52 replies to this topic

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Yes but wasn't the widescreen format unpopular per se in cinema at the time of LALD and MWTGG?

That's actually a really interesting point when you consider that of the five films nominated for a cinematography Oscar in 1974, only two were shot anamorphic. In fact best picture that year, The Sting, was shot flat.

You make a really good point that is pretty plausible. Infact, with everything these days shot super35, it gives me great hope that the next 007 film will be a spectacular return to anamorphic in the Rog' sense.

I think that because we are all Bond centric here, we tend to assume that anamorphic was more widespread than it actually was. Since I bought my dvd player in 2003, I've been collecting films from the widescreen era (1954 onwards). Out of 110 titles (not counting the Bonds, which I consider a separate collection). Less than a third were 2.2:1 or wider and even less were actually shot in anamorphic.
I'd also love the next Bond to be shot anamorphic (last one was DAD). The compositions you get with it are not "safe" like in Super 35, where you know you can open it up to show it on TV, therefore you play it safe by not placing the main focus on the extremes. When you shoot anamorphic, you're thinking "screw the TV broadcast, I only care about this looking good on the big screen". However, I'd say the chances of 23 returning to anamorphic are slim. Panavision's probably no longer making anamorphic cameras because S35 has become the norm.

[Loomis]

I still don't buy the cost-cutting argument. Where's the evidence for it? Even if they were indeed trying to cut costs on LALD and TMWTGG (although I'm sure that all productions attempt to make economies wherever possible - don't directors pride themselves on bringing things in under budget?), I find it very difficult to believe that widescreen (be it Panavision or some other process) was beyond the means of Broccoli and Saltzman. And LALD and TMWTGG were still high-budget Bond movies (following big hits, as Mr_Wint points out). They weren't shoestring cheapies.

You have to take into account that today's attitude towards movie spenditure are completely different from thirty five years ago. Granted, these films weren't low budget but back things were kept under a much tighter rein.
The choice of film format was an administrative decision taken by Saltzman, Broccoli and Picker (he'd a big say in budgetary decisions) before Hamilton was even asked back. Directors make do with what they are allowed unless they produce their own films.
I agree Panavision could have been used and wasn't beyond their means. They just chose not to.
One final thing: for a long I didn't know why they'd moved back to flat either but rather than being contented with my own conclusion, I had to find out. The reason you don't buy the cost-cutting argument is because you think you know the answer. You could hear the explanation straight from the horse´s mouth and still insist not be satisfied.

That's rather harsh. Besides, where's this "straight from the horse's mouth" explanation, then? Where's your source for saying that "the choice of film format was an administrative decision taken by Saltzman, Broccoli and Picker (he'd a big say in budgetary decisions) before Hamilton was even asked back"? Where did you learn this, or is this simply something you're assuming?

I'll be satisfied when I read an explanation from a credible and named source.

[HildebrandRarity]

That's rather harsh. Besides, where's this "straight from the horse's mouth" explanation, then? Where's your source for saying that "the choice of film format was an administrative decision taken by Saltzman, Broccoli and Picker (he'd a big say in budgetary decisions) before Hamilton was even asked back"? Where did you learn this, or is this simply something you're assuming?

I'll be satisfied when I read an explanation from a credible and named source.

You seem rather defensive these days, my old friend. First it was "Sue Bastard Bale", then "Jim's Gaydar Is Aroused By TMWTGG More Than Mine" and now it's "TMWTGG Is Not Cheap Looking!"

[Loomis]

SUE THE LIMEY SWINE! EMPTY HIS WALLET!

[tim partridge]

Read between the lines: "Directors make do with what they are allowed" doesn't mean they're always given restrictions. Sometimes they're allowed more freedom. Guy Hamilton wasn't even given the choice of DP and editor in GF. He'd to make do with Young's people (and incidentally he made a far better film than Mr Forster, who pretty much jettisoned all regulars in order to achieve his "vision"). IPCRESS was produced by Saltzman alone and I've always suspected (out of what people say about on interviews) that he was the cheapskate in the partnership, trying to cut corners here and there. Even in the spy-crazy 60's there was no way of predicting how any of these clones (yes, I love IPCRESS and I'm not rying to imply anything other than it wouldn't have existed hadn't been for Bond, not even the novel) would perform @ the BO. Techniscope was the 60's Super 35 in that you could fake anamorphic with it and it meant a significant budget reduction on that first film. After IPCRESS was succesful enough to grant shooting BERLIN, I reckon the reins got a little looser. In between IPCRESS and BERLIN, Heller shot ALFIE, again in Techniscope, so if we were to deduce anything out of so little evidence, I'd say he prefered Techniscope and only shot BERLIN in Panavision @ the producer's insistence.
I don't think anybody was going to prevent Meheux from shooting in a cheaper format.

