Darenhat, a great analyses of the scene with the mobsters.
It didn't make any sense to me.
Let me see if I can rephrase some of what I wrote...
First, why are all of thugs at Goldfinger's Stud Farm? Goldfinger apparently called them there for a meeting...none of them know what for - evidenced by the fact that one of them actually asks "What's this all about?" Goldfinger brought them all together to kill them. By doing so, Goldfinger doesn't have to pay them the millions of dollars he owes them and it also eliminates any individuals who might know too much about his plan. Remember that each of the thugs had some part in supplying him the materials for his scheme.
So now Goldfinger has a room full of thugs lounging around his house. What's he going to do with them before he kills them? If there's one thing we know about Goldfinger, he has an ego. In fact, he may arguably have the biggest ego of any of the villians Bond ever faced. This is evidenced by several things: he doesn't like to be inferior to other people so he cheats to win, he pays Pussy Galore to be 'seen' with him, we see him proudly show his smuggling operation off to the Korean, and is at the end of the film his vanity is shown by his waving a golden revolver, despite the fact that he's supposed to be in disguise as a US General (four stars I believe).
Goldfinger strokes his ego all throughout the movie, and if there is one thing that he is most proud of in his life, it's his 'inspired' plan to knock off Ft. Knox. If Goldfinger can't resist showing off something like his gold smuggling operation, then it stands to reason that he can't resist showing off his even grander Operation Grandslam.
This leaves us with two things Goldfinger has to do: 1) Kill the thugs and 2) Brag about his plan.
If you think about it, his telling the crooks about Operation Grandslam is also inspired because he gets the 'hero' worship he wants, but no risk of his plan being exposed.
I know you don't care for GF, Fish, which is fine. This is just an explanation of why the scene works for me.
Sorry Dan, but the ego explanation doesn't really hold in this case. Not only does he kill Solo separately and have him crushed, he then has to separate the gold from the crushed car. It's waaaaay too much trouble for Goldfinger, who in addition to being an egomaniac, is an impatient, intelligent man.
That's true. He certainly went to alot of trouble. Perhaps Goldfinger killed Solo that way because the filmmakers couldn't resist creating (IMO) one of the all-time great Bond scenes? :v )
To make it more logical, GF should have wanted Bond to talk, and I think that could have been done without spoiling "the line" in this way:
GF: Who sent you?
JB: Do you expect me to talk?
GF: Not really, Mr. Bond. I hopeyou will talk, but I expect you to die.
Thanks, but no. I think the other way is much cleaner.
But I don't mind that type of thing in a Bond film, if it's not played for laughs. Which is why I'm always puzzled by folks who castigate CR for a couple of flights of fancy. There seems to be a serious double-standard between CR and GF, which I think boils down to this: GF is a beloved classic, CR, while extremely popular, is disliked intensely in some quarters. Unlike CR, nobody walked into GF the first time expecting to be disappointed.
I don't think that's the reason. I personally don't dislike CR, although I don't love it. I think the reason why I, for one, can forgive GF but not CR, is because, CR sets itself up as more 'realistic.' Yes, it's no documentary, but it doesn't promise to be the fantastical adventure-thriller that GF is. Ultimately, it comes down to what does and doesn't work for each viewer. The 'unrealistic' moments in GF work for me, unlike the 'unrealistic' moments in CR. (Why, oh why, couldn't M have suspended Bond? ))
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
And it doesn't work for me. Sorry. It just doesn't make any sense.
Why? You keep on saying that. After everyone else has explained why it does work for them, perhaps you could explain why it doesn't work for you?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
It is true that GF is the film that nudged the series down the slippery slope toward self-parody, but it was only a nudge: GF still took itself seriously. It was not as aggressively tongue-in-cheek or over-the-top, IMO, as the later films, whose philosophy seemed to be that if a little whimsy went a long way, more whimsy will go even further. And CR, although more-down- to-earth than the last couple dozen outings, wasn't exactly an exercise in documentary filmmaking. Foiling terrorists with a card game, glove-compartment defillibrators and poison antidotes, one-man assaults on the embassies of small nations, injectable homing and medical diagnostic chips: those are pretty fantastic, too. So I think the films were not that far apart in terms of Bond paraphrenalia. I will grant you that a laser had a greater "gee wiz" factor in its day than a glove-box defillibrator does now, but that's more a function of the films' respective eras, even though the devices were/are real enough. We're used to gadgets now. We weren't in '64. I was serious in my earlier post that the car-crusher in GF was a real cause for amazement for '64 audiences. I doubt many younger people watching GF today for the first time would realize that.
