Just read Goldfinger for the first time...

Firemass · December 2013

If Goldfinger is considered the best 007 film, why isn't the novel considered the best of the books? I found them strikingly similar, much more so than I imagined. The novel was non-stop entertainment with all the ingredients of a top notch Bond adventure complete with pre-title sequence! The characters were great including all the favorites of Oddjob, Pussy Galore, Goldfinger, and the Masterton sisters. I especially love Goldfinger's "Man has climbed Mt. Everest" speech and was delighted to find it originated almost verbatim in the novel.

Reading the book definitely increased my appreciation of the film and now rank both as my favorite Fleming novel (so far) and favorite Connery Bond film.

on a bizarre note- the few instances of racism against Koreans are so out of left field they are almost funny. Oddjob is apparently the first Korean Bond has ever met and he immediately hates him. "Those terms included putting Oddjob and any other Korean firmly in his place, which, in Bond's estimation, was rather lower than apes in the mammalian hierarchy."

Fleming also had a very primitive understanding of Lesbians, but it was an interesting dynamic between Tilly and Pussy almost becoming an item.

Barbel · December 2013

Firemass wrote:

If Goldfinger is considered the best 007 film, why isn't the novel considered the best of the books? I found them strikingly similar, much more so than I imagined.

Goldfinger is a good Bond book, certainly better than TSWLM, DAF, TMWTGG, OP, and arguably others. It has a classic villain and more than any of the others lets the reader inside Bond's head while the plot unfolds. It's never less than entertaining.
Why isn't it considered the best? There's a certain lack of tension, there are more plot holes than usual (some fixed in the movie), it's more episodic than the others (except perhaps DAF), and suffers coming straight after the magnificent FRWL and DN.

welshboy78 · December 2013

Must admit I didn't really enjoy this one for some reason. So far I enjoyed Moonraker and From Russia With Love the most but ive been very slow getting thru them so I have already forgot a lot of the content!

Ive now just completed Thunderball so about to start The spy Who Loved Me, looking forward to approaching on Her Majestys.....,,

Is it really worth reading post Fleming Novels, think I may find it hard to be motivated since not a huge reader

Le Samourai · December 2013

Goldfinger is not my favorite Bond novel, though I do enjoy it and think it's underrated. I like all the glimpses into Bond's character and personality. Fleming was also at the top of his game in terms of descriptions and characterization.

I see what you mean by Bond's weird anti-Korean racism. It's just so lacking in any context. Racism is usually irrational, but this example is just strange. I think it was Kingsley Amis who noted that this was just another aspect of Bond's individualistic form of snobbery. I believe Amis wrote something along the lines of everyday '50s-era bigots hated Japanese or Chinese, but James Bond has to be different and hate Koreans.

superado · December 2013

Yes, the novel and the movie were very close to each other, but I think the elements in GF allowed such a big screen treatment that was just visually awesome at the time. TB was EON's targeted 1st movie, since it was the most currently released novel when they were at the drawing board and Fleming's treatment of the story that began as a script, was just that, ideal for exploiting on film compared to the books that came before. The subject matter of DN, though fantastical and also conceptually ideal for exploitation on film was limiting as far as the plot's scope as well as the producer's budget. Similarly, FRWL was a straightforward espionage, cold-war thriller...but IMO the 2 things (3 if you count the laser technology) that really made the story elements of GF "pop" when they were translated on the screen, were; the Aston Martin, which was somewhat gadgeted in the book, but then went on to incredible lengths of gadgetry onscreen; and Oddjob, who was pretty much the same in the book, but who visually, on screen, was nothing remotely near what people have seen before in a screen villain. It was GF that set up the skyrocketing of the Bond phenomena to follow in greater force with TB and put Bond into orbit so to speak .

Charmed & Dangerous · December 2013

Added to this, three things: firstly, the producers really hit the zeitgeist of the early 60's; secondly, they perfected the formula, as John Brosnan notes, Goldfinger is the blueprint for all the successful Bonds to come (in terms of basic plot, gadgets, locations, female sacrificial lamb etc).

And thirdly, they finally found a way to translate Bond properly onto the big-screen (IMO). For the first time Bond's personality and character from the novels were kept but Connery's confidence, charisma and coolness took centre-stage, and Bond was treated in a lighter way that made the whole spectacle more entertaining.