I'm not sure I agree about Hamilton and your guesses about format restrictions. I genuinely wouldn't be suprised if in all of the cases of BERLIN, LALD and MWTGG Hamilton just changed the formats because he felt like it, just to be awkward, quirky, subversive or make a point about how to frame the story in a unique way. You make the Forster comparison in Hamilton's favour, but I genuinely see Forster as the Hamilton for the Craig era, in that neither see Bond as sacred and are inclined to shake things up, sometimes for the absolute worst (QOS exotic font titles, MWTGG car stunt whistle) and sometimes for cinematic gold (QOS multi subtitle convos, Franks vs Bond etc).

You also mentioned about crew on Bond and Hamilton being stuck with Ted Moore and co. Lewis Gilbert rightly got carte blanche on who he could work with (he was an Oscar nominee when he did his first Bond) but Peter Hunt was just an untested editor with no directorial credits other than second unit, and he got free reign to choose who he wanted too (his DP wasn't a big name and not an Oscar winner like Moore had become or Young). Remember, Hamilton was the first choice for DR NO and Moore and co only got hired because of Terence Young. Had Hamilton initiated the franchise I am sure he'd have brought his own pals on as he did on his other films, but I think Hamilton had a game plan subverting what was already established (based on what is seen on screen).

In my opinion I get the impression that Hamilton felt he could best subvert Bond by approaching 007 as though he was a TV director for hire, with all of the Eon established, in house crew, but then spin it on it's head. Hamilton did the same on FUNERAL IN BERLIN for Saltzman, which was similar spy fare as we know, but look at Saltzman's BATTLE OF BRITAIN, where Hamilton was allowed Freddie Young, and consequently the film looks nothing like a Hamilton Bond film and more similar in style to the classy look of Hamilton's non Bond movies (like the Christie films).

Regarding Otto Heller, yeah he was something of a master of spherical lenses, depth and voyeuristic compositions. Infact, that whole Ipcress look is incredibly similar to Heller's lensing of Michael Powell's Peeping Tom from a few years before, and I think it's pretty obvious that he was hired for Ipcress to just do his Peeping Tom thing. I only saw Sidney Furie do that Ipcress look one other time on The Appallooza made straight after Ipcress, so I think Heller's influence is very significant on the visuals of that film.

As for anamorphic not having "safe" compositions: Have you never seen Superman IV? Tomorrow Never Dies?

Edited by tim partridge, 06 February 2009 - 10:40 PM.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Read between the lines: "Directors make do with what they are allowed" doesn't mean they're always given restrictions. Sometimes they're allowed more freedom. Guy Hamilton wasn't even given the choice of DP and editor in GF. He'd to make do with Young's people (and incidentally he made a far better film than Mr Forster, who pretty much jettisoned all regulars in order to achieve his "vision"). IPCRESS was produced by Saltzman alone and I've always suspected (out of what people say about on interviews) that he was the cheapskate in the partnership, trying to cut corners here and there. Even in the spy-crazy 60's there was no way of predicting how any of these clones (yes, I love IPCRESS and I'm not rying to imply anything other than it wouldn't have existed hadn't been for Bond, not even the novel) would perform @ the BO. Techniscope was the 60's Super 35 in that you could fake anamorphic with it and it meant a significant budget reduction on that first film. After IPCRESS was succesful enough to grant shooting BERLIN, I reckon the reins got a little looser. In between IPCRESS and BERLIN, Heller shot ALFIE, again in Techniscope, so if we were to deduce anything out of so little evidence, I'd say he prefered Techniscope and only shot BERLIN in Panavision @ the producer's insistence.
I don't think anybody was going to prevent Meheux from shooting in a cheaper format.

I'm not sure I agree about Hamilton and your guesses about format restrictions. I genuinely wouldn't be suprised if in all of the cases of BERLIN, LALD and MWTGG Hamilton just changed the formats because he felt like it, just to be awkward, quirky, subversive or make a point about how to frame the story in a unique way. You make the Forster comparison in Hamilton's favour, but I genuinely see Forster as the Hamilton for the Craig era, in that neither see Bond as sacred and are inclined to shake things up, sometimes for the absolute worst (QOS exotic font titles, MWTGG car stunt whistle) and sometimes for cinematic gold (QOS multi subtitle convos, Franks vs Bond etc).

