If Alfred Hitchcock directed a Bond movie

osmir007

What if Alfred Hitchcock (on top of his game at that time) had a chance to direct a Bond movie ?
Would it be a good Bond movie ? and how would it be ?
Remember what he said :

-I never said all actors are cattle; what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle.

-When an actor comes to me and wants to discuss his character, I say, 'It's in the script.' If he says, 'But what's my motivation?, ' I say, 'Your salary.'

-A good film is when the price of the dinner, the theatre admission and the babysitter were worth it.

The Cat

If it would be like North By Northwest, it would be awesome...

But if it were like his closest work to the genre - Topaz - than God forbid...

Quartermaster007

The Cat wrote:

If it would be like North By Northwest, it would be awesome...

Yes, than that would be amazing.

emtiem

Bond films practically are just North by Northwest remakes. No bad thing at all.

The Cat

But North By Northwest is already based on a Hitchcock staple - innocent man on the run after being mistaken with somebody and ends up in extraordinary circumstances. The major difference is why I feel the parallels are less valid is because the key is on being wound up these situations by accident. Bond is always a spy on the job.

Now Topaz, I feel, was Hitchcock's attempt at doing a Bond film or something close to that... exotic locales, spies, political conspiracies, beautiful women (Karin Dor!) all wrapped up in a howlingly boring package. Man, that's almost Hitchcock's rock bottom...

osmir007

But would he treat Connery, etc as Cattle ?
And if, is that good ?

The Cat

osmir007 wrote:

But would he treat Connery, etc as Cattle ?
And if, is that good ?

Well, we'd have to ask the cast & crew of Marnie about that.

DAWUSS

I believe Torn Curtain was his "response" to James Bond, if I remember what was said on the back correctly

jetsetwilly

Hitchcock was all about suspense; part of the thrill of one of his films is the tension between what might happen and what does. Bond films are, however, less about what will happen, than how it will happen; we know Bond will succeed, and so we follow him en route. In addition, given the overlap between Bond and Hitchcock, I think we would have ended up with a bad Hitchcock film. The references to Torn Curtain are telling; almost every discussion of this film refers to the fantastic murder scene, with the rest of the film pretty much ignored. If Hitchcock had been unleashed on, say, FRWL, I have a feeling that the fight on the Orient Express would still have been a classic, but the rest of the movie would have been a little lacklustre; he was fully in his "shooting for television" phase at that time. By then Hitchcock was filming exactly what he wanted to (Tippi Hedren, mostly ) and what he wasn't interested in flew by.

A Bond movie by Hitchcock in around 56/57 might have been interesting, but I'll return to his character trait; how do you create suspense when the climax is signposted from the first frame?

Willie Garvin

jetsetwilly wrote:

Hitchcock was all about suspense; part of the thrill of one of his films is the tension between what might happen and what does. Bond films are, however, less about what will happen, than how it will happen; we know Bond will succeed, and so we follow him en route. In addition, given the overlap between Bond and Hitchcock, I think we would have ended up with a bad Hitchcock film. The references to Torn Curtain are telling; almost every discussion of this film refers to the fantastic murder scene, with the rest of the film pretty much ignored. If Hitchcock had been unleashed on, say, FRWL, I have a feeling that the fight on the Orient Express would still have been a classic, but the rest of the movie would have been a little lacklustre; he was fully in his "shooting for television" phase at that time. By then Hitchcock was filming exactly what he wanted to (Tippi Hedren, mostly ) and what he wasn't interested in flew by.

A Bond movie by Hitchcock in around 56/57 might have been interesting, but I'll return to his character trait; how do you create suspense when the climax is signposted from the first frame?

Good points.I think Notorious gives us an idea of how Hitchcock might've handled something like Casino Royale.North by Northwest--being to a great degree a selfsalute to all of his innocent man on the run things(beginning with The 39 Steps)shows how he'd have handled action.But you're correct,I think,because it's doubtful Hitchcock would've been very interested in coming up with anything as (generally)tightly plotted as one of Fleming's better stories.Hitch was always one to look for a way to put his special stamp on each film--whether the movie needed it or not.And as Cat points out,he was disinclined to be faithful to any literary adaptations.David O.Selznick had an exceedingly difficult time getting Hitch to direct Rebecca as scripted and without his special "florishes"(such as naming the nameless narrator Daphne,and depicting the mysterious Maxim deWinter riding around in a speedboat-a cigar firmly clamped between his teeth).

I remember reading that Hitch grew bored while making Topaz and rather than use the original Leon Uris climax(which is pretty dramatic and definitely cinematic--IMO)he came up with 3 alternate endings instead--none of which he liked.

The Cat

DAWUSS wrote:

I believe Torn Curtain was his "response" to James Bond, if I remember what was said on the back correctly

It's nothing like Bond because again, it's the story of an "ordinary man caught up in extraordinary circumstances." Professor Armstrong might do the work voulantarily, but he's still a physics professor, not a spy. But at least it's a rathar good movie.