I don't think any of the Bond films were self-parodic, but that's not why I'm posting. HH, when I see a film, I want to be convinced of its reality. That is, I want to be convinced Superman can fly, Rocky could actually go the distance and an archaeologist would carry a whip and go on crazy adventures.
The thing is, I don't think that the inclusion of certain elements (let's say, over-the-top elements) can push a film into the 'unconvincing.' TSWLM had a steel-toothed giant, yet it was IMO the greatest non-Connery Bond film of all time, and I consider it to be vastly superior to films like CR. The reason being, that the existence of Jaws suited the film perfectly, was IMO brilliantly written, was IMO placed into the film superbly and as a result I was more convinced by TSWLM than most other Bond films. A reverse of this was the existence of Dolly (and the whole space sequenece) which IMO totally off-balanced MR.
My point is, that I don't think that the existence of certain elements (lasers, Jaws, invisible cars etc...) are by themselves campy or self-parodic or OTT; it depends on how they are used and wether they suit the film. IMO, the laser and car-crusher were used brilliantly and suited GF perfectly; unlike the microchip in CR.
The real difference in CR was that the film examined Bond's character rather than just showed a resourceful sophisticate using those amazing toys of his. This "gritty vs. silly" thing never was the either/or proposition it was made out to be by those who wanted to keep the Bond films just as they were. The idea behind CR was simply to inject a little more realism of situation and complexity of character into 007, not turn him into George Smiley.
It is certainly true that CR went into Bond's character in a way that few other Bond films did (not that it is necessarily good :v) but I think that you're underestimating the number of times that the Bond films have focused on Bond's character. Take GF; that conversation scene is one of my all-time favourite Bond scenes. I love it for many reasons, but one reason is that it gives us an insight into Bond's character; his admiration of professionalism. Bond may be determined to stop Goldfinger from succeeding, but he admires him nonetheless.
I agree with you that the "gritty vs. silly" thing isn't an either/or proposition. However that's because I don't think either is superior (some gritty films are better, some sillier films are superior IMO) but also because I think, with a few exceptions, all Bond films contain grittiness and silly elements. The question is; are the silly/gritty elements convincing within the film and do they enhance the film? IMO, unlike some of the elements in CR, the gritty and silly elements are both convincing within and enhance GF. (An example of this is that while I wasn't convinced by a certain scene involving Bond's relationship with his boss , I was convinced by the killing of Solo.)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I agree with you that the "gritty vs. silly" thing isn't an either/or proposition. However that's because I don't think either is superior (some gritty films are better, some sillier films are superior IMO) but also because I think, with a few exceptions, all Bond films contain grittiness and silly elements. The question is; are the silly/gritty elements convincing within the film and do they enhance the film? IMO, unlike some of the elements in CR, the gritty and silly elements are both convincing within and enhance GF. (An example of this is that while I wasn't convinced by a certain scene involving Bond's relationship with his boss , I was convinced by the killing of Solo.)
Frankly Dan, the criteria -- if I can even call it that -- that you've outlined in your last couple of posts for evaluating the realism of a Bond film sounds suspiciously like dumb luck. If anyone doubted that some folks subject the "believability" of CR to a capricious double standard, what I've quoted above ought to convince them I'm right
... but I think that you're underestimating the number of times that the Bond films have focused on Bond's character. Take GF; that conversation scene is one of my all-time favourite Bond scenes. I love it for many reasons, but one reason is that it gives us an insight into Bond's character; his admiration of professionalism. Bond may be determined to stop Goldfinger from succeeding, but he admires him nonetheless.
I don't mean to go into every point of your posts, Dan: I'd be here all day.
