Before Bond...There Was Nothing.
bigzilcho
Toronto, ONPosts: 245MI6 Agent
John Lennon had this to say about about rock and roll:
"Before Elvis...there was nothing."
I would like to paraphrase this quote in relation to what we consider to be action/adventure movies.
Before Bond...there was nothing.
The level of action that Bond introduced (beginning with FRWL, particularly) was light-years ahead of whatever anybody had ever filmed.
(I would say The Adventures Of Robin Hood (1938), for instance is a superb adventure film, with stunning action for 1938)
Make no mistake, there have been be terrific action sequences before 007 in various movies but, as John Cork points out in his excellent The Legacy, FRWL was a leap forward in the way action (and the quality of action) was integrated into the story.
I would argue that FRWL is really the first modern action movie as we know it.
When Cubby was dreaming about Bond in 1961 he had two movies he was using as templates for the mood he was after in the series:
1) North By Northwest (1959)- The Alfred Hitchcock/ Cary Grant spy classic.
2)The Guns Of Navarone (1961)- The WWII men-on-a-mission starring Gregory Peck, directed J.Lee Thompson.
Now, as much as I love these two movies...there is no way these two can stack up to FRWL in terms of action.
Peter Hunt and Terence Young accelerated the pace to such a speed in 1963 that it made Hitchcock, a master manipulator, look creaky in his scenes of mayhem.
Its been acknowledged by critics that that Indiana Jones, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon and practically every action movie made sine 1962 owes a great deal to 007.
And while all these series have fallen by the wayside, Bond rules (and will continue to rule) as long as action movies are made.
For you see, Bond is many things to many people.
For myself, as an action-movie fan.....Bond IS action. Period.
When that theme song starts...I sit back and anticipate the work of craftsmen who have revered movie mayhem for over 40 years.
There have been some disappointments over the years, to be sure, but without question, pound-for-pound, Bond is the all-time heavyweight action hero. He set the gold standard for action then and with CR is setting it again now.
Before Bond? Perhaps a dash of Errol Flynn or Burt Lancaster in his swashbuckling days was the peak of action...but believe me, fellow Bond-fans, I have looked far and wide to find anything filmed before 1963 that can even compare to the action of FRWL.
Nothing...is...even...close.
Before Bond? There...was...nothing.
"World domination. Same old dream."
"Before Elvis...there was nothing."
I would like to paraphrase this quote in relation to what we consider to be action/adventure movies.
Before Bond...there was nothing.
The level of action that Bond introduced (beginning with FRWL, particularly) was light-years ahead of whatever anybody had ever filmed.
(I would say The Adventures Of Robin Hood (1938), for instance is a superb adventure film, with stunning action for 1938)
Make no mistake, there have been be terrific action sequences before 007 in various movies but, as John Cork points out in his excellent The Legacy, FRWL was a leap forward in the way action (and the quality of action) was integrated into the story.
I would argue that FRWL is really the first modern action movie as we know it.
When Cubby was dreaming about Bond in 1961 he had two movies he was using as templates for the mood he was after in the series:
1) North By Northwest (1959)- The Alfred Hitchcock/ Cary Grant spy classic.
2)The Guns Of Navarone (1961)- The WWII men-on-a-mission starring Gregory Peck, directed J.Lee Thompson.
Now, as much as I love these two movies...there is no way these two can stack up to FRWL in terms of action.
Peter Hunt and Terence Young accelerated the pace to such a speed in 1963 that it made Hitchcock, a master manipulator, look creaky in his scenes of mayhem.
Its been acknowledged by critics that that Indiana Jones, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon and practically every action movie made sine 1962 owes a great deal to 007.
And while all these series have fallen by the wayside, Bond rules (and will continue to rule) as long as action movies are made.
For you see, Bond is many things to many people.
For myself, as an action-movie fan.....Bond IS action. Period.
When that theme song starts...I sit back and anticipate the work of craftsmen who have revered movie mayhem for over 40 years.
There have been some disappointments over the years, to be sure, but without question, pound-for-pound, Bond is the all-time heavyweight action hero. He set the gold standard for action then and with CR is setting it again now.
Before Bond? Perhaps a dash of Errol Flynn or Burt Lancaster in his swashbuckling days was the peak of action...but believe me, fellow Bond-fans, I have looked far and wide to find anything filmed before 1963 that can even compare to the action of FRWL.
Nothing...is...even...close.
Before Bond? There...was...nothing.
"World domination. Same old dream."
Comments
Hmmm... don't really follow that- both of those are pretty action-packed in a sensible way. I don't think there's significantly more going on in FRWL (and let's not forget that that lifts an entire action scene from North By Northwest!), and I'd say that, all in all, North By Northwest is the superior film.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
North by Northwest sorts of sees to that too, doesn't it?
Good points, emtiem, but I would like to clarify my position.
The distinction I am trying to make is that the modern action era (as we know it) began with Bond.
North By Northwest is a classic spy film, no question, and FRWL owes it quite a bit...but we are talking about action here, emtiem, and quite frankly, Alfred Hitchcock was left in the dust by Terence Young and Peter Hunt.
