Your Daily Dose of Christmas!

It’s Sunday, which means that hopefully you’ve got some time on your hands today. If you do, may I suggest you take an hour and a half to watch some wonderful ballet? Because it’s time for Tchaikovsky’s The Nutcracker.

The Nutcracker is one of those things that has become so beloved in our lifetimes that it’s perhaps surprising to learn that it was not always so. The ballet was not a success in Tchaikovsky’s time, getting bad reviews for the apparently “blah” quality of its dancing and a general lack of an interesting story. Tchaikovsky’s music for the ballet was more highly regarded, but for many years The Nutcracker was one of those theatrical works that is infrequently staged, and becomes better known for an overture, an extract, or in this case, a suite of numbers pulled from the larger score by the composer. The Nutcracker could very well have gone the way of, say, the operas of Franz von Suppe, which are almost entirely forgotten as stage works but which live on, however tenuously, through the beloved status of their overtures.

It wasn’t until the 1960s that The Nutcracker, via a staging by the New York City ballet, started to cement itself amongst the Christmas traditions in the United States. George Balanchine’s choreography was essential, and the dancing of the great ballerina Maria Tallchief, combined to elevate an obscure, rarely-staged ballet by Tchaikovsky to the juggernaut that today is so beloved that many ballet companies earn a significant portion of their annual revenues through their Christmas performances of The Nutcracker alone.

I am sorry to say that I’ve never to this day seen a performance of the ballet, though I dearly want to and I hope to do so if COVID-19 ever regresses enough to allow a rebirth of the stage world. Until then, I’ll have to content myself with my memories of my four annual performances of the Nutcracker Suite when I was in college. I never hear that work without thinking, at least a bit, of Dr. Janice Wade. Not a bad legacy for her, I think!

Here is The Nutcracker by Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky, in a performance that is really quite wonderful. I just love the dancing and the art direction here. What magic! (I assume this particular video derives from a televised event, hence the ad-like matter at the beginning. The ballet proper starts a minute or so in.)

And if you’re short on time, well, here’s the Nutcracker Suite. But please try to find time to listen to the whole work, even if you can’t watch it.

Posted in music | Tagged | 2 Comments

Your Daily Dose of Christmas!

You know the drill, folks: every year at some point I mention how I don’t like “Carol of the Bells”, and then I post a version of “Carol of the Bells” that I do like. So, is it really the case that I don’t like “Carol of the Bells”? I maintain it is, because I don’t like the original or the traditional ways of doing it, but there obviously are riffs on that song that I do like.

Anyway, here’s this year’s Acceptable Version of “Carol of the Bells”.

Posted in music | Tagged | Comments Off on Your Daily Dose of Christmas!

Your Daily Dose of Christmas!

Ladies and gentlemen, the Jackson 5.

Posted in music | Tagged | 1 Comment

Your Daily Dose of Christmas!

I discovered this by some random YouTube searching. It’s an entire album, coded as a single video, by a Canadian composer named Wendy Jensen. Jensen’s album is a compilation of traditional songs and original works, and it’s quite a lovely, soothing listen. Here is Celtic Christmas by Wendy Jensen!

Posted in music | Tagged | Comments Off on Your Daily Dose of Christmas!

“I never joke about my ranking, 007!”: The Official and Correct Ranking of the James Bond Movies, conclusion

George Lazenby as James Bond 007. Note that of all the Bonds, he’s the only one who goes to his knee in the gunbarrel sequence.

And at last, here we are: the top five James Bond movies. I like that my top five has quite a bit of variety: it spans more than 40 years of films, and five of the six men who have played James Bond are here. I’ve always considered it a point of personal pride that my Bond fandom does not center on one or two particular actors; you’ll never find me offering up an opinion of who the best Bond was, or the worst. I find such discussions limiting and honestly downright boring, and not just in terms of James Bond. When you have a fictional character who has had lots of portrayals, arguing over who is “definitive” or “the best” as that character leads to too easy a dismissal of what anybody who isn’t our personal “definitive” incarnation of that character might bring to the table with their portrayal. This is as true of James Bond as it is of any character, be it Sherlock Holmes or Robin Hood or when opera lovers debate who the best Siegfried was. Leave me out of those discussions, please. All the James Bonds are great. Every single damn one of them.

Let’s recap:

Introduction to this series

Part One:

26. LIVE AND LET DIE

25. DIE ANOTHER DAY

24. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME

23. GOLDFINGER

22. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER

21. A VIEW TO A KILL

Part Two:

20. TOMORROW NEVER DIES

19. QUANTUM OF SOLACE

18. THUNDERBALL

17. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE

16. SPECTRE

Part Three:

15. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN

14. NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN

13. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH

12. DR. NO

11. MOONRAKER

Part Four:

10. OCTOPUSSY

9. NO TIME TO DIE

8. LICENCE TO KILL

7. GOLDENEYE

6. SKYFALL

And now, let’s finish off our ranking!

5. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS

This might be my least favorite poster for a James Bond movie EVER. You’re bringing in a new Bond, so you make him tiny, in the distance, and holding a very weird pose? Ugh. I *hate* this poster.

An interesting trend emerges as I look over my Top Five Bond Movies: Four of them represent instances in which the Bond series had to “pull back” to more realistic storytelling after things got a bit too outlandish, and three of them introduce us to new actors playing Agent 007. It’s almost as if each time a new actor steps in, the producers and writers think, “Wow, we gotta bring our A-game!” Notice how close GoldenEye was to making it to this height, too.

