59 replies to this topic

[General Koskov]

I cannot see myself enjoying You Only Live Twice in the manner of the 'good' Bonds, but Zencat has sure improved the experience!

Dahl would be the right man to put James Bond in the afterlife. If only there wasn't that damned space-ship, tsk tsk!

[Victor Zokas]

Of course at the start of DAF Connery, still in black says "Welcome to Hell Blofeld" and ushers him to his "death" in a mini volcanic eruption. This indicates that Bond is still in or at the gates of hell and Blofeld who had escaped is being greeted on his return by Bond.

What that makes of OHMSS is anyone's guess.

The YOLT documentary however suggests that Bond's drink comes stirred purely because all the filmmakers made a mistake. Presumably the director should know. This suggests that it wasn't in the script as being given to Bond stirred.

Also, I thought I read that in reality Roald Dahl only wrote the first draft, so any subtext would have been negated by the rewites. I think Jack Harold Bloom(?) did the rewrites, but was only credited as providing additional script material or something.

On the other hand the drink was given to him by Henderson / Blofeld / The Devil.

All these years I thought Bond took the stirred martini just because he was being polite.

[ray t]

to reflect on a question posed by The Girl With The Golden Gun:

If Blofeld's the devil...is 007 God?

I dont think so...God or Jesus of Nazareth (as the son of God/God Reincarnate) does not/did not go around bedding an average of 3 women per movie.

I do however believe that 007 COULD be the human form of St. Michael The Archangel...the leader of God's Heavenly Armies who helps cast Lucifer, the fallen Archangel, and his followers out of Heaven.

BUT a conflicted and human (Fleming/Dalton) type of St. Michael.

However to get back to the crux of the thread: WELL DONE Zencat...a very enlightning and well written piece. and entertaining to boot.

I do think, though, the ENTIRE BOND CANON has a SUBTEXT: That of good (represented by a less than perfect Bond, i.e. ST MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL incarnate) versus evil (represented by the villian, i.e. Satan/Lucifer/The Devil/Belzebub/Baal reincarnate).

There's nothing new there. In fact when my daughter was 4 years old and we were watching her favourite bond movie at the time, THUNDERBALL, she would say "that's the good guy (bond) and that's (Largo) the bad guy...the evil pirate" and "James bond HAS to kill the BAD EVIL PIRATE")

As for phalic symbols...the bond movies were about sex starting with sylvia trench from the very begining. and the ENTIRE CANON is littered with Phalic Symbolism, Sexual symbolism, sexual innuendo and just plain sex!

Nevertheless, an excellent article that should be forwarded to the DUMB F*** Movie Reviewers out there....

[Blue Eyes]

Victor Zokas (13 Apr, 2002 02:59 p.m.):
Of course at the start of DAF Connery, still in black says "Welcome to Hell Blofeld" and ushers him to his "death" in a mini volcanic eruption. This indicates that Bond is still in or at the gates of hell and Blofeld who had escaped is being greeted on his return by Bond.

What that makes of OHMSS is anyone's guess.

After You Only Live Twice Bond is returned to his normal world in On Her Majesty

[Victor Zokas]

OK, so there is going to be FRWL and GE coming soon, but in brief do you think there is any subtext to any or all of the other Bonds?

[Lonely Gunman]

Sometimes I wonder if you can really

[Tanger]

My God!! That was excellent. Great article zencat. It certainly makes you see You Only Live Twice as a far more complex movie than it already is.
To be honest with you, I had these thoughts too. THe first time I saw You Only Live Twice i actually though that Bond had been killed. I also noticed the fact that he calls Moneypenny 'Penny'. But me then, not knowing my Fleming, and that it was the affectionate name given to her, I assumed it was an alternate world. The stirred not shaken, confirmed this too.
It really has made me look deeper into the meaning and go back to my original thoughts, which in a way, are absolutely (well symbolically anyway) correct; and thats what a great article does.
Very Well Done!

[zencat]

I think you're absolutely right about that, Lonely G. The creation of subtext is not always a conscious act. I too sometimes don't understand my scripts until I write them or someone tells me what they feel is really going on. I don't try to create subtext; I try to let it emerge naturally. Of course, once I understand the subtext of my own work then I go back and work on it some more. It's always interesting (and sometimes embarrassing) how artists subconsciously reveal themselves in their art. But not being afraid to reveal yourself is what makes an artist.

[zencat]

doh!

[zencat]

Victor Zokas (14 Apr, 2002 01:48 p.m.):
OK, so there is going to be FRWL and GE coming soon, but in brief do you think there is any subtext to any or all of the other Bonds?

I do think ALL the Bond films operate on a similar subtextual level, although I don

[zencat]

Sorry, me again...

