50 replies to this topic

[DR76]

I don't know why GOLDFINGER is so popular. Perhaps it has all the elements of a superficial action film that does not get too deep into the characters or allow the moviegoers to think. And perhaps it established certain elements in the Bond franchise that remained in use for so long.

I don't believe that it had one of the best scripts in the Bond franchise. Actually, I believe the opposite. I found it shallow and filled with certain plotholes that left me shaking my head. But in its favor, GOLDFINGER does have a memorable score by John Barry, a great song performed by Shirley Bassey, a memorable scene featuring Shirley Eaton's gold-painted body, Gert Frobe and Honor Blackman.

Edited by DR76, 06 August 2009 - 05:14 PM.

[john.steed]

I don't know why GOLDFINGER is so popular. Perhaps it has all the elements of a superficial action film that does not get too deep into the characters or allow the moviegoers to think.

If, by that, you mean that Goldfinger escapist entertainment,I would agree with you. However, I, and, I think, many others, would say that it is particularly good escapist entertainment. I have no problem with that. From the very first Bond film, with its Fu Manchu-like villian with his hidden base, Bond films have been about entertainment. The series has lasted as long as it has because it has have a proven record of proving it.

[Hotwinds]

To view it today for the first time after what is on TV and in the theatre I would think it would seem very tame.
Most of you on this site are too young to have seen it when it came out like me.
I was introduced to Bond with this film at about 6 maybe and I have never quite recovered from it. It must be hard for many of you to understand unless you look at the DVD extras to see what was going on in those days 45 years ago.
I find it hard to believe but they said it was only in 64 theatres in it's initial release and was in the books as being the fastest earner ever in makeing a profit.
Now they open in over 3000 theatres.
The first 5 films or maybe even the first 3 were original and since then they have been making copies of a sort I think. OHMSS is the exception but I have not seen it in awhile.
Odd Job may be no big deal today but I was freaked out by him at the time.
Odd Job, the hat, the car, Fort Knox battle, the golden girl, and certain parts of the score were totally new. Except for westerns or war films there just were no action adventures like this especially with excentric villians.
It also stands up better than 99 percent of films made in the 60's when you look at them and what they thought was funny or whaterver.
I also think it has become a tradition now to point out Goldfinger and the laser scene as much as anything since it has been mentioned so much. Just a thought.

The 1st half is amazing but as soon as bond gets captured its really boring I find

[DR76]

If, by that, you mean that Goldfinger escapist entertainment,I would agree with you. However, I, and, I think, many others, would say that it is particularly good escapist entertainment.

Well, I'm glad that you enjoyed it. But I cannot honestly say the same. There is too much about this film that really turns me off.

[Napoleon Solo]

10 key decisions that shaped the movie version of Goldfinger:

http://hmssweblog.wo...ersary-part-ii/

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

10 key decisions that shaped the movie version of Goldfinger:

http://hmssweblog.wo...ersary-part-ii/

That's a good list and I agree, all what was cited helped shape GF no doubt.
At the risk of repeating myself I still think a major reason why GF is so popular lies in Connery's very sexual performance. How this came about I don't know for sure (probably a combination of script/direction and performance rather than one key factor), but GF really projected the masculinity of its male lead like no other film had done before it. This was successful and henceforth became something that action movies do all the time (to varying exents).
Apart from key elements of the script mentioned in the list there is another point to mention. I very much agree with what Bruce Eder said in the Criterion GF commentary about Maibaum having 'a phenomenal sense of what good writing in the proper directorial and performing hands could do with an audience'. Eder continued to say Maibaum would devise an 'emotional rollercoaster' for the audience in his writing. This rollercoaster was turbocharged in Goldfinger.

[MattofSteel]

I don't know why GOLDFINGER is so popular. Perhaps it has all the elements of a superficial action film that does not get too deep into the characters or allow the moviegoers to think. And perhaps it established certain elements in the Bond franchise that remained in use for so long.