So while it's a great novel, it's an even better film.

Thunderpussy · December 2013

+1 Charmed and Dangerous, The film just tweaked the story a little and improved it. -{

Napoleon Plural · December 2013

GF doesn't have that smoky Cold War or particularly exotic vibe of most Fleming's novels, so it sort is a bit different really. The things that make it distinctive were covered in the book and made better, unlike in other novels where there are great things that never make it into the book. Often fans prefer the gravitas of the books but I wouldn't say that GF the novel has greatly more of that than the film, it's kind of lightweight, highly readable.

I understand the GF's aim to rob Fort Knox is generally ludicrous and much improved in the film.

NB that in the book he tails GF from Normandy all the way to Geneva, on the edge of Switzerland, in his Aston, stopping off at a hotel for a rather lonely meal and night's kip, whereas in the film the plane goes straight to Geneva and Bond picks up the trail through Swizerland, anticipating the route of Charlie Croker in The Italian Job at times.

Revelator · December 2013

Firemass wrote:

If Goldfinger is considered the best 007 film, why isn't the novel considered the best of the books? I found them strikingly similar, much more so than I imagined.

There are some crucial differences which explain why the film is usually viewed as better than the book.

* Goldfinger's plan to rob Fort Knox is extremely implausible. The movie recognizes this and comes up with the ingenious scheme of irradiating Fort Knox instead.

* Fleming's climax feels rather rushed, whereas the movie actually takes us inside Fort Knox, instead of rushing away the moment it gets there.

* The film substitutes a laser instead of the cliched buzz-saw.

* Goldfinger's reason for keeping Bond alive (to serve as his secretary) is much less plausible than the film's (to see what Bond knows and use him to keep the CIA/MI6 from descending on Goldfinger).

* Jill's gold-covered death is actually shown in the film, instead of being described second-hand in the book.

* Bond's method of alerting the authorities in the book--leaving a note in the toilet for the janitor--is sillier than the film's solution of having Bond seduce Pussy Galore. Pussy's changing sides also is less abrupt than in the novel.

* Pussy herself is a weaker character in the book, since she's featured far less than Tilly. The movie rectifies this by killing Tilly off at an earlier point and giving Pussy far more prominence, instead of making her Bond's consolation prize.

* Whereas Goldfinger receives an uncreative death by strangulation in the book, the film gives him Oddjob's great airplane death and invents a new, creative death for Oddjob by electrocution.

Fleming also had a very primitive understanding of Lesbians

True. Fleming describes two types of lesbians--mixed up ones caused by sex equality/gender role shifts (Tilly) and lesbians created by a bad experiences with men (Pussy). The latter can be "cured" but the former are regarded as hopeless. Tilly is punished by death for her lesbianism--had she gone with Bond instead of Pussy she would have survived. Bond's obituary for her is condescending and brutal: "Poor little bitch. She didn't think much of men...I could have got her away if she'd only followed me."

Firemass · December 2013

Those are all excellent points Revelator. I agree Tilly was kept alive much too long in the novel and for no apparent reason other than to ridicule her for being a lesbian.

It was kind of a waste to kill BOTH Oddjob AND Goldfinger on the plane, however I was pleased to see the villain being sucked out of the window originated in the book.

In the film version, it's frustrating for me that Bond's note in Mr. Solo's pocket was returned to sender. It was only by a stroke of luck for Bond that Pussy Galore enjoyed being raped in the barn. The canisters being switched was a complete surprise to Bond. Whereas in the book he actually did manage to communicate with the outside world. On that point I find the novel much more satisfying.

By modifying Goldfinger's plan for Fort Knox the filmmakers created a huge plothole: Why does Goldfinger call the big meeting of gangsters only to gas them minutes later? In the novel he actually had a purpose for them. It also seems more in line with Auric's obsessive nature of accumulating wealth to actually steal the gold rather than blow it up.

As for "* Jill's gold-covered death is actually shown in the film, instead of being described second-hand in the book."

True, it was described second hand, however the idea still came from Fleming and translated into one of the most iconic scenes in movie history. This is a good example of why I enjoyed the novel so much. It may be a little rough around the edges but it contains a GOLDmine of ideas and characters that translated extremely well to the big screen.