After A View To A Kill, Roger Moore finally surrendered his Walther PPK and stepped aside. Also, View was one of the more out-there movies in terms of plot and action, so the producers once again pushed for a much more grounded adventure, resulting in a low-key espionage caper that fits right in with the era of Robert Ludlum, Tom Clancy, and John Le Carre. They also went with an obviously younger actor for Bond, one who would tone down the more light-hearted and elegant approach of Roger Moore for a Bond who was more physical, more lethal, and more reflective of the character as written by Ian Fleming thirty years earlier.

Enter Timothy Dalton, who had flirted with 007 at least twice previously (Moore’s last three films were all one-time deals) before finally getting the part. The result is a very well-made espionage thriller and spy story, replete with Cold War subtext and spy games galore. The Living Daylights finally brings in one of Fleming’s bigger tropes in his early novels, “Smiert spionam”, which is Russian for “Death to spies”. In Fleming’s hands, that slogan reduces to SMERSH, the Russian organization that was the main villain force early on in his books. Here, it’s a red herring being used to make the British think that the new head of the KGB has unleashed some kind of scheme to murder their agents. The idea here is to goad the British into assassinating that new KGB head, because he’s onto what the villains are really up to.

There isn’t just one main Bad Guy here, which is nice; we get a trio of murderous villains, all working together to execute a series of swindles that will leave them incredibly wealthy. There is Koskov, the Russian General who has faked his defection to the West; Whitaker, an American arms dealer who sells illegal arms to paramilitary and terrorist groups all over the world; and there is Nekros, a brutal assassin. I love their scheme, hinging as it does on illegal arms sales and diamond smuggling and the opium trade. Oddly, this movie showed up as Iran-Contra was breaking open, and I remember reading an interview with Richard Maibaum in which he expressed bemusement that the headlines seemed ripped from the movie he was already making.

The Living Daylights is a beautiful film, and it also boasts one of the better scores from the latter half of John Barry’s tenure. The songs are good, though maybe not the best ever; a-ha and The Pretenders do yeoman duty. Maryam d’Abo as Kara, a naive cellist plunged into Bondian danger, is one of my favorite Bond heroines; she is much like Izabella Scorupco’s Natalya of GoldenEye, nine years later, in that she doesn’t shrink in terror from the danger she faces. (That Kara was written this way is no doubt a reaction to criticism of poor Tanya Roberts’s character from A View To A Kill.)

4. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY

I noted above that many of my favorite Bonds are “course correction” movies, both intended to introduce new Bond actors and dial back the outlandish plot elements and story goofiness. For Your Eyes Only does the latter, but not the former–though I have recently learned that it might very well have done both, had Roger Moore not decided to return to Bond after all. The opening scene, where James Bond visits the grave of his deceased wife Tracy, was actually intended to possibly introduce our new Bond. Instead, it’s Moore paying respects.

Everything I wrote about The Living Daylights‘s grounded espionage story? Well, repeat most of that here. This movie has the fewest gadgets since On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, putting Bond in situation after situation where he has to use his brain and his physical skills to get out of trouble. Sometimes this leads to comedy, such as when Bond is forced to do a high-speed car chase driving some goofy Citroen car; other times it leads to some very high tension, as late in the film when Bond is scaling a vertical rock face to infiltrate the villain’s lair.

For Your Eyes Only also does something interesting in keeping us in the dark until almost the third act as to who the villain even is. I absolutely love that! Bond has to do real spy work, real investigating, in this movie. The plot is pretty simple: there’s a device that the British use to transmit orders to submarines that is suddenly available to be grabbed by the Soviets, and it’s a race to get the machine first. This leads to some of the most satisfying espionage-spy game stuff ever in a Bond movie. Yes, there’s some goofiness along the way (a barely-out-of-her-teens figure skater develops a raging crush on Bond, the scenes of which are not the most comfortable viewing), but for the most part, For Your Eyes Only is a wonderful thriller.

And the cast is perfect: Carole Bouquet’s Melina Havelock is a Bond heroine who is in over her head, but she’s not gonna let that stop her; Topol as a Greek mobster is an absolute delight, even moreso than a year before when he’d been Dr. Hans Zarkov in Flash Gordon. Julian Glover as villain Kristatos is cunning and slimy. (Glover had quite the decade in the 80s! He started in 1980 as Imperial General Veers in The Empire Strikes Back, then he was in For Your Eyes Only, and finally in 1989 he was Walter Donovan in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, making him possibly the only actor to have been a villain in Star Wars, James Bond, and Indiana Jones!)

And let’s talk Roger Moore here. The narrative on Moore seems to be that his Bond is elegant, prissier, less willing to get his hands dirty than Connery’s. I tend to blame Moore’s scripts for that, though there is a degree to which the writers write for the guy they know is in the part. For Your Eyes Only gives Moore some real hard stuff to do, including one of the most brutal Bond moments ever, when Moore confronts an assassin whose car is teetering on the edge of a cliff. That moment sizzles. Moore was apparently very hesitant to film it as written, but he relented, and I’m eternally glad that he did.

Sheena Easton’s song is one of my absolute favorites, a pure early-80s ballad, and Bill Conti’s score is…well, I like it, but I can absolutely see how lots of people don’t. His brassy 80s just-this-side-of-disco sound holds up for me a lot better than Marvin Hamlisch’s work on The Spy Who Loved Me.

3. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE

For folks who argue that Sean Connery was the best James Bond, From Russia With Love provides them with their strongest argument. This is Connery’s best Bond film, by a big margin. It’s also one of the best pure spy thrillers in the entire series. It’s taut and exciting, with interesting locations, a fantastic rogue’s gallery of villains, memorable allies for James Bond, one of the better Bond heroines, pretty decent action, and a fight scene that ranks to this day as one of the most effective and brutal fights in any Bond movie.