You also mentioned about crew on Bond and Hamilton being stuck with Ted Moore and co. Lewis Gilbert rightly got carte blanche on who he could work with (he was an Oscar nominee when he did his first Bond) but Peter Hunt was just an untested editor with no directorial credits other than second unit, and he got free reign to choose who he wanted too (his DP wasn't a big name and not an Oscar winner like Moore had become or Young). Remember, Hamilton was the first choice for DR NO and Moore and co only got hired because of Terence Young. Had Hamilton initiated the franchise I am sure he'd have brought his own pals on as he did on his other films, but I think Hamilton had a game plan subverting what was already established (based on what is seen on screen).

In my opinion I get the impression that Hamilton felt he could best subvert Bond by approaching 007 as though he was a TV director for hire, with all of the Eon established, in house crew, but then spin it on it's head. Hamilton did the same on FUNERAL IN BERLIN for Saltzman, which was similar spy fare as we know, but look at Saltzman's BATTLE OF BRITAIN, where Hamilton was allowed Freddie Young, and consequently the film looks nothing like a Hamilton Bond film and more similar in style to the classy look of Hamilton's non Bond movies (like the Christie films).

Regarding Otto Heller, yeah he was something of a master of spherical lenses, depth and voyeuristic compositions. Infact, that whole Ipcress look is incredibly similar to Heller's lensing of Michael Powell's Peeping Tom from a few years before, and I think it's pretty obvious that he was hired for Ipcress to just do his Peeping Tom thing. I only saw Sidney Furie do that Ipcress look one other time on The Appallooza made straight after Ipcress, so I think Heller's influence is very significant on the visuals of that film.

As for anamorphic not having "safe" compositions: Have you never seen Superman IV? Tomorrow Never Dies?

Yeah I would agree with most of this, especially what you say about Hamilton being quirky/awkward etc, and his other films looking much different.
Hamilton is IMO the most interesting of all the Bond directors.
However, I think Ted Moore was hired by Broccoli following their work on Broccoli's Trials of Oscar Wild and not at the direct behest of Young, but I have no direct authority for that.
It is also worth mentioning that DAF had a very tight shooting schedule, and MWTGG was turned around very quick off the heels of LALD. This may have had some influence on the films and their cinematography etc etc, but i'm just guessing on this point!

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 06 February 2009 - 11:11 PM.

[Loomis]

I'm not sure I agree about Hamilton and your guesses about format restrictions. I genuinely wouldn't be suprised if in all of the cases of BERLIN, LALD and MWTGG Hamilton just changed the formats because he felt like it, just to be awkward, quirky, subversive or make a point about how to frame the story in a unique way.

Quite. It seems that some Bond fans find the idea of a non-widescreen Bond film (or a Bond film without the gunbarrel at the beginning, or a Bond film without the "Bond, James Bond" line, etc.) so utterly unthinkable that they tell themselves that the makers of LALD and TMWTGG must for some reason have been forced to shoot them flat.

Personally, I don't think 2.35:1 would have suited LALD and TMWTGG. TSWLM and MR and most of the ones that followed, yes. But not the "smaller" stories of LALD and TMWTGG.

[Wronschien]

Quite. It seems that some Bond fans find the idea of a non-widescreen Bond film (or a Bond film without the gunbarrel at the beginning, or a Bond film without the "Bond, James Bond" line, etc.) so utterly unthinkable that they tell themselves that the makers of LALD and TMWTGG must for some reason have been forced to shoot them flat.

Personally, I don't think 2.35:1 would have suited LALD and TMWTGG. TSWLM and MR and most of the ones that followed, yes. But not the "smaller" stories of LALD and TMWTGG.

I must admit I was indeed thinking the format should always be wide when asking…

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I still don't buy the cost-cutting argument. Where's the evidence for it? Even if they were indeed trying to cut costs on LALD and TMWTGG (although I'm sure that all productions attempt to make economies wherever possible - don't directors pride themselves on bringing things in under budget?), I find it very difficult to believe that widescreen (be it Panavision or some other process) was beyond the means of Broccoli and Saltzman. And LALD and TMWTGG were still high-budget Bond movies (following big hits, as Mr_Wint points out). They weren't shoestring cheapies.

