I'm glad Kubrick went off in his own direction on The Shining. There's a bit about King and Kubrick in this month's Empire magazine. King says he knew they were never compatible when Kubrick told him that the idea of a ghost was a good thing, because it meant there is an afterlife. Personally I'm with Kubrick on that. .
I'm probably with King on this myself. I have to say that I loved The Shining. Kubrick has always been one of my favourite directors while King has always been among my favourite authors. IMO both are masters in their respective fields.
I suppose the classic example would be a film that was a huge hit when I was a teenager. You may have heard of it: "Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet."
I guess the thing about the works of Shakespeare is that they are now not so much owned by him as by humanity. By classifying it as 'Franco Zeffirelli's....' he is perhaps saying "this is how I see the play and this is my vision of it." Certainly there have been Shakespearian adaptations that are radically different to the original versions, and in those cases, the directors might be justified in claiming credit. BTW, if you think all of this is narcissistic, what about Tarantino referring to Kill Bill Volume 1, in the credits, as his fourth film? 8-) )
"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
Sorry about going OT...but the truth is that Kubrick's 'Shining' was more Kubrick's than Stephen King's---and King will be the first one to say so.
That's certainly the case re King's feelings; King has written about that subject more than once (eg in "Danse Macabre"), and even went so far as to actively remake "The Shining" in the 90s in a version much closer to the novel. My point is that there wouldn't have been a film if there hadn't been a book- of course Kubrick changed enough for King to feel aggrieved, but it's hardly in the league of TSWLM, to pick Eon's best (?worst) example. The basic points and characters are all there, I'd argue.
I'm not sure that Kubrick was ever guilty of taking 'possessive credit' for other person's thoughts. He always gave full credit: "Based upon a novel by..." and so forth. As far as a director taking above-the-title billing, as in "Stanley Kubrick's [insert title here]"...I know, for a fact, that the Writer's Guild of America continues to contest such things legally, but I'm not sure that directors in question deserve absolute condemnation. Their creative investment in a given film is, after all, considerable.
Yes, the credits will list "Based on..." (sideline- when CR came out I commented on Fleming being given such a credit for the first time in over forty years), "Screenplay by...", etc, but I'm talking about the "Stanley Kubrick's..." displayed on posters, publicity material and so on. This is the credit that the general public remember. I don't know whether Kubrick insisted on such a credit or if the publicity people decided on it.
I'm not anti-director and of course they are vital, being the one person who interacts with all the other filmmakers, but basically I'd back the Writer's Guild.
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
It's also exactly why you should; how can such contradictions exist? :007)
It's not a contradiction. You and I have different images of Bond; hence you don't consider Moore to be sufficiently Bondian and I feel the same way about 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
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
It's not a contradiction. You and I have different images of Bond; hence you don't consider Moore to be sufficiently Bondian and I feel the same way about Craig.
I wasn't going to get into this, but since you went to the trouble of sending me a PM...
Perhaps I'm on my own here*, but I'm of the opinion that there are certain objective traits (stemming perhaps from the novels, but it may even go deeper than that) associated with the character of James Bond and that some actors (my order of preference: Lazenby, Connery, Craig, Dalton) can be said to have emulated them whereas others (Moore, Brosnan) have not, or at least to a much lesser degree. I won't dispute that you have every right to prefer certain Bond films and actors over others, but I am of the (perhaps controversial) opinion that people who adore Moore and Brosnan while disliking Craig and Dalton aren't fans of James Bond per se-- rather they're into the cinematic creation and spectacle that just happens to be known as James Bond. Before anyone flies off the handle here let me go on record as saying that I'm very much a fan of certain Moore films (Brosnan, on the other hand...)-- my favorite being the oft-loathed MR-- however my enjoyment of those films stems more from their sheer entertainment value than their portrayal of the character/man/archetype of James Bond.
*Actually a quick reflection (and scroll up the page lol) has led me to suspect that I'm not entirely on my own with this sentiment.
