73 replies to this topic

[plankattack]

A director doesn't just "film a scene" then "cut it". You said that the scene works because of "the script and the acting"... who do you think steers both aspects of any film? It's the director. Glen is from a different generation of British film production - a generation that would still exist now had the British film industry not crumbled thrice over. If a film is any good (like EYES ONLY) it is because the director got it right.

You're right Zorin, but I feel that the great directors can overcome weaknesses in script or acting. Spielberg (and I know I'm citing the other extreme) has made some films that are far from great, and yet when you've finished watching them, he's still left a mark, a sheen, something, that you has elevated at least parts of the film or left with the notion that you know you've seen something thats his.

Glen, IMHO, was never able to transcend the parts he was given into something greater as a whole. I personally feel OP is a bit of a mess, and AVTAK is just flat at best. I'm not saying it's Glen's fault - my only point is that the great directors can lift, if only momentarily, the most mediocre of material. At some level I think it must have been very difficult for Glen - I do get the sense that it was as much Cubby's vision, and the fact that he had defer to Sir Rog in terms of the character of Bond. Hearing about Glen and TD not getting along is interesting - IMHO TLD and LTK are superior to the two films that precede them.

Can anyone tell me why some of the biggest names in directing (Hitchcock, Spielberg etc) have never chaired a Bond. Not asked, not wanted to, never came around? Or were EON uncomfortable with an auteur getting his hands on the thing?

[Zorin Industries]

A director doesn't just "film a scene" then "cut it". You said that the scene works because of "the script and the acting"... who do you think steers both aspects of any film? It's the director. Glen is from a different generation of British film production - a generation that would still exist now had the British film industry not crumbled thrice over. If a film is any good (like EYES ONLY) it is because the director got it right.

You're right Zorin, but I feel that the great directors can overcome weaknesses in script or acting. Spielberg (and I know I'm citing the other extreme) has made some films that are far from great, and yet when you've finished watching them, he's still left a mark, a sheen, something, that you has elevated at least parts of the film or left with the notion that you know you've seen something thats his.

Glen, IMHO, was never able to transcend the parts he was given into something greater as a whole. I personally feel OP is a bit of a mess, and AVTAK is just flat at best. I'm not saying it's Glen's fault - my only point is that the great directors can lift, if only momentarily, the most mediocre of material. At some level I think it must have been very difficult for Glen - I do get the sense that it was as much Cubby's vision, and the fact that he had defer to Sir Rog in terms of the character of Bond. Hearing about Glen and TD not getting along is interesting - IMHO TLD and LTK are superior to the two films that precede them.

Can anyone tell me why some of the biggest names in directing (Hitchcock, Spielberg etc) have never chaired a Bond. Not asked, not wanted to, never came around? Or were EON uncomfortable with an auteur getting his hands on the thing?

A VIEW TO A KILL is "flat".....?!! You clearly don't know me very well (!). I mean to post a review of that film along the lines of my SOLACE and ROYALE efforts so I will try and defend Bond '85 another time.

In answer to your question....Eon Productions are a very producer led film making cottage industry. Directors like Spielberg and Hitchcock have been considered (albeit loosely and momentarily) but - like the Tarantino notion doing the rounds a year or three back - Bond films are not director films. Marc Forster bucked that trend quite brilliantly (in my mind) and should return and we are certainly seeing a new era of better directors and writers getting into the Eon stable with glowing results.

