John Glen as a Director... thoughts?

chrisisall

I have to admit to liking Glen's simple, straightforward direction. He's clearly no Ridley (or even Tony) Scott, but he drives it all well, and even captures small character bits along the way that lesser directors wouldn't bother with. I'm glad he got to direct FYEO, OP & Dalton's movies. His minimalism worked with Bond better than say, the Gilbert or Hamilton 'flair' IMO.
Anyway, props to John Glen, he kept it in motion, and delivered a few gems along the way.

BIG TAM

I have a bit of a problem with John Glen. While I like the idea of promoting from within the ranks & keeping with one director for several films to allow a degree of continuity, Glen's style always felt a little flat. He also seemed obsessed with the comedy element of Bond, sometimes to the detriment of the whole. A VIEW TO A KILL in particular suffers from this; a generally good adventure with some MOONRAKER-style slapstick bolted on. You hear him in interview & he's always banging on about milking a laugh here & there. I always got the sense he was more comfortable with Moore, where he could indulge his penchant for sight gags as opposed to Dalton. One could imagine Glen heaving a sigh of relief when he saw that cello-case escape sequence in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. For me, Glen's best efforts for consistency of tone are the Dalton films.

Bodie

Always thought he was adequate but with no real individual flair.

Thunderpussy

I agree with Bodie, Glen was an adequate but his films IMHO had no real style of their own.

Higgins

BIG TAM wrote:

He also seemed obsessed with the comedy element of Bond,

I don't do often but here I agree with you!

IMO most of the campy Roger Moore jokes (Tarzan Yell etc.) where based on Glens personal taste and he was keen to see his "ideas" in his movies.
That went over the top a bit the more settled he's gotten with Moore and the Bond movies themselfs.

If you hear his comments on the DVDs, you can imagine how proud he was/is about that part.

Blackleiter

I was going to give Glen a pass because I thought he did pretty good job with the Dalton films, but if he is indeed responsible for the silly gags that helped to ruin the Moore Bond films, then never mind!

Bondtoys wrote:

BIG TAM wrote:

He also seemed obsessed with the comedy element of Bond,

I don't do often but here I agree with you!

IMO most of the campy Roger Moore jokes (Tarzan Yell etc.) where based on Glens personal taste and he was keep to see his "ideas" in his movies.
That went over the top a bit the more settled he's gotten with Moore and the Bond movies themselfs.

If you hear his comments on the DVDs, you can imagine how proud he was/is about that part.

Napoleon Plural

His gritty approach was often let down by the silly stuff, it jarred. FYEO in particular, has stuff that should be in MR really.

In his memoirs, he gets snarky when Dalton takes him to one side and says that in the rushes, he looks odd kissing Kara, and that one of the crew picked up on it. Glen is annoyed, saying (in apparent fairness) that you can't tell by looking at one scene how it will fit in with the rest, saying he should have never let the member of the crew into the room, he put a stop to it after that...

Except, when I saw that scene, I too thought Dalton looked odd in it. So, erm, the crew member got it right, they had the chance to remedy it, and Glen disregarded him.

I found it hard to follow the story of TLD, it sort of loses me, not sure about Glen's narrative touch.

BIG TAM

There was a thread recently about favourite 'serious' & 'fun' Bonds. In his way, Glen tries to please these two camps & ends up disappointing both through jarring shifts of tone. Take A VIEW TO A KILL. It starts off with a splendid ski-chase & then concludes with a head-in-hands rendition of 'California Girls'. Even worse, it's a cover version! He continues in that way throughout, hopping from a relatively serious moment to a silly one. It's hard to determine in what frame of mind to watch the film. I now opt for the let-it-wash-over-you approach. Perhaps that was his intention but it just feels a bit odd. I think in Dalton's casting he was forced out of his comfort zone & into making a proper effort. If he wanted to make comedies, well just go & make comedies.
I'd read that LONG GOOD FRIDAY director, John MacKenzie was offered the LICENCE TO KILL gig at what point. Can't imagine Dalton's Bond hanging Sanchez & co on meathooks for interrogation but it might have worked.

chrisisall

BIG TAM wrote:

I think in Dalton's casting he was forced out of his comfort zone & into making a proper effort. If he wanted to make comedies, well just go & make comedies.

I had assumed the silly bits were from the producer, or someone else... hmmm, then I guess I'll just say that he was a good film maker when he was forced to be and leave it at that. 8-)

Kissy Suzuki

I wouldn't rate him as much of a director at all; most of his Bond films would rank as being among my least favourites in the whole series.

