Analysing the Bond Directors

edited December 2016 in Bond Movies Posts: 4,400
Analysing the Bond directors:

Terence Young –

MV5BMmUyYzZkODEtZTAwMy00ZGQ1LTgzM2QtY2YyNWQ3Yjk5YTAwXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDUzOTQ5MjY@._V1_UY317_CR14,0,214,317_AL_.jpg

Originated the style of the entire film series. Young was known for injecting that sense of glamour with violence that the series is most known for. He also bought the slightly darker sense of humour which wasn’t really present in Fleming’s books. Young wasn’t above a flamboyant or exaggerated gesture but he took the material seriously. Even when his tongue was firmly placed in his cheek he never undermined the drama by winking to the audience. There was also a considerable degree of paranoia injected into his films. There was more of a focus on Cold War espionage but Young never forgot the glamour and exotism of Bond’s world.

Guy Hamilton –

thumb.jpg?w=400

He made more broadly accessible films. Comic-book strips for adults. They were slightly more slapstick and outlandish. Hamilton was always more willing to embrace the camp and eccentric aspects of the series and play up to them. It was less about story and more about entertainment and creating impossible situations for Bond to tussle out of. They were louder, slightly more crass and more self-knowing films.

Lewis Gilbert –

lewis-gilbert.jpg

Scale, all about scale. Gilbert was defined by his affinity towards mega-productions which utlised multiple locations with massive action set-pieces. They were grand spectacle-laden films with a lot of scope, humour and escapism (and not much story). They were extraordinarily self-aware and not above winking to the audience and essentially parodying the previous films.

John Glen –

john_glen.JPG

The most action-intensive of the series. An emphasis placed on real stunts – Glen probably has the best actual actions sequences of the entire series in his films. His approach is grounded by a certain degree of realism. They moved away from the more stylised approach of the earlier films and he only occasionally indulged in the camp and knowing aspects of the series. His films are also marked out for their rather banal visual style that didn’t have the same sense of class and glamour of previous entries. Unfortunately, there is a sense that they are all very forgettable and interchangeable.

Martin Campbell –

movies-martin-campbell.jpg

The man you get to revitalise the franchise. Twice he has performed the same task to different degrees of taxation. Known for rejuvenating the series with new blood and providing fresh slants on the mythology. Also he is known for his abilty to string together a big action sequences, but also for his smaller intense fight scenes. One of the first directors to really humanise Bond and understand him psychologically. Never to the point of naval-gazing and maintains the glamour and entertainment quota expected.

Sam Mendes –

sam-mendes.jpg?w=446&h=299&crop=1

Injecting the series with more portent. His films are known for focussing on Bond’s psychology; giving him a backstory and focussing on his origins. Mendes’s entries are thematically more rich than previous directors, with focus on themes such as aging, relevancy and mid-life fatigue. Also noted for taking iconic tropes from the series and reinventing or subverting them. Also deserves singling out for the excellent casts he gathered and the top production values.

One-Timers:

Peter Hunt: A real sense of class and polish to his approach. Most distinguished for making the most elegant and romantic Bond film. Equally known for his editing skills and cutting together some very more frenetic and intense fight scenes.
Roger Spottiswoode: Generic cookie-cutter direction. Most distinguished for making a tighter and pacier film that ran under two hours.
Michael Aped: More emphasis on the melodrama. Known for his attempt to incorporate women and politics more into the story.
Lee Tamahori: Loud, crass direction for the video-game generation.
Marc Forster: Surprisingly action-centric considering his background. Slightly more esoteric and abstract in his handling of story and editing. Bit more “arty” than you’d expect from Bond.

Comments

  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 538

    Lewis Gilbert

    Scale, all about scale. Gilbert was defined by his affinity towards mega-productions which utlised multiple locations with massive action set-pieces. They were grand spectacle

    He was sort of like a mini version of Kubrick. He was very good at making a visually appealing set and immersing the viewer in an atmosphere, but story was his Achilles heel.

    He literally used the same story all 3 of his movies (yolt/tswlm/mr)


    John Glen

    The most action-intensive of the series. ... grounded by a certain degree of realism. They moved away from the more stylised approach of the earlier films .. rather banal visual style ... all very forgettable and interchangeable.

