In May 1986, Pierce Brosnan’s American television series Remington Steele was cancelled, freeing him up to take on the role of James Bond for The Living Daylights, or so he hoped. NBC had a 60-day hold on Brosnan to renew Remington Steele. In June 1986, Brosnan signed a contract to succeed Roger Moore as the next Bond, as long as Steele wasn’t renewed. He even had wardrobe fittings. The publicity surrounding rumours of him being the next James Bond encouraged NBC to renew Steele for a fifth season on 15 July 1986, and Brosnan was no longer available to play Bond. Timothy Dalton was announced as the next Bond on 6 August 1986, and Brosnan had to wait another eight years until he’d officially be announced as James Bond.
When Brosnan signed on for Bond in June 1986, he was photographed with director John Glen and producers Albert Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson at Pinewood Studios, anticipating filming would start on 26th August 1986, the date on the clapperboard in a photo with Glen. In these photos, Brosnan is wearing a double-breasted taupe checked jacket. He wears this jacket in a few episodes of Remington Steele, and it was likely purchased by the show’s wardrobe department to be used in the show before it was released to Brosnan for his personal use. It appears in two episodes from the third season, ‘Let’s Steele a Plot’ and ‘Stronger Than Steele’, first airing in December 1984 and January 1985, respectively.
It was likely Brosnan’s own choice to wear this jacket for his James Bond signing, as the jacket has little to do with Bond’s style. It’s Brosnan’s Remington Steele style, and he likely chose it to look fashionable for the occasion rather than try to dress like James Bond. Michael G. Wilson, on the other hand, is dressed more traditionally like Bond in dark English tailoring.
Double-breasted odd jackets are uncommon, but they’re not wrong. Modern sports jackets are primarily derived from single-breasted jackets originally designed for country sports such as horseback riding and hunting. Double-breasted jackets are impractical for country sports, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be stylish, informal garments. They have a long history, and the Duke of Windsor wore informal double-breasted sports suits, which are hardly different from a sports jacket with matching trousers. Double-breasted doesn’t have to be only for navy blazers and formal suits.
Brosnan’s double-breasted jacket is made in a taupe-and-black check, similar in scale to a houndstooth check. The cloth has a texture and a loose weave that define it as an odd jacket rather than an orphaned suit jacket. It’s probably an Italian cloth.
Brosnan’s double-breasted jacket is typical of 1980s Italian fashions, with four buttons on the front in a low-fastening 4×1 configuration. The shoulders are slightly wide and squared with a thick pad, but the jacket fits trimly through the body. The medium-width peaked lapels have a buttonhole on each side and a slightly low gorge, which appears even lower because the shoulders are raised off Brosnan’s natural shoulders. The jacket is detailed with open patch pockets on the hips for a relaxed look, a welt breast pocket, double vents and three buttons on each cuff.
When he signed for Bond, Brosnan wore the jacket with pale-coloured—possibly stone or cream—lightweight wool gabardine trousers, giving him a more relaxed look for the occasion. They have double reverse pleats and are plain-hemmed with a full break. His white shirt has a short point collar and double cuffs. The tie is a warm-toned multicoloured pattern and tied in a Windsor knot. He wears a puffed pocket square, a regular accessory for him on Remington Steele, in burgundy, maybe with a print. His pocket squares are always stylishly puffed, in a way that doesn’t look forced but with just the right amount showing. All of these clothes were probably once part of his Steele wardrobe.
His shoes are cap-toe oxfords in some shade of brown and were made on a chisel-toe last. They resemble the tan oxfords he would wear eight years later for his 1994 announcement as James Bond, and if they are the same shoes, perhaps he chose to wear them again as a way of remembering the journey it took to get the role.
In Remington Steele, Brosnan wears the jacket with different clothes. In ‘Let’s Steele a Plot’, he wears a white shirt with a wider point collar. All the other pieces are warm-toned to bring out the taupe in the jacket’s check, including a beige striped tie with two flowers in the middle of the blade, a puffed champagne-coloured silk pocket square to coordinate with the tie but not match it, and tan wool gabardine trousers. The warm colours in the outfit don’t necessarily flatter Brosnan’s cool complexion, but they go well together and were fashionable for the 1980s.
