Bond, Glamour, Technology & The Modern World
Moonraker 5
Ayrshire, ScotlandPosts: 1,821MI6 Agent
Something was irritating me on the journey home from seeing OHMSS on the big screen. The crux of it was "They really don't make them like they used to". And I began to wonder why. It's been hammered home a bit more recently through other films and programmes. During a bout of illness a short while ago when I came down with an virus that was doing the rounds, I was couped up at home watching DVDs and weird digital channels that I didn't know existed, watching The Saint, Return of The Saint, The Avengers, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) and believe it or not forgotten comedies like Duty Free. Something united them all, some intangable quality that seems to be non-existant in post-1990 productions. There was a certain glamour about them, something, perhaps, that could be described as very middle class. Lady Penelope exclaiming "Come along Professor, it's time for my Pernod, and nothing is going to interrupt it this time" in Thunderbirds sort of summed it all up.
But for this forum, I'll stick to the Bond films. This may become long and rambling. It's raining heavily today and my geotechnical investigation has become waterlogged and the analyst gone home, so I'm skiving.
Something has been missing since The Living Daylights. Since then, while we may have had entertaining, even thrilling, films, there's still an ingredient that I find is just not there anymore. Formality has gone, a certain element of snobbery has gone. The villians don't seem as threatening, the women don't seem as mysterious, the locations not as exotic, the music not as stirring and it just hasn't felt as special. Casino Royale came very close. Very. But then, it was more or less a straight update of a 1950s story that hasn't been told before. But the rest. Meh. Good as they are (Quantum excepted) they don't stir me as much as they used to.
So what has gone wrong? I've thought of a few possibilities, it might be none, might be all, might be a combination.
- The world has gotten smaller. Through communication, a multitde of TV channels with programmes from all over the world, instant news and cheap air travel, much of the world just isn't exotic enough anymore. Venice? We can get there for a fiver with Ryanair. The Riviera? As a segment on Top Gear recently proved for the Ferrari Daytona's 40th birthday, gone are the international jetset and arrived has MacDonald's and easyCruises. Europe is no longer a continent with borders, you can drive from Paris to the Ukranian border using any route you like without having to produce your passport. As a result, travel is no longer a big deal. For those that may be familiar with what's now called Glasgow Prestwick International, much of the infrastructure remains the same as it was in the 60s. Waiting to board a flight to Dublin last week, I could almost have closed my eyes and felt the excitement if there was a BOAC VC-10 or Pan Am 707 waiting on the apron, rather than a stripped out Ryanair 737 that holds 1,546 people with all the comfort and service of a McGill's 906 bus to Greenock. Familiarity has diluted travel.
- Technology is superceding intellect. In 1969, Bond had to be smuggled out of town to reach a post office in order to contact London. From a public telephone box. And even that was rudely interrupted by gunfire. These days he'd just flip open his mobile phone, or even just be tracked by 40 satellites all extrapolating his exact position between an array of radar stations in Guadaloupe and Nuuk. There's no genuine sense of urgency any more as we can make things happen in minutes. Remote drones can now patrol the skies; satellites can give us clear up-to-date pictures without going anywhere near. We don't have to rely on ourselves, we simply rely on our iPhones.
- A breakdown in society. People had respect for each other, and respect (even fear in some instances) for the authorities. Yes, there was a class system in place, but manners and etiquette were valued by all. I can perfectly understand actors in films and TV programmes from the 80s and before, but these days I find myself increasingly straining to hear what they're saying through mumbling, or even rewind a DVD and put on subtitles to hear what they're actually saying. It seems that even proper speech has been lost. On the same hand, we've got to watch out for the PC Brigade, dare we offend the Carbon Free Peace World of All Ethnicities group or sufferers of criminal insanity. Put simply, attitudes have changed considerably.