TheNextLeiter · December 2013

Firemass wrote:

By modifying Goldfinger's plan for Fort Knox the filmmakers created a huge plothole: Why does Goldfinger call the big meeting of gangsters only to gas them minutes later? In the novel he actually had a purpose for them. It also seems more in line with Auric's obsessive nature of accumulating wealth to actually steal the gold rather than blow it up.

I really don't call them plotholes. Mostly because Goldfinger found the gangsters to be useless after he had them fund the operation (He didn't have to spend a cent on it). Also, he wouldn't want any loud-mouthed gangster let any details out. Plus he didn't want to pay them back their 1 million. Physically, yes, he doesn't accumulate gold. But he technically would have raised his value of gold if the operation was successful.

Napoleon Plural · December 2013

Revelator wrote:

Firemass wrote:

If Goldfinger is considered the best 007 film, why isn't the novel considered the best of the books? I found them strikingly similar, much more so than I imagined.

There are some crucial differences which explain why the film is usually viewed as better than the book.

* Goldfinger's plan to rob Fort Knox is extremely implausible. The movie recognizes this and comes up with the ingenious scheme of irradiating Fort Knox instead.

* Fleming's climax feels rather rushed, whereas the movie actually takes us inside Fort Knox, instead of rushing away the moment it gets there.

* The film substitutes a laser instead of the cliched buzz-saw.

* Goldfinger's reason for keeping Bond alive (to serve as his secretary) is much less plausible than the film's (to see what Bond knows and use him to keep the CIA/MI6 from descending on Goldfinger).

* Jill's gold-covered death is actually shown in the film, instead of being described second-hand in the book.

* Bond's method of alerting the authorities in the book--leaving a note in the toilet for the janitor--is sillier than the film's solution of having Bond seduce Pussy Galore. Pussy's changing sides also is less abrupt than in the novel.

* Pussy herself is a weaker character in the book, since she's featured far less than Tilly. The movie rectifies this by killing Tilly off at an earlier point and giving Pussy far more prominence, instead of making her Bond's consolation prize.

* Whereas Goldfinger receives an uncreative death by strangulation in the book, the film gives him Oddjob's great airplane death and invents a new, creative death for Oddjob by electrocution.

Fleming also had a very primitive understanding of Lesbians

True. Fleming describes two types of lesbians--mixed up ones caused by sex equality/gender role shifts (Tilly) and lesbians created by a bad experiences with men (Pussy). The latter can be "cured" but the former are regarded as hopeless. Tilly is punished by death for her lesbianism--had she gone with Bond instead of Pussy she would have survived. Bond's obituary for her is condescending and brutal: "Poor little bitch. She didn't think much of men...I could have got her away if she'd only followed me."

Though there is a similar scene in Solo where a Bond gal makes a break for it, ignoring his entreaties.

That's a brill post Revelator, maybe duplicate it and post it on the imdb for GF, it is a good read.

Revelator · December 2013

Firemass wrote:

In the film version, it's frustrating for me that Bond's note in Mr. Solo's pocket was returned to sender. It was only by a stroke of luck for Bond that Pussy Galore enjoyed being raped in the barn.

Not quite luck--it's a given that Bond is pretty much irresistible to all women aside from hard-core lesbians like Tilly. So it's natural that the film version of Pussy would succumb to Bond's charms. Relying on a convention like Bond's appeal to women feels more satisfying (and Bondian) to me than having Bond leave a note for the toilet cleaner.

The canisters being switched was a complete surprise to Bond. Whereas in the book he actually did manage to communicate with the outside world. On that point I find the novel much more satisfying.

In both Bond seems to initially assume that the "dead" people at Fort Knox are really dead, at least to the extent that their return to life comes as a surprise to the first-time reader/viewer.

By modifying Goldfinger's plan for Fort Knox the filmmakers created a huge plothole: Why does Goldfinger call the big meeting of gangsters only to gas them minutes later? In the novel he actually had a purpose for them.

It is a plot-hole, but it's necessary since the audience is being briefed at the same time as the gangsters. And perhaps Goldfinger just likes hearing the sound of his own voice...

True, it was described second hand, however the idea still came from Fleming and translated into one of the most iconic scenes in movie history. This is a good example of why I enjoyed the novel so much. It may be a little rough around the edges but it contains a GOLDmine of ideas and characters that translated extremely well to the big screen.