Also, I don't think he has ever directed any other film of note outside of the Bond franchise (at least according to his wikipedia page) which says something about his range of talents. {:)

chrisisall

Kissy Suzuki wrote:

I wouldn't rate him as much of a director at all; most of his Bond films would rank as being among my least favourites in the whole series.

What about FYEO? Most fans seem to love it (personally, the more I see it, the more I dislike it)?
OP is not-too-bad, however, the Dalton films are, I guess, what really shine for him as a director. I really do like the energy. Of course, part of the appeal is Dalton himself.

chrisno1

"John Glen as a Director... thoughts?"

He was a better editor.

Le Samourai

John Glen had his moments, but was in general a bland, workmanlike director. Mostly, he was just wildly inconsistent, often within the same film.

I also question how much he "got" Bond. After all, he was on record saying the thought Cuba Gooding, Jr. would make a great James Bond. Even leaving aside the "black Bond" arguments, Gooding is an awful choice.

chrisisall

Napoleon Plural wrote:

I found it hard to follow the story of TLD, it sort of loses me, not sure about Glen's narrative touch.

Strange, but I had/have no real problem following the story in TLD, but I find I *DO* have to pay attention, and the only other Bond movie I have to pay a similar amount of attention to is FRWL.

Actually, Glen's style reminds me somewhat of Richard Lester's- give him room & he'll go for the goof (think: Superman III), but more than capable of solid storytelling when reigned in (think: Four Musketeers).
Dalton's movies are Glen's Four Musketeers IMO.

BIG TAM

The Richard Lester analogy is a fair summation, chrisisall. I had another look at FOR YOUR EYES ONLY last night. The direction is workmanlike & pretty solid. Good action, simple storytelling & a very good performance by Moore. Some moments of ill-at-ease comedy but generally better than I remember. Save for the Maggie Thatcher pay-off.

And I think chrisno1 makes a good point of him being a better editor than a director. His cutting of OHMSS is excellent.

Number24

I agree with many of the people who have posted here and said Glen is competent and workmanlike, but also too comedic and flat in his direction. I think his best Bond was TLD, because it was a script developed for RM, but he had to reign in the silly jokes because TD got the job.
I like LTK very much, but I think Glen was the wrong director for it. LTK needed a more modern, edgy director. Perhaps John MacKenzie would have been the man for the job?

Moore Than

Number24 wrote:

I think his best Bond was TLD, because it was a script developed for RM, but he had to reign in the silly jokes because TD got the job.

The script was not developed for Roger Moore because he was already out of the picture. It was developed for a non-specific actor as they were not certain who it was going to be. I am not certain how many actors were in the running (and at what time) before Timothy Dalton got the job. But I do know that Sam Neill screen tested and Pierce Brosnan had to commit to Remington Steele when it looked like he would be Bond.

Shady Tree

I agree with the criticisms but I do like License To Kill, which Glen acknowledges is his most accomplished Bond film. It remains one of my favourites, achieving genuine tension as Bond disrupts and unravels Sanchez's operation.

Virgil37

John Glen was obviously very well trained to do what he did, and I must admit I love his style. The 80s movies are the ones that I first saw, and they have a distinctive quality that IMO makes them stand out. He had a good eye for almost iconic imagines, and his movies had a lavish look (I specially like Octopussy; the movie oozes luxury,like in the marble palace scenes). The action scenes were always very well integrated in the plot, and the stories were very well written, very cleverly developing Fleming´s short stories, with a craft that simply was not there in the Brosnan movies. He was no auteur, granted, but as a craftsman, he was one of the best. He knew the material inside and out, and clearly loved it.

Shady Tree

In Octopussy, the sequence at the circus in the Berlin military base where Bond, dressed as a clown, struggles to draw attention to the ticking detonator is very well done. By this time, Moore was associated with the introduction of broad humour to the Bond series (largely thanks to the Christopher Wood/Lewis Gilbert movies) - and indeed we see extreme examples of such comedy earlier in Octopussy. The clown costume could be read as an acknowledgement of that element in Moore's portrayal, but the ironic point is that, underneath the face paint, Moore is playing this crucial scene at the circus with straight, dramatic urgency, conveying a seriousness which the harlequin has traditionally also possessed while, tragically, everyone else is laughing. It's rather like the link between The Fool - Bond's card - and the more sinister connotations of the tarot pack in LLD, Moore's first, voodoo-themed Bond movie, directed by Guy Hamilton.

