One of the disadvantages fans of James Bond have today is that we can not exit the theatre
knowing what the basis of the next film will be. For so long throughout the series, we could
see the next Fleming title in the end credits and start imagining what the finished movie would
look like. That luxury is forever gone, unless EON begins using Gardner or Benson novels in the
future, not a likely prospect.
But the fact that Ian Fleming had written the book was no guarantee that its movie adaption would
emulate it, or that it should. I enjoy Fleming's work immensly, but I can point out a few plot
holes and moments that drag along here and there, not to mention passages that would not translate
well to film.
With so many newer fans of Bond today accessing the films via VHS and DVD, their perception of the
series is usually etched by the finished product and, if they take the time to study, the legacy of
the films.
Yet the circumstances that went into creating each movie will always be tangental to the final cut.
Either it's a semi-charmed life or it's garbage in/garbage out. So I'm going to give you the chance to
become a producer for EON Productions. It will be your responsibility to make a choice that will,
perhaps, affect your series forever.
Let me set the scene. It is 1963, and you are watching a final cut of your second film, "From Russia
With Love." You know already you have a superb spy thriller on your hands, and fully expect it to
better the success of your first release, "Dr. No." So you take it for granted that you can keep your
production staff and your core of actors together and make a third installment. You have a director,
Terence Young, who acts like he is living out his own fantasies on the set. Your star, Sean Connery,
is ready for superstardom, and had even garnered the adulation of Bond creator Ian Fleming. Your head
writer, Richard Maibaum, has proven perfect for adapting James Bond into a screen presence.
So you decide to get cheeky. You have rights to Ian Fleming's work, so you instruct the end credits
to contain an audacious giveaway of your next film. You have no script, no signed contracts, no budget
allottment and no guarantee for success.
(You also do not fathom that your director will bail on you in the early stages of pre-production,
or that your star will start grumbling about the constant pace of filmmaking in just a few months.)
All you have is an inkling that with the seemingly endless goldmine you have in the Fleming novels,
something great can happen. So you decide that after the words, "The End" appear, you will follow
with a witty comeback. You will insert the rejoinder -
Not Quite The End
James Bond Will Return In _____
Now, Mr. Producer, the moment of truth. What book would you have selected? What book could
you have chosen?
Remember, you do not know that Dick Maibaum will smartly alter Fleming's plot of robbing Fort Knox, nor
that Guy Hamilton and Peter Hunt will create spectacular visual images and define a genre, by selecting
"Goldfinger." Hindsight is not allowed. How do you proceed?
I ask you this because I found myself, without any reflection, marvelling how EON happened to choose
"Goldfinger." It seemed to be a serious gamble. Hardly one of Fleming's greater novels, "Goldfinger"
ranks near the top in weakness of plot and slowness of pace. Fleming was, at the time, going through a
very philosophical period reflected in his writing, and at times the book seems to meander from the
author's disinterest.
In the end, though, "Goldfinger" was the only choice. Now I've already locked you in with your own
selection, so did you mimic EON's choice? With the veritable wealth of material to choose from, how
could Broccoli and Saltzman claim anything except luck led them to their decision?
Let's examine.
Obviously, "From Russia With Love" and "Doctor No" were already filmed. And this is still 1963, with
Fleming's latest release to date, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," still in first printing. Besides,
OHMSS would not yet have name recognition for the fans still discovering the books the films were based on.
That also eliminates "You Only Live Twice," "The Man With The Golden Gun," and "Octopussy" since they were
not yet written and/or published. You had considered that, hadn't you?
You also should be aware that Fleming did not want the story of "The Spy Who Loved Me" used. You had the
title, but nothing else, and since your first two films retained most of the descriptions and accounts of
their namesake novels it would make no sense to write an original one if you are going to promote the title
in the end credits.
With the other full-length novels you have left over, "For Your Eyes Only" is not an option (even though
two of the short stories in it would later be combined efficiently into a single story).
Two of the better novels are off limits as well. You do not own the rights to "Casino Royale." The
initial Bond adventure was acquired by Charles Feldman, who eventually would approach EON to allow
him to borrow Sean Connery for his film. That was not pondered long before being rebuffed and the taught,
straightforward story by Ian Fleming became a dreadful spoof in the annuls of cinematic history. But while
you are wrapping your film, Feldman is still waiting to see how your work will turn out before approaching you.
The other problem child, of course, is "Thunderball." EON wanted it to be the first film, and actually had
treatments worked up for it. But it's fate was a matter of the justice system, when Kevin McClory sued
Fleming for rights to the story he had originally collaborated on. EON had to scrap plans to make it the
first film and go with their second choice.