- Poltics. Gone is the simple black and white world of east and west. NATO v Warsaw Pact. Professional military machines were ranged against professional military machines. Power meant respect. It commanded respect. Now, power means nothing. Professional military machines struggle to take on poorly trained teenagers from Bradford in the Afghan mountains. These days, intelligence services aren't quite as focused on whether the politiley spoken importer, or the shifty looking haulier, are working for the Stasi or KGB. They're more worried they're bringing in drugs and have a lorry full of Albanians. They're less likely to be concerned by a sharp-suited foreign scholar with a potential killer brolly on a London platform than an edgy Asian lad with a potential killer backpack. We simply don't know who the enemy is anymore.
- Lack of originality/It's become to easy. Is there only so many stories you can tell before you start again at the beginning? But there even sometimes appears to be a lack of real effort. Is it because, when there were only three TV channels and cinema was a bigger deal, that they were forced to be more competitve? That it was so expensive to make films and programmes, that only the reasonably talented were allowed to have a go at it? Even with the Bond themes and scores, the rousing strings or thrilling brass of the one hundred piece orchestra has been replaced with computer generated blare, replayed in every film from Tomorrow Never Dies through Quantum of Solace, but at different tempos and at a slightly different pitch. They just don't really try as hard as they used to.
Or is it the final option?
- Me. I could just be getting older, more wiser, more cynical and more used to the world. Or I could be just pining for the world I grew up in and felt safe and coseted from the big baddies because my mum was just round the corner. I could be becoming more of a snob. I could simply just be drifting out of touch.
I'd quite like to know what it is though.
But for this forum, I'll stick to the Bond films. This may become long and rambling. It's raining heavily today and my geotechnical investigation has become waterlogged and the analyst gone home, so I'm skiving.
Something has been missing since The Living Daylights. Since then, while we may have had entertaining, even thrilling, films, there's still an ingredient that I find is just not there anymore. Formality has gone, a certain element of snobbery has gone. The villians don't seem as threatening, the women don't seem as mysterious, the locations not as exotic, the music not as stirring and it just hasn't felt as special. Casino Royale came very close. Very. But then, it was more or less a straight update of a 1950s story that hasn't been told before. But the rest. Meh. Good as they are (Quantum excepted) they don't stir me as much as they used to.
So what has gone wrong? I've thought of a few possibilities, it might be none, might be all, might be a combination.
- The world has gotten smaller. Through communication, a multitde of TV channels with programmes from all over the world, instant news and cheap air travel, much of the world just isn't exotic enough anymore. Venice? We can get there for a fiver with Ryanair. The Riviera? As a segment on Top Gear recently proved for the Ferrari Daytona's 40th birthday, gone are the international jetset and arrived has MacDonald's and easyCruises. Europe is no longer a continent with borders, you can drive from Paris to the Ukranian border using any route you like without having to produce your passport. As a result, travel is no longer a big deal. For those that may be familiar with what's now called Glasgow Prestwick International, much of the infrastructure remains the same as it was in the 60s. Waiting to board a flight to Dublin last week, I could almost have closed my eyes and felt the excitement if there was a BOAC VC-10 or Pan Am 707 waiting on the apron, rather than a stripped out Ryanair 737 that holds 1,546 people with all the comfort and service of a McGill's 906 bus to Greenock. Familiarity has diluted travel.
- Technology is superceding intellect. In 1969, Bond had to be smuggled out of town to reach a post office in order to contact London. From a public telephone box. And even that was rudely interrupted by gunfire. These days he'd just flip open his mobile phone, or even just be tracked by 40 satellites all extrapolating his exact position between an array of radar stations in Guadaloupe and Nuuk. There's no genuine sense of urgency any more as we can make things happen in minutes. Remote drones can now patrol the skies; satellites can give us clear up-to-date pictures without going anywhere near. We don't have to rely on ourselves, we simply rely on our iPhones.
- A breakdown in society. People had respect for each other, and respect (even fear in some instances) for the authorities. Yes, there was a class system in place, but manners and etiquette were valued by all. I can perfectly understand actors in films and TV programmes from the 80s and before, but these days I find myself increasingly straining to hear what they're saying through mumbling, or even rewind a DVD and put on subtitles to hear what they're actually saying. It seems that even proper speech has been lost. On the same hand, we've got to watch out for the PC Brigade, dare we offend the Carbon Free Peace World of All Ethnicities group or sufferers of criminal insanity. Put simply, attitudes have changed considerably.