You know, in thinking about what I just wrote it seems to me that GOLDFINGER is the best realization of this Bond/Oedipus subtext. And not unsurprisingly Goldfinger is considered the archetypal Bond film. Think about it. Goldfinger is clearly a father figure and Bond clearly a younger "son" (just compare their cars). Bond's original sin is to sleep with Jill (clearly Goldfinger's woman) and she's destroyed by daddy's power (his gold). Pussy is part of Goldfinger's world, but the filmmakers go to great lengths to tell us she's NOT Goldfinger's girlfriend (and Bond seems to go out of his way to discern this fact as soon as he meets her--as if to check if she's "safe" to have). Interesting. Maybe I'll rewatch Goldfinger and make this Part 4 to my article.

[Tanger]

zencat (15 Apr, 2002 07:56 p.m.):
Sorry, me again...

You know, in thinking about what I just wrote it seems to me that GOLDFINGER is the best realization of this Bond/Oedipus subtext. And not unsurprisingly Goldfinger is considered the archetypal Bond film. Think about it. Goldfinger is clearly a father figure and Bond clearly a younger "son" (just compare their cars). Bond's original sin is to sleep with Jill (clearly Goldfinger's woman) and she's destroyed by daddy's power (his gold). Pussy is part of Goldfinger's world, but the filmmakers go to great lengths to tell us she's NOT Goldfinger's girlfriend (and Bond seems to go out of his way to discern this fact as soon as he meets her--as if to check if she's "safe" to have). Interesting. Maybe I'll rewatch Goldfinger and make this Part 4 to my article.

That's interesting zencat. I've just finished studying Sigmund Freud and The Oedipus Complex. It sure is interesting stuff and it certainly does influence modern day attitudes and thinking in many ways. I've never thought of it relating to Bond though, but it does make sense in the Goldfinger context. I suppose the only difference is that Bond does not kill Goldfinger to get to Jill.
Great idea. I sure am looking forward to these future articles. Keep up the excellent work!

[zencat]

Thanks Tanger.

So I am working on a Goldfinger/subext article (setting aside another proposed CBN article, a passionet defense of Moonraker). If it passes muster with the bosses Daniel and Dave, perhaps it will be Part 4 (or wherever they want to put it).

[zencat]

Many thanks, Tanger!

[Blue Eyes]

zencat (15 Apr, 2002 07:24 p.m.):
(and grown men like me who are still mentally 14).

We're men Zencat: We grow old, we never grow up!

Anyhow, any article by you is 99.99% sure to make it to the main page of CBn. You've got a fantastic writing style and a fantastic mind!

[ray t]

Zencat, your writing is magnificent. Your thoughts on things Bondian are very entertaining.

However, just to let you know, Freud has been deemed by the majority of psycology professionals as pure and utter s***! JUNK. GARBAGE. He was completely ed up. He is ANCIENT HISTORY who's theories are as BAD and as OUTDATED as Darwin's on evolution.

Bond is pure entertainment. Goldfinger is amazing because it was the PROTOTYPE. It had that Bassey's song/binder's titles, the over the top Vilian and his memorable henchman, the gadget-laiden Aston, and an AMAZING GALLERY of SEXY GIRLS/WOMEN that DAD lacks (those pictures of halle in that bikini/knife belt are SECOND RATE in relation to what we saw in Dr No.)

We dont want to go overboard and read too much (dis-credited) Freud into our bonds now do we?

[Blue Eyes]

I'd have to disagree with you on some points ray t. I'm not sure to what extent Freud has been dis-credited, but one of his pieces includes the first reference to phallic symbols. As we all know that one piece can't be discredited.

[zencat]

ray t (16 Apr, 2002 12:49 a.m.):
Zencat, your writing is magnificent. Your thoughts on things Bondian are very entertaining.

Thank you sir.

ray t (16 Apr, 2002 12:49 a.m.):
However, just to let you know, Freud has been deemed by the majority of psycology professionals as pure and utter s***! JUNK. GARBAGE. He was completely ed up. He is ANCIENT HISTORY who's theories are as BAD and as OUTDATED as Darwin's on evolution.

I don't think that's true at all. Freud introduced the entire concept of the unconscious and I don't know of any psychology professional who would dismiss the concept of the unconscious as "junk." And when I was in school (not too long ago) we were still taught Freud's basic theories of the developmental stages of the psyche, one of which was the Oedipal stage.

And as far as Darwin and the theory of evolution being outdated? Well, I never got that memo.

ray t (16 Apr, 2002 12:49 a.m.):
Bond is pure entertainment. Goldfinger is amazing because it was the PROTOTYPE. It had that Bassey's song/binder's titles, the over the top Vilian and his memorable henchman, the gadget-laiden Aston, and an AMAZING GALLERY of SEXY GIRLS/WOMEN...

