Unlike
many film critics, I do not count Goldfinger (1964) as the absolute “best”
James Bond film of all-time. You can check out my rankings of the 007 movies here,
but I actually list Goldfinger in the second position, right behind From
Russia with Love (1963).
However,
there is one fact about the excellent Goldfinger that is indisputable.
Even if one doesn’t count it as the greatest James Bond film ever made, it is
undeniably the “model” 007 film.
What
do I mean by that term?
Well,
a model might be defined as “a thing,
system, or object utilized as an example for purposes of following, or
imitating.”
That definition describes the Guy Hamilton film
perfectly. It is Goldfinger -- not From Russia with Love, or even the
first Bond film, Dr. No (1962) -- that serves as the model that most Bond films
follow (with a few exceptions, of course).
Why do other 007 movies follow the formula that
Goldfinger
pioneered more than fifty years ago?
Well, as its title suggests, Goldfinger
remains the gold standard. It perfects the Bond formula -- across the board --
and today I’ll write about some of the pieces or ingredients of that formula
and how other 007 films have attempted to recreate the same magic.
Before I move into a discussion of the elements
of the formula perfected by Goldfinger, I should begin with a
note about Bond himself.
Goldfinger
represents, perhaps, a high point for actor Sean Connery. He appears more
confident and relaxed in Goldfinger than he does in the first
two films in the series. Also, he is not yet bored with the role, as he appears
during some of his later performances.
Here, Connery is at his most suave and charming, as well as, perhaps,
his most athletic or physically fit. In
this sense, certainly the third Bond film is the charm.
Finally, Goldfinger represents the franchise’s
transition to a more fantastic template. From Russia with Love, except for a
few outliers, exists in a “real” Cold War world. Goldfinger inhabits a
different, more fantastic world, with lasers, ejector seats and the like.
Now, let’s begin to survey elements of this
Bond movie model. Specifically, we’ll gaze at the way that Goldfinger spear-headed
or perfected these ingredients, and other films in the franchise imitated them.
“I Have A Slight Inferiority Complex” - The Pre-Title
Sequence
Before Goldfinger’s production,
the pre-title sequence in the Bond films feature some important (if
tangentially-related) aspect of the film’s overall plot or narrative.
In Dr. No, for example, the pre-title
sequence diagrams the assassination of a British station chief in Jamaica. This
is the precipitating event to pull Bond into the action after the credits.
Likewise, the pre-title sequence for From
Russia with Love features a man masquerading as Bond, hunted by an
agent for SPECTRE, Red Grant (Robert Shaw) in a training simulation. It sets up
a conflict between the two men that we see played out in the movie proper.
By contrast, Goldfinger’s pre-title
sequence does not connect meaningfully to the actual plot of the film (the hunt
to discover how Auric Goldfinger is smuggling his gold overseas). Instead, it
serves as a re-introduction of the iconic 007 character, but while is on a
separate and individual mission.
In particular, Bond -- with a bird decoy on his hat -- surfaces in the water, and sets out
to destroy an enemy headquarters. He plants explosives, but then removes his
commando gear to reveal a white dinner jacket and a bow tie. Waiting for the
boom, literally, Bond goes for a smoke break, as the enemy HQ explodes.
Then Bond meets with a lovely woman, and finally,
007 must defeat one last bad guy. He does so, and before the fade-out to the
credits, delivers a pun. After electrocuting an enemy in a tub, Bond says “Shocking…positively shocking.”
This sequence -- instead of setting up
important details of the plot -- features all elements of the Bond mystique:
the danger, the women, the action, and even the gallows humor. So we actually
get from Goldfinger’s pre-title sequence, a mini and self-contained 007
adventure.
Can you think of a better way to re-acquaint us
with Ian Fleming’s agent and his universe.
Following Goldfinger, the pre-title sequence is
often utilized in a similar fashion. Throughout the franchise, it is divorced
from the central plot-line in examples such as For Your Eyes Only
(1981), and Octopussy (1983).
But except in the rare-one off example (such as
Live
and Let Die [1973]), every follow-up pre-title sequence in the film
series features Bond, and functions, essentially, as a mini-adventure with just
the right combination of extravagance and spectacular stunts. The purpose, to
reintroduce the character into the pop culture. The secondary purpose, to
one-up the climax of the previous movie, and raise the bar to an “all-time
high,” at least until the next film.
