House of Eratosthenes

I’d only add one thing to mkfreeberg’s James Bond wish list, and it’s a complaint I’ve had about the Bond films for a while now: It’s time for the Bond films to become period pieces.

These are stories of the ’50s and ’60s. They were written in the ’50s and ’60s and take place in the ’50s and ’60s. Set them in those time periods for crying out loud. They don’t try to set ‘Three Musketeers’ stories in modern-day France; having James Bond, WWII veteran, running around fighting cybervillains in the ’10s for a female M. and ‘Cool Britannia’ is just ridiculous. Is he 90 years old? This isn’t merely a matter of slavish devotion to historical verisimilitude on my part or anything. Part and parcel of what makes Bond interesting is the Cold War mise en scene (even if at times it’s masked by having him fight made-up villains like SPECTRE). Terrorism notwithstanding, we simply don’t have that atmosphere now. But they did then. So that’s when they should take place. In my ideal Bond movie there should be vintage ’50s era cars, East Germany should exist, Bond (and all other adult males) should wear a suit and hat everywhere they go, his watch should have a radium dial that glows, the women should smoke cigarettes with filters, trains should be glamorous and mysterious, there should be secret codes or stolen plans on microfilm, his key field equipment should be a trick leather briefcase. Et cetera. Come on, you have to admit this sounds good! But none of those things would work in a movie set today; it only works if you set them in that time.

Bond is the longest-running movie franchise ever. MGM just got out of bankruptcy and Bond 23 is the first thing they announce. It is clearly a cash cow, and will never die. Which just means that at some point the anachronism will become too obvious and unworkable; thus, if you think about it freezing him back in his actual time period is something that has got to happen sooner or later. So why not now? I’ll keep watching the Daniel Craig Bond films and I appreciate the ‘reboot’ effort they’ve represented, but what I’m really waiting for is a real reboot back to real Bond stories – the ones that haven’t really been made since, maybe, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

I’ve been mulling this over in my head all day, and the more I think about it the more I like it. I still see a potential problem; as I wrote there, James Bond exists first & foremost as a male fantasy, a target of “I wish I was doing this”…and that does seem to work better as “I wish I was doing this right now.” Well, you can’t wish you’re fighting with Bulgarian thugs who are throwing explosive briefcases at you to make the world safe for a communist overthrow on behalf of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics…right now. But I dunno. Does that really have to get in the way? We take these little trips back in time pretty much constantly in the land of cinema.

I think it’s up to the gentlemen to decide this. Not to trivialize the female attraction to the Bond saga, but…well, it is trivial by comparison. It’s all “Connery was sexier than Moore” and “Ooh that Pierce Brosnan is just so suave” over there. If James Bond is put back in 1958, the lady fans will adapt to this just fine.

The male fan is a bit trickier. We’re thinking…I wonder if I could do something like that if I was in the same situation. How awesome would it be if I could. And for us to do that, does it really have to take place in 2006, 2008, 2012? I’m thinking…if it’s handled right, no it doesn’t.

And I’ll bet a 1955 Thunderbird tricked out with machine guns behind the headlights would be mega-awesome.

One thing would be missing though: The “Tom Clancy” factor involved in the technology. James Bond films should inspire a debate about whether such-and-such a thing is possible or not. Remember the dialogue from Goldfinger? “You’re joking” (acting legend Connery, wearing his very best puzzled-and-perplexed face). “I never joke about my work, double-oh-seven.”

If Bond movies take place sixty years ago, all that stuff has to take a powder…all the “maybe Popular Mechanics will have this on the cover in another five years” fantasy gear. I would miss that, but to be honest, I could do without it.

The quintessential Bond as a period-piece has already been achieved in “Reilly, Ace of Spies.” Sam Neill gives the coldest, keenest performance of his career in that series.

The true story of Reilly was part of the inspiration for Bond, so when I watch it I get the most bang for the buck in the genre: history, period costumes, handsome man, cold-blooded plots, believable ploys, and outrageous nerve.

And candy-ass blather about martinis and cigars.
- JoanOfArgghh | 01/17/2011 @ 20:38
Make that NO blather about martinis and cigars!
- JoanOfArgghh | 01/17/2011 @ 20:39
You’re right, Morgan. The men should decide this. Over martinis and cigars. 😉

I think Sonic Charmer is about as correct as it could possibly get about Bond movies. Such a work might even get me to drop whatever the price of admission to a theatre is these days… IF it was a period piece. Your fascination with gizmos is what kills the movies for me, that and all those goddamned explosions and the like. And Bond would NEVER drive a T-Bird, unless he stole it. It has to be an Aston, my good man, or a blower Bentley. You KNOW that.