"Auteur" is often a phrase bandied about with scant understanding of what it really means (i.e. anyone working on a film can be classed as one, to be fair), but if anything, the Bond films are "auteur" films for their producers and key production personnel. They are also films that are fuelled and made successful by long working relationships. It is no coincidence that many names and now their children have been associated with the films since day one. Eon rewards and thrives on production loyalty. Whilst a director like, say, Hitchcock would have produced fascinating and probably solid results, he needed to first and foremost fit into a film making infrastructure that is very un-Hollywood (even now), very focused and very streamlined. Film making and good film making is all about relationships on set, in the editing rooms, on the press junkets and in the early meetings for the next film. A shorthand exists within Eon Productions and it is a system that works but also restricts going to bigger named directors. Also, and this is no coincidence either....Eon have always gone for directors with an English slant. Not because of the obvious "Bond is British" mantra but because 007 films are made within the British film industry. The crews, agents, drivers, gaffers, decorators, mixers, stunt men and designers are peppered with British talent. Whilst a director like Spielberg is very tied to that world (he made a great deal of his early films with British teams and studios), immediately the production dynamic shifts.

A final point is that we have been in an era now where Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli call the shots. They are both - the latter particularly - very aware of good films and good stories emerging from writers and directors who are not headliners.....Forster, Apted, Tamahori, Haggis...they are all interesting talents who have produced work that is often personal, emotive, intriguing and involving - but not necessarily box-office fare that sets the high street on fire. Barbara Broccoli noticed Tamahori when she saw ONCE WERE WARRIORS and no doubt circled Forster post FINDING NEVERLAND and KITE RUNNER. Apted - despite the problematic THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH - had been responsible for very character-led projects such as NELL, CORONATION STREET, THE COALMINERS DAUGHTER and GORILLAS IN THE MIST as well as a landmark piece of television documentation called 7 UP which is a superb on-going television documentary projects(perhaps one of the most important of all time, certainly in Britain). This is as important for Eon casting directors as a name on the poster following "Directed by...".

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

A director doesn't just "film a scene" then "cut it". You said that the scene works because of "the script and the acting"... who do you think steers both aspects of any film? It's the director. Glen is from a different generation of British film production - a generation that would still exist now had the British film industry not crumbled thrice over. If a film is any good (like EYES ONLY) it is because the director got it right.

You're right Zorin, but I feel that the great directors can overcome weaknesses in script or acting. Spielberg (and I know I'm citing the other extreme) has made some films that are far from great, and yet when you've finished watching them, he's still left a mark, a sheen, something, that you has elevated at least parts of the film or left with the notion that you know you've seen something thats his.

Glen, IMHO, was never able to transcend the parts he was given into something greater as a whole. I personally feel OP is a bit of a mess, and AVTAK is just flat at best. I'm not saying it's Glen's fault - my only point is that the great directors can lift, if only momentarily, the most mediocre of material. At some level I think it must have been very difficult for Glen - I do get the sense that it was as much Cubby's vision, and the fact that he had defer to Sir Rog in terms of the character of Bond. Hearing about Glen and TD not getting along is interesting - IMHO TLD and LTK are superior to the two films that precede them.

Can anyone tell me why some of the biggest names in directing (Hitchcock, Spielberg etc) have never chaired a Bond. Not asked, not wanted to, never came around? Or were EON uncomfortable with an auteur getting his hands on the thing?

A VIEW TO A KILL is "flat".....?!! You clearly don't know me very well (!). I mean to post a review of that film along the lines of my SOLACE and ROYALE efforts so I will try and defend Bond '85 another time.

In answer to your question....Eon Productions are a very producer led film making cottage industry. Directors like Spielberg and Hitchcock have been considered (albeit loosely and momentarily) but - like the Tarantino notion doing the rounds a year or three back - Bond films are not director films. Marc Forster bucked that trend quite brilliantly (in my mind) and should return and we are certainly seeing a new era of better directors and writers getting into the Eon stable with glowing results.

