Guy Hamilton - Bad for Bond
Eagleman
Posts: 26MI6 Agent
I blame Guy Hamilton for the death of James Bond's ruthless, hard spy style. Look at his films. All he wanted to do was turn Bond into a comic strip. Diamonds Are Forever being the worst for this.
Terence Young had set the tone for Bond. He had the right idea for what Bond should say, do and act. But Hamilton wanted big bangs, big laughs and little realism. He was a poor choice of director. Even Lee Tamahori did a better job than Hamilton. And that's saying something!
X-(
Terence Young had set the tone for Bond. He had the right idea for what Bond should say, do and act. But Hamilton wanted big bangs, big laughs and little realism. He was a poor choice of director. Even Lee Tamahori did a better job than Hamilton. And that's saying something!
X-(
Comments
Additionally, I don't think that DAF or any of Moore's films could be described as 'comic strips.' Many of Moore's films may have been less 'realistic' than the earlier Bond films but I don't think that is a bad thing. I think a film should be measured on how well it serves its function rather than what its function is. That is to say, TSWLM is IMO the fifth best Bond film of all time yet could harldy be described as 'realistic.' The reason I think it is so fantastic is that it is simply brilliantly well made. GF also wasn't particularly 'realistic' but was too incredibly well made. On the other hand, LTK was 'realistic' but IMO was terribly made. It may very well be that most of the best Bond films are 'realistic' but I don't think that simply because a Bond film is 'realistic' it is superior to a less 'realistic' film.
Finally, how can you say that the director of DAD did a better job than the director of GF?
Eagleman -- Heaven forgive me because I looove "Goldfinger," but I think you're right, sacriligeous as it sounds. It was Hamilton and "Goldfinger" that solidified the series' “formula,” and tone, nudging it down the slippery slope to self-parody, until it fell off the cliff with eight-foot, indestructible villains with steel teeth and invisible cars. It didn't seem that way at the time because Connery has such a strong dramatic personality that it kept GF's fantasy elements in check. But actors with lesser personalities followed and were overwhelmed by the jokiness. Having seen CR, I can't help but wonder what might have been had the series had not taken that disastrous turn.
Plus, one could argue that all of the Bond films contain fantastical elements. FRWL has a woman with poison tipped shoes, DN has a villain with metal hands, OHMSS has Blofeld's scheme which involves hypnotism, and LTK still has Q. My hope is that future Bond films still contain 'fantastical' elements but, above all, they are well made.
Don't get me wrong: just look at my favorite films list and you'll see "Goldfinger" is number 2 for me. One of the reasons I like it so much is because it does follow the source novel fairly closely. But looking at the big picture, it's success I think hurt the franchise because it became almost the "trademark" Bond film, the template for all that followed and the prototypical Bond film. No one dared to really break the GF mold -- until CR -- out of fear it would no longer be a "Bond film." And we've seen that very sentiment about CR. I don't mean that Hamilton did a bad job. On the contrary. You could say he did too good a job.
"I never miss"
I know that you don't like some of the more fantastical Bonds, however if it wasn't for TSWLM or MR, there wouldn't be a FYEO or LTK. The more fantastical films have traditionally been the more successful ones.
Plus, I don't think it's such a bad thing to have contrast. I'm not a fan of the Dalton films however I think that even they have their place. Wouldn't it be boring if every Bond film was the same? Say what you want about Hamilton or Gilbert, but not every Bond film has been like GF or TSWLM.
And that's absolutely true. Maybe if FRWL had been the template, a more reality-based espionnage thriller, the series might have folded long ago.
But you raise a point that I hear a lot: that the later Bonds have different styles. To be perfectly honest, I don't really see a hell of a lot of difference in tone between them. I just don't. They may tone down some of the excess, but that's just a matter of degree. There is, however, a HUGE difference in style between those films and CR.