It continues to amaze me that the Bond films of the 1960s stayed as far away from Cold War subtext as possible; Ian Fleming’s novel From Russia With Love actually had the Soviets plotting to embarrass MI6 by setting a trap for James Bond. The movie gives this plot to SPECTRE, and thus gives us the first example of villains playing the British and the KGB against each other. It’s very effective.

Even as From Russia With Love gives us the only Cold War-reflective plot in the Connery run, it has a different feel. As Kerim Bey, the head of MI6’s presence in Istanbul, tells Bond: “You’re in the Balkans now. The game with the Russians is played a little differently here.” Thus From Russia With Love has its own feel, being again a smaller-scaled film with villains who aren’t plotting their Final Victory or any such thing: this is a true spy thriller with layers of scheming and constant threats lurking in the background.

For one of the shorter Bond movies (and the one exception to my general feel that Bond films under two hours tend to be lacking), From Russia With Love is loaded with memorable characters and the screenplay has a lot of wit (“Red wine with fish. Well, that should have told me something.”). Our heroine, Tatiana Romanova, is a pretty good one, and the most memorable villain here is Robert Shaw’s assassin Donovan Grant. From Russia With Love also introduces Desmond Llewelyn as Q. Llewelyn would remain in the role, failing to appear only in Live and Let Die, all the way up to his retirement from the role in The World Is Not Enough.

From Russia With Love has a pleasant song, performed by Matt Monro, and a typically engaging John Barry score that reuses several cues from Dr. No.

2. CASINO ROYALE

God, what a bolt between the eyes this movie was. In 2006 it was hard even for me to think that James Bond could be fresh and new again, and then this movie hit the screens.

After Die Another Day and its colossal excesses (seriously, Bond parasailing away from a collapsing glacier is one of the least good things to ever happen in one of these movies), the need was clear for yet another course-correction for James Bond. This time, though, the producers didn’t just mandate a more realistic approach to Bond. This time they decided to reboot the entire series, something which was already being done in the superhero film world, as the then-in-production Batman Begins was starting over and ignoring anything that happened in extant films involving that character.

It made sense for the Bond series to “reboot” with Casino Royale, which had actually been Ian Fleming’s very first James Bond novel way back in the 50s. Eon Productions had started its film series with Dr. No because they didn’t have the rights to Casino, and they wouldn’t get those rights until 1999, when–get this–Sony traded those rights to MGM for the rights to Spider-Man! Can you believe that? Anyway, Casino Royale finally got the official Eon Productions treatment, and what a treatment it is.

As a reboot, we don’t see “Young Bond at school” or some such thing. Bond is a newly-minted Double-O agent, freshly promoted and something of a hot head who tends to act without entirely thinking it all through. His early escapades anger M something fierce, and there’s a memorable exchange:

M: I knew it was too early to promote you.

BOND: Well, I understand Double-Os have a very short life expectancy, so your mistake will be short-lived.

It’s a fascinating exercise, seeing a James Bond who isn’t quite of the stature we know him…yet. He’s still learning, still feeling his way. He’s vulnerable in a way that he tries to hide, that he fights–and when he finally gives into it rather than burying it, as he might when he’s older, it almost leads to ruin. Craig does something deeply fascinating here, and it’s something he does to all of his films: he makes Bond a genuine human being.

I also have to note Craig’s work in the action sequences, especially the famous parkour chase that is the movie’s first major action setpiece. Bond is chasing a guy through a construction site, but the guy is apparently a parkour champion while Bond is just fiercely determined and intelligent. We see Craig throughout, showing a Bond who is constantly taking stock of his surroundings, planning his next move in real time.

Casino Royale also features a stunning cast, the most visible being Eva Green as Vesper Lynd, the first real love of Bond’s life, and a love that would end as tragically as the other great love in Bond’s life. (Well…now the movies have given us three great Bondian loves…or, depending on how you count them, four. But anyway….) CR‘s whip-smart script makes Vesper Lynd a brilliant woman who can see through all of James Bond’s bluster, making them equals who frequently clash, even if Lynd is by no means Bond’s equal at all the more dangerous aspects of spycraft. The initial meeting between Bond and Vesper Lynd, in the dining car on the Orient Express, is a magnificent scene; it’s on my list of things I hope to equal in my writing one day.

VESPER: You think of women as disposable pleasures, rather than meaningful pursuits. So as charming as you are, Mr. Bond, I will be keep my eye on our government’s money, and off your prefectly-formed arse.

BOND: You noticed!

VESPER: Even accountants have imagination. How was the lamb?

BOND: Skewered. One sympathizes.

Casino Royale is very nearly a perfect James Bond movie. It presses each and every one of my Bond buttons: dangerous villains, real stakes, genuine peril, wonderful locations, great characters, and it shows James Bond as a person with a genuine emotional life in the midst of all his adventures. This James Bond has real skin in the game, and when he’s hurt, he’s hurt. And at the very end of the film, when he looks down at a bad guy he’s tracked down for interrogation, he earns the introduction that we have long since known and loved:

MR WHITE: [into phone] Who is this?

A shot rings out, and Mr. White, hit in the knee, crumples to the ground. He is pulling himself across the driveway when a shadow falls on him. He looks up to see BOND, staring down at him, a rifle in his hand.

BOND: The name’s Bond. James Bond.