"Auteur" is often a phrase bandied about with scant understanding of what it really means (i.e. anyone working on a film can be classed as one, to be fair), but if anything, the Bond films are "auteur" films for their producers and key production personnel. They are also films that are fuelled and made successful by long working relationships. It is no coincidence that many names and now their children have been associated with the films since day one. Eon rewards and thrives on production loyalty. Whilst a director like, say, Hitchcock would have produced fascinating and probably solid results, he needed to first and foremost fit into a film making infrastructure that is very un-Hollywood (even now), very focused and very streamlined. Film making and good film making is all about relationships on set, in the editing rooms, on the press junkets and in the early meetings for the next film. A shorthand exists within Eon Productions and it is a system that works but also restricts going to bigger named directors. Also, and this is no coincidence either....Eon have always gone for directors with an English slant. Not because of the obvious "Bond is British" mantra but because 007 films are made within the British film industry. The crews, agents, drivers, gaffers, decorators, mixers, stunt men and designers are peppered with British talent. Whilst a director like Spielberg is very tied to that world (he made a great deal of his early films with British teams and studios), immediately the production dynamic shifts.

A final point is that we have been in an era now where Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli call the shots. They are both - the latter particularly - very aware of good films and good stories emerging from writers and directors who are not headliners.....Forster, Apted, Tamahori, Haggis...they are all interesting talents who have produced work that is often personal, emotive, intriguing and involving - but not necessarily box-office fare that sets the high street on fire. Barbara Broccoli noticed Tamahori when she saw ONCE WERE WARRIORS and no doubt circled Forster post FINDING NEVERLAND and KITE RUNNER. Apted - despite the problematic THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH - had been responsible for very character-led projects such as NELL, CORONATION STREET, THE COALMINERS DAUGHTER and GORILLAS IN THE MIST as well as a landmark piece of television documentation called 7 UP which is a superb on-going television documentary projects(perhaps one of the most important of all time, certainly in Britain). This is as important for Eon casting directors as a name on the poster following "Directed by...".

Agreed, well written IMO. I also think as a footnote that bigger names in directing would have cost much more money, and that goes against the Eon philosophy of putting the money on the screen. In the past (post MR) it can be argued that the studios were not as forthcoming with investing in the budgets (for whatever reason). This trend has been reversed a bit of late with Sony Pictures on the scene, with IMO, much better results.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 09 January 2009 - 01:50 PM.

[tim partridge]

I think the real reason Salztman/Brocolli never brought in huge name "auteur" directors was because of money. Plus, for union's sake and other benefits (maybe tax) back then I am pretty sure they needed a UK director, and I think Eon would go with whoever was available and had a UK passport/UK residency. Saltzman's very British IPCRESS FILE was directed by a Canadian (Sidney Furie) who had residency in the UK at that time so hiring a non Brit didn't seem to be an issue with those guys. Saltzman also had Ken Russell do a Harry Palmer film along with Guy Hamilton, but again these were Brits with salaries hardly comparable to say Hitchock or whoever. Michael Winner was also offered a Bond in the 70s; a notorious, name director, albeit again, not exactly Hitchcock in the asking price department.

Lewis Gilbert still remains the closest Bond ever got to true auteur (he was an Oscar nominee before he did YOLT) and let's not forget Guy Hamilton was the original choice to helm DR NO. Clearly not a picky selection criteria, when you consider how world's apart Hamilton and say Young's styles are. This before the franchise went the way of loyally promoting journeymen within, and then the handpicking of the Brosnan era.

As you have said Zorin, it's a totally different world now. At least Forster is Swiss, so there IS a pure 007 connection there!

[plankattack]

As always, thanks for your insight Tim. In terms of crew, I did read that Forster was allowed to bring in many of his own people, which the article suggested raised some eyebrows with some EON long-timers. But if so, it does underline your point that Mike and Babs relate (wrong world I'm sure) to the contempory film-business more then perhaps during Cubby's time, where much has been written on the EON-family business-loyalty dynamic that seemed to exist (hence a discussion such as this topic re: an employee with a twenty-year relationship with the "firm.")

And to bring it all back to topic, I for one am pleased that Mike and Babs are ready to push and change when it comes to who is directing the films. The days are clearly gone when a single director will do three or more in a row - maybe even two. To touch on Zorin's points on Campbell - while he stated that he wouldn't come back for QoS, does anyone know to what extent he was actually asked?

