24 replies to this topic

[Double-0-Seven]

Goldfinger is probably the most iconic film in the franchise. It was the first Bond blockbuster and really cemented the character as a fixture of popular culture. Movie critics and other media outlets often label it the best Bond film of all time. It certainly deserves credit - it established the Bond formula as we know it, and its success meant that it would become a benchmark for each Bond film that succeeded it. It's definitely a great Bond film and It's one of my favorites, though not my favorite of the Connery films.

If you think about it though, Bond really doesn't do much in the film. That was on my mind when I watched the film a few weeks ago as I made my way through Bond 50. For as much as people criticize Thunderball's "boring" underwater action, I find it interesting that Goldfinger gets away with himself Bond not doing a whole lot for half of the film.

This is not a criticism of the film as I do love it, but rather an observation in light of the criticisms made of my beloved Thunderball (my favorite Connery film, tied with From Russia With Love).

For example:

- we watch Bond play golf (I like this scene, but it does drag a little bit)
- we watch Bond drive around and stand on the side of a mountain spying on Goldfinger
- we watch Bond sitting alone in the forest just outside of Auric Enterprises (okay, not for that long)
- we watch Bond as a prisoner of Goldfinger's (not much happens at the ranch)

Now, I realize most, if not all of this, is important to the narrative. Some of my favorite moments of the early films are when we get to watch Bond alone scanning his hotel room or spying on someone. Then, of course, there's plenty of action in between to keep the average viewer satisfied too, but what struck me is how many "slow" moments there are in this film. Bond is held prisoner for half of the film. When he escapes we learn of Goldfinger's plot when Bond hides under the model, but again, he's not doing much and the pace really only picks up again when we make it to Fort Knox.

What makes it work is the well-written script, the excellent Gert Frobe, and the exciting action sequences. I just thought it was interesting thinking about how the widely considered "best Bond film ever" doesn't really have a whole lot to do with Bond. I do find Thunderball to be a superior film - Goldfinger cranked to 11, if you will. Again, not a criticism, but just a little observation.

[Aisforauric]

I think this is a pretty reasonable observation. I also enjoy watching Thunderball more than Goldfinger (though that doesn't mean I believe one to be superior to the other) I just find Thunderball so eminently watchable. If Goldfinger is a tasteful, restrained dinner at a country house, Thunderball is a full-on two-day house party....(at someone else's villa, I should add).

[Walecs]

Not only, but he let die two girls.

[Judo chop]

This is probably the most common criticism leveled at GOLDFINGER. I can see the point, but I personally don’t think it is as severe a flaw as some make it out to be, and I don’t weigh it that heavily. I think Bond ‘does’ plenty when he is merely spying, or even when he is captured.

I just don’t think a Bond film that showcases a Kentucky Fried Chicken on the way to a junkyard in nowheresville USA can call itself “The Best Bond Film Ever!!!” That may not be fair. In all honesty, the ‘passive Bond’ observation above is probably a more intelligent criticism. I just can’t stand the location. It reminds me of childhood drives to my grandpa’s house. (Beloved destination, dreaded transit.) For me, when the film goes to Kentucky, it destroys the sense of otherworldliness. And although the subsequent locations of Goldfinger’s ranch and Fort Knox are better locations than a Sunoco gas station, they’re all still disappointing to me.

[delfloria]

It's all subjective to taste but there is no denying that Goldfinger's impact on the culture of the time will always make it the most FAMOUS of all the 007 films. (I'm bias because I saw it on opening day)

[OmarB]

Nothing to do? He's the hero of the piece, he's in there from start to finish. Much of what he does is observe and investigate GF so I don't see it as him doing nothing. Dogging the villain's steps from start to finish, sure he didnt do anything.

Twice is coincidence. 3 times is enemy action.

[Scottlee]

I've seen Goldfinger a hundred times (feels like it), and not once have I ever noticed that Bond doesn't do much. I only 'notice' if I'm discussing the film in retrospect, and what does that tell you? It tells me it's an unimportant point. If every Bond film absolutely had to be shaped so that Bond has a big action set piece every ten minutes, why would we bother actually looking forward to the story?