You have to take into account that today's attitude towards movie spenditure are completely different from thirty five years ago. Granted, these films weren't low budget but back things were kept under a much tighter rein.
The choice of film format was an administrative decision taken by Saltzman, Broccoli and Picker (he'd a big say in budgetary decisions) before Hamilton was even asked back. Directors make do with what they are allowed unless they produce their own films.
I agree Panavision could have been used and wasn't beyond their means. They just chose not to.
One final thing: for a long I didn't know why they'd moved back to flat either but rather than being contented with my own conclusion, I had to find out. The reason you don't buy the cost-cutting argument is because you think you know the answer. You could hear the explanation straight from the horse´s mouth and still insist not be satisfied.

That's rather harsh. Besides, where's this "straight from the horse's mouth" explanation, then? Where's your source for saying that "the choice of film format was an administrative decision taken by Saltzman, Broccoli and Picker (he'd a big say in budgetary decisions) before Hamilton was even asked back"? Where did you learn this, or is this simply something you're assuming?

I'll be satisfied when I read an explanation from a credible and named source.

I'm sorry I can't provide you with the evidence myself. Unfortunately, I don't own every book I've read. All I can say is, don't rest until you find the evidence. I'm sorry if I was harsh but I felt you were somewhat cocky about having your own theory and not buying anyone else's. I didn't say I was the horse's mouth. I used conditional purposefully. If you just wait until the evidence lands on you, you might wait forever and in a sense it means you're not that interested in finding the truth, you prefer your theory.

[tim partridge]

I'm not sure I agree about Hamilton and your guesses about format restrictions. I genuinely wouldn't be suprised if in all of the cases of BERLIN, LALD and MWTGG Hamilton just changed the formats because he felt like it, just to be awkward, quirky, subversive or make a point about how to frame the story in a unique way.

Quite. It seems that some Bond fans find the idea of a non-widescreen Bond film (or a Bond film without the gunbarrel at the beginning, or a Bond film without the "Bond, James Bond" line, etc.) so utterly unthinkable that they tell themselves that the makers of LALD and TMWTGG must for some reason have been forced to shoot them flat.

Personally, I don't think 2.35:1 would have suited LALD and TMWTGG. TSWLM and MR and most of the ones that followed, yes. But not the "smaller" stories of LALD and TMWTGG.

I think though that in both the cases of LALD and MWTGG, both films come across as very cheap looking (down to Moore's photography in my opinion, which wasn't near the same technical quality of Reed and Young), especially after OHMSS, which did ride alot of the innovation of the time. The same is true I think with DAF, so we are not singling out format, just that flat shooting is factually cheaper, so when you think of the dip from OHMSS to DAF in terms of the photographic quality (and the drop here is immense), and then you go that step forward and subtract the inherently expensive anamorphic format from the equation, it does seem to logically reek of cheap downsizing, even if infact it was Hamilton's stylistic choice.

As I said above, I would have been all up for really high quality spherical shooting on an early 70s Bond. Imagine if someone like David (Catch 22, Three Musketeers) Watkin had done a Bond in his state of the art softlit style, or someone like Heller (who had just died). Imagine Bond shot like French Connection or Get Carter, rough, gritty and raw, with lots of moody natural light like only spherical shooting can capture.

Sadly Ted Moore's quaint 60s TV floodlighting of LALD/MWTGG made the proceedings look somewhere between a Quincy episode and a 70s Disney movie like Freaky Friday or Witch Mountain. The whole thing ends up looking so TV instead of cinema because of the way Ted Moore photographs, and it was always going to risk this with a more square aspect ratio than 2.35:1 anamorphic. Hamilton's visual direction still saves LALD, in my opinion, but I think the proof is that outside of Bond Hamilton would never let Ted Moore near one of his "real" movies (which all look uniformly classy in a quirky way), so I feel a very patronising undercurrent to Hamilton's lack of effort on Bond's visuals, as if he was playing to the quaintness of Moore's style. Do you think Hamilton (or Saltzman) would let Ted Moore near BATTLE OF BRITAIN? FUNERAL IN BERLIN? Are either of those films floodlit like a TV show? Do you think Saltz/Hamilton had the opportunity to bring Moore onto those films? I think that says a lot.




sthgilyadgnivileht:

You are probably right about Broc and Moore. I seem to remember hearing Young had also been impressed by Moore's work (and more was conveniently available for DR NO).


