A.O. Scott has an interesting piece in Sunday's Times about the films of 1962. Scott thinks 1962 matters for two reasons: The sheer number of good movies, and the collision of two eras in filmmaking. Scott's examples include The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and Lawrence of Arabia, not to mention Truffaut's Jules and Jim and what Scott calls the start of a real "film culture".
In the early ’60s the studio system, buffeted by television and by accelerating changes in social norms and public expectations, was on its last legs, but it still had the wherewithal to produce big spectacles like Cleopatra and flog new life into established genres. Lavish musicals, wide-screen historical epics and westerns were fixtures of the Hollywood menu even as popular taste was starting to outgrow them. At least some of the American moviegoing population was acquiring a taste for more exotic fare, especially from Europe, where a generation of filmmakers was charting the horizon of the new.
Scott does not mention the movie, but it's worth noting that 1962 marked the release of Dr. No, the very first James Bond film. True, Dr. No is not a Truffaut film, and its image of Britain's place in the world was one that--as Scott notes--David Lean and other filmmakers were beginning to challenge (Lean would go on to abandon this project in his ridiculous adaptation of A Passage to India). Sean Connery's Bond spends the film going around Jamaica as if he were any old colonial policeman; 47 years later, the film feels like the relic of another era. And yet, the hero was an old-school Brit who became a symbol of the swinging sixties. The movie itself was controversial for its violence (Bond notoriously kills someone in cold blood), and, more importantly, for its casual attitude to sexual matters. The subject of sex and the Bond movies is a larger topic, but also one rich with paradox: The male-female relationships are both shockingly sexist and traditional, and yet also risque and interesting.
The new film culture--although very thematically and stylistically distinct from the Bond movies--also reflected a similarly lax stance toward the facts of life. And it is extremely difficult to separate the cultural forces that embraced and produced the art films Scott mentions, and the cultural forces that assured James Bond's enormous popularity. Dr. No may not fit neatly into any category or era (neither do Lawrence or Liberty Valence, really), but it presents a helpful prism through which to observe 1962.
Print
COMMENTS (9)
James Bond's refined testosterone was the celluloid reflection of Hugh Hefner's brand of a Man's Man. A gentleman's tough guy who gets the ladies and the miscreants by carefully balancing fisticuffs and WMD with charming wit, and superb WASP intelligence.
Somewhere along the way, alas, that transfigured into replications of Mad Men; and now, today, into barely disguised thugs....on some silver screens.
From Sean Connery to Daniel Craig. From risquely interesting and shockingly sexist to shockingly sexist and risquely interesting.
Progress by way of regress.
What a fitting way to approach it in this age of Barack Obama. The cool cat pimp for Wall Street.
george
James Bond's refined testosterone was the celluloid reflection of Hugh Hefner's brand of a Man's Man. A gentleman's tough guy who gets the ladies and the miscreants by carefully balancing fisticuffs and WMD with charming wit, and superb WASP intelligence.
Somewhere along the way, alas, that transfigured into replications of Mad Men; and now, today, into barely disguised thugs....on some silver screens.
From Sean Connery to Daniel Craig. From risquely interesting and shockingly sexist to shockingly sexist and risquely interesting.
Progress by way of regress.
What a fitting way to approach it in this age of Barack Obama. The cool cat pimp for Wall Street.
george
I think the novels are a little different. Bond is much more vulnerable than in the movies; On Her Majesty's Secret Service with George Lazenby was perhaps the only one to capture that note. In any case, Jamaica was, I believe, still a British colony in 1957 or whenever the book is set. And the novel treats Quarrel, the black fisherman who helps Bond, rather more extensively and humanely than the movie does.
But as far as the movie goes, Connery did something for the Scottish ego, at least. Fleming wanted David freaking Niven for the part! We dodged a bullet there. They took a chance on a practically unknown actor with an accent you could cut with a hacksaw blade.
And Ursula An ... view full comment
I think the novels are a little different. Bond is much more vulnerable than in the movies; On Her Majesty's Secret Service with George Lazenby was perhaps the only one to capture that note. In any case, Jamaica was, I believe, still a British colony in 1957 or whenever the book is set. And the novel treats Quarrel, the black fisherman who helps Bond, rather more extensively and humanely than the movie does.
But as far as the movie goes, Connery did something for the Scottish ego, at least. Fleming wanted David freaking Niven for the part! We dodged a bullet there. They took a chance on a practically unknown actor with an accent you could cut with a hacksaw blade.
And Ursula Andress coming out of the water . . . a whole generation realized there and then there was more to life than going to work in the rain.
Is Daniel Craig shockingly sexist? I thought they did a very good job with Casino Royale -- including keeping the part where Bond has his testicles worked over by Le Chiffre and is wrecked as a result. Makes you wonder about Fleming . . .
And the line "Does it look as if I care?" when the barman asks Bond (who's been in a hand-to-hand fight) how he wants his martini, shaken or stirred, makes up for any other inadequacies in the film, imo.
ironyroad
"I think the novels are a little different."
Of course this is true. Autodidact Walton's point is as usual too general to be useful and this case is even false.
Walton thinks that everyone is a big fat lazy slob like himself and that there are no real man and woman of action.
