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
ANALYSIS - Why 'Goldfinger' isn't the best Bond film and never was.
I've written a few of these before and they have gone done well and I thought it was apt to re-consider 'Goldfinger' especially since it's 50th anniversary is fast approaching. Before people inevitably declare for the thread to be locked I actually encourage you to read my thoughts and see that this is not a typical discussion but more an analysis of the film itself.
Blockbuster Bond:
I've always had an odd relationship with 'Goldfinger'. Despite many fans and critics declaring it as the 'best' or 'quintessential' Bond film, I've always felt that the two films that preceded it where by far superior and even the later Bond films built upon the work in 'Goldfinger'. As a result of this status 'Goldfinger' has been able to achieve over the last 50 years I can't help but feel the film comes with so much baggage even before you have seen a minute of film.
Often films struggle to conjure up at least one indelible image that will endure for years to come but 'Goldfinger' is something of an anomaly as the film is littered with classic cinematic moments. For these reasons I've always felt it difficult to view the film objectively and as a result I often find it difficult to immerse myself heavily into the film's drama.
However, despite saying this it's undeniable that GF is a fantastically entertaining yarn with the filmmaking brio on show from director Guy Hamilton and his cohorts always being highly creative and very inventive. For my tastes the film veers a little too heavily towards the fantasy genre opposed to the previous Connery movies which felt like they were set in the real world with fantastical elements. Moments like the military falling dead on the spot or characters such like Oddjob all feel a little too cartoony for my liking.
'Goldfinger' feels like the forefather to the more outlandish Bond films like 'The Spy who Loved Me', 'Moonraker' and 'Die Another Day'. The more cartoony/comic-book-type of Bond films have never really sat that well with me. James Bond and the world he inhabits exists somewhere between fantasy and reality and there are aspects of 'Goldfinger's plot which veer far from this trajectory. The best segments of the film exploit this element well, for instance the laser table sequence which is totally ridiculous but still suspenseful and exciting. But other segments (pretty much every scene with Oddjob and his hat) just seem far too fantastical and at odds with the film and the rest of the series.
Personally I prefer the more scaled back approach in both 'Dr. No' and 'From Russia with Love', both these films for me perfectly blend together the sexy and exotic world that James Bond lives and combined with of danger and brutality. 'Goldfinger', unlike it's predecessors, seems like a much more conscious attempt to make a more commercially viable product and as a result the sex and grit has been scaled back with more emphasis being placed on creating grand entertaining set-pieces to please mass audiences.
The attempt to make the Bond brand more commercial is no more evident in the way 'Goldfinger' panders to the American market. The film primarily takes place in the US (despite many sequences being filmed in England) and the plot itself is very US-centric. At the time america boasted the largest cinematic market and it therefore made sense that the Bond producers would actively chase after that crowd but I feel the movie is compromised visually as a result. One of the great things about 'Dr. No' was being transported to an exotic location which you may never have visited before, and in 'From Russia with Love' you get to go to a sexy, glamorous and chic locale where you'd imagine much intrigue and espionage was afoot. 'Goldfinger' is a little flat looking in comparison with the slight excursion in Switzerland proving far too brief.
The Americanisation of the Bond brand is further evident after Bond saves the day and is saluted by the US military and the CIA before hopping on a plane to meet the President. I don't think you'd see scenes like this in a Bond movie today (thankfully).
Guy Hamilton and Sean Connery:
For me GF heralded an era where the plot and story of Bond movies began to give way to an over-reliance on hardware and technology. It's a credit to Sean Connery's performance that he doesn't get overshadowed by all the gear (well at least for 2/3rd of the movie). For instance, take Roger Moore in 'The Spy who Loved Me'; Moore's performance is literally buried by all the excess on show with the actor proving the least memorial part of that movie. In the most part, 'Goldfinger' carries the balancing act off rather well with the gadgets being very memorial and fun additions to the story that once again show the inventive nature of the filmmaking team behind 'Goldfinger' at work. John Stear's magnificent Aston Martin DB5 is a marvel and Ken Adam's contributions are once again first rate. The whole Aston Martin chase is so inventive and brilliant and is expertly edited by Peter Hunt. It's a perfectly put together chase as we slowly see Bond dispatch each of his enemies using a new toy from Q at each interval, throughout you are salivating at the prospect of seeing what else this car can do.