But a recurring problem I've had with the CR critics is how they often flat-out misinterpret or misunderstand what's happening on screen, right before their very eyes. Apparently it's not just CR. Just where exactly does Bond display his admiration for Goldfinger's professionalism? When he tells Pussy Galore "He's quite mad, you know?" If he should happen to tell GF "What a wonderful idea!" (and I think he does at one point, or something like it) did you ever stop to think he might not be expressing his true feelings?
Dan, you know I love debating you, but you're quite mad, you know? :007)
I don't mean to go into every point of your posts, Dan: I'd be here all day.
But a recurring problem I've had with the CR critics is how they often flat-out misinterpret or misunderstand what's happening on screen, right before their very eyes. Apparently it's not just CR.
Wow, thanks. I guess you're not through insulting people. )
Just where exactly does Bond display his admiration for Goldfinger's professionalism? When he tells Pussy Galore "He's quite mad, you know?" If he should happen to tell GF "What a wonderful idea!" (and I think he does at one point, or something like it) did you ever stop to think he might not be expressing his true feelings?
Look at Bond's face as he describes the plan. One can really get a sense of Bond's admiration from his body language.
Dan, you know I love debating you, but you're quite mad, you know? :007)
I aim to please. -{
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Frankly Dan, the criteria -- if I can even call it that -- that you've outlined in your last couple of posts for evaluating the realism of a Bond film sounds suspiciously like dumb luck. If anyone doubted that some folks subject the "believability" of CR to a capricious double standard, what I've quoted above ought to convince them I'm right
It's not dumb luck. Nor am I holding CR to an absurd double standard. I think that certain elements work in certain films and do not work in others, but also I think it comes down to the script. I am more forgiving of GF than CR, partly because I think GF's 'unrealistic' elements work better in it than CR's 'unrealistic' elements but also because I think GF has a better script. Who was it that said that everything comes down to the script? Oh, it was you. )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I don't mean to go into every point of your posts, Dan: I'd be here all day.
But a recurring problem I've had with the CR critics is how they often flat-out misinterpret or misunderstand what's happening on screen, right before their very eyes. Apparently it's not just CR.
Wow, thanks. I guess you're not through insulting people. )
Just where exactly does Bond display his admiration for Goldfinger's professionalism? When he tells Pussy Galore "He's quite mad, you know?" If he should happen to tell GF "What a wonderful idea!" (and I think he does at one point, or something like it) did you ever stop to think he might not be expressing his true feelings?
Look at Bond's face as he describes the plan. One can really get a sense of Bond's admiration from his body language.
Dan, you know I love debating you, but you're quite mad, you know? :007)
I aim to please. -{
so what you're saying is never mind the dialogue, this "admiration" was displayed through body language????!!!!!! and I'm the one whose being insulting ?:) )
I'll bet if I went back and watched that scene, what he would have are actors being filmed from the neck up. Not that I'm going to bother. You'd just tell me you were reading the subtext of Connery's eyebrows.
so what you're saying is never mind the dialogue, this "admiration" was displayed through body language????!!!!!! and I'm the one whose being insulting ?:) )
I'll bet if I went back and watched that scene, what he would have are actors being filmed from the neck up. Not that I'm going to bother. You'd just tell me you were reading the subtext of Connery's eyebrows.
) That was a great post. {[] I guess I was making the mistake of being seduced by Connery's masterclass in acting. It's interesting; I never had that problem with Craig.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Frankly Dan, the criteria -- if I can even call it that -- that you've outlined in your last couple of posts for evaluating the realism of a Bond film sounds suspiciously like dumb luck. If anyone doubted that some folks subject the "believability" of CR to a capricious double standard, what I've quoted above ought to convince them I'm right
It's not dumb luck. Nor am I holding CR to an absurd double standard. I think that certain elements work in certain films and do not work in others, but also I think it comes down to the script. I am more forgiving of GF than CR, partly because I think GF's 'unrealistic' elements work better in it than CR's 'unrealistic' elements but also because I think GF has a better script. Who was it that said that everything comes down to the script? Oh, it was you. )
Indeed it was. But saying that GF's script is "better" and that its unrealistic aspects "work better" than CR's is a statement, not an argument.