Also note, the joke about the bird decoy on
Bond’s head that accompanies the character’s introduction. Bond goes from being
hidden in the water (beneath the decoy), to making a show of his good-looks
and wardrobe, in the dinner jacket and bow tie.
A similar joke, involving a crocodile, gets
play in Octopussy.
“This is not a personal vendetta” - The Sacrificial Lamb and the
Avenging Angel
I believe that the great author John Brosnan
(1947-2005 gave this Bond character-type a name.
Basically, the blood of an ally is spilled in
the film, thus re-focusing Bond’s determination to destroy a particularly
brutal enemy.
There are two factors to consider here, both
the nature of the death (which reflects the villain’s sadism), and the nature
of the victim him or herself, which creates audience sympathy.
The greatest sacrificial lamb in Bond history (until Vesper, perhaps) is likely Jill Masterson in Goldfinger, a lovely young woman who
unwittingly becomes involved with Bond and Goldfinger’s pissing match, and pays
the fatal price. She dies nude…painted
gold.
This act establishes Goldinger’s sadism (and
ties into his love of gold), but also reveals Bond’s vulnerability. He takes Jill’s death very personally, and
wants revenge.
Later Bond films also utilize the sacrificial
lamb as a kind of turning point. Aki’s death serves this purpose in You
Only Live Twice. Vijay’s death serves the same purpose in Octopussy
(1983). As recently as 2008, the sacrificial
lamb appeared in a Bond film. In Quantum of Solace -- in a scene
directly inspired by Goldfinger -- an agent, Strawberry
Fields (Gemma Arterton) is murdered, asphyxiated in oil after choosing to help
Bond. Her nudity, her positioning on the bed, and her function in the story are
all call-backs to the model Bond film: Goldfinger.
Intriguingly, Goldfnger features two
sacrificial lambs. The second is Jill’s sister, Tilly Masterson (Tania
Mallett), who actually serves two purposes.
She is both a second sacrificial lamb, and an avenging angel. In the Bond canon, Tilly
is not the last female character to dedicate her life to vengeance over the
death of a loved one or loved ones. Consider
Melina Havelock, and her function as an “avenging angel” in For
Your Eyes Only (1981).
Both
characters are associated with weapons (whether a rifle or a cross-bow), and
thus represent a kind of toughness that Bond finds appealing.
“The Customary Byplay” - Reintroducing the Supporting Cast, but
giving them an opinion of 007.
After the pre-titles sequence and a (deadly)
excursion in Miami, Bond returns to London in Goldfinger, and meets
with several familiar supporting players: M, Q, and Moneypenny.
All three characters appear in From Russia
with Love, but once more, Goldfinger is the first film, perhaps, that models the right tone for all three character. Here, M and Q show extreme annoyance
(possibly jealousy) with 007. They clearly
find him insufferable (M) and glib (Q). M has to reign in Bond, reminding him
that he is supposed to be cool and calculating, not headed. And Q must remind Bond not to be so hard on
his gadgets, which clearly, Q loves.
This personal touch to the characters enhances
the film’s humor quotient. Bond isn’t
simply receiving a mission briefing, he’s interacting with supporting cast
members who have distinguishable relationships with him. They are irritated
with him (M, Q), or attracted to him (Moneypenny). Again, it’s not that the earlier films didn’t
feature M or Q, or even Moneypenny, it’s that Goldfinger “cements” the
relationships Bond has with each, and accordingly some level of this “customary byplay” is repeated in every
movie thereafter (at least through the beginning of Dalton Era).
“Choose your next witticism carefully, Mr. Bond, it may be
your last” - General Villain and Soldier Villain
Although From Russia with Love features a
general villain, Rosa Klebb, and a soldier villain, Red Grant, the model is
perfected in Goldfinger, with Auric Goldfinger (Gert Frobe) and Odd Job
(Harold Sakata).
To put it simply, Goldfinger is the brains, Odd
Job the brawn.