I too think Hamilton is easily the most interesting of the 007 directors. It took me years to appreciate his genius. As I said elsewhere, based on how good his other non-Bond films are I think he never gave 007 his all. I also think so many of us instinctively snarl at the thought of new directors coming on and shaking things up (Forster, Tamahori) because Hamilton did it on his films and often altered Bond history for the absolute worst. He seemed to have little respect for all of the tradition and traits of film 007. However, in my opinion at least, when Hamilton got it right (and that could be one scene in a whole half hour of a Bond film) the results would be genre definingly jaw dropping, and not just competently consistent like say Terence Young (or any other good Bond journeyman). The fact Hamilton managed to do that even when his visuals were (in my opinion) bogged down by the subpar work of Ted Moore, well, that's a truly innate, special talent shining through.

Edited by tim partridge, 07 February 2009 - 01:02 AM.

[Loomis]

I'm sorry if I was harsh but I felt you were somewhat cocky about having your own theory and not buying anyone else's.

It's not "my own theory" - others have speculated that Hamilton and co. may have made a deliberate stylistic choice to shoot flat.

As for not buying anyone else's theory, I do think the cost-cutting argument is a possibility, but I won't accept it as gospel until I read a convincing statement from a credible source. If someone involved in the production of LALD or TMWTGG were to be interviewed and stated that they did indeed shoot flat to save money, then of course I'd believe it.

In the absence of any evidence, though, it seems to me more likely that it was a stylistic decision than a penny-pinching measure, and so I'll continue to assume (note that word) that it was a creative choice until some credible information comes along to convince me that the filmmakers were in fact so strapped for cash that they had no option but to shoot flat.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Read between the lines: "Directors make do with what they are allowed" doesn't mean they're always given restrictions. Sometimes they're allowed more freedom. Guy Hamilton wasn't even given the choice of DP and editor in GF. He'd to make do with Young's people (and incidentally he made a far better film than Mr Forster, who pretty much jettisoned all regulars in order to achieve his "vision"). IPCRESS was produced by Saltzman alone and I've always suspected (out of what people say about on interviews) that he was the cheapskate in the partnership, trying to cut corners here and there. Even in the spy-crazy 60's there was no way of predicting how any of these clones (yes, I love IPCRESS and I'm not rying to imply anything other than it wouldn't have existed hadn't been for Bond, not even the novel) would perform @ the BO. Techniscope was the 60's Super 35 in that you could fake anamorphic with it and it meant a significant budget reduction on that first film. After IPCRESS was succesful enough to grant shooting BERLIN, I reckon the reins got a little looser. In between IPCRESS and BERLIN, Heller shot ALFIE, again in Techniscope, so if we were to deduce anything out of so little evidence, I'd say he prefered Techniscope and only shot BERLIN in Panavision @ the producer's insistence.
I don't think anybody was going to prevent Meheux from shooting in a cheaper format.

I'm not sure I agree about Hamilton and your guesses about format restrictions. I genuinely wouldn't be suprised if in all of the cases of BERLIN, LALD and MWTGG Hamilton just changed the formats because he felt like it, just to be awkward, quirky, subversive or make a point about how to frame the story in a unique way. You make the Forster comparison in Hamilton's favour, but I genuinely see Forster as the Hamilton for the Craig era, in that neither see Bond as sacred and are inclined to shake things up, sometimes for the absolute worst (QOS exotic font titles, MWTGG car stunt whistle) and sometimes for cinematic gold (QOS multi subtitle convos, Franks vs Bond etc).

You also mentioned about crew on Bond and Hamilton being stuck with Ted Moore and co. Lewis Gilbert rightly got carte blanche on who he could work with (he was an Oscar nominee when he did his first Bond) but Peter Hunt was just an untested editor with no directorial credits other than second unit, and he got free reign to choose who he wanted too (his DP wasn't a big name and not an Oscar winner like Moore had become or Young). Remember, Hamilton was the first choice for DR NO and Moore and co only got hired because of Terence Young. Had Hamilton initiated the franchise I am sure he'd have brought his own pals on as he did on his other films, but I think Hamilton had a game plan subverting what was already established (based on what is seen on screen).

In my opinion I get the impression that Hamilton felt he could best subvert Bond by approaching 007 as though he was a TV director for hire, with all of the Eon established, in house crew, but then spin it on it's head. Hamilton did the same on FUNERAL IN BERLIN for Saltzman, which was similar spy fare as we know, but look at Saltzman's BATTLE OF BRITAIN, where Hamilton was allowed Freddie Young, and consequently the film looks nothing like a Hamilton Bond film and more similar in style to the classy look of Hamilton's non Bond movies (like the Christie films).