Not that I don't like the GF script; I do, very much. In fact, I've been on record as saying -- and here's some sacrilege for ya -- that the GF script's plot is better than the novel's pedestrian robbery story.
My only problem with it in fact is the Solo killing, which doesn't make sense. And I (and others) have explained why -- convincingly, I believe. I think you have far more difficulty poking holes in the CR apartment scene with Bond and M. You still seem to insist that Bond got a pass for his behavior -- completely ignoring the objective fact of the dialogue in which M tells him to go "soak you feet in the sand somewhere. Because those *******s wants your head. And I'm seriously considering feeding it to them." (Boy -- I have seen CR too many times to able to quote it that accurately ) )
Perhaps you were too busy reading Craig's eyebrows, which many critics have noted are blond and difficult to see, to hear her? ) Or perhaps you were still smarting from M's "mysoginist dinosaur" speech to Bond three movies ago. Dan -- I know how upset you were, but remember: "To err is human, to forgive: divine."
That's true. He certainly went to alot of trouble. Perhaps Goldfinger killed Solo that way because the filmmakers couldn't resist creating (IMO) one of the all-time great Bond scenes? :v )
The truth is, it probably is illogical. However, I can accept it nonetheless.
I think you have far more difficulty poking holes in the CR apartment scene with Bond and M. You still seem to insist that Bond got a pass for his behavior -- completely ignoring the objective fact of the dialogue in which M tells him to go "soak you feet in the sand somewhere. Because those *******s wants your head. And I'm seriously considering feeding it to them." (Boy -- I have seen CR too many times to able to quote it that accurately ) )
Perhaps you were too busy reading Craig's eyebrows, which many critics have noted are blond and difficult to see, to hear her? ) Or perhaps you were still smarting from M's "mysoginist dinosaur" speech to Bond three movies ago. Dan -- I know how upset you were, but remember: "To err is human, to forgive: divine."
Be divine, Dan. )
) We have already gone over this at great length, but I don't think sending Bond on a holiday is exactly punishment; especially since he uses his boss's computer code on the holiday. HH, I think this is like the acceptable/unacceptable thread. That is, I can accept the killing of Solo, but not the scene in M's house in CR; partly due to (IMO) the difference in quality of the scripts, but simply because, well, that's just the way it is.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
There's an interesting book called Adrian Turner on GOLDFINGER, published by Bloomsbury in 1998. It discusses the evolution of the screenplay in much detail. Richard Maibaum's first draft followed Fleming in having the gangsters present until the raid on Fort Knox, but had Mr Springer (rather than Mr Solo) being the one who backs out; his Cadillac is pushed off a cliff with Bond's message in his pocket. Wolf Mankowitz, who had worked (uncredited at his own request, although he changed his mind too late in the day to have his name on the credits) on the screenplay for DN, claimed to have come up with the car crusher idea for a one-off payment of £500 from Harry Saltzman.
Paul Dehn, brought in to work on the script later, came up with a punchline about someone having a "crush" on the unfortunate gangster- Maibaum improved this to the now famous "pressing engagement" line. At some point, the gangster who opts out was changed from Springer to Solo (as per the novel)- this may have had something to do with a legal dispute EON were having with the makers of The Man From U.N.C.L.E. about their use of the name "Solo", pointing out that this was an actual character in GF. The U.N.C.L.E. team were quick to claim that Mr Solo, a Mafia chieftain, was a totally different character from Napoleon Solo, suave superspy (and also a name created by Ian Fleming- he withdrew from that TV project when Broccoli & Saltzman told him not to work for the opposition) but this may be the reason for Mr Solo's more prominent appearance in the film than was originally planned.
During one of the rewrites, Dehn and Guy Hamilton "realised how cumbersome it was to have the gangsters present at the raid, so they are murdered during the briefing in order to demonstrate the power of the nerve gas, and to emphasise Goldfinger's thirst for power and the pleasure he takes in killing." Italics mine.
During one of the rewrites, Dehn and Guy Hamilton "realised how cumbersome it was to have the gangsters present at the raid, so they are murdered during the briefing in order to demonstrate the power of the nerve gas, and to emphasise Goldfinger's thirst for power and the pleasure he takes in killing." Italics mine.