While our fascination with Bond clearly extends into how things end up on screen, not just what ends up on screen, we ultimately form our opinions based on how we feel about the end product. With that in mind, I feel that this franchise is old enough where change should be the heartbeat for creative/financial success, rather than stability.

I'm clearly not Glen's hugest fan, but I don't decry him as a hack like some. But I feel that the franchise might have been better served by a philosophy of "change to keeps things fresh" from the 70s on rather than the 90s.

I await the AVTAK debate!

Edited by plankattack, 09 January 2009 - 02:22 PM.

[Safari Suit]

AVTAK is frickin' marvelous; debate that!

A director doesn't just "film a scene" then "cut it". You said that the scene works because of "the script and the acting"... who do you think steers both aspects of any film? It's the director. Glen is from a different generation of British film production - a generation that would still exist now had the British film industry not crumbled thrice over. If a film is any good (like EYES ONLY) it is because the director got it right.

But I suppose that doesn't apply to Campbell and CASINO ROYALE, eh, Zorin? You wouldn't say that if CASINO ROYALE is any good "it is because the director got it right", because you reckon Campbell simply "got lucky" with that one. Well, sorry, but no director ever gets that lucky, especially if he's just a totally untalented hack.

I guess in your book someone other than Campbell must have been steering the script and the acting on CASINO ROYALE, huh?

I think this point deserves attention.

[Judo chop]

I decided a while back that I was just going to call it as I see it. I watch a movie, and I credit (blame) the director for its overall quality (or lack thereof), as I see it. I make very few attempts to dissect what’s specifically the script’s/cinematographer’s/2nd unit’s fault from the director’s. The director is at the top of the pyramid. He’s my target. It may not be always fair, but I see it as the most fair most of the time.

I don’t think Campbell got ‘lucky’ in any sense. He had a vision and brought it to fruition. As an amateur musician, I can attest… sometimes you feel it, sometimes you don’t. Sometimes you’re on fire and sometimes you’re not. You always try, but aren’t always in control.

One possible way to look at it, is:

“Hacks” are never on fire. It just isn’t there, inside, for them to access.

The Greats™ are able to summon that fire, almost at will it seems.

Everyone else is somewhere in middle, hoping it’s their day.

[Zorin Industries]

I decided a while back that I was just going to call it as I see it. I watch a movie, and I credit (blame) the director for its overall quality (or lack thereof), as I see it. I make very few attempts to dissect what’s specifically the script’s/cinematographer’s/2nd unit’s fault from the director’s. The director is at the top of the pyramid. He’s my target. It may not be always fair, but I see it as the most fair most of the time.

I don’t think Campbell got ‘lucky’ in any sense. He had a vision and brought it to fruition. As an amateur musician, I can attest… sometimes you feel it, sometimes you don’t. Sometimes you’re on fire and sometimes you’re not. You always try, but aren’t always in control.

One possible way to look at it, is:

“Hacks” are never on fire. It just isn’t there, inside, for them to access.

The Greats™ are able to summon that fire, almost at will it seems.

Everyone else is somewhere in middle, hoping it’s their day.

And NO ESCAPE has just been added to the AFI's "Must Keep Whatever Nuclear Holocaust Happens" list....

;o)

[tim partridge]

As always, thanks for your insight Tim. In terms of crew, I did read that Forster was allowed to bring in many of his own people, which the article suggested raised some eyebrows with some EON long-timers. But if so, it does underline your point that Mike and Babs relate (wrong world I'm sure) to the contempory film-business more then perhaps during Cubby's time, where much has been written on the EON-family business-loyalty dynamic that seemed to exist (hence a discussion such as this topic re: an employee with a twenty-year relationship with the "firm.")