The stark white shirt is a poor choice with the warm colours in this outfit, even though white looks good on Brosnan. An ivory shirt—just slightly off-white, not a rich cream—would be a better choice, providing a tonal canvas for the entire outfit for more harmony. For those not fond of a tonal outfit, a light blue shirt would work better than white.
In ‘Stronger than Steele’, Brosnan wears the jacket with a light blue shirt, which emphasises the warmth in the jacket’s check through contrast. The blue shirt is the only non-neutral colour in this outfit, and it highlights Brosnan’s face, especially his blue eyes. It has a point collar and double cuffs. The tie is black with beige spots to match the jacket, and the puffed pocket square is black to match the tie’s ground and the black in the check. An ivory shirt would again have been a good choice with this outfit and would be a more Bondian choice, but it would lack the pop the blue shirt brings to the outfit.
Now Pay Attention
Brosnan’s Outfit at the Signing
| JACKET | |
| Tailor | Unknown |
| Fabric | Black and taupe check |
| Front buttons | 4×1 |
| Lapels | Medium peak |
| Shoulder | Padded and straight |
| Breast pocket | Welt |
| Hip pockets | Open patch |
| Vents | 2 |
| Cuff buttons | 3 |
| TROUSERS | |
| Tailor | Unknown |
| Fabric | Pale-coloured wool gabardine |
| Front | Double reverse pleats |
| Support | Belt |
| Front/side pockets | Slanted side pockets |
| Rise | Mid |
| Leg | Medium, tapered |
| Hem | Plain |
| SHIRT | |
| Shirtmaker | Unknown |
| Fabric | White poplin |
| Collar | Point |
| Cuff | Double |
| Front | Unknown |
| TIE | |
| Brand | Unknown |
| Fabric | Multicoloured pattern |
| Knot | Windsor |
| SHOES | |
| Shoemaker | Unknown |
| Style | Brown cap-toe oxford |
I think someone had previously identified the black watch he was wearing as a Tag Heuer. For the actual audition he was wearing a small Cartier.
Pierce was too keen. Better to keep a low profile for two months, than to wait another eight years.
I’m not sure it was down to Brozz to keep schtum about the contract as they were clearly taking publicity shots to distribute around the media so maybe the secret was going to be out anyway?
In a way Remington Steele did us all a favour in causing the contract to be delayed for several years. I believe if he’d made TLD and beyond he would have followed in the footsteps of Roger’s smug, non serious and lamely comedic personification of Bond. Dalton provided some much needed grit and realism to the role and set up Brozz for his eventual return to be a huge success. In the mean time he’d lived a few more years, become widowed (like Bond) packed on a bit of beef and broadened his acting chops by putting some distance between himself and the smarty-pants portrayal of Remington Steele, all of which contributed to his portrayal especially in Goldeneye as being a big hit and a welcome mild rebooting of the franchise. It’s often said that Brozz embodied a little bit from all the previous incumbents and I don’t think this would have been the case had he walked into the role in 1986.
Valid points, interesting reflections
I remember reading somewhere that Cubby in his later years as an executive producer wanted to continue with Bond as a more family-friendly escapist entertainment but Michael Wilson wanted to change the franchise towards a more gritty and realistic version of Bond, and that he already in the mid-eighties wanted to explore the Bond narrative backwards. Pierce was obviously Cubby’s first choice while Tim was better suited to interpret Micheals ideas. Micheal had to wait almost 20 years to do his retrograde thing and jumped at the chance to reboot when Barbara managed to secure the rights to film Casino Royale. In retrospect, Tim’s interpretation was a good middle ground. At first, I thought the retrograde thing was a fresh approach but it soon got tiresome.
Yup pretty much agree with this although I didn’t know of the divergence of approach between Cubby and MGW.