The kinetic speed and energy in the Bond series was unprecendented. The pace was amplified...the action bigger, more intense. In one word...better.
Look, fellow Bond-fans, for as long as the series has been alive...NBNW is considered a blueprint. But that has been misleading.
To begin with, Cary Grant plays an innocent man thrown into peril.
James Bond is, to begin with, the world's greatest spy.
Notice a difference?
James Bond is the first man of action of the screen who changed the dynamics of adventures movies, The movie ITSELF was designed to manipulate an audience in a manner that Hitchcock only dreamed about.
(Check out the Ernest Lehman (screenwriter of NBNW) anecdote about Hitchcock, who considered the movie one giant confidence trick on the audience, laughing gleefully at how the masses can be seduced by, as Hitchcock put it, "pure cinema.")
I will shake the hand of any man who thinks NBNW is a wonderful movie and an honored classic but...and here is where we part ways, emtiem, the comparison to FRWL is a tricky apples-oranges conflict.
The famous cropduster sequence in NBNW is a stunning piece of suspense from beginning to end.
Compare FRWL. Bond on the run from the helicopter is more intense, more hyped, everything is scaled bigger, crazier..
Whereas, Cary Grant crouches in the cornfields in 1959...by 1963, the ante has been upped where our hero now has a telescopic rifle...and his aim is deadly.
You can search far and wide and you will not find a better fight filmed before 1963 than Bond-Grant. Hitchcock would have been green with envy over that sequence alone.
It comes down to distinctions, emtiem.
North By Nortwest is a spy thriller with minimal action.
FRWL is a spy-thriller with state-of-the-art action. And THAT changed the equation.
Eventually the Bond series moved away from the spying and into the spectacle.
And, in the process created the summit of action film-making.
And that, emtiem, was the distinction I think must be made whenever NBNW is referenced. Hitcdhcock would probably cringe at the fact that the second-unit directors of the world were beating him at his own game.
Is NBNW a better movie than FRWL? Perhaps.
Is FRWL more exciting? ABSOLUTELY!
Do I wish the series had stayed more serious? Of course. but that's beside the point.
For you see...this is about gut-level excitement and, as far as I'm concerned, Bond is an adrenaline junkies dream.
Elvis was the King of Rock and Roll.
James Bond is the King of Action Cinema.
'Nuff said.
"World domination. Same old dream."
"World domination. Same old dream."
But it's a lot less exciting a sequence. Much more forgettable... which is why only Bond fans remember it. And not many of them do.
I can see where you're coming from; there are more things blowing up for the sake of spectacle in FRWL, but I'm not sure how that's superior to suspense. All good action scenes hinge on suspense.
This is where the apples-oranges analogy comes into play.
If you were to ask me which sequence is more exciting, then that would have to FRWL, hands-down, but that does not necessarily make it any better, if that makes any sense.
"Excitement" is a tricky word to define.
I can appreciate the mastery in which Hitchcock weaves his magic in setting the trap on Cary Grant.
But on a purely gut level of "wow" adrenaline rush, FRWL is the winner.
Is the cropduster scene more memorable? No question about it, the sequence is one of the all-time greats.
I would argue, emtiem, that suspense and action are TWO distinct elements. Often lumped together, seldom is there a perfect balance between the two.
And NBNW is a classic textbook of suspense (the sequence of Cary Grant and the matchbook is sensational) but some of the best action movies of all time understand that when the suspene ends...its time to ROCK!
As glorious as Notorious and the Third Man are, they do not promise, and do not deliver, the pure EXHILIRATION of action scenes like Piz Gloria attack (OHMSS)...or Bond vs. 006 (GE)...or the foot chase of CR. (to name a few).
Take away the cropduster scene and NBNW is still a classic spy thriller.
Take away the action sequences from a Bond film...and what have you got? Ashes.
As for the FRWL scene not being memorable. I seriously doubt that. We're talking FRWL here, emtiem.
"Forgettable"? Shocking!
It is my contention that film-schools should study FRWL as intensely as they do Hitchcock's films.
And, in PARTICULAR, compare these two sequences to understand that Bond upped the ante beyond a point Hitchcock had been unwilling to go.
Comparing these two sequences is like comparing Sinatra to Elvis. The subtle shift in tone between old and new styles.
NBNW, like Frank, wants to seduce you with a whisper.
FRWL, like Elvis, wants to knock you out.
Hitchcock was the Master of Suspense. But he never tried to make an all-out adventure film and thats a shame...there have been many action movies in the last 40 years that could surely have used the old master's superb touch.
Even 007.
Bond owes a lot to Hitchcock and NBNW but, with all due respect to Hitch, its time to set the record straight.
When it comes to integrating suspense and action the Bond series is light years ahead of the master. (FRWL, for example)
In the course of film history, its time for FRWL to emerge from the shadow of the supposedly "superior" NBNW and take is rightful place as a worthy companion piece.
"How about a cigarette?"
"Not a chance."