From Tailors with Love: Episode 7 – Interview with Jany Temime

35

The 007th episode of From Tailors with Love features an interview with Skyfall and Spectre costumer designer Jany Temime. Before that, Peter Brooker of Human Research and I discuss our meetup in New York’s Upper East Side, visiting the Live and Let Die Oh Cult Voodoo Shop location and Sean Connery’s house, as well as an incredible shop nearby called Tender Buttons. Plus there’s more about Pierce Brosnan’s latest work with Brioni and the results of the Bond items from a recent Propstore auction.

You can download the podcast from iTunes or listen below:

Listeners can get great deals with our sponsors by using promo code gdos10 for 15% at Great Drams and promo code BOND10 at Base London.

35 COMMENTS

  1. Matt, given that the ultra-tight skinny lapel moment in Menswear has decidedly come and gone, do you think they’ll switch tact with Bond’s look? It’s interestig because Craig, like Moore, has been Bond long enough to witness several significant style shifts.

    • I think that we will see a new look in Bond 25, both due to changing styles and an older Daniel Craig. He may still be muscular, but his shape isn’t quite the same as it was four years ago. He can no long pull off something that is too tight without it looking like he put on too much weight.

  2. Pierce looks great in the Brioni promotion. When I saw those photos I thought “Oh look, it’s James Bond”. I never get the same feeling when I see Craig or Lazenby.

    • I’d disagree about Lazenby but yes, I saw the photos of Pierce and he still had it! Suave and you don’t see much of that anymore.

    • I must say that to me Brosnan was never Bond. He was rather Remington Steele in a Brioni suit, that’s all. What he fell completely short of is conveying that specific kind of Bond charisma which Connery, Craig and Dalton all did. There is a dark side to the Bond character, and some actors are more suited for displaying that than others. Brosnan couldn’t cope with it.

      • I would have to disagree. Brosnan was indeed the Bond for our times. You are right, there was a lack of darkness but he displayed a vulnerability which was limited by his duty for queen and country. As for craig well, not only did I lose my way but I saw a bad ass police officer who enjoyed pulling rank, not really bond at all,

      • I’m with saul here. I agree that Craig possesses a dark, rugged, manliness which Connery obviously possessed, and that Brosnan struggled with. But Craig also totally lacks the charisma which Connery and Brosnan brought in spades. I think once the pendulum swings away from the “this time – it’s personal” excesses of this era, Craig’s deficiencies in the Bond role will be made more apparent.

        Agree with Dan below that Cavill would be my choice for the next Bond. Although tbh he looked more like Bond back when he first auditioned for the role in 2006 and in subsequent Dunhill ads of that era (there was a really cool video ad that featured him in a tux with a British flag and Bond-like music, somewhere on youtube).

  3. I actually thought Brosnan tried too hard to be a dark and edgy Bond; I had hoped for a lighter, Moore-like touch when Brosnan replaced Dalton, but it was not to be. Brosnan was still miles better than Craig in the tailoring and charm departments, however. Part of the secret to Bond’s success is that, in spite of his license to kill, most of the actors who have portrayed him have been likable, with the exceptions of Dalton and Craig. For my money, I hope Henry Cavill is the next Bond, even though he will have to lose a little of his Superman bulk to look truly elegant.

    • As usual, I agree completely (though I don’t know enough about Cavill to give an informed opinion). The “dark and edgy” thing seemed to be something which Pierce was shoehorned in to rather than being a natural fit. This is never a good idea. Brosnan was let down by very mediocre scripts for his movie and it shouldn’t be forgotten that his debut was the biggest Bond grosser for 16 years. He wore his (immaculately cut) suits very well and had the likeability. It’s interesting how the exceptions which you mention, fell down on the clothing as well as charm factors. Those who laud Craig as being the best since Connery should recall that the original had charm and a far better wardrobe too!

      • “Those who laud Craig as being the best since Connery should recall that the original had charm and a far better wardrobe too!”

        I do not consider men who slap around, rape, or coerce women into sex to be very charming. You’re right about the wardrobe part.

      • ” So the whole ape in a suit does not tickle your fancy?”

        Could you please stop making such remarks?

  4. Just to clarify, I liked Lazenby’s movie and thought he did a decent job; I just don’t automatically see him as Bond in the same way I do when I see Brosnan, Moore, or a young Connery. In my opinion, Brosnan combined elements of both Connery and Moore’s portrayals very well. I agree Henry Cavill would be the ideal next Bond, but I think the Craig films have deliberately departed so far from anything in the series before that I doubt he will be offered the role. Whoever is the next 007, I hope he, she, or it wears good suits so that we can learn a lot from them.