Certainly. When Maibaum proposed using a laser instead of buzz-saw, he said it would "out-Fleming Fleming." That's why the film of Goldfinger works so well--it carefully builds upon and expands Fleming's novel, and translates it into a series of unforgettable images and situations. It's the most ingenious adaptation of Fleming, and part of the problem with the later films is that they stopped engaging with the books and trying to "out-Fleming Fleming." Instead the filmmakers threw out the books and were content to recycle earlier Bond films.

Napoleon Plural wrote:

That's a brill post Revelator, maybe duplicate it and post it on the imdb for GF, it is a good read.

Please feel free, and thank you for the kind words.

Napoleon Plural · December 2013

Revelator wrote:

Firemass wrote:

In the film version, it's frustrating for me that Bond's note in Mr. Solo's pocket was returned to sender. It was only by a stroke of luck for Bond that Pussy Galore enjoyed being raped in the barn.

Not quite luck--it's a given that Bond is pretty much irresistible to all women aside from hard-core lesbians like Tilly. So it's natural that the film version of Pussy would succumb to Bond's charms. Relying on a convention like Bond's appeal to women feels more satisfying (and Bondian) to me than having Bond leave a note for the toilet cleaner.

It's a stroke of luck for Pussy that she enjoyed being 'raped' by Bond.

You do see her succumb by the end... (That's one word, not two)

chrisisall · December 2013

Napoleon Plural wrote:

(That's one word, not two)

You are SO bad!

)

Gassy Man · December 2013

Firemass wrote:

on a bizarre note- the few instances of racism against Koreans are so out of left field they are almost funny. Oddjob is apparently the first Korean Bond has ever met and he immediately hates him. "Those terms included putting Oddjob and any other Korean firmly in his place, which, in Bond's estimation, was rather lower than apes in the mammalian hierarchy."

Fleming also had a very primitive understanding of Lesbians, but it was an interesting dynamic between Tilly and Pussy almost becoming an item.

It's not hard to find racism and sexism in pop culture, then or now. Asians are often the target, and for whatever reason, there often does not seem to be much guilt over it in the larger culture. At some point in the novel, Colonel Smithers even comments on Koreans not speaking any civilized language, so they were not considered as much of a security risk, or some such blatant idiocy.

But then there is also the western European prejudice against Eastern Europeans. Goldfinger, a "Balt," himself is seen by Bond as ugly, in part because of his "round head" and shorter stature, even though Bond describes Goldfinger as having rather refined features. It all smacks of phrenology, the idea that a person's value and integrity could be determined by how close or far away from western European beauty standards they are.

Thunderpussy · December 2013

For anyone interested, the Bond Book of the Month for January is Goldfinger.
So if anyone wants to add a review or either re-read it or read it for the first time
Please feel free. It is a terrific Bond novel. -{

lueth2048 · June 2014

I don't find a British Man hating Koreans in the mid 50s to be all that difficult to believe. A man Bond's age in 1959 (or Fleming's age) would have have probably men who were POWs in the Far East during WWII.

I think Goldfinger is one of Fleming's weakest novels. The first two thirds are too slow and Fleming relies too much on coincidence.

Thunderpussy · June 2014

Goldfinger, has a weak finish. The attack on Ft Knox is over in a few pages
Also having Goldfinger have Bond work for him is a weak plot element. The
Film really does improve on the book.

AlphaOmegaSin · June 2014

It's also hard to believe that a fully fledged Lesbian like PG can be completely turned into a Heterosexual within seven Pages -{

Thunderpussy · June 2014

) although I think Fleming came from a time when lesbians were
Considered simply silly girls, who with the right man would settle
Down.
Then again Bond is so manly, with so much sexual charisma, she just
Couldn't help herself.

)

Peppermill · June 2014

Thunderpussy wrote:

) although I think Fleming came from a time when lesbians were
Considered simply silly girls, who with the right man would settle
Down.
Then again Bond is so manly, with so much sexual charisma, she just
Couldn't help herself. )

What do you mean 'from a time'? Is this not still the case? I live by this motto:

There are no lesbians, only women that haven't met me yet.

Thunderpussy · June 2014

...... And when they do, there are even MORE lesbians.

)

Peppermill · June 2014

On topic: I do think the movie adds a lot of flair to an otherwise kind of dull story.

Thunderpussy · June 2014

+1, The film fixed the few small problems and improved the story. {[]

Just read Goldfinger for the first time...

Comments