    Glen's legacy is really hard to assess. In a sense, he's a great Bond director. His 5 films (fyeo thru ltk) are a diverse catalogue of the silly, the serious and in between - maybe the best of the directors overall. But he's very transparent. He has no signature style, technique or philosophy.

    None of his Bond films could singlehandedly be considered groundbreaking or classics, but he has transformed the series from a gentle spy franchise to a modern action franchise. I don't think we've could've had the films that Campbell made without Glen.


    Sam Mendes

    Injecting the series with more portent. His films are known for focussing on Bond’s psychology; giving him a backstory and focussing on his origins. Mendes’s entries are thematically more rich than previous directors, with focus on themes such as aging, relevancy and mid-life fatigue. Also noted for taking iconic tropes from the series and reinventing or subverting them. Also deserves singling out for the excellent casts he gathered and the top production values.

    He did an amazing job with American Beauty, and we saw a little bit of that emotion with Skyfall. Not so much in Spectre. Spectre still had the cinematic and visual quality present in Skyfall but the emotional aspect didn't work. Not because Mendes couldn't, but because the bad writing limited how much the viewer could actually get emotional enough. Bond finally meeting Dr. Evil wasn't nearly as just of a cause for awe as Bond overcoming being a drafted orphan or a suburban family torn apart by neglect.

    Peter Hunt:A real sense of class and polish to his approach. Most distinguished for making the most elegant and romantic Bond film. Equally known for his editing skills and cutting together some very more frenetic and intense fight scenes.

    He was definitely good at the shots and the overall vision, but I think his friction with Lazenby on set was something he could've handled better. He downplayed Lazenby's individual strengths in the film in seeing him only as a replaceable layman.

    Roger Spottiswoode: Generic cookie-cutter direction. Most distinguished for making a tighter and pacier film that ran under two hours.

    Yet, his movie didn't feel much shorter or tighter than the others. He has a good eye for action, but that's really it. He's really more of an assistant director than a director.

    Michael Apted: More emphasis on the melodrama. Known for his attempt to incorporate women and politics more into the story.

    Apted had really good ideas with the story and characters, but when it comes to directing, he just didn't direct well. Boat chase scene early on was awkwardly chopped up, to fit it as the pre-title sequence. A lot of the scenes lacked atmosphere and emotion. Bond skiing wasn't frantic or icy. It was just Bond skiing. Renard's introduction wasn't hellish or disturbing. It was just him introducing himself. He didn't really incorporate much mis en scene.

    Lee Tamahori: Loud, crass direction for the video-game generation.

    I don't think he intended to make Die Another Day what it ended up being. It was a byproduct of poor planning - not part of his vision. During early stages of production, he told interviewers he was inspired by the older classic Bond films. I can kind of see what he meant by that in the first act of it, but eventually, he led himself into a corner he couldn't get out of and relied on bad CGI to escape him out an impossible script.

    Marc Forster: Surprisingly action-centric considering his background. Slightly more esoteric and abstract in his handling of story and editing. Bit more “arty” than you’d expect from Bond.

    I think he isn't given the proper credit he deserved. Craig made a good call on choosing Forster. He was in a tight crunch having to rush on a deadline and writing part of the script himself. He tried in many subtle ways to experiment in deviating the Bond formula. It was overtly political and ahead of its time in focusing on environmentalism and price gouging. Having a purely believable villain was a smart choice because a gang leader with an eye patch and a nuclear submarine would've been too cliche. And even without a real script, he managed to preserve the frantic emotions from Casino Royale. Some things from QOS are corny in hindsight, but some scenes have really aged well such as the opening chase and the opera scene.

  • Gilbert being akin to Kubrick is a massive overstatement. LG was by all means a great director but you’re clearly referring to Ken Adam with yours comments. Adams’ was the true auteur of the Bond movies.

    As you mention his films were massively derivative. Almost like he was attempting to perfect the one story.
    Saying Glen is the best director merely as he made the most films is foolhardy. His films are the most personality-less and generic in the series – Bond films were typically marked for their sense of class and style, something Glen mostly ignored.

