 |
What exactly directing is can be different between directors. A director's chief responsibility is advising the actors (talent) in their performances and telling a story through motion pictures. Those who understand the technical aspects of filmmaking may want to block the scenes (arranging camera angles and placing the talent in various positions on the set). Some directors are not as interested or inclined to work out the technical intricacies, and the director of photography handles those duties. The point is one cannot provide a solid and consistent job description for film director, as directors themselves are different people with different strengths and weaknesses. Directing styles differs as well, as illustrated below. The James Bond series as a whole can be summed up as a series of exciting spy films. But individually, there are many different types of Bond films, from the outlandish You Only Live Twice and Die Another Day , to the humorous Diamonds Are Forever and Moonraker , to the serious From Russia With Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service . The variety of films and the direction the producers want to take the series at any given time dictates what type of director they will choose. In choosing a director, the producers have always gone to a filmmaker with ties to the United Kingdom. The Bond films were established as English-made. In fact, it was Bond that reinvigorated the British film industry. So throughout the years, the Bond films have kept the directors tradition going. One of the key ingredients to keeping the Bond series fresh for over four decades is the changing of the key creative people working behind the scenes. A director who comes to the Bond franchise makes his mark with his first film, and almost always brings in a better film the second time (Guy Hamilton would be the exception to the rule. Diamonds Are Forever is not better than Goldfinger .) And the third film simply does not live up to the previous two.
1.) Terence Young
Although he directed only three films in the early days, his mark was left on all twenty. He understood what makes a screen hero successful. He understood how to adapt Ian Fleming's James Bond, with a taste for the finer things in life, from the page onto film and make him a well-dressed, jack-of-all trades modern action character. With Sean Connery, he took an unrefined gem and introduced his own gentlemanly sensibilities to the character. Sean Connery immediately understood Young's direction, which began long before the cameras began to roll.
One interesting tradition Young started was inspired from the film Scarface starring Paul Muni. The main character's face is concealed, building up audience curiousity about the character until the right moment to reveal his face. Each successive Bond is introduced in a similar way (except for Roger Moore--although the script for Live And Let Die had a scene where Moore's first shots had him under cover of darkness until he steps into light to say "Bond...James Bond"). From Russia With Love is the best character-driven Bond film ever. It had the luxury of not having to compete with the fantastical scope of Goldfinger , which followed. It stands alone in the series for its unique approach in terms of Cold War plot mixed with an ensemble cast without a central villain. Young's third film Thunderball was probably the best action-driven in the series, centered around Connery at his most confident. This brings up one of the director's most underrated jobs: keeping the star happy. There is some behind-the-scenes footage of Connery engaged in an exhausting fight and between takes Young is lavishing praise on him. At this time Bond fever was at its peak, and Connery and Young both grew tired of the hardware-heavy emphasis that Goldfinger initiated. Still, in watching the film, there are several hints that the series was in danger of losing a certain edge while trying to impress audiences. There seems to be more additional dialogue replacement (ADR) in this film than any of the other Bonds, which shows there was a lot of post-production rewriting. After the mega-hit Thunderball ,Terence Young left Bond claiming he'd only return to direct the last 007 film.
2.) Guy Hamilton
Guy Hamilton was on the short list of possible directors at the start of the series. Like Terence Young, his stamp is on just about every Bond film after Goldfinger -- which is often referred to as the "blue-print of the series". Goldfinger introduced many of the most successful ingredients that have become synonymous with Hamilton gave Desmond Llewelyn the direction that had lasted his career of playing Q. In many interviews, Llewelyn explained how Hamilton instructed him to show annoyance towards Bond. Llewelyn's successor John Cleese has also benefited from this simple piece of direction. Guy Hamilton liked to present the Bond stories with a dash of humor. Diamonds Are Forever was a light-hearted piece of entertainment. Hamilton was the first director to successfully bring audiences in to see someone other than Sean Connery portray 007, which was thought to be almost impossible at the time. His final Bond film The Man With The Golden Gun was disappointing. As much as Live And Let Die was a success, there was some criticism of Moore's cherry portrayal of Bond. With "Golden Gun", Moore seems uncomfortable with certain scenes, particularly his physical interrogation of Andrea Anders. One could see some indecision with how Moore should play the role. The winning ingredients of Goldfinger are all on a restrained level for "Golden Gun". Although there is a great car stunt (compromised by an unfortunate slide-whistle sound cancue), there is little else to remember about the film except for Christopher Lee's chilling portrayal of the villain Scaramanga. But at this point in the series, with the production company responsible for the Bond films enduring an unrelated crisis, and the relatively weak box office performance of Golden Gun raising questions about the future of 007, it became apparent that some changes needed to be made. It is important to note that Guy Hamilton was set to direct The Spy Who Loved Me, but due to all the turmoil surrounding the production company (partner Harry Saltzman became embroiled in a financial situation that threatened the survival of the company), Hamilton left the production under the assumption he would be directing Superman: The Movie. Ironically, Hamilton had to withdraw from that film because it was decided to shoot interiors at the 007 stage in London. As a tax refuge from England he could not spend much time in the country.