Casino Royale has a great score by David Arnold, one of his best, and the song, a straight-up rocker by Chris Cornell, is one of my favorites. I remember sitting in the theater, thinking to myself as Casino Royale ended, “My God, they can take James Bond in so many new directions now!” And for the balance of Daniel Craig’s run, they tried to do just that, and mostly succeeded. Casino Royale probably would be my favorite James Bond movie of all time, if not for…

1. ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE

As I’ve said, there’s never been any doubt that this was my landing point, was there? We all knew. I suppose it’s possible that a Bond movie will come along that I love as much as I do OHMSS, but at this point I think it’s extremely unlikely. This movie is simply too much a part of my DNA at this point. OHMSS is in my heart like Star Wars, Casablanca, My Fair Lady, Singin’ in the Rain, and Princess Mononoke are. For a breakdown of exactly why I adore OHMSS the way I do, I refer you to this essay of mine; every word stands.

When I was a kid, maybe eleven or twelve, the beginnings of my personal music collection consisted almost entirely of movie soundtrack albums, and I would gravitate to that section every time I was in a record store. My parents didn’t quite understand this, but it was OK. There was one record store, I think it was in a mall near Rochester, that not only had a really good soundtrack section, but they also went to the trouble of separating their albums by movie with labeled dividers with each movie title on them. There was an entire section of James Bond soundtracks, and I remember digging through these with delight, looking at all the score albums (vinyl! The CD was still seven or eight years away) to Bond movies, most of which at that point I hadn’t seen. This was 1982 or so. I knew that there were two Bonds: Roger Moore, the one who had introduced me, and Sean Connery, who had been the first Bond.

But then I flipped to a record for a movie I hadn’t heard of: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. And on the cover: “George Lazenby as James Bond 007!” It looked “official” enough, not a parody, so I made a mental note of this and later I asked my mother about it, since she’d seen all the Bond movies and would watch them with me on the ABC Sunday Night Movie when they’d air a Bond every three months or so. She wrinkled her nose and said, “Oh, that. Yeah, he only did one. Apparently it was a bomb and nobody liked it.” I was crestfallen at the idea of a bad James Bond, but still…when it showed up on ABC within a year, we watched it. Mom hadn’t seen it when it was out, so watch it we did. And during a commercial break about halfway through, she said something like, “You know, this guy isn’t really half-bad!”

I agreed. I thought he was fine.

The next time OHMSS ran on ABC, we had a VCR, so I taped it. (Remember taping movies off network teevee? Trying to hit ‘pause’ to stop the commercials from recording?) I’d read a few books about Bond movies and I knew by this time that OHMSS had a small but devoted following, so I started watching the movie through those eyes…and I’ve never seen it any other way, ever since. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service remains for me the single most captivating, most exciting, most emotionally involving (and ultimately shattering), experience in a Bond film. It’s also extremely well made, it has great actors and a crisp script with great dialog, thrilling action sequences, John Barry’s best ever Bond score, a gorgeous song by Louis Armstrong, and…James Bond falls in love.

And I don’t care what anybody says about George Lazenby. I believe every minute of his portrayal of James Bond. Period. I believe that he’s a bit tired and weary of the whole thing. I believe that he’s afraid for his life at points. I believe that he’s determined to find his arch-enemy. And I believe, I absolutely believe, that he’s in love with Teresa–Tracy–di Vicenzo.

What’s more, I do not believe, contra the insistences of many a Bond film, that “Ohhh, if only they could have had Sean Connery in this movie!” I’m supposed to believe that the Connery who smirked and almost sleep-walked through Thunderball and You Only Live Twice, and who did Diamonds Are Forever after this one with a performance that screams “I’m doing this for the paycheck,” was somehow going to sell the emotions needed for this script?

Plus, had Connery been on board, Diana Rigg would not have been. She was cast because the new actor playing Bond had no experience and would need help in those scenes.

I don’t say these things to throw rocks at Sean Connery, because I do love his movies, even though I tend to rank them lower than most other fans do. But I also don’t apologize for this: the heart loves what it loves, and that’s just the way it is. But I also refuse to grant the premise that George Lazenby’s performance represents a serious flaw in what many folks would claim is “otherwise” a fine Bond movie. I reject that premise completely.

In fact, I would say the opposite: For me, George Lazenby is the best James Bond. How can he not be? Surely the guy who plays Bond in the Bond film I consider the best Bond film ever made gets to be considered the best Bond, right? When I think “James Bond”, I tend to picture George Lazenby first.

I know that Lazenby let the Bond role slip through his fingers, largely because, from what I’ve read, he was naive and he had a complete dolt as an agent. There’s a postscript to my appreciation of George Lazenby that happened much later, in the 1990s. For a while, NBC had a Saturday night feature that they called “Saturday Thrillogy”: three hour-long action-adventure drama shows, one of which was called The Pretender. In this show, a guy named Jarod, played by an actor named Michael T. Weiss (not to be confused with the figure skater with a similar name), was a genius who could insinuate himself into any walk of life he wanted. He had escaped from a shadowy organization with nefarious goals for Jarod that were never quite explained, but they weren’t good, and Jarod went around the country doing good deeds and righting wrongs while trying to find out what ever happened to his real family.

Well, at some point during Season One, I remember thinking suddenly, “Huh, Michael T. Weiss looks a little bit like George Lazenby!” They had similar faces, similar jawlines, and similar smiles. Mr. Weiss just reminded me a little of Mr. Lazenby.

So, in The Pretender‘s third (or was it the fourth?) season, they had Jarod finally manage to track down his father, his real father. And who did the producers cast as Jarod’s dad?

George Lazenby.

I wanted to stand up and cheer in my living room when Mr. Lazenby showed up on that show. Because I knew.

I plan to watch On Her Majesty’s Secret Service again soon, hopefully followed immediately by No Time To Die, which is absolutely loaded with references to the earlier film. I’m looking forward to it, though I know that as the end approaches, when Bond and Tracy exchange their vows and head off on honeymoon, I’ll hope it turns out differently, just this once. I’ll hope that they keep on driving, that they don’t encounter that other car, the one with Blofeld in it. I’ll hope there’s no hail of bullets, and that they really will have all the time in the world.