That is interesting Barbel, to see where the scriptwriters were coming from. But I have to say that Darenhat's is more plausible because of its simplicity: that he didn't want to have to pay the mobsters or have leave any witnesses about.
But I wonder if the decision about including the nuke in the plot had already been made when they decided to kill off the gangsters. Showing the power of the nerve gas was more important if the plot followed the novel's and had the Ft. Knox plot be a burglary: to make GF a more fitting villain and the mass killer that he is shown to be in the novel, the writers would have to have a device to show that side. The gassing of the gangsters would do it.
But since the film script -- to its credit, I think -- has GF detonating a very dirty nuclear weapon to make FK's gold radioactive and GF's more valuable, his willingness to kill is amply demonstrated by that fact alone, since even a small explosion would kill quite a few people.
But I wonder if the decision about including the nuke in the plot had already been made when they decided to kill off the gangsters.
Yes, that decision was made earlier on. I quite agree with you that the film's ploy of making the gold radioactive is a lot more interesting and clever than the novel's burglary plot. It's one of the ways in which GF improves on its source- not a common thing among films in general, let alone Bond films. For a similar example, Maibaum's OHMSS holds together better than Fleming's.
However, to RJJB and Tee Hee's points, I never thought much of the whole Goldfinger gangster scene until I joined this forum. I suppose it doesn't make sense, and now I enjoy the scene less . It's not something that bothers me THAT much though, so I really don't stand on either side, it's either Goldfinger satisfying his ego or Goldfinger satisfying the filmmakers perogative to make a scene that clears up everything for the audience.
Also, say what you want about AVTAK but Zorin's way of introducing his scheme was a bit more plausible, since he only intended to kill the guy that resisted.
Whenever I think of the Solo killing, I think of something that Guy Hamilton said about the movie. He said that the Goldfinger was going to kill all of them so he wouldnt share the dosh with them - simple enough. The gangsters were told the plan because the directors needed to tell the audience what was happening with the script.
Presumably Bond's comment on him being mad to Pussy suggest that any action Goldfinger does represents how messed up he is.
But I wonder if the decision about including the nuke in the plot had already been made when they decided to kill off the gangsters.
Yes, that decision was made earlier on. I quite agree with you that the film's ploy of making the gold radioactive is a lot more interesting and clever than the novel's burglary plot. It's one of the ways in which GF improves on its source- not a common thing among films in general, let alone Bond films. For a similar example, Maibaum's OHMSS holds together better than Fleming's.
I've always felt the plot to FRWL was also vastly improved by the scriptwriters. I've always felt SMERSH's motivation in the novel -- to embarass SIS -- was a little thin for such an elaborate plot. The injection of SPECTRE, with its plan to steal the lektor and ransom it back to the Soviets and kill Bond (who had foiled the Dr. No operation) was a lot stronger. Although I'm a big fan of Fleming, his plots, while interesting and exotic, were sometimes a little elementary.
I've always felt the plot to FRWL was also vastly improved by the scriptwriters. I've always felt SMERSH's motivation in the novel -- to embarass SIS -- was a little thin for such an elaborate plot. The injection of SPECTRE, with its plan to steal the lektor and ransom it back to the Soviets and kill Bond (who had foiled the Dr. No operation) was a lot stronger. Although I'm a big fan of Fleming, his plots, while interesting and exotic, were sometimes a little elementary.
Again I'm with you there, hh; the SPECTRE involvement, although introduced primarily to depoliticise the plot, makes the storyline stronger. Sometimes these elaborations work (eg Blofeld kidnapping Tracy in OHMSS), sometimes they don't (the doubling of Derval in TB; in the novel the pilot is simply bribed and there's no plastic surgery subplot).
The reason for a lot of changes between novel and film are sometimes clear and reasonable (eg adding Leiter to DN; he isn't in the novel, but it makes sense to introduce Felix to the film fans in the first flick, since he'll be a recurring character), but what sometimes irks me is when a character is clearly from the written work but his name is altered- eg Fanning/Fanshawe in OP, Saunders/Sender in TLD, Saxby/Spang in DAF (okay, that last one is arguable)- for no apparent cause.