Personally I love 'slow' moments in Bond films where Bond actually spies like a proper spy. In GF, the scene where he creeps around on the Swiss hillside is one of my favourite in the movie. Sadly, in this age where studio bosses are obsessed with having the hero doing something loud and fast every five seconds, moments like this don't come around often enough anymore.

For the record GF is currently my 6th favourite Bond film of all time.

[marktmurphy]

It's an old observation, but a correct one. The only way in which he saves the day (other than killing Oddjob) is to seduce Pussy. And he sort of does that more by luck than judgement- I'm not sure his plan was to make her change sides by kissing her until she likes it.

It's all very cool, though.

[Turn]

I also prize TB way above GF. However, I can't quite buy into the whole Bond doesn't do much thing. On the surface it appears so, but what he's doing is being the only hope, biding his time until he can figure out how to bring Goldfinger down.

He talks his way out of being castarated by the laser, which is masterful in itself. Put the rest on Goldfinger. It's about Bond's gambling side, if you think about it. If Bond had wanted to, he could have easily wandered into the barn, knocked Pussy out and escaped since he already knew the plot. A lot was made of Bond's sexual power, so that won out, same as in the novel because he took that gamble.

In terms of luck, the same can be said of TB. John Brosnan, author of James Bond in the Cinema points out that in that film, Bond discovers the SPECTRE plot by luck rather than by skill. He just happens to be recovering at a clinic near the NATO air base one of the coordinators is also at. Not to mention he just happens to glance out the window at the time they pull up with Derval's body. Otherwise, Bond would have been at Station C Canada with Capt. Pritchard, which would have made for a much less interesting story and visually.

[Dustin]

GOLDFINGER's weakness is for a large part due to the weaknesses of the book. Fleming's novel has numerous memorable scenes - Bond musing on life and death at Miami, Bond's unwelcome but surprisingly intriguing night duty - but the book as a whole is uncommonly flat and its plot not too convincing. The film version manages to improve some problems, but the basic criticism remains, Bond is for a large part just passenger and profits from sheer luck. What the film introduced in lieu of a better plot is a distinctive look that defined much of the Bond iconography throughout the last five decades.

Edited by Dustin, 20 November 2012 - 10:07 PM.

[Trevelyan 006]

Goldfinger is not the "best Bond film"...
(In my estimation)

Edited by Trevelyan 006, 20 November 2012 - 10:11 PM.

[marktmurphy]

GOLDFINGER's weakness is for a large part due to the weaknesses of the book. Fleming's novel has numerous memorable scenes - Bond musing on life and death at Miami, Bond's unwelcome but surprisingly intriguing night duty - but the book as a whole is uncommonly flat and its plot not too convincing. The film version manages to improve some problems, but the basic criticism remains, Bond is for a large part just passenger and profits from sheer luck. What the film introduced in lieu of a better plot is a distinctive look that defined much of the Bond iconography throughout the last five decades.

Fleming's Bond always got by on luck.

[freemo]

I also prize TB way above GF. However, I can't quite buy into the whole Bond doesn't do much thing. On the surface it appears so, but what he's doing is being the only hope, biding his time until he can figure out how to bring Goldfinger down.

If Bond had wanted to, he could have easily wandered into the barn, knocked Pussy out and escaped since he already knew the plot.

Yes. Biding his time, waiting for an opportunity to get word out (first by planting the note on Mr Solo. Which didn't work. Back to the drawing board....), trying to get the details of Goldfinger's plan out of him (the scene where they're discussing the plan over a drink - "but the atomic device, as you call it, is already, obviously, in this country","obviously").

If Bond had wanted to, he could have easily wandered into the barn, knocked Pussy out and escaped since he already knew the plot.

Ah, but remember, in the film, Bond and co not only have to foil Goldfinger's plan, they have to safely seize the bomb as well. Bond knows the plan, but not where the bomb is. If he had fled, Goldfinger may have cancelled the raid, and detonated the bomb somewhere else.