Perhaps I'm on my own here, but I'm of the opinion that there are certain objective traits (stemming perhaps from the novels, but it may even go deeper than that) associated with the character of James Bond and that some actors (my order of preference: Lazenby, Connery, Craig, Dalton) can be said to have emulated them whereas others (Moore, Brosnan) have not, or at least to a much lesser degree. I won't dispute that you have every right to prefer certain Bond films and actors over others, but I am of the (perhaps controversial) opinion that people who adore Moore and Brosnan while disliking Craig and Dalton aren't fans of James Bond per se-- rather they're into the cinematic creation and spectacle that just happens to be known as James Bond.
Controversial or not, in my case, it's incorrect. I prefer Moore and Brosnan to Craig and Dalton because IMO they better represent the traits which I most associate with Bond; ruthlessness and suaveness. My favourite Bond is Connery and his Bond is, for me, the prototype of Bond as I think he produced a brilliant combination of suaveness and ruthlessness. After Connery, Brosnan and Moore most skillfully represents these qualities IMO.
Lazenby, I can assure you that I love James Bond as much as anybody on this site and I don't merely love the *cinematic creation that just happens to be him, but I think a major problem with your theory is that you assume these objective traits (which you haven't specified, but which let us assume for arguments' sake are ruthlessness and suaveness) are objectively handled best by particular actors.
Therein lies the problem; there is no conclusive evidence that Craig is any better (or worse) than Moore or Brosnan in executing (no pun intended ) particular traits so your theory is arguably not true; although obviously it may vary from person to person. It's certainly not true in my case. One can easily say, if one is basing one's view on the traits of ruthlessness and suaveness, that Craig/Dalton fans are not fans of James Bond if one believes (as I do) that Brosnan and Moore were better at executing most 'Bondian' traits. I think it's highly problematic basing a theory on what Moore/Brosnan fans think of Bond when, at the end of the day, it is based on the highly subjective premise that Craig was great in executing certain 'Bondian' characteristics.
*I haven't read the novels so I'm not overly familiar with the Bond of the books, but when I think of what represents Bond, I think of the Connery films. Sean Connery (however faithful he is to the Bond of the books) is to me the prototype of Bond, and it his Bond that I fell in love with. After that comes Brosnan and Moore in my estimation.
"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
Lazenby, I can assure you that I love James Bond as much as anybody on this site and I don't merely love the *cinematic creation that just happens to be him,
But don't you always say that you haven't read Fleming? So that's the only Bond that you know, surely?
CR just happens to attempt to be more of a book adaptation than just another episode in the Bond film series, whilst still fitting in with that series. A bit like a Gardner film novelisation; trying to please everyone at the same time! So I think that what Lazenby is saying is that Bond (and Fleming thought of him before Connery played him, so he's the one that gets to define him) has been best realised, in his point of view, by actors who have been allowed to let the character of Bond stay fairly accurate to his origins. Saying that Bond is only Bond if one plays him like Connery is like saying that there's only one interpretation of Hamlet and that if you don't play it like Branagh, regardless of whether Shakespeare wrote it like that or not, it's somehow 'wrong'.
Of course, as to who you think personifies the real Bond more is also personal preference: even Craig doesn't feel perfect yet to me, but he's tough, stylish, confident, convincing and Boy's Own fantasy-style enough to get closer than most have for a while. I certainly can't agree that he's 'not Bond' just because he leans slightly on a different set of values to the last guy. It's still Bond.
But basically, I'd have to agree with you: there's no way of judging who is the most 'Bond-like'; it just comes down to what we like best in our Bonds- and I often find that that changes depending on who I'm watching play him at the time!
*I haven't read the novels so I'm not overly familiar with the Bond of the books
Off topic.
Is there a reason you do not read the books?
It used to be because of a lack of desire, but now it's because of a lack of time or more specifally a lack of discipline. I've borrowed GF twice from the library, read the opening two chapters both times yet, due to my lack of discipline, was unable to finish. I used to be able to fully read books, even those I did not enjoy, and I read quite a number of books, often at the same time. However, in the past few years I've lost the discipline and I've become too easily bored (perhaps because I've become more focused on newspapers and the net); I've become particularly bored with GF, which I do not dislike but of which I am not used to the style.
