Do you consider the (early) James Bond movies part of the Golden Era?

[FedoraFan112390]

Do you consider the early Connery James Bond films part of the Golden Era, maybe Dr., No to Goldfinger? I just ask because Connery's Bond, though British, evokes the whole era of pre-Vietnam Americana.

 

[Fading Fast]

Even after having been a member for years, I still have no true definition of "The Golden Era" as it means different things to different people. But to your point, it clearly ended by the second half of the '60s. I look at those early Bonds - the first three in particular - as "classic" Bond films that absolute reflect a pre-second-half of the 1960s in values, style, tone and approach.

I don't know if this is real or not, but one of the big differences for me in the pre- versus post- '60s is that there were many unwritten rules of conduct that even criminals seemed to abide. Hence, Goldfinger approached and interacted with Bond as a gentleman on the surface and even appeared to have a code about how he could kill him and what was an "out of bounds" way to kill him. Again, this might all have been Fleming's artifice, but if not, it seems consistent with the Golden Era's societal rules about "how things are done."

By the '70s, Bond films and Bond villains became more jungle like - there were no rules except survival, kill or be killed. There are many good things that came out of the social changes of the '60s and many not good things that existed in the Golden Era, but a general decorum of conduct, respect for some boundaries of decency - all assumed and "enforced" by meme - is something we lost in the second half of the '60s and something those early Bond films had.

It is part of the reason that those first three films are my favorites in the series.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's interesting to note that Fleming's novels were routinely being attacked by book critics in the early sixties as sadistic, vulgar smut. Apparently the fine tailoring and elegant manners weren't as evident in print.

The producer of the Bond films, Mr. Broccoli, was a pretty dubious character in his own right, a playboy gadabout who consorted with thugs and gangland figures -- and by at least one account he helped beat comedian Ted Healy to death outside the Trocadero Restaurant in Hollywood in December 1937. He was closely involved with high-level executives at MGM at the time, who supposedly took steps to ensure he wouldn't be charged.

 

[HudsonHawk]

It's interesting to note that Fleming's novels were routinely being attacked by book critics in the early sixties as sadistic, vulgar smut. Apparently the fine tailoring and elegant manners weren't as evident in print.

The Bond on screen differed considerably from the Bond of Fleming's stories. He was not the suave sophisticate on paper that he was in the films, described in the former as "dark and cruel" and living in a world where "rape and coercion were considered valour and murder is a funny trick". Fleming described him several times as looking like Hoagy Carmichael, with a pronounced scar across his cheek. He was a also a raving racist and bigot, drank like a fish and smoked three packs of cigarettes a day.

This image of Bond as a dapper, gentleman spy is a creation of Hollywood due to the restrictions in the film industry at the time. Connery is one of the least Bond-like actors to play him, though many see him as the archetype. Actually, Timothy Dalton is probably the closest to what Fleming had in mind, though Daniel Craig certainly shows flashes of the attitude.

 

[Fading Fast]

The Bond on screen differed considerably from the Bond of Fleming's stories. He was not the suave sophisticate on paper that he was in the films, described in the former as "dark and cruel" and living in a world where "rape and coercion were considered valour and murder is a funny trick". Fleming described him several times as looking like Hoagy Carmichael, with a pronounced scar across his cheek. He was a also a raving racist and bigot, drank like a fish and smoked three packs of cigarettes a day.

This image of Bond as a dapper, gentleman spy is a creation of Hollywood due to the restrictions in the film industry at the time. Connery is one of the least Bond-like actors to play him, though many see him as the archetype. Actually, Timothy Dalton is probably the closest to what Fleming had in mind, though Daniel Craig certainly shows flashes of the attitude.

I read several of the novels years ago and completely agree. Although, I think Roger Moore was furthest away as he was just a pretty boy who played it tongue and cheek the whole way. And while not much liked, I thought Dalton did a good job and tried to restore some credibility after Moore as Dalton's Bond echoed back a bit to the Bond of the books.

Another interesting thing is that the best Craig one is the only one based on an original Fleming novel, "Casino Royale."

 

[HudsonHawk]

I read several of the novels years ago and completely agree. Although, I think Roger Moore was furthest away as he was just a pretty boy who played it tongue and cheek the whole way. And while not much liked, I thought Dalton did a good job and tried to restore some credibility after Moore as Dalton's Bond echoed back a bit to the Bond of the books.