Loeffelholz

Hitchcock was a maestro, and he could have done an excellent Bond film, if the script met his approval---and if he willingly accepted the traditional yolk Eon puts around their directors' necks...

...So, Hitchcock never would have directed a Bond picture.

But, if he had, I would say, think "Notorious" meets "North by Northwest," and it would have been very entertaining---and a 'one off.'

emtiem

The Cat wrote:

But North By Northwest is already based on a Hitchcock staple - innocent man on the run after being mistaken with somebody and ends up in extraordinary circumstances. The major difference is why I feel the parallels are less valid is because the key is on being wound up these situations by accident. Bond is always a spy on the job.

Well yeah- but that's just a detail; you may as well say he isn't called 'James Bond' so it's nothing like a Bond film. But the fun tone, the travelling, expensive lush environments, stylish and witty hero, jokes, action and evil cultured villain, plus it even being involved in the spy world (although that isn't important to the similarity) make it very much a prototype Bond movie. It has many more surface similarities than the other alternate Bond series- Indiana Jones.

Napoleon Plural

Hitch was quoted as having a genererally disparaging attitute to the Bond films. He saw them as a salad, with little bits of everything but no overall flavour to speak of...

Bond playfully riffs on Hitch scenes.. the helicopter climax of FRWL is like the crop dusting scene in North By Northwest... the white knuckle car ride by the feisty female drive in Thunderball lifted from To Catch A Thief, the awkward and protracted killing in the elevator in DAF like a similar scene in Torn Curtain...

But Hitch's powers were arguably fading by the mid-60s and he was turning increasingly misogynistic(sp?) in his depiction of women, and no that's nothing like the alleged msygonoy ?:) that Bond is said to indulge in. Hitch's films are informed by a Catholic guilt of sorts that have no place in 007's world.

Dan Same

emtiem wrote:

Well yeah- but that's just a detail; you may as well say he isn't called 'James Bond' so it's nothing like a Bond film. But the fun tone, the travelling, expensive lush environments, stylish and witty hero, jokes, action and evil cultured villain, plus it even being involved in the spy world (although that isn't important to the similarity) make it very much a prototype Bond movie. It has many more surface similarities than the other alternate Bond series- Indiana Jones.

First of all, I wouldn't want Hitchcock or any other great director to direct a Bond film (they might want to go outside the formula), but having said that, I agree that North By Northwest would have been a great Bond film, with a few details changed of course. It's a brilliant film which is indeed quite Bondian.
(Obviously some details would have to be changed to make it more Bondian, but I imagine that would be relatively easy.)

osmir007

GF could get a little bit more suspense from Hitchcock(cause only the beginning of GF had suspense in it).
And compared to DN,FRWL,TB GF lacks suspense!
I guess this is what Bond17+ (Bond17 and UP) needs or lacks!

Number24

Hitch was all about suspence, humour and style.
Perfect for Bond.

PoorMansJB

osmir007 wrote:

But would he treat Connery, etc as Cattle ?
And if, is that good ?

There's a book due out shortly providing a thorough examination of Marnie, one of Hitchcock's several films with Tippi Hedren and co-starring Connery circa GF (inexplicably playing an American ... a Texan, no less, as I recall) so we may well find out.

(Curious they should choose to dissect Marnie, generally not well thought of in Hitch's pantheon, particularly some of the gimmicky "SFX". I can't ever get enough of the Birds but aside from a great Cinefantastique analysis 20 years ago, there's not been alot written about it.)

As for whether or not Hitch would have been a good choice to direct a Bond, we probably need to underscore what's been posted elsewhere here about Hitchcock's domain being the innocent man swept up by forces beyond his control; those films--North by Northwest, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The 39 Steps, etc.--are among his best. Hitchcock's strengths seem counter to what makes a good 007 film.

Although he died long before Bond rolled around, I would like to have seen Victor Fleming as director.

Pierce_Brosnan

I would not like it. It is not his Genre.

RogueAgent

It depends really. Could he make a taut Goldfinger? Yes. Moonraker? No.

Agent Wade

Per the documentary from my The Birds DVD, I learned a lot about Hitchcock's take on filming, innovations in effects and other aspects of pantomime and lighting to make the audience believe they're seeing things that don't actually occure. Most of the time performers in a Hitch movie were in a sound stage. Though a genious, Hitchcock was very strict about his ability to control every element of the filming process, which is what makes The Birds so rare, in that there were scenes actually filmed outside.

I agree that he would do well with something of the Goldfinger ilk which contained mostly sets and performing in front of screens. But anything from the Brosnan era would be a distinct no-no.

osmir007

Agent Wade wrote:

Per the documentary from my The Birds DVD, I learned a lot about Hitchcock's take on filming, innovations in effects and other aspects of pantomime and lighting to make the audience believe they're seeing things that don't actually occure. Most of the time performers in a Hitch movie were in a sound stage. Though a genious, Hitchcock was very strict about his ability to control every element of the filming process, which is what makes The Birds so rare, in that there were scenes actually filmed outside.