3.) Lewis Gilbert All three Bond films directed by Lewis Gilbert literally have the largest scope. All three of his film's plots concerned a reclusive super-criminal out to destroy the world. All three were set in some of the most beautiful and exotic locations of the world. And, like Terence Young, all three of his directed Bond films performed exceptionally well at the box office. When the producers decided on a no-holds-barred 007 extravaganza, they chose Gilbert to helm the show. He had a steady hand at making these sprawling productions.
With the success of The Spy Who Loved Me the decision was to further exploit the most successful elements of that film for Moonraker . On the plus side, that meant more thrilling stunts and more impressive set pieces. On the negative side, that meant more slapstick humor and more outlandish storylines. Where Moore's performance in "Spy" was on just the right note, he is overly confident throughout this film (although his performance after the centrifuge "accident" was very good). In fact, the tone of Moonraker is bursting with over confidence, lacking the knife-edge tension of the early Sean Connery films. Although the film was a runaway hit, the old school purists complained about what the Bond films had become. Lewis Gilbert's films were embraced by the public, but all three had less to do with Ian Fleming's novels combined than On Her Majesty's Secret Service . People liked reading Fleming's popular books and then seeing them adapted for the cinema. After Gilbert's films in 1967 and 1979, the decision was made to return Bond to his literary roots.
4.) Peter Hunt Peter Hunt was the first Bond director promoted from within the 007 family. He had earned his director's chair from his innovative editing of the previous five films. Like Terence Young, Peter Hunt believed in faithful adaptations of Ian Fleming. So much so that his one film On Her Majesty's Secret Service almost feels like Fleming himself directed it. Creatively speaking, that is the bottom line on how Peter Hunt rates as a Bond director.
No one could have gotten a better performance from new, inexperienced actor George Lazenby. To help compensate for Lazenby's lack of dramatic training, Diana Rigg was cast in the pivotal role of Tracy. Rigg is the Eleanor Roosevelt of Bond girls. She may not be the most impressive by conventional Bond girl standards, but she was the strongest and most memorable. There is a saying in yellow journalism: never let the facts get in the way of a good story. This was applied to OHMSS by having Bond meet arch-enemy Blofeld for "the first time" when the two characters faced off in the previous film You Only Live Twice . But suspension of disbelief is a rule one must follow when watching a Bond film...especially where invisible cars are involved. Hunt and his editor John Glen try some experimental sound and visual effects. As this was the first film to introduce a new Bond after Sean Connery, the technical aspects of the film were turned up a notch or two. At the time, the verdict was mixed. Everyone agreed it was a superbly made film, and that if it starred Connery it would have been the best in the series. But ultimately, mass audiences could not accept anyone other than Connery in the role. Today, in spite of Lazenby (or some would say in part because of him) On Her Majesty's Secret Service is the favorite of many Bond fans. Peter Hunt was considered to direct For Your Eyes Only , a film that, like OHMSS, followed a sprawling Lewis Gilbert film. Both times, the aim was to tone down the high tech sets and plot in favor of a gritty spy thriller along the lines of From Russia With Love.
