and country has resulted in a yearning for the past. Bond presents himself as that past. A living memory of Britain’s once worldwide empire. He defeats the enemies of yesterday by representing the ideals of the Imperialist age. He doesn’t move forward, because he doesn’t have to.

Identity Theft is not a Joke Jim

The publicity for Goldeneye would have you believe that there is no relation to Brosnan’s Bond and any other Bond. “It is six and a half years since the last Bond film was released,” exclaimed the publicity department, “and the ‘classic’ Bond films are a memory. (‘Goldeneye‘)” Despite the insistence of a new identity for a new era, Brosnan’s Bond feels more like a combination of the old Bonds than anything else.

Believing Roger Moore to be the greatest Bond of all time, Pierce Brosnan drew heavily from Moore to develop his version of the iconic hero (Fernandez). Brosnan’s Bond could quip with the best of them, and found humor at the heart of his character.

From Connery, Brosnan tried to bring the sardonic wit and steely edge with which he carried himself. Brosnan’s Bond would engage in long bouts of physicality to re-infuse the Bond brand with the any man-grit originating from Connery’s films. The fight scene between Brosnan and Xenia Onatopp from Goldeneye exemplifies Brosnan’s attempts to bring an extra level of physicality to the character mixed with some Roger Moore charm:

Dalton was even incorporated into Brosnan’s Bond. Despite the insistence of a lighter tone, the action-oriented, bloodthirsty Bond of the Dalton era remains, in some capacity, during the Imperialism era. Despite popular perception, Brosnan’s Bond was the deadliest of the series resulting in an astonishing 33.8 kills on average per film (‘How Many’). The tone may have changed, but the action did not.

Even with the inclusion of these other marquis Bond characteristics, the resulting Bond is a bland amalgam. The quips feel uninspired, the physicality is oft derided, and the action is not as impactful, even though there is nearly three times the amount of death from the previous era.

The resistance to move forward resulted in a Bond made of remnants from the past. Brosnan, himself, even admits his own distaste for his films, describing himself as, “not good enough. (Child)”