Regarding Otto Heller, yeah he was something of a master of spherical lenses, depth and voyeuristic compositions. Infact, that whole Ipcress look is incredibly similar to Heller's lensing of Michael Powell's Peeping Tom from a few years before, and I think it's pretty obvious that he was hired for Ipcress to just do his Peeping Tom thing. I only saw Sidney Furie do that Ipcress look one other time on The Appallooza made straight after Ipcress, so I think Heller's influence is very significant on the visuals of that film.

As for anamorphic not having "safe" compositions: Have you never seen Superman IV? Tomorrow Never Dies?

No, I've never seen Superman IV and I don't think I will as it's unanymously considered a piece of manure (as pretty much anything connected to the names Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus is and I already had my share of those).
Can't disagree more, I've always wondered why Hamilton, who indeed wrote the book on sequels being better than the originals with GF, could have given us a string of uninspired Bond sequels. By the time we get to GG, things look tired as if we're just going by the motions. I don't see any attempt to subvert the genre but a lazy director past his prime and I'm glad he wasn't able to do SPY afterwards.
Ted Moore didn't get chosen because of Young. He'd already worked in two Broccoli productions and several of the crew were also from Cubby's stable. Moore wasn't a name before Bond, either. Had Hamilton directed DN, odds are he'd have been given Moore to work with anyway.
Gilbert and Hunt being given free reign coincides with the budgets rising. With controlled budgets on LALD and GG, I don't see that happening. Even then, Gilbert got a taste of who's the boss when Thelma Connell got the boot from Mssrs Broccoli and Saltzamn and was duly replaced by Peter Hunt (pretty much the only time the producer's excercised their right to final cut in the whole series).
BERLIN is a more than worthy successor to IPCRESS. I see a Hamilton still on his prime in that one. BATTLE is a mess of a movie but a gorgeously shot one at that. I don't see that in LALD and GG. I fear Cubby might be the one to blame here as he had a tendency to get too cozy with old shoes. He'd repeat that mistake with Rog and John Glen.
I didn't say you couldn't do safe in anamorphic (would you expect anything else from Mr Spottiswoode?)
Great observations about Otto Heller. Excellent cinematographer. Didn't need to be nominated to bleeding academy awards to be so.

I'm sorry if I was harsh but I felt you were somewhat cocky about having your own theory and not buying anyone else's.

It's not "my own theory" - others have speculated that Hamilton and co. may have made a deliberate stylistic choice to shoot flat.

As for not buying anyone else's theory, I do think the cost-cutting argument is a possibility, but I won't accept it as gospel until I read a convincing statement from a credible source. If someone involved in the production of LALD or TMWTGG were to be interviewed and stated that they did indeed shoot flat to save money, then of course I'd believe it.

In the absence of any evidence, though, it seems to me more likely that it was a stylistic decision than a penny-pinching measure, and so I'll continue to assume (note that word) that it was a creative choice until some credible information comes along to convince me that the filmmakers were in fact so strapped for cash that they had no option but to shoot flat.

You said it: "others have speculated". Before I joined these fora, I'd never heard of the stylistic choice theory and I'm yet to hear it from a credible source.

Edited by Donovan Mayne-Nicholls, 07 February 2009 - 01:26 AM.

[tim partridge]

Ted Moore didn't get chosen because of Young. He'd already worked in two Broccoli productions and several of the crew were also from Cubby's stable. Moore wasn't a name before Bond, either. Had Hamilton directed DN, odds are he'd have been given Moore to work with anyway.

The two previous Broc prods Moore had lit before DR NO were BOTH directed by Young. Moore and Young would work together after Bond too. Hamilton had never worked with Moore before or after Bond. I'd also say that COLDITZ STORY alone put Hamilton above Young as far as directorial clout went when DR NO was being made.

On his own non-Bond films Hamilton has a very dinstinct and particular taste concerning his visuals and mise en scene (and we get inconsistent amounts of that with the wide angle lenses and suspense set pieces on his Bond films, diluted by Moore's work). Terence Young on the other hand was never a stylist like Hamilton but more of a flexible journeyman. I don't get the impression looking at Young's films outside of and including Bond that he had much thought about the photography or any visual elements. I think that so long as the cameraman turned up, the film was exposed, Young would be happy. Hamilton on the other hand really knew how to manipulate the image, like Lewis Gilbert, but on Bond I don't thik Hamilton made anywhere near the consistent effort he made on his own non Bond films or the amount of effort Gilbert did on a 007 film.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Ted Moore didn't get chosen because of Young. He'd already worked in two Broccoli productions and several of the crew were also from Cubby's stable. Moore wasn't a name before Bond, either. Had Hamilton directed DN, odds are he'd have been given Moore to work with anyway.