I've always felt the plot to FRWL was also vastly improved by the scriptwriters. I've always felt SMERSH's motivation in the novel -- to embarass SIS -- was a little thin for such an elaborate plot. The injection of SPECTRE, with its plan to steal the lektor and ransom it back to the Soviets and kill Bond (who had foiled the Dr. No operation) was a lot stronger. Although I'm a big fan of Fleming, his plots, while interesting and exotic, were sometimes a little elementary.
Again I'm with you there, hh; the SPECTRE involvement, although introduced primarily to depoliticise the plot, makes the storyline stronger. Sometimes these elaborations work (eg Blofeld kidnapping Tracy in OHMSS), sometimes they don't (the doubling of Derval in TB; in the novel the pilot is simply bribed and there's no plastic surgery subplot).
The reason for a lot of changes between novel and film are sometimes clear and reasonable (eg adding Leiter to DN; he isn't in the novel, but it makes sense to introduce Felix to the film fans in the first flick, since he'll be a recurring character), but what sometimes irks me is when a character is clearly from the written work but his name is altered- eg Fanning/Fanshawe in OP, Saunders/Sender in TLD, Saxby/Spang in DAF (okay, that last one is arguable)- for no apparent cause.
Yeah, I've noticed that too. Not so much in Bond films, but other screen adaptations. I'm not sure why they do that sort of thing.
Yeah, I've noticed that too. Not so much in Bond films, but other screen adaptations. I'm not sure why they do that sort of thing.
In GF, Tilly & Jill are the Masterton sisters. In the film, they're called Masterson- that was simply a typo by Richard Maibaum.
Sometimes the names are altered to fit the cast's nationality- eg Domino being played as French rather than Italian- and sometimes the plot- eg Melina rather than Judy Havelock- but going from Sender to Saunders or Fanshawe to Fanning doesn't seem to have any point.
At a slightly different angle, Messrs Wint & Kidd are the wrong way round from the book. Wint in the book is a fattish man with glasses, Kidd is younger and "pretty"; it's reversed in the film!
Comments
Let me see if I can rephrase some of what I wrote...
First, why are all of thugs at Goldfinger's Stud Farm? Goldfinger apparently called them there for a meeting...none of them know what for - evidenced by the fact that one of them actually asks "What's this all about?" Goldfinger brought them all together to kill them. By doing so, Goldfinger doesn't have to pay them the millions of dollars he owes them
So now Goldfinger has a room full of thugs lounging around his house. What's he going to do with them before he kills them? If there's one thing we know about Goldfinger, he has an ego. In fact, he may arguably have the biggest ego of any of the villians Bond ever faced. This is evidenced by several things: he doesn't like to be inferior to other people so he cheats to win, he pays Pussy Galore to be 'seen' with him, we see him proudly show his smuggling operation off to the Korean, and is at the end of the film his vanity is shown by his waving a golden revolver, despite the fact that he's supposed to be in disguise as a US General (four stars I believe).
Goldfinger strokes his ego all throughout the movie, and if there is one thing that he is most proud of in his life, it's his 'inspired' plan to knock off Ft. Knox. If Goldfinger can't resist showing off something like his gold smuggling operation, then it stands to reason that he can't resist showing off his even grander Operation Grandslam.
This leaves us with two things Goldfinger has to do: 1) Kill the thugs and 2) Brag about his plan.
If you think about it, his telling the crooks about Operation Grandslam is also inspired because he gets the 'hero' worship he wants, but no risk of his plan being exposed.
I know you don't care for GF, Fish, which is fine. This is just an explanation of why the scene works for me.
Thanks, but no. I think the other way is much cleaner.
The thing is, I don't think that the inclusion of certain elements (let's say, over-the-top elements) can push a film into the 'unconvincing.' TSWLM had a steel-toothed giant, yet it was IMO the greatest non-Connery Bond film of all time, and I consider it to be vastly superior to films like CR. The reason being, that the existence of Jaws suited the film perfectly, was IMO brilliantly written, was IMO placed into the film superbly and as a result I was more convinced by TSWLM than most other Bond films. A reverse of this was the existence of Dolly (and the whole space sequenece) which IMO totally off-balanced MR.
