David Echo
Stunt Coordinator
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2001
- Messages
- 182
James Bond. Where to start? I grew up on the James Bond movies. I've easily seen them all more the 20 times each (well, the Brosnan ones maybe 10 times as of yet.) For the record there have been 20 "Official" Bond movies made from 1962 to 2002, they are:
Dr. No (1962)
From Russia With Love (1963)
Goldfinger (1964)
Thunderball (1965)
You Only Live Twice (1967)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)
Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
Live And Let Die (1973)
The Man With The Golden Gun (1974)
The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)
Moonraker (1979)
For Your Eyes Only (1981)
Octopussy (1983)
A View To A Kill (1985)
The Living Daylights (1987)
License To Kill (1989)
Goldeneye (1995)
Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
The World Is Not Enough (1999)
Die Another Day (2002)
By the time I was born in 1968, the Bond franchise had already hit it's peak and was in a slight decline. There are a few traditional ways of looking at the Bond films as a whole: By actor playing Bond, By Villains, and by decade - all perfectly acceptable but I would suggest that there is yet another way to view the series, a way that sees the Brosnan Bond as a wholly different creature from the previous Bonds. First though let's make a quick review of the traditional ways.
By Actor: Five actors have played Bond to date - Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan. With the exception of Lazenby each has made the role their own. From Connery's brawling, thug-in-a-good-suit Bond to Moore's karate chopping, wit as dry as a martini Bond to Dalton's working class, screw MI6 and it's bloody rules Bond to Brosnan's assault rifle toting yet curiously new age Bond each has left their own indelible mark on the series. Brosnan, however, is playing a completely different character from the others - oddly enough both are named Bond.
By Villains: From Dr. No until Diamond are Forever there was only one Bond villain - SPECTRE with Blofeld at it's head. Well OK Goldfinger was there as well but he more correctly fits in with the Pantheon of Industrialist villains which also include Stromberg (Spy Who Loved Me), Drax (Moonraker), Zorin (View To A Kill), Carver (Tomorrow Never Dies), and King (World Is Not Enough.) Drug Barons have been the villains in 3 times (Live And Let Die, Living Daylights, Licence To Kill). The films with one-off villains are Man With The Golden Gun, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, and Goldeneye.
By Decade: Each decade gets the Bond films it deserves. They are time capsules of when they are made. In the 60's Connery's Bond fought Spectre and Blofeld in a series of escalating confrontations full of tight action, lightning quick pacing and tense scripting. Unfortunately their final encounter took place in Las Vegas in 1971 full of glitz and the Playboy image. Bond films in the 70's were grand stunt spectacles with a thin narrative, some T&A, and Moore's charisma to tie them all together. By the 80's the Bond series had fallen from being secret agent films to being American style action movies with a secret agent (instead of the usual cop) as the main character. The 90's would see this change once again.
I've already mentioned that these are the most basic ways to view the series as a whole but I believe there is yet another way that has not yet been discussed much, or at least one which I have not yet seen discussed because it allows for a new interpretation of the Bond character.
Simply put the Connery, Lazenby, Moore, and Dalton Bonds are all shades of the same character where as the Brosnon Bond it a radical re-imaging of the Classic Bond. Classic Bond is a NATO-centric Bond, the new Brosnan Bond is, for want of a better term, a Euro-centric Bond.
NATO Bond was born in the midst of the Cold War, when the world was ruled by the two superpowers - The United States and the USSR. Britain, as close ally to the US, had a vital role to play in maintaining this balance of power. In the Bond films, Bond himself is Britain's secret weapon unleashed to help further this end. The majority of Bond's missions impact dirty on the fate of the US. Dr. No plans to disrupt missile tests, Goldfinger's goal is to irradiate the gold supply at Fort Knox, etc. etc... Rarely, if ever, do NATO Bond's missions only center on saving Britain. In the NATO Bond films, Britain and the US are very strongly inter-connected. But starting with Euro-Bond and Goldeneye Britain has abandoned the US in favor of more closely allying itself with Europe and European concerns.