Goldfinger was the first James Bond film I saw(and this was in the original release) but I while I like it,I don't believe in giving more credit to the director than to the screenwriter.Without a script,a motion picture might have a collection of interesting people and pretty locales but not much else.
That said,I think Terence Young is all too often overlooked when his contribution to the series is immense.He rewrote the entire Dr.No screenplay from a piece of unfilmable nonsense about a villain with a pet monkey named Dr.No into something more closely resembling the Ian Fleming story, with it's riff on Sax Rohmer's Dr.Fu Manchu.
Additionally,Young established the pseudo-documentary look the series usually has.He also decided that practically all of the women in the Bond films would be beautiful.He also made a point of occasionally making subtle references to current events(the stolen Wellington portrait in Dr.No's hideout,for example).Young also carefully selected Connery's wardrobe--right down to the foldback cuffs on his shirts so that 007 wouldn't snag himself on anything during a fight.Pretty much everything we associate with the EON 007 can be traced in large measure to Young,who did his best to suggest as much of Ian Fleming as he could on the screen.
Frankly,I think Young is a more imaginative director than Hamilton,who--with Goldfinger--just inherited a film with the famous formula that'd already been established for him by Young.Richard Maibaum and Paul Dehn wrote the screenplay Hamilton filmed.And although I like Goldfinger,I think From Russia With Love and Thunderball are superior motion pictures.
As Cubby Broccoli used to say,"That's what makes horse races."
I cannot stand The Man With the Golden Gun or Diamonds Are Forever.I don't blame Hamilton as much as I do EON for cynically cranking out movies that if they were not part of the Bond franchise would've simply been dismissed out of hand and been extremely difficult to book.
Ah, but remember, it was Guy Hamilton who told Desmond Llewelyn to play Q as someone who has a good deal of contempt for Bond--and that became the model for the Bond/Q relationship we all know and love. WG, you know I've always ranked Young as the best Bond director--he created the style--but I think Hamilton's work on Goldfinger was excellent, and I simply think it's wrong to conclude that he was "bad for Bond."
Still, they're fun to watch.
And that's really the bottom line, Klaus. They are fun to watch. My particular preference for one over the other never kept me from the theater or having a great time while I was there (and watching them again on home video or dvd). But I must say I'm just thrilled at "Casino Royale." It has perfect pitch for a Bond film, as far as I'm concerned. I just got back from a second showing and I'm toying with doing the unthinkable -- placing CR at the top of my favorite Bond films list. I think you were saying in another thread you thought it was the best film. I think it may be, too, but my loyalty to Connery's movies has prevented me from saying so. I'm wavering. I'm just glad there was still a Fleming property left to introduce Craig as Bond.
I never thought I would say that any film other than From Russia With Love was the best Bond film ever. After my first viewing of CR, I pretty much had it on level with the Dalton films, DN, TB, and GE as among the best, but not at the immortal status in which I held FRWL. Part of it is because I loved the story so much, both as a novel and as a film. But after the second viewing, when I really started analyzing things, I just found that the pacing, the great pulling-off of the Flemingesque elements, Craig's performance, etc. was just in such a way that actually made CR more entertaining than FRWL for me while still being a story just as great and beautiful and having a plot that is just as tightly-wound and well-constructed, which is enough for me to give it the nod to #1.
As far as portraying Fleming's Bond (which is probably the main element I look for in a Bond and in evaluating the actor's performance), Craig just blows them all away, even my beloved Dalton and Connery in his first two films and TB. Dalton is probably closer to Fleming's Bond in terms of appearance (although I would say that all of the Bonds definitely fit within the purview of what Fleming wrote, since Fleming wrote so much about his appearance, a lot of it paradoxical, and you can make arguments for any of them being closest to his appearance), but Craig got the demeanor and the sheer humanity down much better while doing just as good of a job with the ruthlessness, choleric personality, etc.. And Craig adds a fresh and very fulfilling arrogance that I feel not even Connery was able to match.