My point is, that I don't think that the existence of certain elements (lasers, Jaws, invisible cars etc...) are by themselves campy or self-parodic or OTT; it depends on how they are used and wether they suit the film. IMO, the laser and car-crusher were used brilliantly and suited GF perfectly; unlike the microchip in CR.
It is certainly true that CR went into Bond's character in a way that few other Bond films did (not that it is necessarily good :v) but I think that you're underestimating the number of times that the Bond films have focused on Bond's character. Take GF; that conversation scene is one of my all-time favourite Bond scenes. I love it for many reasons, but one reason is that it gives us an insight into Bond's character; his admiration of professionalism. Bond may be determined to stop Goldfinger from succeeding, but he admires him nonetheless.
I agree with you that the "gritty vs. silly" thing isn't an either/or proposition. However that's because I don't think either is superior (some gritty films are better, some sillier films are superior IMO) but also because I think, with a few exceptions, all Bond films contain grittiness and silly elements. The question is; are the silly/gritty elements convincing within the film and do they enhance the film? IMO, unlike some of the elements in CR, the gritty and silly elements are both convincing within and enhance GF. (An example of this is that while I wasn't convinced by a certain scene involving Bond's relationship with his boss
Frankly Dan, the criteria -- if I can even call it that -- that you've outlined in your last couple of posts for evaluating the realism of a Bond film sounds suspiciously like dumb luck. If anyone doubted that some folks subject the "believability" of CR to a capricious double standard, what I've quoted above ought to convince them I'm right
I don't mean to go into every point of your posts, Dan: I'd be here all day.
But a recurring problem I've had with the CR critics is how they often flat-out misinterpret or misunderstand what's happening on screen, right before their very eyes. Apparently it's not just CR. Just where exactly does Bond display his admiration for Goldfinger's professionalism? When he tells Pussy Galore "He's quite mad, you know?" If he should happen to tell GF "What a wonderful idea!" (and I think he does at one point, or something like it) did you ever stop to think he might not be expressing his true feelings?
Dan, you know I love debating you, but you're quite mad, you know? :007)
Look at Bond's face as he describes the plan. One can really get a sense of Bond's admiration from his body language.
I aim to please. -{
so what you're saying is never mind the dialogue, this "admiration" was displayed through body language????!!!!!! and I'm the one whose being insulting ?:)
I'll bet if I went back and watched that scene, what he would have are actors being filmed from the neck up. Not that I'm going to bother. You'd just tell me you were reading the subtext of Connery's eyebrows.
Indeed it was. But saying that GF's script is "better" and that its unrealistic aspects "work better" than CR's is a statement, not an argument.
Not that I don't like the GF script; I do, very much. In fact, I've been on record as saying -- and here's some sacrilege for ya -- that the GF script's plot is better than the novel's pedestrian robbery story.
My only problem with it in fact is the Solo killing, which doesn't make sense. And I (and others) have explained why -- convincingly, I believe. I think you have far more difficulty poking holes in the CR apartment scene with Bond and M. You still seem to insist that Bond got a pass for his behavior -- completely ignoring the objective fact of the dialogue in which M tells him to go "soak you feet in the sand somewhere. Because those *******s wants your head. And I'm seriously considering feeding it to them." (Boy -- I have seen CR too many times to able to quote it that accurately
Perhaps you were too busy reading Craig's eyebrows, which many critics have noted are blond and difficult to see, to hear her?
Be divine, Dan.
Yeh, I actually responded to your criticism of it earlier: The truth is, it probably is illogical. However, I can accept it nonetheless.
Paul Dehn, brought in to work on the script later, came up with a punchline about someone having a "crush" on the unfortunate gangster- Maibaum improved this to the now famous "pressing engagement" line. At some point, the gangster who opts out was changed from Springer to Solo (as per the novel)- this may have had something to do with a legal dispute EON were having with the makers of The Man From U.N.C.L.E. about their use of the name "Solo", pointing out that this was an actual character in GF. The U.N.C.L.E. team were quick to claim that Mr Solo, a Mafia chieftain, was a totally different character from Napoleon Solo, suave superspy (and also a name created by Ian Fleming- he withdrew from that TV project when Broccoli & Saltzman told him not to work for the opposition) but this may be the reason for Mr Solo's more prominent appearance in the film than was originally planned.
