Sadism For the Family: The First Four Bond Films
Thomas Crown
Posts: 119MI6 Agent
Hey everyone,
this is a paper I wrote for a film class I took last semester. One of my sources, which I'll post under the "works cited" was AJB moderator Willie Garvin!
I look forward to your comments!
this is a paper I wrote for a film class I took last semester. One of my sources, which I'll post under the "works cited" was AJB moderator Willie Garvin!
I look forward to your comments!
Comments
The James Bond films, where a suave civil servant saved the world while enjoying all the advantages of expensive living, broke the mold for action heroes and the rules of the times; he was a hero who killed in cold blood, a symbol of irresistible sexual prowess in films targeted for general audiences. The first four 007 films, Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, and Thunderball, developed the essence of James Bond: a ruthless, government- sanctioned assassin camouflaged by evening wear and luxurious locations. These particular Bond films are thematically distinctive from each other, and proved to all be essential to the “British Invasion” of 1960’s pop culture: Dr. No was described as “sadism for the family;” From Russia With Love gained American fame by being one of President Kennedy’s favorite novels; theaters stayed open 24 hours a day on Christmas to accommodate crowds for Goldfinger; Thunderball stands as one of the highest grossing films of all time (inflation adjusted).
The world wide fame achieved by these films is also due in part to those who crafted the cinematic “essence of James Bond,” original 007 director Terence Young, and the original 007, Sean Connery. Young imbued an element of sophistication to Bond’s world and exterior qualities, while Connery’s rugged personality captured the ruthlessness inherent in Bond. The combination of Young and Connery in adapting Ian Fleming’s James Bond novels, with the apparent “need” for escapist entertainment within western culture, created a wave of “Bondmania” from which the western cinema has never fully recovered.
The early to mid 1960’s were the ideal time for the James Bond film series to be conceived. While the conception of such a hero was foreign to western cinema audiences before hand, “the post war economic boom increased the living standards of many in the United States and the United Kingdom,” therefore making the material goods of capitalism more accessible; the advent of commercial jet travel also made exotic locations more attainable. The advantages of democratic capitalism were coupled with a world weariness brought on by the threat of nuclear war. The decade began with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev pronouncing to the west, “we will bury you,” When Ian Fleming first created James Bond in his 1952 novel, Casino Royale, the west was in equally contentious times, and the novel was a reflection of that. Now in the 1960’s, the cinematic James Bond could also be a reflection of his times. As well as being an escapist fantasy that sometimes seems unrealistic, 007 could reassure the western public’s faith that in its culture, warriors existed who would strike first and end threats to their civilization.
With a budget of 1,000,000 dollars, producers Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman began production of Dr. No for release in the fall of 1962. The film’s plot outlines James Bond being sent to Jamaica to investigate the disappearance of a British agent investigating “Dr.No;” a scientist working on an island called Crab Key who aims to use nuclear power to terrorize the U.S. space program. The films real strength is in both its director and lead actor, both of which would define the style of the James Bond series, and action/adventure films.
When Terence Young was offered the directorial reigns for Dr.No, he was pleased to be working with a similar crew that gained him notoriety on The Red Beret (1953), but was skeptical of the script. The James Bond novels written by Ian Fleming were seldom regarded as serious spy thrillers, and the initial script for Dr. No seemed to be even more outlandish to Young; in an early draft the “villain s name was Buckfield, and Dr. No was the name of the spider monkey who sat on his shoulder.” As director, Young would drastically overhaul the script of Dr. No, keeping the film closer to the source material as he believed audiences would identify with the Cold War tensions of the novel. He also imbued the series with a sense of sophistication and elegance that would remain a staple of the franchise, and fit well into a decade with high standards of living in the west. Young primarily accomplished this through the James Bond character, first flashed out by Sean Connery. Mike Vincitore explains how Terence Young was able to transform Sean Connery into James Bond:
More than anyone except Ian Fleming, Terence Young defined the onscreen essence of the James Bond character. Sean Connery brought a catlike grace and great screen presence to 007, but was more comfortable drinking a beer in jeans and a sweatshirt. Young brought Connery to his own tailor and outfitted him for the part, [making him sleep in a tuxedo the night before shooting]. The suave tastes for Dom Perignon, and Savile Row suits were an extension of Young s own dashing personality. The tongue-in-cheek humor that would become such a staple of the series evolved between Young, and
Connery, who felt that a bit of self-parody, would make the series more watch-able and less vulnerable to satire.
The exterior qualities of suaveness, and effortless elegance would mold perfectly with Sean Connery, a former coffin polisher turned B-movie actor, who defines “the role because of his rough diamond heritage. A working class soul with a physically seductive and intimidating exterior made it impossible to label Bond a society snob.” Rather, Connery’s rugged personality made it easy for him to evoke the core characteristic of James Bond, an executioner who is sanctioned to kill by his government. He is not a superhero, or a police officer, but an assassin.