- Poltics. Gone is the simple black and white world of east and west. NATO v Warsaw Pact. Professional military machines were ranged against professional military machines. Power meant respect. It commanded respect. Now, power means nothing. Professional military machines struggle to take on poorly trained teenagers from Bradford in the Afghan mountains. These days, intelligence services aren't quite as focused on whether the politiley spoken importer, or the shifty looking haulier, are working for the Stasi or KGB. They're more worried they're bringing in drugs and have a lorry full of Albanians. They're less likely to be concerned by a sharp-suited foreign scholar with a potential killer brolly on a London platform than an edgy Asian lad with a potential killer backpack. We simply don't know who the enemy is anymore.
- Lack of originality/It's become to easy. Is there only so many stories you can tell before you start again at the beginning? But there even sometimes appears to be a lack of real effort. Is it because, when there were only three TV channels and cinema was a bigger deal, that they were forced to be more competitve? That it was so expensive to make films and programmes, that only the reasonably talented were allowed to have a go at it? Even with the Bond themes and scores, the rousing strings or thrilling brass of the one hundred piece orchestra has been replaced with computer generated blare, replayed in every film from Tomorrow Never Dies through Quantum of Solace, but at different tempos and at a slightly different pitch. They just don't really try as hard as they used to.
Or is it the final option?
- Me. I could just be getting older, more wiser, more cynical and more used to the world. Or I could be just pining for the world I grew up in and felt safe and coseted from the big baddies because my mum was just round the corner. I could be becoming more of a snob. I could simply just be drifting out of touch.
I'd quite like to know what it is though.
Comments
I have been talking with my wife recently that the existence of mobile phones are terribly limiting scripts.
As you mention OHMSS, many breathtaking situations in classic movies could be solved with a normal mobile phone today.
Plus, if the hero today flips his mobile phone, I am not so much tempted how well this situation is being solved, I wonder more, how much the referred company where paying to be presented.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Thus is the challenge faced by Eon, in #23 and going forward---and, in truth, for those in our particular generation, the good old days may indeed only exist in our collective memory at this point.
Many of us thirst for more of the Precious Classic FormulaTM, but we don't want it to be too predictable. We want to be reminded of Classic Bond, but are fully prepared to howl derisively if we see anything too self-referencing---and God forbid we get served an on-the-nose homage. IMRO, Eon needs to infuse this dangerous and effective current Bond with a little more of the Classic Bond Attitude. It's been said often that #23 should be a GF for the 21st Century, and I'd tend to agree with that. Quantum has all the makings of a great villainous adversary for James Bond, but Eon would be wise to let 007 smile once or twice---and straighten his tie---as he brings about their defeat.
James Bond films will never be completely unpredictable---he does need to triumph in the end, after all---but I hope the writers take some care to make sure that we, the fans, continue to enjoy the ride through this undeniably familiar landscape :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
As much as I respect Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson for carrying on the Bond legacy-there really is too much missing from Bond to make it as pleasurable as it used to be. The films are not themselves anymore and are certainly not Fleming-esque. Gone are the firm hands of Cubby and Harry. Gone is the strong pen of Richard Maibaum. Gone is the time where Bond influenced others-now he follows. Gone are the visual brilliance of Ken Adam, the sonic genius of John Barry, the strength of Terrence Young-Guy Hamilton-Peter Hunt and others, the designs of Maurice Binder, and most regrettably Peter Hunt's rapid fire editing. In essence what has left is the magic. I recently saw some of the Bonds at a local art house, and let me say after countless viewings over the years-nothing compares to this:
Leo the Lion roars. The UA fanfare plays.
Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman Present: this over weird sound effects....as the twin white dots roll across the screen erupting into a single image of a lone figure as the xylophone strikes..a wind chimes as he walks right to left-suddenly he turns and as the chimes stop everything is silenced by an earth-shattering gunshot. Then as the screen's (audience's) vision swells with the masque of the red death-the James Bond theme swells through to complete an Ecstasy of violence and pleasure. James Bond is back.
The magic of 007 is all but gone. We went from a smirking Connery who could just make a look-and we all knew who was in control to a guy who acts like some ex-SAS commando!
It seems that with the passing of time our culture becomes less and less glamorous. Compare this to HD versus film stock. Soon the art of actually crafting a movie through sheer willpower will be completely obliterated.
"I think we ignore the ways of our parents at our own peril."
A simple test: QoS's extremely lame title sequence-terrible song and pitiful title design versus: the FRWL titles. How the music trails off to fast paced bongos while watching Saida off in the shadows...
Like anything which survives, Bond adapts. He must...and he will. Unlike the Classic Days, where one was either a Bond fan or not, we are now---thanks to 47 years and 22 films, each with varying takes and interpretations of this iconic character---many different camps of Bond fans, and no version will ever again please everyone. Better, I think, to merely celebrate that Our Hero is still out there.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This was something that really annoyed me about CASINO ROYALE. Everyone had crucial information just lying around in a cell phone ! Even the damn password to break into the security room at the Miami Airport ! Then again Vesper leaving White's phone number on her phone. This was really lazy writing.
Don't get me wrong, I know this is just one bad illustration of using technology to excuse detective work. I certaintly didn't mind the gadgets used in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
I thought TLD was a pretty dull affair. The plot was just about two lame villians doing drug and arms deals, it was wall to wall bland. Timothy Dalton, Art Malik, and John Rhys-Davies were the only watchable people. Dalton just never got the script he deserved when he was Bond, he should have gotten the treatment Craig is getting now.
I really think CASINO ROYALE was a film terrific despite the flaw I stated above and something I would like to dub the "Hollywood Bloat" like the whole Miami Airport stuff. Despite all that for the first time in decades the cast, the plot, and the direction was terrific. The film brought a new dimension to Bond and for once, the villian is not on a pedestal and he is desperate as Bond is. Really the first time I cared about Bond as a character, outside of the books, and not just the lifestyle. CASINO ROYALE set a new great new standard for Bond films.
QUANTUM OF SOLACE was heavily flawed but I felt it accomplished bringing Bond full circle in his emotional development and still a damn sight more enjoyable then alot of the Bond films.
Hopefully with Peter Morgan writing Bond 23, I am counting on a Bond film going back into the right direction CASINO ROYALE set thankfully not too long ago.
I was a direct participant in the Cold War in the '80's, and yes, it was very clear cut and black & white who our enemies were and why. Both adversaries did have a great deal of respect, if not outright fear of the other. Things were much simpler back then.
You could tell a good spy story during those times and never run out of ideas.
God, I miss the Cold War.
It is sad that in a Bond era now almost devoid of gadgets, the simple mobile phone we all pocess is ruining the potential suspense of any story. Bond hits trouble and low and behold he can get the information from the web or headquarters, or warn others of impending crisis. It isn't just Hollywood blockbusters or Bond. My wife and I were watching one of the many tedious soaps the other night, when a whole scene was a woman deleting a text message. My wife even commented who would think a two or three minute scene could be done so cheaply...
I like DC and the new line-up of films, but there is a magic to the films missing from old, but maybe this is just the times we live in. And besides, most viewers under twenty don't have the concentration to sit through an action film with long dialogue, or cinematic scenes. And that in itself is a whole demographic for producers to consider.
http://apbateman.com
I honestly don't think The Cold War was ever "black and white". As a matter of fact Fleming stated this in Casino Royale when Bond began to see that line between good and evil blurred. However it was clear which side was which so in those terms, things were simpler.