During one of the rewrites, Dehn and Guy Hamilton "realised how cumbersome it was to have the gangsters present at the raid, so they are murdered during the briefing in order to demonstrate the power of the nerve gas, and to emphasise Goldfinger's thirst for power and the pleasure he takes in killing." Italics mine.
Hope this is of some use, guys.
That is interesting Barbel, to see where the scriptwriters were coming from. But I have to say that Darenhat's is more plausible because of its simplicity: that he didn't want to have to pay the mobsters or have leave any witnesses about.
But I wonder if the decision about including the nuke in the plot had already been made when they decided to kill off the gangsters. Showing the power of the nerve gas was more important if the plot followed the novel's and had the Ft. Knox plot be a burglary: to make GF a more fitting villain and the mass killer that he is shown to be in the novel, the writers would have to have a device to show that side. The gassing of the gangsters would do it.
But since the film script -- to its credit, I think -- has GF detonating a very dirty nuclear weapon to make FK's gold radioactive and GF's more valuable, his willingness to kill is amply demonstrated by that fact alone, since even a small explosion would kill quite a few people.
Now that makes sense
Yes, that decision was made earlier on. I quite agree with you that the film's ploy of making the gold radioactive is a lot more interesting and clever than the novel's burglary plot. It's one of the ways in which GF improves on its source- not a common thing among films in general, let alone Bond films. For a similar example, Maibaum's OHMSS holds together better than Fleming's.
And then you end up liking Dalton.
However, to RJJB and Tee Hee's points, I never thought much of the whole Goldfinger gangster scene until I joined this forum. I suppose it doesn't make sense, and now I enjoy the scene less
Also, say what you want about AVTAK but Zorin's way of introducing his scheme was a bit more plausible, since he only intended to kill the guy that resisted.
Presumably Bond's comment on him being mad to Pussy suggest that any action Goldfinger does represents how messed up he is.
I've always felt the plot to FRWL was also vastly improved by the scriptwriters. I've always felt SMERSH's motivation in the novel -- to embarass SIS -- was a little thin for such an elaborate plot. The injection of SPECTRE, with its plan to steal the lektor and ransom it back to the Soviets and kill Bond (who had foiled the Dr. No operation) was a lot stronger. Although I'm a big fan of Fleming, his plots, while interesting and exotic, were sometimes a little elementary.
Again I'm with you there, hh; the SPECTRE involvement, although introduced primarily to depoliticise the plot, makes the storyline stronger. Sometimes these elaborations work (eg Blofeld kidnapping Tracy in OHMSS), sometimes they don't (the doubling of Derval in TB; in the novel the pilot is simply bribed and there's no plastic surgery subplot).
The reason for a lot of changes between novel and film are sometimes clear and reasonable (eg adding Leiter to DN; he isn't in the novel, but it makes sense to introduce Felix to the film fans in the first flick, since he'll be a recurring character), but what sometimes irks me is when a character is clearly from the written work but his name is altered- eg Fanning/Fanshawe in OP, Saunders/Sender in TLD, Saxby/Spang in DAF (okay, that last one is arguable)- for no apparent cause.
Yeah, I've noticed that too. Not so much in Bond films, but other screen adaptations. I'm not sure why they do that sort of thing.
In GF, Tilly & Jill are the Masterton sisters. In the film, they're called Masterson- that was simply a typo by Richard Maibaum.
Sometimes the names are altered to fit the cast's nationality- eg Domino being played as French rather than Italian- and sometimes the plot- eg Melina rather than Judy Havelock- but going from Sender to Saunders or Fanshawe to Fanning doesn't seem to have any point.
At a slightly different angle, Messrs Wint & Kidd are the wrong way round from the book. Wint in the book is a fattish man with glasses, Kidd is younger and "pretty"; it's reversed in the film!