Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Camp Bond/How society has changed Bond - What influenced it?
SirHilaryBray
Scotland
George Lazenby spoke on the EON documentary about what happened. He blames being influenced by his Manager/Friend Ronan O'Rahilly (a well known anti establishment figure who operated a pirate radio station from a ship at sea) O'Rahilly told George that EON were exploiting him, "that day of spy movies and a man in suit was no longer groovy" that Bond wouldn't last through the 70's because it was all peace and love and playing a part of a man working for establishment killing people is not what audiences want to see. He scared Lazenby in to thinking that Bond would ruin his career as an actor beyond OHMSS. Considering Lazenby only got in to the role because he wanted to meet women, he openly admits this himself, that he and his ex-girlfriend were watching Goldfinger and she wasn't paying him any attention, that she was drooling over Connery, Lazenby said "I wanted to be that guy".
O'Rahilly was a destructive influence on Lazenby. Lazenby was over partying, taking hallucinogenic substances and drinking too much. But O'Rahilly's logic was correct. The 1960's anti establishment and Hippy movement was in full flow the younger demographic were all as cliché as it is "Peace & Love".
Was O'Rahilly's logic likely expressed by Lazenby to EON as to why he would not return then acted upon by EON?
2 years after OHMSS Diamonds Are Forever saw the transition from Bond of old in to "Camp Bond" it adjusted for it's audience. Gone are establishment-esque dignitaries around the Secret Service building, Bond is taken out of Governmental London put in to the glitz and glamour of Las Vegas, flamboyancy!.
From memory the usual scenes of Bond and Moneypenny are done at the port rather than in the office, The Scenes with M are not of Bond taking orders as such but of Bond showing off with regards to the
BOND "I was referring to the original vintage on which the sherry is based. 1851. Unless I'm mistaken?"
Bond is showing off and behaving as a delinquent more so than any time before, was this EON saying Bond has become anti establishment too?
Was deliberately keeping the Moneypenny scenes out of the office a away of production dismissing the stuffy government office symbolic of "the establishment" while at the same time sending a message that women are more than just secretary's?
The Theme continues in Live & Let Die two years later. We do not open with a scene of Bond going M's office, flirting to Moneypenny at her desk before sitting in M's stuff old leather bound, mahogany smelling office instead we open at Bond's home, he not suited he's in a bathrobe and in a modern apartment a far cry from Bond's King's Road Chelsea apartment in Dr No.
These were deliberate moves to make Bond cool within their time. Roger Moore's comic delivery and flamboyant persona ticked boxed with the audience he was too cool to "work for the man" Moore's Bond was free loving, he just wanted to "keep the British end up" He was Bond for the Disco generation and each of his films his clothing and what he would do in those films would represent the cool fad's of their time i.e Skiing, Sc-Fi etc.
AVTAK represented the later 80's well it was more about advancements in technology and booming US economy in which Silicon Valley was key to the story.
By 1987 The Living Daylights shifted right back to Russia as the enemy, reflecting on the reflecting the Soviet V Afghan war fought between 1987-1989. Rogue men of power in the military lining their own pockets before the collapse of the USSR. It well documented such character's did use their power to extract personal wealth. With Thatcher's 3rd term as a PM commencing Conservative Government. And the after the Falklands War in 1982 it was "cool" to have a sense of pride in being British again. And the anti establishment message was now a silent cry for the working classes who were extremely hard done to due to the collapse of the Steel and Coal industries mainly through Thatcher's vision for a modern Britain. Gone with it were the camp elements and it was back to Gritty Bond. By the early 80's fashion it was cool to wear a suit, in particular a Double breasted suit. Even 80's rappers were wearing brightly coloured versions. And things remained this way through Brosnan's tenure, Brosnan's Bond was a company man.