I like the predicament that Bond is in. As Goldfinger says, the risk is entirely on his side. I like that he has to use finesse and wit and cunning and draw on his strengths. The scene where Bond gets out his cell by psyching out the guard, instead of just using the convenient gadget that Q gave him earlier in the film, or machine-gunning his way out,

In terms of luck, the same can be said of TB. John Brosnan, author of James Bond in the Cinema points out that in that film, Bond discovers the SPECTRE plot by luck rather than by skill. He just happens to be recovering at a clinic near the NATO air base one of the coordinators is also at. Not to mention he just happens to glance out the window at the time they pull up with Derval's body. Otherwise, Bond would have been at Station C Canada with Capt. Pritchard, which would have made for a much less interesting story and visually.

True, but I guess it's no more lucky than all the 00s being given their individual assignments and Bond's just happening to be right one.

I actually love this detail of THUNDERBALL: That for something this important there are actually other agents out there following other leads, as opposed to a Secret Service that consists entirely of Bond, M, Moneypenny, Q, Q's assistants, and the other 00 agent who's found dead at the beginning of the film. Add Largo and Fiona Volpe discussing why they don't just kill Bond to the details the THUNDERBALL makes the time to explain, instead of just taking the audiences foreknowledge of the "formula" for granted

[marktmurphy]

I can't quite remember, but doesn't Bond go to the Bahamas just because Derval's sister is there? Does he have any reason at all to think she's involved?

[BarbarasBallGown]

I found Bond to be quite useless in this to be honest. He fails 90 percent of everything he tries to do.
He fails to save 2 womens lives.
Hes captured twice.
He narrowly avoids being shot in back while spying at Goldfinger from a cliff-edge.
He sets off a trip-wire.
He fails to escape the guards in car chase and drives into brick wall.
Theres some other scenes he stuffs up in.....

He did'nt have a good run in "Thunderball" either.

[delfloria]

I found Bond to be quite useless in this to be honest. He fails 90 percent of everything he tries to do.
He fails to save 2 womens lives.
Hes captured twice.
He narrowly avoids being shot in back while spying at Goldfinger from a cliff-edge.
He sets off a trip-wire.
He fails to escape the guards in car chase and drives into brick wall.
Theres some other scenes he stuffs up in.....

He did'nt have a good run in "Thunderball" either.

Still better than what he lets happen to M in SKYFALL.

[Aisforauric]

I found Bond to be quite useless in this to be honest. He fails 90 percent of everything he tries to do.
He fails to save 2 womens lives.
Hes captured twice.
He narrowly avoids being shot in back while spying at Goldfinger from a cliff-edge.
He sets off a trip-wire.
He fails to escape the guards in car chase and drives into brick wall.
Theres some other scenes he stuffs up in.....

He did'nt have a good run in "Thunderball" either.

Very true. In G/F He also fails to use three very useful features, all in the same scene, of his DB5....'A' The substantially greater performance, 'B' The handbrake to spin the car in the woods 'C' The forward-facing machine guns to take out chasing car (only useful once having used the item in 'B'). Dear oh dear.

Edited by Aisforauric, 26 November 2012 - 09:15 PM.

[Turn]

I found Bond to be quite useless in this to be honest. He fails 90 percent of everything he tries to do.
He fails to save 2 womens lives.
Hes captured twice.
He narrowly avoids being shot in back while spying at Goldfinger from a cliff-edge.
He sets off a trip-wire.
He fails to escape the guards in car chase and drives into brick wall.
Theres some other scenes he stuffs up in.....

He did'nt have a good run in "Thunderball" either.

I could argue this one for a while, but what for? Bond could have failed 99 percent of the time but as long as that 1 percent means Goldfinger's plot was thwarted was all that counted. What about the many victories such as in the golf game, talking his way out of death and winning Pussy to his side? Don't those count for more than these other examples?

The fact that Bond is allowed to fail once in a while makes him more identifieable, more human. Doesn't winning all the time seem boring, especially in light of knowing he'll win in the end?