Wow, I wasn’t planning to write that much about OHMSS again, but here we are. And why not? After all, what’s a favorite movie for, if not to give you something to write long Internet essays about?

And there we have it: the Correct and Official Rankings of the James Bond films…at least for now. As noted, I still have to watch No Time To Die another time or two (at least), and we’ll never really be done, will we? I mean, as every single James Bond movie ever made has promised us:

And when he does, like M, we’ll say, “Ahh, there you are, 007.”

Posted in On Movies | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Your Daily Dose of Christmas!

Ever see any of these “ambience” videos floating around YouTube? They are long videos, usually multiple hours long, that you can turn on and let play in the background if you want a specific sonic ambience. There are “rushing stream in an autumn wood” videos and “engine sounds of the starship Enterprise” and more. This one might be nice for your workplace: A coffeeshop at Christmas! It has piano jazz, a crackling fire, and occasionally the door opening to let patrons in or out. There really are times I love the Internet!

 

Posted in music | Tagged | 1 Comment

Your Daily Dose of Christmas!

Francis Poulenc (1899-1963) is a composer about whom I know very little. I can’t even name a work of his off the top of my head! But maybe I should change that, after listening to today’s piece, Four Motets for Christmastime.

Poulenc isn’t alone as a subject of my general musical unfamiliarity; he comes from an era of French music about which I honestly don’t know a whole lot. From what I’m reading in quick research for this post, Poulenc was a member of a group of French composers called Les Six, and he generally wrote melodic music that was independent and yet also tinged with twentieth-century modernism. He was not a modernist in the way Stravinsky and Schoenberg were, but his music is unmistakably twentieth-century music. Apparently in his later years Poulenc’s spiritual bent reasserted itself, and he wrote a great deal of religious music.

In composing sets of motets (these are not the only such motets he wrote), Poulenc looked backward to a very old musical form indeed. The motet–a polyphonic work for mixed voices–arose in medieval times, so this work is a blend of the very old and the very new. The Four Motets for Christmastime reflect the world of stone cathedrals filled with the sonorities of liturgical voices, but they also reflect twentieth-century French music that has seen the urbane Impressionism of Debussy and Ravel.

Posted in music | Tagged | 2 Comments

Licence to Rank: The Official and Correct Ranking of the James Bond Movies, part 4

Timothy Dalton as James Bond 007, well-dressed and ready for a night on the town!

So here we go: the first half of my person Top Ten James Bond movies! Let’s refresh our rankings to this point:

Part One:

26. LIVE AND LET DIE

25. DIE ANOTHER DAY

24. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME

23. GOLDFINGER

22. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER

21. A VIEW TO A KILL

Part Two:

20. TOMORROW NEVER DIES

19. QUANTUM OF SOLACE

18. THUNDERBALL

17. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE

16. SPECTRE

Part Three:

15. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN

14. NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN

13. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH

12. DR. NO

11. MOONRAKER

With lists like this, the ones at the top probably end up as vexing as the ones at the bottom, especially if one is deviating wildly from accepted orthodoxy. As someone who really doesn’t think Goldfinger is anywhere near the classic it’s held out to be, I expect that to be the case here. So let’s get to it!

10. OCTOPUSSY

Judging by the proportions in this poster, Bond could play in the NBA if the “superspy” thing doesn’t work out.

Here’s another Bond movie that routinely gets ripped–it’s almost always in the bottom third of lists like this–and yet I love it. The “British Colonialism” style of racism is hard to overlook, and the chase scene through the streets of Delhi, which I found wildly fun and entertaining as a kid, is pretty cringey. But beneath the somewhat icky nature of Octopussy‘s depiction of India is an espionage thriller that I really enjoy on story grounds. I wrote in depth about Octopussy some years back, and those thoughts still stand, so I’ll just link that and mostly have done here.

But I do want to note something about the Bond films of the 80s, which is to note that the Bond series is often reflective of something else in the zeitgeist. The Connery-and-Lazenby run is, for the most part, devoted to fairly faithful adaptations of the Fleming source novels, You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever aside. Adapting Fleming fell by the wayside for good, for the most part, when Roger Moore came aboard, because the films’ order did not echo the order of the novels, and because by that point they were running out of novels to adapt. By the back half of Roger Moore’s run the filmmakers were relying on short stories for plot material, and mostly for background stuff. That’s the case with Octopussy. When Bond and Octopussy first meet, Octopussy asks Bond about a mission he once had to track down a British officer who had turned criminal. Bond had found him and given him 24 hours to clear up his affairs before taking him into custody, and instead the officer committed suicide. Octopussy wants to thank Bond for giving the officer, her father, an honorable alternative. That’s straight out of a Fleming story.

So, once the focus was off adapting Fleming novels, the producers started looking elsewhere for plot material. That’s why you had a Blaxploitation Bond film (Live and Let Die), a movie about the energy crisis (The Man With the Golden Gun), and, most weirdly, a post-Star Wars Bond-in-space-with-lasers film (Moonraker).

With the 80s, the Bond films drew a lot of inspiration from the Cold War. It’s interesting, when you think about it, that the Bond films started in 1962, and yet until 1981’s For Your Eyes Only they are almost entirely devoid of Cold War subtext. And along with the Cold War subtext came a new set of influences: the spy and espionage fiction of the time, which relied on globetrotting adventures through labyrinthine, sometimes almost impenetrable, storylines. When you watch an Octopussy or a For Your Eyes Only or a A View To a Kill, it’s easy to think along the lines of, “Wait, how did we get from 009 being killed with a fake Faberge egg in his hand to a scheme by a rogue Soviet general to smuggle an atomic bomb onto a USAF base in Germany?”