A move in to the 90's Brosnan picked up Bond in similar time to Dalton, the countries working classes involved high unemployment and the mindset that John Majors Conservative Government only cared about London and the south.
by 1996 there were two massive movements in flow, the Rave Scene and the Indy scene. Like the hippy scene before, these were two movements reflecting on a feeling of social repression, young people who wanted to be heard "We deserve better" but nobody was listening. in 1997 Tony Blair's New Labour were voted in, a fresh forward thinking version of labour, and despite his failings by taking the UK to an illegal war in Iraq Blair's New Labour spent money, employment and opportunities and creative industries were booming. Again faced with the same problem before, Bond would have to adjust to its audience to survive then enemy would also have to change, the USSR was gone and a new Russia was on it's way. This saw a shift from a country being an enemy to be more about power hungry maniacs. Carver TND 1997 represents Rupert Murdoch and the threat and power of the media and following the Death of Princess Diana who's own death was a result of press and media intrusion it touched a note.
The nuclear threat of North Korea reflected by DAD was a return to focusing on rogue nations and corrupt individuals using their power for personal gain going back to TLD approach.
Entering Craigs tenure we go back to classic Bond, the enemy is more mythical, its no one country you are fighting or even one enemy but a syndicate, represented well by the current Isis threat or Al Queda threat where your enemy is known to you. All of which is very serious and there is little room for humour in the post 9/11 world.
SPECTRE - breaks the mould, because although the organisation SPECTRE represents the unknown enemy that we fight in the real world today, we have Conservative British government who again the working classes feel they are getting a bad deal it's very much back to the Thatcher era. And rather than reflect the doom and gloom on screen. SPECTRE choose to "Camp it" but not because of fashion, culture or current affairs it does it purely in attempt to be entertaining, while paying homage to the Bond films of the past, however the Bonds from the past are a reflection of their times. And this is why homage does not work as the context has been lost with the times.
On Conclusion, EON I am sure would have seen their audiences perception of what is cool change, I think Lazenbys reasons for declining the mulit picture deal on the table did drive it home that they were going to have to change Bond around culture. And it has never stopped doing so.
We have major culture shifts around every 30 years. The Swinging 60's the Brit Pop 90's that would make the next one some time in the 2020's Bond will continue to change to reflect it's times and it will be interesting to see how.
O'Rahilly was a destructive influence on Lazenby. Lazenby was over partying, taking hallucinogenic substances and drinking too much. But O'Rahilly's logic was correct. The 1960's anti establishment and Hippy movement was in full flow the younger demographic were all as cliché as it is "Peace & Love".
Was O'Rahilly's logic likely expressed by Lazenby to EON as to why he would not return then acted upon by EON?
2 years after OHMSS Diamonds Are Forever saw the transition from Bond of old in to "Camp Bond" it adjusted for it's audience. Gone are establishment-esque dignitaries around the Secret Service building, Bond is taken out of Governmental London put in to the glitz and glamour of Las Vegas, flamboyancy!.
From memory the usual scenes of Bond and Moneypenny are done at the port rather than in the office, The Scenes with M are not of Bond taking orders as such but of Bond showing off with regards to the
BOND "I was referring to the original vintage on which the sherry is based. 1851. Unless I'm mistaken?"
Bond is showing off and behaving as a delinquent more so than any time before, was this EON saying Bond has become anti establishment too?
Was deliberately keeping the Moneypenny scenes out of the office a away of production dismissing the stuffy government office symbolic of "the establishment" while at the same time sending a message that women are more than just secretary's?
The Theme continues in Live & Let Die two years later. We do not open with a scene of Bond going M's office, flirting to Moneypenny at her desk before sitting in M's stuff old leather bound, mahogany smelling office instead we open at Bond's home, he not suited he's in a bathrobe and in a modern apartment a far cry from Bond's King's Road Chelsea apartment in Dr No.
These were deliberate moves to make Bond cool within their time. Roger Moore's comic delivery and flamboyant persona ticked boxed with the audience he was too cool to "work for the man" Moore's Bond was free loving, he just wanted to "keep the British end up" He was Bond for the Disco generation and each of his films his clothing and what he would do in those films would represent the cool fad's of their time i.e Skiing, Sc-Fi etc.
AVTAK represented the later 80's well it was more about advancements in technology and booming US economy in which Silicon Valley was key to the story.