All that submitted with the full realization that I AM a period piece, of course.
- bpenni | 01/18/2011 @ 02:38
Heh. Don’t get me wrong, every man should smell faintly of good tobacco and fine bourbon!

Just the poncy gassing on about shaking and stirring or twists. A man likes what he likes and wants things to be precise. I get that. But I thanked the writers in the first Craig episode that found a new way to bring that out.
- JoanOfArgghh | 01/18/2011 @ 05:24
I have to admit, I’m hard pressed to think of what my favorite gadget might have been. There are some that have not aged well. It’s clear that in the sixties we had a fascination with Geiger counters.

There would need to be some thought put into the threat. When I’m disappointed in a Bond movie I’m usually disappointed in the threat; there was one in which the bad guy was going to radiate the Sea of Bosporus which would be bad for people living in Istanbul. Of course these days we all have to be extra agitated about the environment, but pardon me I like to leave that all behind when I watch a Bond film thankyewverymuch. And I don’t live in Istanbul.

I’m not entirely sure how scary a bad guy can be who wants to carry out a world threat in a period piece from the 1950’s…
- mkfreeberg | 01/18/2011 @ 06:43
With the franchises of awards shows and movie channels and Entertainment Tonight episodes, who all control the levers of money flow, there will never be too much change, but there will always be some.

This franchise can’t follow a script too closely or it’ll upset the gods named above, who demand tribute (in the form of something to talk about); without talk there will be risk that there won’t be another movie. Once it became a thing that will never die, its immortality has become the main character, not Bond. If you owned it, you’d protect your investment in the same way. Dilution must happen, and the waves of new and homages to the old have to vacillate to keep a conversation about it. Change is talked about – and movies have to be talked about. New is necessary to spawn a new audience or retain the attention of the old audience. Apparently parasites can “Weekend at Bernie’s” a host for longer than what you’d imagine, but the smell and facade don’t improve.

Books, too, can’t rise above the noise without some attention-grabbing clip, celebrity curveball or sacred-cow-burn to force a Today Show piece.

Starve the beast – go see a local play, or read a book and pay the author directly. No matter how bad the script. Better yet, write your own entertainment. Produce more and consume less, and your attitude will vastly improve. The internet allows you to pull away from most of the comsumption, but will give you enough data to accomplish your daily tasks (converse with strangers while dropping or laughing over shared experiences, for example).
- wch | 01/18/2011 @ 10:34
I’m not entirely sure how scary a bad guy can be who wants to carry out a world threat in a period piece from the 1950’s…

You never had to play “duck ‘n’ cover” didja, Morgan? That was pretty damned scary, believe me, especially when coupled with lectures and films about the impending nuclear holocaust. I believe a competent screenwriter could come up with PLENTY of Cold War scenarios that would be sufficiently terrifying… not to mention realistic… but then again I would think that about the Cold War… I lived it.

I’m thinkin’ you’d like Istanbul, Morgan. One of the world’s great cities… as picturesque in setting as SFO and better architecture. Good food, too. I ALWAYS had a great time there.

Heh. Don’t get me wrong, every man should smell faintly of good tobacco and fine bourbon!

Thanks for that, Joan. Srsly. 😉
- bpenni | 01/18/2011 @ 11:48
Starve the beast – go see a local play, or read a book and pay the author directly. No matter how bad the script. Better yet, write your own entertainment. Produce more and consume less, and your attitude will vastly improve.

That’s how the Bond stories began in the first place, isn’t it? “I’m writing a book, the kind of book I would like to read” — Ian Fleming (paraphrased).

You never had to play “duck ‘n’ cover” didja, Morgan? That was pretty damned scary, believe me, especially when coupled with lectures and films about the impending nuclear holocaust.

In my day they sort of rolled it into an earthquake drill. I see your point; I just have a concern, not so much a problem per se. History can be very scary — it just takes on a different tone, which I don’t know would be helpful or not. “Eye of the Needle” by Ken Follet was probably the finest execution I ever saw of an historical threat.

Can James Bond keep his suspense when the audience knows the threat is going to get foiled at the end, just like they know the Titanic is going to get sunk? Eh. Probably.

I’m thinkin’ you’d like Istanbul, Morgan.

I think you’re right.

I’m just beating up on the Bond movies with shot-glass-sized regions of potential destruction…without calling out that most recent one, by name, one more time. “James Bond and the Milagro Beanfield war” or whatever it was called. Oh, look at the scary bad guy, threatening to keep water away from poor people. Hugo Drax is the greatest; he was going to wipe out the entire world and start it all over again. That’s a scary bad guy.
- mkfreeberg | 01/18/2011 @ 12:00

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Bond as a Period PieceMonday, January 17th, 2011

Bond as a Period Piece
Monday, January 17th, 2011