I don't believe that it had one of the best scripts in the Bond franchise. Actually, I believe the opposite. I found it shallow and filled with certain plotholes that left me shaking my head. But in its favor, GOLDFINGER does have a memorable score by John Barry, a great song performed by Shirley Bassey, a memorable scene featuring Shirley Eaton's gold-painted body, Gert Frobe and Honor Blackman.

Your criticism is right on, as are your compliments. Seems to me the compliments outweigh. I wasn't born until 1985, but GF/FRWL alternate daily for the title of my "favourite." In brief:

The elements within Goldfinger are so absolutely, perfectly awesome - that in any other case where such things would overshadow a mediocre final product, they actually manage to uplift it.

Totally some plotholes in the story. But it moves with such pace and cleverness (on the back of, by far, the series' best dialogue) that you can hardly criticize it.

Barry's score is perfect.

The direction is phenomenal, especially Hamilton's contribution to the film's ironic sense of humour.

The design takes what are otherwise some boring ideas and locations, and turns them into some of the most brilliant designs in the series. And when it has a chance to do something spectacular (IE Goldfinger's jet, Fort Knox), it REALLY lives up to its billing.

I often joke that Goldfinger is a case study in how to poorly write Bond's character. He has no motivation (outside of Goldfinger's killing of Jill sort of 'irking' him), and spends the second half of the film CAPTURED. And yet I simply don't care.

The movie as a final product is, to me, just such a perfect amalgam of all its elements connected by Hamilton's otherwise perfectly tonal direction. That's the best way I can think of it. I see it for its flaws, but I simply don't care.

[HildebrandRarity]

It is so popular because it's the first film with a sense of James Bond really having some fun...and there are a fair number of big breasted blonde Bond Girls in it.

[MattofSteel]

Well I figured that much was obvious....

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The 1st half is amazing but as soon as bond gets captured its really boring I find

Well, many consider it the high point of the series;
but perhaps most importantly, it set the blueprint for the Bond movies going forward and captured the zietgiest of the 60s.
It's also easily the most iconic Bond pic; The Golden Girl, the Aston Martin, the Laser Beam, Oddjob, the golf scene, Pussy Galore etc

I think it also helped that the main action is located in USA, because Bond was already a big success in the UK and parts of Europe with the two previous films, but it wasn't that popular in the States until this third entry. Of course, many have discussed that as soon as Bond gets to that country- as it happened with all of the 007 movies that focused their main action there- the film gets boring, and I completely agree wih that.

Nonetheless, to become a worldwide phenomenon you got to hit really big in the hegemonic culture, which in this case is USA. And the "Bond goes (and saves) to America" element of GF, probably did help to increase the popularity of the character in that country.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

The direction is phenomenal, especially Hamilton's contribution to the film's ironic sense of humour.

I agree with this totally.

Nonetheless, to become a worldwide phenomenon you got to hit really big in the hegemonic culture, which in this case is USA. And the "Bond goes (and saves) to America" element of GF, probably did help to increase the popularity of the character in that country.

I agree also, as the word worldwide inevitably includes America.

Goldfinger is popular not necessarily because it got everything right but because it did a lot of new stuff for the first time in cinema. It therefore becomes a reference point for how things began for action movies and hence its popularity skyrockets.

[RJJB]

I saw Goldfinger when it premiered in the 60s and had no idea who James Bond was. The movie was just cool--I had never seen anything like it before. The great blned of story, chracters,gadgets, action and humor certainly clicked. Bond himself was such a great character and has such screen presence that nothing is ever boring in the entire movie. It's Bond that makes the movie and generates the excitement. I have never been bored in any part of the movie. It has all the right elements in the proper mix and everything moves along at a brisk pace.

The movie also blends in elements of the fantastic that the audience wants to believe, but without being insulted. Bond's tracking device and map display in the Aston Martin predates the GPS and at the time was a minor phenomenon. Jill Masterson being gilded was accepted being possible. Even Goldfinger's death out of the airplane window was such a departure from the norm, but in a beliveable manner.