I agree that he would do well with something of the Goldfinger ilk which contained mostly sets and performing in front of screens. But anything from the Brosnan era would be a distinct no-no.

So you think that LTK and TLD would be a no no for him

Agent Wade

I'd have to say that there's a possibility that Hitch would have done LTK, only he would have used Dalton a lot more in the actual stunts that Cubby would have preferred. Remember in the documentary when they said he had a bird (pun intended) when he came to the set and found his star hanging from the hook? Hitch wasn't beyond dragging his actors through the mud and telling them to clean up in 5 minutes for their next take. However, I think Hitch would have had a much more difficult time making the outdoorsy stuff look realistic. He'd try to fake it all I think. Have Dalton move really slowly in a smoke filled room rather than actually put an actor under water.

PUCCINI

I think Hitchcock is one of the greatest, if not the greatest filmmaker ever, theres's rumours that a Bond movie was offered to him, it was Goldfinger, when the book came out and the head of UA had the idea to make a picture of it, but sadly he didn't have the rights of the novel...

Well, Hitchcock is my all time favorite director, and Bond my all time favorite character, that could had been the greatest mix of film history...

caractacus potts

Hitchcock was about more than suspense
he was about revolutionary camera work, a visual vocab of paranoia, a black sense of humour, victimised blondes with a hidden dark side, ambiguous heroes getting creepy, mistaken identity and loss of faith in ones identity, voyeurism and the implication of his audience, staircases and more staircases, and... spy stories
all his classic 30s films were spy stories, as were many of his 40s films

he would have been past his prime when the connery films were being made, but 50s Hitch at the height of his powers, the Hitch that made Rear Window and Vertigo, would have made the 007 films an awesome series indeed

he never would have fallen into the formula the Brocolli series did, he was too much of an experimentalist for that, thus each film would have a radical new take, much like fleming actually tried to do with his books

also, i think Hitchcocks Bond would be amuch more morally ambiguous character, discovering his capacity for cruelty as required and feeling revulsion at the realisation of who he can be and has to be to do his job - think about the headtrips that nice Jimmy Stewart experiences in the 2 films named above, that sort of thing would make for excellent Bond films, be true to Fleming, and be much more interesting as movies than much of what we have in the Brocolli-verse

on the downside Hitch hated filming on location, so that could rob us of much of the spectacular sightseeing content, but even then he did somehow give us all those fantastic shots of San Francisco in Vertigo, and the French Riviera in to Catch A Thief...

PUCCINI

It would have been awesome, Hitch is in my top of greatest directors of all time, he was a genius, my favorite film of all time (apart from the Bonds) is Vertigo, it is amazing...

Napoleon Plural

Not worth a new thread, but it was mentioned recently that the book Goldfinger was written the year North by Northwest came out. Well, critics of GF (on this site) complain that Bond is a bit passive in this film and gets taken hostage, but of course that is in a way the Hitchcock template... the hero is a bit out of his depth and on the back foot, and gets taken as a sort of guest of the sophisticated villain who enjoys his company.

Anyway that's the reason perhaps that GF went in a different direction slightly.

Loeffelholz

It was kind of always that way in the Fleming novels, as well, though: Fleming described Bond as a blunt instrument who was carried along by the action of the story---then got into a tight situation, and had to fight his way out of it.

North by Northwest, IMHO, is Hitchcock doing a splashy remake/expansion of a couple of his older classic films: The 39 Steps, of which I know you're a big fan (as am I)...and Saboteur, one of his earliest Hollywood pictures. Both, like NBNW, featured the classic element of the 'Everyman' caught in extraordinary circumstances. However similar the story elements between NBNW and GF (or any other Bond, for that matter) may be, Bond was never 'Everyman.'

Number24

Having Hitchcock make "Casino Royale" in the mid- to late fifties would be amazing! A guarantied classic, but what would have happened to the following series?

Moore Than

An article from the Mail Online reveals a telegram (in full) that Ian Fleming sent to novelist Eric Ambler (in September 1959) asking if Alfred Hitchcock would be interested in directing the first Bond film. The plot of the film in the telegram refers to Thunderball, which had originally been intended as the first Bond film.

Revealed: The secret telegram that shows Ian Fleming wanted Alfred Hitchcock to direct the first Bond film
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144638/Revealed-The-secret-telegram-shows-Ian-Fleming-wanted-Alfred-Hitchcock-direct-Bond-film.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Number24

I understand there were plans for Howard Hawks to direct Casino Royal around 1960. That would have been interesting. Here is a good discussion on how it may have played out:

http://www.hmss.com/films/carygrant007/