32 replies to this topic

[Chester Copperpot]

I recently had a similar discussion at IMDb, I was forwarded to this board from there.

The notion goes, there's essentially three Bond films, that are used as templates throughout the franchise, to make other Bond films. Certain themes and structural elements are recycled over and over again.

There's the tragic/romantic chase/thriller, first seen in From Russia With Love. Later re-used in For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights.

There's the Goldfinger type of film, re-used in A View To a Kill and Goldeneye.

And then there's the You Only Live Twice-type, recycled in The Spy Who Loved me and Tomorrow Never Dies.

Moonraker is YOLT once again, with the second half of Thunderball grafted on to it, with the underwater battle substituted for another battle in slow-motion, though in space.

I've tried to read up on the subject, but I can't for my mind remember where I read it about, and how the arguments went. Is there any threads here? Could you shed some lights on the subject? Of Course there's more to it than that, but essentially, there are three archetypical Bond films, that gets used over and over again.

I found this thread on the subject, but it tells only half of it:

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=53305

[Chester Copperpot]

Here's an article that reinforces the notion of templates:

http://commanderbond...vinci-code.html

However, I would like to add another template, the action/comedy, as seen in "Diamonds are Forever" and "Live and Let Die". To my eyes, the Roger Moore era didn't start with LALD, but with DAF, both films are made in the same vein. Are there more films to add to the genre of light entertainment Bond?

[Mr. Blofeld]

You forget that YOLT is a remake of Dr. No, right down to the way it ends with Bond and his squeeze in the water.

[Mr_Wint]

To my eyes, the Roger Moore era didn't start with LALD, but with DAF, both films are made in the same vein.

Both films are made in the same style because this is exactly what EON wanted. The "Roger Moore era" is an appropriate label for the films starring Roger Moore as 007. It started with LALD.

You forget that YOLT is a remake of Dr. No, right down to the way it ends with Bond and his squeeze in the water.

I am not convinced...

[Chester Copperpot]

Now you are nitpicking.

What I meant was, and I know you understand my notion, was that the type of films mostly recognized as the Moore Bonds, didn't in fact start with LALD, but with DAF.

And my point is that that style should consitute a different kind of Bond template, by its own accord, most suitably differentiated as a kind of action/comedy.

[jaguar007]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it could be argued that Goldfinger (or even Dr. No) is the blueprint for YOLT. While FRWL was a more serious spy thriller, GF was the first larger than life Bond film with the colorful hencmen, the big army battle at the end, the unbelievable gadgets.

[Chester Copperpot]

To me, there's a difference between the Goldfinger type, and the YOLT-type of Bond films. I can't put my mind on what it is, though.

[jaguar007]

To me, there's a difference between the Goldfinger type, and the YOLT-type of Bond films. I can't put my mind on what it is, though.

YOLT is basically the formula founded in GF, just taken a step or two further. Evolution so to speak.

The point that YOLT is the blueprint for TSWLM and MR can be clearly seen in the director's chair.

[The Richmond Spy]

You can argue that one Bond film is a template of another and make a pretty good case. That said, I think the same can be said about a lot of successful non-Bond films (Benjamin Button and Forrest Gump, for example). Just because a film has a lot of similarities to another previous film does not cheapen it. For proof, look no further than the Bond film rankings thread on here and see how many fans (including myself) put TSWLM well ahead of YOLT. Sure, it borrows a lot of the same ideas and came out ten years later, but I still prefer TSWLM. It's more than a structure or a "template." It's about how the film makes you feel and that usually goes well beneath face value...at least for me.

I know no one has bashed Bond films for sometimes being similar to each other on this thread, but I have had to hear it from other non-CBn members in the past. The above thought is generally my response.

[Chester Copperpot]

Just because a film has a lot of similarities to another previous film does not cheapen it.

Of course, that's the point. And that's why I bring this up with you guys, the most gifted and talented people in the Bond know.

But we have to be able to talk about films, and in this case Bond films in particular, from a meta-perspective, without being judgemental. To me, it is more down to a matter of fact. From a structural standpoint, Star Wars is nothing but a film version of Joseph Campbells "A Hero with a Thousand Faces", down to the last comma.

The film have EVERYTHING that myth is boiled down to. Does it cheapen Star Wars? Of course not, but it is interesting to see that the Star Wars saga is the same myth told over and over again since ancient greek and the adventures of Odysseus.

From that perspective, talking about Bond and templates does not in fact cheapen anything in any way. On the contrary. But for those interested, it could be a good thing to understand the structure that lies behind it all.

