Bond, James Bond
I've always been like this; I'll get on a kick of watching a lot of films with a certain actor, or a certain series like 'Star Trek' and then once I'm sated, I'll move on to something else.
And yeah, at the moment, it's 007. I remember somebody saying once that they couldn't stand Laurel and Hardy because they did the same gags over and over. And an L&H fan came back with, that's exactly why I love them so much... I look forward in each of their films to seeing Oliver fuming and fiddling with his tie and Stan at some point bursting into tears.
I don't think that's a bad analogy for most long-running series of films. The James Bond movies certainly have a long list of recurring situations and characters, running gags if you will, and I really believe that explains at least in part the series popularity and longevity. In fact, there are so many, it must have been rather daunting for the screenwriters and producers to come up with new and interesting plots while still incorporating all of them. I say 'must have been' because the latter-day Bond films have downplayed, changed or done away altogether with certain continuing aspects.
I definitely fall into the 'Sean Connery was the best 007' crowd. Roger Moore was too foppish, too hard to take seriously, even given that many regard the series as a spoof. The others, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan (leaving aside George Lazenby for the moment) have been okay, but only okay. As the series itself has been lately.
Connery made Bond a real character, in a way that the others haven't been able to. Beyond that, the early 007 films are fresh because they were establishing all those trademarks alluded to above; things that were still funny and exciting before they became a bit stale.
The obligatory opening scene featuring a fight or teaser of what was to come; the just-as-obligatory meeting with M and brief flirtation between Bond and Moneypenny; Q showing off the latest gadgets; the almost cartoonish villains and the outrageously named women, from Pussy Galore to Plenty O'Toole and beyond; and on and on.
There was a consistency to those early films. We all looked forward to seeing our favorite bits and the minor variations on them. And it's to the series creators' credit that they kept coming up with fresh ideas as well for so long.
All formulas eventually become tiresome for all but the most hardcore fans. I saw a Pierce Brosnan 007 a while back... I couldn't even tell you the name, but it was such a cookie-cutter movie. Bond is chastised by his superiors for being a throwback; Bond seduces some beautiful woman; Bond gets in some ridiculous contraption and dispatches a lot of bad guys. Nothing wrong with any of those situations as such, but there was no imagination, no humor, no energy. Before, there was a cleverness, unique to the Bond films, that made all the tried-and-true bits seem both new and familiar. Which is a hard trick to pull off.
And it brings me back to thinking Connery was key to the series success. He embodied the character of James Bond in a way that the other actors haven't. They're just actors playing a role. Connery gave you the impression that if you met him in real life, he'd be just like 007.
And yeah, at the moment, it's 007. I remember somebody saying once that they couldn't stand Laurel and Hardy because they did the same gags over and over. And an L&H fan came back with, that's exactly why I love them so much... I look forward in each of their films to seeing Oliver fuming and fiddling with his tie and Stan at some point bursting into tears.
I don't think that's a bad analogy for most long-running series of films. The James Bond movies certainly have a long list of recurring situations and characters, running gags if you will, and I really believe that explains at least in part the series popularity and longevity. In fact, there are so many, it must have been rather daunting for the screenwriters and producers to come up with new and interesting plots while still incorporating all of them. I say 'must have been' because the latter-day Bond films have downplayed, changed or done away altogether with certain continuing aspects.
I definitely fall into the 'Sean Connery was the best 007' crowd. Roger Moore was too foppish, too hard to take seriously, even given that many regard the series as a spoof. The others, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan (leaving aside George Lazenby for the moment) have been okay, but only okay. As the series itself has been lately.
Connery made Bond a real character, in a way that the others haven't been able to. Beyond that, the early 007 films are fresh because they were establishing all those trademarks alluded to above; things that were still funny and exciting before they became a bit stale.
The obligatory opening scene featuring a fight or teaser of what was to come; the just-as-obligatory meeting with M and brief flirtation between Bond and Moneypenny; Q showing off the latest gadgets; the almost cartoonish villains and the outrageously named women, from Pussy Galore to Plenty O'Toole and beyond; and on and on.
There was a consistency to those early films. We all looked forward to seeing our favorite bits and the minor variations on them. And it's to the series creators' credit that they kept coming up with fresh ideas as well for so long.
All formulas eventually become tiresome for all but the most hardcore fans. I saw a Pierce Brosnan 007 a while back... I couldn't even tell you the name, but it was such a cookie-cutter movie. Bond is chastised by his superiors for being a throwback; Bond seduces some beautiful woman; Bond gets in some ridiculous contraption and dispatches a lot of bad guys. Nothing wrong with any of those situations as such, but there was no imagination, no humor, no energy. Before, there was a cleverness, unique to the Bond films, that made all the tried-and-true bits seem both new and familiar. Which is a hard trick to pull off.
And it brings me back to thinking Connery was key to the series success. He embodied the character of James Bond in a way that the other actors haven't. They're just actors playing a role. Connery gave you the impression that if you met him in real life, he'd be just like 007.
posted by gbj at 5:35 PM
3 Comments:
I love Connery in anything and though the Bond series never did it for me, I agree he's the gold standard. I'd go see a new Bond if Hugh Jackman got the role, though.
The repetition thing may be genetic because I know I can't get enough of my various cult favorites.
Speaking of Sean "400 years old and still a stud" Connery: why didn't "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" work? It had all the ingredients but was like a cake that wouldn't rise. The very concept, to someone like me with an interest in the Victorian supernatural, is riveting. But it just didn't work. Why not? Have I asked this question before?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I never saw the movie or read the source material, but I heard it was a big flop on the big screen. I'm guessing it's the old problem of execution... an idea is the easiest thing in the world to come up with, it's actually writing (or producing) the damn thing that's the hard part.
This gives me an idea for another post.
Post a Comment
<< Home