So yes, John Glen was capable of delivering genuinely interesting, exciting drama, but there is still an overall problem in OPY, as in AVTAK and even TLD, with jarring switches of tone between serious thrills and broad comedy, as if these films couldn't quite make up their minds what sorts of Bond movie they wanted to be. This isn't such a problem in FYEO and LTK, each of which is more consistent in tone and 'realism'.

chrisisall

Shady Tree wrote:

In Octopussy, the sequence at the circus in the Berlin military base where Bond, dressed as a clown, struggles to draw attention to the ticking detonator is very well done.

It is, in fact, why I like the movie- that absurd yet strangely compelling moment that defied the 'formula'! B-)

Le Samourai

chrisisall wrote:

Shady Tree wrote:

In Octopussy, the sequence at the circus in the Berlin military base where Bond, dressed as a clown, struggles to draw attention to the ticking detonator is very well done.

It is, in fact, why I like the movie- that absurd yet strangely compelling moment that defied the 'formula'! B-)

I never quite understood why some Bond fans hated that scene. Could they not get passed the clown suit? I thought it was a highpoint for the series in terms of there being a real sense of drama and urgency, and was one of Moore's finest moments as an actor. (I also thought he did very well in the same film's backgammon scene.)

chrisisall

Le Samourai wrote:

I never quite understood why some Bond fans hated that scene. Could they not get passed the clown suit? I thought it was a highpoint for the series in terms of there being a real sense of drama and urgency, and was one of Moore's finest moments as an actor. (I also thought he did very well in the same film's backgammon scene.)

I agree; I can only imagine that the Tarzan yell soured the entire movie for some.... 8-)

Moore Than

Le Samourai wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

Shady Tree wrote:

In Octopussy, the sequence at the circus in the Berlin military base where Bond, dressed as a clown, struggles to draw attention to the ticking detonator is very well done.

It is, in fact, why I like the movie- that absurd yet strangely compelling moment that defied the 'formula'! B-)

I never quite understood why some Bond fans hated that scene. Could they not get passed the clown suit? I thought it was a highpoint for the series in terms of there being a real sense of drama and urgency, and was one of Moore's finest moments as an actor. (I also thought he did very well in the same film's backgammon scene.)

It's nice to see appreciation of something that's quite often criticised. The whole sequence beginning with Bond posing as a circus worker through the confrontation with General Orlov and chase against the clock to get to the circus in time and defuse the bomb is one of the best in the entire series. Fabulous drama and entertainment.

BIG TAM

I agree about OCTOPUSSY's last third. The Berlin segment is indeed pretty good. Glen eschews farce in favour of old-fashioned tension & Moore plays it all very well. He even pulls off the clown suit look, something Connery would never look comfortable doing.

darenhat

I know that Glen gets knocked alot for his 'lack of style' but I always felt that this minimalistic approach really highlighted some of the outstanding stunts and action sequences. The humor often stretches into the realm of camp, and I can't quite justify it, but on the other hand, if it were removed completely I'd feel something was missing. Glen was a decent director for the 'late cold war' Bond. The only non-Bond film of his I remember seeing was his Christopher Columbus film in 92...it was pretty weak and not his forte. When it comes to Bond, though, I think he had a genuine heart for it and that it shows. Lately, EON has been attaching more 'polished' directors and I think there is now too much talk about what Campbell is going to do or what Forster is going to do. With Glen films, it was always 'what is Bond going to do' and I have to give him credit for that.

chrisisall

darenhat wrote:

I know that Glen gets knocked alot for his 'lack of style'

Y'know, sometimes simple solid film making is better for something like a Bond movie than the lightning cut/shakey cam business or the lushly set up/grand camera movement styles.

Firemass

Over Christmas break I've been rewatching the 80's Bond DVDs with John Glen's commentary track on. Pretty interesting. I also ordered his book For My Eyes Only but haven't received it yet. The only thing I don't like about Glen is his interest in "hilarious" gags...the way he boasts about securing the rights for the Tarzan audio clip. *shudder*

However, Glen delivered 5 solid Bond films and we should be appreciative of this. I would even say that the 80's were the overall most consistently GOOD decade for 007.

Bond films don't need an "auteur director" They need a guy who can organize several different filming units which are working simultaneously all over the globe and figure out how to mesh all the footage seamlessly together. That was really his strong point. He was cranking those films out like clockwork. Ahead of schedule and under budget.