As I said the film is terrifically entertaining with a particular highlight for me being Guy Hamilton's direction. Throughout the film Hamilton acknowledges the ridiculous nature of Bond's world and and as a result his film is knowingly self-aware of the inherently silly nature of the plot, nonetheless the movie never descends into self-parody. Hamilton requires his actor's to play the scenes straight with no sly winking to the audience, in addition the craft of the film is impeccable so it's clear that 'Goldfinger' isn't a film to be laughed at instead you should be laughing with it.
Hamilton's filmmaking is undeniably inventive and often I admired the clever little reversals that outsmart and toy with the audience's expectations that appear throughout. For instance, take the scene between Bond and Oddjob are in the vault; it seems that Oddjob has the upper hand over 007 throughout the fight until Bond is able to grab hold of Oddjob's hat. The music changes suddenly and we see glint of victory in Bond's eye and the look of dread in Oddjob's, it would seem that the brute will be hoisted by his own petard. It makes dramatic sense that Oddjob will meet his demise this way but Hamilton plays with the audience's expectation and instead has Bond miss the throw and immediately the scene becomes much more dramatic and exciting as we lean closer to the edge of our seat to see how Bond will get out of this conundrum. This is 'entertainment' filmmaking at it's best and you get see the DNA of Hamilton's direction in many films that followed, especially in other films inspired by the Bond series like Steven Spielberg's 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.
Hamilton pulls this trick off consistently throughout the film's runtime. For instance 007's message in Solo's pocket would seem to be his calling card out of Auric Stud but it winds up being destroyed in the car-crusher and also after Bond is spared on the laser table he is abruptly shot. This device appears throughout the film and to me it shows Hamilton at his most inventive and creative best. While the sex and danger may be toned down somewhat the film is grand and audacious and it has noticeably earned it's plaudits as a result.
The performances are also great with Connery really standing out. After 3 films it's clear that Connery has finally honed the 007 character in 'Goldfinger'. In the previous two films Bond was a little rough around the edges but it is in 'Goldfinger' it's seems that Sean has become more relaxed and effortlessly embodies the role of the gentleman spy. Connery is the living embodiment of nonchalance and cool, even when Goldfinger has him under lock and key Bond still waltzes around Auric Stud like he owns the place. He's also a fine actor and brings real nuance and subtly to the role whether it be the simple clenching of his jaw or a look from those menacing eyes. I have always found Connery to be a very confident and natural actor with nothing stagy or hammy about his performances.
Also pay attention during the more suspenseful scenes those are real beads of sweat growing on the great 007's brow. 'Goldfinger' was made before Connery's bitterness with the franchise began to blossom (apparently he had negotiated a 5% gross on this film's box office) and it's clear from interviews at the time and his performance that not only was he completely dedicated but he was also having fun.
He also looks very impressive and 'Goldfinger' gives Connery apt opportunity to operate at his full alpha-male instincts. When playing Bond a lot of the performance comes down to the 'look' and Bond really never looked better then when Connery played him (I think every man in the world must have wanted that grey three-piece suit). I also can't quite get over how cool Mr. Connery looks whenever he learns against a bar in a tuxedo.
Craft and Summary:
As I have stated the craft of the movie is fantastic. In particular Ken Adam has to be singled out. His sets are stunning and often I was mesmerised how ambitious and grand they where for 1960's filmmaking standards. Take the whole of the Fort Knox exterior and interior as examples, they are so vast and massively impressive even by standards today. There is an amazing shot of Bond being lowered into the vault where the camera pulls out to capture the majesty of Adam's vision realised. However, for me the man of the match award goes to John Barry, his score is brilliant and the most enduring element of the film for me. The music constantly gives me goosebumps but at the same time it can also be jaunty, suspenseful and exciting.
Gert Frobe is also perfectly vile and grotesque as Goldfinger. Goldfinger is such a ridiculous cartoon villain but Frobe makes the character easy to dislike and chews up the scenery with a very tasty role. Honour Blackman is also great and a very strong and sassy female presence in the film. I wish we had a little more of Pussy especially considering it is her who ultimately saves the day. Considering how well she worked throughout the film and given her chemistry with Sean it's a shame the film doesn't find something better for her to do in the final act of the movie. Cec Linder barely registers in his performance as Felix Leiter, while all the MI6 regulars are great with Desmond Llewelyn deserving to be singled out.