[Zorin Industries]

It is also worth noting that STAR WARS is - as George Lucas himself heavily acknowledges - motivated and influenced by THE SEVENTH SAMURAI and the work of JRR Tolkein and the Buster Krabbe version of FLASH GORDON - perhaps more than any echoing of Joseph Campbell's work.

[Chester Copperpot]

Have you read Campbell?

I think it's important to make a difference between stylistical influence and structureal influence. Structurally, Star Wars owes more to Campbell than anything. What Campbell means, is essentially that this kind of story boils down to the same myth, it is the same story told over and over again, in different guises. From that standpoint, Tolkien and Star Wars is essentially the same story. If Lucas is directly influenced by Tolkien is not important, what is important is that both Lucas and Tolkien have based their story on the same original myth.

Stylistically, Lucas is influenced by The Seventh Samurai, Flash Gordon, Westerns, whatever. I know that, but that is not what I'm after in this case.

To take all this down to Bond, what would be interesting to figure out, is what kind of "original myths" are the different Bond films bases upon? I have listed three templates, that are structured differently. Why are they different? What is different? And why does the franchice recycles those myths over and over again?

[Zorin Industries]

But your Bond film influences are other Bond films. Isn't that limiting your argument a bit - or at least the depth of your otherwise interesting thread?

And you suggest that Tolkein is influenced by Campbell when, to be fair and accurate, Tolkein's work emerged first.

I always suggest people are careful when they claim there is a difference between structural and stylistic influences. They are often the same and the latter shouldn't be dismissed too readily. It is also restrictive to reduce the influences of Tolkein and Lucas to the 20th Century and the likes of Joseph Campbell when storytelling, mythmaking and hero construction are as old as fire itself.

Fleming and Eon's Bond is as influenced by George and The Dragon as it is anything Fleming read in the 1930's.

[Chester Copperpot]

No, I didn't say that Tolkien based his work on Campbell. I did say that both Lucas and Tolkien tells the same basic story, the coming of age myth, that, as you say, is as old as fire itself. Both authors have based their work on myths that are several thousand years old. That myth is important, that's why it is told over and over again, in different guises. And that's why they are similar, because they are in essence, one and the same.

My notion is that the Bond film franchice have based their films on three different myths. They are similar, but not the same. The point is, those myths are older than Bond, but the question is, why are they so important to the Bond myth, that they have to be told over and over again? What "original myth" are we talking about here? And what does it say?

[Zorin Industries]

What three myths have you pinpointed for Bond? Interesting...

[Chester Copperpot]

As told in the first post, the three basic myths are FRWL, Goldinger and YOLT. What I want to know is, what myths are those based on? What differs between them? What do they say?

In another thread, I made the connection between Kerim Bey, Godfrey Tibbet and René Mathis. They are all three friendly, somewhat paternal father figures, a sort of master to the Bond apprentice. And they all die.

According to Campbell, it is the same role as Obi-Wan Kenobi and Gandalf, in the coming of age myth. And it is important that they all die, on the way for the apprentice to become a master. According to the myth, the "power" that they posses, are thus transfered to the apprentice, making him a master. But that exchange of powers can not be made without the old master having to die in the process.

[Zorin Industries]

As told in the first post, the three basic myths are FRWL, Goldinger and YOLT. What I want to know is, what myths are those based on? What differs between them? What do they say?

The films or the books? I think you must be clear in your head here. I am assuming you mean, in this instance, the films. Though the titles you cite are as much about tonal, characterisational and physical templates as much as narrative ones.

In another thread, I made the connection between Kerim Bey, Godfrey Tibbet and René Mathis. They are all three friendly, somewhat paternal father figures, a sort of master to the Bond apprentice. And they all die.

What you mean here are the "sacrificial lambs" - figures like SAUNDERS, VIJAY, CHUCK LEE, LUIGI... they are also key vehicles of exposition for the films.

According to Campbell, it is the same role as Obi-Wan Kenobi and Gandalf, in the coming of age myth. And it is important that they all die, on the way for the apprentice to become a master. According to the myth, the "power" that they posses, are thus transfered to the apprentice, making him a master. But that exchange of powers can not be made without the old master having to die in the process.

[Chester Copperpot]

The sacrificial lamb is not the same mythological role as the master/apprentice relation. When the master dies, the apprentice is "empowered". The power is transferred, the extra power enables the apprentice to make that final fatal blow against the dark forces. As in Kerim Bey dying on the train, with the following fight between Grant and Bond.

The sacrifical lamb is more the instigator of situations, the starter of investigations, the "call to adventure".

[Mr. Blofeld]

At the time Lucas wrote Star Wars, he hadn't even read Hero with a Thousand Faces, so your supposition falls apart, Chester.