For Your Eyes Only - Roger Moore's answer to OHMSS as if the 70's never existed. Great stunts and action sequences. Not as much fun as Moonraker though. 8/10

Octopussy- This could have been a tense cold war thriller if not for India. Easily his weakest film due to the endless supply of gags. Still, can't dismiss it completely because it contains so many enjoyable scenes and stunts. 6/10

A View to a Kill- Nailed it! Thankfully not a single gag that makes me cringe. The perfect ratio of gadgets/wits, action/spying, and humor/seriousness. Inspired villains. Moore's finest performance as 007. 9/10

TLD- Confusing, but still cool. I admire how Glen shifted to Dalton without missing a beat. Especially love the classic car chase that starts at the phone booth, cuts across the frozen lake and finally ends with a daring cello escape. 8/10

LTK- Too brutal for my taste, but still an excellent film. It doesn't capture the spirit of a 007 adventure the way AVTAK did. Although the extended presence of Q certainly helped. Dalton had great sniper scenes in both his outings. 8/10

Judi Dench M had no right to chastise Pierce in Goldeneye for being a misogynist dinosaur...she obviously missed the progress Bond had made in AVTAK, TLD, LTK.

All in all, John should be very proud of his work.

Nicolas Suszczyk

Well, actually, I do think Glen's style was TV-ish and there are no big technical innovations in the franchise like Martin Campbell or Sam Mendes brought. Still, he was a very good director, he brought back a much needed realism to Bond.

chrisisall

Nicolas Suszczyk wrote:

Well, actually, I do think Glen's style was TV-ish and there are no big technical innovations in the franchise like Martin Campbell or Sam Mendes brought.

Actually from a technical standpoint Bond movies up to 1989 were directed in a very straightforward, almost 'plain' fashion if you will, with the possible exception of Lewis Gilbert's work, and I think it suited Bond enormously well! Even Gilbert wasn't especially flashy (though he did love those wide shots).
Apart from the occasional stupid joke, Glen did a fine & solid job, letting the tale unfold, and the actors do their thing.
In Brosnan's films, Campbell added some direction tweaks, as did Spottiswoode, and Apted seemed to me to be infatuated with tracking shots, BUT...
Tamahori introduced the ADD editing & camera movement, and Campbell upped that ante in CR- then Forster sped it up AND shook (not stirred) the photography. Mendes went for grandeur (I hear).

So, the days of the simple, effective Bond movie are over, period.
And John Glen was one of the best in that arena. -{

kmart

Definitely a case of only being almost as good as his material, though I think JG is the reason TLD and LTK aren't FRWL-class (I love them, but in spite of some deficiencies on his part.)

The obvious issues, going by his own bio and by my own eyes, is that he had some weird idea that being navy, Bond shouldn't ever put his hands in his pockets (!!!???) That's straight from his bio, a disagreement with Dalton. But the worst stuff was not paying attention. The Vampire hair in LTK is distracting to the point of being almost funny -- as director how could he not notice this? Also, once he was seeing dailies, why didn't he have the cinematographer take down the fill light? LTK by its subject matter should be dark and contrasty, but it usually has a 'tv' feel to its look, which totally undercuts everything Dalton is doing to make this feel real.

Also can't figure out why he'd allow repeating old Connery/Moore joke lines ('you're full of it' from GOLDEN GUN in TLD, 'bon appetit' from YOLT in LTK.) First off, nobody is ever going to be able to say the YOLT line as well as Connery. Dalton manages 'salt corrosion' well, but that's the last time -- 25 years now! -- that I laughed at a new bond one-liner.

I also now wonder if the ill-placed humor in FYEO (like the PTS) is his fault. I remember reading the comic adaptation of FYEO before it came out and I was jazzed that it was going to open so serious ... and then I have to hear 'buy you a delicatessen ... in stainless steel!' Gee-ZUS!

Maybe if they had gotten Dalton for FYEO we'd have had a golden era of Bond that lasted a decade to rival Connery's reign. If so, I'm guessing JG wouldn't have had a 5 pic run, Dalton would have had him ousted.

EDIT ADDON: probably went too rough on him ... to be fair, escape from Wavekrest is probably my favorite set-piece in the whole series, and the ONLY time outside of the laser table in GF where I actually felt genuine suspense in terms of 'how is he going to get out of this?' to the point of, "IS he going to get out of this?' when surrounded underwater with his mask ripped away. Genuine full-on thrill when he escapes to the surface behind the plane.