With all due respect, if Bond was JUST entertainment I don't think it was have the cultural power it has, nor the staying power. Like with any myth, there much more going on below the surface, and Bond has certainly achieved a mythic power in our culture. To say this is because it has sexy girls in it is just naive. I do agree with you that Goldfinger is a prototype...but I'll go one step further and say Goldfinger has a prototype subtext as well.

I fear my FRWL article is going to definitely freak you out, ray-man.

[Blue Eyes]

I gaurntee it's going to freek him out actually ;d

But keep discussing You Only Live Twice as I wont' be able to get the From Russia With Love sub-text article online in any hurry. Too much uni work :'(

[Bon-san]

[b]zencat (11 Apr, 2002 07:14 p.m.):
I had always heard Bond say "Anne", not "M." Of course, if he says "M" then I've made a big mistake. Luckily I have the original continuity script to FRWL. I pulled it out and, well, here it is:

The existence of a script in which Bond says "Anne" is far from conclusive in this matter. Remember Thunderball, in which the script refers to a Boutier and the scene as shot has Bond calling him Bouviard? (Or whatever the actual names are, I always forget) The fact is, Bond films are haphazard affairs at times, and things of major and minor significance are changed from one script version to the next, and on and on to final cut.

Also, Having it as "Anne" makes absolutely zero contextual sense.

I'm sorry, but its "M". Guaranteed. I'll see Cubby in Heaven and be redeemed on this one.

Out

[zencat]

Bon-san (01 Jun, 2002 08:50 a.m.):

[b]zencat (11 Apr, 2002 07:14 p.m.):
I had always heard Bond say "Anne", not "M." Of course, if he says "M" then I've made a big mistake. Luckily I have the original continuity script to FRWL. I pulled it out and, well, here it is:

The existence of a script in which Bond says "Anne" is far from conclusive in this matter. Remember Thunderball, in which the script refers to a Boutier and the scene as shot has Bond calling him Bouviard? (Or whatever the actual names are, I always forget) The fact is, Bond films are haphazard affairs at times, and things of major and minor significance are changed from one script version to the next, and on and on to final cut.

But I'm not referencing the "screenplay" here, I'm referencing the "continuity script" -- which is a script of the movie created AFTER the movie is finished reflecting the exact content with time code, music ques, even credits. Sorry, I should have made this clear.

[zencat]

But regardless of who he was with ("M" or "Anne"), the point was Bond HAS been to Japan before. That was the point.

[General Koskov]

I think the 'Bouvoir'/'Bouvard' thing is just due to the fact Connery can speak Russian and not French!

[Mister Asterix]

zencat (01 Jun, 2002 05:39 p.m.):
But regardless of who he was with ("M" or "Anne"), the point was Bond HAS been to Japan before. That was the point.

I disagree. I have to say that Bond was lying. But if he was lying the question becomes why? And why can only be answered by answering the who. If the who is M then the statement was meant to tease M who would be listening to the tape later. If the who is Anne it would be to make Tatiana think that he's got babes all around the world and shes really not all that special.

[General Koskov]

I'd say the line was meant to be true (and with 'M.') about Tokyo, but in You Only Live Twice they [cuss] ed up and had Bond saying he'd never been there. Ironically, this was because 'Bond not having been to Japan' was the one thing Dahl took from the book!

[Blofeld's Cat]

Originally posted by zencat
But regardless of who he was with ("M" or "Anne"), the point was Bond HAS been to Japan before. That was the point.

I feel it necessary to bring this old but excellent thread back to the top so I can apologise to Zencat for veering the discussion off topic somewhat with the matter of "Anne" or "M."

The reason I raise this issue again and now is that last night I saw the From Russia With Love DVD with the commentary track running, and I noticed that during this particular scene the English subtitles confirms that Bond does say "Anne," and not "M."

I gather that this would be the definitive and official confirmation to what Zencat states in his article.

I was the initiator of the debate and I had the temerity to contradict the great and wise Zencat.

[zencat]

Originally posted by Blofeld's Cat
I was the initiator of the debate and I had the temerity to contradict the great and wise Zencat.[/font] [/B]

Great and wise? I can think of at least two things wrong with that statement.

Thanks Mr. Cat.

[YOLT]

It is really great Zen, I knew that YOLT was perfect, in all ways,

[zencat]

Originally posted by YOLT
It is really great Zen, I knew that YOLT was perfect, in all ways,

Thanks YOLT. Welcome to CBn.

[ggl]

I was rereading one of the great Zencat´s articles and I wonder if are they somewhere on the net nowadays?