[Chester Copperpot]

At the time Lucas wrote Star Wars, he hadn't even read Hero with a Thousand Faces, so your supposition falls apart, Chester.

On that, you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

"George Lucas's deliberate use of Campbell's theory of the monomyth in the making of the Star Wars movies is well-documented. In addition to the extensive discussion between Campbell and Bill Moyers broadcast in 1988 on PBS as The Power of Myth (Filmed at "Skywalker Ranch"), on Campbell's influence on the Star Wars films, Lucas, himself, gave an extensive interview for the biography Joseph Campbell: A Fire in the Mind (Larsen and Larsen, 2002, pages 541-543) on this topic.

In this interview, Lucas states that in the early 1970s after completing his early film, American Graffiti, "it came to me that there really was no modern use of mythology...so that's when I started doing more strenuous research on fairy tales, folklore and mythology, and I started reading Joe's books. Before that I hadn't read any of Joe's books.... It was very eerie because in reading The Hero with A Thousand Faces I began to realize that my first draft of Star Wars was following classical motifs"(p. 541)."

[Zorin Industries]

The sacrificial lamb is not the same mythological role as the master/apprentice relation. When the master dies, the apprentice is "empowered". The power is transferred, the extra power enables the apprentice to make that final fatal blow against the dark forces. As in Kerim Bey dying on the train, with the following fight between Grant and Bond.

The sacrifical lamb is more the instigator of situations, the starter of investigations, the "call to adventure".

Yes, but less so in relation to the character of BOND. Following that line negates him and diminishes his own standing. I don't agree about the master/apprentice device in BOND. It is not there, certainly not in the likes of BEY, MATHIS et al.

[Chester Copperpot]

You are free to disagree. I think it's there. Especially in the case with Kerim Bey and Mathis.

Following that line negates him and diminishes his own standing.

On the contrary. It makes him stronger, better, more fierce.

Edited by Chester Copperpot, 04 November 2009 - 02:14 PM.

[jaguar007]

In another thread, I made the connection between Kerim Bey, Godfrey Tibbet and René Mathis. They are all three friendly, somewhat paternal father figures, a sort of master to the Bond apprentice. And they all die.

I don't see Kerim, Tibbett or Mathis as paternal like figures to Bond at all. Yes, they are older, but they were there to assist Bond, not guide him. There is nothing to show that they are the master to Bond's apprentice. If anything Bond was the master in all three situations.

[Mr. Blofeld]

At the time Lucas wrote Star Wars, he hadn't even read Hero with a Thousand Faces, so your supposition falls apart, Chester.

On that, you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

You are wrong, sir: http://www.secrethis...ofstarwars.com/

[Zorin Industries]

What or whoever is right or wrong here... let's not use Wikipedia as the last word...

[Harmsway]

You are wrong, sir: http://www.secrethis...ofstarwars.com/

THE SECRET HISTORY OF STAR WARS is terrific stuff, but you cite it wrongly. THE SECRET HISTORY OF STAR WARS never contests the existence of an influence by Campbell's work, just the extent of that influence. It agrees that Lucas read A HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES in between the second and third drafts, though it contests that there's any too-significant visible influence in the difference between the drafts. Despite acknowledging that Lucas dabbled with Campbell's work earlier on, SECRET HISTORY OF STAR WARS makes the case that Lucas was never seriously into Campbell until after JEDI (and quotes Lucas to that effect).

[Trident]

I don't see a master/apprentice motif in Bond. What the sacrificial deaths are is friends and fellow fighters that help Bond in his conquest (or at least are on his side without giving much help as yet). These members of Bond's camp fail in their efforts to help, thus giving the audience an idea of how dangerous Bond's mission is. The violence is directed at Bond, who only by chance is beyond the reach of the enemy. In the case of Kerim and Mathis (EON's Mathis of course) they represent older versions of Bond, more seasoned, but not a father figure in the sense they'd be more powerful.

[Zorin Industries]

I don't see a master/apprentice motif in Bond. What the sacrificial deaths are is friends and fellow fighters that help Bond in his conquest (or at least are on his side without giving much help as yet). These members of Bond's camp fail in their efforts to help, thus giving the audience an idea of how dangerous Bond's mission is. The violence is directed at Bond, who only by chance is beyond the reach of the enemy. In the case of Kerim and Mathis (EON's Mathis of course) they represent older versions of Bond, more seasoned, but not a father figure in the sense they'd be more powerful.

I agree. They are motivators and vehicles for exposition not mentors (and rarely have been - after all, BOND doesn't need to learn - the apprentice vibe has nothing to do with the character).

[jaguar007]

What or whoever is right or wrong here... let's not use Wikipedia as the last word...

[Safari Suit]

And let's definitely not use the US Office as the last word...