    The banal 80’s glut of Bond films all came courtesy of Glen.
    With Mendes; I always maintain that Skyfall is an excellent Sam Mendes film, that just so happens to be Bond film. Spectre is Sam Mendes trying to make a Bond film – he essentially succeeded the first time out on his own merit, but failed with SP on someone elses.
    Hunt; I disagree. The friction is never visible and if it is, it merely enhances Laz’s already shoddy performance. Hunt is the real star of OHMSS and Laz should have stepped up. I mean he’s James Bond, there’s no time to be a shrinking violet, he had the chance to outshine his director. Look at Campbell and Craig; CR is amazingly directed film but Craig did not shy away.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    edited December 2016 Posts: 538

    Gilbert being akin to Kubrick is a massive overstatement

    Nowhere is he near Kubrick's talent (especially in terms of originality and intellectual property), but I meant that both pay far more attention to the costumes, lighting, color, props, etc. than the script.

    Almost like he was attempting to perfect the one story.

    More like he was neglecting the story. Like he already had the story perfect with Yolt and then decided to just introduce gorgeous atmospheres. He got away with it for 2 films because both films were great, but eventually with Moonraker, he ran into a brick wall.

    I can understand it from EON's perspective. He saved Moore's tenureSpy was Moore's most successful film, after its shaky predecessor, so let's keep going in the same direction. And they weren't inclined to criticize a man who churned out two hits.


    Saying Glen is the best director merely as he made the most films is foolhardy.

    I never said he was the best - just that he had the best catalogue (IMO). Beatles have a better catalogue than Zeppelin, but they're not better than Zeppelin.

    Glen didn't have extraordinary directing talent, but his contribution to the series is much understated. He was able to ground the series after the excesses of Moonraker, but still delivered a colorful Moore film in Octopussy which had great action/visuals alongside a tense plot which co-existed with lots of humor. LALD was a great fit for Moore, but the 3 films after it tried too hard to copy Connery's successes, but Octopussy felt like it was tailor fitted for Sir Roger.


    He mis-stepped with Avtak but saved the series with Dalton's films. Neither of Dalton's films were "classics" but both forever changed the series. Glen was able to work well with two vastly different actors and tailor the film to their needs. He presided over a long but critical period of the franchise.

    The banal 80’s glut of Bond films all came courtesy of Glen.

    Which was better than the 70's and 90's.

    I always maintain that Skyfall is an excellent Sam Mendes film, that just so happens to be Bond film.

    And that's what I like about it. It's unique and has the director's own personal flavor on it. Likewise, Quantum felt like a Forster film. he essentially succeeded the first time out on his own merit, but failed with SP on someone elses.

    Spectre is Sam Mendes trying to make a Bond film.

    Yes, he had less to work with. EON wanted more Skyfall (and more cash), but without any real direction to continue in. And this is something I disagree with EON on. Just because an actor or director is successful, doesn't mean it should be repeated. It should not be taken as a rejection if a really successful talented director is jettisoned in favor of a new one.

    If I were Barbara, I would've said "Skyfall was great. Now, let's make a Dr. No"


    Hunt; I disagree. The friction is never visible and if it is, it merely enhances Laz’s already shoddy performance. Hunt is the real star of OHMSS and Laz should have stepped up.

    Hunt was really good at shots/editing/overall vision, OHMSS was one of the better Bond movies, and I'd put Hunt in the top 5 Bond directors probably, but I think his inability to work well with Lazenby was a mistake in my opinion.

    Lazenby cried during the finale but he cut it because "Bond doesn't cry". He avoided a lot of face-shots of Lazenby and treated him as a placeholder for Connery rather than the star of the film. By no means am I saying Lazenby had a career as a full-on Bond actor, but while he was around for this film, they should have worked with him. He was young and immature, but I think the onus was on the older more experienced people on set to acknowledge the situation and be lenient on his limitations.

    Rigg's friction with him did show. She was wooden. None of the love scenes were anything more than competent. No real flirting or romance was conveyed emotionally, especially for a marriage.


  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Do you wanna do Irving Kirshner, John Huston, Ken Hughes, Val Guest, Robert Parrish, Joseph Mcgraph and Richard Talmadge?
  • Posts: 2,887
    Keep in mind that lots of action sequences in the Bond films were actually shot by the second-unit directors. That's especially true in the case of the more recent Bonds (though even in YOLt Hunt was doing second-unit work).
Sign In or Register to comment.