tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post773580221881365709..comments2024-03-28T14:49:36.133-04:00Comments on John Kenneth Muir's Reflections on Cult Movies and Classic TV: Goldfinger (1964): The Model BondJohn Kenneth Muirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-24978198238969145432017-04-18T15:49:23.060-04:002017-04-18T15:49:23.060-04:00John, your analysis of Goldfinger, one of my favor...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.<br /><br />SGBSGBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07137406272001346149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-40726207192919236202017-04-18T10:58:53.932-04:002017-04-18T10:58:53.932-04:00I remain fairly convinced that the literary Bond i...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.<br /><br />The films are another thing entirely.raitonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-70845012138144390992017-04-18T10:26:40.752-04:002017-04-18T10:26:40.752-04:00Not to mention the best part of all: that badass ...Not to mention the best part of all: that badass title song! <br /><br />I 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. <br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Sherinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-6904215865213400252017-04-18T10:00:20.440-04:002017-04-18T10:00:20.440-04:00I was always fascinated by how choosing Goldfinger...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.Neal Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17053148427058126745noreply@blogger.com