There is no arguing that a 40+ year movie can be dated, and there are sure to be imperfections. But if you don't get Goldfinger, you really don't get James Bond.

[Judo chop]

GOLDFINGER is 50% about Sean Connery acting like Bond. (The proportion is even greater in THUNDERBALL.)

The other half of its value is comprised of women and locations which (for the most part) are wonderful to look at, some excellent co-stars, and a few very, very iconic images.

The plots in both films are merely serviceable vehicles, albeit zanily entertaining ones, and that is all they were meant to be. If a person believes a Bond movie’s value is directly proportional to the seamlessness of its story, GOLDFINGER is basically a wash, and the person is pitied by me.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

The plots in both films are merely serviceable vehicles, albeit zanily entertaining ones, and that is all they were meant to be. If a person believes a Bond movie’s value is directly proportional to the seamlessness of its story, GOLDFINGER is basically a wash, and the person is pitied by me.

And therein lies one of the geniuses of the screenplay explained

[Judo chop]

And therein lies one of the geniuses of the screenplay explained

I'm sure that statement is genius as well, and thus it too must be explained. To me.

What do you mean?

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

And therein lies one of the geniuses of the screenplay explained

I'm sure that statement is genius as well, and thus it too must be explained. To me.

What do you mean?

I think the Goldfinger script (along with Hamilton's direction) was predicated on pure entertainment - Maibaum's rollercoaster with the audience (as I quoted in a previous post on this thread). Yes the plot had to make sense, but when you say the plots are merely serviceable vehicles (upon which to base all the elements of Bond film like the locations and women etc) I agree with you entirely. It was this kind of script that really begun in Goldfinger and was a kind of genius masterstroke IMO as the audience lapped it all up. Things like plot holes didn't matter - the majority never cared or even noticed most probably.

[Judo chop]

Ah! Sorry about that. I just put the emphasis on the wrong word in your sentence.

You said, "And therein lies one of the geniuses of the screenplay, summarized by Judo's post."

(Thank you, BTW.)

But I read mistakenly, "And therein lies one of the geniuses of the explained screenplay."

I couldn't figure out how the explanation of GF's screenplay required any genius, and what the other geniuses were.

So, you can clearly understand my confusion...

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Ah! Sorry about that. I just put the emphasis on the wrong word in your sentence.

You said, "And therein lies one of the geniuses of the screenplay, summarized by Judo's post."

(Thank you, BTW.)

But I read mistakenly, "And therein lies one of the geniuses of the explained screenplay."

I couldn't figure out how the explanation of GF's screenplay required any genius, and what the other geniuses were.

So, you can clearly understand my confusion...

Glad that's all cleared up! What you said hit the nail on the head though. Goldfinger was not like From Russia With Love or Dr. No which were much more plot orientated Bond movies. Nothing wrong with that, but it was the transition seen in Goldfinger where the plot was treated as a serviceable vehicle that made the film and the Bond series so popular with audiences.

[DaveBond21]

Nonetheless, to become a worldwide phenomenon you got to hit really big in the hegemonic culture, which in this case is USA. And the "Bond goes (and saves) to America" element of GF, probably did help to increase the popularity of the character in that country.

This is a very good point.


Well put, Mr Beech....or is it Mr Bond, I'm a little confused....

[Napoleon Solo]

It's so popular ESPN makes a reference on Thursday, Aug. 13.

http://hmssweblog.wo...s-into-the-act/

[SpaceAgent]

Goldfinger is popular for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is a terrific film. It also came about at a time when the public's appreciation for Bond reached new heights, and thus was considered something of a phenomenon.

The film also has the essential elements to a Bond movie, and in many ways set up the formula that was to be followed for the rest of the series. It doesn't hurt either that the villain and the Bond girl are among the most memorable in the series, and in film in general.

I would not say its the best Bond movie ever made (although many would say it is) but it is easily in the top 3 or 4. I never tire of watching it.