In many cases, the soldier villain in a Bond
film possesses some sort of physical difference that makes him unique, or
distinctive. Odd Job is mute, and throws a steel-rimmed hat. In The
Spy Who Loved Me (1977), Jaws (Richard Kiel) has a mouth filled with
steel-teeth, and similarly doesn’t speak, except once, if memory serves. He
serves two general villains: Stromberg in The Spy Who Loved Me, and Drax in Moonraker
(1979).
The same dynamic plays out with Mr. Big and
Tee-Hee in Live and Let Die, Scaramanga and Nick Nack in Man
with the Golden Gun (1974), Kamal Khan and Gobinda in Octopussy,
and on-and-on.
It’s an intriguing idea to split the
characteristics of one “complete” villain between two characters. Goldfinger is
a brilliant and egomaniacal criminal, but he has no physical prowess or
strength. Those qualities go to Odd Job. Bond, on the other hand, has both the
wit/intelligence, and the physical
capabilities of both villain types. He is a complete person in the way that the
villains never are, which may explain why he is always successful.
In this dramatic set-up, Bond can trade witticisms
with one type of villain (the general), and trade punches with the other (the
soldier). We see this in Goldfinger
during the laser table sequence. Bond asks if Goldfinger expects him to
talk. Goldfinger replies, delightfully, “No Mr. Bond. I expect you to die.”
But later, of course, Bond fights Odd Job over
an atomic bomb, in Fort Knox.
“I Never Joke about My Work, 007” – The Car
In Goldfinger, Q Branch gifts James
Bond with a new car, an Aston Martin DB-5, which comes equipped with machine
guns, rotating license plates, smoke screen, oil slick, and, most memorably, an
ejector seat. This is the first Bond film that gives 007 a ride like this, one
that is the center of its own action sequence, and which deploys a number of
(destructive) gadgets. The most elaborate gadget, previous to Goldfinger,
is the exploding brief-case in From Russia with Love.
So, we’re on a whole different, fantasy-esque
level here.
Again, this model scene -- Bond driving a car with a “few optional extras” installed -- has
been played out, over and over again, in later Bonds, with 007 getting a new
car (often another model Aston Martin, but not always), from his weapon
master. We have come to expect, since Goldfinger,
that Bond will drive the slickest, meanest, most heavily-armed car on the road.
The gimmicks (or gadgets) have changed, of course.
Roger Moore drives a car that becomes a
submarine (The Spy Who Loved Me). Timothy Dalton drives one with a rocket
engine and skis (The Living Daylights [1987]), and Pierce Brosnan drives a car
that can turn invisible in Die Another Day (2002), to name just
a few of the variations.
This is one ingredient that Goldfinger truly
spearheaded, as the first film to feature a “Bond” car.
“Man has climbed Mount Everest…He’s fired rockets at the
Moon, split the atom, achieved miracles in every field of human endeavor except
crime.” – The Criminal Scheme and the Double-Cross
In Goldfinger, Auric plans, from his
headquarters, the ultimate criminal scheme. Teamed with a criminal syndicate
(whose funds he solicits), he plots to irradiate all the gold in Fort Knox,
de-stabilizing the West and increasing the value of his own gold. The plot is laid out, in the film, in every
detail, with a scale model.
After demonstrating the plan with the model,
Goldfinger kills his audience, double-crossing them. One wonder why he went to
all the trouble of explaining, when he could have just take their money, and
killed them.
However, the scene serves two purposes. It
demonstrates the ultimate plan to the audience (cue Basil Exposition) and also
reveals again, the villain’s untrustworthy nature. He even kills his allies.
A View to a Kill (1985) is the Bond film that
most closely parallels the model example above. Zorin (Christopher Walken)
demonstrates his Operation, not Grand Slam, but Main Strike, using a scale
model of Silicon Valley. He then kills a
prospective ally, who wants out. Later,
in a mine-shaft, Zorin takes an Uzi to his people, killing all the
witnesses. So what we get are, as in
Goldfinger, the plot details, and the double cross.
To some extent, this idea also recurs in Octopussy
(1983), with Kamal Khan (Louis Jourdan) double-crossing Octopussy (Maude Adams)
and The
Living Daylights, involving a drugs for guns scenario.
There are other elements too, that Goldfinger
perfects: the sting-in-the-tail, for
instance, though this one goes back to From Russia with Love and Rosa
Klebb.