My goal (and this is in no small part to being on this site) is to read Fleming eventually however there are so many unread/un-finished books in my room, it may be a while before I get onto a Bond book.
"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
Comments
I'm probably with King on this myself.
I guess the thing about the works of Shakespeare is that they are now not so much owned by him as by humanity. By classifying it as 'Franco Zeffirelli's....' he is perhaps saying "this is how I see the play and this is my vision of it." Certainly there have been Shakespearian adaptations that are radically different to the original versions, and in those cases, the directors might be justified in claiming credit. BTW, if you think all of this is narcissistic, what about Tarantino referring to Kill Bill Volume 1, in the credits, as his fourth film? 8-)
Yes, the credits will list "Based on..." (sideline- when CR came out I commented on Fleming being given such a credit for the first time in over forty years), "Screenplay by...", etc, but I'm talking about the "Stanley Kubrick's..." displayed on posters, publicity material and so on. This is the credit that the general public remember. I don't know whether Kubrick insisted on such a credit or if the publicity people decided on it.
I'm not anti-director and of course they are vital, being the one person who interacts with all the other filmmakers, but basically I'd back the Writer's Guild.
It's also exactly why you should; how can such contradictions exist? :007)
I wasn't going to get into this, but since you went to the trouble of sending me a PM...
Perhaps I'm on my own here*, but I'm of the opinion that there are certain objective traits (stemming perhaps from the novels, but it may even go deeper than that) associated with the character of James Bond and that some actors (my order of preference: Lazenby, Connery, Craig, Dalton) can be said to have emulated them whereas others (Moore, Brosnan) have not, or at least to a much lesser degree. I won't dispute that you have every right to prefer certain Bond films and actors over others, but I am of the (perhaps controversial) opinion that people who adore Moore and Brosnan while disliking Craig and Dalton aren't fans of James Bond per se-- rather they're into the cinematic creation and spectacle that just happens to be known as James Bond. Before anyone flies off the handle here let me go on record as saying that I'm very much a fan of certain Moore films (Brosnan, on the other hand...)-- my favorite being the oft-loathed MR-- however my enjoyment of those films stems more from their sheer entertainment value than their portrayal of the character/man/archetype of James Bond.
*Actually a quick reflection (and scroll up the page lol) has led me to suspect that I'm not entirely on my own with this sentiment.
Lazenby, I can assure you that I love James Bond as much as anybody on this site and I don't merely love the *cinematic creation that just happens to be him,
Therein lies the problem; there is no conclusive evidence that Craig is any better (or worse) than Moore or Brosnan in executing (no pun intended
*I haven't read the novels so I'm not overly familiar with the Bond of the books, but when I think of what represents Bond, I think of the Connery films. Sean Connery (however faithful he is to the Bond of the books) is to me the prototype of Bond, and it his Bond that I fell in love with. After that comes Brosnan and Moore in my estimation.
But don't you always say that you haven't read Fleming? So that's the only Bond that you know, surely?
CR just happens to attempt to be more of a book adaptation than just another episode in the Bond film series, whilst still fitting in with that series. A bit like a Gardner film novelisation; trying to please everyone at the same time!
Of course, as to who you think personifies the real Bond more is also personal preference: even Craig doesn't feel perfect yet to me, but he's tough, stylish, confident, convincing and Boy's Own fantasy-style enough to get closer than most have for a while. I certainly can't agree that he's 'not Bond' just because he leans slightly on a different set of values to the last guy. It's still Bond.
But basically, I'd have to agree with you: there's no way of judging who is the most 'Bond-like'; it just comes down to what we like best in our Bonds- and I often find that that changes depending on who I'm watching play him at the time!
Is there a reason you do not read the books?
My goal (and this is in no small part to being on this site) is to read Fleming eventually however there are so many unread/un-finished books in my room, it may be a while before I get onto a Bond book.