Another issue I had with the film was the plotting and story, for the most part the stakes seem virtually nonexistent. It is not really until the third act begins and Goldfinger's plan becomes clear that the film's story really comes to live with the execution of Goldfinger's heist being by far the best segment of the film for me. The intercutting between Bond and Oddjob's fight inside the vault and the army outside Fort Knox is an expertly designed action sequence by the film's editor Peter Hunt and the film's real highlight. Also you may be pleased to know the best (in the most part) as aged rather gracefully, with Pussy Galore's flying circus providing the only groan-worthy moment.
So in summary, GF is a fun entertaining and breezy film (the pacing is breakneck throughout the film, it's the quickest 110 minutes of your life) even though I feel that it's status as the 'best' or 'quintessential' Bond film is slightly misplaced. However, it is a fun inventive piece of filmmaking even is it is slightly fantastical and cartoony for my tastes.
Blockbuster Bond:
I've always had an odd relationship with 'Goldfinger'. Despite many fans and critics declaring it as the 'best' or 'quintessential' Bond film, I've always felt that the two films that preceded it where by far superior and even the later Bond films built upon the work in 'Goldfinger'. As a result of this status 'Goldfinger' has been able to achieve over the last 50 years I can't help but feel the film comes with so much baggage even before you have seen a minute of film.
Often films struggle to conjure up at least one indelible image that will endure for years to come but 'Goldfinger' is something of an anomaly as the film is littered with classic cinematic moments. For these reasons I've always felt it difficult to view the film objectively and as a result I often find it difficult to immerse myself heavily into the film's drama.
However, despite saying this it's undeniable that GF is a fantastically entertaining yarn with the filmmaking brio on show from director Guy Hamilton and his cohorts always being highly creative and very inventive. For my tastes the film veers a little too heavily towards the fantasy genre opposed to the previous Connery movies which felt like they were set in the real world with fantastical elements. Moments like the military falling dead on the spot or characters such like Oddjob all feel a little too cartoony for my liking.
'Goldfinger' feels like the forefather to the more outlandish Bond films like 'The Spy who Loved Me', 'Moonraker' and 'Die Another Day'. The more cartoony/comic-book-type of Bond films have never really sat that well with me. James Bond and the world he inhabits exists somewhere between fantasy and reality and there are aspects of 'Goldfinger's plot which veer far from this trajectory. The best segments of the film exploit this element well, for instance the laser table sequence which is totally ridiculous but still suspenseful and exciting. But other segments (pretty much every scene with Oddjob and his hat) just seem far too fantastical and at odds with the film and the rest of the series.
Personally I prefer the more scaled back approach in both 'Dr. No' and 'From Russia with Love', both these films for me perfectly blend together the sexy and exotic world that James Bond lives and combined with of danger and brutality. 'Goldfinger', unlike it's predecessors, seems like a much more conscious attempt to make a more commercially viable product and as a result the sex and grit has been scaled back with more emphasis being placed on creating grand entertaining set-pieces to please mass audiences.
The attempt to make the Bond brand more commercial is no more evident in the way 'Goldfinger' panders to the American market. The film primarily takes place in the US (despite many sequences being filmed in England) and the plot itself is very US-centric. At the time america boasted the largest cinematic market and it therefore made sense that the Bond producers would actively chase after that crowd but I feel the movie is compromised visually as a result. One of the great things about 'Dr. No' was being transported to an exotic location which you may never have visited before, and in 'From Russia with Love' you get to go to a sexy, glamorous and chic locale where you'd imagine much intrigue and espionage was afoot. 'Goldfinger' is a little flat looking in comparison with the slight excursion in Switzerland proving far too brief.
The Americanisation of the Bond brand is further evident after Bond saves the day and is saluted by the US military and the CIA before hopping on a plane to meet the President. I don't think you'd see scenes like this in a Bond movie today (thankfully).
Guy Hamilton and Sean Connery:
For me GF heralded an era where the plot and story of Bond movies began to give way to an over-reliance on hardware and technology. It's a credit to Sean Connery's performance that he doesn't get overshadowed by all the gear (well at least for 2/3rd of the movie). For instance, take Roger Moore in 'The Spy who Loved Me'; Moore's performance is literally buried by all the excess on show with the actor proving the least memorial part of that movie. In the most part, 'Goldfinger' carries the balancing act off rather well with the gadgets being very memorial and fun additions to the story that once again show the inventive nature of the filmmaking team behind 'Goldfinger' at work. John Stear's magnificent Aston Martin DB5 is a marvel and Ken Adam's contributions are once again first rate. The whole Aston Martin chase is so inventive and brilliant and is expertly edited by Peter Hunt. It's a perfectly put together chase as we slowly see Bond dispatch each of his enemies using a new toy from Q at each interval, throughout you are salivating at the prospect of seeing what else this car can do.