The two previous Broc prods Moore had lit before DR NO were BOTH directed by Young. Moore and Young would work together after Bond too. Hamilton had never worked with Moore before or after Bond. I'd also say that COLDITZ STORY alone put Hamilton above Young as far as directorial clout went when DR NO was being made.

Young directed four films for Broccoli and only the last two were lit by Moore. Moore had already lit four films for Broccoli when he was paired with Young. Other key collaborators in the Bond series (Adam, Cain, Pearson, Drury, Harris, Winbolt) had already worked on Warwick productions not directed by Young. It seems to me you guys are so intent on proving the "artistic choice" theory, you're not seeing the signs. Choosing your own DP and editor is a luxury not awarded to every director in every production. It wouldn't surprise me Moore had been signed for DN before TY was. TM was clearly Cubby's pick.

On his own non-Bond films Hamilton has a very dinstinct and particular taste concerning his visuals and mise en scene (and we get inconsistent amounts of that with the wide angle lenses and suspense set pieces on his Bond films, diluted by Moore's work). Terence Young on the other hand was never a stylist like Hamilton but more of a flexible journeyman. I don't get the impression looking at Young's films outside of and including Bond that he had much thought about the photography or any visual elements. I think that so long as the cameraman turned up, the film was exposed, Young would be happy. Hamilton on the other hand really knew how to manipulate the image, like Lewis Gilbert, but on Bond I don't thik Hamilton made anywhere near the consistent effort he made on his own non Bond films or the amount of effort Gilbert did on a 007 film.

Fully agree. It's always disappointed me that the same man who directed GF could come up with such lacklustre affairs as DAF-TMWTGG. Haven't seen that many GH films outside Bond but the ones I have look like he was putting everything into them. Hamilton could be compared to John Gardner, who wrote far better outside Bond but suffered from major restrictions with the series.

[tim partridge]

Young directed four films for Broccoli and only the last two were lit by Moore. Moore had already lit four films for Broccoli when he was paired with Young. Other key collaborators in the Bond series (Adam, Cain, Pearson, Drury, Harris, Winbolt) had already worked on Warwick productions not directed by Young. It seems to me you guys are so intent on proving the "artistic choice" theory, you're not seeing the signs. Choosing your own DP and editor is a luxury not awarded to every director in every production. It wouldn't surprise me Moore had been signed for DN before TY was. TM was clearly Cubby's pick.

I am not denying your suggestion is a possibility, it's just that I don't think the answer is as obviously clear cut as you make out. Obviously Brocolli held Moore in high regard, as they worked on many many films together, but you cannot underestimate that Young and Moore together clearly had their own established working relationship. Moore and Young collaborated on the two Brocolli movies they made directly before DR NO, and both worked together after THUNDERBALL on the non-Brocolli production THE AMOROUS MOLL FLANDERS. That said, Young shot four films between NO TIME TO DIE (Brocolli prod in 1958) and DR NO all without Ted Moore. Maybe Young and Brocolli both liked working with Moore and felt him the best DP they knew suitable for DR NO?

Terence Young and Brocolli had a very established working relationship of their own with many other early Bond key players pre 007. Guy Hamilton by contrast did not have any working relationship with Brocolli prior to Bond yet he was a very well established director (I think COLDITZ alone was better known and more successful than anything Young had done). I question wether Hamilton would be dictated creative crew on DR NO as he was a proven director with a track record independent of Bond/Brocolli (like Lewis Gilbert, etc), not to say that Cubby's other technical personnel wouldn't seep through, of course. That said, given that Hamilton never used Moore before or after Bond (and that all of Hamilton's other non-Bond films have consistently rich and quirky visuals as oppose to his patchy 007 movies) I do think a Moore-only clause by Brocolli is a plausible suggestion.

Also, if Brocolli had indeed dictated that Moore be the DP on early 007, regardless of director, I very much doubt this was the case by the time of DAF, LALD ad MWTGG, when even untested Peter Hunt could pick who he wanted.

Alas, we'll never know for sure.

I wonder if time was an influencing factor on Hamilton teaming up with Ted Moore on GF (as the 007 films were shot back to back at that point, meaning tiny prep and a dependence on old hands)?

Edited by tim partridge, 17 February 2009 - 05:17 PM.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Alas, we'll never know for sure

I wonder if time was an influencing factor on Hamilton teaming up with Ted Moore on GF (as the 007 films were shot back to back at that point, meaning tiny prep and a dependence on old hands)?

