Blu-ray Review HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: The Man with the Golden Gun (1 Viewer)

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Tim Haxton

The film stock would not be any more expensive for an anamorphic film than for a flat film. The lens rental however would be. I know there was a time when Panavision had a fairly limited number of anamorphic lenses available, but I thought that was later in the 80s. I know that is the reason that Lethal Weapon was shot 1.85:1 when Donner had wanted to shoot it 2.35:1. They just couldn't get the lenses.


Doug

 

[Osato]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce




The film stock would not be any more expensive for an anamorphic film than for a flat film. The lens rental however would be. I know there was a time when Panavision had a fairly limited number of anamorphic lenses available, but I thought that was later in the 80s. I know that is the reason that Lethal Weapon was shot 1.85:1 when Donner had wanted to shoot it 2.35:1. They just couldn't get the lenses.


Doug

Thank you. I read a bit more in James Bond: The Legacy by John Cork and Bruce Scivally as well. While the authors don't specifically spell out the aspect ratio change, they do mention the filmmakers concerns about making another James Bond film without Sean Connery and what returns could be. There was an intention to use a smaller budget so there could be a higher return with Live and Let Die.

In addition the Bond tv rights were sold to ABC and the first film Goldfinger aired in 1972. The book goes on to mention that this move was done "To hedge their bets on Live and Let Die...".

Pages 144 and 145...

Maybe someone has an in with director Guy Hamilton to ask him to comment specifically? : )

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Tim Haxton




Thank you. I read a bit more in James Bond: The Legacy by John Cork and Bruce Scivally as well. While the authors don't specifically spell out the aspect ratio change, they do mention the filmmakers concerns about making another James Bond film without Sean Connery and what returns could be. There was an intention to use a smaller budget so there could be a higher return with Live and Let Die.

In addition the Bond tv rights were sold to ABC and the first film Goldfinger aired in 1972. The book goes on to mention that this move was done "To hedge their bets on Live and Let Die...".


Pages 144 and 145...

Maybe someone has an in with director Guy Hamilton to ask him to comment specifically? : )

This probably has more to do with it than anything else. If they thought that TV was the future, they may have thought that shooting 1.85:1 was the smart way to go.


Doug

 

[Mark-P]

The first film, Goldfinger? Uh, that's the third Bond film, not the first.

Originally Posted by Tim Haxton

In addition the Bond tv rights were sold to ABC and the first film Goldfinger aired in 1972.

 

[TonyD]

Maybe he meant first film to air on tv or ABC?

 

[Osato]

Originally Posted by Mark-P


The first film, Goldfinger? Uh, that's the third Bond film, not the first.

Goldfinger was the first Bond film that ABC aired.

As far as the aspect ratios for Live and Let Die and The Man with The Golden Gun, it's pretty safe to assume that they were made in 1.85 due to budget.


Now, if we can get MGM to release the other 9 films on blu ray??

 

[Osato]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce




This probably has more to do with it than anything else. If they thought that TV was the future, they may have thought that shooting 1.85:1 was the smart way to go.


Doug

I believe 1.85 at that time was more widely used as well, especially in the US market.

 

[Douglas Monce]

1.85 has always been the more widely used format in the U.S.market and still is today. However the real drop off in films being made in the "scope" format 2.35:1 was the early 1980's when home video was really taking off. Distributors wanted to be able to put films on video with little fuss. In fact there was speculation in American Cinematographer magazine of the demise of the scope format all together. As I stated before, Lethal Weapon was shot 1.85:1 simply because Panavision had a limited stock of scope lenses couldn't supply them to the production.


The Super 35 process is what really saved the "scope" format because of the ease of production and distribution and the ability to use the full open frame for TV and home video.


Shooting scope on a film with the budget of a Bond film, even a lower budget Bond film, would not be significantly more than shooting flat. Live and Let Die with a budget of around $7 million, all was not a low budget film for the day by anyone's standards, just lower for a Bond film. The Man with the Golden Gun at around $13 million actually cost more than Thunderball to make.


My guess is the choice had more to do with availability of lenses from Panavision. Also particularly on Golden Gun, they were shooting primarily in a country where they would have little support from a camera rental house in the event that a lens got damaged.


Doug

 

[Mark-P]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

1.85 has always been the more widely used format in the U.S.market and still is today...

I'd say that is definitely true about the 70s and 80s, but today... I don't know. I certainly don't have any statistics, but it seems to me that for new theatrically-released movies, more are shot in 2.35:1 than 1.85:1 regardless of whether the 2.35:1 photography is derived from anamorphic, Super 35, or digital.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Mark-P




I'd say that is definitely true about the 70s and 80s, but today... I don't know. I certainly don't have any statistics, but it seems to me that for new theatrically-released movies, more are shot in 2.35:1 than 1.85:1 regardless of whether the 2.35:1 photography is derived from anamorphic, Super 35, or digital.