Another interesting thing is that the best Craig one is the only one based on an original Fleming novel, "Casino Royale."

Most true Bond aficionados love Dalton, and will tell you that he was probably closest to the "real" Bond. Agree about Moore...he was simply a comic caricature, not to mention about 30 years too old (Bond is in his mid-30s). Brosnan was also way too much of a pretty boy, but he was light years better than Moore.

 

[Stearmen]

I read several of the novels years ago and completely agree. Although, I think Roger Moore was furthest away as he was just a pretty boy who played it tongue and cheek the whole way. And while not much liked, I thought Dalton did a good job and tried to restore some credibility after Moore as Dalton's Bond echoed back a bit to the Bond of the books.

Another interesting thing is that the best Craig one is the only one based on an original Fleming novel, "Casino Royale."

There were two other films with the title Casino Royale. The first was a forgettable one on American CBS Climax show, October 21, 1954. And of course, the 1967 version staring David Niven, with Woody Allen as the villain! I actually kind of like David the best. He personifies what I would like Bond to be, incredibly bright, cultured and uses his head not his fist. The only gadget he had was his automatic gate opener. He also had the beast car of all of them all, a 1923 Bentley 4½ Litre Blower Special.

 

[Benzadmiral]

Ah, yes, the "Climax!" adaptation with Peter Lorre as the villain. I've seen snippets on YouTube. Barry Nelson's Bond was an American agent, and referred to as "Jimmy" Bond. (It's a shame Nelson has been forgotten; he was an expert light comedian in movies like "Mary, Mary," with Debbie Reynolds.)

As for the comic 1967 "Casino Royale," the best thing about it was the Herb Alpert & the Tijuana Brass theme song. Oh, and Woody Allen as another "Jimmy" Bond, saying as he's hauled up in front of a firing squad: "My doctor has advised me against having any foreign objects in my body. Like bullets!"

 

[FedoraFan112390]

There were two other films with the title Casino Royale. The first was a forgettable one on American CBS Climax show, October 21, 1954. And of course, the 1967 version staring David Niven, with Woody Allen as the villain! I actually kind of like David the best. He personifies what I would like Bond to be, incredibly bright, cultured and uses his head not his fist. The only gadget he had was his automatic gate opener. He also had the beast car of all of them all, a 1923 Bentley 4½ Litre Blower Special.

Actually, David Niven was who Fleming wanted to play Bond in the first place.

 

[Edward]

I've come to reject the concept of a "Golden Age" anything, so that rather skews the question for me. Bond, though... the early Bonds are very evocative of a certain type of "British" cinema. I prefer the nastier tone of thed books - I find them much more convincing. After all, Bond is, in the last instance, a contract killer. They really aren't nice men. His psychological problems and limitations have been nodded at in the most recent films - I'd like to see them explore that more. Connery 'worked' for me: I believed in him as a killer who could drop you without a second thought and be callous enough to joke about it. Moore was a joke. Lazenby was forgettable, especially compared to how mind-blowingly awful Moore was. Dalton seemed good at first, but in retrospect he's awful: unconvincing, and only looked any good by comparison to Moore. Brosnan might have made abetter fist of it with better material, but he arrived in the era in which Bond had been so long a parody of itself that it didn't quite know what to do. Craig was the first credible replacement for Connery. Craig's Bond is a cold killer, a monster; unlikeable as he should be. Two decent films out of three ain't bad (Quantum was dreadful... I've tried twice and still can't get into its narrative flow).

It's interesting to note that Fleming's novels were routinely being attacked by book critics in the early sixties as sadistic, vulgar smut. Apparently the fine tailoring and elegant manners weren't as evident in print.

I've long thought that much of the bond we see on screen as the result of needing something to pad itg out after they cut everything they couldn't show, or wouldn't be able to sell to a paying audience.

The producer of the Bond films, Mr. Broccoli, was a pretty dubious character in his own right, a playboy gadabout who consorted with thugs and gangland figures -- and by at least one account he helped beat comedian Ted Healy to death outside the Trocadero Restaurant in Hollywood in December 1937. He was closely involved with high-level executives at MGM at the time, who supposedly took steps to ensure he wouldn't be charged.