I think the reboot with CR was handled perfectly but less so in subsequent films. The constant referencing to Vesper whom he’d only really known a few days. The content dis-satisfaction (Matt referred to Craig as ‘Bond the quitter) etc.
I think the new films will probably have to revisit this. It would make sense if they did something like what Nolan did with Batman, ie give the team an arc of 3-5 films all of which can be self contained but tell a broader story (including the origin?) across all films. I suppose that’s what they tried to do with the Craig tenure but the results were mixed. A friend of mine thinks they might try to re-set the whole thing in the late fifties / early sixties which would be interesting. Not so hard to do now with CGI help as we saw with the Man From Uncle.
I think I read an interview about the Goldeneye casting where there was an impasse when it came to who should be the choice for Bond. If I remember correctly, MGM wanted Brosnan, while Barbara (and possibly MGW?) favored bringing back Dalton. Cubby was the one who broke in favor of Brosnan, settling the matter.
I think this could also explain Brosnan’s harsh ejection after DAD. While he always seemed to have a good working relationship with Barbara and MGW, since he was not 100% “their” choice, they may have felt less beholden to him to let him finish on his terms.
I think the success of CR sort of rewrote the history books such that it seemed the producers had made the only or inevitable choice they could, but I think Brosnan could have continued his run successfully if they could’ve figured out the right tone.
@ Rod The Mod, yes as I suggested here in the comments section a while ago, I would love the new Bond series to be set in the 50s and 60s (ca. 1953-1964) when Ian Fleming wrote the actual books. Preferably filming all the original stories in a chronological order.
@ tredstone, my interpretation of the situation, exactly. Sean Bean also auditioned for the role but instead was offered the role as the main villain.
That would get my vote Sinclair. If they’re going to rehash the origin story there’s a lot of useful material they could get from ‘James Bond The Authorised Biography’ by John Pearson too, which covers Bond’s early years, war service with the Navy (he must have joined at a very early age!) and recruitment into MI6. I always reckoned Bond was around the age of my Dad who himself would have made a good Bond! Born in 1921. Served as a pilot in the RAF from 1936-1958. Six feet. Twelve stone (168 lbs). Black hair, blue grey eyes. Snappy but un fussy dresser …
https://rodsmodblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/my-style-icons-my-dad/
The funny thing is the idea of adapting Casino Royale as a back to basics book-based film was originated by Quentin Tarantino, who wanted to make it starring Brosnan but set as a period piece. (Incidentally, when people say they want to do a period piece Bond, I wince because I know they’ll butcher it; he’s one of the only ones I’d trust to do it.)
Barbara and Michael took the idea, but not Tarantino, and ran with it bringing in elements of Nolan’s Batman Begins.
And then Nolan wanted to do a Bond film, but they likewise turned him down meanwhile admitting they ripped off the rest of his Batman films.
Two for two on top directors wanting to be involved and instead getting rebuffed (then ripped off on top of it). I’m so glad it’s out of their hands now.
I’m not convinced Tarantino had anything to do with EON making Casino Royale, no matter what he says. EON didn’t make Casino Royale before because they didn’t have the rights until 1999. Michael had wanted to take Bond back to basics for 20 years, but Cubby wasn’t interested.
Interesting thread, throwing in my thoughts
I’m with Matt that Tarantino had little to do with the CR that wound up being made. I have no doubt he wanted to do what he said, just look at Inglorious Basterds, but that does not mean EON was listening to him.
Setting Bond back in time does sound neat, but I doubt the movies will go that route. For one thing it would open the door to a lot of period piece landmines that the studio likely does not want in their tentpole movie. But more importantly, it will squander the product placement power of Bond. For example, he can’t wear Tom Ford, at least not with any eye towards accuracy. And if Tom Ford does make the suits, would they be cut like a fifties suit? Unless that’s the season’s look I doubt it. The point is that Bond is a powerful brand and marketers will want to use it on the things that are for sale here and now. Sure they could ignore period accuracy, but then what’s the point really.
