It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
That's certainly true, as the later parts of my response will show.
I cannot agree there. In America at least it was certainly possible to talk of a critical consensus in the pre-internet age, especially because print media had much greater influence at the time. If I was researching the critical reception of a film released in 1969, I would reviews from all of the following publications to decide on what the critical consensus was:
* Newspapers circulated across the entire country, primarily The New York Times and Wall Street Journal.
* Major newspapers from large metropolitan areas that circulated across large regional areas, such as The Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune.
* Mass-market magazines with large national circulation: Time, Newsweek, Saturday Evening Post, Variety, etc.
* Magazines with national circulation catering to educated audiences (i.e., the intelligentsia): New Republic, New Yorker, Village Voice, Saturday Review, Nation, etc.
All of these publications had the potential to be just as (or perhaps more) influential than anything in a local paper, especially since local critics usually took their cues from ones in New York, LA, Chicago, or the major magazines. All of the publications listed above were "taste-makers" had much greater influence in the pre-internet age.
An individual reviewer rarely has the power to make or break a Hollywood film that has a good advertising budget (though as Kael pointed out, a negative review in The New York Times could doom the chances of a foreign or independent film circulating beyond New York). But a bad reviews in multiple influential publications (those listed above) could seriously cripple a film. They still can--that's why Rotten Tomatoes is taken seriously by Hollywood today. And occasionally an influential critics's rave could draw attention to a film and increase its success (Kael's rave for Bonnie and Clyde).
Perhaps you're thinking of the following remarks, originally published in the Autumn 1963 issue of Film Quarterly:
"Dr. No is a Pop Art collage of comic strips and Flash Gordon serials, and I suppose it is successful in creating a certain kind of male fantasy world. It lacks verbal wit (when Dr. No finally appears for dinner, we expect, we need some chic far-out dialogue), and the style collapses because there aren't enough asinine conceits. I know we're supposed to find the film sophisticated just because it's so banal, that this, as in Pop Art, is somehow supposed to be the whole point, but for pleasant entertainment, I prefer The List of Adrian Messenger (though every man I know says I'm wrong)."
John Huston was one of her favorite directors, so I'm not surprised to that she preferred Adrian Messenger. As for Bond, her remarks on FRWL, YOLT, OHMSS, etc. show that she grew to like the series. Reviewing DAF she wrote "No doubt those of us who love the Bond pictures are spoiled, but really we've come to expect more than a comic car chase." Even the stray mentions of the Bond films in her later reviews tend to be positive.
I was certainly impressed by Turner's Goldfinger book--it's a pity no one has written similar volumes on the other great Bond films.
https://theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/22/psycho-hitchcock-archive-review-horror
Of course, I'm talking from my own London POV, and I can assure you that no young person would say that they must-see a movie based on its critical reception. Most of us were of the mindset that the majority of critics only liked artsy-farsty movies and were out of touch with the youth of the day. Let's not also forget that most critics of that period were old-hands by that point and had been writing their sneering reviews over many decades.
On the subject of Kael, I cannot recall the exact words she used, but it was most definitely a review written prior to its US release... and it was pretty dismissive in its tone. But you're quite right, she grew to embrace the Bond movies, probably realising that they weren't the flash-in-the-pan she first thought they would be.
I don't know about the UK, but publications like the Village Voice, which I listed earlier, were major independent newspapers that catered to the counterculture and had national reach. That helped Andrew Sarris become a prominent critic. Throw in various other "underground" press organs as well, since the 60s was the decade these really began to flourish. Also, the counter-culture tended to consist of college-educated folk, so you get some overlap with the intelligentsia. The New Yorker's circulation went up in the late 1960s because college kids were buying it to read Kael's reviews. This was a period when film courses started being widely taught in college, and perhaps the last time when foreign directors (Fellini, Bergman, Godard, Kurosawa, Truffaut, etc.) could become big names among educated Americans. There was a larger audience of young cinephiles than ever before or since.
In any case, this is taking us away from Bond, whose appeal tended to be mass market...
Almost all of the newspapers mentioned dealt with a mass market at the time. I did list several magazines that appealed to the intelligentsia. You're right that cinema attendance continued to decline during this period and that studios began trying to appeal to the young, who attended theaters more often. However, this situation was not as extreme as it became by the 1980s, and the Bond films themselves were all-ages phenomena that had little to do with the counterculture or youth fads.
As wikipedia so aptly put it, 2001 received "polarized" reviews in America--it had a good share of good reviews in major publications. As for Psycho, it's American critical reception was mixed, whereas British reviews were mostly negative, and after the film's success critics began quickly re-evaluating its merits.
On the basis of this alone I could see critics gaining more influence over time. Again, especially as they gradually became relied on from a public relations point-of-view to draw in attendees. Reading older critics, like Otis Ferguson for instance, I get more of a sense that they were writing with a view towards what people should think about a movie rather than what movies people should see. If that makes sense?