Well actually it was Brocolli/Saltzman who, after THUNDERBALL (was there a fallout with Young?) brought on an Oscar nominated director with big credentials, who was allowed to ditch Eon's inhouse crew in favour of a much higher profile BTS line up (most notably replacing Ted Moore with Freddie Young). It's not THAT far away from Forster on QOS.

I'd also just like to mention the notion of "new blood" on a Bond crew also, especially in relation to the UK film industry. Remember that up until OHMSS, all of the creative crew on Bond had been British, or at least crew members like Ken Adam (German) and Ted Moore (South African) who lived and worked in the UK. On OHMSS, we saw the advent of the first key crew personnel being non-British/non-British based, and that was Willy Bogner. However, Bogner was pretty much native to the surroundings of the locations he was involved with on OHMSS.

When DAF went so heavily Stateside (with apparent intentions to have shot everything over there) an extensive local crew came with it. The editor of DAF was American, John Holmes, as was the second unit (Harold Wellman) and even half of the visual effects were done at Universal by Albert Whitlock (a Brit by coincidence), some animation too by Jim Danforth. This of course was more to do with basing the making of the film in the US rather than mixing things up on purpose.

Alot of the crew on LALD were also American, but no real key creatives, and all because so much of the film was set there.

It wasn't really until TSWLM when the first non-UK 007 key creative crew member was actually brought in to Britain by the choice of the director (cinematographer Claude Renoir). That's TEN films in!!

Many local key personnel were brought in for Moonraker and LTK, but again for convenience sake because the the making of the films was based abroad, not because of any real directorial selection.

There is history of key nonUK talent overseeing a Bond, for sure. Things have been mixed up all along, to some extent. TND and QOS have however been the most extensive regarding outside UK talent brought in for reasons not related to budget friendly, local convenience.

Edited by tim partridge, 10 January 2009 - 10:23 AM.

[Double-Oh Agent]

It wasn't really until TSWLM when the first non-UK 007 key creative crew member was actually brought in to Britain by the choice of the director (cinematographer Claude Renoir). That's NINETEEN films in!!

I think you mean TEN films in.

[Mr. Blofeld]

As always, thanks for your insight Tim. In terms of crew, I did read that Forster was allowed to bring in many of his own people, which the article suggested raised some eyebrows with some EON long-timers. But if so, it does underline your point that Mike and Babs relate (wrong world I'm sure) to the contempory film-business more then perhaps during Cubby's time, where much has been written on the EON-family business-loyalty dynamic that seemed to exist (hence a discussion such as this topic re: an employee with a twenty-year relationship with the "firm.")

Well actually it was Brocolli/Saltzman who, after THUNDERBALL (was there a fallout with Young?) brought on an Oscar nominated director with big credentials, who was allowed to ditch Eon's inhouse crew in favour of a much higher profile BTS line up (most notably replacing Ted Moore with Freddie Young). It's not THAT far away from Forster on QOS.

It is, actually, if you think about it, because Forster wasn't hindered by the "bigger is BETTER!" mentality of the producers guiding YOLT. You also neglect to mention the key portion of the new creative team brought on for that film: Roald Dahl, who hadn't the faintest idea what he was doing. Compare that to Paul Haggis, who actually knows his way around a plot, and the disparities are immediately noticeable.

If only Gilbert and Young had served on a faithful adaptation of YOLT!

[Royal Dalton]

I'll take Dahl over Haggis any day of the week.

[tim partridge]

It wasn't really until TSWLM when the first non-UK 007 key creative crew member was actually brought in to Britain by the choice of the director (cinematographer Claude Renoir). That's NINETEEN films in!!

I think you mean TEN films in.

You're right! Apologies!! No idea why I wrote 19!! LOL Doctor's appointment booked!

Corrected.

Edited by tim partridge, 10 January 2009 - 10:24 AM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'll take Dahl over Haggis any day of the week.

Really? But will you take Haggis over roast mutton?