The ratio is probably smaller today than it ever has been, but I'm confident that the majority of films are still shot 1.85.


Doug

 

[Mark-P]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce




The ratio is probably smaller today than it ever has been, but I'm confident that the majority of films are still shot 1.85.


Doug

Maybe if you're taking into account the myriad of independent films out there. But for major studio films I'd say 2.35:1 is the majority. Here's my statistics: The top ten box office movies of 2009 - Six were 2.35:1, three were 1.85:1, and one (Avatar) was dual aspect ratio.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Mark-P



Maybe if you're taking into account the myriad of independent films out there. But for major studio films I'd say 2.35:1 is the majority. Here's my statistics: The top ten box office movies of 2009 - Six were 2.35:1, three were 1.85:1, and one (Avatar) was dual aspect ratio.

Well the line between studio and "indendent" films is not real clear these days, considering studios for the most part really don't produce movies anymore. The top ten list is probably not a good representation because they tend to be block busters, and block busters tend to be shot 2.35:1.


Doug

 

[Richard--W]

I've either read or heard Guy Hamilton remark on his preferred aspect ratio. Somewhere in the distant past he mentions in an interview or a commentary that he prefers to compose in 1.66 or 1.85 but that he will work in wider format if he has to. I can not remember where I read or heard this, but if some Bond fanatic wants to search it out, that's what they'll find. So I surmise the aspect ratio of Live and Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun was the director's decision. Personally, I think this framing benefits both films.


Of the Guy Hamilton / Tom Mankiewicz Bond Trilogy from the early 1970s, I've always enjoyed The Man With the Golden Gun the most. It has the best narrative story, a strong espionage plot, a feel for its locations, and it plays out on just the right scale. Not over-produced, not under-produced. Roger Moore and Christopher Lee are at their best and about evenly matched. The flaws in the film irritate me more now than they used to; I will itemize those if somebody asks. My principle objection to the film is that it's played for light comedy. I can forgive the flaws, but I can not forgive Guy Hamilton's determined and utterly misguided notion that the Bond films are supposed to be light comedies.

The film is actually closer in spirit and in tone to The Saint TV series than to Ian Fleming and James Bond. The originating Bond films were played for straight drama with moments of tongue-in-cheek humor. Hamilton changed that. Perversely, this skewed tone is now mistaken by many people as being right for Bond. It isn't. Think about it.

 

[Andy_G]

For me, the light tone is a big part of what makes Bond movies enjoyable to watch. I mean, we always know--absolutely, positively--that Bond will save the day in the last 5-10 minutes.

IMO, the latest films have tended too much towards headache-inducing strobe explosions. And to put my cards on the table, I think that Tomorrow Never Dies is the best Bond of the last 15 years, and that The Living Daylights holds up far better than Licence to Kill.

 

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Andy_G

For me, the light tone is a big part of what makes Bond movies enjoyable to watch. I mean, we always know--absolutely, positively--that Bond will save the day in the last 5-10 minutes.

So? The hero always saves the day. That's true of every action movie and every series character from silent
Tarzan and silent cowboys on up to the latest comic book super hero. It is also true of movies in general. I mean, EON could go back to the straight drama of Dr No and From Russia With Love, allowing for some tongue-in-cheek humor, and still Bond saves the day in the last 5-10 minutes. A straight-drama with a measure-of-tongue-in-cheek-humor and saving the day is how it all started, and is every bit as enjoyable, if not more enjoyable than a dumb comedy..

 

[Andy_G]

Well, it's all a matter of opinion. I happen to prefer Moore's Bond.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I find most of the Moore Bond films almost unwatchable, with the exception of The Spy Who Loved Me, and For Your Eyes Only.


Doug

 

[Richard--W]

I I find most of the Moore Bond films almost unwatchable, with the exception of The Spy Who Loved Me, and For Your Eyes Only.


Doug

Hmmm. Is it Roger Moore or the films themselves that you find unwatchable?


Roger Moore's presence is one of the few things I enjoy from the 1970s Bonds, although I do think it was a mistake to reconfigure Bond as The Saint on a theatrical budget, which is essentially what happened. The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only are at opposite ends of the extreme. The former is polished slapstick and farce, the latter is rough-around-the-edges seriousness. The former poisons the well, the latter draws from a different well.