This is my point: this kind of plot was all the rage in the espionage genre of the time, and Bond was following suit. I spent a big chunk of these years reading the novels authors like Robert Ludlum and Nelson DeMille, and if you read any of those (I still recommend The Parsifal Mosaic, which I just reread last year!), you’ll see the DNA of the 80s Bond films writ large.

Meanwhile, as for Octopussy, I still love this movie, Indian cringe aside. Maud Adams is fantastic, and how wonderful to have a “Bond girl” who is not too young and who has a very real life of her own! And while whitewashing is never a great look–surely there are hundreds of Indian actors who could have played Kamal Khan–Louis Jourdan is always worth watching, as is Steven Berkoff as General Orlov (“We invade through Czech-o-slo-VAKIA!!!”). The back half of the movie, with Bond’s race against time to get to the bomb before it goes off, is riveting. John Barry’s score is a lot of fun, and I think the title song is underrated.

Also, on nostalgic grounds, Octopussy is the second Bond movie I ever saw in theaters, but it’s the first one that I went to see by myself, buying my own ticket with my allowance.

9. NO TIME TO DIE

There’s something really…troubling in Daniel Craig’s eyes here.

This is a pretty provisional ranking, and of all the films, given this one’s freshness, this one is most likely to move up or down pending a rewatch. Also, I plan to write a longer post about this movie once I’ve had a chance to watch it again and really internalize my thoughts, so we’ll just do a capsule thing here:

No Time To Die is, at first glance, almost tailor-made to press each and every one of my personal buttons as a Bond fan. I was emotionally hooked in the first minutes, after the flashback sequence, when Daniel Craig looks at Lea Seydoux and says, “We have all the time in the world.” And the film never let me go, once it had me.

More to come on No Time To Die at some point in the future. For now, here it is.

UPDATE: I did finally write my long review of No Time To Die! And this ranking still seems right-on.

8. LICENCE TO KILL

The posters for Timothy Dalton’s films weren’t very good, were they?

Another movie that’s generally disliked that ranks high on my list! Which illustrates something about my Bond tastes: as much as I love a good formulaic Bond flick, I really love the films that break the formula, the “outlier” films that do something different. I especially love the ones that acknowledge that James Bond really, truly does have an emotional life of his own and that he gets personally invested sometimes.

This was the last film co-written by Richard Maibaum, whose credits with the series go all the way back to the beginnings. Stylistically, Licence to Kill (note the British spelling of “Licence”!) is probably the biggest outlier in the entire series, at least until the Daniel Craig run comes along seventeen years later. Virtually nothing of the usual Bond formula is observed in this movie, though a lot of the familiar ingredients are here; they’re just mixed up a bit. The precredit sequence isn’t a separate adventure; it sets up the entire movie and establishes the main conflict and introduces the main villain. Q does show up with gadgets, but not until later in the film than usual, and then he sticks around helping Bond in the field. And while we’ve seen Bond infiltrate the bad guy’s forces before, we’ve never seen anything quite like in Licence, where Bond goes so far as to befriend the guy while working to dismantle his operation.

Licence gets ripped a lot for being heavily influenced by the pop culture of the 80s, and I get that, but Bond has always reflected the world around it. I’ve made mention of how the Bond films of the early 80s strongly reflect the styles of the entire spy genre of the time, and in the 70s we had Disco Bond and Star Wars Bond and Blaxploitation Bond and Energy Crisis Bond. This is nothing new, and yet sometimes when people discuss Licence to Kill they act as if for Bond to do anything reflective of real world time-and-place stuff is just awful. The drug trade was a gigantic issue in the late 80s, and to expect Bond to just ignore that would be really weird. It’s not as if Bond was alone in bringing that stuff to the spy genre: Tom Clancy would have his Jack Ryan involved in a drug caper as well, in his novel Clear and Present Danger that came out the very same year.

I’ve also seen people cite the scene in the rough-and-tumble bar as being ripped from the Swayze flick Road House, which is impossible since that film opened less than a month before Licence, so it’s hard to see how the Bond folks could have been influenced by the Swayze flick.

Robert Davi is one of my favorite Bond villains, too: he’s smarmy and charming and he operates with his own personal code, and Davi brings a lot of unique menace to the role of Sanchez. He also doesn’t really have any particular scheme to speak of, other than coming up with new ways to smuggle heroin around (or is it cocaine? I don’t remember), and he’s stolen a few Stinger missiles just so he can blackmail US authorities into backing off from his operations. He’s just a bad guy who just wants to rule his own little fiefdom by doing bad things, and on that score, Licence‘s smaller scale is kind of refreshing. (One criticism that does hold is that at the end, when we’re wrapping things up, Felix Leiter probably shouldn’t be smiling and talking about fishing trips, seeing as how in the first act of this movie he was maimed for life and his new wife was murdered.)

I enjoy Licence precisely because it does interesting and different things with James Bond. To this point we haven’t seen him go “rogue” much at all, nor have we seen him acknowledge his own humanity a whole lot. Licence may be too violent, but even that doesn’t bother me in the context of James Bond. I love what this movie does, I love that it does it after years and years of The Formula, I love the way it looks (that truck chase at the end! Wow! That’s the best truck chase since Raiders of the Lost Ark!), and…well, basically, Licence to Kill grafts Bond into an 80s action movie, and I honestly love that, being a fan of that particular subgenre. This movie blends the DNA of Bond with that of Die Hard and Lethal Weapon and others.