If the Bond films began as purely British spy adventures and mutated slowing over time to become American style action films, then Goldeneye changed all that. It certainly more closely resembles a European film than an American one. Pacing, use of music, characters, settings, even special effects seem to conform better to a European mind-set than an American one. To be fair the other two Brosnan Bonds (Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough) do drop some of the more obvious filmic European-isms but their plots and characters still do bend this way.
In the NATO Bond Films Bond's American counterpart is Felix Leiter a CIA agent and Bond's closest friend. Felix is portrayed as a supremely competent intelligence agent on par with Bond himself. Now let's look at the Euro-Bond films. Here we find CIA agent Jack Wade, a sort of cross between Felix Leiter and J.W. Pepper, that slobbish hick cop from Live And Let Die and Man With The Golden Gun. Here is a man who is nowhere near Bond's level but he means well I guess. So much for US/British relations. Euro-Bond's greatest ally is Valentin Dmitrovich Zukovsky, an ex-KGB officer. He is presented as possibly being an equal to Bond.
Also the threats faced by Euro-Bond have little to no direct bearing on the US at all. In Goldeneye 006 wished to electronically reduce Great Britain back to the Stone Age. In Tomorrow Never Dies, Carver wanted to start a war between China and the UK. And in The World is Not Enough Electra King wanted to destroy the pipelines feeding Eastern oil into Western Europe.
I don't think this has been an intentional shift on the part of the producers but rather an interesting sub-text that emerges while watching the films and one which I have not seen expressed anywhere else before. I'm curious to see if Die Another Day follows in this recent pattern.
So what do you all think? Does this hypothesis hold water? Does anyone else see any more evidence that I may have missed? Or just wish to talk about other aspects of all things Bond?
I thought this might be a fun way to pass the time while waiting for the 20th Bond film to come out.
For the record my top 5 and bottom 5 Bonds are:
Top 5
1) TIE Dr. No / From Russia With Love
2) Goldfinger
3) The Spy Who Loved Me
4) The Living Daylights
5) The World Is Not Enough
Honorable Mention: On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Bottom 5
1) Moonraker
2) You Only Live Twice
3) A View To A Kill
4) Goldeneye
5) Diamonds Are Forever
Dave
Dr. No (1962)
From Russia With Love (1963)
Goldfinger (1964)
Thunderball (1965)
You Only Live Twice (1967)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)
Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
Live And Let Die (1973)
The Man With The Golden Gun (1974)
The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)
Moonraker (1979)
For Your Eyes Only (1981)
Octopussy (1983)
A View To A Kill (1985)
The Living Daylights (1987)
License To Kill (1989)
Goldeneye (1995)
Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
The World Is Not Enough (1999)
Die Another Day (2002)
By the time I was born in 1968, the Bond franchise had already hit it's peak and was in a slight decline. There are a few traditional ways of looking at the Bond films as a whole: By actor playing Bond, By Villains, and by decade - all perfectly acceptable but I would suggest that there is yet another way to view the series, a way that sees the Brosnan Bond as a wholly different creature from the previous Bonds. First though let's make a quick review of the traditional ways.
By Actor: Five actors have played Bond to date - Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan. With the exception of Lazenby each has made the role their own. From Connery's brawling, thug-in-a-good-suit Bond to Moore's karate chopping, wit as dry as a martini Bond to Dalton's working class, screw MI6 and it's bloody rules Bond to Brosnan's assault rifle toting yet curiously new age Bond each has left their own indelible mark on the series. Brosnan, however, is playing a completely different character from the others - oddly enough both are named Bond.
By Villains: From Dr. No until Diamond are Forever there was only one Bond villain - SPECTRE with Blofeld at it's head. Well OK Goldfinger was there as well but he more correctly fits in with the Pantheon of Industrialist villains which also include Stromberg (Spy Who Loved Me), Drax (Moonraker), Zorin (View To A Kill), Carver (Tomorrow Never Dies), and King (World Is Not Enough.) Drug Barons have been the villains in 3 times (Live And Let Die, Living Daylights, Licence To Kill). The films with one-off villains are Man With The Golden Gun, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, and Goldeneye.