Yip, the good old days when the studios looked after people, including covering-up criminal behaviour of the worst kind. He really wasn't alone among big names in that respect.

Most true Bond aficionados love Dalton, and will tell you that he was probably closest to the "real" Bond. Agree about Moore...he was simply a comic caricature, not to mention about 30 years too old (Bond is in his mid-30s). Brosnan was also way too much of a pretty boy, but he was light years better than Moore.

Jerry Lee would have been a better Bond than Moore. Dalton only looked good by comparison to Moore.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

. Craig was the first credible replacement for Connery. Craig's Bond is a cold killer, a monster; unlikeable as he should be. Two decent films out of three ain't bad (Quantum was dreadful... I've tried twice and still can't get into its narrative flow).

To me Daniel Craig vaguely resembles Vladimir Putin (who thinks he is James Bond).

 

[HudsonHawk]

Jerry Lee would have been a better Bond than Moore. Dalton only looked good by comparison to Moore.

I would argue that Moore actually dragged Dalton's portrayal down, as peoples' expectations and perception had been irrevocably altered for the worse. I still think Dalton's Bond stacks up well, and his having to follow a clown hurt him, not helped him.

 

[Edward]

To me Daniel Craig vaguely resembles Vladimir Putin (who thinks he is James Bond).

:lol: Good call! Putin would convince me. Maybe when he's done with politics he'll get into acting and show a certain gvoernor how it's really done.

I would argue that Moore actually dragged Dalton's portrayal down, as peoples' expectations and perception had been irrevocably altered for the worse. I still think Dalton's Bond stacks up well, and his having to follow a clown hurt him, not helped him.

I'd tend to the opinion that the end result of his outings as Bond show that coming after Moore hurt him in that they obviously didn't feel they needed to try hard to make him credible, which could explain how poor they are! ;-)

As I've often said, I wish someone like AMC could get hold of the rights to make a series of Bond films as period pieces, true to the books, and set in the fifties as they were. That would be worth watching.

 

[Benzadmiral]

I would argue that Moore actually dragged Dalton's portrayal down, as peoples' expectations and perception had been irrevocably altered for the worse. I still think Dalton's Bond stacks up well, and his having to follow a clown hurt him, not helped him.

Dalton's Bond was convincing. When he aimed that Walther, you were sure that when he used it, someone was going to wind up dead. Beyond that, the press at the time made much of the notion that Dalton's JB had only one "Bond girl" in the movie. But that was how most of the Fleming novels went: each woman in a given novel was an affair, not always Cary-Grant romantic, maybe, but not a one-night stand either. (Goldfinger was an exception, of course, where there were two, including the infamous Miss Galore.)

And the plot of the film, as I recall, was quite good -- taking off from a Fleming short story, then featuring the kind of disinformation bluffs and routines that real intelligence services run on each other.

Oh, to answer the original question: If the Golden Era ends in November of 1963, then certainly. As Fading Fast said, the Golden Era featured "a general decorum of conduct, respect for some boundaries of decency - all assumed and 'enforced' by meme - is something we lost in the second half of the '60s and something those early Bond films had. "

 

[Fading Fast]

:As I've often said, I wish someone like AMC could get hold of the rights to make a series of Bond films as period pieces, true to the books, and set in the fifties as they were. That would be worth watching.

That is a fantastic idea - and you chose the right channel (PBS maybe could do it well, BBC probably could, HBO is hit or miss, but AMC is a really good thought). The timing seems right as there is cultural interest in that time period (maybe more the '60s, but close enough). And what a wealth of source material.

 

[Benzadmiral]

That is a fantastic idea - and you chose the right channel (PBS maybe could do it well, BBC probably could, HBO is hit or miss, but AMC is a really good thought). The timing seems right as there is cultural interest in that time period (maybe more the '60s, but close enough). And what a wealth of source material.

Has anybody here read The Authorized Biography of James Bond 007, by Fleming's biographer John Pearson? He makes out the case that Bond was a real person (named "James Bond") whom Fleming knew and wrote the novels about, using many of the "real" Bond's adventures, all to convince the KGB/Smersh that the spy they knew as "James Bond" was actually fictional. In any event, the book is incredibly entertaining. It features Bond's background and family, how Bond acquired the pre-war Bentley he was still driving in the early Fifties, how he got the scar on his face (the two things were connected), how he came to work for the Secret Service at 17 (!), his war career, the missions on which Bond earned his 00 number, and more . . . all with chapter titles and a smashing last scene that Fleming himself could have written.