As it happens, it is possible that the James Bond character is based on the life of a real agent:
"James Bond, the character invented by Ian Fleming, is thought by many to be based on a real-life spy called Georgi Rosenblum. Rosenblum worked for the British Secret Service. Rosenblum became known as Sidney Reilly, and he was central to several high-risk missions of international importance."
Read more: view full comment
ironyroad
"I think the novels are a little different."
Of course this is true. Autodidact Walton's point is as usual too general to be useful and this case is even false.
Walton thinks that everyone is a big fat lazy slob like himself and that there are no real man and woman of action.
As it happens, it is possible that the James Bond character is based on the life of a real agent:
"James Bond, the character invented by Ian Fleming, is thought by many to be based on a real-life spy called Georgi Rosenblum. Rosenblum worked for the British Secret Service. Rosenblum became known as Sidney Reilly, and he was central to several high-risk missions of international importance."
Read more: http://ww1history.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_real_james_bond#ixzz0ULiX...
"Russian-born British spy Georgi Rosenblum spoke seven languages, seduced many women, and was the first "super-spy". His missions included a plot to assassinate Lenin."
Read more: http://ww1history.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_real_james_bond#ixzz0ULil...
“Lieutenant Sidney George Reilly, MC[1] (c. March 24, 1873/1874 – November 5, 1925), famously known as the Ace of Spies, was a Jewish Russian- or Ukrainian-born adventurer and secret agent employed by Scotland Yard, the British Secret Service Bureau and later the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS).[2] He is alleged to have spied for at least four nations.[3] His notoriety during the 1920s was created in part by his friend, British diplomat and journalist Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart, who sensationalised their thwarted operation to overthrow the Bolshevik government in 1918.[4]
After Reilly's death, the London Evening Standard published in May, 1931, a Master Spy serial glorifying his exploits. Later, Ian Fleming would use Reilly as a model for James Bond.[5] Today, many historians consider Reilly to be the first 20th century super-spy.[2] Much of what is known about him could be false, as Reilly was a master of deception, and most of his life is shrouded in legend.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Reilly
The cultural impact of Bond was huge, but the Cold War would not be the same without Bond.
One of the ironies of the Bond films is that the hero is a spy, normally the vilest of creeatures, but we love hime because he is our spy.
1962 was huge for the film business and things really were changing.
Good Post.
The cultural impact of Bond was huge, but the Cold War would not be the same without Bond.
One of the ironies of the Bond films is that the hero is a spy, normally the vilest of creeatures, but we love hime because he is our spy.
1962 was huge for the film business and things really were changing.
Good Post.
irony, I take great exception at your implication that there are any inadequacies in Casino Royale that can be made up for. There are not. As a Le Carre reader who's spent his whole movie-watching life wishing someone would try putting James Bond in an actual spy story, Casino Royale was a dream come true. Perfect enough to make up for the ludicrous final third of Quantum of Solace with its Roger Moore-era exploding hotel.
But this is a very interesting point -- question, really -- about the Bond franchise's place in post-1950s film culture.
irony, I take great exception at your implication that there are any inadequacies in Casino Royale that can be made up for. There are not. As a Le Carre reader who's spent his whole movie-watching life wishing someone would try putting James Bond in an actual spy story, Casino Royale was a dream come true. Perfect enough to make up for the ludicrous final third of Quantum of Solace with its Roger Moore-era exploding hotel.
But this is a very interesting point -- question, really -- about the Bond franchise's place in post-1950s film culture.
"Dr. No may not fit neatly into any category or era (neither do Lawrence or Liberty Valence, really), but it presents a helpful prism through which to observe 1962."
And why would anyone want to "observe 1962." Isaac?
"Dr. No may not fit neatly into any category or era (neither do Lawrence or Liberty Valence, really), but it presents a helpful prism through which to observe 1962."
And why would anyone want to "observe 1962." Isaac?
Rhubarbs, I withdraw my terminology. Casino Royale was indeed a work of diamond-hard perfection.
And A Question of Solace was a miserable crunching disappointment, after that breakthrough.
Actually, the novels even deal with Isaac's point about the role of Britain in the postwar world in a smarter way. In CR (the first novel) Bond maxes out his UK Treasury funds at the gambling table, and is frustrated because he still thinks he can beat Le Chiffre. Felix Leiter contacts his Agency superiors in Washington and comes up with the extra funds. There is no doubt in the Fleming stories who has the resources.
Rhubarbs, I withdraw my terminology. Casino Royale was indeed a work of diamond-hard perfection.
And A Question of Solace was a miserable crunching disappointment, after that breakthrough.
Actually, the novels even deal with Isaac's point about the role of Britain in the postwar world in a smarter way. In CR (the first novel) Bond maxes out his UK Treasury funds at the gambling table, and is frustrated because he still thinks he can beat Le Chiffre. Felix Leiter contacts his Agency superiors in Washington and comes up with the extra funds. There is no doubt in the Fleming stories who has the resources.
After I started reading the novels, I realized that James Bond was nothing more than Mike Hammer with a public school education and a tailored suit.
After I started reading the novels, I realized that James Bond was nothing more than Mike Hammer with a public school education and a tailored suit.
But he does work for the guv'mint!
But he does work for the guv'mint!