Finally, we have the presence of
a female lead -- Honor Blackman as Pussy Galore -- who first distrusts Bond, but then comes to legitimately care for
him, and become an ally. Finally, Goldfinger features a scene in which Bond out-cheats a cheater. Specifically, he beats Goldfinger on the golf course. This scene, of Bond out-cheating or out-maneuvering an untrustworthy villain occurs in later entries including Octopussy (using Backgammon) and Moonraker (pheasant hunting).
To describe all this another way,
Goldfinger took the established pattern of the early 007 pictures, and
perfected it, making the action bigger, the villains larger-than-life, and the
even the gallows humor more acute.
In moving Bond’s world from an approximation
of reality to a more fantastic one, the filmmakers established a formula that
has been modeled ever since.
In my book, many of the best Bond films are
actually the ones that break, stretch, or pre-date the Goldfinger model, titles
such as From Russia with Love, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
(1969), Licence to Kill (1989) or Casino Royale (2006).
But Goldfinger remains the paragon, the prototype for the Bond film universe. If we're talking about formula, nobody does it better.
I was always fascinated by how choosing Goldfinger as the novel for the third film was such a serendipitous event for the series. The novel came out in the middle of the run and seemed to be the tipping point where Ian Fleming said, "Okay, I'm just going to go all-out silly with this." I think the filmmakers, in their attempt to make full use of the material and actually improve on it, unknowingly created all these elements that would become obligatory set pieces for the films. For example, the mission in the teaser occurs before the novel begins and is only referred to, but it sounds quite intriguing. Since the teaser was already an element established in the previous film, this just fell into place. Also, the Aston Martin was in the novel, but only had one gadget: a clunky sonar detection device to track Goldfinger. Again, the filmmakers saw an opportunity to amp up the wow factor. The third act of the book is pretty awkward and absurd in the extreme. I think Hamilton and Co. did an excellent job of making the story more plausible and more exciting. As a result, they crafted a formula for future Bond third acts that was pretty bulletproof (pardon the pun). I think if the filmmakers had chosen a different novel for the third movie, the series could have run out of steam much more quickly. Goldfinger was the right choice at the right time.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention the best part of all: that badass title song!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment of Goldfinger as a template. I think the pre-title sequence was one of the biggest reasons we used to go to the theater with such anticipation: how were we going to discover Bond this time? It was like wondering how Jim Phelps was going to come across the tape in each Mission Impossible episode.
You are right that Sean Connery is more relaxed in Goldfinger, as if he decided to play along a bit, and this makes him a more interesting Bond. His performances tended to show the work when he tried too hard in material that didn't warrant that approach. I've never liked his performance in Marnie for that reason--that movie, that story, needed his charm and suavity to counter Tippi Hedren's frigidity, but instead he's as rigid and cold as she is, making both characters unsympathetic and making it hard to care about what happens to either of them. To me, Connery was always, like Pernell Roberts, unable to deliver a character we could identify with onscreen if he was out of sorts or at odds with the production for some reason.
I appreciate your distinction between the "two tracks" of Bond films, the realistic and the fantastic, and I actually find it difficult to rank Bond films in a single category for that reason. I prefer a two-track ranking system to accommodate the stylistic differences, as I'm not inclined to rate those containing more fantastical elements lower out of hand. I understand why you rank From Russia With Love so highly, for example, but I find The Spy Who Loved Me a more enjoyable movie overall. Yet I wouldn't want to have to rank one above the other--and if I rate them according to type, then I don't have to compare apples to oranges.
As an aside, I think On Her Majesty's Secret Service is actually the best of the "realistic" Bond movies, but George Lazenby is not a particularly interesting or memorable James Bond himself, so I tend to set that movie aside as if it were not a Bond movie.
I remain fairly convinced that the literary Bond is a satire of the whole secret agent motif. In Casino Royale, the first novel, Bond is chosen for the job because the other double-0 agents are just too likely to play it safe. Bond is the only one of them who truly gambles. And in the novels, he's very often rescued by last-minute deus ex machina.
ReplyDeleteThe films are another thing entirely.
John, your analysis of Goldfinger, one of my favorite Bond OO7 films, is simply perfect. There are two types of OO7 films. Sheri, you are right, the title song is great.
ReplyDeleteSGB