I have yet to uncover why Broccoli and Saltzman chose the book "Doctor No," for their first film "Dr. No."
With "From Russia With Love" available to them, that choice surprises me, particularly when they elimated
the obstacle course that filled the last quarter of the book, which did have great cinematic possibility.
Anyway, as "From Russia With Love" was in the editing stage, "Thunderball" was still a project without a
status, narrowing your choices further. So your wealth of riches has been reduced to four possible Fleming
novels, and all have weaknesses.
"Live And Let Die" has exciting scenes and settings. But EON was initially concerned that Sean Connery would
be too atypical from the American "leading man." While that proved to be trivial, filming a straight adaption
of Fleming's second Bond novel would not work at the time. This is not because of the very real racial elements
that are engrained in the storyline alone, either.
Just as souring as that is the realization that a screenplay of "Live And Let Die" true to the novel and the
way Connery was playing Bond would, by default, either prevent much humor in the second half (following the
Leiter shark attack) or else force humor in places where it would detract from the scenes.
(Though most of us at Her Majesty's Secret Servant rate the 1989 Timothy Dalton film "Licence To Kill" highly,
it was not a thunderous commercial success. And very oddly, the main plot of it, inspired by Fleming's
"Live And Let Die," drew pundits from both sides. Some bellowed the film was too serious and humorless,
others adamant that the humorous use of Q and Joe Butcher was unnecessary and took away from the strength
of the film.)
"Diamonds Are Forever" is a different kind of problem for EON in 1963. With actors Joseph Wiseman, Robert Shaw
and Vladek Sheybal already showcasing their talents, James Bond villains are proving to be colorful screen characters.
Fleming's fourth book, with one Spang brother staying hidden and the other essentially acting like a precursor to
Jabba The Hut, suffers from a dearth of charismatic villany from the leads on one hand and the then near tabboo
homosexual overtones of Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd on the other. Though tough, brutal and certainly colorful, the
henchmen were not something EON could afford to play up for the third film.
Taking from Fleming's third book is another question mark. Moments in it are chillingly suspensful, but most
are not easily turned into visual media. "Moonraker's" most memorable scene is the bridge game in which Bond
outcheats Hugo Drax. But the film would be forced to shoot the scene too slowly to keep the viewer's interest,
or cut into it at the end, lessening the impact greatly. (The lack of suspense in the backgammon scene of Roger
Moore's "Octopussy" shows this.)
While Fleming actually intended this book to be full of vibrant locations to attract interest of the film world,
"Moonraker" would also be hampered by following "From Russia With Love," when the globe hopping Bond would basically
stay among a few set pieces that would pale in comparison.
Worst of all, while the plot of the book, a quasi-constructed creation of a "fourth Reich," was not an abberation
in people's minds in the early 60's, it was a look backward from a film series that was trying to break new ground
in the modern world, and may have been a nadir in EON's success.
So there you have it. You travel through the entire Fleming canon and despite the seemingly endless wealth of
material, only one story remains. It it full of real problems of its own. But unlike "Live And Let Die" it
can be both uptempo and decrescendo. Unlike "Moonraker" it can depict a crime not before seen. Unlike "Diamonds
Are Forever" it has both a lead villain and henchman, not to mention a femme fatale, that are screaming to be
flesh and blood. "Goldfinger" has the most obvious visual appeal.
Yes, it does feature an entire golf match that would need to be excised somewhat, but audiences can comprehend
golf without explanation, and two holes is enough to further the story. Oddjob's character is treated with racial
derision from Bond, but you do not have to record Bond's thoughts. The main plot, robbing Fort Knox, is
out-of-this-world, but you're with EON, and you've already seen screen treatments that had Dr. No turn out to be
Professor Dent's pet monkey. Surely something could be corrected in the delivery of Goldfinger's plans. Also
true is that the name Pussy Galore could cause a problem with censors, and does not appear until well into the
later stages, but the character in the book, a female mob boss, has potential and perhaps could be used in other ways.
No doubt about it. No matter if the average fan's poll of Ian Fleming's work rates "Goldfinger" poorly, if you
take into account what you need to do on the big screen, Mr. Producer, there is only one choice to make. Forget
the lack of substantive plot, or racial overtones of the Korean Oddjob, or deathly slow pace of the early chapters.
You need humor and action combined, striking set pieces and vivid personae splayed on the screen, and more than any
other choice, "Goldfinger" can deliver them.
Hmmmmm, perhaps EON didn't have a Midas touch in 1963 after all. They were just mining for gold in a shaft
that eventually led them to worldwide riches only after they began excavating. And it seemed so elementary,
how EON reached for gold.
As Fleming wrote, "Is there any other substance on earth that so rewards its owner?"