As far as the critics and Bond and their influence are concerned, the 60s/70s were the real hinge point. So I think it's hard to say.
Just read this last weekend. An informative and stylish book. Really liked his writing. Very cool you used to work with him, @bondsum. I plan on checking out some of his other work.
While the current era has been very much the decisions of Barbara herself, its not unheard of for the franchise to resort to a public vote on who should take on the role. Pierce was the people's choice back in 1994, and remained popular with the general public throughout his time as Bond. The current way of doing things has proven very successful, but there are downsides that need to be addressed. If they went with a more workman style approach, and hired a decent actor how looks the part and has no issues performing his media duties, it might lead to a more streamlined production schedule, and a uptick in enthusiasm around the franchise. The Craig era has been trying for hardcore fans that wish for the old days of frequent releases and a less closed off mindset. Will there be push back by investors regarding the 4 year gaps and mishandled public image? No one wants Bond to become like Disney, pumping out films every year, but a bit more regularity wouldn't go amiss either. Perhaps a Bond of the people makes the most business sense for Bond going forward, meaning an actor which suits the role of what people think of as James Bond.
If I were to guess, our next Bond will be much closer to the cinematic template than the incumbent. Additionally, I think this is more likely to be a Roger Moore/Brosnan situation rather than a Craig one. History never repeats itself in entirely the same way of course but I still think it's likely we have someone we know in the chair in a few years. Someone for whom there are fans, and also detractors.
The business dynamics at MGM suggest to me that they will take a safer choice next time out.
I think the series will have to go back to the traditional cinematic template after Craig or it will die out. Many might argue that Craig and the current films are the most successful, but I disagree vehemently. May I remind the committee...........that this year this is NO Bond film, nor was there one last year, or the year before? We're not even 100% confident there will be one next year as well.
As for public vote, I do remember Brosnan winning the polls by a landslide back in 1994.
Considering that, now, Bond is simply not in the public eye as much, and today, many movies goers aren't as well versed in 007 history or knowledge as in the Cubby era, I think the public vote would go for someone along the lines of Idris Elba, or an A lister a'la Ben Affleck.
In 1994, in spite of the long gap, audiences had been accustomed to generous portions of Bond for three decades, and had a strong idea of who and what Bond was, hence, it was no wonder Pierce was the popular choice. TBS was running Bond marathons constantly back then, showcasing Connery and Moore which represent Bond as a hero. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but today's marathons mainly consist of the Craig films, which represent Bond as a f**k up slowly learning his trade well into middle age.
I do hope MGM gets things together soon because the clock is ticking.
When I say a people choice of Bond, I mean someone happy to embrace and become known for the character, fully comfortable in the role and all that entails. I'm sure Roger and Pierce had their detractors back in the day, but what struck you about them was how they could win over ordinary moviegoers with their natural charm and wit.
There is a trend lately of taking unknown or lesser known stars and putting them in leading roles of huge blockbuster franchises. It seems like the recieved wisdom now is that if an IP is big enough, it can sell itself without the need for star muscle. I've always thought Bond should be bigger than the guy wearing the suit and therefore finding someone who is lesser known, but still likable and outgoing enough to win people over seems like the right pitch for someone to succeed Craig. It only makes sense that after they took such a departure with Craig, a similar departure in the opposite direction is necessary now. A lot of the comments I see from Bond fans now remind me of the exasperation felt in 2002. I really feel like a similar transformation is necessary, this time back to the familiar instead of away from it.
Roger and Pierce embraced the role and enjoyed it immensely. They were both wonderful in interviews, exuded in charm and wit and represented each new film in a positive light.
I'd love for the next Bond actor to have those qualities, and stick around for the long haul (not just a few occasional films over the span of several years).
I don't think either had the same back up and they are both too old now. But even circa 2005 Clive Owen had his fans but nothing like the following Brosnan had when he got the role.
In 2005 from what I remember there was a pool of candidates, serious or not, each with their supporters but none having unanimity. I never understood what people saw in Clive Owen but there you go. On the long run that there was no clear successor to Brosnan in people's mind played to Craig's advantage. My bet is that he will not have a clear successor either. Maybe someone with a more classic look, but no heir apparent.
Exactly. Craig's upcoming kid could be the next Bond.
Owen would have been better than most, but for that time, it would have to be James Purefoy. As for Fassbender, that suggestion deserves a Selwyn Froggit.
True. The scary thing is, we may end up waiting 5-6 years for a final craig film and then another 5-6 years while they find an actor to take over, rather then just use the extra time NOW to find an actor rather than drag us through the dirt AGAIN after B25.
Selwyn Froggitt:
(2 thumbs up)
Fassbender has the right blend of smoothness and ruggedness, not too much of either. Definitely a missed opportunity.