By 1987 The Living Daylights shifted right back to Russia as the enemy, reflecting on the reflecting the Soviet V Afghan war fought between 1987-1989. Rogue men of power in the military lining their own pockets before the collapse of the USSR. It well documented such character's did use their power to extract personal wealth. With Thatcher's 3rd term as a PM commencing Conservative Government. And the after the Falklands War in 1982 it was "cool" to have a sense of pride in being British again. And the anti establishment message was now a silent cry for the working classes who were extremely hard done to due to the collapse of the Steel and Coal industries mainly through Thatcher's vision for a modern Britain. Gone with it were the camp elements and it was back to Gritty Bond. By the early 80's fashion it was cool to wear a suit, in particular a Double breasted suit. Even 80's rappers were wearing brightly coloured versions. And things remained this way through Brosnan's tenure, Brosnan's Bond was a company man.
A move in to the 90's Brosnan picked up Bond in similar time to Dalton, the countries working classes involved high unemployment and the mindset that John Majors Conservative Government only cared about London and the south.
by 1996 there were two massive movements in flow, the Rave Scene and the Indy scene. Like the hippy scene before, these were two movements reflecting on a feeling of social repression, young people who wanted to be heard "We deserve better" but nobody was listening. in 1997 Tony Blair's New Labour were voted in, a fresh forward thinking version of labour, and despite his failings by taking the UK to an illegal war in Iraq Blair's New Labour spent money, employment and opportunities and creative industries were booming. Again faced with the same problem before, Bond would have to adjust to its audience to survive then enemy would also have to change, the USSR was gone and a new Russia was on it's way. This saw a shift from a country being an enemy to be more about power hungry maniacs. Carver TND 1997 represents Rupert Murdoch and the threat and power of the media and following the Death of Princess Diana who's own death was a result of press and media intrusion it touched a note.
The nuclear threat of North Korea reflected by DAD was a return to focusing on rogue nations and corrupt individuals using their power for personal gain going back to TLD approach.
Entering Craigs tenure we go back to classic Bond, the enemy is more mythical, its no one country you are fighting or even one enemy but a syndicate, represented well by the current Isis threat or Al Queda threat where your enemy is known to you. All of which is very serious and there is little room for humour in the post 9/11 world.
SPECTRE - breaks the mould, because although the organisation SPECTRE represents the unknown enemy that we fight in the real world today, we have Conservative British government who again the working classes feel they are getting a bad deal it's very much back to the Thatcher era. And rather than reflect the doom and gloom on screen. SPECTRE choose to "Camp it" but not because of fashion, culture or current affairs it does it purely in attempt to be entertaining, while paying homage to the Bond films of the past, however the Bonds from the past are a reflection of their times. And this is why homage does not work as the context has been lost with the times.
On Conclusion, EON I am sure would have seen their audiences perception of what is cool change, I think Lazenbys reasons for declining the mulit picture deal on the table did drive it home that they were going to have to change Bond around culture. And it has never stopped doing so.
We have major culture shifts around every 30 years. The Swinging 60's the Brit Pop 90's that would make the next one some time in the 2020's Bond will continue to change to reflect it's times and it will be interesting to see how.
^ 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
Also, I think it's actually possible that they're remaking the Dr No - Die Another Day series. The fact that the Craig series is a reboot apparently isn't strongly rooted in people's minds, yet - remaking Dr No and thus forth would definitely solidify that and also show the progress of films over time, but it's risky in that the films generally have to be good (and obviously have some twists of their own). If they're making Dr No after Bond 25 (Craig's last one, presumably in 2018), then the release date is either 2020 or 2021, so yeah, the 2020's sounds like a major shift for Bond no matter whether or not you remake the series, and that's probably just because we're getting a new Bond for the first time in one and a half decades.
After the success of Mad Men I would agree that there is market to go back and do vintage Bond from the start. But as long as Barbara and Mike are going I can never see them remaking their father/step fathers work. They will always say Bond must move forward.
What I think they need to do is look at a vintage Bond but go back and focus on the idea in Flemings novels that were over looked such as a majority TMWGG, as well as some of the excellent novels written by other authors set back then, yes take it back to when such a spy was relevant but not to trample over heritage and old ground. I would be far more accepting of a period bond than a modern Bond struggling to find his place and just paying homage.
You are quite right about spectre, too often the Bond series has fallen victim of trying to pay homage to the past and chase after something old rather than create NEW. The Bond series should always strive to represent the current times and moods, of course you have to sprinkle in references, but go too far and you end up with something thats new, but feels old and tired (DAD).