Now that would be a dynamite miniseries for AMC, no?

 

[HudsonHawk]

Has anybody here read The Authorized Biography of James Bond 007, by Fleming's biographer John Pearson? He makes out the case that Bond was a real person (named "James Bond") whom Fleming knew and wrote the novels about, using many of the "real" Bond's adventures, all to convince the KGB/Smersh that the spy they knew as "James Bond" was actually fictional. In any event, the book is incredibly entertaining. It features Bond's background and family, how Bond acquired the pre-war Bentley he was still driving in the early Fifties, how he got the scar on his face (the two things were connected), how he came to work for the Secret Service at 17 (!), his war career, the missions on which Bond earned his 00 number, and more . . . all with chapter titles and a smashing last scene that Fleming himself could have written.

Now that would be a dynamite miniseries for AMC, no?

The character of Bond was a composite of various "secret agent" types Fleming knew during his time with Naval Intelligence in WWII. The name "James Bond" came from a real American ornithologist whom Fleming knew in Jamaica, where Fleming lived. Fleming commented that he wanted his character to be a dull, ordinary guy and things just happen around him. Fleming called him a "blunt instrument", a thug who was entirely uninteresting himself, so he didn't want his spy character to have some outlandish spy name. He thought "James Bond" was about the dullest, most boring name he knew.

Interestingly, Bond's history didn't start to develop until the last stories Fleming wrote, which he did *after* the first film. So he wrote Bond's past with Sean Connery in mind.

 

[Benzadmiral]

The character of Bond was a composite of various "secret agent" types Fleming knew during his time with Naval Intelligence in WWII. The name "James Bond" came from a real American ornithologist whom Fleming knew in Jamaica, where Fleming lived. Fleming commented that he wanted his character to be a dull, ordinary guy and things just happen around him. Fleming called him a "blunt instrument", a thug who was entirely uninteresting himself, so he didn't want his spy character to have some outlandish spy name. He thought "James Bond" was about the dullest, most boring name he knew.

Interestingly, Bond's history didn't start to develop until the last stories Fleming wrote, which he did *after* the first film. So he wrote Bond's past with Sean Connery in mind.

Sure. But what Pearson did was essentially to write a fictional biography of Bond in the form of a series of interviews with the "real" Bond. Pearson's Bond matches with the one in Fleming's novels in character and tone. The book is a delight.

That said, any production of it would have to be a period piece in itself. Pearson tells us Bond was born (in Germany, no less) in 1920, * and the "interviews" take place in something like 1971 or 1972, during a period where Bond is deciding whether to return to work for the Secret Service.

* I just realized, the birth date Pearson gives for Bond is Nov. 11, 1920. He's lookin' good for 94!

 

[HudsonHawk]

during a period where Bond is deciding whether to return to work for the Secret Service.

Kind of like "Never Say Never Again"...

 

[Edward]

Has anybody here read The Authorized Biography of James Bond 007, by Fleming's biographer John Pearson? He makes out the case that Bond was a real person (named "James Bond") whom Fleming knew and wrote the novels about, using many of the "real" Bond's adventures, all to convince the KGB/Smersh that the spy they knew as "James Bond" was actually fictional. In any event, the book is incredibly entertaining. It features Bond's background and family, how Bond acquired the pre-war Bentley he was still driving in the early Fifties, how he got the scar on his face (the two things were connected), how he came to work for the Secret Service at 17 (!), his war career, the missions on which Bond earned his 00 number, and more . . . all with chapter titles and a smashing last scene that Fleming himself could have written.

Now that would be a dynamite miniseries for AMC, no?

I'd not heard of that before. It does sound fun.

Kind of like "Never Say Never Again"...

Hard to believe that came out the same year as Octopussy. Of the two, it's the vastly superior piece, not least down to Connery. If memort serves, it's the only Bond film in which the Bentley actually appears.

I've always wanted Connery to come back as a Bond villain. I'd love him to get the chance to kill Bond... only for Bond to be replaced by a new model. I like the notion of Bond being like the Phantom; it would also neatly explain how Bond's face changes while he stays roughly the same age, despite decades passing. Off-book, but when were the films ever really loyal to the source materials?