On that last point: the connective tissue is made even stronger by the use of Michael Kamen as the composer. Kamen’s score works very well for me. I don’t think the lush string sound of late-80s John Barry would have served this story quite so well; Kamen’s guitar-heavy punch was what this story needed. Gladys Knight’s title song is terrific, with its Goldfinger-influenced brass, and the movie ends with the first hearing of a song called “If You Asked Me To” (performed by Patti LaBelle), which would become a much bigger hit when a Canadian vocalist named Celine Dion recorded it a few years later.

One final note about Licence to Kill, which I never tire of pointing out because it’s such a great character moment that lots of folks miss (I’ve listened to a number of Bond fan podcasts that never bring this up when discussing this movie): You know how a long-running complaint of Q’s is that Bond never returns his equipment in good order? Well, near the climax of Licence, Q is posing as a Mexican farmer on the side of the road so he can let Bond know when Sanchez, our villain, drives by. Q speaks into a radio he’s mounted to the handle of the broom he’s holding, saying something like “Sanchez is on his way, 007!”, and then, job done, Q just tosses the broom aside and walks away. I always laugh at that.

7. GOLDENEYE

Now HERE is a good poster!

After Licence to Kill the Bond films went into a period of legal hell, so Bond didn’t return until 1995, when Pierce Brosnan–famously cast back in 1987, only to have NBC screw him so they could force him to do another half-season of Remington Steele–finally got his shot. And he was terrific, right off the bat! GoldenEye is an excellent movie, wonderfully made, loaded with great ideas, brilliantly cast, and just a lot of fun. Honestly, my only quibbles with this film are the first-act pacing (a bit of Thunderball-like longwinded convolution) and what is easily the worst score of any Bond movie.

You may recall from earlier in this series how I voiced my view that the Brosnan run of Bond films was marked by great ideas that weren’t executed very well. In GoldenEye, we get a great idea that is executed well: What if the villain is a former Double-O agent who has fallen from grace? That’s great stuff, and it’s executed pretty well with Sean Bean as Alec Trevelyan, former Agent 006, thought killed in a mission that only 007 survived. The film isn’t entirely clear how Trevelyan survived that–I mean, it’s obvious that General Orumov fakes shooting him–but it really isn’t clarified why Orumov would have done so in that situation, unless 006 was bent all the way back then. No matter, though! GoldenEye opens with a wonderful precredit sequence that has Bond doing some insane stunt work, showing some wit, and establishing some things about this version of the character. I’m not sure about the plausibility of Bond being able to catch up to a plummeting airplane in the space he had to do so, but…we’ll let that slide.

One thing about the Alec Trevelyan character: he is kept offscreen for way too long in this movie. By withholding the reveal that he’s not only alive but now he’s gone evil until as late in the film as it does, GoldenEye cheats itself out of what could have been a fascinating cat-and-mouse tale as James Bond squares off against a villain who is literally his equal. You can feel the disconnect in the story, since as soon as Bond knows that Trevelyan is alive and the main villain, General Orumov becomes superfluous and is dispatched pretty quickly thereafter.

GoldenEye does suffer a bit from pacing issues. The opening act drags quite a bit as villains are slowly introduced and a plot slowly forms. I wonder if the writers, Bruce Feirstein and Jeffrey Caine, felt like they had to get as many Bond tropes into the movie as possible; there’s a weird car chase/flirtation scene between Bond and Famke Janssen’s Xenia Onatopp (a pretty fine attempt at a Fleming-esque name for a femme fatale), which is followed by a tuxedoed Bond in a casino where he beats Onatopp at baccarat. We have a side mission where Onatopp is plotting to steal a helicopter, and Bond is unable to thwart this; then we’re at a snow-bound military base in Russia where the movie’s plot finally starts to kick in: there’s a satellite called the “GoldenEye” that will release an electro-magnetic pulse in space, frying the microchips in everything on the ground beneath. (One wonders what ever became of the prototype microchips from A View To A Kill, which were designed to resist this exact problem, but carrying on.) Someone attacks the Russian base, stealing the ability to control the GoldenEye satellites, and it’s up to Bond to figure out who. This he does, with the help of the Russian base’s sole survivor, a computer geek named Natalia Simonova.

Brosnan’s Bond falls somewhere between Roger Moore’s elegance and Sean Connery’s guy-who-works-for-a-living. I actually think maybe it was a good thing that NBC screwed up Brosnan’s potential Bond casting eight years earlier, because that bit of aging is perfect; it gives his Bond enough heft to justify the world-weariness that the script suggests. Bond in GoldenEye is, as Judi Dench’s M says, “a dinosaur” and “a relic of the Cold War”. I remember that these parts of the script troubled Roger Ebert, who didn’t think that Bond should ever be “in on the joke”, but I like that they try to acknowledge that yes, time has passed, and a spy franchise that’s been going on for over three decades probably needs to bend with the times now and again.

Special mention of Izabella Scorupco as Natalya, Brosnan’s first “Bond girl”. Natalya is not a field agent in any way, but she is competent and smart and occasionally quite blunt. Even when she’s captured by the bad guys, she’s never content to simply be a damsel-in-distress, and she turns out to be a boon to Bond during the film’s climax several times. For some reason Natalya Simonova seems underrated to me as a Bond heroine, but she’s one of my favorites.

Oh, the music. It’s terrible. I don’t even like the song, and I hate saying that because it’s Tine Freakin’ Turner singing it. Eric Serra might be a decent composer (I’ve heard nothing else by him except this score), but the unmelodic electronica that forms the basis of much of this film’s score is often unmemorable and sometimes downright unpleasant. Some other music was written by composer John Altman, which is uncredited; I think this is what’s heard during the chase scene in St. Petersburg and during the movie’s climax. This music is better, but still, GoldenEye is probably the most forgettable Bond movie in terms of music in the entire franchise. (Never Say Never Again‘s terrible score is neck-and-neck with this one, but that film isn’t actually in the franchise, even though I include it on this ranked list.)