The combination of a ruthless assassin with the very best of expensive living was revolutionary in cinema, and required an actor who could not only be seen as a killer and a gentleman, but one who can be appealing in doing so. “Connery nailed this aspect of Bond. He looked perfect in a tuxedo, beating the villains eight with a nine at baccarat.” And, for as much as the audience reveled in the cool escapism brought about by Bond’s exterior, “the audience was never in doubt that Connery’s Bond could excuse himself politely from the table, kill six guards, blow open the safe, steal the macguffin and be back before the next course was served.”
Dr.No was widely anticipated by its release. While many critics derided the film (and later on, the Bond series generally) as a “B-movie with a budget,” many had a hard time defining the Bond films because they were so unique: action films with outlandish plots, throwaway one line humor, over-the-top characters, and yet the film took itself seriously.
The impossibility of Bond to fit conventional labels for films allowed him to craft a modern adventure genre that, in the eyes of Terence Young, harkens back to old MGM serial films. These films were also unique in that, in spite of not being considered “serious” films (series films were seldom taken “seriously” by film critics), they had large budgets for expensive wardrobe’s, set’s, locations, and action sequences. The early Bond films also had the advantage of popular source material in Ian Fleming’s novels, which gave the first films unique characters that audiences could be aroused by. Terence Young describes the cinematic legacy of Dr.No:
There was a very interesting article by the head of the Clnematheque, in France, in which he said that Dr. No was one of the great innovative films. He said, “Years from now, all films will be made like this.” I realized there were an awful lot of plot holes, in Dr. No, but I worked out that if you could entertain an audience for a couple of hours, they wouldn’t really start being difficult about the story till they were on the way home and then the wife would probably say to her husband, “Well why don’t you shut up, you enjoyed it.” That was always the technique we would try to keep in it.
It was a foregone conclusion that 007 would return in 1963’s From Russia with Love. The film demonstrated both the west and the USSR as not enemies, but pawns in the game of a terrorist organization named SPECTRE. Yet for most of the film, Bond is convinced that the Russians are the enemy trying to kill him. The message of the film, that the Western world and the Soviet Union were not true adversaries but pawns in a terrorists game not only contains considerable foresight given the world we now live in, but was comforting to those watching the film while events like the Cuban Missile Crisis played out on television. The film also gained pop culture status when the novel version appeared on President Kennedy’s list of favorite books. Film advertisements for From Russia with Love made use of this, advertising that 007 had fans from the United Kingdom “all the way to Hyannis port [the vacation spot for the Kennedy family].”
From Russia with Love offers an incredible amount of cinematic value as well. Director Terence Young described it as “the best of all Bond pictures” because it contained excellent supporting roles, (specifically in Bond’s alley Kierm Bey, and Bond’s primary enemy “Red” Grant who would both become staples for the “ally” and “henchman” role in later action films), remained faithful to the novel, and was “the best subject for a Bond film.” Sean Connery, who also labeled this his favorite Bond film, was more convincingly smooth in this film, and is used as a “tool” in what is a smaller scale plot than Dr. No. The film also develops the famous “pre-credit” sequence in a James Bond film, and raises the bar for ruthless violence in a hand-to-hand combat scene between Bond and Grant aboard the Orient Express that is still edited in televised viewings.
The buzz around the films release was even greater than Dr.No’s, and its international appeal showed off 007 as a western hero to the world. Even in Russia, KGB officials would watch the Bond films to determine what technological advantages the west had over them and how to counter them. No other film series had internationally defined a culture like James Bond was. And while this would be the beginning of international “Bondmaina,” the next two Bond films, Goldfinger and Thunderball, would drastically increase production values, and elevate the James Bond series to blockbuster status within western cinema.
“The James Bond films turned a corner in many ways-some for better, some for worse-with Goldfinger. With this film, they evolved from tight, suspenseful, gritty spy dramas that still managed to keep tongue firmly in cheek into grand epics containing unforgettable images, spectacular stunts, and incredible gadgetry-epics for which Goldfinger became the model. Each succeeding film would try to simultaneously emulate and outdo Goldfinger with mixed degrees of success.” The essence of Bond was still intact in Goldfinger, and was elevated to new heights. James Bond was not just a synonym for adventurer, but a synonym for the ultimate western male. All of Bond’s conventions were elevated as well: he drove an Aston Martin rather than a Bentley, instead of bedding just one or two women, he bedded three (one of which was named Pussy Galore), and was no longer stopping mad scientists or capturing decoders, he was preventing an atomic bomb from going off inside Fort Knox.
Terence Young had done some preliminary work on Goldfinger, but the film itself was directed by Guy Hamilton. Truthfully, “it was business decisions that led to this change in the character of 007,” Hamilton merely ushered in that change.
Connery’s influence on the role, however, was cemented with Goldfinger. The films appeal to American audiences (primarily achieved by situating the film in mostly American locations-Miami and Kentucky) allowed Connery to become a Hollywood star with Goldfinger that spawned scores of imitators. He was able to keep the ruthless assassin core he personified in the first films, but the exterior qualities of Bond began to become more apparent than his core. This is evidenced by the greater emphasis on gadgets; in Dr.No, Bond was not given any gadgets, From Russia with Love contained a few, but Goldfinger gave Bond an Aston Martin laden with machine guns and an ejector seat.