Period specific Bond does have a chance I believe, but not on the big screen. With Amazon taking over Bond, I could see them making a Prime streaming series out of the Fleming novels. But this would have to be well after they have established their movie version of Bond. It’s always risky creating a competing sub-brand, but done well it could work; for example, I’d heavily focus on Fleming in the branding for the shows.
They could do each novel as a season of say 4-8 episodes. Treat it as prestige TV, high production values, lots of time to explore details of the novels. It should also be geared towards an adult audience so that period accuracy is less of an issue, particularly for cultural issues. Product placement would be left to the movies in this scenario. But that’s just my thoughts, who knows what will happen.
Even if they didn’t get the Casino Royale concept from Tarantino’s pitch (which I’ll grant because you’re likely more read up on this than I am; I’m going off of the news stories in the fan community in the early 2000s before it happened), they’ve said the thing about being inspired by The Dark Knight trilogy a lot while snubbing Nolan himself.
A wonderful tribute to your father, Rod. Thanks for sharing.
Cheers @tredstone!
As to the other discussion – I don’t want Tarantino anywhere near Bond, he’s a completely spent force IMO. He’d have liberal swearing and indiscriminate use of the N-word (yeah it’s really big and clever that you can do that in the context of a movie, right?) and would no doubt chop up the narrative flow in that really original and whacky way that he seems to do in so many of his films. I bet Guy Ritchie is absolutely champing at the bit to get his teeth into 007 and I wouldn’t be in favour of him either for similar reasons. I’m interested to see how Villeneuve and Knight work out and as we have no say in it we just have to hope they do justice.
Agree 100% about Tarantino. And his story about EON ‘stealing’ the idea of doing Casino Royale, is just nonsense.
It’s a pretty funny idea that the producers of the Bond films, who had been steadily adapting the Fleming novels and short stories over 40-years, had somehow, never thought of adapting the last remaining Fleming Bond novel, and he was the first one to suggest doing it.
Hey Quentin, have you thought of doing a film where some criminals shoot each other? If he does that, just remember it was my idea.
I think it served him well, waiting another few years to be Bond. He was just a little *too* young at this time. And he wouldn’t have suited the darker storylines of Living Daylights and Licence to Kill that Dalton carried. The somewhat more mature Pierce of Goldeneye suited him far better in the role.
Possibly, but Pierce quite convincingly played a darker character as the main villain in The Fourth Protocol (1987).
I think he would have been just fine in those films too.
@ Giselle, Yes, especially in The Living Daylights. Licence (Revoked) to Kill is another story, considerably more darker…
Oh I love this! I’m a huge fan of DB odds, and low buttoning ones. I haven’t had any checked ones that I recall, but a couple in flannels and some striped ones. Just lovely!
Of the Bonds covered in this blog, I think Roger and Pierce get the most coverage for their non-Bond suits. I can understand why Dalton and Craig are not featured, but did Connery wear anything sartorially interesting in his non-Bond performances? I would love to know!
I’ve covered Connery quite a bit outside of Bond, mainly in Marnie and Woman of Straw, but also The Frightened City, The Offence, Wrong Is Right, The Russia House, The Rock, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and I think a few others.
I can see why you haven’t yet covered The Name of the Rose…
I’m so glad that you didn’t mention “Zardos”.
I wrote about that film too, but I hardly went into detail.
Thank you. I loved the post about The Rock and The Offence
And yet still no Darby O’Gill and the Little People.
:oP
Honestly, I think Michael G. Wilson is the best dressed individual in these photos.
It is all in the eye of the beholder and in my opinion Pierce is definitely way more dapper! He has the elusive star quality aura, while Michael look more lika a scriptwriter or assistant producer.
Kinda off topic but I think Brian De Palma could’ve made a good Bond film in the ’80s or ’90s based off some of his movies like Blow Out (which has John Lithgow basically playing Red Grant) or Mission Impossible. As for Tarantino, while I’m a big fan of his work, I don’t think he could’ve made a very good Bond film.