I have slipped Casino Royale into slot #5---right after OHMSS; just ahead of TB (and it may not be finished moving upward, as I view it a couple of more times!).
Yeah; I think it's that good B-)
On Hamilton: He really brought quite a lot to the franchise, from defining the Precious Classic Formula to Q's relationship with Bond, etc. I'm also fond of the way he always put 007 into a last 'moment of peril' in each of his films.
With CR's apparent success, it might be tempting to indict Hamilton on 'formula' grounds, but it can be argued that Bond wouldn't have a 21st film coming out in 2006 without it...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
If we can pin blame on one person more than anyone my choice would be John Glen. A competent hack, I'm not sure Glen has an artistic bone in his body. After reading his book, it seems pretty clear he brought a very limited amount of imagination to the series beyond where to place the cameras and how to stage the latest car chase (and by LTK he seemed to forget even this, proving incapable of staging a simple shot in some instances). He also blithely takes credit for some of the most inane moments in the franchise such as Bond's Tarzan yell and his commanding a Bengal tiger to sit in OP and the casting of Tanya Roberts in AVTAK (even after another director told him she was a terrible actress).
I've gone and done it Loeff. "Casino Royale" is now Numero Uno on my list. I'm struggling now to not place Craig above Connery. But I'm getting weaker ... I may not last the day. One more CR viewing may do it ...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Although it does have numerous familiar Bondian elements, CR really is a new beginning. And just like Sean Connery in DN Daniel Craig has set the benchmark which those that follow him will be judged by.
And I think that's true enough, MNL. We probably need to set to set the clock to "zero" and start anew. Even though I have placed CR in the exalted Number One spot, I really have to look at the first four Connery Bonds as classics that exist outside of any contest for best film or actor.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
As to Hamilton, there is no way that the man who helmed GF can ever be termed "bad for Bond" IMO. To me, that film was, is, and will always be the blueprint that made Bond films so successful. If you buy into the theory that the film led the series down a slippery slope, that's fair enough -- but there's plenty of "blame" to go around:
-- Roald Dahl and Lewis Gilbert created what I consider to this day to be among the silliest and OTT Bond films with YOLT.
-- Much of the goofiness of DAF, and to a lesser extent LALD, was the result not of direction, but of Tom Mankiewicz's writing. I will lay TMWTGG at Hamilton's feet, however.
-- And let's be fair here...while Terence Young is to me clearly the greatest Bond director ever, it's really TB more than GF that turned Bond from a British spy into Superman. That's down to Young, as well as Connery's relaxed performance.
Bottom line...as others have stated, these things are cyclical. Those of us who like the more down-to-earth, serious films need to remember that without YOLT there never would have been OHMSS, without MR there never would have been FYEO, and certainly without DAD there never would have been CR.
Bingo, Sir Hillary. Like the tides, the tone of Bond films ebbs and flows. I confess I like where we've just arrived B-) That said, I won't be shocked if, by the end of Craig's run, things have gotten a bit broader, once again---I just hope they take their time getting there...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Its hard to say that these movies were good for Bond, and many analysts of the day has writen James Bond off as being history after the poor results of TMWTGG.
That said, what Hamilton did for Goldfinger set up the series to such a degree that its hard to picture the series taking off without it.
I do have to defend Hamilton against Tamahori. The more I think about it, a college freshman in an intro film class might have more of a handle on Bond than Tamahori. While many parts of Die Another Day were well acted, and very memroable, this is the gentleman who believed Bond effects will eventually (and should) be done by CGI, and that Connery should be seen tutoring young Brosnan in DAD. He had little knlowedge of what made Bond work, in my estimation, and the parts of the film that did work were because of Purvis and Wade's use of Moonraker and Pierce Brosnan's acting. I'd take Hamilton over Tamahori any day.
I think it's fine to really admire Young. He really was amazing. But please, everyone, don't insult Hamilton, or at least his work on GF.