    • “I think the Craig films have deliberately departed so far from anything in the series before that I doubt he will be offered the role.” I agree with Roy, but hope springs eternal. I hope I see another charming, classically handsome 007 before I die…

      • Watching craig bond films is like watching the evolution of a fashion show. Many people have asked, ” Who is your favorite bond ? ” It’s a difficult question to answer, on the contrary the easiest question to answer is “Who is your least favorite ? ” it would have to be craig without a shadow of doubt and I was hoping he would have left after skyfall, but then tragedy in the form of spectre was released.

  5. For those lauding Henry Cavill, I invite you to watch one of his films (just pick one – it doesn’t matter which). He might look suave and sophisticated in pictures, but he is so wooden and devoid of personality that you quickly forget he “looks the part.” If you think Craig lacks charisma, you are in for s shock with Cavill. There are worse choices to play Bond, but there are also better.

    • Cavill has plenty of personality from the interviews and social media I’ve seen. For instance, his alternate personality as “Henry Cavill’s mustache”. I particularly liked it when he put on a pair of glasses and stood in front of Superman posters out in public and went unrecognized by people passing by (showing the glasses are a good disguise, although often mocked).
      It’s not a problem if Bond is muscular, especially if the actor learns to move like Connery did and as long as their physicality is complemented–rather than exaggerated–by their clothing. I don’t think Craig is uncharismatic but I have a hard time seeing him as Bond in the same way I like Jason Statham but don’t see him as a suitable Bond.
      I certainly agree that Spectre was a tragedy (I was furious by the time that film eventually ended) and I thought QOS would be a sure flop and was a far worse film than License to Kill. But I’m in the minority as the films seem to be doing pretty well (so each to their own I guess)

  6. We can agree that the best yardstick to decide who the best actor to portray Bond is, would be to determine the one whose portrayal is closest to the description (physical & personality) of the character as created by Ian Fleming?

    Lets not compare Connery with Craig because both belong to entirely different eras when trends, sensibilities, practices, customs and lifestyles were different. Apart from Timothy Dalton, if we talk about a modern day James Bond, i would say Daniel Craig is the best actor to portray what James Bond would be like in today’s time. He has the dark, brooding, vengeful, determined, intelligent, sophisticated, loyal, lone-wolf, refined & detective traits that one gets to see in the literary Bond. True, he may not be as charming as Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan, he is indeed charming but in a different way. Lets say, in a more rugged, masculine way.

    I hate to say it, but Brosnan only has the distinction of probably being the best-dressed Bond. Ill admit, his suits and ties and shoes are remarkable and will invariably influence the wardrobe of any man who want to dress like James Bond. But then thats all. He makes Bond look like a playboy in his performances. He’s very charming no doubt, but in a very chocolate boy kind of manner. The only resemblance you see between him and the literary Bond is their devotion to the mission, the service & the country.

    Also in a rebuttal to those to compare Craig to Jason Statham or Matt Damon simply because of Craig being a bit more of an action hero, might i point towards the action sequences that existed in Pierce Brosnan’s films? In each of them. Nobody ever compared him to an action hero because most of his action scenes appear highly unrealistic. Its almost like he is more concerned with not messing his hairstyle than he is with achieving his goal. Please remember that Fleming’s Bond sees plenty of action in the novels. Craig is merely staying true to the part by making his action scenes look more realistic & with his military levels of fitness. Also note that the novels are set in a time period which probably did not require that much physical action and involved more of quiet spying.

    I will concede that Craig is yet to produce a pure spy film, as barring Casino Royale, the other three end up delving into his personal life in some way or the other. QoS – a murdered lover Skyfall – lack of family Spectre – finding a new lover. Yes that can be corrected in his final outing. Rather, in his next outing which i hope is not his final! Apparently, he visited the CIA headquarters at Langley, VA, to get an idea of how it functions. So we can expect something on these lines in his next outing!

    • The final fight in Goldeneye was violent, brutal, in a close-quarter environment, and realistic. Brosnan was perfectly convincing as an action hero here. It reminded me of the FRWL fight. But it is also true that Goldeneye was the only Brosnan movie that had an interesting script and not cartoonish villains and scenes.

      • @ Le Chiffre

        Yes you are right in this regard. I did omit to mention in my earlier comment that i find Goldeneye to be the best in Pierce Brosnan’s tenure. That is because he found a villain who could match Bond himself. But then that was it. The other films were not have that strong characters or realistic scripts.

