1962-1963: In Which We Meet Mr. Bond… James Bond
1953. A man by the name of Ian Fleming writes a spy novel entitled Casino Royale. Our hero? British agent 007, his proper name being James Bond. He is an exceptionally good spy: intelligent, witty, and he uses women like tissue paper. It was only a matter of time before a major Hollywood studio picked up the rights to bring Fleming’s provocative series to the screen. Many early attempts fell through, as the series did not pass the eyeball test of many executives. An incredibly British series of spy films with strong (for the time) sexual content didn’t scream box office gold.
It was the producing team of Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman who would end up making the first James Bond film: Dr. No. They were not the first ones with the idea, as many had attempted to adapt the Fleming novels in the past. There was even a television special based on Casino Royale, but no one was writing home about it. The spy genre had yet to be truly established, and making a James Bond film would mean entering unfamiliar territory.
Not helping matters was the fact that Saltzman and Broccoli were Canadian and American, respectively. As such, it was necessary to hire a British director to bring Dr. No into fruition, and they found their man in Terence Young. Young was a confident man, and many on the set saw him as the real-life James Bond. He was tough, he was witty and he was good at his job. Now all they needed was an actor to play the lead, and after going through many choices (including Cary Grant and Roger Moore, the latter of which would eventually become Bond anyway) the team of Young, Broccoli and Saltzman decided on Sean Connery.
The pieces fell into place early, and as a result Dr. No was a success both creatively and commercially. It is far from a flawless movie, and it lacks many of the elements that would eventually make the series so great, but it lays the foundation beautifully. Dr. No is a film where the whole is not quite as great as the sum of its parts, and two scenes in particular stand out as key in the evolution of the character and thus the film series.
The first: the introduction of the character Honey Ryder, played by Ursula Andress. To this day her emergence from the ocean remains one of the most iconic moments the series ever produced. There were many “Bond girls” to come, but Ryder was the first. It may not be as risqué today as it was then, but it’s still an important moment in the series.
However, my favorite scene in Dr. No is the (spoiler alert) killing of Professor Dent, and this scene more than any other shows us the more violent and ruthless side of James Bond. Up until this point Bond had only killed because he needed to, but it all changes in the final confrontation with Dent. It begins with Bond alone, waiting for Dent to enter the house of Miss Taro. Bond merely waits, unfazed, playing cards with himself. Then Dent enters and undergoes a brief interrogation before Bond shoots him twice. Let no one forget that Bond, however witty and charming, is a brutal man.
Eventually it would become a common theory that a James Bond movie is only as good as its villain, and while this is not a definitive rule (there are a few great Bond films with weak villains, and two or so terrible Bond movies with memorable villains) more often than not it is the case. Dr. No gets the series off on the right foot in that regard, as the titular villain gets the most out of his limited screen time. Like many Bond villains to come, he was clearly quite wealthy, with intelligence to rival that of our hero’s.
After releasing Dr. No to admirable success, the next issue was determining what film was to come next. The decision was made quite simple when President John F. Kennedy released a list of his favorite books. One of them was Ian Fleming’s From Russia With Love. The film adaptation would be the final movie Kennedy ever saw, as his fateful trip to Dallas would occur just two days later.
As it turns out, From Russia With Love would not only become the film which set many Bond film conventions, but it also would become one of the best. Of all the Bond films, From Russia With Love might be the film that stands best on its own merits. If the “007” name were removed, we would still have a classic Cold War spy thriller. It has a greater humanity than most of the movies in the series, not to mention it’s just flat out exciting. Watching it today, you see a film ahead of its time.
Also introduced in From Russia With Love: the international crime syndicate SPECTRE, headed by the cat-loving Ernst Stavro Blofeld. The SPECTRE organization provided the closest thing to an overarching plotline the series would ever produce. In the first film, it is mentioned that Dr. No was himself a member of SPECTRE. The organization would also play a large part in Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and it would unwisely return (though not specifically by name) in the regrettable pre-title sequence of For Your Eyes Only.
Where Dr. No was a fairly straightforward story of a bad villain doing bad things with our hero swooping in to stop these bad things from happening, From Russia With Love tells a more complex and intriguing story where Bond is not always in charge of the situation. In fact, for most of From Russia With Love he is a pawn, playing right into the hands of SPECTRE. It’s only when Bond encounters SPECTRE agent Red Grant (Robert Shaw) on the Orient Express that he realizes the extent to which he has been played. The sequence between Bond and Grant, which begins with a long and fascinating conversation between the two and ends with a surprisingly violent fistfight, is one of the best scenes the series has ever produced.
If one were to make me list the James Bond films in order of greatness (please don’t) I have no doubt From Russia With Love would be toward the top. It’s a well-crafted film that you don’t feel stupid for enjoying, unlike some other Bond films. It doesn’t reach the levels of full-on escapist fantasy like others, but it stands on its own as a great film.
Above all, one of the greatest people the second film introduces us to is Q, played by Desmond Llewellyn. In later films, he would be the one to provide Bond with all of the gadgets which would become so famous. While the rapport between Bond and Q would become more enjoyable in later films, From Russia With Love gives us the first glimpse of Llewellyn, as he provides Bond with the attaché case which will become vital later.
The longevity of the Bond series is staggering, and it’s fascinating to see what exactly started the phenomenon. Good as Dr. No and From Russia With Love may be, neither suggest the birth of a film series which would last into the new millennium and beyond. This was merely the opening act, and Terence Young was able to create a couple of solid thrillers starring a fascinating character who was not only smooth and charming but violent and aggressive. In the years to come, however, this character would change personalities (and faces) several times over. Now is not the time to declare which Bond is best, because it’s more or less apples and oranges. Connery did Bond one way, Roger Moore would do it another, and so on. Nonetheless, in 1963 it was evident Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman were in the middle of making a successful series of films. What they did not expect was just how huge it was all about to become.
Next week: Goldfinger and Thunderball launch the world into a state of Bondmania.
No comments:
Post a Comment