By Decade: Each decade gets the Bond films it deserves. They are time capsules of when they are made. In the 60's Connery's Bond fought Spectre and Blofeld in a series of escalating confrontations full of tight action, lightning quick pacing and tense scripting. Unfortunately their final encounter took place in Las Vegas in 1971 full of glitz and the Playboy image. Bond films in the 70's were grand stunt spectacles with a thin narrative, some T&A, and Moore's charisma to tie them all together. By the 80's the Bond series had fallen from being secret agent films to being American style action movies with a secret agent (instead of the usual cop) as the main character. The 90's would see this change once again.
I've already mentioned that these are the most basic ways to view the series as a whole but I believe there is yet another way that has not yet been discussed much, or at least one which I have not yet seen discussed because it allows for a new interpretation of the Bond character.
Simply put the Connery, Lazenby, Moore, and Dalton Bonds are all shades of the same character where as the Brosnon Bond it a radical re-imaging of the Classic Bond. Classic Bond is a NATO-centric Bond, the new Brosnan Bond is, for want of a better term, a Euro-centric Bond.
NATO Bond was born in the midst of the Cold War, when the world was ruled by the two superpowers - The United States and the USSR. Britain, as close ally to the US, had a vital role to play in maintaining this balance of power. In the Bond films, Bond himself is Britain's secret weapon unleashed to help further this end. The majority of Bond's missions impact dirty on the fate of the US. Dr. No plans to disrupt missile tests, Goldfinger's goal is to irradiate the gold supply at Fort Knox, etc. etc... Rarely, if ever, do NATO Bond's missions only center on saving Britain. In the NATO Bond films, Britain and the US are very strongly inter-connected. But starting with Euro-Bond and Goldeneye Britain has abandoned the US in favor of more closely allying itself with Europe and European concerns.
If the Bond films began as purely British spy adventures and mutated slowing over time to become American style action films, then Goldeneye changed all that. It certainly more closely resembles a European film than an American one. Pacing, use of music, characters, settings, even special effects seem to conform better to a European mind-set than an American one. To be fair the other two Brosnan Bonds (Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough) do drop some of the more obvious filmic European-isms but their plots and characters still do bend this way.
In the NATO Bond Films Bond's American counterpart is Felix Leiter a CIA agent and Bond's closest friend. Felix is portrayed as a supremely competent intelligence agent on par with Bond himself. Now let's look at the Euro-Bond films. Here we find CIA agent Jack Wade, a sort of cross between Felix Leiter and J.W. Pepper, that slobbish hick cop from Live And Let Die and Man With The Golden Gun. Here is a man who is nowhere near Bond's level but he means well I guess. So much for US/British relations. Euro-Bond's greatest ally is Valentin Dmitrovich Zukovsky, an ex-KGB officer. He is presented as possibly being an equal to Bond.
Also the threats faced by Euro-Bond have little to no direct bearing on the US at all. In Goldeneye 006 wished to electronically reduce Great Britain back to the Stone Age. In Tomorrow Never Dies, Carver wanted to start a war between China and the UK. And in The World is Not Enough Electra King wanted to destroy the pipelines feeding Eastern oil into Western Europe.
I don't think this has been an intentional shift on the part of the producers but rather an interesting sub-text that emerges while watching the films and one which I have not seen expressed anywhere else before. I'm curious to see if Die Another Day follows in this recent pattern.
So what do you all think? Does this hypothesis hold water? Does anyone else see any more evidence that I may have missed? Or just wish to talk about other aspects of all things Bond?
I thought this might be a fun way to pass the time while waiting for the 20th Bond film to come out.
For the record my top 5 and bottom 5 Bonds are:
Top 5
1) TIE Dr. No / From Russia With Love
2) Goldfinger
3) The Spy Who Loved Me
4) The Living Daylights
5) The World Is Not Enough
Honorable Mention: On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Bottom 5
1) Moonraker
2) You Only Live Twice
3) A View To A Kill
4) Goldeneye
5) Diamonds Are Forever
Dave