    • I think we see Craig very differently and maybe that’s unsurprising since his movies appear to polarize opinions. I don’t see him as a fit, intelligent action hero dedicated the mission but more as a pouty punk making his way through films like a boofhead. To me the plots of his films make even less sense than that of Diamonds are Forever or Moonraker but have runtimes that feel like they go twice as long.
      As for a more serious Bond, I much preferred Timothy Dalton’s attempt at this (although the show collapsed a bit in License to Kill). The problem with the Craig films is much like the problem with the suits: they think they are being very clever but come across as very dumb. For example, the shrunken fit of the suits is intended to make Craig look muscular but it makes him look a bit daft. (one could argue that the problem with Dalton’s films also parallel the problem with his clothing: some nice ideas but a bit too sloppy).
      I certainly agree that the fight in Goldeneye with Sean Bean was excellent. Contrast the impact of this scene to the anti-climatic ends of the Craig films where (again, the writers thinking they are being very clever, no doubt) Bond pursues the baddie in a big chase… only to do nothing with them. In Taken 3, Liam Neeson’s character does something similar, but he gives the bad guy a good punch in the face and tells him he will settle the score one day. Then he lets the authorities take him. It’s just so much more satisfying as an end than any of the Craig Bond films.

  7. @Anuj

    I agree with nearly all you stated in your post, except that Brosnan has the distinction of probably being the best-dressed Bond. I wouldn’t even concede that to him – IMO his Brioni attire is rather monotone and therefore boring. Fundamentally un-Bondian.

  8. @ Renard

    Absolutely. You never see him the essential Bond ‘uniform’ of Grey suit, white shirt and navy grenadine tie. His ties are quite loud for James Bond. Apart from Roger Moore, who still did not venture beyond stripes, Mr Brosnan wore ties with varied patterns and colors.

    No doubt his outfits were un-Bondian, but some of them are quite timeless. Such as the Grey suit he wears in the opening of TWINE or the Prince of Wales Check suit in Goldeneye. Its just that his portrayal was dressed contemporaneously. More so like a rich businessman than a spy.

    But i still feel that his outfits are very well put together and the suit-shirt-tie combinations are just fabulous, if not entire Bond-like.

  9. This discussion has raised several interesting points; here are my comments: (1) as someone who has read all the Fleming novels, I can say that Brosnan comes closest of all the Bond actors to the physical appearance of book Bond: tall, slim, with dark straight hair and blue eyes. Book Bond is six feet tall and weighs “only” 167 pounds. (2) Brosnan could be a surprisingly lethal Bond; his fight with Trevelyan was as brutal as any tussle in the series, and his executions of Trevelyan, Dr. Kauffman, and especially Elektra were as ruthless as Connery’s killing professor Dent in DN or Moore’s kicking Locque off the cliff in FYEO. (3) Brosnan’s outfits were elegant and luxurious, and I have no problem with his geometric ties, even though they didn’t conform to the template set by Connery. I did find his outfits a bit boring, however. Mostly dark suits, with no sport coats and only one (sloppily worn) navy blazer.

    • Yeah , but then the literary Bond liked Dark blue suits exclusively and never wore Blazers. But l agree with you on everything else 🙂

    • I actually think it was Brosnan’s causal clothing (or lack thereof) that let him down. His first casual outfit in Goldeneye is one of the best in the series, but after that there is virtually nothing. And when he does wear something other than a suit, it’s usually combat gear. Of all the Bonds, Brosnan’s non-suited wardrobe is the worst, yet I think his suits are among the best.

  10. I would beg to differ with you on this. Mr Brosnan is indeed like the literary Bond in physicality, but only in the sense that both are slim. He is not as well-built and athletic as the literary Bond is. Also note that the latter has been described as built like a brawler. Besides, i would say Mr Brosnan lacks the ‘cold’ look that the literary Bond has.

    In this regard, i think, that Timothy Dalton looks the closest. At least in looks. He too is not particularly well built, alike Sean Connery’s Bond. In fact his physique is more or less similar to that of Mr Brosnan. Its the face, however – cold as ice.

    • I agree. As you said, Brosnan is the playboy Bond par excellence. And I would add a Bond fitting perfectly into the 1990s. He could never be the Bond of our times.

      • Precisely.
        Although barring each time when he’s facing off rogue 006 Alec Trevelyan in GoldenEye. That all. Otherwise, all playboy. Why, even 006 gets the better of him here ! He says – “…whats the matter James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback…?” 😉 😉

    • Where exactly is Fleming’s Bond described as a brawler?

      I think Brosnan is very similar physically to Fleming’s description, although probably a little too good looking.

      • Well, the term ‘brawler’ has not been used. But then Ian Fleming gives a pretty detailed description of him in Casino Royale. There’s this part when the Russian MGB are pouring over a file they maintained on 007. he has been described as athletic, and a master at hand to hand combat and a skilled boxer as well, with an overall slim build. Later, when Ian Fleming realized the popularity of Sean Connery’s portrayal, he wove Bond’s physical features and heritage around Connery, wherein the literary character has also been described as built like a Scottish Highlander, if im not wrong.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.