Here's the thing - the series will be moving forward. It's not going back, and it means we can stop paying homage to the Bond series by bringing back the Aston Martin DB5 over and over again. We're producing those films for the now, at the very present. The vastly different world as compared to the 60's, 70's, and when the time comes to produce the FYEO-LTK remakes, the 80's, means that we're hardly just ripping off the vintage films. If anything, we're not so much "going back" to those films as we are "pushing them forward".
SPECTRE, of course, will have to be far more technologically based, and things like Bond not knowing what SPECTRE was in DN will have to be retconned, but this is, after all, a retconned continuity. With the re-introduction of SPECTRE and another Craig movie to build things up, we could well be on our way to restarting the franchise with SPECTRE (the organization). That way, when Blofeld kills Bond's wife and Bond exacts vengeance on Blofeld (preferably through something like an intense choking fight like in the novel), there will be so much more depth and meaning to those scenes.
For me, at least, this is a far better alternative than trying to create new Bonds that are still trying to pay homage to older Bonds.
I think the problem with DAD was that the total lack of change in the Brosnan films. It worked in GE and to an extent, in TND. But when we got to TWINE, we knew what to expect. Machinegun fire, remote-controlled cars, excessive CGI, etc. That's why, by DAD, it was just flat-out stale. Brosnan's Bond never changed in his films - even Moore made different types of Bond movies. For instance, LALD was something of a genuine spy movie, but TMWTGG became more of a personal rivalry between Bond and the villain (marred by the solar energy subplot, but still). TSWLM became a romantic/action epic, and Moonraker was an attempt to become the king of cheese. FYEO went back to the sublime, before OP took it back to cheese with an adventure-styled spy thriller (and a couple of cheesy bits). AVTAK really could've been a genuine spy thriller like FRWL, too, but it was marred by a number of idiotic elements.
The point being, every (long-lasting) actor needs to have different types of Bond films to be regarded as a good Bond. Even Craig followed that. That's probably why Moore, despite the cheese, lasted so long, and why Brosnan is now regarded as stale and pathetic. That being said, as my childhood Bond, I'll always hold Brosnan in my heart as a great Bond.
Very interesting, so what your saying it although Craigs Bond is set in present times, his adventure pre date Dr No. The timeline reference is therefore not an alternative universe but to the event taking place at different point in the future and that after Spectre naturally the events of Dr No would follow. But Dr No is the first Bond learns of Spectre that would need to be changed and then you get in to the realm of the "Psycho" Remake with Vince Vaughn where you take something precious to its fans, chew it up re-arrange it and spit it in their faces. I can't see remakes.
My bad, I meant "continuity" when I said "community" before.
Anyway, Bond not knowing what SPECTRE is in Dr No is hardly anything big. The only reason it's relevant at all is because it was the first Bond movie, so it needed to set everything in place. Retconning that is no more a problem than to think of an MacGuffin for FRWL that works as a modernized Lektor. We're all aware of SPECTRE now - there's no need to have Bond be unaware of it anymore. They can just change it to Bond being surprised that Dr No is a member of SPECTRE or something.
Interesting point, I agree with your thoughts on DAD. The series has always been reliant on formula, but it had little variation in the Brosnan era. Even looking at simple aesthetics, they barely differ. Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me might be pretty much the same movie, but I always associate MR with space and TSWLM with water.
I guess the point is that the series constantly moving from one end of the spectrum to the next is actually necessary to keep it feeling fresh. You need a MR to balance out FYEO and you need LTK to get to GE. The series is constantly going back and forth in styles and moods. It's like a moving pendulum that keeps the Bond movies ticking. Get too many in a row that are similar and you end up being in trouble.
I still have great appreciation for Brosnan as well, GE is sublime and I quite enjoy TND and TWINE as well, despite their problems. DAD is simply one step too many.
Again back to the films of their times, Moore's and Brosnan tenure came at a time when technology was moving so fast there was incredible fast advancements being made and the films got hooked on the technology aspects just like the public.
Current/Politics/Technology/Fashion/Art/Music will always influence a Bonds tenure. SirCLMDBCRaig you a right each film is a time capsule.