It might be trendy around these parts to knock Glen, but he's a far better director than he's given credit for. And, Forster aside, he's certainly no worse than any of the directors that have come along since.
It may be as trendy around these parts to label popular opinions that don’t coincide with yours as being merely trend following. For my part, I criticize Glen for his work on the five Bond films he directed, all of which consistently fail to make my top-10 list. I don’t criticize the work because it’s fun to find new ways to pick on Glen. That’s just a bonus.
Glen never had anything like CASINO ROYALE, but had actors and scripts as worthy, so I’d have to argue against the stance that Glen is no worse than Campbell. As for Apted, Spottiswoode and Tamahori, I won’t argue. Glen may be no worse a director than they. I’d say he’s actually more capable in some respects, less in others, but overall probably no worse. Do you really think that’s saying much, though?
I’ve tried to catch you on this subject before, RD, and I always seem to miss. In my opinion, John Glen epitomizes bland, pedestrian, uninventive direction. If such direction exists anywhere in the world, it exists when John Glen is in the chair. What films
would you cite when trying to describe ‘bland direction’ and in what way and where does Glen rise above that?
I don’t deny that his direction has some qualities worth applauding, and a few moments of inspiration seem to pop up here and there, but the overall vision is just dead-on mediocre. His vision has no sticking power and his films practically scream “Made on Assembly Line”.
Anyway, even if it was true, who cares? David Lean and Alec Guinness hated each others' guts, and they made several films together where they weren't even on speaking terms and communicated through a third party.
There's no rule out there saying that a director and an actor have to get along.
Oh, come on now. We’re not talking about personality differences. I don’t care if John Glen was a morning person who wanted to start shooting @ 5:00 am, and Dalton a prima donna refusing to leave his trailer until noon when he’d completed his beauty sleep. We’re talking about the potential that the two men had two distinct views of who Bond was to be. I would call it a ‘rule’, as much as it can be called that, that a director and lead actor should
not have opposite visions regarding who the lead character
is. You don’t agree?
And why did Dalton want Glen replaced again?
Who says he did?
The original post suggests it. I’m not taking it as fact, but at the same time I don’t find it difficult to believe at all. More importantly, why do you say Dalton
didn’t want Glen replaced? If you know something on the matter RD, share. Please. Inquiring minds like mine want to know.