You are right, the Cold War was in essence the least black and white affair in history. Fleming touched on this and so did many writers and film makers. A forty-five year affair with Suez, Korea, the Malayan crisis, Dofar and Vietnam all hot wars fought within the Cold War. Funded and aided by communisum in the hope of either further escalation or the whittling of war funds by the opposition. African dictators funded by the Soviet Union, brought down by the west, oil producing countries bought off by both sides - the world was being carved up quietly or overtly and the intelligence services were involved in ridiculously complex and often benign affairs for the whole period. The lines have never, and could never have been more blurred.
I joined the army right at the end of the Cold War and for a while (Northern Ireland terrorism excepted) there was a massive quandary as to who the enemy now was. I had started learning about the USSR, their armed forces and Spetsnaz insersion possibilities, Artic warfare and chemical/biological warfare - then it was all head-scratching and standing around for a while as the whole Soviet Union came crashing down piece by piece. It was a good job Saddam went for a drive one afternoon into Kuwait and gave us something new to focus on...
http://apbateman.com
OHMSS is a good film to raise. Just look at the lowering in production standards from that film to DAF.
I have just been watching Sharpe on the TV and just look at the difference between all those classic oned compared to the two of more recent years. There is something totally convincing about those older ones from the 90's. Everything, and I mean everything is so much better. The acting, the music, the script, the stories. That recent one set in India seemed more concered with beautiful Indian women. Well, that's not fair but I just thought it was totally naff.
But the overall question that you ask does interest me and it is something that I think about a lot.
I think on TV and film music is a big thing. There's almost a stock type of music to use these days and it involves using crappy drum machine noises. Something that I think is very dated and cheap. They have even moved to using it in Who Wants to be a Millionaire!
I personally don't like Craig's Bond. But it's not something that bothers me. I have loved Bond since the age of 9 or 10 and still enjoy watching the older Bonds. Up to License to Kill with the exception of Goldeneye.
I relate to someone elses point above that Craig is more like an ex-SAS. I find it laughable to be honest.
Just think of Connery standing next to the Aston Martin in Q-branch in Goldfinger.
The days of Bond and Countess Lisle on the beach are well gone.
The picture of Bond casually leaning against the DB5 is timeless, both in QBranch and in the Alps. They won't better that with any actor today. Brilliant image. There is a certain classy cool going on there we'll sadly not see again. Craig's roughy-toughy look and even a stunning new Aston will never compare.
Older films and actors had something about them. In many ways it's like Steve McQueen. He was so cool, but nobody can say why. Some of his films were poor, many were over-rated, but a few were classic and will forever be etched on our minds, entirely made up of small, spectacular scenes of minimalist, natural acting, and snapshot imagery - ie the bike chase in the Great Escape. By today's standards, just a small bikejump, but it's the tension fim-makers today fail to replicate.
http://apbateman.com
Connery resting on his DB5 just cannot be recreated. Brosnan resting on the Vanquish, Craig on the DBS...something's just not there. Though Dalton and the V8 seemed to click. It's hard to tell what it is - the cars themselves are just as out of reach and just as exotic as the DB5 and V8 were. Though have they perhaps lost some of the charm and quirkiness of an independent luxury sports car maker? Cars these days, through ever changing corporate ownership and platform sharing and sharing parts bins, may be very subtley becoming the same in our eyes.
But then, Brosnan or Craig couldn't pull off Lazenby's lamppost pose with Westminster in the background. And while Moore and Bach looked ultra cool wandering through the Egyptian desert in evening wear, Craig and Kurylenko just looked as if they'd fallen out and going home in the huff from a beach cocktail party.
I don't think I'll ever figure out what it is, but the world post 1990 (perhaps significantly when I became far more aware of the world as a teenager) doesn't do cool the way it used to.
I really wish David "over score" Arnold was gone too.
You have a point. Companies used to be alot more creative and distnictive with their designs despite following basic guidelines of the decades. Today they all have one idea for a car and they also just feel too cold and sterile, no heart.
Well, Lazenby did that pose first so it's pointless replicate. As for the dessert scenes, neither seemed like anything meant to be particuarly "cool" or interesting.