5.) John Glen First and foremost, John Glen is probably the best action/stunt director in the business. What you see in his films was actually done, no CGI to run to. Like Peter Hunt, he was promoted from within. And like Hunt, he was a natural choice to helm For Your Eyes Only . Like many directors, Glen would have a consistency through his films. Signature shots such as some animal coming out of nowhere to startle Bond, or some poor character getting released from a flying craft to fall screaming to his doom, are present in all of Glen's Bond films. His first Bond film, For Your Eyes Only , reproduces some of the signature Bond scenes from the classic days of Sean Connery. There is a brief situation involving an unseen Blofeld-like character petting a white cat, Bond tosses his hat onto the coat rack in Miss Moneypenny's office, and he enjoys a high-stakes game of chemin de fer. Much of FYEO is inspired from Ian Fleming, certainly more than the previous films up to OHMSS. The film is overall successful and Glen came back to direct the next film Octopussy . Between his first and second film, an action-packed movie called Raiders of the Lost Ark hit theaters and certainly raised the bar for other action movies to aspire to. Octopussy takes place in India, in the tradition of exotic and colorful locations. Glen is in top form balancing the humor and action. Many of the stunts and action scenes are among the best in the series. As second unit director, he was responsible for many of the hair-raising stunt sequences used in Lewis Gilbert's last two Bond films. A View To A Kill was somewhat disappointing. The story had obviously been heavily influenced by Goldfinger and Superman. And in spite of some earnest attempts to try new things with different characters, moments like the fire truck chase and use of a Beach Boys cover song during a thrilling stunt sequence sink the film back into Moonraker mode.
That question became more apparent with the next film Licence To Kill . Where Moonraker was a reaction to the science fiction craze after Star Wars, and Octopussy was a reaction to the fast-paced dangerous chase scenes innovated by Indiana Jones, LTK feels like if anything it is trying to live up to the violent action films produced by Joel Silver. John Glen has claimed that Licence To Kill is the best film he's ever directed. In many ways, he's right. The pace of the first two acts is tight and on the money. In spite of the violence (particularly the shark attack, which made many audiences squirm) there is humor and very strong characters. But the film hits a serious speed bump when Bond is recognized by henchman Dario. Here we have some tension building up...what is Bond going to get out of this one? Incredibly, at this moment, we cut away to a comic scene between Pam and a phony televangelist played by Wayne Newton. It was like someone changed the channel. Licence To Kill , for all it tried to do to compete in the market and utilize Dalton's strengths as Bond, didn't find a mass audience. Although the enormous competition of the time was a factor, the type of film Licence To Kill was versus what mass audiences recognized to be a James Bond film seemed to be two distinctly different things. Nevertheless, from For Your Eyes Only to Licence To Kill , John Glen did a great job overall. His films had more versatility than those directed by Lewis Gilbert. It's obvious why the producers kept him in the director's chair for more films than anyone else.
6.) Martin Campbell At the world premiere of GoldenEye in New York City, new Bond Pierce Brosnan introduced director Martin Campbell as "the loudest director I've ever worked with." To his credit, Campbell brought the mass production in on time (if not under) and he deserves a lot of credit for bringing the Bond series back into popular status where it should have never left. There was justifiable concern for the Bond films after the disappointed box office performance of Licence To Kill . Plus there was a six year pause in the Bond films due to legal troubles with the studio. Add to that the fall of the Soviet Union, the world threat that necessitated the existence of secret agents. Many cynics were quick to question the future and relevance of the Bond films. Once "Bond 17" was cleared for development, and Martin Campbell was chosen as director, there was a concentrated effort to make a traditional entertaining James Bond film. This was returning Bond to roots of a different kind. Not necessarily to Fleming, but perhaps more to the 1960s when Bond was king.
There would be sobering dramatic scenes, skillfully played by Brosnan, and also fun humorous moments, such as the scene with the beloved Q. In watching GoldenEye , one can see how the creative team wanted to balance the traditional conceptions of a Bond film and update 007's world to the 1990s.