I would not be at all surprised about time constraints either, plus wasn't Moore's work on Dr No and FRWL very good anyway? I think GF was better shot than Moore's later films, in fact quite well shot IMO, (although I never knew until recently the PTS was done by David Watkin and I think that was a brilliant bit of cinematography).

[tim partridge]

Another factor about moving to flat for LALD (sorry if already speculated):

Maybe Hamilton/Eon wanted to protect their films for TV? I am pretty sure LALD and MWTGG were hard matted, from what I can remember.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I would not be at all surprised about time constraints either, plus wasn't Moore's work on Dr No and FRWL very good anyway? I think GF was better shot than Moore's later films, in fact quite well shot IMO, (although I never knew until recently the PTS was done by David Watkin and I think that was a brilliant bit of cinematography).

Actually, it was the title sequence that was done by David Watkin.

Also, why is everyone so disparaging of Terence Young over here? He might have been a "journeyman", as tim put it, but he had a better and more consistent output of Bond films than Guy Hamilton ever would.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I would not be at all surprised about time constraints either, plus wasn't Moore's work on Dr No and FRWL very good anyway? I think GF was better shot than Moore's later films, in fact quite well shot IMO, (although I never knew until recently the PTS was done by David Watkin and I think that was a brilliant bit of cinematography).

Actually, it was the title sequence that was done by David Watkin.

Also, why is everyone so disparaging of Terence Young over here? He might have been a "journeyman", as tim put it, but he had a better and more consistent output of Bond films than Guy Hamilton ever would.

Oh was it? Thought it was PTS for some reason, but makes more sense it was the credits I suppose. Still think PTS is wonderfully shot though.
I personally don't think Young was any kind of journey man at all, a remarkable director who shaped the series to a very high standard. (I have recently uploaded some old interviews with Young on youtube). I do think Hamilton did an equal job of excellence with GF.

[scaramunga]

Yeah, I think 'Live and Let Die' was most likely shot flat for budgetary reasons. Although, I suppose it's also possible that there weren't enough anamorphic lenses available at the time. It still looks pretty good on the big screen, though.

Raymond Benson suggests in his book that 'The Man with the Golden Gun' was originally intended to be a 2.35:1 production.

What is the name of this Raymond Benson book?

I mentioned this in another post about the same subject. In the book James Bond: The Legacy the authors mention that there was concern of making a Bond film without Connery again and they attempted to use a lower budget for Live and Let Die. It seems to have paid off quite well for them as Live and Let Die did do very well and even with less tickets sold than Diamonds made a very handsome profit.

It's still a bit curious that there isn't a written source or interview that would comment specifically on this.

Good stuff. : )

I don't suppose anyone has an in with Guy Hamilton to ask him directly? : )

[KENDO NAGAZAKI]

Could it perhaps be that Diamonds Are Forever's ratio seemed rather wasted on a film lacking in the lush wide open vistas of films like Thunderball and You Only Live Twice? Thus Hamilton perhaps felt that these lower-budget-looking Bonds would be better suited to the original Dr No ratio which worked well for that kind of less-overblown film and From Russia With Love? I thought Live And Let Die looked good on the big screen and suited it's ratio, personally. Don't know about Golden Gun, as I've never seen it on the big screen, but it was glaringly obvious that it was time to go back to the Thunderball ratio for films of such scale as Spy and Moonraker. Maybe films such as TWINE should have gone back to the Dr No ratio, as the mundane look and lack of inspirational visuals are very exposed in it's existing ratio.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I don't suppose anyone has an in with Guy Hamilton to ask him directly? : )

This is exactly the sort of thing I would have asked Hamilton when he was interviewed at Aberdeen University. However, if you look at the interview it seemed pre occupied with 'and what was it like to work person X Mr Hamilton' type questions. A discussion of Hamilton's visual style and the benefits of scope over flat and how the formats lend themselves to particular genres would have been interesting.

[scaramunga]

I don't suppose anyone has an in with Guy Hamilton to ask him directly? : )

This is exactly the sort of thing I would have asked Hamilton when he was interviewed at Aberdeen University. However, if you look at the interview it seemed pre occupied with 'and what was it like to work person X Mr Hamilton' type questions. A discussion of Hamilton's visual style and the benefits of scope over flat and how the formats lend themselves to particular genres would have been interesting.

I wonder if he would recall this. If anything I'm guessing he might be able to confirm some of the assumptions.