I would say post 1970.
And although it would be a "pointless replicate" pose by the lamp post, I'm saying that I just can't picture them pulling it off, had it been original. There's just something lacking from the modern incarnations of the character.
I really do think it's time for Craig's Bond to be a bit more unflappable...and I think it's coming.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The neighbor boy, he's nine, has seen all kinds of violence in movies, on television, games, etc. To a large degree, he's been desensitized to violence. Yet when I showed him a scene from Where Eagles Dare (made in 1968), the part where Smith jumps from cable car to cable car. Before Smith jumped he asked me, "What's he going to do?" he could already see it. Then when Smith jumped, he came out of his chair, almost hollering. I was amazed at his response. It was almost too much for him.
The older movies portrayed characters and action much more honestly. It didn't present it over the top, some absurd thing that could never, ever happen. Movies used to take action right up to the edge of believability, do a little dance there and then bring it back. Most of today's movies don't even slow down, that line is just a faint blur as they speed past it on their way to having a better effect than the last big effects movie did. Big action merely for the sake of action. And if they can find a way for it to advance the story, all the better.
I think the problem with escalation is that no one likes to take small steps. From Dr. No to From Russia With Love wasn't a huge leap in story, sets, or effects. It was a step. From Russia With Love to Goldfinger, another step. I think from Goldfinger to Thunderball was two or three steps, but still. People are in too much of a hurry, too busy.
As my stand against being in a hurry, please notice that there are no misspelled words and no abbreviations in this reply. I think my grammar was alright too.
As long as people keep watching these kind of movies and television shows, that's what the producers are going to make. As Bond said in Tomorrow Never Dies, which I thought was a really good movie, "You forgot the first rule of mass media. Give the people what they want."
I hope I haven't offended anyone with my gratuitous use of italics.
-009
I frequent a blog that usually deals with the de-evolution of animation in this country and very much the same can be applied to live action films as well.
One of the first problems with today's films is that want to over-do everything. Today's film makers want to drag out every important, or non-esssential, moment in the film. Everyone wants to be an auteur with camera angles, lighting, and special effects. They want to needlessly enhance something on the screen that isn't particularly interesting. Simply put, there is no filter anymore. No one wants to trim the fat of what is good and what is bad leave on screen when the final product is finished. For example I could have imagined if THE ROARING TWENTIES was made today. The exposition is fine the way it is in the film, you clearly see a warzone at first during WWI, one out of the three friends meet the other two for the first time in a fox hole. Through their breif chat we already get an idea of how these characters are because character develop dosen't take much, merely exchanging some subtle sentences in conversation. A modern day filmmaker would have wanted to add to needless brutality of the WWI scenes and alot of CGI bombs blowing up left and right. We'd also probably get into the life story of all three main characters shoved in some how to add some more pointless sense of "drama" instead of telling the story. We probably would have never seen them all together until a half hour into the film because we are suppose to get the "reality" of it all. To further illustrate my point, have you ever noticed the difference running times in films about 50 years ago and now ? The average film was about 115 to 130 minutes. Today most films don't end under two hours.
I really want to believe that you are right, and that 007 is not living on borrowed time relegated to increasingly poor self referential pastiche. I think we are still working through the challenge of Bond in the 21st Century and a climate where the underpinnings of class and geo- politics that provided a narrative backdrop are no longer so powerful. This is not new, and is certainly not limited to QOS, as I feel it started about the time OHMSS (Lazenby leaving as he felt that Bond was 'old hat), and re emerged during the 'Dinosour' period in GE. However this circle is squared I'd like our man to have more fun, and if possible to rekindle that sense of cool and glamour. How this can be done in new ways is not going to be easy, and will I suspect take a lot more than the skills of Purvis & Wade to pull off. I do live in hope however. I have said before that it is central that at some level we want to be Bond, there is an aspirational element to the relationship with the audience. So far in the Craig era I for one would not want his miserable life to date, maybe i'm superficial, but some toys and more romantic liaons might compensate. Here's to 23 B-)