6. SKYFALL

I love the kinetic feel of this poster.

Truth to tell, I almost had this one even higher, but this feels right to me. I thought Skyfall pretty much hit on all cylinders, in a lot of ways. It might be the most “nontraditional” Bond film of all: it starts with a failed mission that leaves Bond almost dead, and then it forces him to return even though he’s probably not up to it because M is in serious trouble herself.

Here you can see the biggest example of writers Neil Purvis and Robert Wade (along with John Logan) returning to ideas that they had flirted with, to unsatisfactory results, during Pierce Brosnan’s run, particularly in The World Is Not Enough, which gave us a Bond who was damaged goods when a previous mission went south, and which gave us M dealing with results of some mess that she had made. As much as I do admire the earlier film, Skyfall takes those elements and really elevates them to something pretty amazing.

Skyfall is also the most beautiful Bond film ever made, and this is a series that has had some gorgeous visual stuff along the way. There’s that astonishing fight in Shanghai, with swirling LED signs in the background; there’s Bond on the boat into the Macao casino. The Istanbul pre-credits sequence is one of the best action sequences in any Bond movie, and the London and Scotland sequences are beautiful in their gray marble and windswept-moor coldness.

Much has been written about villain Silva and the degree to which his scheme is remotely plausible (or even comprehensible, as somehow this plan years in the making depends on London’s Underground trains being on time), but this movie has enough charisma and sweep that I barely care. Nor do I really hold it against the film that even though Silva dies, he actually achieves his goal, alone among all Bond villains.

Skyfall pushes James Bond into the category of brooding heroes, which may or may not be overdone these days, but I’m fine with it here; again, I value a Bond story where we get actual glimpse into James Bond’s character and his emotional life. It interests me that as Skyfall ends, it appears as if we’ve finally got Daniel Craig’s Bond era back to a point where he can finally engage The Formula: Get a briefing, get a few gadgets, and strike out on a mission. It didn’t work out that way, but…it could have. (And maybe that is why, while I like the movie, I still ranked Spectre relatively low on this list.)

Adele’s song is one of the very best, and while Thomas Newman’s score isn’t my favorite, it’s still pretty good.

Next time: our Top five! What’s left, by actor?

  • Connery: 1
  • Lazenby: 1
  • Moore: 1
  • Dalton: 1
  • Brosnan: 0
  • Craig: 1

Hmmmm!

(Look, we all know what my Number One is. The destination is not always the point of the journey.)

Posted in Fandom, On Movies | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Licence to Rank: The Official and Correct Ranking of the James Bond Movies, part 4

Your Daily Dose of Christmas!

A longer work today, and one that I’m unfamiliar with to this point: the Christmas Oratorio by Camille Saint-Saens. Saint-Saens was one of the most gifted musical prodigies in history, ranking almost with Mozart in terms of the ease with which music flowed from his pen. Unlike Mozart, Saint-Saens enjoyed success in his life and thus was able to live to old age, dying when he was 86 years old. In fact, Saint-Saens lived long enough to see music pass him by, to a certain extent; while considered a modernist of sorts in his youth, by the time he was an old man and seeing the music of Ravel and Debussy dominate, he was considered by then a reactionary throwback. There’s a lesson there, maybe.

Saint-Saens’s Oratorio de Noel dates from his youth, six of its ten movements written in 1858 when the composer was just 23. He composed that portion of the work in just ten days, and he would add several more movements over the next few years. Like much of Saint-Saens, the Oratorio do Noel is elegant, even urbane, never heavy despite the relatively large forces the score calls for (chorus, orchestra, organ). This is a lovely work!

Posted in music | Tagged | 1 Comment

It really is like this (a writing update)

“Dickens’s Dream” by Robert William Buss. The Charles Dickens Museum, London.

Since I rededicated this space as my primary home online and the center of my blogging universe, I haven’t discussed my writing progress much!

But first, a diversion. Someone shared this painting on Twitter the other day, and I found it captivating. It’s called “Dickens’s Dream”, by Robert William Buss, and the conceit is simple: Charles Dickens is dozing in his chair, and the air around him is full of his dreams of all his characters. Note that the ones nearest him, the ones most present in his mind, are the ones in color, while others are uncolored, hazy, and more and more dreamlike. That really is how it feels: the characters in what you’re working on are sharpest in your mind, even when you’re away from your desk or your table or wherever it is that you usually write.

At least that’s how it is with me.

As for how it’s been going? Well, it’s been a mixed bag. This year’s focus has been Forgotten Stars V, and after charging nicely out of the gate the first few months, everything bogged down a couple of months back as the story elements I put in place in the first act stubbornly refused to go anywhere in the second, and that’s where I am right now. I had wanted to get this draft finished by the end of October, and that hopeful deadline has long since come and gone. So now, maybe by spring? Sigh. These books are not getting easier as I go.

But I at least have started to unravel the threads, which is a hopeful sign!

This took my usual approach, inspired by Bugs Bunny: figuring out that I should have taken that “left toin in Albuquerque”, I backtracked to the last point where I felt like I was heading in the right direction, and rewrote everything from that point. Some things became clear as I did so, and now I definitely have the sense that I’m on the right track. I really hope these books don’t keep getting harder and slower to write…I have four more of these to do after this one!

Yesterday I had my first 1000+ word day in a LONG time. Onward and upward! Zap! Pow!!

Posted in The Song of Forgotten Stars, Writing | Tagged | 1 Comment