Terrence Young and Goldfinger

hegottheboot

After listening to the "banned" Criterion laserdisc commentary (on listentoamovie.com)-the fact that Young worked with Richard Maibaum on the original story treatment seems ripe for discussion. What would this have been like? The film and novel differ in tone so violently that I feel Young would have not gone so rich like Hamilton. (No rubber seagull!!) Another interesting part of the commentary is Peter Hunt's apparent disdain of the film's tone-he seems to resent Young leaving and having to do all the over the top stuff.
Young supposedly left over contract issues (wanted a percentage I think.). Isn't this the same reason why Connery became withdrawn and decided to leave? The ironic bit is that both came back once more.

Barbel

The book "Adrian Turner on Goldfinger" (Bloomsbury, 1998) has an interview with Hamilton during which the director was asked if Young had left after being refused a "piece of the action". Hamilton replied that naturally he wasn't present during the conversations between Young and Broccoli & Saltzman, but he was "pretty certain it's damn true".

Gert Frobe had already been cast before Hamilton's involvement, according to the book, and Richard Maibaum's script, though "very good" he felt to be too American before Paul Dehn's rewrite. The seagull was originally an inflatable dead dog in Dehn's version; Maibaum thought the idea "repulsive" and Hamilton changed it to the seagull. And Dehn was the man who came up with "Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die!"

Hope that helps!

Napoleon Plural

In a recent Bond Collector mag (I think) they talked about the rewrites and how Connery originally felt the treatment went too flippant and not as hard edged as the first two. He jibed about the gangsters who he felt were too much like out of Guys and Dolls (fair comment imo). Odd then that Connery's comeback picture lacked that hard edge.

I liked the fact that they had witty writers come in and add a certain sparkle to things, of course all had Fleming's excellent first draft novels to work from.

Rick Roberts

Napoleon Plural wrote:

He jibed about the gangsters who he felt were too much like out of Guys and Dolls (fair comment imo). Odd then that Connery's comeback picture lacked that hard edge.

They were kind of like that in the book too, though I think Gary Marshall riding a hobby horse went a bit too far.

Dan Same

hegottheboot wrote:

After listening to the "banned" Criterion laserdisc commentary (on listentoamovie.com).

What do you mean by "banned"? Was there something overtly sexual in the commentary or something?

Rick Roberts

Dan Same wrote:

hegottheboot wrote:

After listening to the "banned" Criterion laserdisc commentary (on listentoamovie.com).

What do you mean by "banned"? Was there something overtly sexual in the commentary or something?

No. It was rather frank about what happened during the production of Goldfinger, a bit too frank for EON.

Dan Same

Rick Roberts wrote:

No. It was rather frank about what happened during the production of Goldfinger, a bit too frank for EON.

Thanks. I take it then that certain embarassing things happened during the production. :v

Napoleon Plural

It wasn't that bad was it? Just Young reckoning he was onto a good thing, demanding more moolah, and getting the old heave-ho, quite tradtional for the producers and it continues today, probably not unwisely.

hegottheboot

I never understood why these were banned, but I did find them much more enjoyable than the cut and paste jobs on the dvds. Those interviewed actually get to finish their thoughts and it is mainly comprised of Young and Hunt (Hamilton on Goldfinger) with bits from Ken Adam and Richard Maibaum-my favorite people.
The novel is a bit more cartoony in spots-this is where Fleming really started to go into fantasy. Yet it has the most detailed look into Bond's mundane existence-the tail job especially. The book begins in the Miami airport with Bond musing over death and his killing of Capungo. The film could care less. This is a classic example of how the films and books differ.
GF the film captures the spirit of the book as well as could be done in the moralities of 1964. It is by no means a bad film, but it did set up many formulaic points that the series has had to live up to ever since.

Dan Same

hegottheboot wrote:

It is by no means a bad film

No, it's not, ) I think it is a brilliant film; the best Bond film of all time and the best film that was a Bond film. I don't think it comes close to being less than a great film, let alone a bad film.

hegottheboot wrote:

but it did set up many formulaic points that the series has had to live up to ever since.

I never understood this criticism. Even if one doesn't like the Bond formula, and I accept that not everyone does, to blame GF for one's dislike of the later films is ridiculous. One may not like some of the more formulaic Bond films, but to blame GF for YOLT, for example, is like blaming The Godfather for The Godfather Part III. The Godfather Part III may not exist if it wasn't for The Godfather but it doesn't alter The Godfather's status as a masterpiece.

hegottheboot

I'm not blaming it. The runaway success it had influenced people for going with the Goldfinger-esque treatment rather than Dr. No/FRWL style films because it was ingrained in their minds that people only like lighter fare akin to Goldfinger. DAF originally featured Golfinger's twin brother!
Anyway, YOLT resembles Thunderball more.

superado

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Connery...jibed about the gangsters who he felt were too much like out of Guys and Dolls (fair comment imo). Odd then that Connery's comeback picture lacked that hard edge.

It seems that one meee-lee-on dollars in 1970 had the power to overcome common artistic objections.

zebond

I advocate the extensive usage and viewing of Criterion Movies for instances just like this. The commentary is far superior just as it is an all of the movies they go through and give such treatment to in my opinion. In this case I think I would enjoyed GF far more had Young directed it. That being said, I don't in all honesty think many Bond fans would be around nowadays, as I don't think Bond would've survived had the series not gotten the Guy Hamilton treatment. This applies only to GF, as when he went on to do the others I feel it wasn't needed. But to propel the series to the stature it is at and known for, GF needed a different director to take it to a more grand genre.

Don't get me wrong though. I would've much preferred a more Young feeling GF, it would probably be one of my favorites in the series instead of being one of the most overrated. (IMO) 8-)