Like Gilbert, Martin Campbell tells a story pretty fast, maybe a little too fast at times. GoldenEye cruises along and blows past key reaction shots of characters in many important scenes. What's the look on Ourumov's face when Bond flies the plane past as the weapons plant goes up in explosive flames? What's the look on Xenia's face when Trevelyan tries kissing Natalya? Ourumov was a character that was built up as a mortal enemy of Bond, and when 007 kills him there is no dramatic weight to the event. It's quick and over and the scene immediately moves to the next crisis of the moment. Much of what is shot is miniatures created by Derek Meddings, not foreboding locations such as Peter Hunt had to endure in OHMSS. This lends a somewhat claustrophobic feel to the film so that by the time we are in the Caribbean for a few colorful exteriors, one almost gasps for the fresh air. In fairness to Campbell, there were budget considerations and his editor, Terry Rawlings, has a knack for very quick cuts to tease an audience rather than hand-feed them with long takes. Martin Campbell proved he could make a successful Bond film. And let's be honest, with Pierce Brosnan, he had by far the easiest job off all the previous directors faced with introducing a new 007 to audiences. As much as Sean Connery, Brosnan seemed born to play the role. And audiences had been anticipating this prospect for a decade. Even with Brosnan in the role, a director not up to the task would have meant disaster for the film. Campbell's strong and confident direction shows. It was as wise a decision as any on the part of the producers to bring Campbell back for Casino Royale . Who will play Bond has not been decided yet. (publisher's note: this article was written in 2005, before preproduction work has begun on the 21st Bond film.) But Campbell has a different task ahead of him in getting audiences to accept a new actor to follow the beloved Brosnan. This challenge will be much like John Glen's was for The Living Daylights . Add to that the fact that Casino Royale is a dark and often disturbing novel. This will test Campbell s sense of audience approval versus the importance of remaining faithful to what is considered to be one of Fleming s finest novels. Still, there is the "second time is better" rule. And if this rule holds true, Casino Royale stands to benefit a great deal from Martin Campbell's contributions.
7.) Roger Spottiswoode
Roger Spottiswoode is responsible for what it probably the best docudrama ever made, Hiroshima. He was an interesting choice to direct Pierce's eagerly-awaited follow-up to the hugely successful GoldenEye , which provided the new production with a substantial budget for Spottiswoode to work with. One certainly Some question a few decisions on this film. Many feel it is obvious there were several rewrites going on during production, giving the film a certain indecisive tone. Important scenes like when Paris slaps Bond show Brosnan standing there and taking it. While that may be how Brosnan interpreted how the reaction should be, is that how James Bond would react? Sean Connery s Bond, for instance? And then "suspension of disbelief" is really put to the test when Bond and Wai Lin motor up to a sophisticated stealth boat in a little inflatable raft. Arguments and explanations can be offered and debated regarding these points (there are many such questions in films such as Goldfinger ). But when such questions get raised, it demonstrates that the film wasn't 100% satisfying (what action film is these days?). Even so, Tomorrow Never Dies did very well at the box office, holding its own against James Cameron's powerhouse epic Titanic .
8.) Michael Apted Michael Apted was something of a surprise choice as well for Bond. He was the most experienced director of any ever chosen to take the reins of a Bond film. The story took some surprise turns early on. The dramatic scenes are among the best directed of the entire series.
Apted and the creative minds behind the film take some interesting pokes at the rules of Bond films. Film critic Roger Ebert calls one "the fallacy of the talking killer" in which a villain can easily shoot Bond, but decides instead to give him a tour and tell him all about his scheme, allowing Bond to survive and formulate a plan to What's interesting with TWINE is how the dramatic scenes and the action scenes do not really feel like they're part of the same film. John Glen's films were better at merging the two. By contrast, TWINE is like a tag-team directorial effort between Apted and second unit director Vic Armstrong. When a dialogue scene ends, Apted takes a seat and Armstrong takes over for the action scene...few of which have the same fresh innovation and creativity as those conceived in the 80s. Another problem for Apted and the film is when Elektra King is killed. She was the focal point of the story. After her death, the submarine scene that follows is anti-climactic. Apted himself has admitted this was a problem and how he needed to get off that sub as fast as possible once the basic mission was completed.