As I said the film is terrifically entertaining with a particular highlight for me being Guy Hamilton's direction. Throughout the film Hamilton acknowledges the ridiculous nature of Bond's world and and as a result his film is knowingly self-aware of the inherently silly nature of the plot, nonetheless the movie never descends into self-parody. Hamilton requires his actor's to play the scenes straight with no sly winking to the audience, in addition the craft of the film is impeccable so it's clear that 'Goldfinger' isn't a film to be laughed at instead you should be laughing with it.
Hamilton's filmmaking is undeniably inventive and often I admired the clever little reversals that outsmart and toy with the audience's expectations that appear throughout. For instance, take the scene between Bond and Oddjob are in the vault; it seems that Oddjob has the upper hand over 007 throughout the fight until Bond is able to grab hold of Oddjob's hat. The music changes suddenly and we see glint of victory in Bond's eye and the look of dread in Oddjob's, it would seem that the brute will be hoisted by his own petard. It makes dramatic sense that Oddjob will meet his demise this way but Hamilton plays with the audience's expectation and instead has Bond miss the throw and immediately the scene becomes much more dramatic and exciting as we lean closer to the edge of our seat to see how Bond will get out of this conundrum. This is 'entertainment' filmmaking at it's best and you get see the DNA of Hamilton's direction in many films that followed, especially in other films inspired by the Bond series like Steven Spielberg's 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.
Hamilton pulls this trick off consistently throughout the film's runtime. For instance 007's message in Solo's pocket would seem to be his calling card out of Auric Stud but it winds up being destroyed in the car-crusher and also after Bond is spared on the laser table he is abruptly shot. This device appears throughout the film and to me it shows Hamilton at his most inventive and creative best. While the sex and danger may be toned down somewhat the film is grand and audacious and it has noticeably earned it's plaudits as a result.
The performances are also great with Connery really standing out. After 3 films it's clear that Connery has finally honed the 007 character in 'Goldfinger'. In the previous two films Bond was a little rough around the edges but it is in 'Goldfinger' it's seems that Sean has become more relaxed and effortlessly embodies the role of the gentleman spy. Connery is the living embodiment of nonchalance and cool, even when Goldfinger has him under lock and key Bond still waltzes around Auric Stud like he owns the place. He's also a fine actor and brings real nuance and subtly to the role whether it be the simple clenching of his jaw or a look from those menacing eyes. I have always found Connery to be a very confident and natural actor with nothing stagy or hammy about his performances.
Also pay attention during the more suspenseful scenes those are real beads of sweat growing on the great 007's brow. 'Goldfinger' was made before Connery's bitterness with the franchise began to blossom (apparently he had negotiated a 5% gross on this film's box office) and it's clear from interviews at the time and his performance that not only was he completely dedicated but he was also having fun.
He also looks very impressive and 'Goldfinger' gives Connery apt opportunity to operate at his full alpha-male instincts. When playing Bond a lot of the performance comes down to the 'look' and Bond really never looked better then when Connery played him (I think every man in the world must have wanted that grey three-piece suit). I also can't quite get over how cool Mr. Connery looks whenever he learns against a bar in a tuxedo.
Craft and Summary:
As I have stated the craft of the movie is fantastic. In particular Ken Adam has to be singled out. His sets are stunning and often I was mesmerised how ambitious and grand they where for 1960's filmmaking standards. Take the whole of the Fort Knox exterior and interior as examples, they are so vast and massively impressive even by standards today. There is an amazing shot of Bond being lowered into the vault where the camera pulls out to capture the majesty of Adam's vision realised. However, for me the man of the match award goes to John Barry, his score is brilliant and the most enduring element of the film for me. The music constantly gives me goosebumps but at the same time it can also be jaunty, suspenseful and exciting.
Gert Frobe is also perfectly vile and grotesque as Goldfinger. Goldfinger is such a ridiculous cartoon villain but Frobe makes the character easy to dislike and chews up the scenery with a very tasty role. Honour Blackman is also great and a very strong and sassy female presence in the film. I wish we had a little more of Pussy especially considering it is her who ultimately saves the day. Considering how well she worked throughout the film and given her chemistry with Sean it's a shame the film doesn't find something better for her to do in the final act of the movie. Cec Linder barely registers in his performance as Felix Leiter, while all the MI6 regulars are great with Desmond Llewelyn deserving to be singled out.