Nevertheless, the film became popular in a way no James Bond film, or any film of its type, was before it. The “B-movie with a budget” was showcased in theaters 24-hours a day on Christmas to accommodate crowds, and for its time, was the biggest Christmas day opening ever. The film also had perfect timing, being released in the same year as the “British Invasion” of the Beatles began to sweep into American pop culture. Goldfinger’s immediate success ignited the 1960’s spy craze and produced several American imitators, for example, Our Man Flint (1966), The Silencers (1966), The Mission: Impossible television show, and The Man from UNCLE.
With Thunderball, and the return of Director Terence Young to his final Bond film, the producers still wanted to retain the core elements of James Bond, but began to give into the now defined popular conception of 007. SPECTRE becomes more elaborate than it was in the novel, and the role of the gadget-master, Q, is written into the script because of Goldfinger’s success. While the film was revolutionary in the use of underwater sequences (even having its finale take place under water), both Sean Connery and Terence Young were beginning to become disappointed with the “kitchen sink drama” that now defined James Bond films. Terence Young explained his disappointment with what was the highest grossing Bond film of all time:
I really honestly don't know why I did Thunderball. I don't particularly like it. It's about the most successful Bond picture in terms of sales of tickets, in fact somebody today said that he thought it had sold more tickets than Jaws, and possibly more than Star Wars. It's a very efficient picture, but already the hardware was creeping into the stories.
Thunderball does boast of interesting characters and Sean Connery is described by many fans as looking his best as Bond here. The film also satisfied the escapist value of the Bond films, setting its film in the exotic Bahamas islands. But in many ways, the film sets the stage for the next Bond film, You Only Live Twice, one that Connery despised, and Young refused to direct as it completely abandoned its original source material.
By the time Thunderball climaxed the “Bondmania” within Western cinema, the 007 series began to define itself began to look repetitive and predictable. Like many failed imitators that came out of “Bondmania,” the 007 series mistakenly felt the secret to its success was in its exterior qualities, rather than within the character of Bond that audiences escaped into, and in some ways, could relate with.
The Bond series lost its cultural influence within the 1970’s due to the rise against the establishment Bond fought for and represented in both his fashion and his character. While still enduring and popular within that time, the Bond series increased its outlandish plots and humor in an attempt to appeal to younger, less sophisticated audiences. Most of this was in response to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969), one of the few excellent attempts outside of the first four Bond films to reclaim the ruthless sophistication that made Bond a cinematic icon.
While the series has reached similar heights of success on occasion since the 1960’s, particularly with both Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan who re-asserted the core elements of the Bond character, it has never had the consistency of success or the cultural influenced it attained with the first four films. With the release of Casino Royale (2006), it appears the 007 franchise has taken advantage of how darkly similar the times we live in to those that created the “need” for 007 are, and used Ian Fleming’s first novel to successfully “re-boot” the franchise in an effort to, hopefully, reclaim the core elements that defined the original Bond pictures. The film is the first 007 picture to base its story on an Ian Fleming novel since 1987, and remains very faithful to a novel written nearly half a century before its release; clearly an intention exists to keep the initial ingredients for Bond’s success alive.
Regardless, the effect of Bond films on popular culture, and the creation of the action/adventure genre it created have been immeasurable; action/adventure films would be unrecognizable without the influence of 007. He is truly, a hero for the ages.
Cotton, Robert “The Americanization of James Bond” Copyright 1998 by Robert Cotton, Accessed December 14, 2006 http://www.hmss.com/films/ameribond.htm
“Time Tunnel: A Thousand Times No, No, No” Critical Reaction to Dr. No, 22 September 2006 http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/history_press_dr_no.php3?t=dn&s=dn
Fenemore, Michael “The Cinematic Evolution of Her Majesty’s Finest” December 24, 2004 http://www.bondmovies.com Accessed on December 13, 2006
Cotton, Robert “Terence Young” Copyright 1997 Her Majesty’s Secret Servant http://www.hmss.com/films/young.htm
Vincitore, Mike “Dr.No: An Appreciation” Her Majesty’s Secret Servant http://www.hmss.com/films/drno.htm
King, Byron “Sean Connery’s James Bond” Copyright 2000 by Byron King
http://www.hmss.com/films
Schenkman, Richard “The Terence Young Interview” “Bondage: The Magazine of the U.S. James Bond 007 Fan Club.” Copyright 1981. http://members.aol.com/amvee/hmssfile/terence1.htm Accessed December 13, 2006
Cork, John, and Scivally, Bruce “Inside From Russia With Love” DVD booklet. Copyright 2000 MGM From Russia With Love Special Edition DVD
Cork, John, and Scivally James Bond: The Legacy Published by Harry N. Abrams Copyright October 1st, 2002
Vincitore, Mike “Goldfinger: An Appreciation” Her Majesty’s Secret Servant http://www.hmss.com/films/gf.htm
“Garvin, Willie” Member and Moderator, “Absolutely James Bond” Fan Site,
http://www.ajb007.co.uk