I prefer For Your Eyes Only. To see it the way writer Richard Maibaum intended, you have to cut the arbitrary material Michael G. Wilson pasted in to get himself into the WGA. He added a lot of crap with no regard for logic or story that wrecked Maibaum's careful pacing and progression. For example, the pre-title sequence in which Bond battles with Blofeld in the helicopter was added after principle photography had completed. It has no business being in the film. Originally, Maibaum's pre-title scene showed the trawler sinking, followed by the machine-gun assault on the yacht. That ends with a push into close-up on Malina's eyes. The first bars of the title song should be heard over the close-up as the picture segues from her eyes into the opening titles. After the opening titles, pick up with Bond in the cemetery as filmed, ending with the priest crossing himself, and then cut to Miss Moneypenny's office. The film strikes just the right tone this way.


Wilson's "rewrite" imposes the most damage in the snowy scenes in Cortina, Italy. He loses track of certain story threads and introduces new ones that he fails to follow through on. First, Lynn-Holly Johnson's ice-skater was only intended to be a background character with no dialogue and no interaction. Her purpose is to infer that Julian Glover is a pervert by the way he stares at her. So Lynn-Holly coming up to the table to get Bond to escort her to the ski lift, her attempt to seduce him in his bedroom, and her meeting with Bond inside the ice-rink, could all be cut, and the continuity of Maibaum's narrative would not be violated. Second, Malina isn't supposed to come to Cortina. So the scenes in which Bond sees her buying the crossbow in the sporting goods store, his fight with motorcycles in the town square, and their romantic sleigh ride, should also be cut. Again, cutting these scenes will not violate the continuity of Maibaum's narrative because Wilson doesn't integrate them in the first place. The third problem is more complex. Maibaum had written a scene in which Bond agrees to meet Luigi at the Biaphlon to follow a lead concerning the assassin Locke, but assassins Locke and Kriegler crowd him into the Biaphlon and chase him down the race course on motorcycles. Wilson restructures this with a lot of new material, losing track of Locke and emphasizing Kriegler, turning a bruising chase into a redundant epic that eventually peters out into slapstick. After the chase, the Cortina interlude should end with Bond finding Luigi Ferara dead.


There are some simple edits a fan can do to restore the lean mean minimalist narrative that Richard Maibaum intended, but no re-cut would be perfect because some crucial dramatic interaction was not filmed, or if it was filmed, it wasn't used. For example, Bond is meant to feel spooked at the outset, adding an element of vulnerability and risk to his character that would pay off in the ensuing action scenes. This comes into play when he cautions Malina that before one seeks revenge, one must first dig two graves. Later, Bond has a premonition about the Countess played by Cassandra Harris. She is meant to remind Bond (and the audience) in a subtle way of his dead wife Tracy, which takes us back to the earlier scene in which Bond leaves flowers on his wife's grave, and then gets into the helicopter as the priest crosses himself, in a foreshadowing that his premonition will come to pass. Neither John Glen (whose first film this is as a director) nor Michael G. Wilson seem to discern this subtext, or if they did, they didn't care. Also, Cassandra Harris can't act, and doesn't get any help from the director, so the subtext is missing from her romantic scene at the beach-side cottage with Bond. Staging subtle character interaction and coaching actors into an emotional state of expression was never John Glenn's forte.


For Your Eyes Only could have been a James Bond masterpiece if Micahel G. Wilson had kept his fingers out of the script. As an alternative to tightening up the Cortina interlude, one can just cut it out altogether, it's so screwed up, because the next scenes in Greece pick up on the initial story threads anyway. This would result in a couple of inconsistencies, but they are minor compared to the greater injury of leaving it in. Fans are so used to Wilson's scenes now they would probably miss them. But enough of Maibaum's story survives so that I can still enjoy the film. I think it rescued the Bond films for the 1980s. Although not as technically polished as the 1970s films and compromised by their own set of flaws, For Your Eyes Only, The Living Daylights, and Licence to Kill are much stronger action films and better Bond films than anything from the 1970s. Not surprisingly, they are each written by Richard Maibaum and "fixed" by Michael G. Wilson.

 

[Andy_G]

I appreciate your commentary Richard. I don't entry agree, but I'm glad you posted it. IMO Licence to Kill is the weakest of the three. It looks cheap and doesn't feel like a Bond.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I may get slammed for saying this, but I'll say it anyway....


Bond just isn't Bond anymore.


Perhaps it's a sign of the times.


Don't get me wrong. I like Daniel Craig. Think he's a

great choice for the role. However, I prefer the older

Bond films that had a bit of campiness to them and a

villain that was more of a comic-book/Austin Powers

bad guy than a modern day terrorist.


As I mentioned previously, I grew up watching Roger

Moore, who was probably the "campiest" Bond. But

those are the movies I fell in love with. Even "Goldfinger"

and "You Only Live Twice" had villains that leaned more

towards comic book than real life.