[The Gunner]

It's not even in my Top Ten!

[freemo]

I found Bond to be quite useless in this to be honest. He fails 90 percent of everything he tries to do.
He fails to save 2 womens lives.
Hes captured twice.
He narrowly avoids being shot in back while spying at Goldfinger from a cliff-edge.
He sets off a trip-wire.
He fails to escape the guards in car chase and drives into brick wall.
Theres some other scenes he stuffs up in.....

He did'nt have a good run in "Thunderball" either.

I could argue this one for a while, but what for? Bond could have failed 99 percent of the time but as long as that 1 percent means Goldfinger's plot was thwarted was all that counted. What about the many victories such as in the golf game, talking his way out of death and winning Pussy to his side? Don't those count for more than these other examples?

The fact that Bond is allowed to fail once in a while makes him more identifieable, more human. Doesn't winning all the time seem boring, especially in light of knowing he'll win in the end?

Quite. I actually like that not everything that Bond tries in GOLDFINGER (and in the early Connery films as a whole) works perfectly. Pays complement to the villain too, that Goldfinger is a worthy adversary for Bond and one he's not going to thwart so easily.

[Iceskater101]

Goldfinger isn't really that exciting compared to the other bond films. I think the reason why a lot of people enjoy it is for the classic line "No no Mr. Bond I expect you to die" and Oddjob and the beautiful Bond girls in the film. That's pretty much it. I still enjoy watching it every once in a while, but it's not as exciting as some of the other Bond films.

[Sgt.Pepper]

I have to agree with the group saying he doesn't do much, but that's honestly what I like about the movie so much though. It adds a bit humor to the whole story when you take into account the hero can't seem to catch a break haha. It might not be my favorite Bond film, but I love it a lot.

[ChristopherZ22]

My problems with Goldfinger are similar to The Man With the Golden Gun in that it is really cold, mean spirited, and mysoginistic. I like some of the warm moments in other Bond pictures such as Bond and Melina in the sled in For Your Eyes Only, or Bond and Domino on the beach in Thunderball. Goldfinger lacks any warm moments. Bond and Pussy have this very cold sibling-like rivalry; they spend a great deal of time putting each other down like two siblings. Bond of course rapes Pussy to change the way she thinks. There is no warmth to their relationship, and it is all kind of sick and off putting. Furthermore, we see women generally getting brutalized, and are disposable. The deaths of the two Masterson sisters are quite brutal of course.

 

The other problem I have with Goldfinger is that it seems choppy. It feels like a collection of short stories glued together rather than a film that smoothly flows from act 1 to act 3, if that makes any sense. The film abruptly jumps from Bond in Miami, to Bond pursuing Goldfinger in Switzerland, to Bond being held prisoner in Fort Knox. All these sections feel like different movies, and overall, it makes the film feel rushed. It is like they quickly made a few short stories and stuck them together.

 

For me, Goldfinger lacks the greatness of Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Thunderball as far as the Connery films. Even You Only Live Twice is better. YOLT is more disciplined in its editing and transitions from A to B to C than Goldfinger.

 

Hmmm, wait a moment! I just realized this is the first post I have made in three years. That darn graduate school. Takes up all my time.

[Iceskater101]

I agree with your first paragraph that is really true. I mean James is practically raping her..

[Gt Munn]

Goldfinger happens to be my favorite Bond film, and may be beacuse I don't judge a Bond film based on what Bond accomplishes.

 

What would happen if you used this approach with the other films? Skyfall would have to be ranked as a series low point.

 

A film to have received similar criticism is Raiders of the Lost Ark (my favorite film). I suppose I find the story and adventure more exciting when the hero struggles to keep his head above water. I prefer it when their luck seems to wane more and more at each moment; naturally excluding the most pivotal moments.

 

I don't care for superhero stories. Just as long as Bond ends up on top in the end (which he actually tends to do quite literally).

Edited by Gt Munn, 11 March 2013 - 04:26 AM.