9.) Lee Tamahori
In continuing with the policy of changing directors during Brosnan's tenure as Bond, Lee Tamahori was chosen to make an event film that in part celebrated James Bond's 40th anniversary in the cinema. Tamahori, like his three immediate predecessors, had a respectable career before Bond making a variety of films starring A-list talent. Also like many of these directors, his conception of a Bond film was in league with the mass audiences who prefer the expansive productions with explosive action scenes. As a result, Die Another Day is, for the most part, a satisfying piece of entertainment. The scenes that give a nod to previous films are Now Bond films are meant to be fun. Die Another Day is designed to be a fun Bond film, and it succeeds. Credibility is certainly pushed to the limit. One can find technical fault with a car that becomes invisible, and not enjoy the film. But it's more fun to sit back and have a good time, rolling with the punches. The greatest liability in Die Another Day is that it's a film that doesn't know how to end. The build-up to an event that could lead to war is better handled in You Only Live Twice . Here, it goes on and on, beyond what feels acceptable. Another serious problem is when the plane flies through the Icarus beam. This is a weapon that has been established as instantly destructing anything in its path. We see it blow up the de-militarized zone, and earlier Bond was wary enough of it to avoid it in a rocket-propelled vehicle. Graves boasts that the weapon will knock nuclear missiles out of the sky. The film established what the Icarus weapon can do as a rule. But when you break your rules, by having a plane fly through the beam and be able to maintain flight for ten minutes, you lose your audience. As Die Another Day was to be Pierce Brosnan's final Bond film, one can imagine that if the production knew that at the time the script was being written, there wouldn t have been a more appropriate way for him to say farewell as James Bond. Then again, none of his predecessors were able to do so, either. As much as has been written over the years on the directors of the Bond films, the best source for understanding what they contributed and how certain decisions were made is to listen to their audio commentaries and view the documentaries on the special edition DVDs. Albert R. Broccoli's autobiography When The Snow Melts also provides many insightful recollections of choosing and working with the various directors throughout his twenty-seven years producing the Bond films. Copyright ©2005 - 2007 Joe Stachler
|
 |
Contact the Author:Joe Stachler
Return to HMSS Contents BOOKS | FILMS | Q BRANCH | THE OTHER SPIES | THE BOND MARKET | FIRST PERSON LAGNIAPPE | ESSENTIAL LINKS | SUBSCRIPTIONS | EDITORIAL | COLOPHON |
James Bond, including powerful and posturing central villain, outlandish gadgets, extremely strong henchman, female character with a sexually-suggestive name, and an evil scheme with worldwide implications. Hamilton balanced everything successfully with just the right touch of humor. The humor in this film is what makes it all so enjoyable. But as later films would prove, humor in Bond is a slippery-slope. Too much of it and the production feels like it has lost control.
Lewis Gilbert kept the story moving. His second film, The Spy Who Love Me demonstrates the "second film is better" rule by creating Moore's strongest and right most satisfying Bond film. There is a perfect balance of humor, action, and drama. And it most successfully capitalizes on Moore's strengths of portraying Bond as the consummate English gentleman. As much as Pierce Brosnan claims to be inspired by Sean Connery's performances as Bond, one can see more similarities with Moore's performance in this film.
With the next Bond, Timothy Dalton, lapses into such slapstick have seemingly been put to rest forever. Dalton's portrayal was like a cold bucket of water in the face for those who grew up watching Moore and were unfamiliar with Fleming. While the stunts and action were up to the usual level of superiority associated with Glen, pivotal dramatic scenes are sometimes flat.
Actors like being left alone, but they also entrust their performance to the director's judgment. Roger Moore was firmly established as James Bond by the time Glen was calling "action!" for the first unit. But Dalton was a classically-trained stage actor who was stepping into a role made famous by two different actors. Dalton got his direction from reading Ian Fleming. But what Dalton's portrayal lacked was that confident gentleman coolness Terence Young imbued Sean Connery with. Maybe that's not something one can really teach. But if it is, maybe John Glen wasn't the right director to try and guide Dalton's performance.
sees the money on the screen. Although the story borrows some basic plot elements from earlier Bond films, it is still a well-packaged movie that flows with creative action scenes--particularly the motorcycle chase and BMW car chase.
destroy the operation (Ian Fleming used this device many times). But here, it is Bond who has Renard in his clutches, and instead of shooting him decides to have a talk, allowing Renard to survive and forcing Bond to work that much harder throughout the film in preventing him from creating a nuclear explosion.
fun to spot. And Brosnan, firmly in control as James Bond, more than ably carries this film. The occasional speed manipulation in certain establishing shots is reminiscent of the experimental shots in On Her Majesty's Secret Service .