Another issue I had with the film was the plotting and story, for the most part the stakes seem virtually nonexistent. It is not really until the third act begins and Goldfinger's plan becomes clear that the film's story really comes to live with the execution of Goldfinger's heist being by far the best segment of the film for me. The intercutting between Bond and Oddjob's fight inside the vault and the army outside Fort Knox is an expertly designed action sequence by the film's editor Peter Hunt and the film's real highlight. Also you may be pleased to know the best (in the most part) as aged rather gracefully, with Pussy Galore's flying circus providing the only groan-worthy moment.
So in summary, GF is a fun entertaining and breezy film (the pacing is breakneck throughout the film, it's the quickest 110 minutes of your life) even though I feel that it's status as the 'best' or 'quintessential' Bond film is slightly misplaced. However, it is a fun inventive piece of filmmaking even is it is slightly fantastical and cartoony for my tastes.
This discussion has been closed.
^ 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
But I always think the shift with GF is exagerated. Yes, it's very different from FRWL, but I have always argued that Dr No is actually the film that established the formula right from the get go. Pretty much verything is in Dr No that you would expect from the most formulaic Bond movie. I don't think Dr No is all that scaled back. An underground villain's lair complete with nuclear powerplant, echoey tannoy system and countless goons - it's utterly Austin Powers right there from day one. The only thing that prevented it being even 'bigger' was the budget, but considering the money they had, it's an amazing job.
So if I understand you correctly, you would rather name Dr. No, FRWL or maybe even CR as the best Bond film?
Personally I do think this is the quintessential Bond film. First of all Bond is actually spying throughout this adventure. Whether he is landing in Mexico in a covert operation to blow up illegal heroine installations, chase Goldfinger through Switzerland or finding out the nature of operation 'Grand Slam', he is essentially spying.
Being on the top of his game in the womanising-department, he seduces a girl twice to succeed in his mission. To me that is exactly who Bond is and also how I've interpreted the character from the novels as well.
His Aston Martin is only a slightly upgraded version of the one Fleming wrote about, and that was mainly done due to the success of Bond's attaché-case in FRWL because the audience was thrilled about that one. Once again this is a close reconstruction from the Bond universe in the models, where either Bond himself or Q-branch is constantly finding a way to conceal weaponry. I agree that this became far too futuristic already with the jet-pack in Thunderball, not to mention invisible cars and such, but a modest level of gadgetry was not unheard of when Fleming wrote the novels.
Finally, the main plan of the villain is indeed a rather big threat to the world, since the Western economies would collapse with the entire U.S. gold supply would degenerate in a time when currencies were still dependent on a country's gold supply (we've let go of this system in the '70's I believe). This time Bond actually was sort of saving the world, albeit with the help from his CIA buddy Felix. Now what's interesting is that in the novel Goldfinger and his fellow thugs were supposed to steal the entire Gold supply, using a huge amount of trucks and a very, very large train. As Sean's Bond correctly notices in the film, to load all these trucks and the train would take weeks. A more simple solution is chosen by making the gold radio active and therefore making the plot more believable than the novel.
I have referred a lot back to Fleming's original, mainly to point out that this film was a very close adaptation and a monstrous plot. It's only unfortunate we can't read Bond's mind about Tilly Masterson when he starts to chase her, since for me that was one of the best parts of the novel. However, Goldfinger isn't necessarily Fleming's best work in my opinion, so that alone wouldn't make a solid case.
Still, why I do think that this is one of the best if not the best is, like is pointed out above as well, that Sean's Bond acts rather relaxed, actually confident, while being on the top of his spying and seducing game, the way I prefer Bond to be. He meets the villain early on in the film and starts with a provocative approach which sparks an interesting relation between the two. There is an enjoyable level of gadgetry and Bond is constantly improvising on the situation to get out of every tough spot. Together with one of Barry's best soundtracks, fantastic directing and a very cool atmosphere throughout the film, I reckon this is indeed one of the best.
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/2185/why-is-goldfinger-the-general-favourite/p1
or here
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/2988/why-i-love-goldfinger/p1
Quick reminder: there's nothing wrong with existing threads.